prosecuting small business owners who pay taxes and comply with state laws and provide medicine to people in need. but really most importantly it should be compassion for our fellow americans suffering from serious illness that compel us to vote for this amendment. it is the humane thing to do and it is the right thing to do and so i want to thank mr. rohrabacher once again and the co-sponsors of this amendment for bringing this forward tonight and i urge an aye vote. . the chair: the gentleman from colorado. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. polis: this is absolutely critical for colorado. we have a legal regulatory structure for medical marijuana. many businesses and nonprofits that are active in providing patients with medical marijuana, yet they live under constant fear, constant fear of selective enforcement from the attorney

general or from the d.e.a. i had the opportunity on the judiciary committee to question the attorney general with regard this issue and he acknowledged that the only possible enforcement because of the large-scale use of medical marijuana in the states where it is legal would be selective enforcement and sets a dangerous precedent and very dangerous power to hand to the attorney general, department of justice and the d.e.a. i have heard in different contexts many comments critical of the current attorney general. regardless, do we want to have the attorney general to engage in selective enforcement against a large group of people whom ever he or she wants to prosecute? whatever if the selective enforcement is politically motivated? what if they decide they don't like the tea party or the occupy movement?

what if they then force the states to give the records that they keep of who has the medical marijuana licenses and then goes after the people with whom these politics they don't agree to. it's a dangerous road to go down and very real and important issue. drug abuse is a terrible problem, plagues our families. we can reduce drug abuse and reduce access on minors to marijuana and other drugs by making sure we regulate them appropriately. in colorado, medical marijuana centers are regularly audited and required to have video cameras. minors are not allowed to enter the premise. it is, of course, the underground illegal corner drug dealer that will sell to the 15-year-old, not the legal state-regulated center. we have law enforcement

capabilities as highlighted by my colleague from california, mr. schiff. but to go after patients and their caregivers rather than mexican drug cartels, does a huge disservice, not only to law enforcement but also to the many, many victims of the drawing war, collateral damage as well who fall to drugs themselves. it is critical at a time when our nation continues to battle with narcotic use, but our limited resources are focused on the real problem. the real problem is not the 68-year-old cancer patient. the real problem is not the business or the nonprofit that operates under a legal state regulatory system in providing these essential services in our communities in accordance with state and local law. this amendment is common sense,

and i hope that colleagues on both sides of the aisle join in passing this amendment. i understand that many of our colleagues don't have legal medical marijuana in their states and that's fine. no one is saying they should or shouldn't. it's up to the residents to decide how they want to treat the criminal aspects of regulating medical marijuana use. we are asking those who come from states who don't have legal marijuana -- legal medical marijuana. consider a system that it stands out of the hands of minors and focus resources on harder drugs and making sure they don't have access to harder drugs. consider it is their prerogative as it is our prerogative. i call upon my colleagues to support this important amendment to focus on limited resources

and allow legal businesses and legal caregivers to operate without the fear of a d.e.a. agent busting in their door. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia. mr. wolf: strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. wolf: if a state said that sexual trafficking is ok, would we honor that and say that we're not going to protect? i would hope not. states in the past have done some things that have not been good in this country. secondly, we know that many of the marijuana centers simply fronts for illegal marijuana distribution. the f.d.a. noted in 2006, quote, that there is currently sound evidence that smoke marijuana is harmful, harmful and that,

quote, no sound scientific studies supported medical use of marijuana for treatment in the united states and no animal or human data supports the safety of marijuana for general medical use, end of quote. as required by the controlled substance act, the d.e.a. required a scientific and medical valuation and scheduling recommendation. and i quote, that marijuana, the stuff we are saying tonight -- anybody -- and you saw the "60-minute" piece, they come in, buy, they take. we are talking about doctors, the number of doctors ripping off people with objectiony continuin. the number of -- oxycotin. and go down to broward county in florida and go into the pain

clinics. there are buses and planes coming down to buy it and doctors are writing prescriptions. so we are going to hide behind it? the number of doctors that ruin young people on oxycotin whereby they died, they died, the doctor says it's ok, but health and human services said, quote, marijuana has a high potential for abuse. has no accepted no medical use in the united states and lacks an acceptable level of safety. i think if this amendment passes and this becomes the law, this will be a gateway to young people and will send a message down to the mexican cartels, there is going to be a market all over and will increase

automobile accidents because you are finding people driving high versus driving while intoxicated. i hope and ask that we defeat this amendment. why don't you have hearings in the judiciary committee or have hearings some other place. but my friend from massachusetts was joking, we are doing this and changing the law and it's bad for the country and i urge a no vote. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered -- >> mr. chairman. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from california. >> i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6,

rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. lewis. insert the following section, none of the funds provided by this act may be obligated for closing the regional field offices of the antitrust division of the department of justice. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for five minutes. mr. lewis: i rise today to offer an amendment that would close the offices. these offices are located in atlanta, dallas, cleveland and philadelphia. the justice department announced plans to close these offices with the saving of $8 million.

these closures will not save a dime. they will end up costing the government money in fines and restitution. closing the atlanta office does not even reduce federal overhead. the atlanta field office is located in a federal court house building which will continue to operate. not only will the antitrust division and lose those talented lawyers who choose not to relocate to one of the remaining offices but move them to a high location in the country. the region is home to the corporate headquarters of over 100 of the fortune 500 companies sm the atlanta office prosecutors individuals and companies who engage in big rigging, price fixing and illegal schemes.

it will leave the southern region of our nation without any local presence to prosecute and deter antitrust violations and white collar criminal activity. we cannot and should not underestimate the deterrent effect that the presence of law enforcement has on white collar crime. we cannot afford to leave the southeast and southwest without vital law enforcement officials who are tasked with reducing white collar crime. i ask all of my colleagues to vote for this amendment to prevent the closure of these critical law enforcement offices until more thorough review of the consequences can be undertaken. this is not a done deal. congress should and must act. my amendment won't cost a cent, but will bring in more than a

few dollars. the atlanta field office alone brought in over $265 million in fines. -- and restitution. that is a 100% rate of return on this investment. what better proof do you need? mr. chairman, i ask each and every one of my colleagues again to support the lewis-johnson amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from ohio? ms. kaptur: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. kaptur: i thank the gentleman for smithing this amendment. the amendment is designed to prevent the u.s. department of justice from closing and reducing its antitrust division

field offices from seven to three, only three in a country of over 300 million people in 50 states. the department of justice literally and regrettably wants to or is proposing to close four of its antitrust field offices in response to budgetary pressures and this is partly because the republican budget fails to provide the administration with the resources it has requested to carry out its basic mission. under republican leadership, the legal activities account which funds the antitrust division was 2.2% less than the administration requested for the fiscal year 2012 and that resulted in a 5.2% cut compared to fiscal year 2011. when we cut 5.2% out of a particular account that primarily funds salaries and expenses, there are consequences. however, congressional republicans are not totally to blame.

the president's budget says that the antitrust division is expecting an increase in case loads and requested additional funding to administer the increase in case load, yet the administration wants to close over half the division's offices. what sense does this even make? the antitrust division is a key participant on the president's financial fraud enforcement task force. it is reducing the footprint across our country. in one of america's poorest cities, cleveland, ohio, that department of justice antitrust field office is scheduled to be closed. i'm concerned about the impact it will have, first of all, on the administration of justice. in the field of antitrust but also on the employees, businesses and consumers that serve us in the greater ohio area. i'm very concerned for the hard-working employees in the cleveland field office, one of

the most efficient antitrust divisions in the country because its employees are so talented. in cleveland is a community that still endures high unemployment due to the economic crises' lingering effects. why would we want to do this now? the amount of money that the department of justice expects to save will not materialize because costs will increase elsewhere as we reduce footprints across the country. we should be furthering our support, not closing offices or cutting funds. as currently structured, the antitrust division is one of the most efficient agencies in the federal establishment. it's base budget was $159 million. yet from 2009 to 2011, the division's efforts resulted in, ready for this, $2 billion in criminal fines and antitrust violations. that's a seven to one return,

seven to one return on investments. in the last two fiscal years, the antitrust division has been estimated to save consumers over $650 million as a result of its criminal enforcement efforts. furthermore, the antitrust division successfully resolved 97% of its criminal cases in fiscal year 2011. . without question the antitrust division more than pace for itself -- pays for itself, seven times over. it has an outstanding track record. we should leave its current structure alone. in fact, we should seek to strengthen it and get a greater return for the taxpayers for every dollar invested, no matter what happens hered to or tomorrow i'll continue to work with the -- here today or tomorrow, i'll continue to work with the other body to work to ensure that the employees in communities like cleveland and

the other communities are treated fairly. because in the final analysis the american people need robust antitrust division meeting out of justice. mr. speaker, i support -- or, mr. chairman, i support the lewis amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. who seeks time? the gentleman from georgia. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of this amendment which will ensure that the department of justice has the resources it needs to fight white collar crimes. the department is preparing to close antitrust division regional offices in atlanta, cleveland, dallas and philadelphia. this amendment will prevent the closure of these field offices during fiscal year 2013. as maybe of the judiciary subcommittee on intellectual

property, competition in the internet, i am concerned about the impact of these closures. this action will seriously undermine the division's ability to enforce antitrust laws by eliminating the number of boots oned ground, particularly in the southeast and the southwest. closing these offices is very shortsighted. it puts nearly 100 jobs at risk in atlanta and saves only $500,000 in fiscal year 2013. the proposal could end up costing money by transferring employees to regional offices with higher cost of living and higher salaries like new york and san francisco. further, the proposal will weaken the antitrust division as experienced attorneys who choose not to transfer leave for other opportunities. antitrust law is a highly

specialized field of law and the institutional knowledge of an experienced attorney is invaluable. the atlanta office ranks number one in terms of the most trial wins of any of the eight criminal offices. in fiscal year 2008, the atlanta office ranked first among all eight criminal offices in the amount of restitution obtained for victims. for that fiscal year the atlanta office accounted for 71.2% of all restitution imposed by the division. as this nation recovers from a recession, largely caused by white collar misdoing, i implore this house to consider the message that closure of these offices will send to the public. those concerning whether to commit white collar crime need to know that there is strict federal enforcement. closing these field offices

sends the wrong message to criminals and the public at exactly the wrong time. this congress has been consumed with debating the proper role and scope of government. during that debate, we have all agreed that the minimum role of government is to ensure an equal playing field that allows opportunity for all and ensures that all wrongitters will be prosecuted, no matter if they are engaged in petty criminal offenses or white collar crimes. the antitrust division, which promotes and protects competition in the marketplace, is essential to good governance and fairness. surely tea partiers and progressive -- tea partiers and progressives, union leaders can all agree that government must ensure a fair and competitive marketplace that allows for

innovation. the closure of these four field offices will have the effect of significantly eroding the division's criminal enforcement program, leaving u.s. consumers and businesses in at least 19 states, the virgin islands and puerto rico unprotected against white collar crooks like bernie madoff who seek to rig bids, inflate prices and otherwise defraud consumers and businesses. i urge a yes vote on this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, i rise today in support of the lewis-johnson amendment. this amendment ensures that none of the funding provided in the bill will be used to facilitate the closure of the department of justice antitri-- antitrust

divisional offices in atlanta, cleveland, dallas and philadelphia. from our discussions in the full committee markup of this bill, i understand that mr. wolf, the divisioned chairman of the subcommittee, believes that this matter can be worked out and that justices may perhaps willing to move on this. but i'm deeply concerned that this action will seriously undermine the division's ability to enforce antitrust laws by limiting the number of groups -- groups on the ground -- boots on the ground. mr. bishop: accepting that this is a done deal and has no room for negotiation by congress will severely weaken our ability to enforce the antitrust laws. furthermore, given the already heavy work load of the washington, d.c., san francisco, new york, and chicago field offices, the antitrust division will not have sufficient human

resources to investigate and prosecute many regionle and local conspiracies in the areas of responsibility that those four offices have, the ones that are slated to be closed. i want to ensure that the antitrust division can continue to protect taxpayers and preserve integrity of our free market system. the regional offices in atlanta, cleveland, dallas and philadelphia help facilitate these efforts and they should remain open. closing these offices, i believe, is penny wise and pound foolish. it puts nearly 100 jobs at risk and it pulls only a $500,000 savings in fiscal year 2013. in fact, the proposal could end up costing money because it will transfer employees to regional offices with higher cost of living and higher salaries like new york and san francisco. it's extremely important that we don't close these offices until a thorough review of the

antitrust division is completed. when deciding to recommend these closures, the department of justice did not consider other more cost-effective options. furthermore, if offices must be eliminated, all of the closures should be based on merit and productivity rather than on politics. let me speak for a moment on the atlanta office. which does better in terms of overall performance and productivity than, say, for instance, some of the other offices which are slated to remain open. the atlanta office obtained over $265 million in fines and restitution between f.y. 2000 and f.y. 2011. with an annual operating cost of $4 million, the criminal fines and restitutions recovered by the office represent a return rate of 600%. indeed, closing these offices is penny wise and pound foolish and

i urge the adoption of the amendment for the good of our free market system and our capitalist economy. thank you, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. wolf: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. wolf: i want to thank the gentleman and the gentlelady for raising this issue and standing up. this was not done by our committee. this was done by the justice department, by the administration. but what we will do is next week we will ask the three or four who spoke that we bring the justice department -- we'll get them to come up here whereby they can sit down with all of you together and your staffs to explain why and see if they can justify this. but i just wanted to be clear, this was not done at the committee's request, this was the justice department --

mr. bishop: will the gentleman yield? mr. wolf: yes. mr. bishop: this was an action by the department and it was not action taken by the committee. however, some of us on the committee have grave concerns about it and we appreciate the chairman's agreement and his willingness to discuss it with the justice department and see if we can't get the situation corrected. mr. wolf: ok, thank you. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair -- the noes have it. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida will be postponed. the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: i have an amendment at the desk, mr.

chairman. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 36, congressional record offered by mr. chaffetz of utah. the chair: the gentleman from utah is recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment. mr. chaffetz: thank you, mr. chairman. a couple of short months ago the department of justice in support of the americans with disability act added a new provision. this provision said that in order to be in compliance with the a.d.a. regulations, businesses must now allow service horses into their businesses. and you did hear right. they're talking about service horses to be in compliance with the a.d.a. regulation. and i dare to stand and say we need to say nay to that type of

effort -- neigh to that type of effort. it's kind of hard to get through this without smiling about it. but this is the kind of regulation that has untold number of consequences on small businesses. and while i recognize the imperative and the need that some unfortunate americans go through in having to deal with things, there comes a point where we have to stand up and say, wait a second, wait a second, wait a second. do we really need to allow service horses on airplanes, into hotels, into restaurants, just to accommodate a particular person? and this amendment would prohibit funding for the implementation of yet another costly federal regulation. the regulation would require businesses and restaurants to admit service horses in the same way they admit service dogs into their areas of operation. i wish i didn't have to bring up this amendment but since the administration has now put this into a rule, we're going to have to introduce this amendment.

despite the difficulty, and some would say the impossibility, of house breaking a horse, the obama justice department has ruled that service horses, miniature horses used to accompany people with disabilities, are no different than guide dogs under the americans with disabilities act. as a result shops, restaurants, hotels, even airlines can now be sued if they do not ac dade -- accommodate horses in their place of business. that regulation joins a long list of rules which -- with which small businesses must comply. "the new york times" recently reported on a particular scheme in which lawyers recruit disabled people, pay them a fee, and use them to file lawsuits against businesses that fail to comply with any one of the hundreds of a.d.a. rules. for small businesses, the cost of compliance with that law that designates, for instance, 95 different standards for bathrooms alone, is just the beginning. they must also pay attorneys fees to the litigants in such case, eastbound though many businesses say they -- even

though many businesses say they would have complied without a lawsuit. some $1.6 -- 1.65 million lawsuits are filed each year against enforcements each year. sfiments zsh estimates by the competitive enterprise institute suggest a regulation costs the economy some $1.75 trillion in 2008 alone. that's a massive drag on the u.s. economy and with the average of nine new rules appearing in the federal registry every day, small businesses with few resources struggle to keep up with the ever-changing regulatory environment. .65% of created by small businesses. overregulation of the direct effect on the ability to create job and compete in the marketplace. if a person wishes to bring a horse into the establishment, it should be dealt with on a case by-by-case basis not by a federal mandate.

