Family Farm Preservation and Conservation Estate Tax Act

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 5326, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

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

I am pleased to begin the consideration of H.R. 5326, making appropriations for fiscal year 2013 for Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies. The bill provides funding for programs whose impacts range from the safety of people in their homes and communities to the farthest reaches of space.

The bill before the House today reflects a delicate balancing of needs and

requirements. We have drafted what I consider to be a responsible bill for FY 2013 spending levels for the departments and agencies under the subcommittee's jurisdiction. We've had to carefully prioritize the funding in this bill and have had to make hard choices about how to spend scarce revenue.

I want to thank Chairman Rogers for supporting us with a fair allocation and in helping us to move the bill forward. I also want to thank the ranking member, Mr. Fattah, who has been an effective and valued partner and colleague, and I am grateful. I appreciate his principled commitment and his understanding of the programs in the bill.

I also would like to thank the members of the subcommittee for their help and assistance, as well as to thank Congressman Norman Dicks, the ranking member of the full committee.

I want to recognize the subcommittee staff, including our clerk, Mike Ringler; Leslie Albright; Stephanie Myers; Diana Simpson; Colin Samples and Scott Sammis; as well as Darek Newby and Bob Bonner from the minority staff, for their work in preparing the bill before us today.

I also want to recognize a number of the majority and minority associate staff members--all of their names and the offices that they are connected with.

Dan Scandling and Thomas Culligan in my office; Michelle

Anderson-Lee in Mr. Fattah's office; Robert LaBranche and

Ryan Stalnaker in Mr. Culberson's office; Mark Dawson and

Megan Medley in Mr. Aderholt's office; Mike Sharp in Mr.

Bonner's office; Tyler Grassmeyer, Steven Gilleland and

Jessica Talbert in Mr. Austria's office; Jason Lawrence in

Mr. Grave's office; Patrick Carroll in Mr. Yoder's office;

Megan O'Donnell in Chairman Rogers' office; Jeff Lowenstein

and Tim Bergreen in Mr. Schiff's office; Ken Takeda, A.J.

Bhadelia and Eric Werwa in Mr. Honda's office; Jheanelle

Brown and Matt Alpert in Mr. Serrano's office; and Pete

Modaff and Colin Sheldon in Ranking Member Dicks' office.

The bill totals $51.1 billion in discretionary spending, which is a reduction of 3.1 percent below the current fiscal year and 1.4 percent below the President's request.

Since the beginning of the 112th Congress, the committee has cut $13.2 billion, reducing the total amount of the CJS bill by over 20 percent over the 3 fiscal years. We have focused limited resources on the most critical areas: fighting crime and terrorism--including a new focus of preventing and investigating cyberattacks--and boosting U.S. competitiveness and job creation by investing in science, exports, and manufacturing.

For the Department of Commerce, the bill includes $7.7 billion, an increase of $96 million above FY12. The bill makes critical investments in manufacturing, export promotion, and job creation, including a task force and an EDA grant program to incentivize U.S. companies to bring their manufacturing and services activities back to the United States, particularly back to the U.S. from China.

For NIST, the bill includes $830 million, including $128 million for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, MEP, program and $21 million for an advanced manufacturing competitive research program to make the American manufacturing sector a source of job growth.

The bill also makes critical investments in weather forecasting and disaster preparedness to save lives and protect property, including funding above the President's request for the National Weather Service operations and for tsunami preparedness. Also included is an increase of $126 million for the weather satellite acquisitions, including the full amount requested for the new JPSS satellite. This funding is necessary to better protect Americans from natural disasters such as tornados, hurricanes, and tsunamis, just like we've seen in the Midwest this year, Kansas, Alabama, and places like that this year. It is also with regard to snowstorms and drought.

Science. A primary area of focus in the bill this year is scientific research, innovation, and competitiveness.

Investments in scientific research are key to long-term economic growth and job creation. The bill includes $7.3 billion for the National Science Foundation, an increase of $299 million, or 4.3 percent above FY12, for basic research and science education. This funding will go toward the types of research that will keep America's economy strong by setting the groundwork for the development of new technologies.

Developing a well-educated STEM workforce is also critical to America's competitiveness. More than $1 billion is provided throughout the bill for science education, including $876 million for NSF to improve the quality of science education.

NASA. The bill includes $17.6 billion, including funding above the aggregate request, to keep the development schedule for the Orion crew vehicle and heavy-lift rocket. Commercial crew development is funded at $500 million, consistent with the current authorization and the report accompanying the House budget resolution.

To find the fastest, safest, and most cost-effective means of achieving a U.S. capability for access to the international space station, the bill directs NASA to winnow the commercial partners and advance the schedule for moving to traditional government procurement methods. Continuing on the current path runs a high risk of failure by one or more companies receiving government subsidies, similar to what we last saw last year with Solyndra, and leaving the taxpayer with no tangible benefits in exchange for a substantial investment. We do not need a space Solyndra. I say this to Members on both sides of the aisle. We have heard Solyndra thrown around. We do not need a space Solyndra.

We have received letters from Neil Armstrong, Gene Cernan, and James Lovell endorsing the committee's approach to commercial crew as ``reasonable and appropriate.''

According to the GAO, we have invested $100 billion in the station, so we need to develop our own capability to get our astronauts up there to use it quickly rather than relying on the Russians and paying the Russians.

The bill also includes $570 million--which is $18.4 million above the request--for aeronautics research. Aerospace is a pillar of the American manufacturing sector and one of the leading exports. This is an industry that creates thousands of jobs in America. This investment will boost our aviation competitiveness so America continues to be number one.

The bill includes $5.1 billion for NASA science programs, including $1.4 billion for planetary science. This amount restores cuts in the President's request that would have inhibited progress on all planetary science goals, including flagship missions to Mars and Europa.

For the Department of Justice, the bill includes $27.1 billion, $11 million above the current level.

The top mission priority of the Justice Department is defending national security from both internal and external threats. The bill includes $8.3 billion, an increase of $148 million, for the FBI, including an increase of $23 million to prevent and combat cyberintrusions. Director Mueller has predicted that cyber will soon overtake terrorism as the Bureau's number one threat. The increase will be the first step in building a nationwide capability for cyberinvestigations that complements the other cyberinitiatives under consideration in the House.

The bill restores funding for the National Gang Intelligence Center, which the President wanted to terminate. Every district in this country has violent gangs running throughout your districts, such as MS 13 and many other groups. If you've been down along the border, you will see many of the gangs in Mexico have operations up here. To shut that down and terminate it, this is a major threat to the country. It also provides an additional funding for FBI's Safe Streets Task Forces. Now is not the time to retreat in an effort to combat the growing gang problem, not only on the border but throughout the country.

Bureau of Prison operations are funded at the requested level of $6.8 billion, an increase of $269 million above FY12, to activate newly constructed prisons and ensure safe and secure Federal prison facilities in light of, unfortunately, continued population growth.

This bill includes $1.85 billion for justice programs that provide grants for States, localities, and nonprofits. Despite the reduction, the bill prioritizes proven high-priority programs, including justice assistance grants, SCAAP.

The administration was at $70 million on SCAAP. We're at $165 million.

