Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3093) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, and Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes.

Mr. Chairman, today we're considering the fiscal year 2008 appropriations bill for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies.

Before I get into the substance of the bill, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my ranking member, Rodney Frelinghuysen, for his important contributions to this bill. He's done an outstanding job. He's been a terrific partner, and I respect and appreciate the expertise that he brings to our subcommittee. He has a strong commitment to our law enforcement agencies and grant programs for at-risk individuals. Mr. Chairman, he's demonstrated a real desire to make sure that the U.S. has adequate resources to negotiate fair trade agreements and the means to obtain an accurate census. I thank him for his assistance. I sincerely also want to thank his personal staff, Katie Hazlett and Nancy Fox, and minority staff, Frank Cushing and Mike Ringler, for their help during this whole process.

Mr. Chairman, I also want to express my thanks to Chairman David Obey who has done an excellent job leading the Appropriations Committee through a hectic year that began with a continuing resolution.

I also want to express my sincere gratitude to a tremendous subcommittee staff. This bill would not have been possible without the extreme hard work of Michelle Burkett, Meg

Thompson, Marjorie Duske, Tracey LaTurner, Dennis Dauphin and Jennifer Eskra, who sacrificed long hours many days to complete this bill.

I also appreciate the strong efforts and expertise of the full committee, including majority staff director Rob Nabors, John Daniel, David Reich, and Leslie Turner.

Lastly, I want to recognize my personal staff for their hard work, Sally Moorhead and Julie Aaronson, who have done a tremendous job working on the bill as well.

Now, Mr. Chairman, turning to the substance of the bill. Mr. Chairman, this bill totals $53.6 billion in spending and was formulated with input gathered from 24 hearings, including agencies that had not had a hearing since fiscal year 2005. We also heard expert testimony from outside witnesses regarding law enforcement needs, the importance of scientific research for our Nation's competitiveness, and the need for Federal investment in local and regional economic development.

Through these hearings, we developed a fair and bipartisan appropriations bill that responds to legislative priorities supported on both sides of the aisle. Those priorities include both programmatic funding and congressionally directed spending for projects in individual districts. Pursuant to the strong rules put in place by the House and the full Appropriations Committee this year, designated funding has been cut in half from the fiscal year 2006 enacted level, and oversight has been increased by examining closely and carefully each earmark request and the accompanying certification letters.

In several areas in the bill, Mr. Chairman, this subcommittee has eliminated earmarks and instead has created competitive accounts in which eligible entities may compete by submitting proposals to the agency for Federal funding. This process will increase transparency, spur innovative solutions, and allow programs nationwide to compete in the marketplace of ideas.

Mr. Chairman, I'm particularly pleased that this subcommittee, which funds the major science agencies for the Federal Government, has taken on the issue of climate change. This bill funds $1.9 billion worth of climate change initiatives, an increase of $164 million above the President's request. Now that the scientific community has determined that global warming and the resulting climate changes are real phenomena, we must identify steps to be taken and strategies to be adopted in response to global climate change, and this bill does so by funding new programs in the Department of Commerce, in NASA, and in the National Science Foundation. Some of the climate change initiatives in this bill include:

Funds to improve data collection associated with understanding global climate change, including restoring critically important sensors on the National Polar-orbiting Operating Environmental Satellite System,

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he might consume to the distinguished chairman of the full Appropriations Committee, Mr. Obey.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to a distinguished member of the subcommittee. We have a great subcommittee on both sides, Democrats and Republicans, who work extremely well, and every one of them brings a lot to the bill as we marked up, and Mr. Honda is certainly no exception.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to another distinguished member of the subcommittee, Mr. Ruppersberger.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of the subcommittee, Ms. DeLauro.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to another distinguished member of the subcommittee, Mr. Kennedy.

Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman for raising this issue. I assure him that I share his concern. I think most members of our subcommittee share his concern with any unwise cuts to Census. That happened in full committee. There was an amendment which used Census as an offset; $25 million came from the periodic census, $5 million came from salaries and expenses. Both of them were very regrettable offsets. We are going to work to restore those offsets as we move forward into conference, and I have a considerable amount of confidence that we will be able to achieve that.

Again, I commend the gentleman for bringing this up and giving us an opportunity to express and share our concerns with him and also to make that commitment that we are going to work as hard as we can as we move forward to restore this funding to Census. It is usually important to the Nation that the decennial census move according to a regular process which requires a lot of preparation in the early years. And the gentleman's foresight in seeing that and his insistence on our proceeding accordingly is really appreciated because we want that pressure from the body to make sure that we adequately fund Census.

Absolutely. And we will take the gentleman's concerns about that to heart as well.

We appreciate the gentleman's hard work on this and appreciate the excellent staff work that he has had in bringing this to the floor.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Rogers of Michigan

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and, at the same time, I share concern with the gentleman for our ability to monitor, carefully and comprehensively, compliance regarding our trade with China.

We have an Office of China Compliance, which the gentleman wants to increase by $6 million, which about doubles the funding. There is a group in the Congress, and I am certainly one of them, who are extremely concerned about foreign competition. I am very concerned about how, as this world increasingly is becoming a smaller economic community, how we compete successfully, particularly as competition relates to the impact on traditional industries in this country and making sure that a fair and level playing field exists. That is why we have the Office of China Compliance. That is why we have funded it in this bill.

The gentleman suggests that the funding level is inadequate, and we have very consciously funded it at the President's request. A $6 million increase doubles the Office of China Compliance, and given the balances that are necessary in this bill and the funding demands that exist, we feel that the level that we funded it at is adequate.

Let me also comment about the gentleman's offset. He offsets the Census Bureau, the salaries and expenses account, I believe. That is unacceptable.

Does the gentleman offset the salaries and expenses or the decennial census account? The decennial census account. That is a terrible offset, respectfully, because we have to prepare for the decennial census, and we have to prepare for it carefully and adequately.

First of all, I think the account is funded adequately at the President's request in last year's funding. Secondly, the offset is just terrible.

I would invite the gentleman to work with us as we move forward to conference and look carefully at the account and make more careful judgments about the adequacy of the funding, if he would like to do that.

I yield to the distinguished ranking member.

I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

And I see I was wrong about your offset. But the point applies to your offset.

No. It's terminal. It's a bad offset. It degrades the Census Bureau's ability to collect economic statistics, which is terrible. But please.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I just will stipulate to our concerns about trade with China and the necessity to review it. That is why we have this office. You are suggesting that we need additional funding. You are suggesting doubling the funding, which impacts Census in its ability to collect economic statistics, which is also extremely important to the economic viability of the country.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment which, again, shows there is a run on the Census Bureau; it's as though the Census Bureau wasn't important, and it's crucially important.

We have funded the southwest border prosecutors program at $30 million in this bill, and the President requested zero for it in this bill. So I think we're keeping faith with the southwest border prosecutors. And we have kept faith and funded in this bill tremendous amounts of money for State and local law enforcement above the President's request, $1.7 billion above the President's request. So we really are addressing these concerns.

