To extend the temporary suspension of duty on mixtures containing n-butyl-1,2-benzisothiazolin-3-one, 1-hydroxypyridine-2-thione, zinc salt, and application adjuvants.

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

I had an opportunity to visit, while I was in Connecticut with Chairman Larson, with a brave young soldier who lost his eyesight in Iraq. It was a situation where his ability to function required an animal to help guide him so that he could go about his normal functions of daily life.

What the gentleman who made this amendment neglected to share with the House is that it has been the law that, under the ADA guidelines, you could have any animal--monkey, horse, so forth and so on--that could be of use to someone who was disabled. What the administration has done with this new regulation is limit this to only two types of animals: one are guide dogs--as we would normally know them--and the other are miniature horses that meet certain requirements, including being housebroken and so forth and so on. The reason why people who are disabled in some cases find this a more useful animal to use is that they live three times longer than a dog does and they have perfect vision.

But I see that there has been some, I guess, laughter, as if this is comical. The fact of the matter is, when I met

with this young soldier and his wife and their two kids, he talked about how it just made him feel whole that he could go get the newspaper from out in front of the house, that he could go to the store.

So the idea that this is some new policy of the Obama administration is false, number one. Number two, it's restricting an overly broad set of allowances in this regard, and it restricts it to only two types of animals, both of which can be used by people who are disabled.

So I would hope that the House, even those in the majority who seem to find, for some reason, challenges in this bill, in particular with the provisions that they want to go after that allow disabled people to use pools--and we heard yesterday how every group in the veterans associations around our country opposed this effort yesterday on the pool access, and now we're here talking about whether or not people who have lost their sight or are disabled can have a guide animal.

So I oppose the amendment. I hope the House rejects it.

I yield to the gentleman from Utah.

Reclaiming my time, you are aware, I assume, that this ruling was a restriction from a much broader ruling that allowed any type of animal, including monkeys--and I can go into the different other animals if you'd like.

I yield to the gentleman from Utah.

Let me reclaim my time just so we can clarify this one matter of fact here, okay, in that the regulation prior to this adjustment allowed for service animals of any type--including a dog, a horse, monkey, bird, rat--trained to assist and alert, okay, that's number one. So this is a move by the Obama administration to restrict it to two types of animals. So I just want the House to be able to operate off of actual information because this is an effort to both help those who are disabled, and also to avoid unnecessary circumstances in which regulations are too broad.

I would be glad to yield.

Let me reclaim my time. This is not an assessment; this is a fact. So, this was the regulation. The new regulation retreats and constrains the regulation to two animals versus a multiplicity of animals.

I'd be glad to yield.

Reclaiming my time, because we're not talking about an assessment, I want the House to be aware of that. This is not the appropriate place to deal with this matter. But if we insist on it, I would hope that we would err on the side of that young brave soldier who risked his life on behalf of our country, and that he should have whatever assistance that can be provided.

I yield back the balance of my time.

This is a well-intentioned issue in the sense that all this amendment says is that none of the funds in this bill should be used to violate the Constitution of the United States, the Fifth and the 14th Amendment, so I'm sure there will be those who want to adhere to it.

But this is not the appropriate place to be dealing with this issue. This is an appropriations bill. We've had dozens of riders, one after another, with people trying to get at other issues.

Now, there is no instance, no matter what the purpose, under which we should be condemning law enforcement when they are carrying out appropriate responsibilities, and they should be given the benefit of the doubt. In the same instance, we have a responsibility to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution is clear in its delineation that you can't discriminate.

And we shouldn't--it's not good law enforcement practices, no matter who you're looking for, to act in ways in which you close your eyes to other possibilities. If you're looking for terrorists, they don't come in any particular subset or group. And I know that wise law enforcement is aware of this, and that they look across the board at what the vulnerabilities may be.

I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his steadfastness in trying to protect against religious bigotry or ethnic discrimination or unintentional stepping across the line, however one might want to look at this. But, again, this is a bill in which we're trying to deal with the appropriation of Federal dollars for needed law enforcement activity.

I would be glad to yield to the gentleman.

In reclaiming my time, the point here is that, with every dollar that we appropriate to the Department of Justice, we operate under the belief that they're carrying out their constitutional responsibilities, so a limitation that says that they have to operate within the Constitution, at best, is somewhat redundant.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

In reclaiming my time, I didn't say that. I understand, from the press reports one could consider this profiling. All I am suggesting to you is that this is not the appropriate vehicle for us to deal with it. Profiling would be improper, and I believe the Justice Department has articulated that their position is not to profile.

I will be glad to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

I thank the gentleman. As I indicated, I commend you for raising this issue. I know it's unpopular in some areas.