It also includes funding for missing and exploited children programs and DNA grants.

The bill includes funding for prescription drug monitoring grants. And I want to give a lot of credit to Chairman Rogers for his effort here.

It also includes a significant increase in DEA's Tactical Diversion Squads to address our Nation's fastest growing drug problem: prescription drug abuse.

The funding for violence against women and for victims of trafficking is increased above the current level and above the President's request. There's more money in here for violence against women than this administration put.

We recently marked the fifth anniversary of the shootings at Virginia Tech. Following this terrible tragedy, Congress passed a bill to improve the National Instant Background Check System, NICS, a critical tool for keeping firearms out of the hands of prohibited persons. But the NICS is only as effective as the State databases on which it relies. This bill includes $12 million to improve NICS records, $7 million more than the 2012 request.

Finally, we're asking the Office of Inspector General to do a follow- up review of the justice task force that looked at cases affected by flawed FBI lab practices in 1990. A new OIG review is a necessary next step to ensure that prosecutors follow through on task force findings and that defendants' rights are upheld. No one should get sentenced to jail for life when we know there is information that has not been shared. So we've had the OIG review and take a look at this.

In closing, that is a summary of the bill before us today. It provides increases where needed to maintain and strengthen operations of critical law enforcement. It carries on the fight against terrorism, crime, and drugs and provides important increases to boost scientific research, innovation, and competitiveness. It provides strong support for all the various NASA missions. It represents our best take on matching needs with scarce resources.

We have tried hard to produce the best bill we possibly could within the resources we had, And I would hope that all Members would support the bill.

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08MY12.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08MY12.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08MY12.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08MY12.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08MY12.005

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the full committee.

I yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the full Committee on Science, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall).

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger).

Will the gentleman yield?

I want to thank you, Mr. Kinzinger, for your work and for bringing up this important topic.

The Department of Commerce can play a pivotal role in educating companies on the benefits of manufacturing in the U.S. We need to ensure that the Department is using innovative tools such as online calculators to assist companies. This online tool has the potential to not only educate companies but also provide clarity in advantages and disadvantages of manufacturing in the U.S.

Also, I think people ought to know this is not only a tool; this is almost a moral issue. We just went through and had hearings with Congressman Chris Smith when Congress was away. The country of China had Chen and beat up his wife and did a lot of other things. So not only is it this issue, it is a moral issue. And Apple, if you have an iPad, it is made in China; iPhone, made in China; iPod, made in China, and those jobs ought to be coming home. So we also have language in there to provide for grants to repatriate, to bring these jobs back.

China is a trouble. They have a one-child policy. Fifty million men cannot find wives. They have corruption in the military, and they are unraveling. And this is a great opportunity, using this tool, but just for the American manufacturers to come home, to come back to the United States. So I thank the gentleman for raising the issue.

I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Yoder) for such time as he may consume.

I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for raising the issue, and I promise we will work with him and our colleagues in the Senate during the conference to ensure an adequate level of funding for this program.

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

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

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

The bill already includes important increases for trade enforcement, including $15 million for the Interagency Trade Enforcement Center, an increase of nearly $11 million.

We pushed Kirk to add Chinese speakers. He wouldn't even do it. He wouldn't even do it. We have pushed him to do it.

This is a bad amendment. The offset is a problem. Sometimes you can come here and be for one thing but also want to protect the other.

The Cross Agency Support Account is not free money that can be cut without consequences. The committee has already extracted more than $150 million of savings from this account relative to fiscal year 2012, and NASA will not be able to absorb the additional reductions through efficiencies.

NASA has already been cut. Now we want to cut it more. These cuts will include critical programmatic functions. These are the functions that they want to kind of cut in there. Cybersecurity, cybersecurity to fend off relentless attacks by China. Their computers have been hit. While NASA is a civil Agency, much of its technology also has military applications, and protecting this information is a national and economic--that area they will be taking money from that.

Human space flight safety oversight. We learned the hard way on the Challenger and Columbia tragedies that relentless attention to safety is necessary. Cuts to this account could hamstring NASA's efforts to minimize the risk of loss of life or property.

Verification and validation of mission-critical software that operates the satellites and the space station. We spend billions of dollars on these space projects, and those investments could easily be wasted by fundamental software errors if such software isn't rigorously tested.

This account also deals with medical support services to keep the astronauts and ground workers healthy. Many NASA employees work regularly in hazardous environments, and I don't want to be responsible for endangering them. The procurement account, which is the operation of agency-wide testing, is a big source for jobs. It funds nearly 10,000 contractor workers, and nearly 8,000 are government employees, FTEs, who carry out these activities.

This cuts vital, important things for NASA. If you want to cut NASA, then you ought to cut this. If you support sticking it to NASA and cutting NASA--if you're against the Orion, if you're against the commercial crew, if you're against all the things they do for space safety--support this amendment. If you want to protect NASA, then I urge you to oppose this amendment.

Lastly, I take a backseat to no one in this body in criticizing the Chinese Government. Frankly, this administration has been weak in aggressively pushing with regard to trade and things like that. We forced and urged and told Kirk to put Chinese speakers on. We put the money in for Chinese speakers when they didn't ask for it.

If you want to protect NASA, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun). His heart is in the right place, and I think the whole concept of getting control of the budget is very important. But I rise in opposition.

It would cut the FBI, DEA, NIST, U.S. Trade Rep and the National Science Foundation. Some of the increases are in here because the House Intelligence Committee approached us. As Mr. Rogers said:

There are two kinds of companies in America: those who have

been hit by cyberattacks and know it, and those who have been

hit by cyber by the Chinese and do not know it.

Many of those important functions the Intel Committee has asked us to carry in order to help and many others would be severely hurt. So I thank the gentleman for the amendment. I think what he's trying to do is important, but I think this would be the wrong way to do it.

I urge a ``no'' vote and yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

This would be a draconian cut. I heard that 5,000 of the 6,000 products in Wal-Mart are made in China. We want to export our jobs. We want to export our products. We want to make cars in Michigan and send them around the world. We want to make things and export them. We want to develop applesauce and export it. We want to export. So I have a long list I'm not going to say, and there are so many things in this bill that are not authorized. There are four pages of things that are not authorized, and if we didn't do things that weren't authorized, then we would have to shut this place down and move off to some other place.

I just think it's a bad amendment. I understand what the gentleman is doing to save money. But I think we need to export and create jobs, and I want to see American products sold in China, American products sold in England, American products sold in Berlin, American products sold in Indonesia. So I urge a ``no'' vote for the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I accept the amendment. I think it's a good amendment. The committee continues to support the International Trade Administration, particularly with regard to China. And I won't go on. But I thank the gentleman for the amendment, and I completely agree with it. I urge all Members to support it.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

It would zero out EDA. Last year the House voted 305 127 to, strangely enough, increase funding for EDA by $80 million. This year, we are

funding the EDA at $219.5 million, which is $38 million less than the base appropriation provided to EDA last year. Last year and this year, we in the subcommittee directed the EDA to designate a portion of its grant funding to work with companies to bring back their outsourced manufacturing activities to economically distressed communities in the United States.