We can go anywhere in the bill for any worthy cause, especially all of the law enforcement accounts, they're all worthy causes, and say, oh, let's increase the funding for that. It makes it sound like we are newly addressing an issue where it has been substantively addressed previously in this bill.

Now, let's look at the offset. And again, we're looking at Census like it's not important, and it's crucially important. Specifically these cuts that were represented by the offsets to this increase would eliminate the current Industrial Reports Program used by the Federal Reserve Board for the index of industrial production and also used in trade negotiations by our U.S. Trade Representative, the International Trade Commission and the Department of Commerce's Office of Textiles and Apparel. This amendment will also make it impossible to assess the impact of increased imports on domestic industries.

Secondly, this offset would eliminate the quarterly financial reports which are the government's most current and comprehensive reports on corporate financial activity. This break in this valuable time series program, which goes back 60 years, there is a continuity to this program, would erode the quality of our statistical measurements, hinder public and private decisionmakers and eliminate a critical source of information on corporate profits.

Next, Mr. Chairman, it would eliminate the Survey of Business Owners and Self-Employed Persons, which is the only comprehensive source of information on selected economic and demographic characteristics for businesses and business owners. The survey data is absolutely critical to the missions of the Minority Business Development Agency, the Small Business Administration, and other Federal, State and local agencies to assess changes in women and minority-owned business, and to analyze the effectiveness of these programs. And the amendment it would eliminate funding to the Foreign Research and Analysis Program, which generates economic, social and demographic information.

Do we see the harm that this amendment and this offset would do to the Census Bureau, to the statistics we gather that are absolutely crucial to business, in addition to the overall attitude about an almost frivolousness as we deal with the important business that the Census Bureau does?

Let's respect the Census Bureau. Let's respect the surveys and the reports and economic statistics which it generates, which we rely on in our daily lives for social programs, but also for the important purpose of assessing where we are and where we stand in business in an increasingly competitive world.

I oppose the gentlelady's amendment on all of those grounds, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this bill is currently balanced among the many competing priorities between the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and Science. The amendment significantly upsets that balance.

This Congress has already provided the proper funding mechanism for enhanced 9/11 grants, which is through proceeds realized through the sale of the spectrum space. I have grave concerns about a $5 million reduction to the general administration account of the Department of Justice.

The Department may have to lay off its current personnel, reduce key projects that might have to be terminated, and substantially scale back others in order to absorb a reduction in this office.

We have to be respectful in the requests and the necessity of having adequate funding and adequate personnel to run these programs, to run the Department of Justice. Let's not be cavalier in these offsets. Just because the account is called ``general'' doesn't mean that it doesn't need funding. It also doesn't mean that we haven't been careful and deliberate as we have looked at the needs and funded these accounts. These are real people we are talking about laying off. They have real jobs, and they administer real programs.

So when we offer an amendment and suggest a $5 million offset, we have to be mindful of the consequences of that. DOJ is currently challenged to fill authorized positions at all of its components. We are increasing funding at the DOJ. Partly these funding requirements are the result of chronic gaps between the funding requested and appropriated for the S&E accounts and the true cost of pay raises. Let's be respectful of other people in their jobs as we consider these offsets.

I yield to the distinguished ranking member.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the distinguished ranking member for those

thoughts. If I have any time left, Mr. Chairman, I would just point out that about 90 percent of the account where the gentleman is seeking an offset, the general administrative account, goes towards operational support for the Department of Justice agencies and their missions, by maintaining and overseeing facilities, for procurement of law enforcement tools for agents and employees, and for management of financial systems.

Cutting this account could prevent implementation of a unified financial management system that would limit the fraud, waste, and abuse that everyone in this body talks about. These are not the areas in which we want to make cuts.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, first of all, I want to commend the gentleman for raising this issue. Six of the seven sea turtle species are endangered. It is a real concern. It is a real plight. We can be particularly proactive trying to address the endangered status of these turtles in our borders. It becomes far more difficult as we go out around the world.

It is important that we address it and we pay increasing attention to it. The gentleman requests an additional $1 million. There is a $9 million program looking at this. We intend to work with the gentleman, if he so desires, to ensure that NOAA is increasingly focusing on the problem, and we will be bringing the gentleman's concern to their attention, and letting them understand that. We will be working with the professionals at NOAA, and we want to give them all of the support that we can and let them know that this is a priority for us.

So I commend the gentleman for bringing the issue to our attention, and assure him that we look forward to working with him not only as we process this bill through to completion, but subsequent to that and throughout the year to ensure that NOAA gives it the adequate attention that this issue deserves.

They do have the right take, and she obviously has picked a substantive issue to be concerned about and defend, and the gentleman is to be commended for picking it up and fighting for her and sea turtles.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I point out that when the gentleman brought his interest in CASA to the attention of the committee, I pointed out to him that CASA is funded in our bill at the authorized limit of $12 million. We don't suggest that it does not merit and that the need isn't there for considerably additional funding. That is something that we can look at in the future, and I thank the gentleman from California for bringing this matter to the attention of the committee and to the attention of the full body.

CASA is a vital program that is important in the lives of countless children in foster care, and we will continue to work with the gentleman on his concern of ensuring that soon every child has a CASA representative.

As the gentleman represents, only 50 percent, if it is 50 percent, of those in need are served by this vital program. As my colleagues may know, 7 years ago, and as the gentleman pointed out, and we are very impressed by that fact and taken by it, adopted two foster children. There is no greater love than adopting children. We look forward to working with the gentleman as we move forward.

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. The gentleman attempts to move $2 million out of NOAA, out of the very important programs that fund the National Weather Service--fisheries, oceans, climate--money that is used to do a lot of the research that is extremely important to all of these areas, including climate change.

We have tried to fund NOAA in a way that respects its mission this year in the House of Representatives. Typically we don't do that, and the Senate earmarks it. We have tried to go through account by account and look at the National Weather Service, look at the fisheries, look at oceans and look at climate change, and fund these programs accordingly. This money will take away from that effort.

Now, where is the money going? It is going to the ITC. During a hearing we specifically asked Chairman Pearson if he got his request, and he got the funding he requested as he requested it, if he would be happy and if he would be made whole. And his testimony specifically to us: ``If you do that, Mr. Chairman, then we are very happy.'' And that's what we did in this bill, so I really don't see the need under any circumstances for increasing the ITC at this time.

The gentleman mentioned all of the important missions of the ITC and all of the work it does. And you know what? We respect that, and we have funded it completely in this bill and been responsive to the Chairman Pearson's request. He represented to us at the hearing that if we were to do that, which we did, that he would be totally happy with this funding.

I have to say that the gentleman is laboring on behalf of an agency that is fully funded and above that has received all of the funding requested in this bill. So I oppose this amendment to take money from science programs and to take it for no compelling reason from NOAA.