and i'm sure all good americans subscribe to the magazine put out by the horse magazine. doesn't condone the use of these horses as a replacement for guide dogs. he has said, quote, the american miniature horse can be trained to lead or driven but would not make a suitable replacement for an animal such as a guide dog. there is an association that deal with these man tur horses. even their president is saying this isn't a wise move. if the body feels this is an imperative move, a member of congress introduce that piece of legislation and be properly vetted in a hearing and move through the legislative process. since the administration has introduced this regulation, this is a guess we shouldn't spend money against this and let this

be a little bit more vetted. unfortunately, there are lawsuits flying. i would encourage members on both sides of the aisle to vote for this amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from philadelphia. i mean from pennsylvania. mr. fattah: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. fattah: i visited with a brave young soldier who lost his eyesight in iraq and there was a situation where his ability to function required an animal to help guide him so he could go about his normal functions of daily life. what the gentleman who made this amendment neglected to share with the house is that it has been the law that under the a.d.a. guidelines, you could have any animal, monkey, horse, so forth and so on, that could be use to someone who is

disabled. and what the administration has done with the new regulation is limit this to only two types of animals, one is a guide dog as we would normally it. the other, miniature horses that meet certain requirements including they be house-broken. the reason why people who are disabled and find this a more useful process or animal to use is that they live three times longer than a dog does and they have perfect vision. but i see that there has been some i guess laughter or act as if this is come call. but the fact of the matter is when i met with this young soldier and his wife and two kids, he talked about how it made him feel whole, that he could go get the newspaper out in front of the house and he

could go to the store. so the idea that this is some new policy of the obama administration is false, number one. number two, it's restricting an overly broad set of allowances in this regard and restricts it to two types of animals, which can be used by people who are disabled. i would hope that the house, even though the majority who seem to find for some reason challenges in this bill in particular with the provisions that they want to go after that allow disabled people -- we heard yesterday, the veterans organizations opposed this effort yesterday on the pool lifts and now we are talking

about people who lost their sight and can have a guide animal. i oppose the amendment and i hope the house rejects it. i will be glad to yield. mr. chaffetz: i believe it was in martha the department of justice, title 3 regulations issued a new ruling. so we may disagree on what to do with this, but i want to clarify for the record -- mr. fattah: i assume this ruling is a restriction from the much broader ruling that includes any other type of animals, including monkeys. i will yield. mr. chaffetz: i would disagree with that assessment. this is a new regulation and led to lawsuits that have already started to happen. there is a lawsuit in california. mr. fattah: let me reclaim my time and that the regulation prior to this adjustment allowed

for service animals of any type, including a dog, horse, monkey, bird, rat trained to assist and alert, ok, that's number one. so this is a move by the obama administration to restrict it to two types of animals. that is what the house is acting on, actual information, because this is an effort to help those who are disabled and also to avoid unnecessary circumstances in which regulations are too broad. mr. chaffetz: if the gentleman would yield. i will be happy to work with or this. i disagree with that assessment. mr. fattah: this is a fact. so this is the regulation. the new regulation retreats and constrains the regulation to two animals versus a number of

animals. mr. chaffetz: if the gentleman would yield. i disagree with that assessment and agree to disagree. mr. fattah: reclaiming my time. i want the house to be aware that this is not the appropriate place to deal with this matter. but if we insist on it, i would hope that we would err on the side of that young brave soldier who risked his life on behalf of our country and he should have the assistance. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from utah. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. the gentleman from from new jersey. mr. holt: mr. chairman, i have an amendment. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment.

the speaker pro tempore: did the gentleman submit a copy of the amendment to the desk? holt holt i have. -- mr. holt: i have. i am sending another copy to the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used for the department of justice in contravention of any of the following, one, the fifth

and 14th amendment to the constitution of the united states, two, title 6 of the civil rights act of 1964, 42 u.s.c. -- mr. holt: i ask unanimous consent that this be considered as read. the chair: without objection. so ordered. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. holt: the purpose of this amendment is to prohibit federal funds from flowing to law enforcement organizations that engage in any form of racial, ethnic or religious profiling. it's been a matter of concern for decades among minority communities when policing organizations engage in profiling, but recent events have brought the problem into sharp focus. starting last august, the associated press had stories about racial, ethnic and religious profiling conducted by new york city police department

against muslim, arab americans inal dozen states. in september of last year, i asked the department of justice to investigate what we now know is a pattern of surveillance and infiltration by the new york police department against innocent muslims in the absence of a reason. they were mapped and surveiled simply because they were muslim. profiling is wrong. profiling on the basis of race, ethnicity and religion is a violation of core constitutional principles. profiling is also wrong because it is not good p policing. profiling is a unthinking, lazy, unprofessional work to police and intelligence work and only raises the risk that the real plot will slip through the cracks. profiling is counterproductive.

the sloppiness of the nypd was such that such were labeled as muslims and contrary to the blanket assertions by some that the tactics have kept new york city safe, the nypd failed to uncover two actual plots against new york city, those perpetrated by shaad. in the first case, the f.b.i. was surveilling the mosque he attended and the muslim student association of his accomplice. in the second case, the nypd took actions that led him be tipped off about the f.b.i.'s investigation. the nypd's uncoordinated and unprofessional approach within the american-muslim community shows that they have learned nothing from the lessons coming

from the 9/11 commission's report. this amendment is not aimed solely at one particular law enforcement organization. over the decades, law enforcement organizations across the country have profiled against african americans, hispanics and other minorities. indeed, the department of justice has specific guidance prohibiting this practice because it has become widespread and has conducted litigation against police departments for using race or ethnicity to target citizens for arrest in california, pennsylvania, illinois and other states. my amendment would ensure that no federal funds are flowing to any law enforcement entity that the department has identified has engaged in realous, racial and ethnic profiling. i have several letters from important organizations that

support -- the chair: the gentleman's request will be covered under general leave. mr. holt: profiling by police is not something taxpayer dollars should be spent for. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york. mr. king: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. king: i strongly oppose this amendment and virtually every word spoken on the floor tonight by the gentleman from new jersey. the nypd is the most effective counterterrorism unit in the police. there are 1,000 police working day in and day out and 14 terrorist attempts to attack new york have been stopped. let's get something straight, the president's homeland security adviser, john brennan, recently visited with the nypd.

during that meeting or following that meeting, mr. brennan, president obama's homeland security adviser stated, quote, i have full confidence that the nypd is doing things consistent with the law and if something again that is responsible for keeping this city safe over the past decade. mr. brennan, president obama's homeland security adviser said, if we don't have the ability to identify and stop terrorist operatives and terrorist attacks here on our shores, the national government cannot do it alone. the nypd is a model how the community can come together. and he closed by saying, you have a very difficult job and i think you have done it very well. the success is in the record in terms of keeping this city safe. f.b.i. director muler said they are in full compliance with the law. there is an i.g. inspection done

that the relationship with the c.i.a. was in full compliance with the law. these random attacks by the associated press and new york city times cannot point out one instance of the law being violated or one provision of the constitution being violated. we should be giving nypd a medal. we sit here after 10 years after 9/11 and the most effective counterterrorism unit in the united states is being attacked and we are citing the constitution when no one complies with this more than the nypd. whether it is director petraeus, director mueller or the president of the united states. now i worked closely with the nypd, mayor bloomberg or the council president, christine quinn, both stand by the nypd because of what they have done. and to think that the most effective organization is being attacked by the associated

press, the "new york times" and those who are joined here on the floor of the congress of the united states without one fact to back them up. this is all good police work. we aren't going to sit back like we did on september 11 and allow the enemy to come. if we know an attack is coming or operatives are coming and there is a community in new york city where those people live, obviously, you go and conduct surveillance and make sure no one violates the constitution. when the justice department was going after the mafia, they were going after the italian community, russian mob, go to the communities on copey island and brighton beach. 99% of the people are law-abiding. if you are going to the person who is going to carry out a crime, you go to that person. when you are looking for the

italian mob, you go to the irish bar. this is solid law enforcement. that is no profiling. so i cannot be more emphatic or stronger in my calling for this defeat of this amendment and nypd -- i went to too many wakes and funerals and i'm not going to allow it to happen and i oppose this amendment. . the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania is roadwayed for five minutes. -- recognized for five minutes. mr. fattah: this is a well-intentioned issue in the sense that all this amendment says is that none of the funds in this bill should be used to violate the constitution of the united states, the fifth and the 14th amendments. so i'm sure there will be those who want to adhere to it.

but this is not the appropriate place to be dealing with this issue, this is an appropriations bill. we've had dozens of riders, one after another, where people are trying to get at other issues. now, there's no instance, no matter what the purpose under which we should be condemning law enforcement when they are carrying out appropriate responsibilities and they should be given the benefit of the doubt. in the same instance, we have a responsibility to uphold the constitution, the constitution is clear in its delineation and you can't discriminate. and we shouldn't -- it's not good law enforcement practices, no matter who you're looking for, to act in ways in which you close your eyes to other possibilities. if you're looking for terrorists, they don't come in any particular subset or group. and i know that law enforcement is aware of this and they look

across the board and what the vulnerabilities may be. i want to thank the gentleman from new jersey for his steadfastness in trying to protect against religious bigotry or ethnic discrimination or unintentional stepping across the line. and again, this is a bill in which we're trying to deal with the appropriation of federal dollars for immediate law enforcement activity and i would hope that -- i'd be glad to yield. >> this is completely consistent with an appropriations bill for the department of justice. just as we have spent decades getting away from the practice of harassing people for driving while black, we've got to get away from the practice of harassing people for shopping while a muslim. mr. fattah: reclaiming my time. the point here is that every

dollar that we appropriate to the department of justice we operate under the belief that they're carrying out their constitutional responsibilities. so they have to operate within the constitution, the amendment at best is redundant. >> if the gentleman would yield again. you know, reference was made to the deputy national security advisor of president obama, mr. brennan. what mr. brennan actually said was that for the nypd to be effective, they need the cooperation of the muslim community. and in fact if you talk with the muslim community, they are not only outraged by this behavior, they are intimidated by it. mr. holt: they see it as profiling. and my colleague from new york or my colleague from pennsylvania can say, well, of course everybody's operating under the law.

the fact is -- mr. fattah: reclaiming my time. i didn't say that. reclaiming my time. i understand that from the press reports one could consider this profiling. all i'm suggesting to you is that this is not the appropriate vehicle to deal with it. profiling would be improper and i would hope that the justice department -- and i believe that they've articulated that their position is not to profile. i'd be glad to yield. mr. holt: i would hope that the gentleman would find a place for this instruction to the department of justice, to do and to make sure that the recipients of their grants do what they are indeed supposed to do. we're talking about money spent, we should make sure that the taxpayer money is spent for good policing. mr. fattah: i thank the gentleman. as i indicated, i commend you for raising this issue. i know it's unpopular in some areas.

i'm just suggesting that one of the appropriations -- under the appropriations bill, a rider like this -- i am dictating to the department that they should comply with the constitution is similar to other amendments we've seen today, i believe it has an everyday responsibility to comply with the constitution. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia. mr. wolf: i strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. wolf: i share the comment that mr. fattah made and my friend from new york, mr. king. at every hearing we have, we raise this issue with director muller. director muller may be the best, not one of the best, the best director that we've ever had at the f.b.i. and i think director muller has stood with the new york nypd, had an opportunity to speak and say something negative, did not. and so i think, and my good friend and he is my friend, i think we throw words around here, but i like rush holt and

he knows how i feel about him. but this is not a good amendment and it almost makes the f.b.i. look like they're doing something wrong or the nypd, like they're doing something wrong. to have a colloquy on the floor, but to have an amendment that looks like it's a direct kind of attack on -- and i look at the original amendment and you had to kind of change it in order to be -- to be in order. secondly, i think ray kelly is one of the finest police chiefs we ever had in the country. and if you were an nypd policeman, you would see this and think, and thirdly, to validate what mr. king said, and i read here, president obama's top counterterrorism advertiser praised the new york -- advisor praised the new york police department friday saying they struck an appropriate balance between keeping people safe and respecting -- protecting their rights. we have to remember, major hasan was responsible for the death of

13 people and there were targets and signs that nobody wanted to kind of identify. as mr. king said, you know, there are about 180 people from my congressional district that died in the attack in the pentagon. and brennan goes on to say, quote, it is not a tradeoff between our security and our freedoms and our rights to citizens. end of quote, john brennan said friday in an april appearance at nypd headquarters. yote, i believe that the balance that we strike has been an appropriate one. we want to make sure that we're able to optimize our security at the same time we optimize these freedoms, we hold and cherish so deeply. brennan's comments represent a white house stamp of approval on the nypd's tactics. for months the obama administration has sidestepped the question about the nypd surveillance program. while insisting on the importance of building partnerships with the american

muslims. then he goesen to say, city officials say the police department has done nothing illegal and argue that the nypd would have endangered the city, would have endangered the city it is charged with protecting if it did not take such preventive measures. officers cannot wait to open an investigation until a crime is committed, they argue. police commissioner ray kelly has said, it is in this characterization to describe the department's tactics on spying. i'll close with this. in a speech to the police department's options and representatives from private security firms, brennan then went on to say, said, the nypd's counterterrorism work was essential, was essential to the safety of the nation's citizens. so, you know, i agree with mr. king and i agree with mr. fattah. >> will the gentleman yield? mr. wolf: certainly.

mr. holt: it's worth pointing out that a couple of days later, the white house felt it necessary to back away from his comments. to say, john in his remarks wasn't referring to the nypd surveillance. of course he was. but they had to say he wasn't because he had misspoken. rather he was stating that everybody in the counterterrorism and law enforcement community must make sure that we are doing things consist with the law. -- consistent with the law. in other words, mr. brennan got -- when he was out of bounds and the white house had to walk that back. so, i wouldn't, if i were you, choose his endorsement of these nypd activities as the best argument against my amendment. mr. wolf: well, reclaiming my time, i do take mr. brennan at his word. i think mr. brennan's an excellent constituent, he lives in my congressional district.

he has a pretty distinguished career, having been our station chief in saudi arabia and head of the counterterrorism center and probably has forgotten more about terrorism than any member here in the congress. secondly, director muller, who i maintain is one of the best directors, director muller's honest, decent, ethical guy who cares deeply about religious and civil rights, mr. serrano, at every hearing mr. serrano always makes sure the f.b.i. is doing things appropriately and i believe they are and he validated what the nypd did. i think it's just not a good idea to be attacking our law enforcement and saying this when they're actually doing a good job. so i stand with mr. fattah and i stand with mr. king. and i yield if you want me to. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. wolf: i ask the gentleman have two more minutes.