So we have asked them to change their whole thrust of the grants, to not do what the gentleman says--and I think he makes some valid points here--but to now have it whereby a community can work to incentivize to bring a company back from China or back from Mexico. Last year, the House voted 305 127 to increase the funding to EDA by $80 million. This year, we were at $219.5 million, $38 million less, so I urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, this costs no money. We have no objection to the amendment and accept the amendment.

I rise in opposition to the gentlelady's increase. The bill already funds the Minority Business Development Agency at the level requested by the administration of nearly $29 million. The administration has not asked for more money.

Also, the offset would not be good. It would cut the scientific research activities at NIST that are vital to increasing our competitiveness, giving the edge to American manufacturing and also doing a lot of work in the area of cyber. Funding the sciences and research programs has been a top priority of both political parties, so I urge my colleagues to reject this increase and to vote down the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I have no objection to the amendment. I think it's a good amendment. The committee has also been very supportive. Also based on the recommendation of Mr. Meehan, they have broadened it now with regard to veterans, too.

But I thank the gentleman, and we accept the amendment.

The amendment would cut $21 million we provided for NIST to establish an Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortia, or AmTech.

Revitalizing the manufacturing sector is important to a strong economy. Is America going to be making anything? Aren't we all tired of going into Wal-Mart and seeing ``made in China''? We have to begin to make things in this country. AmTech would be a competitive-grants program designed to leverage existing or establish new industry-led consortia to develop roadmaps for key long-term industrial research needs and support research at universities and government labs. AmTech will address multiple components of the innovation cycle from discovery to commercialization to accelerate the pace of innovation through the various industrial sectors.

These are precisely the types of programs that we need now to support American manufacturing and innovation, and NIST has a strong track record of proven success in supporting American manufacturing. Manufacturing should be the cornerstone of the economy, and this amendment would help stop it.

I'm going to digress for just a second. When this Congress on two different occasions was asked by the administration to do away with the so-called ``payroll tax,'' that cost this Congress $125 billion. By doing that, both sides of this Congress and the administration gave Jimmy Buffett a break and Warren Buffett a break, and they created no new jobs. We took $250 billion and literally threw it away and jeopardized the Social Security program. They said they were going to pay for it by borrowing from the general fund. The general fund is broke. This is manufacturing, and we need a manufacturer. We need to create jobs in this country.

I know the gentleman has got a great record on the cutting, but this is not the place we want to do it. And I urge a ``no'' vote and yield back the balance of my time.

If the gentleman will yield, I think it's a good amendment, and I accept the amendment.

I wish we could have worked something out. I visited the RISS center up in Bucks County. My dad was a Philadelphia policeman. I take a back seat to no one on the issue of crime.

But it doesn't cut the climate. We don't go down to that. What we're cutting, basically, is weather. What we're cutting is a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration research and facilities issue. The account the gentleman is proposing would cut funds for the National Weather Service and the satellite office that process all the data with regard to weather--hurricanes, tornados.

As we go on, no matter what the outcome of this amendment, it doesn't cut climate service. Also, this is the same level fiscal year as it was in the 2012 level and the request. Some Members come down and want more cuts; others want an increase. This bill is below the President's numbers. It is below last year. It is a good program, but it's balancing out.

So I would urge people to vote ``no,'' and as we go to conference, I'll tell the gentleman, we'll work on it. As of now, I urge a ``no'' vote. If you vote ``yes,'' then the money is coming out of the weather. If there's a hurricane, a tornado, a snowstorm, a problem, then you make your own judgment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. I have had a difficult time getting answers out of the Justice Department. Many times before the Attorney General comes up, we have six or seven letters there, and the night before the hearing we get one letter that says, in answer to your letter of October 1, October 15, and October 28--and so I completely support the amendment, and I urge Members to support this to send a message. I think it is important for the Justice Department to respond. Particularly, they are the Justice Department. So I thank the gentleman for the amendment and urge its support.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

We share the gentlewoman's concern for the importance of investigating and prosecuting financial crime; however, the bill already includes a program increase of $6.6 million to the FBI for this purpose, one of the very few increases included under the Justice Department. The bill also includes the requested resources for the FBI to continue the additional positions provided in fiscal year 2009 to enhance the investigation of white collar and financial crimes.

Further, the amendment's proposed offsets are a problem. The aviation industry is one of the few bright spots in our domestic manufacturing sector. It is a large source of high quality and one of the only American industrial sectors to report consistent trade surpluses. $14.44 million will be taken out of that.

This success has been built on the back of NASA's aeronautics program, which develops new, cutting-edge technology for transfer to the industry. This technology makes American airplanes and airspace safer and more efficient, reliable, and sustainable. Pulling back from our aeronautics program today only ensures that we will fail to produce the innovation needed to fuel our exports in the next decade, which will, in turn, imperil America's leadership in industry, with major economic and national security implications.

I'm also concerned about the amendment's proposed reductions to NASA's Space Operations account, which would affect our ability to effectively manage and utilize the $100 billion international space station. We have spent $100 billion on the space station, and I think to take this cut out of that would be a mistake.

So, for all of those reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I want to start out first and foremost by thanking my colleague and the chairman of the subcommittee, Frank Wolf, for continuing to be a model chairman for the Appropriations Subcommittee. He is a professional; he's principled, and he has involved us, the minority, in every level of the distributions as we've developed this bill.

I would also like to thank my staff and the committee staff on both the majority and minority side for their work on this bill, along with all those who have had input in it.

Now I start out in this process with a number of priorities. First and foremost in the science arena, neuroscience. And I want to thank the chairman--I will speak about it in some detail in a minute--but for his collaboration and this effort around brain research.

Manufacturing. We will talk about the support in this bill, the hundreds of millions of dollars to continue to position our country in terms of manufacturing. We now lead the world in manufacturing, and we want to continue that, but we have real competition that we have to contend with.

And then also in the area of steering our young people away from antisocial activity, youth mentoring. And the chairman, in the chairman's mark, as passed in the subcommittee and the full committee, and as we bring this bill to the floor, again makes significant improvements in our investment around youth mentoring.

So let me start with the Department of Commerce. There are healthy funding levels for research at NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and for the NOAA satellite programs, which are so important to our weather forecasting challenges as a Nation.

In the chairman's mark, he very wisely rejected the proposed cuts that were going to be made in both the technical capabilities and the personnel at the National Weather Service, including air quality and the tsunami warning system and wind profile measurements, in which we've already invested tens of millions of dollars as a Nation.

The bill provides funding at or near the requested level for the Department of Justice law enforcement agencies, including an increase above the request for the FBI and to augment its capabilities in terms of cyberinvestigation and surveillance. I know that all of the members of the committee and all of the Members of the House understand the very significant challenges that the country faces in terms of cybersecurity. And the chairman has appropriately focused resources in that regard.

The bill provides an increase for the Office on Violence Against Women grant programs. Of course these are programs that we are dealing with the authorization of in a different part of our processes, but they are very important in terms of support for women who face abuse. And also, there's a small increase for Crime Victims Fund programs.

The chairman's mark in the bill, as passed from the full committee, provides a healthy increase for the National Science Foundation, the world's premiere national entity focused on basic scientific research.