Mr. Chairman, I accept the gentlelady's amendment.

The level of funding for this program needs to be increased to help foster and promote traditional indigenous fishing practices. The gentlelady has been a tireless supporter of assisting the indigenous people of Guam, Hawaiian Islands and the South Pacific.

And this funding provides funds for a competitive grant within NOAA to allow indigenous peoples of the western Pacific to explore new fishing means both which are safe and economically sustainable.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to discuss this matter with the gentleman.

This issue was brought before the committee rather late, after we had marked up. The point was made on a bipartisan basis that the authorization for this program was not adequate. We accepted the authorization change on our bill and supported an increase in the authorization, I believe to $30 million.

The bill is already marked up, and we have funded this program at $8.9 million, recognizing that, like a lot of accounts in this bill, additional resources are needed. We would be pleased to work with the gentleman as the bill moves forward to see how we can augment this funding.

That's a difficult proposition, but we do commit ourselves to looking to see how and where we might be able to find some additional resources to fund these accounts, and we look forward to working with the gentleman in that regard.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman seeks to increase by a factor of two the hurricane intensity forecast capability.

There is a lot of concern with regard to this. We certainly are extremely sympathetic to the purpose of the amendment. We do not like the offset at all.

I am wondering if the gentleman would, and I will yield to him for a discussion of this, if the gentleman would like to work with us and secure this funding, do everything we can. I think $2 million we certainly can do as we process this bill forward to conference.

I yield.

The gentleman is totally correct. Additional funding in this area could be used. We are convinced of that. We look forward to working with the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. And I want to begin by saying I am very impressed by the bipartisan presentation by the representatives from California, all of whom I respect very highly and many of whom I work very closely with.

Let me start off by saying their support for increasing SCAAP is not misplaced on its merits. Indeed, I am struck by the fact that their efforts on a bipartisan basis are evidence, pretty strong evidence, of inadequate funding, certainly in the request of the President. We have increased SCAAP by multi-billions of dollars, as we have already said, above the President's request. But the one argument against the bill that comes from the minority side is that we have too much money in this bill to fund the priorities in this bill.

I think this amendment is evidence in an argument against that position. There is not too much money in this bill to fund the priorities in this bill, and SCAAP is certainly a priority.

Let me help those who are moving this amendment with their argument. Certified requests for reimbursement to this SCAAP account from the jails, the sheriffs, and the State prison systems would demonstrate or would evidence the fact that there is twice the certified merit for reimbursement of this program than this program has funded.

In other words, we are only having 50 percent of the money that is in the bill. And even if we raise it, it is virtually not increased much more. We are only funding 50 percent of the certified demand for this program in this bill. Well, that is not unusual. There are a number of programs in this bill that certifiably we are only meeting 50 percent of the need.

When I was before the Rules Committee, the distinguished gentleman, Mr. Dreier from California, talked about our increase in funding for Legal Services. Well, we have increased Legal Services by $28 million in this bill to $377 million. And there is a study that was recently completed, a credible study that we are only serving 50 percent, just coincidentally, of the demand of people across the country who need legal services, but because of their financial condition cannot access the courts of this land. Now, that is meritorious.

It is meritorious, I believe, that we have a program, Legal Services Corporation, that meets that need and allows people to access the legal system. If equal protection under the law means anything, it means equal access to the law. So we have a legal services program to do that, but it is only 50 percent adequate in its funding. Well, SCAAP is only 50 percent. So we all have to sacrifice here, and this is a reimbursement program to States and local governments that are incarcerating illegal aliens. It is meritorious. So is Legal Services. I am just saying that the funding is inadequate, Mr. Chairman, and that we need additional resources in this bill.

So now we are down to prioritizing, and we think that we have done a good job in crafting the priorities of this bill. We are funding Legal Services at 50 percent. Legal Services' high watermark in 1995 was $400 million. We are not there, but SCAAP is there. We are not there. We are not back there. We are at $377 million in this bill.

SCAAP is not disadvantaged in this bill. Relatively speaking, look back over the years. In 2005, SCAAP was funded at $305 million. From 2005 to 2006, it jumped to $405 million. Why? Because of the good efforts of the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee at the time, Chairman Lewis, and the chairman of the

Rules Committee at the time, Mr. Dreier, to effect an increase of $100 million.

So if you go off the base of 2005 of $305 million, Legal Services was increased to $405 million; we funded it at $375 million. At full committee, it was increased back up to $405 million. It is where it was. It is where it was last year. Relatively speaking, off of that 2005 base, SCAAP is enjoying a privileged position in this bill of strongly competing programs which rate merit.

So now where is the offset? So I am just saying, admitting, acknowledging, stipulating to SCAAP being underfunded, along with a lot of programs, State and local programs, as well as agency programs in this bill.

I thank my distinguished ranking member, Mr. Frelinghuysen.

Since we are talking about increasing inadequate funding in the bill, Mr. Chairman, let me explain that in our law enforcement agencies, we had a gap in the funding of the bill versus the need. The Department of Justice faced the challenge to fill authorized positions in all of its components, and partly as a result of chronic gaps between the funding requested by the President and the appropriation for these administration accounts and the true cost of paying for raises. We had going into this bill, underfunding in the Department of Justice, which we have tried very hard to address.

The offsets for funding SCAAP in this amendment impact those administration accounts in Justice and in Commerce. These are real people doing real jobs, and we have very carefully funded them. These accounts are underfunded by the President, just like SCAAP and just like Legal Services are underfunded. We have tried to balance priorities as we move forward, and there are lots of people concerned about these offsets.

This amendment proposes to offset $25 million in the S&E accounts for the Department of Commerce. Commerce runs good programs. The amendment proposes to offset $25 million in the Department of Justice for general administration. The Department of Justice has a lot of programs to administer, and many are State and local programs which distribute those funds to our local law enforcement. We can't cut either program by $25 million. This would hurt real people with real jobs. We are not funding overemployment in these agencies and we are not funding salary increases at adequate levels, either.

A lot of folks are concerned about this, and that is why we tried to balance the bill fairly. The folks that are going to be RIFed and laid off are government employees and are concerned about it. Their union representatives, the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL- CIO, are concerned about amendments such as this one and they have written us a letter:

``Dear Chairman Mollohan, On behalf of the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, I strongly urge you to oppose any amendments that would substantially reduce fiscal year 2008 funding for the salaries and expenses account in the Department of Justice agencies.'' And they are concerned about the others besides Commerce and Justice as well. These offsets have cavalierly, I would say, respectfully, targeted these administrative accounts.

I thank my ranking member for yielding me time. I respectfully engage this debate with my colleagues who I respect, and it brings me to respectfully opposing this SCAAP amendment. If our bill were to receive any more money, and I note that the Senate has $800 million more, maybe we can address these concerns in conference.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I find myself agreeing with everything the gentleman has argued, and at the same time being, unfortunately, opposed to his amendment.