the chair: is there objection? seeing none. mr. fattah: i thank the chair for yielding. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. mr. fattah: it is not inconsistent for us to want to have support for law enforcement and also that the constitution be followed. i want to again say that i think that if you want, you know, we have access to them, if you want law enforcement to come in and brief you on these tactics and talk these things through, that's fine. but i don't believe that we should take the position of, you know, all the angels on one side and to the contrary there's no police department that's perfect, but the point here is that the effort is one i believe complies with the constitutional restrictions, that you do not operate without a due process and probably cause. and let's see if we can find a way other than this amendment to see if we can get to the heart of this. mr. wolf: ok, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment

offered by the gentleman from new jersey. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the be of the chair, the noes have it -- in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. holt: i ask the chair for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. cravaack of minnesota. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment. mr. cravaack: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to offer an theamed would prohibit any more funding going to a duplicative program. i'd like to think that everyone in this room is well aware that we are $15.7 trillion in debt. our spending is out of control. we are simply spending money we don't have and massively

indebting future generations of americans. the g.a.o. reports a duplicative u.s. government programs cost billions of dollars. 13 agencies fund 209 different science, technology, engineering and math education programs. 173 of those programs overlap with at least one other program. we have to be responsible for how the government spends americans' hard-earned tax dollars. we cannot afford to borrow money for duplicative programs that are already under the purview of established agencies and protocols. currently, worthy research proposals, subject -- -- the climate change program sets aside for a specific purpose already covered in interagency education programs.

this is just more big government and a waste of taxpayer dollars. last year, the climate change education program funded partnerships aamong k-12 education, related nonprofit organizations and relevant policymakers. this year, however, now the program has morphed into a sustainable research network to create new interdisciplinary learning experiences for graduate and undergraduate students as well as literacy programs. in the military, we call this mission creep. nabble science foundation funds basic research and serves as an engine of our innovation economy. however you feel about global warming, that is not the debate here today. though i look forward to engaging in that debate in the future. this amendment addresses a duplicative program that is not necessary and costing the taxpayers money we simply don't have. we need to prioritize

innovation and research in n.s.f. and eliminate duplicative programs that do nothing to improve the economic outlook of our future. we need to get back to the basics. i ask my colleagues to join me in this amendment to end a duplicative program wasting taxpayer dollars and further indebting future yen rations. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. who seeks time? the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> i rise to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i oppose this amendment. climate change is a big issue in the world that we live in, it affect ours economy. mr. fattah: our ability to move goods, we've had the most severe weather season we've had in history over the last 12 months, the most severe incidents, that is $1 billion

plus dollars in cost. our ability to understand the weather and the climate and its impact on business and industry, on agriculture is critically important. i think that the national science foundation, which is an entirely merit based system of scientific awards in which they found -- fund less than one out of every five meritorious pieces of research proposals, there's absolutely no politics, the national science board which is confirmed by the senate, reviews these proposals, they make selections, the idea that we don't want to know more or learn more i think is interesting. i would hope that the house would reject that and that what we would do is seek knowledge as a way to retain our global leadership as the leading nation in the world. i would give back the remainder

of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. who seeks time? the gentleman from alaska. mr. young: i move to strike the last word. and i recognize the gentleman from minnesota. the chair: the gentleman from alaska needs to remain on his feet. mr. cravaack: regarding duplicative programs, this is about duplicative programs. the national science foundation already funds stem education and even climate change education programs in education and human resources -- and education -- for worthy, peer-reviewed proposals. total u.s. spending for the global change research program is more than $2.5 billion, primarily at nasa, n of course aa and n.s.f. n.s.f.'s spending for the global change program is over $333 million. n.s.f. spending is $12379 billion a year. climate change education can be address through the n.s.f. climate research activities and

other activities. there's no need to fund additional special climate change education programs. this new a-- newer program under the obama adsmrgs currently funded at $10 million a year, $5.5 million from the education director and $4.5 million from the research director as ident fid. again, this is a duplicative program and a waste of taxpayer dollars. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. i yield to the gentleman from alaska. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the ayes have it. mr. fattah: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment of the gentleman from minnesota will be postpone.

the gentleman in -- the gentlelady from florida. >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. brown of florida. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, the amount made available by this act for department of justice office of justice programs, state and local law enforcement assistance, for emergency federal law enforcement assistance, as authorized by section 609 in the justice assistance act of 1984, 42 u.s.c. 105-13, public law 98-473 -- ms. brown: mr. speaker. the chair: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes in support of her amendment. ms. brown: thank you, mr. speaker, and members of the house. i'm excited that finally we have an amendment that everybody can support. since everyone is supporting law enforcement. this amendment fully funds the emergency federal law enforcement assistance program in the amount of $20 million.

this program was designed to help local government respond to extraordinary law enforcement emergencies after they have exhausted their own budgets. the emergency law enforcement assistance program authorized the attorney general to provide funds, equipment, training inteblings, and personnel to alleviate the financial impact of unforeseeable emergency law enforcement situations. this program was authorized in 1984 but ha not been funded since 1996. had it been funded, this program would have helped a community in my district in october of 2007, a 7-year-old girl, summer thomasson went missing on her way home from school. the clay county sheriff's office followed garbage trucks and found her body in a georgia land fill two days later. thanks to this quick thinking, her killer was captured and

will never harm another child. information investigations like this one cost a lot of money. over time -- overtime, lab tests, travel costs, and numerous unforeseen expenses can blow even the most prudent budget. small communities lack the resources to pursue investigations on this scale. the sheriff told me he had exhausted his budget for the year on overtime just for this one case. i did what i could to help scrape together a grants program from other sources but this program would have filled the gap. by the way, the sheriff and almost everyone in clay county is republican but this is not about party, it's about doing what is right. in an era when local government can barely afford the police they have, a major crime can wipe them out and leave the community more vulnerable. the basic purpose of government is to protect the citizens.

this amendment will make sure police can do it without worrying about a crisis that will break their budget and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the plans of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. wolf: we're concerned but we accept the amendment and work on it in conference. ms. brown: thank you very much. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from alaska rise? mr. young: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. young: in lue of an amendment i would like to take this time to engage the subcommittee chairman in a conversation about the importance of nation's fisheries management commissions.

i yield time to the gentleman -- >> i yield to the gentleman of alaska for the purpose of a colloquy. mr. young: i rise today to express my support for putting our nation's fishery management commissions an the good work they do to help keep more fish in our waters. noaa's fisheries act supports the conservation and management of fish species which occur in both federal and state waters. funding for this program is used to support conservation and management tasks not currently being undertaken by noaa or the regional management councils. fisheries commissions on the atlantic, pacific and gulf coast represent an important bottom up stake holder approach to managing our fisheries and often develop innovative programs to manage fisheries. mr. wolf: i thank the gentleman from alaska. we'll work with the other body to ensure that these programs are adequately funded. mr. young: thank you, mr.

chairman. in these tight budgetary times, hard choices must be make and we need to be sure we put funds back in sustainable programs where current programs are producing results for fisheries sustainability. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. garamendi of california, at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, the amounts provided in this act are by one, reducing the amount made available under the department of commerce, international

trade administration -- mr. garamendi: i move to suspend the reading. the chair: is there objection? -- is there objection to dispensing with the reading? the reading is dispensed with. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. garamendi: day after day, at least week after week, my colleagues and i are here on the floor talking about jobs. it is about jobs and jobs and jobs again. our agenda, which we call make it in america, would rebuild the american manufacturing sector, a sect that's -- sector that's lost about 40% of its jobs in the last 25 years from just under 20 million to just over 11 million americans are working in manufacturing today. one of the innovative ways of improving manufacturing has been developed, it's called the manufacturing extension program. it's actually modeled after another federal state program

that's been in existence for more than 100 years. anyone that's in agriculture would recognize the agricultural extension program. this is the manufacturing extension program, a program that's actually added another feature to the old and still very successful agricultural extension program, that is, a public-private partnership. in this program, the federal government through the institution -- through the national institutes of standards and technology, runs a program in which funding is provided for local private or nonprofit organizations to become extension program managers. in california this has been a very, very successful program. some $447 in new sales have occurred. $128.8 million in new investments and 679,000 new jobs have been created.

some examples exist throughout california. in southern california a manufacturer, a small company that makes a high tech -- that makes high tech parts for the aircraft industry has been able to improve their manufacturing techniques and have been able to stay in business and they now have been very successful in bringing down contracts with the aircraft industry. in the bay area, another program actually run out of an area near my district has been very successful working with companies in the area, morgan hill precision, to be precise, is a machine shop. that company has used the manufacturer extension program, to great success. how do we pay for this? we take a little bit from some

20 different parts of the department of commerce. the result is, it's working. we'd like to keep it working at last year's level. the bill before us reduces it by 50% so we're adding $437,000 back by taking small amounts from some 20 different programs. with that, i yield back my remaining time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. wolf: strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. wolf: i have no objection, i support the amendment, it's appropriate to reduce the agency's funds in this austere fiscal environment. last year, the budget committee reduced every account in the bill by 10%. i think this is a great program and i support the amendment and yield back the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. .

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. fattah: i have no high priority in the section of the bill ven m.e.p. and i met with them with local manufacturers and visited with them in orlando with over 1,000 manufacturers from around the country. i know intimately the work they are doing, the national marketplace has been very helpful. this is the only program last year that left the house at a higher number than the senate and let the conference committee at a higher number than the house or the senate. it rose to its level of funding at $128 million. this program started at $5 million and very, very important. not only will i accept this amendment and i thank the chairman, but we have to look at what they have done in this bill in total of manufacturing.

the chairman has been focused on this. over 140 mill ion in the national science foundation. with the chairman's leadership have our initiative funded at $5 million to help businesses think through cross benefits and we actually have a hearing as the last hearing of the subcommittee before we marked up our bill, focus on manufacturing. i have said there is nothing more important to the country. it's not a partisan issue. manufacturing, making things in america are important to our national security and our economy and i thank you for your leadership. and i agree with the amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is goode to. -- the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the title of the amendment. the chair: would the gentleman specify the amendment. >> amendment number 26. the clerk: amendment number 26 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. den ham of california. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. denham: the amendment i'm offering is intended to fortify the underlying appropriations bill. under the bill, national marine fisheries service makes sure

that it doesn't have a detrimental effect. this added to the energy and water appropriations bill. it was supported in h.r. 1837 earlier this year and would have supported what this amendment will achieve. the san joaquin river restoration program pushes forward on an ill-advised path of wasting water out of the ocean under the guise of saving salmon. it would require the re-introduction of salmon into the san joaquin river if this attempt fails. the problem is that the river is not yet in a condition where the salmon can survive. there are a number of different problems and projects along the river that need to be completed fl a bypass to several fish screens and the administration has designated a channel where the river will flow and will not

for another two years. premature introduction of salmon into the river will only lead to their deaths and high cost to taxpayers and local community. this amendment simply prohibits the premature re-introduction of endangered salmon species. they are struggling to regain healthy numbers. this amendment ensures that bureaucrats don't purposely reduce the number of available salmon in other streams and further threaten the endangered species. agencies possess the necessary authority to make the right decision to reintroduce salmon into the river but they continue to bend the environmental agenda. more time is needed to build the infrastructure required for the restoration program before the river can sustain a salmon run. even in the national marine

fishery services has doubt. contained within the final draft of their strategies, the service stated, the river would not support full scale reintroduction of the salmon and further the department of interior and the department of commerce jointly stated that the completion of phase one of the restoration project was needed before reintroduction of salmon can be successful. this is a very, very commonsense issue. the river needs several different projects for the salmon even to survive. why would we take salmon off of other rivers and move them to somewhere where they can't survive at a huge expense to taxpayers? it's a commonsense amendment to prevent taxpayer dollars on killing an endangered species. i urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise?

mr. wolf: i have no objection to the amendment and accept the amendment and yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. fattah: strike the last word. and i will be brief. this amendment seeks to intervene, prohibit a court-supervised settlement of an 18-year litigation having to deal with very delicate issues that he has articulated around an endangered species of salmon. to do this tonight at this hour is not prudent, and i'm opposed and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> for more than 20 years the question to do with the san

joaquin river. a river in which the species, salmon and other fish were simply nonexistent. that fight went on and on and on and after 20 years of fighting and litigation, a settlement was reached, a settlement that called for the restoration of stream flows in the san joaquin river so that the salmon and other species in that river could be returned. mr. garamendi: this amendment simply overturns that. it was a federal court order that approved the settlement, a settlement between the water users, the water users and also the environmental groups. to do this amendment is simply going to once again ignite a major water war that is totally

unnecessary. it is going to be difficult to restore the river but it can be done but is going to take time and money and we should do it. this is one of the two largest rivers in the state of california. it's a river that had in the past before the reservoirs were built and before the river was died up, an extraordinary run of salmon. it will never return to what it once was but can return to a viable river. to take action at this hour of the night on a amendment that is only going to be heard between half a dozen of us on the floor seems to be quite wrong. we have to oppose this amendment and ought to allow things to go forward. i would remind those who are supporting this that this is going to be a major blowup in the u.s. senate. i know we don't much care about that. but senator feinstein has authored legislation to

implement this settlement. we ought not be moving forward and i oppose the amendment. and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from alaska rise? mr. young: i move to strike the last yord and yield to the gentleman from -- last word and yield to the gentleman from california. mr. denham: as my friend from california completely understands, we can't reintroduce salmon that is inhabitable by salmon. it is not only a waste of money but going to kill the endangered species. why move it from where where they can't survive to one they can survive. take the word of the department of interior or department of commerce, take the opinion of the exchange contractors water authority, the st. louis -- these are the locals that live there. why waste the money?

he knows the issue. either he wants to kill the salmon at a huge expense or he just wants to waste the money. this is nothing to overturn the settlement. all it merely says is, let's follow what was originally intended, wait until 2014 when the projects are complete, give the salmon a fighting chance to survive and let's not waste a lot of money in the meantime. let's not confuse the issue. it has passed the house in a bill. and now once again after being debated several times in committee, we are in the light of day with many amendments, with many opportunities, with the american public watching, we are going to pass it one more time. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i have amendment number 27. the chair: clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. denham of california a at the end of the bill, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used by the executive office of the united states attorneys including the offices of the united states attorneys, the united states marshals service or the employees of the department of justice to carry out activities located at a newly built federal court house in los angeles, california.