The bill makes a strong commitment, as the chairman has noted, to NASA science and also fully funds the James Webb Space Telescope and makes a significant investment in commercial crew and in space technology. And even though I don't go as far as the chairman, I do support the idea that we need to move as rapidly as possible to this new focus on having American enterprise compete for opportunities to participate fully and at a much more cost-effective level in terms of our space exploration. The bill makes a significant increase in terms of future robotic missions to Mars, and we make a requirement in the language that this be part of a sample return mission, as the National Academy of Sciences' report indicates.

Due in some part to the limits on the allocation, there are a number of areas in the bill which we should try to improve as we move through this process. And we'll hear some of that in the amendment process, and we will do as much as we can in the conference process that will follow. But because this bill is based on the Ryan budget, it is less than the Senate counterpart, which was moved out of committee $731 million higher in its allocation. This will have to be reconciled in this process.

I hope that as we go about that, we can look at the EDA, the Economic Development Administration, and look at the Census Bureau. And most importantly, to me, the Legal Services Corporation and the COPS program are areas where I hope that we are able to raise to additional levels of funding. The State and local grant programs also take a significant decrease off of what we would hope that they could be.

But I want to focus a little bit of my comments on the fact that in full committee, there were a number of nonfinancial items added to the bill. One related to firearms, another related to swimming pool regulations for the disabled. There are always going to be disagreements around regulatory issues, but I'm not sure that this bill is the appropriate place. In fact, I would suggest that this bill is not the appropriate place to try to reconcile those issues. And I'm sure that as we move through, there will be additional input as to how we might deal with this question.

But let me talk in some detail for a minute about some of the great initiatives that I think we were able to come to agreement on. And again, I want to thank the chairman and the staff. For our country and for my caucus, there's nothing more important than manufacturing. And we see that the Manufacturing Extension Partnership receives $128 million, with a special carve-out for the National Innovative Marketplace, a Web-like portal that will help our manufacturers compete for manufacturing initiatives at the Federal level. I think it's very important. The $21 million requested by the President was met in this bill for a new Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortia program at NIST. And also, we provide $149 million to the National Science Foundation for their advanced manufacturing initiative.

We continue a program authorized under the America COMPETES Act that we funded last year to help small manufacturers bring technology onto the plant floor. And I would note that the chairman held, as his last hearing, a hearing on manufacturing. And I think it really brought light to the subject of what the country can and needs to do in terms of helping our manufacturers compete with competitors abroad and much larger countries that are trying to overtake us in terms of manufacturing.

I would like to personally thank the chairman for fully funding the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the White House, which has taken the lead in this neuroscience initiative that has been a bipartisan agreement to really try to build a collaboration of Federal agencies focused on some of the challenges that we have in terms of brain research, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, autism, and addiction, which is a big issue for the chairman of our full committee, Chairman Rogers, and for many of the people that we represent. There are issues related to traumatic brain injury affecting our veterans. So this collaboration is critically important, and I want to thank the chairman for fully funding that office, which is leading this effort, and the other important work that it does.

There is a lot more that I could say. Let me conclude, however, because we're going to spend a long time on the floor, and I will have plenty of chances to speak about the Youth Mentoring Initiative, which funds a variety of national groups that do work. But I think the shining light at the very top of the pyramid is the Boys & Girls Clubs, with some 4,000 clubs all across our country, on all of our military bases, and also in sovereign Native American reservations and lands, working with over 4 million young people, along with Big Brothers and Big Sisters and a number of other organizations which work to help American youth move in positive directions in their lives.

So I think that the bill that we bring to the House, even though it is not the bill in every respect that I would bring--and obviously there is room for improvement, and that's the part of the process that we'll go through on the floor and in conference--this is a bill that had complete unanimous, bipartisan support out of subcommittee

and was voice-voted out of the full committee. And I am happy to join my colleague, the chairman, as we present it now for House action.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from the great State of Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) who is a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee.

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I am glad there is a recognition of the importance of manufacturing, and the chairman has done a yeoman's job in making sure we, in a number of ways, attack this.

I would like to yield 3 minutes to my colleague on the committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

I would note that the chairman and I are both in a significant minority on this floor in voting for the Bowles-Simpson proposal, so we're for a balanced fiscal approach, but we also know that we have to make important investments.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Mr. Keating) to enter into a colloquy on an important matter related to marine science.

I yield 2 minutes to my fraternity brother, the gentleman representing the great State of Michigan (Mr. Clarke) to talk about the importance of science and STEM-related education.

On behalf of the Democrats, I yield back the balance of our time. We have no further speakers.

I move to strike the last word.

In part, I rise out of a desire to have my cake and eat it, too.

I agree with the gentleman, Mr. Peters, that trade enforcement is critically important. This administration has put a premium on it in that regard, bringing case after case--the tire case--against the Chinese. We could go through the laundry list. There is an $11 million increase embedded in the bill, as it has come to the floor, over last year's appropriation. I am not sure you can find a part of this budget in which there has been a more significant increase. However, it is not at the level of what the administration had requested.

I could support moving additional dollars in this direction, but this target of the Cross-Agency account at NASA, which we're going to see repeated dozens of times on the floor, I think is not the appropriate way to go. We don't want to rob our space agency of the important resources it needs to protect our astronauts, to protect its cybersystems. We have to be careful here.

So I would say to the gentleman that, no matter what the result on the amendment, I will be glad to work with him as we go forward in the conference to try to find additional resources for trade enforcement. I think this administration has done a great job in fighting the good fight, but they do need the resources. The chairman has provided $11 million in additional resources, but if we can find a few more dollars in that direction, I think it's a worthy investment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Let me give just one example, and then I will just stand in opposition to the amendment.

On page 30, line 15, this amendment would cut the FBI by $245 million. Now, we know of the important work being done on behalf of the safety of Americans throughout the world by the FBI and, most particularly, here in our own country. Our job under the Constitution is to figure out what appropriations are needed. Under our Constitution, the Ways and Means Committee is responsible for figuring out how to pay for it. We can't say that somehow the safety of our citizens is too expensive for the wealthiest, greatest country on the face of the Earth. I stand in opposition to this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman.

In reclaiming my time, you are, indeed, a person who provides a lot of leadership here in the House, and you lead our Thursday prayer efforts. I want to thank you for all the work that you do, but in this instance, I disagree with you.

I have met with Director Mueller right in my office. The FBI needs additional resources. The chairman has provided $128 million in this committee bill. This cuts $245 million when we're trying to deal with the principal responsibility for the world these days in providing protection against terrorist attacks. We just saw in the news today a new device that was attempted to be used to bring down an American commercial airliner. If such a device were to go off, it would cost our economy more, not just in lives, but in real economic costs if we had to reshape our airline industry. It would be, I think, foolish of us as a Nation to retreat from investments at this time in the FBI.

On that point, on page 30, line 15, I oppose this amendment, and I ask my colleagues to do likewise.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Less than 1 percent of American businesses export to any other country. We've been engaged in a process to increase the level of exports, in part with the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. A number of these other activities are connected. But this is an activity that has borne fruit. I've met with businesses and the people who run these efforts around the country, and they're doing real work, helping real businesses all across our country, and it creates real jobs.