It's hard for any of us to argue or to have a desire in our hearts to do anything but increase the National Science Foundation. We all understand what good work it does.

NSF provides competitive, peer-reviewed granting that translates into cutting-edge research that is the foundation for the future economic viability of the Nation. Our economy is increasingly becoming an international one, and we have to be on the cutting edge.

That's why we have funded NSF at a rate that guarantees its doubling in a 10-year time span. We embrace and salute the doubling and have been responsive to that need that is expressed by members and the community.

Nothing is more important than funding education, and increasing NSF and its ability to develop and implement programs to facilitate education and to incentivize our best and brightest young people to go into math and science, and to choose those careers. That's what NSF does very well. The gentleman wants to facilitate that by augmenting our funding in the education accounts for math and science partnerships. I commend him for the initiative.

I oppose the amendment because we have funded the Math and Science Partnership Program. We increase it significantly in our bill, and I'm sure the gentleman knows that. We increased it $20 million over the President's request of $46 million for a total of $66 million. That's a 43 percent increase. And I will say that not only is it a generous increase, but perhaps it's an increase they need time to absorb.

The fact is that we have significantly increased Math and Science Partnerships $20 million over the President's request, funding it at $66 million.

Where does the offset money come from? It comes from Commerce. For every one million dollars that you offset in these administration accounts, at least seven people would be laid off. We're not funding these administrative and S&E accounts with the idea that we can use this funding for amendments on the floor. We're funding these accounts at the requested level or at the levels that we've discerned are adequate pursuant to information that we've received in our hearings. We're on the level with funding in these administration accounts. Again, I think

these offsets are cavalier. No matter how meritorious the object of the funding increase, it's cavalier to cut S&E accounts.

The employees are saying, help. Time out. Stop. Their organizations, like the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, are writing to us. They're saying, please stop invading these administrative accounts.

With that comment, Mr. Chairman, I yield to my distinguished ranking member.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

With that representation, I'll be extremely pleased to work with the gentleman in that regard.

Our bill demonstrates an upward trend in juvenile justice programs, indeed, Mr. Chairman. That has been a real focus and priority of this subcommittee as we have marked up the bill.

We have increased funding in juvenile justice programs $120 million over the President's request, and that is $62 million over 2007 funding. Why? Because of efforts from Members like Mr. Murphy, who has been all over this issue, and I value very much his expertise as he has communicated with the subcommittee. He has expressed his concerns about juvenile justice, about the problems that these programs address; and he is really to be commended. He has also made it clear that Mr. Platts has been very active in this effort as his colleague, and I commend Mr. Platts as well.

We look forward to working with them as we move this bill forward, but also in future years to ensure that the juvenile justice programs not only are funded appropriately but also that they are focused as they should be so that we make sure this funding is spent to maximize not only its efficiency but its effectiveness.

So, Mr. Platts, Mr. Murphy, we thank you for your assistance with regard to this issue, and we look forward to working with you.

Amendment Offered by Mrs. Biggert

I appreciate the gentleman from New York's interest in this. As a matter of fact, he was the mover and shaker in the Congress in pointing out that we had 2 years of successive increases in violent crime in the country. He was the first one to point out that in the 1990s, the COPS, the Community Policing Cops on the Beat Program, was extremely effective in reducing that; and in large part, along with other Members, advocated and encouraged the committee to reactivate the COPS hiring program, and we've done that. We've done that with $100 million, which we think will fund approximately 2,700 policemen.

This is a down payment. This is an initiative, and the gentleman is to be commended for providing the impetus for that initiative. So I thank him. We look forward to working with him in future years. I know this is a program that, because of its proven effectiveness in the past, is going to get increasing attention in the future.

We're going to be up to it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am pleased to join my chairman, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), in beginning the consideration of H.R. 3093, making appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, and Science, and Related Agencies. This bill provides funding for programs whose impact ranges from the safety of people in their homes and communities to the farthest reaches of space exploration.

The bill before the House today addresses a number of critical national needs and requirements. The chairman has done an outstanding job in balancing many competing interests and has put together a solid bill in a fair and even-handed manner. I appreciate his openness and responsiveness, as well as his thorough understanding of each and every program in this bill.

I would also like to thank all Members of the subcommittee for their help and assistance and their advocacy, and also the staff on both sides of the aisle who spent long, long hours in putting this bill and report together.

On the minority side Mike Ringler and Frank Cushing, who have been mentioned; and Nancy Fox and Katie Hazlett of my personal staff; and on the majority side, Michelle Burkett, Marjorie Duske, Tracey LaTurner, Meg Thompson, Dennis Dauphin, Jennifer Eskra; and, as the chairman has noted, his great personal staff, Sally Moorhead and Julia Aaronsen.

Mr. Chairman, the bill includes important increases to priority programs that all Members can support. Throughout our extensive hearing schedule, we heard about urgent funding requests, including the need to address a growing violent crime rate that has begun to rise again after many years of decline, and the need to boost our Nation's competitiveness through more investments in scientific research and science and math education.

However, I also believe we could have met the most pressing needs by prioritizing within a lower allocation, the allocation giving this subcommittee $53.5 billion, which is $3.2 billion, or 6.4 percent, over 2007; and $2.3 billion, or 4.5 percent, over the President's request. This very generous allocation allows everything to grow and is, I believe, more than sufficient to address the highest-priority needs in a satisfactory way.

By comparison, the House passed a CJS bill with an allocation that exceeded the President's request by less than a quarter of 1 percent last year. That bill addressed critical priorities and passed overwhelmingly on the House floor.

As others have stated about earlier bills, the size of the allocation this year may make it more difficult to produce a bill that will get signed into law, so I look forward to continuing to work together with the chairman towards that goal.

I would also like to briefly highlight some of the more important contents of the bill. For the Department of Commerce, the bill includes $7.1 billion, including the full requested level for the critical functions of the National Weather Service, and important investments in NOAA's ocean and climate research.

I appreciate the chairman has included funding in the bill to strongly support the trade agencies empowering the U.S. Trade Representative in the International Trade Administration to negotiate, verify and enforce trade agreements that are free and fair, and to ensure an even playing field for American businesses and workers.

Requested increases for NIST under the President's American Competitiveness Initiative are fully funded, as is the Manufacturing Extension Partnership at $108.8 million.

The bill also included $1.9 billion, or an 8\1/2\ percent increase, for the Patent and Trademark Office, and fully funds the request to support the ramp-up to the 2010 decennial census.

On the Justice side for the Department of Justice, the bill includes $23.7 billion, $1.7 billion above the request. The bill restores $1.7 billion to the administration proposed to reduce from State and local law enforcement accounts, including programs addressing violence against women, violent gangs, the meth epidemic, child exploitation and the continuing need for interoperable law enforcement communications.