the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. denham: this simply prevents the funds from being used to divert vital resources to an unneeded federal court house in los angeles. i have the distinct privilege of chairing a subcommittee and i have oversight over the federal court house. the g.a.o. completed a review of the 33 courthouses constructed between 2000 and 2010. what they found was incredible. g.s.a. has built over 3.5 million square feet of courthouse space that we don't need at a cost of $800 million. as a result, the judiciary went across the country and several underutilizes every single new courthouse. the g.a.o. identified three reasons, first of all when

g.s.a. is not busy, taking vacations in las vegas, they continue to build bigger courthouses than congress authorizes. the chair: the gentleman will suspend. ask the gentleman to specify he had two amendments published, amendment number 27 and a new amendment was offered to the chair. could the gentleman from california specify in particular what exact amendment he is referring to. mr. reed: it is the new amendment we are -- >> -- mr. denham: it is the new amendment we are asking, the technical correction. the chair: that is what the clerk was referring to. the gentleman may proceed. mr. denham: g.s.a. continues to

build courthouses bigger than what congress authorizes. congress authorizes one thing and g.s.a. goes out and builds not only something completely different but much bigger, at much greater expense. number two we don't have the judges that were once proposed. third of all, judges don't share courtrooms. these courtrooms get used about two hours a day and we don't have any courtroom sharing across the nation that we could be utilizing these courthouses quite a bit more than what we are today. as a result, we demand that the judiciary conduct a real courtroom sharing study so a third party can figure out how many judges are needed. over the last 11 year the judiciary projected between 72 and 81 judges in l.a. by 2011. the judiciary declared l.a. the number one judicial space emergency in the country and

proposed a massive new courthouse, however we know the primary justification for the l.a. courthouse was wrong. there are fewer judges in l.a. today than there were in 1997. today we have two buildings with 61 courtrooms and 59 judges. we have 61 courtrooms and only 59 judges, no courtroom sharing, being utilized less than two hours a day. in that light, i've asked g.s.a. to stop its plans to spend $400 million on a courthouse in los angeles. g.s.a. told me explicitly they'll continue the project at whatever cost. after building a $400 million courthouse, we'll have 85 courtrooms in 59 -- and 59 judges. 85 courtrooms and 59 judges. all of these judges -- not only do we need less courtroom well, don't need to build this one that we are currently proposing

to build. you could put all these judges in one courthouse, sell the other courthouse and never build the one being proposed at $400 million. we've seen this before at least seven times in other cities where new courthouses were built and the old ones sit vacant today a burden to the taxpayer and eyesores to the community. big courthouse in miami, sitting vacant. one being redone in new york, vacant. and yet we want to spend $400 million on something we don't need in los angeles. i personally toured the l.a. courthouse facilities and found there's vacant space not being used in both the roybal building and the spring street building. g.a.o. ran a sharing model for l.a. and found all judges could fit in the roybal building alone. this country is in a $15 trillion debt and g.s.a. continues to waste money on projects no one needs. what we do need -- is to move

everybody in the roybal building, get rid of the vacant space and sell off the other courthouse. at a time like this, we should be utilizing the best use of taxpayer dollars. this is why i introduced the civilian property realignment act to get this out of the hands of the legislature, to make sure that we're actually selling off properties we don't need. we've sold 82 properties over the last decade and we have 14,000 sitting on the vacant list. we can do a much better job but it starts right here with the l.a. courthouse. before we can sell off the things we don't need, we ought to stop building the things that we don't need. sell off the property. we can create jobs by letting the private sector go there and build something to get out of a lot of the lease space we have in the l.a. area. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise in

mr. fattah: i rise to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. fattah: as best i can see, no funds would be expended under this fiscal year. i know the gentleman is en jiesed about this but i think it's better handled in the authorizing committee through the legislation and hopefully that will one day get passed and signed into law. if the congress could manage buildings and deal with the utilization, you know, the capitol's visitor center, we could go through a laundry list of our own. we spend a lot of time criticizing other agencies, the g.s.a., you should look at what we spend for conferences, you could go through it. these could take forever. i'd rather see that we would, rather than curse the darkness, we try to finish an appropriations bill. i'm in opposition to this amendment. because it prohibits the use of

funds spent on employees in a you that won't have any employees this year. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed. to -- is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. flake: i have an amendment at the desk, number two. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. flake of arizona, at the end of the bill, before the short title add the following, limitation on funds for initiative section, none of the funds made available in this act may be used to carry out this initiative.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. flake: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment would prohibit funding for president obama's select u.s.a. initiative slated to receive over $6 billion in this bill. if you haven't heard of it, you're not alone. virtually no one has heard of it outside the committee and those who are funding it. last june, president obama issued an executive order to establish select u.s.a. it was called the first ever federal effort to attract, retain and expand business investment in the united states. it seems to me that whenever a new federal program is touted as the first of its kind, it's usually a pretty good indication that it's completely unnecessary. this is no exception no exception to the rule. a quick read of the vague ways in which select u.s.a. says it serves the firs and economic development organizations certainly proves that. promoting the benefits of investing in the u.s.a.,

responding to inquiries about the u.s. business climate, helping investors confused by regulatory processes, offering guidance, these are hardly responsibilities of the federal government. in reality, it seems the taxpayers are buying little more than a website, pitching the benefits of u.s. subsidiaries to foreign companies. it includes 10 pages of links to federal subsidized programs like grants.gov, arpa.e, and the department of energy's -- and the loan guarantee program. that was a program responsible for sloinedrafment -- for solyndra. le on the federal government could find a way to waste taxpayer dollars promoting the waste of taxpayer dollars. finding out what select u.s.a. does is one thing, finding its actual accomplishments is down right impossible. the website includes testimonials from companies

like rolls royce and ikea saying they plan to invest in the u.s. they already do. this isn't helping them any more than it's helping anybody else. all the announcements are dated between 2006 and 2010, long before this program was even established. so these canes -- companies are touting the benefits of a program that wasn'ts tab lished yet? how did they know? hours of research by our staff uncovered only one investment that's even tied to select u.s.a. and those claims are very dubious. there's a company that is called a.g.s. and the president has touted this as, in his program, as being responsible for luring ample g.s. to the u.s. it's mentioned in conjunction with the michigan economic development corporation and other agencies and recently

elected to invest $20 million in new u.s. manufacturing capables. select u.s.a. the scribed as an obama-launched program is said to have facilitated coordination between a.g.s. and officials. but a.g.s. has been in this country for more than 40 year bus under a different name, ample g. simpson automotive. it's been in business with general motors an ford for more than 40 years. companies have been manufacturing -- have been a manufacturing presence in the u.s. since it opened a michigan plant in 1991. another plant was opened in louisiana in 2003 this hardly sounds like a company that needed select u.s.a. to help it discover the benefits of investing in the u.s. there is simply no record of this investment outside of the administration's press release and the commerce department blog post, not from a.g.s., not from the michigan economic development corporation. not even from select u.s.a.

only an administration press release touts the involvement of select u.s.a. most telling of all, the 2013 commerce department budget justification to congress which requested $12 million and 20 additional full-time employees doesn't even include a word about the a.g.s. investment system of what does select u.s.a. even do? well, i think the committee isn't even sure what select u.s.a. does because the report language in this bill asks sleblingt u.s.a. to justify what it does and explain what it does because apparently nobody even knows. yet we took the request from the administration of $12 million and simply cut it in half and gave the half of what they requested. why in the world are we doing this? at what point are we going to say, we can't afford to throw

money away like this? congress didn't even create this program, it was just the administration who followed up and now is trying to justify it. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. flake: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no -- for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. fattah: i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. fattah: hopefully this is the last time i have to oppose my friend on the floor of the house. let me put this in perspective. this is an administration that in the last 26 months, 4.25 million new private sector jobs. in 2009, $70 billion in loans to small businesses. an administration that's well on its way to more than doubling the number of exports. we have seen a very significant turn around from the

administration that left a couple of years ago, walking out the door while we were losing 700,000 jobs a month. we lost millions of jobs over the last few months of the last administration. so now they have a commerce department that says, we're willing to build on the efforts to have companies around the world select the united states as a place where they want to set up manufacturing plants, stretched throughout much of our country now and the president visited the rolls royce plant in alabama, in alabama you have b.m.w.'s being built, all throughout, you see companies that see the united states as a place that has a world class work force, the kind of transparency, rule of law, ability to do transactions and have them protected in a court system that functions to attract foreign investment here system of what the commerce

department has done, which is not unlike other administrations, they take in a group of these activities and they rebranded them under select u.s.a. because it's catchy. it's got a freas to it. but these are activities that have been conducted by other administrations. will be conducted by future administrations. because we want businesses to see the united states as a place to locate. even in states like arizona, to locate and put people to work and make products so to come to the floor and say, this $6 million is wasted, no, this is a small investment that leads to billions of dollars in salaries, hundreds of millions in taxs for our country, we want to be open for business. this is a new day, it's a new scradmrgs, they are out there creating jobs and i guess that someone of the old crowd that

were losing jobs, but i think we should follow in the right direction here, i disagree with the gentleman, i hope that we vote down this amendment and that we support the activities of our commerce department to continue to build this economy. i yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman veck niced for five minutes. mr. broun: i yield to my friend mr. flake of arizona. mr. flake: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i would simply submit that when the committee has to ask in report language, please justify and tell us what you're doing, it's a pretty good indication that we don't know and that the program is frivolous and we're wasting money with it. so right here, select u.s.a., let me read from the committee report, the committee recommends $6.125 million for

select u.s.a. initiative, $3,425,000 more than fiscal year 2012 level and $6,125,000 less than the request. simply cut the request in half. the i.t.a. redirected $2.7 million in f.y. 2012, on and on and on, it says no later than november 30, 2013, the secretary shall report on the location and type of assistance provided. the state to which -- the state to which firms sought to relocate and why as well as a number of foreign firms that decided to locate in the united states as a result of select u.s.a. process. . if we didn't know this by now, why are we giving them

$6.45 million. we are running a deficit and throwing money away like this and we don't even know what they're doing. >> would the gentleman yield? mr. flake: i would briefly. the chair: the gentleman from jea controls the time. mr. fattah: we will be together tomorrow morning at the prayer service. georgia has benefited from this effort and pennsylvania has benefited. the language is the work of the committee to ensure oversight that the funds that are now being provided, a report of those funds and which states benefit so that when we have some other gentlemen on the floor wanting to cut the program, we have the ability to testify as to the great work this program is doing. i thank the gentleman for yielding.

>> i yield back to mr. flake. mr. flake: when we don't know what they are doing and the only justification comes from the administration, a company that has been investing in this country for 40 years that needs no help or match maker pair them with u.s. firms. in fact, this company actually received -- a canadian firm investing in the united states, they received trade adjustment assistance during the downturn when employees were laid off from a canadian company in the u.s. i would submit that if a company knows how to milk the u.s. taxpayer for that, if a foreign company, they know how to invest here. they know it pretty well. we have advertised it. and what this web site or this select u.s.a. does is tell them the benefits they can receive

when they are here, like subsidies like this. i would submit, mr. chairman, we've got to start somewhere, and this ought to be it. i can't stress enough how we've got to start cutting some spending. this is a great place to start. with that, i urge adoption of the amendment and yield back. and i thank back. mr. broun: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. fattah: a recorded vote. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. mr. fattah: i seek a recorded vote. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. flake: i have an amendment at the desk, number three. the clerk: amendment number three offered by mr. flake of arizona. section 542, none of the funds

made available by this act may be used to carry out the functions of the political science program in the division of social and economic sciences of the direct ate on social, behavioral and international sciences of the international science foundation. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for five minutes. mr. flake: this would prohibit the international science foundation to fund political science research. it does not reduce funding for the n.s.f. i offered an amendment that would reduce n.s.f. funding. this amendment is simply oriented toward ensuring at the least that the n.s.f. does not waste taxpayer dollars on a meritless program. it is closing on a $16 trillion debt, deficit more than $1.3 trillion. 40 cents of every dollar we spend is borrow. congress can either continue

funding unnecessary programs or we can face facts that there simply isn't enough money to go around. i stand here today and i'll defend responsible federal spending on matters of federal responsibility. among other things, congress ought to ensure funding for a strong national defense, secure border. there are things, however, give i don't know the economic realities, that congress ought to reconsider funding on the back of future generations. just remember, every dollar we're spending in discretionary spending this year, we are borrowing from our kids and our grandkids. mr. fattah: i can think of -- mr. flake: according to the n.s.f. web site, more than $80 million has been awarded to the programs' projects.

three-quarters of these awards totalling $46 million were directed to universities with endowments greater than $1 billion. three-quarters of these awards for political science research totalling over $46 million were directed to universities that have endocuments greater than $1 billion. the money goes to the wealthiest universities in the country. those who oppose this amendment believe that harvard and yale would have to close their political science if federal grants were not available? of course not. these departments will be just fine. our greatest concern is not who receives them but how they are spent. every dollar is money we don't have. what kind of research is n.s.f. charging to our credit card.

a new model for international climate change analysis and if policy makers do what citizens want them to do. $600,000 here spent trying to figure out if policy makers actually do what citizens want them to do. i think we can answer that question in about five minutes. whether we vote on this amendment because i can tell you people out there want us to quit funding projects like this. $301,000 to study gender. $200,000 to study why political candidates make statements. why political candidates make vague statements? that's what we are paying for here. these studies might satisfy the occur osyits of a few academics, but i doubt that society would benefit from them. how can we justify them. i hold a graduate degree in

political science myself. i agree that such research has its benefits. the work of political scientists advance the knowledge and understanding of citizenship, government, politics. this shouldn't be minimized. but they shouldn't be subsidized by the national science foundation. we can't continue to spend money like this. i urge adoption of the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. fattah: i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. fattah: imagain opposing my friend's amendment. this program has been around for 30 years. in light of political change that has swept across the world from the time that this program started, i think it may appear to be costly, $11 million out of a $7 billion funding for the

national science foundation, but i think however expensive an education may be, it will probably cost our country more. it is important we understand the political dynamics, radicalizations of populations, how political parties operate and the former soviet union, all the other issues that are being studied. there are a list of studies from the national science foundation could get a laugh on any day, but these studies are important, merit-based and decided on merit only. the fact that some of the best funded universities win have to do with the fact that they have very gr faculty who put -- very good faculty and they provide our country and society a great

deal of intellectual benefit. there is some advantage to be anti-intellectual, some desire to know little or less about what is going on in the world about us. now, singapore has 4.8 million and put $7 billion in the national science foundation. we put $7 billion and we are debating about cutting money. try to understand how their political system got to the point of understanding that even in a very small country, it was critically important for them to become indispensible for having a thirst for knowledge. i would hope that this house would reject this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. broun: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

mr. broun: i yield five minutes to mr. flake. mr. flake: i won't take all my time. but there is something to the last factor, at some point we have to realize here that the country's watching us and looking and seeing we are funding programs like $600,000 to figure out if policy makers are doing what they are doing what citizens want them to do. we are funding this. with taxpayer dollars. the test ought to be for all of us, whatever we are spending money here, is this program worth borrowing money from our kids and grandkids, from some countries that don't like us very much. we are borrowing on bonds and that doesn't pass this test and doesn't even come close. and if we simply say this is a big n.s.f. budget and this is a

very small part of it, this program, if we continue to say that, we'll never cut it. and that's the problem here. we aren't sm the n.s.f. funding overall is way up over the post-stimulus level. at the time the stimulus was passed, we said the programs will come down, they haven't. we are continuing to fund them. and programs like this, the country looks around and says, this is laughable. look at what our policy makers are doing. again, i would say, we will find out the question, the $600,000 question as to what policy makers actually do what citizens want them to do as to how we vote on this amendment right now. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to.

mr. fattah: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. broun: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. broun of georgia. insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to carry out or enforce section 5 of the voting rights act of 1965, 42 u.s.c. 1973-c. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for five minutes. mr. broun: my amendment would simply prohibit any funds in this underlying bill from being used to carry out section 5 of

the voting rights act of 1965. seven states in the south as well as arizona, texas and a number of counties stattered across the country required to receive federal pre-clearance to every change they make in election laws. the provision stipulates only changes in election laws in those covered locations which are shown to be nondiscriminatory may be precleared. unfortunately, the burden of proof that a change is none discriminatory is on the state or locality which wishes to make the change. the standard of practice is known to be highly subjective with no presumption of innocence. it is highly unfair allowing some states to make changes to our election laws, while other states wishing to make the same changes are forced to jump through a bunch of hoops.

i know how onerous this law is. our own state has struggled with the department of justice over voter identification laws. the state of arizona is suing to be freed from section 5, showing evidence that it made accommodations for spanish-speaking voters long ago. on the other side of the country, south carolina is challenging department of justice's decision to overturn its voter identification law. . as americans, we pride ourselves on our electoral system but we can't trust it when we don't guarantee that people who come to the polls are el wribble to do so. i'm not the only one that feel

it's an antiquated provision. earlier this year, the u.s. supreme court reaffirmed its concern about what they stated, quote, serious constitutional questions raised by sections -- by section five's intrusion into states, end quote. mr. chairman, we're supposed to be treated equal under the law. this section of the federal statute treats some states more equal than other states. the states being discriminated against, my home state of georgia is one of those. it's time for us to go to what the constitution says we should all be treated, equal under the law. it's long pastime to put this provision to rest. i urge support of my amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> mr. chairman, i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. this is an appropriations bill. mr. farr: we're suppose to be discussing how we appropriate money to the commerce department, state department and justice department. people are just coming in here offering all kinds of amendments to make no funds available. that isn't the way you set policy, it isn't the way you have discussions on an issue like this this is an important issue about enforcing the civil rights act, the voters' rights act of 1965. don't think -- you don't think we had discussion in this country? don't you think we still have discrimination making it difficult for people to access the voting booth? i come from a county a district, that is under this section. i'm from california. the gentleman spoke about

georgia. there are states like even california that have counties that qualified to be under this act because they have so low percentage of adults registered to vote. obviously, these counties were making it very difficult. what this says, in those counties, when you draw political districts, you have to have them reviewed by the jus tit department. what's wrong with that? there's a history of discrimination. to come into an appropriations bill and take a big whack out of it in the voting rights act in an election year, what message are we sending? that these states that want to make it very difficult for people to vote are showing how democracy ought to be practiced around the world? >> would the gentleman yield? mr. farr: no.