I'm against the amendment. And I guess if you don't think that we should be focused on jobs and exports, you could oppose it. As for myself--and I would ask those who want to support American jobs--partly we have to do that through selling to the 90 percent of consumers who are somewhere else other than in our own country. So I support continued funding for this effort.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

We would agree to the amendment.

I rise in support of the spirit of this amendment, and I move to strike the last word.

I also have reservations about the offset. But let me talk first about EDA.

It's critically important--and I'm sorry, I want to apologize to the gentlelady from Ohio--we don't want, in this debate, to substitute insult for insight. I think that what we want to do is focus on the issue at hand. We do need to create jobs.

The EDA is a program that I think almost everyone should be able to support because it's local decisionmaking, investing in communities of interest. It's worked in every State of the country to help communities work through difficult economic circumstances when plants close and the like. It's a return of taxpayers' money to their communities for economic development activities.

What we need to do as we go forward is think about how we pay for this. This is a $38 million increase that the offset of the census will have political attractiveness. But the truth is that we can't substitute that for our constitutional responsibilities to conduct a census and to do it properly. And we have to prepare for it.

So I want to work with the gentleman as the bill goes through the process to try to find additional dollars for EDA, but I hope that at the end of the day we're able to provide more revenues for the census, to do our job as a Congress to fully fund our constitutional responsibilities to have a census and to do it correctly.

I yield back the balance of my time.

And I think the gentleman might be in opposition. Last year he voted to increase by $80 million to EDA as we went through this process; and today he comes and says he wants to zero it out.

Let me just put this in some context. We have seen gas prices go down for the last 5 weeks in a row; 200,000 homeowners today have their principals being reduced. We have 4.25 million jobs created over 26 months by the private sector. Our economy, unlike those in Europe-- Britain has slumped into a double-dip recession; we have 25 percent unemployment in Spain--America is coming back. So this notion that somehow we need to kind of just stop trying to help communities move in the right direction I don't think makes a lot of sense to me. So I join the chairman on the majority side asking that we oppose this amendment.

If there are some people somewhere who don't want economic development assistance from the Federal Government, they don't need to apply. These are merit-based competitive grants, locally decided; and it is helping communities all across our country. We had testimony in the Appropriations Committee from Members on both sides of the aisle about work being done by EDA in Alabama and all across our country. So the notion that we should support this amendment to zero this Agency out, to me, doesn't move us in the right direction. We want to go forward as a country. I move to oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

We are prepared to accept the amendment.

I rise to oppose the amendment.

My colleague mentioned small businesses. It brings to mind that, in today's financial times, it shows that we have the highest enthusiasm for hiring and economic optimism in the small business community that we've had in this country in a very long time.

Over $70 billion was made available through the Obama administration for small business loans, through 2009 and 2010, and we now see the results of it. We see millions of private sector jobs being created. Our economy has seen a decrease over 11 months from an unemployment rate of 9.1 percent to now 8.1 percent, and most economists agree it's going to drop into the 7 percent number over the next few months.

This notion that we can cut programs and, therefore, we should cut administration sounds like a lot of common sense. But when you think about it, whether one Member comes over to the floor today or 100 Members, we still have to have staff on the floor. There's still security; there are still lights. There are still expenses in an agency when you have to run any part of the program. So if you have to run a loan program, if you have to run other programs, you need the expertise and the staff to do it. Whether you cut the program back a little bit-- it's like a classroom in a school. Unless you're going to eliminate an entire classroom, you need to hire the teacher; you need to have the lights on.

So I would just suggest that, even though the gentleman may be focused on trying to do something, he says, about the deficit, that, in reality, unless he's actually trying to cripple the Commerce Department as it competes with much larger countries like China and India, economic competitors like

the European Union, trying to work on behalf of the American businesses, our Commerce Department, we cannot afford to be cutting back and cutting in a way that actually does harm to our economy. So I rise in opposition to this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in support of the amendment.

This amendment, in all likelihood, is not going to pass in the House today.

The chairman is correct that the appropriations request from the administration was fully met in the bill, but I do want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentlelady from New York.

I share a birthday with Dick Durbin, who is the majority leader in the Senate, and with the gentlelady from New York. We all happened to be born on the same day, but at least between me and Durbin, she is at least the best among us.

This effort to increase our focus on underserved communities is an important one, and that is why I am happy that she, along with the gentleman from Tennessee, have brought this amendment forward. I think that, in order to increase economic opportunity in our country, we need to be focused on this agency. It's not so much whether we save an office here or there. Rather, it's that we need to put increased focus on loans and technical assistance and contracting opportunities for businesses that have been left out. I know the chairman agrees with me in this regard. We need to continue to look for ways to increase the opportunities for this agency in order to serve these communities.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I also can support this amendment.

I led the effort in the Pennsylvania legislature to create drug courts in our State. I'm a big supporter, and I think that the chairman--in the bill before us, we've already increased this account, but I think that the amendment as offered by my colleague is something that we would support.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition.

Madam Chair, there is nothing more important in our country than the revival of manufacturing. Over the first decade of this century, we lost so many manufacturing jobs.

At the front edge of this recovery is manufacturing. So that's 370,000 new jobs. To take our Federal laboratories, which we invest billions of dollars that we have--I've visited Sandia and Los Alamos and the Fermi Lab and the Argonne Lab. We have tens of thousands of scientists and researchers there. This consortia program will allow them to work with local manufacturers and communities to help build our manufacturing base so that as we compete across the globe to build it here and sell it everywhere, that we have the manufacturing capabilities to do it.

I think this is an amendment that is unwise. We have a budget that is built not only on the agreement last year, but on the Ryan budget. We're operating within the 302(b) allocation. So for people to rise and say we don't have the money, no, this is money that's been allocated by the majority Republican Congress to spend on behalf of moving our country forward. So we should have a debate on what's important. I think manufacturing is important. I hope that we will reject this amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Let me try to make a broader point here. We fund the Department of Justice to deal with crime and the protection of our country and our citizens. The crime rate has gone down each and every year of this administration. Violent crime is down. Homicides are down. The Department of Justice is intertwined in inextricable ways with the prevention of terrorist attacks on our homeland and on our citizens, and they have had an extraordinary record.

Now there may be occasions in the House for committees to do whatever it is that they need to do. I know there have been seven hearings in which the Attorney General has testified. I know that thousands of pages of documents have been turned over. But the last thing we should be doing is stripping away resources from a department whose responsibility to all of its agencies is to protect the people who have elected us. They have a responsibility in terms of antiterrorism.

I was out at the opening of the Terrorist Screening Center in Virginia, and to see the various organizations under the mantle of the Department of Justice working hand in hand to make sure that some 300- plus million Americans are safe, I think it has been an extraordinary job done by Attorney General Holder. I think anyone in our country knows this is a political matter. What we need to do is to do our actual work here, and our work here is to deal with appropriations to figure out what the resources are that the Department of Justice needs to do its work.

And yes, there will be a day for politics. That day is on the first Tuesday in November. Today is not the day for

that. Today is the day for this Congress to do its work. I oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the ranking member.

