House Session 2012 - 05 - 09 - 21 - 05 - 10 - 22 - 07 - 27

MILLION FROM THE RESEARCH DIRECTOR AS IDENT FID. AGAIN, THIS IS A DUPLICATIVE DOLLARS. PROGRAM AND A WASTE OF TAXPAYER BACK. THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, I YIELD I YIELD TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM ALASKA. 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. I ASK FOR A RECORDED VOTE. 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 CLERK WILL REPORT THE AMENDMENT. 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 98-473 -- U.S.C. 105-13, PUBLIC LAW MR. SPEAKER. WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE GENTLELADY IS RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES IN SUPPORT OF HER AMENDMENT. 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 BUDGETS. THEY HAVE EXHAUSTED THEIR OWN 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 THE GENTLELADY BACK THE PLANS OF MY TIME. YIELDS BACK. FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA RISE? WE'RE CONCERNED BUT WE ACCEPT THE AMENDMENT AND WORK ON IT IN CONFERENCE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN FROM ALASKA RISE? I MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD. THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED. 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. 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. I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FROM ALASKA. WE'LL WORK WITH THE OTHER BODY TO ENSURE THAT THESE PROGRAMS ARE ADEQUATELY FUNDED. 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 I YIELD BACK. SUSTAINABILITY. THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE THE QUESTION IS ON 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? DESK. I HAVE AN AMENDMENT AT THE THE CLERK WILL REPORT THE AMENDMENT. 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 -- I MOVE TO READING. IS THERE OBJECTION? -- IS THERE OBJECTION TO DISPENSING WITH THE READING? THE READING IS DISPENSED WITH. THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA IS RECOGNIZED. 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 GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA RISE? STRIKE THE REQUISITE NUMBER OF WORDS. THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. 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 TIME. YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF THE THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS . BACK. THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. 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. 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 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? DESK. I HAVE AN AMENDMENT AT THE THE CLERK WILL REPORT THE TITLE OF THE AMENDMENT. WOULD THE GENTLEMAN SPECIFY THE AMENDMENT. AMENDMENT NUMBER 26. AMENDMENT NUMBER 26 PRINTED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD OFFERED BY MR. DEN HAM OF CALIFORNIA. THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. 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. 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 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 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 TIME. YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK THE BALANCE OF HIS TIME. FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA RISE? I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE AMENDMENT AND ACCEPT THE YIELD BACK. FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN FROM PENNSYLVANIA RISE? 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 GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK THE BALANCE OF HIS TIME. FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA RISE? TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD. 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, 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. 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 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 GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK THE BALANCE OF HIS TIME. FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN FROM ALASKA RISE? I MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST YORD AND YIELD TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM -- LAST WORD AND YIELD TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA. 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. 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 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. CLERK WILL REPORT THE AMENDMENT. 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 GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA IS RECOGNIZED. 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 BIGGER AUTHORIZES. COURTHOUSES THAN CONGRESS 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. IT IS THE NEW -- AMENDMENT WE ARE -- IT IS THE NEW AMENDMENT WE ARE ASKING, THE TECHNICAL CORRECTION. THAT IS WHAT THE CLERK WAS REFERRING TO. THE GENTLEMAN MAY PROCEED. 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. SHARE COURTROOMS. THIRD OF ALL, JUDGES DON'T 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 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 COMMUNITY. TAXPAYER AND EYESORES TO THE 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. FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN FROM PENNSYLVANIA RISE IN I RISE TO STRIKE THE REQUISITE NUMBER OF WORDS. THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED. 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 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? I HAVE AN AMENDMENT AT THE DESK, NUMBER TWO. THE CLERK WILL DESIGNATE THE AMENDMENT. 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 GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. 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 U.S. THEY ALREADY DO. THIS ISN'T HELPING THEM ANY ELSE. MORE THAN IT'S HELPING ANYBODY 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 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 GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED. I YIELD BACK. 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? I RISE TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD. THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED. 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 JOBS. MILLION NEW PRIVATE SECTOR 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 GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA RISE? I MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD. THE GENTLEMAN VECK NICED FOR FIVE MINUTES. I YIELD TO MY FRIEND MR. FLAKE OF ARIZONA. 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, 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? I WOULD BRIEFLY. THE GENTLEMAN FROM JEA CONTROLS THE TIME. WE WILL BE TOGETHER TOMORROW MORNING AT THE PRAYER SERVICE. GEORGIA HAS BENEFITED FROM THIS BENEFITED. EFFORT AND PENNSYLVANIA HAS 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. WHEN WE DON'T KNOW 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. I YIELD BACK. THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS A RECORDED VOTE. BACK THE BALANCE OF HIS TIME. 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. I SEEK A RECORDED VOTE. FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ON THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE GENTLEMAN FROM ARIZONA WILL BE POSTPONED. FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN FROM ARIZONA RISE? I HAVE AN AMENDMENT AT THE DESK, NUMBER THREE. 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 GENTLEMAN FROM ARIZONA IS RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. 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 THAT THERE AROUND. SIMPLY ISN'T ENOUGH MONEY TO GO I STAND HERE TODAY AND I'LL DEFEND RESPONSIBLE FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY. SPENDING ON MATTERS OF FEDERAL AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONGRESS OUGHT TO ENSURE FUNDING FOR A BORDER. STRONG NATIONAL DEFENSE, SECURE 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. I CAN THINK OF -- 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. FINE. THESE DEPARTMENTS WILL BE JUST 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 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 GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK THE BALANCE OF HIS TIME. FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN FROM PENNSYLVANIA RISE? I RISE TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD. THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED. 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 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 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 GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK THE BALANCE OF HIS TIME. FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA RISE? I MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD. THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. I YIELD FIVE MINUTES TO MR. FLAKE. TIME. WON'T TAKE ALL MY 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 NOW. VOTE ON THIS AMENDMENT RIGHT I YIELD BACK. 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. AYES HAVE IT. IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR, THE THE AMENDMENT IS AGREED TO. I REQUEST A RECORDED VOTE. 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? I HAVE AN AMENDMENT AT THE DESK. THE CLERK WILL REPORT THE AMENDMENT. 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 GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA IS RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. 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 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 AGO. SPANISH-SPEAKING VOTERS LONG 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 GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA RISE? MR. CHAIRMAN, I RISE TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD. THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN. THIS IS AN APPROPRIATIONS BILL. 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. 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 *** 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? NO. 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 I YIELD BACK. VOTED DOWN. 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 GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. I YIELD TO MY COLLEAGUE FROM GEORGIA. 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 ANYBODY. DISCRIMINATION, FOR OR AGAINST 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. COUNTRY. WE CAN'T HAVE THAT IN THIS 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 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 GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK RP FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA, THE CHAIRMAN, RISE? I RISE IN OPPOSITION TO THE AMENDMENT.