i, you know, i think these and a lot of other amendments warrant serious debate in congress but certainly not on this bill, not at this time, 10:00 at night. in an election year. on a voting rights act bill that deals with the basic, fundamental rights of individuals being able to have access to the ballot. no, sir. this amendment is inappropriate at this time and ought to be voted down. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas rise? >> thank you, mr. speaker. i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i yield to my colleague from georgia. mr. broun: i thank my friend. i'd like to remind my good friend from california that georgia's voter identification law has been upheld by the courts an the provision of voter identification is simply

to ensure integrity at the polls. that people who are voting are the people who are supposed to be voting. we all have heard and joked about the saying in chicago vote early and vote often. the only way we can ep sure the integrity of the vote, the only way to ensure that people who are voting are those that are supposed to be voting, is by having some identification. and that's simply what this is all about. it's not to prohibit people from coming to the polls, it's not prohibit or to discriminate against anybody. who is being discriminated against here are the states. those jurisdictions that are falling under section 5. we should all be treated equal under the law. i don't believe in discrimination, for or against anybody. we have a history of discrimination in my state, throughout the country, we still have discrimination. i find discrimination

deplorable. and i reject it. in any matter. but we should be all treated equal under the law. we need to make sure we have integrity at the polls. we make sure that the people who are voting are truly the people who say they are. i know in some jurisdictions, a person just walks into the polls and says, i'm joe smith. they say fine, i see you on the polls, go vote. we can't have that in this country. it's not right, it's not fair. and the people who -- joe smith or whoever is elected in that election needs to have absolute assurance that the person that they voted for won it fair and care, that elections are not stolen, that elections are fair, that whoever comes out of -- at the top of the ballot is the one who really won. so this is not about discrimination. it's not preventing anyone from

voting. it's simply just to make sure we have integrity and the people across this country can be sure that their vote counts and be sure that somebody else's vote, who may be an illegal in this country or who may not be qualified to vote for whatever reason, or who may have already voted but wants to vote a second time is not doing so. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back rp for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia, the chairman, rise? mr. wolf: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. wolf: i was the only member of the virginia dell bation to -- delegation to vote for the voting rights act in 1982. i attended school for one year in a state that i saw things that were different than i had seen before. and there's a simon and

garfunkel song, man is what -- hear what is he wants to hear and disregards the rest. we can't disregard what has taken place in the country. now, we may be reaching a point that this should be looked at again. my state, i believe there's no discrimination now in my state. i think the judiciary committee ought to look at this carefully. but this is not the place to do this and it is such a sensitive issue, section 5 of the voting rights act applied to jurisdictions determined to have a history of discriminating against minority voters. section 5 requires certain coverage -- covered jurisdictions, based on the formula set forth in section 4, to preclear their redistricting plans with either the department of justice or the u.s. department court for the district of columbia before implementation. in order to be granted

preclearance, jurisdiction has the burden of proving that the proposed voting change neither has the purpose nor will have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, or color, or membership in a language minority group. litigation is pending now in the federal district court including the case of texas vs. holder, the challenge -- that challenges the constitutionality of the coverage and preclearance requirements of sections four and five. in its 2009 decision, northwest austin municipal utility district, the supreme court may have signaled a willingness to reconsider the constitutionality of the preclearance regime and coverage formula but this is not an amendment that i think is appropriate here and again, as we deal with this thing, we have to be very, very sensitive because quite frankly, i remember in 1982, when i voted

for this, there were editorials in the richmond time -- there were editorials in the "richmond times dispatch" ripping me apart for this vote. but because i believe everyone should have the right to vote, i voted for it. but i will also say, again, we may be approaching a time that this would go because we want a nation where no one is discriminated against, we may have reached that point, but i think the judiciary committee should hold extensive hearings -- hearings, we should see what the support of the supreme court does. but i think this is not the place to do it. so i strongly rise in opposition to the amendment. >> i'd like to ask the chairman to yield. mr. wolf: i yield. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding and i've enjoyed a great relationship with the gentleman, you mentioned that there might be an appropriate time. how do you objectively determine when there's an appropriate time for not

extending section 5? mr. wolf: i'm not a legal scholar and at 10 after 10:00, i don't think it's appropriate to discuss it but there may be a time, i believe now in my tate there's not discrimination with regard to voting. i think our governor is a good, decent guy and i don't think he wants to discriminate against anybody. the members of the general assembly are of that same mind. yet there had been in a case in previous times, in the state of virginia. so i'm not going to be that, i went to georgetown law school, it's an accredited law school but i'm i'm not going to begin here tonight to lay it out. i think we have a georgetown graduate there. i don't think this is what we ought to do tonight. our initial -- i initially wasn't going to speak but i feel strongly. i go back, i remember in 1982, voting for this, and people

felt, i just felt in my heart this was the right thing to do. as of now in my heart, it tells me not to adopt this amendment and we can see if the swrue dish care committee can hold hearings both in the house and senate, we can see what the supreme court will do, but i just don't think this amendment is -- this is the place and i strongly -- i reclaim -- reclaiming my time, i oppose the amendment and yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lewis: it is hard and difficult and almost unbelievable that any member, especially a member from the state of georgia, would come and offer such amendment. there's a long history in our country, especially in the 11 states that are -- of the old confederacy from virginia to

texas, a discrim -- of discrimination based on race. on color. maybe some of us need to study a little contemporary history dealing with the question of voting rights. just think, before the voting rights act of 1965, it was almost impossible for many people in the state of georgia, in alabama new york virginia, in texas, to register to vote, to participate in the democratic process. the state of mississippi, for example, had a black voting aged population of more than 450,000 and only about 16,000 were registered to vote. one county in alabama was more than 80% but not more than -- but not a single registered african-american voter, people had to pass a literacy test.

one man was asked to count the jelly beans in a jar. it's shameful to come here tonight and say to the department of justice you must not use one penny, one cent, one dime, one dollar to carry out the mandate of section 5 of the voting rights act. we should be opening up the political process and letting all our citizens come in and participate. people died for the right to vote. friends of mine. colleagues of mine. speak out against this amendment. it doesn't have a place. i yield to the chairman. this is -- i agree with the chairman. this is not the place. i will not yield. i urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

mr. jackson: let me associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished gentleman from georgia, mr. lewis, who paid the price for this voting rights act, the voting rights act of 1965, on the edmund pettus bridge. he paid beyond measure, he sacrificed beyond measure to make this a reality for every american this year -- this near-midnight attack is an unprecedented attack on the implementation legislation of the 15th amendment to the constitution, the 1965 voting rights act. it took this congress 95 years, from the moment the 15th amendment was added to the constitution of the united states, for this congress to wake up after selma to montgomery, to pass legislation to implement the voting rights act. . for me to hear the chairman of the subcommittee, for him to argue that there may be a time and we may be

approaching a time when the voting rights act, preclearance of section 5 is no longer necessary couldn't be further from the truth. here's how the legislative process works. first, whoever who is in the political majority, democrat or republican usually draws legislative lines consistent with their political advantage, whether it's the democratic party or with with with with where -- or whether the republican or democrat party. almost never before the 1965 voting rights act had racial minorities or language minorities ever been considered as a factor in the ongoing partisan debate between republicans and democrats. only the voting rights act of 1965 says if a language minority or a racial minority in a protected jurisdiction can draw

a congressional district or can zraw a state representative district or a state senatorial district to give a racial minority the opportunity to represent their own people in a legislative body, the state legislative body must take that into account and for us to be standing here on the floor of congress about the right to vote, we aren't discussing the right to vote. we are discussing whether or not legislators will be effective in representing their constituents because most of us can't go to our governors or our state legislatures to protect the franchise for minorities. i know that the first congressional district, second congressional district, seventh congressional district of illinois are all section 2 of the voting rights act, from virginia to texas, because we still cannot trust democrats, because we still cannot trust

republicans in virginia, all the way around to texas to consider racial minorities in the drawing of congressional districts, sure those states must implement their plans by submitting their plans to the federal government for preclearance. look at the language minorities. look at what's taking place in texas. look at what is taking place in new mexico. new mexico, a state 25% latino and the state legislature played games of what constitutes an effective legislative district which might give a latino the opportunity to represent constituents in congress. it plays both sides, both republicans and democrats have used race as a partisan advantage in trying to draw congressional districts and legislative districts. i appeal to you, mr. speaker, to reject this amendment at midnight. reject this unconstitutional, unprecedented attack on the

civil rights of every american. reject efforts to undermine the implementation legislation of the 15 amendment earned through an american civil war aalong with number 13, 14 and 15. reject this effort to roll back the civil rights gained of 1965 by undermining the funding and the federal government's capacity to ensure that minorities have a chance to represent themselves in the congress of the united states. reject this effort on this evening both democrat and republican should reject it in a bipartisan manner. and with that, i know the gentleman is going to strike the last word but i want to give him the last minute i have in addition to striking the last word. i return the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? does the gentleman seek to

strike the last word. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, one of the proudest moments of my experience here in the house is the work done on a bipartisan basis of the extension of the voting rights act. i have been involved in the extension of the voting rights act in several congresses ago. mr. lungren: as attorney general of the state of california, i was involved in the preclearance procedures by the justice department of several of the jurisdictions in my home state. the voting rights act has stood as one of the great efforts of progress in this country, but as a the u.s. supreme court said as it reviewed the preclearance requirements, there will come a time when this unprecedented power of the federal government versus the sovreignty of the

states will end. the preclearance requirement contained in the voting rights act is an an unnecessary anomaly and we should understand that the court viewed it as such. the problem i have with the current status of the voting rights act is it gives no opportunity for an escape clause by those jurisdictions that have proven over the decades that they have, in fact, changed their practices. there is no means by which a jurisdiction can come forward and show that over a decade, they have not, in fact, discriminated, but acted appropriately, and therefore this tremendous justice department authority will be no more there. but this is not the place to deal with it, i would say. a funding resolution is not the place to deal with it.

this is an important issue that ought to be addressed and i hope my friend on the other side of the aisle would recognize that when you have a jurisdiction that has 10, 20, 30, 40 years followed the law, perhaps we ought to reward them and provide incentives for other jurisdictions to do the same. also historically, there is a reason almost historical accident by which some of the jurisdictions in california are covered. it had to do with a low turnout election in which a large percentage of the people who were considered citizens happened to be military folks who didn't vote in that area in that particular election and has been a static analysis, which as a result in those jurisdictions continue to be covered under that section of the law which allows this unprecedented authority the justice department to plea clear. and i would hope that we would have the courage to stand up and look at the changes that have taken place and give credit to

the consensus of conscious that i think has prevailed in this country and has aided us greatly. but i would just say this is not the time or the place within a short period of time on the floor of the house try to make a significant change in that. and with all due respect to my friend from georgia who points out some of the problems here, i would oppose this amendment. i hope we have the courage to recognize that changes may be necessary and this is an unprecedented authority that is granted to the justice department. no other jurisdictions are required to come before the justice department and ask their permission as to whether they make change as simple as changing a date or making any change with respect to any election process in that jurisdiction. so i hope my friends on the other side who have, i think appropriately opposed the

gentleman's amendment, would also recognize there is a large area in which we should discuss the current status vis-a-vis the current fact situations that are in all jurisdictions. let us hope that as bad it is in the past there is redemption and there can be changed hearts and we believe we can change practices and we believe that in fact, maybe the goodwill of our fellow citizens will prevail and when it has done so, let us recognize that, give them credit for it and in the law, provide incentives for other jurisdictions to also change their ways. so with that, mr. chairman, i would yield back the balance of time asking that we not support this amendment but at the same time recognizing the legitimacy of the shortcomings of the law as applied currently and the failure of the congress to make changes to give credit to those jurisdictions that have, in fact, acted in good faith.

the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. fattah: i move to strike the last word and i yield to my friend in one second. let me make a couple of comments. i think we see why this is not the process for these types of riders on a bill. in states that are not covered by section 5, there have been outrageous circumstances as it relates to particularly african americans and access to the franchise. in philadelphia, cado was beaten to death by a few blacks from the home of my childhood when he tried to exercise his right to vote. our country has come a long way. we made a lot of progress and section 5 is there for a reason. and these states in the south,

nazis and prisoners of wars were treated better than african americans who served in the war. for the party of lincoln to be on the floor of the house today on this issue when it was really republicans that have joined in in the passage of the voting rights act when members of our party refused to regret these rights to african americans i think is unfortunate. we can move forward. i want to yield to my friend. we will be in worship tomorrow morning at 8:00 a.m. and i yield to him. mr. broun: i apologize to my good friend from georgia who has gotten angry with this amendment and i ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment. i deplore discrimination of any kind. as far as i'm concerned, i believe in the bible. i think it's the only standard

of truth that we have. as far as i'm concerned, only one race, it's the human race because we all came from adam and eve and no one should be discriminated for any reason. i have the same dream that martin luther king had, where people are accepted for their character and not any discrimination because of their skin or anything else. i don't want any insinuation that i would believe in any kind of discrimination or try to suppress anyone from having their constaugs neal-given rights. i did he test -- detest that. >> mr. fattah: i appreciate the

comments. mr. broun: i wasn't trying to hurt anybody's feelings. mr. fattah: reclaiming my time, i thank you very much. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is seeking recognition. mr. broun: i ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. the chair: without objection, the amendment is withdrawn. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the chair: would the gentleman specify the amendment? >> i believe it is number 24.