We rise in opposition because the offsets we think are ill-advised in terms of its cuts, particularly to the Civil Rights Enforcement Office, and a number of others. We request a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

I totally support the efforts of this amendment to increase the resources we've put into mortgage fraud. And I've written to the Attorney General on this, and we have about $11 million, I think, appropriated in the bill in this regard. We need to find more.

I'm opposed to these offsets, and the idea that they won't do damage to NASA programs, I think, is wrong. It's easy to go after NASA.

I think that there's broad agreement, however, that the mortgage fraud that took place, as evidenced by the settlement that Attorney General Holder and attorney generals from dozens and dozens of States brought together with the largest banks that are helping to redress some of these problems. So we need to do more. We'll work together to try to find that.

I am opposed to this amendment, as written.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I, of course, rise in support of H.R. 5326, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act 2013. This bill includes over $30 billion for four key agencies under the Science, Space, and Technology Committee's jurisdiction: the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

It's a very strong bill, and I want to commend the gentleman from Virginia, Chairman Wolf, for his continued passionate support for science and space issues in a challenging fiscal environment. Mr. Wolf is a true champion of science, and this bill is reflective of that. I also appreciate Chairman Wolf's work to address my concerns and priorities as chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, and want to highlight a few specific areas of importance to us in this bill.

With regards to NASA, this legislation recognizes the budget realities that we must confront by responsibly imposing measured reductions across the Agency's portfolio. Importantly, this bill maintains development of a new heavy-lift launch system and crew capsule. It maintains a healthy space science enterprise, continues to support innovative aeronautics research, and funds the administration's commercial crew program at the authorized level of $500 million. Our committee will continue to provide oversight on the commercial crew program and work with the appropriators to support a program that has the best chance to succeed on schedule, with appropriate safeguards for the crew, and with the best use of taxpayer dollars.

With regards to the National Science Foundation, the modest increase for the Foundation is appropriate, as basic research and development play a critical role in our economic success. I strongly encourage NSF to broadly use this funding for fundamental research which keeps the United States at the very leading edge of discovery and not to blur this essential role with other initiatives that are best left to the private sector.

Chairman Wolf has also worked to sustain the programs of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, that directly benefit our Nation's competitiveness. The critical link between fundamental measurement science and our economic success allows NIST to innovate new ways to help U.S. companies excel within a global marketplace and create high-paying jobs.

With respect to NOAA, I thank Chairman Wolf for his continued strong support and oversight of NOAA's satellite programs and for his efforts to restore balance to NOAA's research portfolio. The bill does this, in part, by redirecting the administration's proposed significant increases for climate science to higher priority weather research that will help to protect lives and property through improved severe-weather forecasting. This topic is important to all regions of our Nation and, most recently, to northeast Texas, where an outbreak of tornadoes and severe weather in April caused significant damage to homes and property, including in my home county in Royse City. Regarding these weather research priorities, I hope to work with you as the bill moves to conference to preserve and enhance this particular NOAA priority.

House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Space,

and Technology,

Washington, DC, April 17, 2012.

Hon. Frank Wolf,

Chairman, Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies

Appropriations Subcommittee, House Appropriations

Committee, U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Wolf: On April 2, President Obama delivered a

speech highly critical of the recently passed House

Republican budget. The speech included the direct and serious

charge that approval of the Republican budget will result in

degraded storm warnings. Specifically, the President stated:

``Over time, our weather forecasts would become less

accurate because we wouldn't be able to afford to launch new

satellites. And that means governors and mayors would have to

wait longer to order evacuations in the event of a

hurricane.''

I object to the President's characterization of this issue,

and believe it is important that we set the record straight

with respect to the origin, outlook, and mitigating options

associated with the potential weather satellite data gap

referenced by the President. More importantly, I would like

to work with you in our respective leadership roles on the

relevant authorizing and appropriating Committees to redirect

questionable priorities in the President's budget and place a

greater emphasis on saving lives and property through

improved weather forecasting. Recent tornado outbreaks across

the country--including in and around my Congressional

district and Northeast Texas--serve as a reminder of the

importance of accurate and timely severe storm forecasts.

As you know, the Science, Space, and Technology Committee's

fiscal year 2013 (FY13) Views and Estimates (V&E)

communicated general concerns with and recommendations

regarding the President's budget request for the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). These views

were delivered to the Budget Committee on March 9, 2012.

However, in light of the President's remarks, as well as

NOAA's failure to send Congress its budget until March 19--

ten days after the Budget Committee V&E deadline--I believe

it is important to reiterate and expand upon key concerns

with the President's budget.

Regarding the President's suggestion that the Republican

budget will result in a satellite data gap, the Committee

views explicitly addressed this issue, noting:

[T]he Committee remains extremely concerned about the

potential for a data gap between the time that NPP expires

and the first JPSS satellite is launched in 2018.

Furthermore, the Committee does not agree with NOAA's

characterization of the gap as a result of insufficient

funding in prior fiscal years. For years, this program and

its predecessor have been plagued with cost over-runs, poor

management, agency infighting, technical problems and

contractor mistakes. The program restructuring in 2010

increased costs and delayed the program schedule.

Furthermore, in the two years since the Administration

announced the separation of the original program, NOAA has

not re-baselined the JPSS budget as required under P.L. 110

161 and P.L. 109 155. This inaction and delay is troubling,

and significantly hinders the Committee's ability to conduct

proper oversight and undertake a complete assessment of the

program's future. Additionally, the Committee is extremely

concerned that NOAA has not developed a viable plan for

acquiring necessary data if the gap materializes as expected.

The Committee recommends an immediate focus on such an effort

and believes that any such plan should be developed in a

scientific manner, utilizing the resources and expertise of

other NOAA line offices.

These concerns remain and provide important context to the

President's misleading charges. Additionally, it is important

to note that while the Joint Polar Satellite System the

President refers to is a key component of two- to five-day

forecasts, significant increases in warning times for

tornadoes must come from better models, advanced radar

technology, and more measurements from ground-based and

aerial sensors that directly measure wind speed, direction,

temperature and moisture. These relatively inexpensive Earth-

bound observing and computing systems provide the most vital

information for severe storm forecasting, and are

unfortunately the types of systems President Obama is

actually proposing to cut.

Finally, I believe the President's request misses critical

opportunities to advance much higher priority weather-related

research and technology development that will increase the

accuracy and timeliness of severe storm forecasting,

ultimately improving protection of American lives and

property. Instead, the Administration has chosen to direct

virtually all of its $29 million (7.6 percent) increase for

Oceanic and Atmospheric Research to climate research. In

fact, proposed FY 2013 climate spending of $213 million is

over $60 million more than the level approved by your

Subcommittee in last year's House-passed appropriations bill.

Simply diverting some of this increase for climate research

to research on Earth-based observing systems and development

of weather forecasting innovations would greatly improve

allocation of taxpayer resources and pay important dividends

to the country. In particular, I recommend a shift of funding

of $13 million to the President's anemic weather research

request of less than $70 million for the following four

areas:

1. Unmanned Aircraft Systems ($6 million), which will allow

for testing and use of instruments to significantly enhance

atmospheric observations, particularly in severe weather such

as hurricanes and tornadoes.