I am very pleased that the chairman agrees that we must insist on standards and best practices for the use of these types of grant funds. It is not acceptable simply to pass out money to local jurisdictions without stringent requirements to follow accepted standards and proven program models. I salute the chairman for including language specifically under the COPs law enforcement technologies to ensure that funds go towards equipment that meets all relevant Federal standards.

Despite the sizeable increase in State and local law enforcement programs, many Members are concerned about the funding for SCAAP, the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. An amendment to increase the funding to the current-year level was adopted at the committee level.

We may see further amendments to increase it even further. The costs incurred to incarcerate undocumented criminal aliens continue to be an enormous financial burden on our towns and cities. The SCAAP program provides important partial Federal reimbursement for costs relating to what is truly a national, not a local, problem, immigration enforcement.

The bill also includes important investments to fight the national epidemic methamphetamine abuse: $600 million for Justice Assistance Grants which support local drug task forces, the Byrne Grants; $85 million in grants to combat meth, that epidemic; $40 million for drug courts; and funding for the DEA to support State and local efforts and to fight international drug trafficking.

The FBI is funded above the President's request, which is necessary in order to continue current staffing and operations levels while also funding urgent increases in counterterrorism programs. The Appropriations Committee has been at the forefront of the FBI's transformation into our Nation's premier counterterrorism agency, and I am pleased we are able to continue that support this year.

Too often we fail to recognize the critical and often dangerous work that the FBI special agents and, may I say, also the DEA and AFT special agents do both at home and abroad in order to detect and prevent terrorist and other types of attacks. This is incredibly important work. This bill strongly supports those efforts while providing necessary funding for the FBI to fulfill its traditional roles and address emerging problems, such as child exploitation, the growth of violent gangs, and human trafficking.

One area where I believe we should have done more in light of the generous allocation is in Federal law enforcement. In the joint resolution for 2007, the Congress provided more than $1 billion above the freeze to support current operations and urgent increases for Federal law enforcement. In many cases, these increases were not assumed in the formulation of the President's budget for 2008. So while most Federal law enforcement accounts are funded at least at the President's request in this bill, there still will be some negative consequences in the form of personnel reductions and hiring freezes at some agencies, including the DEA, the AFT, and the new National Security Division. The chairman has been very cooperative thus far in helping to lessen the impacts on the DEA, and I hope we can work together to improve funding for Federal law enforcement generally as the bill moves forward to conference.

In addition, I am concerned that the Justice Department rescissions included in this bill may turn out to be based on unrealistic assumptions. The balances available could likely fall far short of the rescinded amounts, and I hope to continue to work with the chairman to avoid any harmful cuts.

In the area of science, this bill also funds important initiatives in science and competitiveness. The capacity to innovate is the primary engine of our economy and our way of life. In order to sustain it, we must increase our investment in basic scientific research and strengthen science education.

This bill fully funds the President's competitive initiative, which includes a commitment to double the funding for basic scientific research over 10

years, and also to strengthen and encourage education and entrepreneurship.

For the National Science Foundation, the bill provides $6.5 billion, or 10 percent, above the current year for research that will set the groundwork of the development of new technologies and science education programs that will continue to ensure that we have a well-educated and skilled workforce to improve our competitiveness.

For NASA, the bill provides $17.6 billion. This level supports the President's vision for space exploration with the full request for the continuing development of the Crew Exploration Vehicle and the Crew Launch Vehicle, keeping to a minimum the gap in flight capability after the retirement of the shuttle.

The bill also includes funding for the request for aeronautics research, space science programs, and NASA education programs.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, despite concerns about the overall level of spending, this bill represents the chairman's best efforts to distribute the allocation he was given to the various competing requirements under our subcommittee's jurisdiction. I highly commend him for an outstanding job and will be urging all Members to support this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), an outstanding member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to Mr. Gilchrest from Maryland, a strong voice for the Chesapeake.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, quite reluctantly, I oppose the gentleman's amendment, but certainly your views are held by quite a lot of people. I think it would be a mistake to cut the census, which is obviously a constitutional obligation. As I remember looking at that account, the Member's suggesting that we double the account, actually I think ITA got $10 million more than the President requested. So they actually have more money to deal with, maybe not the specific Office of China Compliance, but I think it would be a mistake to cut the Census, which is a pretty important thing we are trying to ramp up.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield, we obviously respect our colleague's attempt to improve the financial situation for these border prosecutors, but the general feeling is that Census accounts are not the ones we want to use for that purpose. But we certainly respect what you would like to do to enhance their resources.

Mr. Chairman, like the chairman, we want to salute Representative Eshoo and Mr. Shimkus. This is sort of a promise that has not been delivered on, and we are mindful of it. But I would agree with the chairman, to take a whack out of the Department of Justice general administration accounts would affect people that are working there presently.

There is the expectation, which, of course, it might irritate you for me to mention this, that somewhere along the line, goodness knows when it will happen, there will be a spectrum auction. I don't know, there is $40 or $50 million. I know you are looking for $250 million. It is not exactly inexpensive. When the auction should occur, this is the type of necessary project that needs to be funded.

But I would concur with the chairman, I know you tried to choose wisely, I am not sure these are the accounts that I would recommend taking money from. So I would concur with the chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and to yield 2 minutes to my chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly oppose the amendment as well. And obviously we have a strong appreciation and affection for the power and the reasonableness of the delegations from California and Texas. The nexus between Texas and California is a pretty strong nexus here.

And I am supportive of SCAAP. I think Mr. Dreier kindly has acknowledged that the committee did put money in there through a Honda amendment, and obviously we would like to plus it up. The costs have somewhat escalated from what we originally anticipated from the floor debate here.

But I would agree with the chairman. The cuts that are proposed from these accounts actually affect real people.

And in the Commerce Department management account, and I know Mr. Dreier is an advocate of trade, it's a 40 percent cut in the management account for the Department of Commerce, which leaves them with 60 percent for operating costs. And for the Justice Department general account, which is $104 million, $104.8 million, this account is reduced by $25 million. They're down to $79 million. That means people out the door who are doing prosecutions that are important to all of us, perhaps even related to the issues that we're focused on today, which is criminal aliens.

So I reluctantly oppose the amendment, but certainly am sympathetic and have been because I've been well educated by not only the Member of Congress from California.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California is kind to yield to me. I reluctantly oppose the amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. Chairman, let me join with you in congratulating Mr. Price for pushing something which the committee has pushed, which is promoting math and science, especially encouraging young women to get into those pursuits and academics.

Mr. Price has indicated to me that he would be willing to withdraw his amendment if he had a commitment from us that we would work hard as we progress in putting our bill together matching it with the Senate to see what we could do to increase these accounts.

I should point out that we are doing more, as you have noted, for the National Science Foundation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

But our committee reverberates in every sense. It is an echo chamber that not only NSF, but NOAA, NASA, and all of these agencies ought to be promoting math and science education. So I will be happy to work with you.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 562 and ask for its immediate consideration.

For purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

House Resolution 562 provides an open rule for consideration of H.R. 3093, the Departments of Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2008.