the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 24 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. huelskamp of kansas. the chair: the gentleman from kansas is recognized for five minutes. mr. huelskamp: i know the hour is late, but i offer this amendment and i think many of us believe our nation is not a nation of men but a nation of laws. when congress passes and a president of any party signs into law, mr. chairman, it's the law of the land. if a new president or a new attorney general doesn't like an existing law, it's not his or her prerogative to enforce that law. it their obligation to defend it. but i'm sorry to say this is lost on the current administration in a very clear

and flagrant obligation of its responsibilities. and eric holder and with the blessing of the president and not defending the large law and signed into law by president bill clinton. i'm offering an amendment to prohibit the department of justice from spending taxpayer money to undermine the defense of marriage act and stop the department of justice from ultimately undermining the rule of law. just last night, the 30th state to actually pass an amendment to amend its constitution and protect traditional marriage is the state of nofert carolina, it becomes an easy target for the administration. my amendment would prevent the department of justice from interfering in north carolina in its marriage amendments or marriage laws. we have 30 states that have marriage amendments, states of

alaska, nevada, mississippi, missouri, montana, colorado, arizona, california, nebraska, arkansas, georgia, kentucky, louisiana, utah, texas, kansas, alabama, idaho, south carolina, south dakota, wisconsin, florida, north carolina, michigan and virginia. each of these states the population in each of these states the citizens passed a marriage amendment to define marriage and this amendment would protect those definitions from any contravention by this department. . the administration doesn't have to agree with the law, but they have to enforce and respect it. 30 states have constitutional amendments defining marriage between one man and one woman. we have current officials of the administration who have expressed their political preferences against traditional

marriage and against the defense of marriage act. against marriage amendments. whatever the platform contains, whatever personal preferences are, unless those laws are changed, unless those amendments are repealed by the people of these states, they stand to remain the lew of their states and remain the law of the land. it would also, it's clearly in my opinion, the administration is turning the justice department into a legal mouthpiece for its campaign rather than its four enforce the law. most concerning is the fact that in turning the justice department into an instrument for legislating political favors, rather than enforcing the rule of law, it's because the department o-- it's become the department of politics, not the department of justice. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment, support the folks of 30 state the citizens who have made decision and also the states of 50 states that passed marriage laws. these are profected from

contravention by those of us in washington. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. frank: to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frank: mr. chairman, to begin, i have read this amendment, and if it were to be law in an hour, it does not appear it would affect anything that's now happening in the federal government. the gentleman said that they were trying to undermine the act. and that they should enforce it. in fact, the administration has been very clear, while they disagreed with the act, would like it repealed, they believe it's unconstitutional, it is now on the books and nothing is being done in contravention of the defense of marriage act. that is, there are no things now going on where the federal government recognizes the rights of same-sex marriage. so i guess my main opposition

to this is that the bill's already big enough, this doesn't add anything in substance. it adds a few words. i would yield if anyone would tell me what the reference is to the not enforcing the act. it is true the administration declined to defend the act in court but not defending an act in court in no way means that you are contravening it in the enforcement. going to court is a different sorry. as a matter of fact, the house republican leadership voted to go to court to defend it. i would be glad if someone could tell me. the defense of marriage act said the federal government will grant no rights to same-sex marriage -- married couples that come from marriage. it's not doing that. i agree the administration doesn't like that but the suggestion that they are undermining the law is simply wrong. i understand, and this may be the confusion, that the gentleman originally planned to

offer a different amendment and that amendment, he was told, was not in order and maybe he changed the amendment, somebody forgot to change his speech. the speech he gave may apply to the earlier amendment but it doesn't apply to this one. it seems to me kind of a waste this late in the evening but what the heck, the evening is shot anyway. i does -- it does not say the administration should not go to court. that is not contravening the defense of marriage act. contravening the defense of marriage act would be extending benefits. i want to reassure the gentleman, when i get married in july to jim, i will not be looking for any federal benefits. he wouldn't be eligible for my pension even if i got one, i won't get one, but he wouldn't into el visible if i got one. in fact, nothing being done by the federal government or contemplated by this administration contravenes the

defense of marriage act. what the administration has said is we think it's unconstitutional and we oppose it. there are some who say, like the secret from kansas -- not the gentleman from kansas, some have said, how dare you ask the court to throw out a law passed by congress. you've heard that rhett rake -- rhetoric. the congress passed the law, how does the court overthrow it. that's what i used to hear more from my friends before the health care bill came up. there are now two major pieces of legislation passed by this congress, not this particular one, that are being contested and people are asking the u.s. supreme court to throw them out. one is the defense of marriage act. one is the health care bill. you can be against in principle the courts throwing out an about of congress as unconstitutional. you can be for the principle and against the application. you cantcy it's perfectly ok to cancel the health care bill but not to challenge the defense of marriage act.

i actually -- i assume they'll want a roll call because they want to all this effort, they'd like to be able to add this to their campaigns, it literally means nothing because there's no contravention going on now so i'll be glad to vote against it, if other people vote for it, they can do so in the confidence that it doesn't do anything. the defense of marriage act says, you don't grant benefits to same-sex couples as if they were marry. nobody is doing that. that isn't happening. it won't happen until and unless the supreme court finds unconstitutionality. refusing to defend an act in court, in the english language is not contravention, as a matter of fact, not going to court is not using funds. maybe he went to -- meant to say, none of the funds in this act may be not used in contravention, because they're

not spending any money by not spend anything money. maybe he meant to say they should pend the money. i don't know. but it is -- i understand his original intention was ruled out of order. he had a place in the agenda so he offered an amendment but it doesn't mean very much. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> mr. speaker, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. speaker, i had anticipated and we'd been told that the gentleman was going to offer an amendment that said none of the funds in this act may be used by the justice department to argue against the defense of marriage -- to argue for the defense of marriage act in court. i was going to object on the same grounds i have on some other amendments earlier today, we should not be politicizing the justice department and telling them to defend this in court, don't defend that in court. mr. nadler: as the gentleman

from massachusetts says, this amendment seems to do nothing at all. none of the funds made available in this act may be used in contravention of the defense of marriage act. none of the funds are being used in contravention of the defense of marriage act. the only way i can see funds might be used in contravention of the defense of marriage act would be after the supreme court declared the defense of marriage act unconstitutional. if the court declares the defense of marriage act unconstitutional, then the constitution frankly would demand under the equal protection clause that funds be spent against the will of what had been the defense of marriage act. if the defense of marriage act is unconstitutional, then someone will, who is married under the laws of the state, some state that permits same-sex marriage, will demand that -- to have joint filing of income taxes or demand the

benefits a spouse gets and it would be unconstitutional not to grant that. so this amendment is frankly silly and shouldn't go into the statute books because until and unless the defense of marriage act is declared unconstitutional, it means nothing. once the defense of marriage act is declared unconstitutional, if it is, this itself would be unconstitutional as against the clause. i urge people to vote against it. we shouldn't pass meaningless statutes which this is or would be unless it is declared untugal and we shouldn't pass clearly unconstitutional acts which this would be. it ought to be withdrawn but certainly should not be voted for. i urge my colleagues not to vote for this whatever you think of doma, because if doma

is constitutional, this is -- if doma is declared unconstitutional, this would be unconstitutional, and if it's not, it's unnecessary and has no effect in any event. so -- i don't know what the point of wasting our time with it is, but we should oppose it. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> mr. chairman, i request to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. polis: thank you, mr. chairman. this is a very strange amendment, as my colleagues have pointed out. we are obviously a very diverse country, some states allow same sex marriages, others don't. some have civil unions. my home state of colorado is discussing this issue in the state legislature, it's certainly very contentious and i wish them well in coming to a speedy resolution. but what this amendment does is

simply contravenes something that doesn't occur. it talks about funds being used in contravention of the defense of marriage act. there are no such funds. this administration, as the last administration, have followed the defense of marriage act. i certainly out of political convenience, i would say would that it were, if only this administration had been granting immigration rights or inheritance and survivorship rights to committed same-sex couples that were married in the states that have them but it's not the case. now, i understand there might be fears that perhaps someday a future administration might seek to violate the law in this area, but i think it's -- it shows a fixation to try to single out this area. a future administration may try to violate the law in any one of a number of areas but to have a fixation on and support for a government takeover of

the institution of marriage is a very cages precedent. i wish that my colleagues on the other side oaf thil a -- of the aisle -- other side of the aisle would help preserve the integrity of marriage in this country and preserve its importance to all families, including mine and my colleague from massachusetts and many others. we do not currently use any funds in contravention of the defense of marriage act. there are a number of us in this body who seek to repeal this act, this house as a whole has not repealed this act, it very much has the rule of law but just like other laws, the administration and executive branch are charged with implementing that law. around i think it is a bizarre step to single out one particular area of law with many, many, many laws that the executive branch operates under and say, we don't want them to violate this law, when there's no evidence, no sign, no indication that any

administration, democratic or republican, has any desire to violate this law. the decision not to -- the decision not to defend this law is unaffected by this amendment. to be clear, if this amendment passes, the administration has no bearing on -- it has no bearing on the administration's decision not to defend the undefend rble, the jovet takeover of marriage that my colleagues on the other side seem to support. marriage is a personal relationship between two people who are in love. and of course it's -- its precise definition is up to each state in terms of who they allow and under what conditions they allow to marry and to have the federal government enter this debate is very contrary to the definition of marriage itself. and frankly, debases the thousands of same-sex marriages that have occurred in this country. so again, while this amendment would do nothing, and certain

-- it certainly wouldn't jeopardize the administration's not to defend the undefensible, the government takeover of marriage, i still urge opposition to this measure because i think it is bizarre to single out one particular area or one particular type of marriage that a -- some members of the body may not personally approve of. i yelled back the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? mr. king: i move to strike the last word. . mr. king: i rise in support of the huelskamp amendment and i have listened to the gentleman from colorado, government takeover of marriage, the church have established marriage, but when it comes to civil marriage, the government rights the rules. if the government is writing the rules, it's not a takeover of marriage. the definition of marriage has

been a man and woman joined together for the purposes of encouraging a family unit and raising children and pouring our values down through to the next generation because that is the most successful way we can advance civilization. government has an interest of promoting marriage for the purposes of holding together the continuity of our culture and civilization. it's not the government taking over marriage. it is the voice of the american culture and the american people seeking to advance into the following generations the best values that we have. and those that say it is discrimination to determine what marriage is, i would argue instead, mr. chairman that government provides a license. the states provide licenses for marriage. a license is a definition to do

that which is otherwise illegal, a license to hunt, a license to carry a gun. a license to -- if i have time i will yield to the gentleman from colorado. but states issue marriage licenses because they want to promote and encourage an activity and a behavior, not because they want to punish another behavior. it's because there is something that they have determined has value and so they give a permit to do that which is otherwise illegal. that's the definition of a license. with regard to the president and the executive branch, the constitution and the oath that's implied in the constitution and the oath that the president takes that is implied that he adheres and the constitution says he shall take care that the laws are faithfully executed. so the law of the united states is doma, the defense of marriage act, the president's appointees and those elected in the

executive branch of government is to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. the executive branch are bound by his own oath and take their own oath to uphold. and when the president decides he is going to flip or let it evolve and then direct and i believe it is direct, direct the department of justice to first refuse to support and have the solicitor general no longer support federal law passed by a majority of this congress, the house and the senate and signed by president clinton and then turn around we are concerned they are going to use taxpayer resources to defile a legitimate wall that is a law and that's what the amendment does that mr. huelskamp has offered that says it's bad enough that you don't keep your oath that the laws of the united states are faithfully executed and we want to say to

you don't turn a 180 us and go against the will of the american people and use taxpayer dollars. so out of courtesy, i would yield to the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: the gentleman's home state of iowa does allow same-sex couples to marry and whether your home state in iowa, whether civilization is in jeopardy or any of the things you mentioned in the earlier part of your remarks have hurt your home state of iowa. mr. king: it is in jeopardy, when you have seven supreme court justices in the state of iowa found and i quote, unimagined. if you have justice that have unjim begin independent rights they are unqualified to determine what is constitutional or unconstitutional and three of

the seven were up for a retention ballot and all three voted off the bench first time in the history of the state because people disagreed with them legislating from the bench because the people in the state understood that you could not have judges that will find rights in the constitution that junior unimagined and judges that will take your rights away, a president that will change his position and not uphold his oath of office, will direct the department of justice to work against it and the solicitor general to work against federal law will turn this thing 180 and use the federal resources against the will of the people of the united states. and that's the huelskamp amendment and i support it and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise?

mr. latourette: i have to tell you it is an unfortunate amendment. i find it to be an unfortunate amendment not for what some people may suspect. i was here for the defense of marriage act. i supported it and i believe it is constitutional, but this amendment is symptom matic of what i think the problem of this congress has been since it convened last january and that is first the c.r. and then some other bills and now the appropriations bills, some folks have decided they should be a pinata with extraneous issues. this issue, i would tell the author, is being resolved. the justice department i think wrongly made a decision not to defend the lawsuit, but as mr. nadler said and i commend him for saying it, that's the executive's prerogative but once

they make the decision, the congress is not powerless. the committee that chiss exists here in the house employed outside counsel and it is vigorousry defending the defense of marriage act and there are 30 lawsuits across the country. this matter will be resolved and the courts will say it is constitutional or unconstitutional and we will abide by it. where i find fault with my democratic friends, we talk about the exercise of money. you can't have it both ways. either the administration is going to defend it through the justice department or going to avail of our constitutional responsibilities, hire outside counsel. you can't criticize the speaker for defending our position and likewise i would suggest to my side of the aisle, this doesn't belong on mr. wolf's bill. this matter will be resolved and i think this entire string of limitation amendments are

disturbing because they continue a pattern now that has gone on for 18 months and i don't think that's what an open rule is all about. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: i strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: i know that members are probably drafting some more limitations as we speak and i respect their prerogative but i would add this point as i listen to my good friend from iowa, who i know is certainly a civil libertarian and believes in individual rights and the proponent of this amendment does as well and i would ask the proponent to similarly withdraw the amendment. there are several factors that would contribute to that.

the questionery by the gentleman from massachusetts whether the amendment even does anything. if we look at the 10th amendment which my friends on the other side of the aisle haveals paraded before us and even there is a domea law that the matter should be left to the state and there are many different positions on this issue throughout the state, throughout the different states. some have positions, do do not. now we have a bill or an amendment, rather, that simply seems to deal with actions stated by the executive on this very day. my friend from iowa wanted to speak about what the president has said or not said. what are we discussing here, the views of the president or the actions of the executive? and the actions of the executive, as has been stated are their prerogative and clearly is there have been no

actions by the government that should be contraconveniented and i believe in the rights of all people and i believe this amendment undermines the rights of all people and would ask this member to look at it from both the perspective of individual rights of civil liberties, the 10th amendment and whether or not the executive has done anything that relates to his amendment. and lastly will say that the president of the united states who commented today has ever right to speak his conscience, heart or mind and an amendment on the floor attempting to question that has no relationship to speech today versus actions of which need to be contraconveniented. i ask the gentleman to respectfully withdraw his amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. >> i move to strike the last

word. mr. lungren: i have heard the argument that it is the prerogative of the executive branch that it's going to defend the law legally passed by the congress and signed by the president. that is incorrect. there is an obligation by tradition and by the law that the attorney general is duty-bound to defend dual-constituted laws of the united states so long as he or she can find a constitutional basis for it. it is not the purpose, nor has it been in the past in democratic and republican administrations for a justice department to give to themselves the responsibility of which laws they like and which laws they do not like. you are the attorney for the united states and recognized as such. i recall as attorney general of california, i was required at times to defend laws that i

voted against but i could find a constitutional basis for it. and my real problem with this administration is they strain to find any constitutional basis to not defend. that is turning on its side. and -- ms. jackson lee: would the gentleman yield? mr. lungren: i will not yield. when the executive branch does not do what they should do, it requires us to make a decision as to whether we should now pay for outside counsel. that is not been the tradition of the united states. and this justice department, in my judgment, based on the experience i have had here in this congress, 18 years, my years as the chief legal officer of the state of california and 35 or 40 years as a practicing attorney tells me that this administration has fundamentally failed in its obligation to attempt to faithfully carry out the laws of the united states.