2. Graphic Processing Unit (GPU) supercomputing R&D ($5

million) to enable weather forecast models to run much faster

and more accurately with significantly greater detail.

3. Weather radar advanced algorithm and software

development ($2 million) to maximize the utility and use of

new dual-polarization radar hardware capabilities.

4. Observing System Simulation Experiments (OSSEs $3

million) to objectively and quantitatively assess the

potential benefit of alternative weather data systems to

improve global weather prediction, hurricane track intensity

and forecasting, tornado warning times, and the prediction of

local severe storm outbreaks. At a recent SST Committee

hearing, a broad cross-section of stakeholders recommended

NOAA fund OSSEs to better guide weather data system decision-

making and also inform options associated with minimizing the

loss of forecast accuracy in the event of continued satellite

launch delays and resulting gaps.

Although I support maintaining resources for important

climate research activities such as the National Integrated

Drought Information System, I would also recommend an

additional shifting of funding of $10 million from climate

research to the National Weather Service to fund observing

systems such as the NOAA Profiler Network and the National

Mesonet. These on-the-ground systems have already proven

vital for providing

data increasing the accuracy of short-term weather forecasts

and severe storm warnings.

Taken together, these initiatives, with a small relative

cost paid for by simply diverting a portion of the

President's requested increase for climate research, could

provide tremendous returns in terms of lives saved, out-year

budget savings and the avoidance of billions of dollars in

property loss and damage.

Thank you for considering this important request. I look

forward to working closely with you as you develop and

advance the FY13 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related

Agencies appropriations legislation.

Sincerely,

Rep. Ralph M. Hall,

Chairman.

Mr. Chair, funding for research, innovation, and STEM education is an investment in our future, perhaps one of the most important investments we make as a nation. China, the European Union, and many other countries understand this and are poised to surpass the United States in innovation capacity and in the creation of a highly skilled 21st century workforce, if they have not already. According to an analysis carried out by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, the United States ranks second to last of the 44 countries and regions analyzed in terms of progress in innovation-based competitiveness over the last decade. It used to be that the world's best and brightest flocked to our shores. Now many of our own best and brightest are finding better opportunities in other countries, and we are losing our edge in the competition for top talent from around the world.

In 2007, and again in 2010, the U.S. Congress enacted legislation-- the America COMPETES Act--that recognized the importance of increased investment in research, innovation, and STEM education. The funding trajectories we put forth in those bills were developed while our budget situation was healthier than it is today. While falling short of the authorized levels, we nevertheless have still managed to come together on a bipartisan basis with the Administration to ensure that funding for scientific research remains relatively unscathed as many other important programs and initiatives suffer deep cuts. This is particularly the case with the CJS bill before us today. I want to thank Chairman Wolf, Ranking Member Fattah, Chairman Rogers, and Ranking Member Dicks and for their to funding science and STEM education even as they made very difficult cuts in other worthy programs.

In particular, I want to commend the Appropriators for their enduring support for the National Science Foundation. The NSF is the only agency to fund basic research across all of science and engineering, and its support for education research has transformed the way we think about teaching and learning. The returns on our 65-year investment in the National Science Foundation include such critical discoveries as the hole in the ozone layer and the warming of the Arctic and such inspiring discoveries as new planets in the cosmos above and breathtaking creatures in the deep seas below. Our relatively modest investments have also led to such economically important technologies as fiber optics, the bar code, computer-aided design, cloud computing, and to a large extent the internet. But perhaps NSF's most important investment is the investment it makes in human capital--both in the great scientists and innovators of tomorrow and in the workforce at all level that will fill the jobs that would not be possible without those scientists and innovators.

While I am very pleased with the overall funding levels proposed for NSF, I do want to make a couple of specific comments. First, in their report on NSF, the Appropriators raise a few important oversight issues, especially with respect to management of research facilities. The Science, Space, and Technology Committee is undertaking a series of oversight hearings in preparation for a reauthorization of NSF next year. We've already held two hearings this year focused solely on facilities. I look forward to working with the Appropriators as we refine our own guidance to the agency through a careful and deliberative process. Second, I remain concerned that the agency continues to flat-fund its broadening participation programs and is now proposing a significant cut to its informal STEM education program even though the National Academies found that out-of-school learning provides a special opportunity to provide science learning experiences for millions of students who don't have access to such experiences in their under-resourced schools. We can't afford to continue leaving behind such a large and growing percentage of our brainpower. Given the overall growth in the Education Directorate proposed in this bill, I hope we can work together to ensure that NSF does not let up in its commitment to broadening participation in STEM.

Turning to NASA, it is clear that NASA is a critical part of the nation's research and development enterprise, as well as being a source of inspiration for our young people and a worldwide symbol of American technological prowess and good will. We need NASA to succeed. While fiscal challenges require difficult decisions, those decisions should not come at the expense of losing critical capabilities.

I'm pleased to see that the House bill restores a portion of the 21% cut to our planetary exploration program--a program that has been a highly successful scientific undertaking that has captured the imaginations of people around the world. Planetary science has also been an increasingly international effort, especially in plans for future Mars exploration. The rationale to back out of our plans for Mars collaborations with Europe was never clear, and this restoration of planetary funding provides the opportunity to resume our engagement in that effort and sustain critical U.S. capabilities.

Regarding the Commercial Crew development program, I have witnessed the enthusiasm from aspiring commercial crew companies testifying before the House Science, Space and Technology Committee and I wish them well. But as a steward of the taxpayers' dollars, I cannot let enthusiasm override the need for hardheaded oversight. NASA has yet to provide Congress with a convincing explanation of why it reversed course and scrapped its plan to use FAR-based contracts--contracts that allow NASA to ensure that its safety and performance requirements are met for whatever systems it funds--in favor of a agreements that cannot mandate that safety requirements be met. We don't have the luxury of paying for a ``hope for the best'' strategy that risks having us pay more down the road the problems that inevitably arise when that hope- based approach collides with reality. That is why I support a commercial crew development approach that returns to FAR-based contracts as soon as actionable.

I am pleased that the House bill provides increases for the Space Launch System and Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle--also known as Orion--over the amounts in the budget request, although even these levels are significantly below authorized amounts. It is essential that both the SLS and Orion remain on track for planned flight tests in 2014 and 2017. With respect to Orion, I hope that by the time the House and Senate have completed their negotiations on this appropriations bill, funding for that important capability will be at least at the level in the Senate's Committee-passed. We need to ensure that the development of Orion includes sufficient funding to enable preparations for its use as a back-up or alternative to commercially provided crew and cargo transportation in a timely manner in the event those commercial vehicle programs are delayed.

With respect to NOAA, I am pleased to see the CJS appropriations includes the full requested level of funding for the Joint Polar Satellite System, JPSS. It is vitally important that during a time where every region of this country is experiencing various extreme weather phenomena, we ensure that we make the needed investments in our premier weather and climate observational and forecasting tools. This year alone, this country has witnessed in every region and on every coastline some of the most extreme, record-breaking weather events. We must ensure that Americans are provided accurate short--and long--term weather forecasts--forecasts that are critical to saving lives and properties and to making informed plans.