I want to thank the distinguished chairman of the committee and ranking member for reporting out a bill that not only does not pay lip service but makes critical investment in our Nation's communities.

The bill provides $725 million for Community Oriented Policing Services, more commonly known as the COPS program, 25 percent above the current funding level. As a former prosecutor, I know how vitally important these programs are in assisting local law enforcement to hire and train law enforcement officers to participate in community policing, purchase and deploy new crime fighting technologies, and develop and test new and innovative policing strategies.

The administration had proposed to modify the COPS program into a new discretionary grant program, but the committee has chosen instead to keep COPS as a separate dedicated grant program. This is a proven model for getting these grants to the communities that need them, and I applaud the committee for preserving this program.

The bill includes $303 million for Economic Development Administration, the EDA. The EDA administers several economic development programs including public work grants for upgrading infrastructure, planning, and trade adjustment assistance for communities that bear the burden of jobs outsourced to other countries.

Additionally, the legislation would direct the EDA to consider with favorable bias grant proposals which incorporate green technologies and strategies that would reduce energy consumption, reduce harmful gas emissions, and contribute to sustainability.

The bill provides $50 million, 52 percent more than the current funding, for the Weed and Seed program. The Weed and Seed program helps localities develop programs to weed out and deter crime, and then take the all-important step that is so often left out of seeding the formerly high crime areas with programs to promote neighborhood revitalization. The funds will be used to carry out this mission in cities, such as my home in Utica, New York, and

sponsor activities such as truancy prevention, conflict resolution, mentoring, and job training for at-risk youths.

Additionally, the bill, this resolution, provides for consideration and includes $40 million for grants, technical assistance, and training to State and local governments to develop dedicated drug courts that subject nonviolent offenders to an integrated mix of treatment, drug testing, incentives, and sanctions.

As a DA, I quickly learned that no matter what initiatives law enforcement took to reduce the supply of drugs, it never really affected the demand for drugs which never seemed to diminish and, therefore, created a seemingly endless market for drug dealers. But when my office established the county's drug court program, I realized the powerful effect that the program had in helping enrolled participants get control of their addiction and thereby reducing their demand for drugs. The appropriation of $40 million for drug court provided by H.R. 3093 is $30 million more than the current level, and I congratulate the committee for increasing funds for this vital and proven weapon on the war on drugs.

H.R. 3093 would also create incentives to fight illegal immigration. It would prohibit the Federal Government from using any of these funds on any entity that does not participate in the basic pilot program which allows employers to verify whether potential or current employees can legally work in the United States. This voluntary pilot program was created by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act of 1996 and allows employers to verify employment status through an automated system linked to the Social Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security data bases.

This legislation also includes $6.5 billion for the National Science Foundation. This level of funding will support the doubling of NSF's budget over the next 10 years, and represents a true commitment to investment in basic research and development, which will provide for innovation and future technologies. This commitment is an important part of the innovation agenda designed to maintain the United States' competitiveness.

H.R. 3093 also includes over $17.6 billion for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA's unique mission is to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics research; and this appropriation enables them to accomplish this mission by restoring some of the cuts made by the administration to science, aeronautics, and education portfolios at the agency. This recommendation also provides for the continued efforts of NASA's Moon- Mars goals. The act calls on NASA to expand human knowledge, develop and operate advanced aeronautical and space-faring vehicles; encourage commercial use of space; coordinate with other U.S. agencies to maximize research results; cooperate with other nations in research and applications and to preserve U.S. preeminence in aeronautics and space.

This bill also prohibits the use of funds by the FBI to issue National Security Letters in contravention of the statutes authorizing their use. National Security Letters enable the FBI to secretly review customer records of suspected foreign agents without judicial review. In March, the Department of Justice Inspector General reported that the FBI agents had in numerous cases misused National Security Letters without complying with either statutes or DOJ guidelines governing their use. This widespread abuse of secret investigatory powers undermines the very notions of liberty and freedom from tyranny upon which this Nation was founded. The prohibition on use of funds contained in H.R. 3093 will ensure that such abuse does not continue.

Mr. Speaker, I have addressed only a handful of the important programs for which H.R. 3093 would appropriate funds. My remarks have focused on the criminal justice, NASA funding, and economic development aspects of the bill; but there are many other important areas addressed in this legislation. It provides funding for critical scientific research, including several programs which study global warming and climate change that the administration attempted to eliminate. The Appropriations Committee has approved a bill which would maintain the funding of this critical research, and I once again thank them for their work and welcome a chance to vote in favor of this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) for his comments, and I couldn't agree with him more. Clearly, the safety of our Nation from foreign enemies is critical, and it's something that needs to be a priority and is a priority with this Congress and prior Congresses.

But one thing that I think is critical that we can never forget is safety doesn't begin at our borders. Safety is something that we need to recognize within our borders as well, and this bill takes great strides in terms of ensuring that our children are safe when they go to school. It puts more police officers on the street. It increases funding for the DNA database to help us locate rapists and criminals who have committed crimes and locate them and

bring them to justice. It funds the drug court program, which is critical in terms of dealing with people who are addicted to drugs.

This bill takes a balanced approach to law enforcement, takes a balanced approach to what this country needs to keep our citizens safe, both internally and externally as well. And I believe that it is a very good bill, and that we should support it.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West Virginia, the chairman of the CJS subcommittee, Mr. Mollohan.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont, my colleague from the Rules Committee (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the gentlewoman's passion and concern. We are all very concerned for the safety of our country.

But I think it is critical that we not forget the reason we are here today. We are here to debate a rule which is very concerned, which deals with a balanced approach to making our country safer domestically, to being concerned with putting more police officers on the street, for increasing funding for Drug Corps, for increasing funding for science and NASA. That is what we are here to do today. That is what we are here to debate, and I would strongly urge passage of this ruling.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson).

Mr. Speaker, the Appropriations Committee has presented us with a bill that will provide funding agencies related to Commerce, Justice and Science for the fiscal year 2008.

The bill contains a higher overall allocation than was requested by the President, but with very good reason. By all measures this bill will have a real, tangible impact on all Americans, improving their daily lives in many ways. It funds the Economic Development Administration, Weed & Seed program, prescription drug monitoring, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Science Foundation, NASA, the Census Bureau, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and community-oriented police services.

And I would just like to mention in that regard, from a personal perspective, in my community in which I live, there is a small police department, 20 officers; that as a result of the community-oriented police in New Hartford, New York, they were able to get three additional police officers, increase their technology significantly. That's a 15 percent increase in officers to that department. The COPS program makes our streets safer.

The Drug Corps program is a phenomenal program that this bill will continue to fund. And I would urge any of my colleagues in Congress to someday sit through a Drug Corps graduation program. When they see that, and they see the testimonies of the people who have finished, and listen to their families talk about how devastating drug addiction has been to their family and how this program has helped them, they would strongly support this bill and strongly support the Drug Corps program.