not to wake up every morning and decide, i think i can find an unconstitutional basis for a law passed by the congress. think of what that would mean. that would mean you have an administration in every instance deciding what laws they want and what laws they don't want that are on the books instead of coming here to the congress and attempting to change what the law is. and if we believe that we have an obligation when we hold up our hand to uphold the constitution, that means we just don't turn over things to the court and say you decide whether it's constitutional. we are duty-bound to pass what we think are constitutional laws in the administration of whatever stripe is obligated to attempt to defend those laws unless they can't find a constitutional basis for it, not to seek every possible unconstitutional basis so they don't have to defend. that's what the problem is here. and so while i understand many

of the arguments made here and understand what my friend from ohio said and i agree with much with what he has said let's not say it is the prerogative of the executive branch to decide whether to defend laws. it has been the history or the legacy of democratic and republican administrations going back to the founding of the republic. i yield back. ms. jackson lee: i'm not sure if he misinterpreted comments made on the floor. that is too broad a statement to say about the present department of justice when every single day, lawyers in the department of justice and the attorney general go out and go out and defend the law of this land. i ask the gentleman to take back that statement. mr. lungren: i claim back my time. i will not accept the

gentlelady's argument that i was condemning the actions of those people in the justice department who are acting as civil servants. i'm talking about the attorney general of the united states who evidently made the decision or if he didn't make the decision, failed to make the proper decision to uphold the laws of the united states dualy enacted by this congress. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from kansas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. >> i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings of the amendment offered by the gentleman from kansas will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the gentleman will

suspend. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? >> i rise to engage in a colloquy with the esteemed subcommittee chair. the chair: does the gentleman seek to strike the last word. >> i move to strike he the last word, mr. speaker. mr. clarke: first of all, i want to support the inclusion of $47 million in the national science foundation educational and human resources account, this is going to really further the effort to help educate americans in the area of science, technology, engineering an mathematics, it'll help inspire many of our young people to study math and science and go into these engineering and technology fields as careers. you know, some of the most engaging ways to inspire young people to study math and science involves informal education settings such as our

science centers throughout this country, most notably the detroit science center which engaged in programs that inspired many inner city youth and metro detroit youth to get involved in education in science and mathematics. so i wanted to thank the chair and the ranking member for including the resources in the national science foundation's budget to help provide competitive grants to many organizations such as the detroit science center to help further inspire and engage our young people to study math and science. we have a lot of jobs available even in metro detroit in manufacturing and technology, we just need the people trained in those areas. this effort, this funding will help encourage many of our young people to enjoy the intellectual stimulation of math and science and encourage

them to go into careers that are not only fruitful for them but will help our country's economy become more competitive in the ghobal marketplace. with that, i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. clarke: i yield my time to the gentleman from virginia. mr. wolf: i thank the gentleman, i thank the gentleman for his interest in stem education. i share his belief it's a priority and the more we invest in it is important nor country so the 21st semplingry is the american century, not the chinese century. i look forward to working with him as we move forward. mr. clarke: thank you, mr. chairman, i yield become my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise in mr. wolf: i move that the

committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the committee rising. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the motion is adopted and the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 5326 directs me to report it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 5326 and has come to no resolution thereon. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privilege red port from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the chair: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 648, to

accompany the bill h.r. 6252 pusuant to section 201 on the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2013. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. pursuant to the house resolution 642 and rule 18, the chair de-- 643 and rule 18, the chair delairs the house on in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h r. 5326. will the gentleman from georgia, mr. price, kindly resume the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 5326 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making propings for the departments of commerce and justice, science and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2013, and for other

purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole house on the state of the union -- when the committee of the whole rose earlier today, an amendment by the gentleman from kansas, mr. huelskamp, had been disposed of and the bill had been read through page 101, line 10. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. an amendment number 24 by mr. huelskamp of kansas, amendment by mr. landry of louisiana, amendment number 32 by mr. gardner of colorado, an amendment by mr. rohrabacher of california, amendment number 6 by mr. lewis of georgia, an amendment by mr. holt of new jersey, amendment number 7 by mr. cravaack of minnesota, a second amendment by mr. flake of arizona, a third amendment by mr. flake of arizona. the chair will reduce to two minutes the time for any electronic votes after the first series of votes.

the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 24 offered by the gentleman from kansas, mr. huelskamp, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 24 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. huelskamp of kansas. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. those in support of the recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device this is a -- members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 245 the nays are 171. the amendment is adopted. members are reminded that the remaining votes in this series are two-minute votes. the unfinished business is the amendment offered by mr. landry. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. landry of louisiana. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device.

this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this volt, the yeas are 218, the nays are 201. the seament adopt. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 32 offered by the gentleman from colorado, mr. gardner, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the nays prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 32 prinned in the congressional record offered by mr. gardner

of colorado. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be downed. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote -- the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 357, the nays are 68, the amendment is adopt. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher, on which further proceed wrgs postponed, on which the nays prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the

amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. rohrabacher of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: the yeas are 162 and the nays are 262 and the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a record the vote on the amendment offered by mr. lewis on which the nays prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. lewis of georgia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise and be counted.

a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 189 and the nays are 235 and the amendment is not adopted. unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by mr. holt on further proceedings were post poped and nays prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. holt of new jersey. the chair: a recorded vote has

been requested. those will rise and be counted. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the

yeas are 19 , the nays are 232 and the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 7 offered by the gentleman from minnesota, mr. cravaack on which further proceedings were postponed and ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. cravaack of minnesota. the chair: those in support of a recorded vote will rise. number, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 238 and the nays are 188 and the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the second amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, on which further proceedings were post poped and the ayes prevailed. the clerk will designate the amendment. a recorded vote has been requested. those in request of a recorded vote will rise. a a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 209 and the nays are 217 and the amendment is not adopted. unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on the third amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, on which further proceedings were postponed. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: third amendment offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. vote vote -- [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house

proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 218, the nays are 208, the amendment is adopted. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 101, line 11, this act may be cited as the commerce, justice, science and related agencies appropriations act, 2013. the chair: the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> mr. chairman, i move that the committee do now rise and report the bill back to the house. with sundry amendments with the recommendations that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill as amended be passed. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopt. accordingly the committee rises.

the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 5326 directs me to report the same back to the house with sundry amendments with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill pass as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 5326 and reports the bill back to the house with sundry amendments adopted in the committee of the whole with a recommendation that the amendments be adopted and that the bill as amend bd passed. under house resolution 643, the previous question is ordered. in a -- is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not the chair will put them engross. the question is on adoption of the amendment. those in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendments are adopted. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the departments of commerce and justice, science and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2013, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 1-c of rule 19, further consideration of h.r. 5326 is postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. wolf: i move that the house now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the house stands ad

members of the president's cabinet and the nation's governors. you can get a copy for $12.95 on line at c-span.org/shop. >> i had my ambition to walk

with john smith. this makes a rectangular space. pocahontas married john rolfe in this church. i guarantee you i am standing exactly, a little deeper than she was, but this is where she stood when she got married. >> tore the jamestown colony dig with the program's director. it has yielded more than 1.5 million unique artifacts. take the store on 1:30 p.m. and then enjoying in the conversation on saturday at 2:30 p.m. eastern, part of american history tv this weekend on c- span3. >> i thought it was important to write a book that might took

movements seriously. how did the movement to build? obama did not come out of nowhere. also the tea party movement which seems to come out of nowhere. how does it work? how about occupier wall street. i think those things were important to take seriously. >> former white house adviser van jones, saturday night at 10:00 eastern. kend, in the death, of liberalism sunday night at 11:00. >> coming up next, fbi director robert mueller testify said a house hearing. political strategist karl rove discusses the 22 elections and a senate hearing on the extension of the national flood insurance

program. fbi director robert mueller ask congress to renew the expiring provisions of the foreign intelligence surveillance act. he says it is needed to prevent terror plots like the recent one in which an explosion was to go off on a u.s. bound flight. this hearing is insured by lamar smith of texas. it is just over two hours. this is a good turnout. i recognize myself for an opening statement and then the ranking member will proceed with our questions. again, welcome to the oversight hearing of the fbi.

when he was last in front of this committee over a year ago, we all believed it would be his last hearing before the committee as the fbi director because his term was set to expire on september 4, in 2011. because of the changes the department of defense and the intelligence agency, the president requested he be renominated and serve an additional two years. he received this protocol office because he has led the fbi with integrity and skill to some of the most difficult and important here is in america's history. director mueller became the director days before the september 11 terrorist attacks. he led a historic transformation of the agency. he oversaw rapid expansion of the counter-terrorism division and continued in his focus on investigating federal crimes. under his leadership, the fbi

has stopped dozens of terrorist plots and remains vigilant against the threat of outside and like-minded groups. this threat to did not end with the death of osama bin laden. we learn that al qaeda leaders planned to detonate a bomb on a u.s.-bound jet around the anniversary of the modern's debt. american intelligence -- bin laden's death. american intelligence brought this to an end. a strong leader at the helm of the fbi is critical to our national security. so are strong laws that helped investigators and officials keep our nation safe. the fisa act is scheduled to expire at the end of this year. this law gives the intelligence committee and the tools it needs

to determine who terrorists communicate with, what they say, and what they may be planning. fisa strikes a balance as it allows the fbi to require intelligence about foreign terrorists abroad while preserving and protecting the civil liberties of citizens no matter where they are. i hope to hear a mueller director's vie -- hear director mueller's views on fisa. we appreciate his many years of public service. he has been an outstanding director of the api and america is safer and better because of his tenure. that concludes my opening statement. i recognize the gentleman from michigan. >> thank you, chairman smith. i join you in declaring director mueller a true patriot and one

committed to the rule of law and the constitution. i joined in supporting the extension of his term. now, when i first came to the house judiciary committee, the director of the fbi was j. edgar hoover. i remind you that to talk about and think about the transition and the changes that have gone on in law-enforcement and in the fbi in particular, so that we are looking at how we make the criminal justice system, make it work better and protect our

citizens more. i hope that in the course of our discussions this morning, we get to to several considerations that are on my mind as we begin this particular hearing. one is over incarceration. we put more people in prison than any other country on the planet. and with less successful results, i might add. i need to engage you in that issue. when we talk to each other, i am mostly talking to my colleagues.

these are subject matters that we need to examine when the head of the fbi is here as our witness. the other problem that i have to bring up, what affect is our overconcentration on counters -- counter-terrorism efforts, how has that hindered or affected the fight against crime inside the u.s.? violence, murders. other issues that to do not fall into the terrorist category? the other matter is the so- called ryan budget. which calls for four -and a half

fewer agents. that is something that we ought to have public discussions about as well. i include the diversion programs and treatment programs for less serious offenses as something that we might want to be looking at at the federal level and that the state level as well. i am sorry to bring up the materials used by the fbi, before your tenure, that painted

muslims as violent and likely to be "terrorist sympathizers." and followers of a "cult leader." the fact that this created great consternation not only in the law enforcement community and the muslim american community but among all fair thinking americans as well. as you know, the washington post has detailed a series of articles about the flawed forensic work that fbi laboratories and instances where prosecutors have failed

to notify defendants when they knew that the evidence was flawed. hundreds of defendants remain incarcerated at this moment because experts may have, in some cases, misidentified them as suspects. these are the issues that are on my mind as we meet this morning. i welcome your presence here today. i thank the chairman. >> our only witness is director robert mueller iii, who has held the positions since september 2001. he was nominated by george bush and also nominated by barack obama. mueller has a long and honorable

record in public service. after graduating from princeton and receiving a master's from new york university, he enlisted as a marine in vietnam. he received a bronze star, navy medals, the purple heart, and a viennese cross of gallantry. after his service, he received his law degree from university of virginia. he served as a prosecutor in the united states attorney's offices of san francisco and boston. after working with a partner in a law firm, he returned to the justice department in 1989 as an assistant to the attorney general and later as the head of the criminal division. in 1998, he was named the united states attorney in san francisco, a position he held until 2001 when he was nominated to be director of the fbi. we welcome you today and look forward to your statement. if you will please proceed.

>> good morning, chairman smith and members of the committee. i want to thank you for the opportunity to appear today and for your continued support of the men and women and the api. as you know, the bureau has undergone change. we have referred to as our efforts to prevent emerging terrorist threats. the thread is more diverse than it was 10 years ago but today we are better prepared to meet that threat. we also face complexed threats to its cyber security. sophisticated criminal groups and hackers for hire are stealing trade secrets and valuable research from america's companies and agencies. national security is not our only concern. as we remain committed to our criminal programs.

billion dollar investment fraud, mortgage fraud have undermined the world's financial system and victimized investors, homeowners, and taxpayers. rates may be down, there are crimes against children and transnational crime. as a threat to continue to of all, so must the fbi to prevent those threats before they occur. in doing so, we are relying on our law enforcement and private sector partners more than ever before. the fbi remains committed to carrying out our mission, while protecting the civil liberties of the systems we serve. let me begin with a threat that remains our top priority, oxide is decentralize but it is committed to attacks against the

west as we can see from the documents seized from osama bin laden. al qaeda affiliates represent the top threat to the nation. aqap has attempted several a attacks including a failed christmas day airline bombing and the attempted bombing of u.s.-bound cargo planes in 2010. we are currently exporting an ied device ceased overseas similar to devices used by aqap in the past. we are also concerned about homegrown extremists. they have no typical profile and their motives are also distinct which makes them difficult to stop. these cases illustrate why we must continue to enhance our intelligence capabilities and to share information to make sure

the critical information gets to the right people before any harm is done. let me turn to counterintelligence. we still confront traditional espionage, and today's spies are also researchers, business people, or operators of front companies. they seek not only state secrets but intellectual property and insider information from government businesses and american universities. we are also seeing a growing number insider threat when employees use their legitimate access to steal secrets for the benefit of another company or the benefit of another country. the counterintelligence threat is merging with the cyber threat. so much a sensitive data is stored on computer networks, our adversaries find it as effective to steal secrets through cyber intrusions.

it has evolved over the past decade. it ranges from a nation states is exploiting weaknesses in our computer networks to hackers that seek information for sale to the highest bidder and groups intent on a pioneering their own forms of digital anarchy. we have built up an expertise to address these threats at home and abroad. we have squads in each of our offices with more than a thousand agents analysts and friends expansionists. we have 63 offices that cover the globe and assist in addressing this threat. the national cyber investigated joint task force brings together 20 law enforcement, military, and intelligence agencies to predict future attacks. with our partners at the cia,

nsa, and the secret service we're targeting cyber threats facing our nation let me address our financial crimes. the fbi continues to focus on the most egregious offenders of mortgage fraud. at the end of last year, we had nearly 2600 mortgage fraud investigations nationwide and a majority of these cases including losses greater than a million dollars. over the past four years, we have tripled the number of agents investigating mortgage fraud. working with our partners, our agents are using intelligence, surveillance, computer analysis, and corporations to find the key players behind mortgage fraud. turning to health care fraud, health care spending makes up about 18% of the total economy. that presents an attractive

target for criminals. so much so we lose tens of billions of dollars each year to fraud. the fbi and justice department continue to bring a record number of cases involving hundreds of millions of dollars in fraud. since its inception in 2007, medicare fraud has charged more than 1300 defendants who have falsie build the medicare program for more than $4 billion. -- falsely billed the medicare program for more than four billion dollars. the most recent uniform crime report indicates an violent crime continues to fall. as we know, this does not represent every community. live and crime, including gang activity, continues to pose a

problem. we also continue to confront organized crime. today's organized crime is marked by sophisticated enterprises that run a multibillion-dollar schemes, everything from human trafficking to health care fraud and from computer intrusions to intellectual property theft. the annual cost to the u.s. economy is estimated to be in the tens of billions of dollars. the fbi remains vigilant to keep children safe and to stop a child predators'. there are partnerships with international law enforcement, we are able to investigate crimes across jurisdictional boundaries. for our child adduction teams, the office of the victim assistance, and numerous outreach programs, the fbi is

working to make the world a safer place for our children. chairman smith, thank you for the opportunity to discuss our priorities as it stands today. the fbi has cheated transformation over the years that would not have been possible without the support of congress and the american people. crescive for the opportunity to appear here today. >> let me recognize myself for some questions. i mentioned the fact that fisa is going to expire at end of this year. how important is it that we continue those amendments and should we seek to improve them in anyway? but >> we have seen over the last several days with regard to

the ied that terrorism should be, is and should be our number one priority in the number one priority of a number of our agencies. the amendments that are ouup fo passage again, they are essential in our efforts to address this threat. not only us, the fbi has access to information that enables us to identify persons within the united states and without the united states that would put us -- and our intelligence agencies to operate overseas to pull in this information so that we can put together the information we need to prevent attacks. it is essential in remains essential. >> if you can think of any way

we can improve it, that would be helpful as well. i appreciate that. let me go to the next subject, the crisis we have all along our southern border. i know you are as aware of that as anyone. as an example, last week there were 23 people killed directly across the border from texas. to say they were killed is a euphemism. most of them were mutilated and tortured. the problem is perhaps getting worse but i wanted to get your feeling about what more we could do in this country to address the drug-trafficking problem we how long our border and what the fbi might be doing. >> our focus -- first of all, corruption. we have a number of squads, and

task forces that have addressed things on our side of the border as a result of the amounts of money that are generated through drug-trafficking south of the border. we have task forces addressing kidnapping across the border, with other federal authorities to address that particular phenomenon which has decreased somewhat in the last couple of years. the most important part of it is the accumulation of intelligence that can help our partners south of the border. we have a large office in mexico city. we have a number of offices along the border. we have a focus back at headquarters. our efforts have been to consolidate that and integrate it with the intelligence developed by others and pass

that intelligence on to our counterparts. >> one of the fastest-growing crimes in america is child pornography on the internet, which has been increasing at about 150% for each of the last 10 years. what more can the fbi do to address this crime which points to the least innocent among us as being the primary victims? >> we have a number of agencies that work with themselves -- by themselves on the internet and but also in task forces around the country. we also have a task force in maryland where we rotate individuals from various countries to help us address the purveyors of child pornography on the internet, wherever they may be in the world.