Finally, I am very pleased that the bill before us today recognizes the important role that the National Institute of Standards and Technology plays in fostering innovation and industrial competitiveness. In this bill, NIST's research budget receives a level of funding that

will allow it to continue its important work with industry to advance the nation's technology infrastructure. I am also pleased that the research budget, along with a decision to continue robust funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program and to initiate funding for the promising Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortia program, will help U.S. manufacturers compete and flourish in the global marketplace.

One of the keys to our ability to grow the economy for the future lies in our ability to spur innovation-based economic development in regions throughout this country. The America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 recognized how critical regional innovation is to our competitiveness and authorized a regional innovation program at the Economic Development Administration. This program built on initiatives already underway at EDA, but provided the agency with the tools and flexibility that it needed to ensure the biggest bang for its buck by funding the projects with the greatest innovative potential. I am disappointed that this bill does not follow the Senate's lead by providing a separate line item of funding for this regional innovation program. If our shared goal is to promote innovation and economic growth, we should fund these activities under the program that was developed specifically with this goal in mind and not continue to require these activities to be funded through programs that were developed for other economic development purposes.

I thank Ranking Member Fattah for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise today to oppose the fiscal year 2013 Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies appropriations bill, but I want to commend Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Fattah for their truly diligent work on this bill.

The bipartisanship shown during the markup of the bill was remarkable in today's political climate and a tribute to both Members' willingness to compromise in order to move legislation forward, doing the work we were sent here to do.

I would also like to thank the Appropriations staff for their hard work on the first fiscal year 2013 bill the House will consider. From my perspective, the Appropriations staff is the hardest working committee staff in Congress and deserves recognition for all their efforts.

Mr. Chairman, the legislation we are considering today fails to make the necessary investments to promote economic growth in jobs across this country. It also fails to provide significant resources for law enforcement officials, particularly local law enforcement, as they face difficulties from austerity cutbacks by State and local governments.

The total funding for this bill is the result of the Republican leadership breaking the agreement made in the Budget Control Act. The agreed-upon funding levels were an attempt to get our fiscal house in order in a fair and balanced way. It is unfortunate that the Republicans are going back on their word and slashing funding for programs that create jobs and support law enforcement.

Importantly, funding cutbacks for the Economic Development Administration fail to meet President Obama's request for that important initiative to strengthen America's manufacturing base.

In addition, the underlying bill fails to provide State and local law enforcement with the Federal support they deserve. Cutting nearly $400 million from State and local programs at the Department of Justice is not only unacceptable but dangerous, in my view.

A particular concern for me is the lack of resources provided to meet the President's request for additional funding to combat financial and mortgage fraud. The President requested additional resources for the FBI, the Criminal Division, Civil Division, Civil Rights Division, and U.S. Attorneys. Less than half of the funding requested for the FBI is provided in this bill. No other funding is provided to investigate and prosecute financial and mortgage fraud.

I thank the gentleman.

Let me just state for the record that the average return on investment for one corporate fraud agent was approximately $54 million over the last 3 years in fines and restitution that they get back for our taxpayers because of their work. What a tremendous return on investment that is for every taxpayer dollar, recovering those funds from combating financial and mortgage fraud makes total common sense.

Finally, I oppose the provision in the bill that repeals existing prohibitions on reductions in force at NASA. There was an agreement we reached as a Congress on how to do that. This bill does not conform to that restructuring proposal.

For these reasons, I oppose the bill in its current form and, again, commend Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Fattah for bringing us to this point.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

I rise in strong support of the Michaud amendment to keep level funding for the Economic Development Administration, and I want to thank Congressman Michaud for offering this important amendment. He is a true leader in protecting American manufacturing jobs and businesses from unfair free trade agreements and works tirelessly to promote jobs and economic development here at home.

I want to say to our dear colleague from Kansas, when you look across America--and I realize this may be just your first term--but, you know, the whole State of Kansas is held up by the Federal Government, all those agricultural subsidies, CRP, rural development, wetlands reserve, etc. When one takes a look at the whole Farm Credit Administration, for heaven's sake, not every community in America has those sorts of props under them. And agriculture is a success story. Agriculture is doing very well. We, in Ohio, understand that. But there are parts of Ohio that aren't covered by programs like your State benefits from. And that's where you need Agencies like the Economic Development Administration, in those corners of America that actually manufacture but may not grow things.

I'll be more than pleased to yield to the gentleman when I finish.

Madam Chairman, the Republican majority claims their priority is to create jobs and promote economic development. However, here we are today with an appropriations bill that drastically cuts resources for the only government agency whose sole mission is economic development.

EDA's diverse portfolio of construction, technical assistance, finance and investment planning programs are designed to help communities build upon their regional assets to foster job creation and business expansion. Particularly at a time when banks are hoarding capital and not lending, EDA's capacity becomes even more important and vital.

The American Society of Civil Engineers gave America's infrastructure a D grade and estimated that over the next 5 years, $2.2 trillion is needed to upgrade our Nation's infrastructure--ports, for example, to ship some of that Kansas grain. That's why I'm a strong supporter of EDA, and particularly of its Public Works program, which funds a variety of infrastructure projects that can help America address our aging infrastructure.

I don't understand why Republicans don't want to help fund investments in America's infrastructure, the greatest job creator we can possibly have in this year of 2012.

EDA's work is generating real returns. So the argument of being concerned with the deficit falls short when you consider EDA. Every dollar in EDA funding is expected to leverage nearly $7 worth of private investment. We've seen it in State after State after State. In fiscal year 2010, EDA created or retained about 48,500 jobs and generated nearly $6 billion in private investment. What a good story that is.

Mr. Chairman, I support Mr. Michaud's amendment to restore EDA funding to FY12 levels, and I'd be very pleased to yield to the gentleman from Kansas for any comments he might have.

I'm really glad the gentleman stated that because, as a member of the Defense Subcommittee, I know exactly where the R&D comes from for fighter aircraft, for all of our support craft, for all of our Air Guard, and I know how the commercial sector benefits and why we lead the world in terms of airline exports and so forth. But that doesn't abrogate the argument, that doesn't nullify the argument I offered that the whole State of Kansas is doing very well and has a very close relationship to the Federal Government.

Agriculture achieves a special place in this economy, but that's not true in many other sectors, and particularly where we're talking about aging infrastructure, which belongs to all of us. EDA is really vitally important. It's an important ingredient in helping us to modernize coast-to-coast.

So I just want to say to the gentleman from Maine, thank you so very much for keeping the program level. We're not talking about egregious spending here. We're talking about trying to help to rebuild this country. And we know the most important investment we can make in order to create jobs in this country--after assuring unemployment benefits for those out of work, which gets spent immediately in the economy--is investment in infrastructure.

It's too bad that the Republicans can't seem to move a highway bill, a transportation bill out of this Congress. That would be the best thing we could do to create more jobs in this country in the year of 2012. But in any case, passing the gentleman's amendment to fully fund EDA makes common sense and it certainly makes job sense.

I yield back the balance of my time.