In short, H.R. 3093 provides critical funding for programs that keep our streets safe, our economy prosperous, and allows our scientists to continue studying global warming and climate change.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge a vote of ``yes'' on the previous question and on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 562 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

At the end of the resolution insert the following:

Sec. 4. Notwithstanding any other provision of this

resolution, it shall be in order to consider the amendment

printed in section 5 of this resolution if offered by

Representative Hoekstra of Michigan or his designee. All

points of order against consideration of the amendment

printed in section 5 are waived.

Sec. 5. The amendment referred to in section 4 is as

follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the

following: Subsection (f) of section 101 of the Foreign

Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801) is

amended to read as follows--

`(f) `Electronic surveillance' means--

`(1) the installation or use of an electronic, mechanical,

or other surveillance device for acquiring information by

intentionally directing surveillance at a particular known

person who is reasonably believed to be in the United States

under circumstances in which that person has a reasonable

expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for

law enforcement purposes; or

`(2) the intentional acquisition of the contents of any

communication under circumstances in which a person has a

reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be

required for law enforcement purposes, if both the sender and

all intended recipients are reasonably believed to be located

within the United States.'.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to my good friend's amendment. The census is critically important. It's even required in our Constitution. The importance of an accurate census cannot be overstated. The Founding Fathers of our country understood it; they wrote it right into Article I, section 2 of the Constitution.

It is very, very important for the reasons that Chairman Mollohan mentioned, but it's absolutely our constitutional obligation to conduct the census and to do it to the very best of our ability.

To delete very important programs that put together data on which we make decisions, policy decisions, in our country is extremely short- sighted.

I rise in strong opposition, not because I oppose the program it seeks to add funding to, but because I oppose the offset, the cut to the census. And I think that it's easy to say that programs that fight crime or aid local law enforcement need this money more than the census. On the surface the census does not seem to have the direct connection to public safety that some of these programs do.

What many people do not realize, however, is that local law enforcements rely on the Census every day and an inaccurate count could jeopardize their ability to fight crime. Our businesses rely on it. Our funding formulas are tied to it.

We are required to conduct the census every 10 years by our Constitution in order to have reapportionment. Our representation is tied to it. So when you cut the money to the Census, you are cutting representation. You are cutting accurate data so that we can make accurate decisions in this body. It is very short-sighted.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to this amendment, not because I oppose the program it seeks to add funding too, but because I oppose the offset. Every year we have the same fight to maintain funding for the Census Bureau. I don't know how many times I've had to come down here to try and explain how essential it is that we not cut funds for the Census Bureau.

The Census is the largest peacetime mobilization in history. It requires recruitment and training of over 500,000 enumerators and census workers, to count more than 300 million residents at 130 million unique addresses. All of this massive preparation takes place according to a strict, decade-long schedule. The closer we get to the decennial, the more important it is to adhere to that schedule. In 2008, there are two full dress rehearsals planned, one in California, and one in North Carolina.

Former Census Bureau Director Kenneth Prewitt once said that it is difficult to do a really good census, but it is easy to do a bad one. If we cut funds to the Census Bureau, we will easily do a bad one.

Census as a Good Taxpayer Investment

The Federal government depends on census data in three important ways. First, to distribute funding through eligibility criteria and allocation formulas. 69.3% of the Federal grants given out in FY2004 (the most recent year that we have this data for) were allocated based on Census Bureau data. Second, census data are used to enforce Federal civil rights and anti-discrimination laws such as the Voting Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act. Third, the Federal government uses census data to create models and estimates for various Federal programs, and to then evaluate their efficacy.

State and local governments use census data for different purposes. They allocate criminal justice resources based on crime maps and demographic profiles. They base disaster response plans on census data. They analyze their transportation systems using information from the Census Bureau. The list goes on.

Not only do governments of all levels rely on the census, but the private sector does as well. Businesses conduct market research based on census data. Hospitals identify their constituencies and how to better serve their needs based on census data. The real estate sector uses it to . . . .

One can argue, therefore, that the census is essential not only to democracy, but to the U.S. economy as well. With so many governments and businesses who rely on data, it is absolutely essential that that data be accurate.

Over ten years, the 2010 census will cost approximately $11.5 billion. That's an average of $1.2 billion per year. Divide that by the population of the U.S., and the cost is approximately $4 per person, per year. Four dollars. That's it. I don't know about you, Mr. Chairman, but I am willing to spend $4 a year to ensure that Federal, State, and local governments, businesses and non-profits, all have accurate data to conduct their business. In fact, considering the enormous benefit that the economy gains by having an accurate census, I'm willing to wager that this is one of the most cost-effective uses of taxpayer dollars. I urge my colleagues to spend your constituents' tax dollars wisely by opposing any amendments that cut funding from the census.

Constitutional Obligation

The importance of an accurate census enumeration cannot be overstated. The founding fathers of our country understood, they wrote it right into the Constitution. In Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, it says that congressional representation and taxes shall be based on the population. I quote directly, ``The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct.'' By extension, the census affects Presidential election, as the number of electoral college votes for each State is based on the number of representatives and senators from that State. There are several instances (listed below) in recent history where very close elections and redistricting hinged directly on census data. When the founding fathers rooted our representative democracy in an accurate enumeration of the population, they placed a great burden on the census. It is our constitutional obligation to conduct this census, and to absolutely do it to the best of our ability.

After Census 2000, the state of Utah missed gaining a fourth Congressional seat and sixth electoral vote by 856 residents; the 435th seat and 538th electoral vote went to North Carolina instead. Utah's experience has been highly instructive to states with regard to the 2010 Census. Realizing that apportionment is a zero sum game, more states will be working aggressively to bring about a full count.

The result of the 2000 presidential election turned on the accuracy of the 1990 census. The election was so close that a slightly more or less accurate census could have produced another pattern of Congressional apportionment and so a different outcome.

In 2003, the Texas state legislature's redrawing of Congressional Districts produced quite a commotion, as some legislators in the minority left the state in the hopes of blocking approval of the new boundaries.

Crime-fighting

It is very easy to say that programs that fight crime or aid local law enforcement need this money more than the census. On the surface, the census does not seem to have the direct connection to public safety that (anti-meth program, COPS, SCAAP) does. What many people don't realize, however, is that local law enforcement officials rely on the census every day, and an inaccurate count could jeopardize their ability to fight crime. One of the most valuable tools for local law enforcement is crime mapping. This technology allows them to more effectively allocate limited resources and manpower based on crime statistics and information on neighborhood characteristics. They are better able to predict where crimes will occur based on this information, and can therefore send more police officers as a preventative measure. Crime mapping programs draw heavily from demographic and housing data from both the decennial census and the yearly American Community Survey (ACS). When a census or ACS count is less accurate due to lower funding levels, it will jeopardize our ability to effectively fight crime at the local level.