on the one hand, john reprography me -- a child pornography, we are developing new rules so we can identify the persons who are putting this stuff on the internet and making our investigations more affective coupled with the growth of our counterparts overseas. this is a worldwide phenomenon. and to have any impact, we have to have a global reach. >> my time is up. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. >> thank you, chairman smith. we have the least three points i have made in my opening statement that i would like to review with you.

the over criminalization that has become a custom inside the criminal justice system in america. in which we put away more of our citizens than any other country on earth. and for longer periods of time the second thing is the prejudicial muslim materials that were pulled from fbi training that were so slanderous. the third issue and is a flawed fbi lab forensic work that sent a lot of people to prison, many of whom are still there. could you take your time and

let's go through these to get there? >> on your first one, the point about over incarceration. i believe that any discussion about that warns looking at the crimes for which there is incarceration. it is difficult to generalize or to reach some sort of understanding or make progress with that generalization. there are some areas which need to be harsher in terms of penalties. we are going into the cyber arena in the next number of years and there should be substantial penalties for those persons who abuse their capabilities in the cyber arena. let me talk about the counterterrorism training issue that you have raised. last summer, it came to our attention that there were materials in our training material that was inappropriate,

in bad taste. it may have also depicted stereotypes. it was brought to our attention internally and externally. we put together a panel of experts from within the euro and other agencies and the government, persons with credentials from places like yale and princeton to review material sent to get very touched and document of what should be taught. we needed a closer review of this. we pulled together 30 personnel to go through the training materials. we went through 160,000 documents and 1000 videos of the training and found that there were 876 documents that were

inappropriate. we have removed those from our training. we had to put into place a screening mechanism to ensure our agents, our personnel received the best possible training in addressing subjects such as terrorists whether it be a domestic terrorist or international terrorists, we need to get our persons training. it showed us we had to put in place a system to ensure records with what we expect. as you pointed out, there was a report to and following a steady of examiners at the

laboratory. one of those was a fiber examiners. the other examiners may have conducted those examinations prior to 1996 and were not part of that review. in 1996, which started using mitochondrial dna along with hair and fiber analysis and that changed the ball game. now with the department of justice in terms of how we go back on cases to determine whether or not examiners in cases prior to 1996 may have overstated the impact of their analysis. we are working with the department of justice to see what kind of review should be undertaken. >> there were some people that are still incarcerated on the

basis of some of those reports. >> we have seen the government has a couple of cases where it looks like the dna, the analysis done, the hair and fiber was wrong. we want to make sure we follow up on that. >> thank you. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. >> first of all, i want to associate myself with the words of complement's you and the ranking member spoke on behalf of director mueller. you have been an outstanding director of the fbi. it is good to have you on the hill today. at your recent testimony on the fiscal year 2013 budget request, you made reference to several threats that received heightened focus ranging from health care fraud to organized

crime and gang violence. part of that focus requires putting more special agents onto these cases. help me reconcile the need for more agents to address these important threats with a federal employee pay and hiring freezes. have you, mr. mueller, considered asking congress to exempt law enforcement officers from these actions, much like the president did what the military? areas whichn't too i should focus on. the first is on the 2013 budget that has gone through congress at this point.

with that budget, we do not face those kinds of losses that you are contemplating. if sequestration occurs, it is a different ball game. we would be putting ourselves in the same status as the military. i believe that when it comes to the work we do in the national security arena, whether it be counterintelligence or the cyber arena, the work we do in contributing to the national security, not to mention the other crimes that you alluded to, health care fraud, the nation cannot afford for us to lose a substantial number of agents. we have had to prioritize and make certain that all of us focus on the most important priorities. that has meant we do not do some

things are we did to september 11 but it is essential to make certain we do prioritize to stop terrorist attacks, stop the spies, stop intruders. and up a child predators' delight. as a sick, my hope would be that we will do as well if not better than the military but when it comes to the budget review. >> the bipartisan senate report on the fort hood massacre, the worst on u.s. soil, since 9/11, found that political correctness inhibited his superiors from taking actions that may have stopped or at least delayed the attack. can you see why, given that report, why some of us may be concerned that materials may be another instance of a

governmental agency compromising national security under the pressure of political correctness. what can you say to assure us that you appreciate how pressures for political correctness can harm and may have harmed to our national security efforts. >> i can say that political correctness played no role in the efforts we undertook to make certain we give the best training to our personnel. it does us no good to have personnel who are trained with inadequate materials or misguided materials. we have made those 876 pages available with an explanation as to why we thought they should not be used in further training but i should say we went through 160,000 pages and out of

those we only found less than 1% that were questionable. political correctness had nothing to do with it. it was done because we want the best possible training for our personnel. >> i did not mean to imply that it did but it exposed, that was my point. i see the red light is about to eliminate. i yield back my time. >> the chairman from new york is recognized. >> i would like to follow up on the gentleman from north carolina. the house is considering today a bill for the next fiscal year. this includes the fbi. some believe we should not be abiding by the figures agreed to in the budget control act last year and that spending should be lower. what would happen if there was a drastic cut to funding, including the fbi of 5%?

how would you handle that? >> we would have to prioritize. in my lengthier statement that i provided to the committee, you can see the various threats that we are facing. we would have to cut down, we would have to find some area where we would have to reduce personnel. it is very hard to pick when you are reducing personnel to address the cyber threat, reducing personnel in addressing the threat of a child pornography. every priority is a substantial priority to the american public and the security of the united states. we would have to prioritize. we would have to cut it again. >> if the sequestration mandated by the budget control act were allowed to go into affect

january 1, how many agents would have to be let go? >> several hundreds, if not over 1000. >> how many do have now? >> 14,000. eight%.e talking >> maybe a little less. it would be a substantial cut. >> let me switch subjects a moment. under the february presidential policy directive which implements section 1022 of last year's authorization act, the fbi is going to lead authorities where they were taken into custody by law enforcement. can you tell us how this policy was developed? >> i am sorry. i did not hear the last part. >> how it was delicate and

directed, will it help or hurt to the fbi? >> i had some initial concerns about it into areas. the first area was with regard to our continued authorities and the final passage resolved that concern. the second concern is what would happen at the time of an arrest where events are fast-moving, would there be confusion with regard to who does what when. in my mind, this resolve those issues and makes it clear that if we had a terrorism case that fell within the parameters, we would continue to work that case in conjunction with the department of defense. i was satisfied with the bill as well as the directive as assuring us that we would be

able to do our job effectively given the statute. >> would you recommend any changes when it comes up again this year? >> i would have to look at it and see what was proposed. you asked about the development of the procedures, that was done in a number of working groups. that is how it was developed. >> my last question, last month we've passed -- the house passed legislation regarding cyber legislation. from your perspective, do these bills go far enough, too far, in assisting you in what you need to deal with and the powers you

need to deal with the cyber security threat? >> there are a variety of issues regarding the hair you address it. the bills address one aspect of it, how you protect the infrastructure and who is going to be involved. the areas we will have concern. the first area is the mandatory reporting of substantial incidents. we believe it should be part of statute at some point in time. the second is the sharing of intelligence. we saw that we did in the days leading up to september 11, we were saba -- we saw how we were disadvantaged by the inability to sharing intelligence. it is essential in the cyber

arena that intelligence be shared. some one difference is viewed in importance of sharing information from the private sector because often -- to the extent they address the sharing of intelligence with us, we are supportive. those are issues we are concerned about in any cyber legislation, whether that which was passed or otherwise. >> i see my time has expired. >> the gentleman from virginia is recognized. >> director mueller, welcome. do you agree that no united states citizen arrested in the united states should be indefinitely detained without all of the rights of due process? what is your interpretation of section 1021?

>> can you repeat the question? >> whether or not you agree that no united states citizen apprehended in the united states should be indefinitely detained without all the rights of due process provided by our constitution? >> i believe there should be the case. >> are you concerned over the language in the authorization acts called section 1021 which does not clarify the status of u.s. citizens? >> i have not focused on that aspect so much as the other aspects of the act. i believe it affirms the president's authority to make the decisions the president believes are necessary to thwart a terrorist attack. >> that might include seizing a

u.s. citizen in their home and detaining them without charges. >> i am not certain that is the case. i have not followed the debate. >> we look forward to the opportunity to make sure it is clear that the citizens have that protection. we are in the process of working through that. let me ask you another question. the fbi arrested five men in cleveland, ohio involved in a plot to bomb a bridge. some of these men were members of the occupied cleveland movement. has the a p i seen an increase in this left-wing extremist terrorist activity? is the movement a breeding ground for this type of extremism? if those within the move and perceive their demands are not being met, what is the likelihood or they will resort to more of this type of violence? >> as for the last aspect, i cannot speculate. because individuals were

arrested last week, i am limited to and i would directed to the complaint that was filed and the facts that are laid out. the complaint focused on their conduct, not necessarily the conduct of others. >> have you seen an increase in this type of left-wing extremist terrorist activity? >> well, i would say, i would not go with the predicate left weighing. i would say persons who have violated the laws in this way. we have not seen an increase. it is episodic. >> how about if it is ideologically driven? >> these individuals are violated a law. that is why they were arrested. >> in recent years, we have seen reports of a confidential and secret information leaking out of the post on the internet. the wikileaks cases are the most prominent but an fbi report also

drew attention to the growing problem of foreign students and professors engaging in espionage and intellectual property theft. when millions of documents can be walked out of a building or a lamp on a thumb drive in a back pocket, the risks of fpl -- espionage increase. does the fbi have the tools to protect confidential information and the records that contains private information about simpson's and corporate secrets and government information and? do you have the tools you need to protect against that? >> i will speak to the protection of information within the database of the fbi. yes, i will say, yes, we have. we are concerned about insiders but also actors from the outside. i believe we have state of the

art capabilities to protect our database. that does not mean it cannot be done. it is a continuous wherry for anybody over any department. we have taken, and i believe it is the best you have, to ensure the protection of our data. when it goes, and as you point out, often data is contained in universities or colleges or elsewhere. to the extent that we, as an entity, are working with those institutions, we seek to assure those institutions have opted a security to protect whatever they may have. >> my time has respired -- expired. i also call to your attention legislation signed into law by governor mcdonnell of my state, house bill 1160 which addressed to this concern about unlawful seizures of citizens.

no state agency in virginia can cooperate with any federal agency for the enforcement of that provision. if you could look at that for their response to the committee with your thoughts about how we can correct this problem and protect our citizens, we would welcome it. >> the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott is recognized. >> there is not a lot we agree on around here but your reconfirmation was one of them. i appreciate your service. a few years ago, according to published accounts, the united states participated in waterboarding, a practice for which there has been international consensus that it constitutes tortured. what was the fbi participation in the practice? >> none.

>> why was the fbi not participating? >> our guidelines, the guidelines we adopted some years ago preclude our participation. foridn't issue an order them not to participate in what is perceived to be tortured? >> the guidance was to make certain that we follow our guidelines when it comes to interrogation. >> your conscience present -- prevented the fbi from participating in torture. is that right? >> our guidelines precluded it and it was you follow our guidelines. >> that is why you have universal support. that practice had the fbi cannot participate. it was a breath of fresh air. one of the problems that we noticed after 9/11 was at the

personnel in the fbi and cia may not have reflected the ethnic representation we needed to fight terrorism. could you make a comment on where you are now or submit an ethnic breakdown of the staff of the fbi? >> i can give you a larger figure, 43% of our work force are women. 25% are representatives of various minority groups. for a greater break down, i would have to get you additional figures. we still have work to do. we continuously strive to reflect the communities in which we serve and operate.

>> my colleague talked about numbers of agents. can you translate that into how it would affect your ability to get the job done? >> we would have to prioritize and it would be a question of which of the priorities are listed in my opening comments or my more lengthy submission to the committee. we will have to cut back. cutting back in an age where crime is global in ways it was not an years ago. by that i mean whether it be organized crime or an cyber crime, white-collar crime, gangs, they are globalized and that entity that has the best chance for addressing globalized criminal activity is the fbi. if you cut us from doing it at a point in time where much of the

crime is globalize, it is a double hit, in some sense. >> you mentioned organized crime, one strategy is what is called organized retail theft where a group grows and in queens shelves of -- cleans shelves of desirable items and sell them on ebay or other internet sites. can you say what you're doing about that and whether or not more agents would be helpful? >> we would work with state entities in a particularly egregious situation. organized retail thefts are not a priority. even with additional agents i can think of other higher priorities. i will tell you that the guidance is there is an egregious series of crimes, persons are hurt, injured,

amounts are substantial then we would make an exception to our usual prioritization to try to help out state and local -- >> the same problem with consumer i.d. theft where you can solve those crimes but it's labor intensive. i think we had more agents on it -- not cutting agents but increasing agents, we could be more effective in dealing with organized retail theft and identity theft. >> if i may say, what we have tried to do over the last several years with the scarce resources is develop task forces where we will have an agent or two agents, but the task force will be augmented by state and local law enforcement. so you have access not just to state laws but also federal laws and much more effective in utilizing our personnel. this is an area in which certain cities around the country where it's rampant crime in these areas where a task force would be our approach.

>> thank you, mr. scott. the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, is recognized for questions. >> i'd like to welcome back. -- director, welcome back. last week's vote we weren't expecting to see each other in this setting again and as the chairman pointed out you got additional two years. there was no objection to your having two years because they presented it at a time when nobody knew they were going to be bringing you back, your extension in two years, so there was nobody else on the floor. it went rather smoothly since nobody knew they were bringing it up. there are some officers still concerned about the thousands and thousands of years of exspeerns we lost due to your -- experience we lost due to your former i five-year up or out policy. i want to get to the concerns about the purging of material, of training material. we have a document here that points out in the 9/11

commission report there were 322 references to islam, and the current f.b.i. lexicon there is zero references to islam or to jihad. we talked before when you were here about the outreach programs that the f.b.i. had to the muslim community. we have done some looking and apparently in june of 2002 you had given a speech, the american muslim council, your spokesman said was, quote, the most mainstream muslim group in the united states, that's the american muslim council, and the head of a.m.c. was a guy named al moody. that same year the a.m.c. board advisor, former acting president, j