Domestic Violence

Let's be clear, I am extremely supportive of funding for programs to combat domestic violence. I have devoted much of my career to making women's lives better, and have been an outspoken advocate of reducing violence against women. However, I cannot support this amendment. Taking money from the census to fund a domestic violence prevention

program is nonsensical. These programs rely on census data to recognize patterns of domestic violence, such as the link between poverty and domestic violence. Domestic violence advocates also use census data to analyze the impact of these programs. And finally, the funds that we would give to these programs will be based on funding formulas that use data from the census. If we do not have the most accurate census possible, this program, and all the other programs that receive Federal funding, will be at risk.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, to my distinguished colleagues, I certainly understand the efforts to fence off issues when it comes to the census, and I think there are some issues of which we can find a level of importance to take a very small amount of money, make that census more efficient, and do some great good for the United States of America.

Think about some of the goods that we have had coming to the United States of America from China that have been counterfeited, adulterated, contaminated just recently: pet food, toothpaste, bottled water, auto parts. There is an assessment that just counterfeit auto parts coming out of China alone cost American jobs to the tune of $750,000.

A couple of years ago, in 2004, the Department of Commerce's Trade Agreement Compliance Center was created, and it was designed to specifically and solely go after Chinese unfair trading practices. And if we are going to have free trade, it must be fair trade. The deficit with China in 2006 was $230 billion, and it is getting bigger. But think of the products that they are selling. Think of the products that they are working into the system. Think of the unfairness to American workers who are playing by the rules, producing products that are safe and legal and in compliance with intellectual property.

So you think about what they are doing: currency manipulation to unjustly compete against American jobs that robs us of jobs unfairly in the trade world, certainly not appropriate. Counterfeiting not only of auto parts that we have just seen, but the things they have done with pet food and toothpaste and bottled water. The chemicals used on some food products that they brought in a few years ago. Michigan apples is an example where they used a pesticide that we don't allow in the United States because it is dangerous to public health. All of those things have happened and will continue to happen if we don't step up and make a serious statement about our commitment to stop unfair trade practices by China and stop counterfeit parts that are robbing jobs and products that may, in fact, take the lives of Americans. This is serious business.

We ask for just $6 million. It will double the Office of Compliance where these trade cops will look specifically at Chinese trade violations. I can't think of anything more important for us to do given the recent cases that are coming out of China. And only with vigorous and well-funded trade monitoring and enforcement can we provide a level playing field and allow U.S. manufacturers to compete around the world.

In order to deliver the promises of free trade, we need to guarantee fair trade. I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

So it is not nearly as terrible.

I understand. I think a little under a 3 percent cut for counting versus our ability to go after what we know we have found. Contaminated pet food; contaminated toothpaste, which people consume, which is certainly a public health hazard; and auto parts that rob our manufacturers of important jobs must take priority. It obviously hasn't worked the way we want it. We should step up in a big way. A $230 billion trade deficit. This is the right investment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have a series of three amendments, and what we are trying to do here today is solve a couple of very real problems for average FBI agents who, in my day, were called brick agents. These are the folks who are doing the real work, working organized crime or collecting intelligence on foreign spies or doing counterterrorism work here in the United States, trying to save and prevent any hazards from happening in our homeland, doing violent crime or chasing gangsters or involved in the public corruption that is pervasive in so many of our cities around the United States.

They're doing great work, and these are very talented people, and we don't really pay them a lot of money. We ask a lot of them. We tell them to move around a lot. We send them to very high-cost cities, New York City, and think what about we do.

We have an agent who's been in, say, 7, 8, 9, 10 years, he makes about $89,000 as a supervisor of other FBI agents, and he's in Alabama. You can do pretty well at that standard. And then we tell him or her, because his or her talents are needed in New York City, You're going to go. So you pack up your family and you show up in one of the world's most expensive cities, and for that, we give you $3,000.

So he or she goes from living pretty decently in a place like Alabama on $89,000 to a high-cost city making $92,000, and the hardship begins. It's wrong that we treat some of our frontline defenders in homeland defense in this way.

So, last summer, we sat down and tried to work with the FBI director to get a couple of things accomplished. One was a housing allowance. Other agencies in the city of New York have housing allowances for their agents and their officers who serve there because they recognize the need for, A, constant moving; and B, in high-cost areas, you need a little extra help just to get by. Some of these agents have 3-hour commutes to go into work, 3-hour commutes, work a very long day, longer than most Americans; then they have a 3-hour commute to go home. It's pretty tough on their family life. It's tough on their finances, and it's wrong that we ask these agents to suffer under that kind of financial difficulty. We should and could do better.

So, last summer, we agreed with the FBI director, of which we have public statements to the effect, that we would try a pilot housing project here in Washington, D.C., another high-cost area. It's hard to attract FBI agents to come back to Washington, D.C., because of the high cost that is uncompensated. So we agreed that we would try a pilot project here to see if we couldn't work out the kinks. Now, the FBI has agreed to this program. They said it's the right thing to do. They will try a pilot project. If it works here, we'll see where else it can go.

So we take a very small amount of money, about half of 1 percent from the $2 billion plus going to NOAA, and we say we're just going to redirect a little of this money into something that we know can make a difference for those who are defending the United States of America and doing some of the hardest work that is out there.

So, if we do this amendment, I won't have to do an amendment later on that specifically outlines how we would do a housing project for FBI agents across America. And think of those high-cost cities like Los Angeles or Miami or Chicago, New York City, places in New Jersey, Atlantic City, the cost of housing is ridiculous. And they're not well- compensated to begin with, and to ask that extra burden isn't right.

So we're going to do two things. We're going to do that. Hopefully, if we do this, I will be able to withdraw my second amendment on the FBI housing allowance. And secondly, they have something called an up- or-out policy of which, by the way, I oppose, but I worked with the director to protect the pensions of those FBI agents that have been impacted by this up-or-out policy.

And by the way, the FBI, after this agreement last summer, sent an internal communications and said basically, hey, we're going to do this for you. For those of you who are impacted, and these are supervisors who have served well for their country and their community and the Bureau who had to step down from being a supervisor because they didn't want to be forced to move to a high-cost city in Washington, D.C., to further their career. Maybe their kids were in school, maybe they had to make other considerations. So they were forced not because of their lack of good work but because they were just serving in that capacity for 5 years. And those who were close to retirement, it significantly impacted their retirement, their pensions, and it's wrong.

There's a small number of agents that we can fix with this proposal that takes care of those agents who have served us all well. While we were sleeping, they were working. While we were in the safety of our barbecues, they were in danger protecting this country.

We owe it to them to have these two fixed. It's agreed to by the FBI director. It's agreed to by the FBI. We just need to get some language in to accomplish that. I would urge support of this amendment.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, this certainly seems to me a change in policy. This is a straight transfer. Now, the other two amendments I understand we may have something to chat about, but this is a straight dollar transfer. We have reduced one account and increased another account. It is a straight transfer and should be considered made in order.