I'm just suggesting that, when in an appropriations bill, a rider like this, dictating to the Department that it should comply with the Constitution is similar to some other amendments we've seen today. I believe that the Department has an ongoing, everyday responsibility to comply with the Constitution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

It is not inconsistent for us to want to have support for law enforcement and also that the Constitution be followed. We have access to law enforcement. If you want them to come in and brief you on these tactics and to talk this thing through, that's fine; but I don't believe that we should take a position of all the angels on one side. To the contrary, there is no police department that's perfect.

The point here is that the effort is one, I believe, to comply with the constitutional restrictions that you do not operate without due process and probable cause. Let's see if we can find a way other than with this amendment to see if we can get to the heart of this.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment.

Climate change is a big issue in the world we live in. It affects our economy, our ability to move goods. We've had the most severe weather season we've had in history over the last 12 months at a cost of a billion-plus dollars. Our ability to understand the weather and the climate and its impact on business and industry and agriculture is critically important. I think that the National Science Foundation-- which is an entirely merit-based system of scientific awards in which they fund less than one out of every five meritorious pieces of research proposals. There is absolutely no politics. The National Science Board, which is confirmed by the Senate, reviews these proposals, they make selections. The idea that we don't want to know more or learn more, I think is interesting. I would hope that the House would reject that, and that what we would do is seek knowledge as a way to retain our global leadership as the leading Nation in the world.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

If the gentlewoman will yield, I thank the chairman, and I thank the gentlelady from Florida.

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I have no higher priority in the Commerce section of the bill than MEP. I have visited with them in their meetings with local manufacturers. I visited with them in Orlando with over 1,000 manufactures from around the country. I know intimately the work that they're doing. The National Innovative Marketplace, which the gentleman refers to, has been very helpful.

This is the only program in the last year that left the House at a higher number than the Senate and left the conference committee at a higher number than the House or the Senate. So you can tell it rose to its highest level of funding at $128 million. This program started under Senator Hollings at $5 million. It's very, very important.

But not only would we accept this amendment--and I thank the chairman--but I think you have to look at what we've done in this bill in total in terms of manufacturing because the chairman has been focused on this. Over $140 million in the National Science Foundation with the Advanced Manufacturing Initiative. We have money in this for the Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortium.

We, with the chairman's leadership, have an onshoring initiative funded at $5 million to help businesses think through their cost- benefit analysis of coming back home. And we actually held a hearing, as the last hearing of the subcommittee before we marked up our bill, focused on manufacturing. I've said there's nothing more important to the country or to my caucus than this matter. It's not a partisan issue. Manufacturing, making things in America is of importance to our national security and is important to our economy.

I want to thank you for your leadership. And I also agree with the amendment.

I will yield back the balance of my time.

I'm going to be brief.

This amendment seeks to intervene or prohibit a court-supervised settlement of an 18-year running litigation having to do with some very delicate issues that he has I think articulated around an endangered species of salmon. To do this at this hour of the night on this bill I think is not prudent. I'm opposed to it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

As best as I could determine, this prohibits the spending of funds; no funds would be expended under this fiscal year. So I know that the gentleman is quite energized about this, but I think it is better handled in the authorizing committees since he has legislation, and that hopefully will one day get passed and signed into law to deal with this.

If the Congress could manage buildings and deal with the utilization, you know, the Capitol Visitor Center, I mean, we can go through a whole laundry list of our own. We spend a lot of time criticizing other agencies--the GSA for conferences. You should look at what we spend. I mean, you could go through it. We could point fingers forever.

I would rather see, rather than curse the darkness, that we light a candle. We're trying to finish an appropriations bill. I'm in opposition of this amendment because it prohibits the use of funds spent on employees in a courthouse that won't have any employees this year.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

The gentleman from Georgia, I thank you. And we'll be together tomorrow morning at the prayer service--8 a.m.

But let me say this: Georgia has benefited from this effort, and Arizona has benefited, Pennsylvania has benefited. The report language you see is just the work of the committee to ensure oversight for the funds that are now being provided, for a report on those funds and what States benefit so that when we have some other gentleman on the floor wanting to cut this program years forth from now, that we'll have an opportunity to be able to specify, as I've done, the great work that this program is doing.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

So hope springs eternal, but here I am again opposing my friend's amendment.

Let me say, this program has been around for over 30 years, and a lot of political change has swept across the world from the time that this program started.

I think that it may appear to be costly, $11 million out of a $7 billion funding for the National Science Foundation, but I think that however expensive an education may be, ignorance will probably cost our country more.

It is important that we understand the political dynamics, radicalization of populations around the world, how political parties operate in the former Soviet Union, all of the other issues that are being studied.

I can see that you could probably bring a list of studies in front of the Congress from the National Science Foundation and get a laugh on any day. But these studies are important. They're merit based. They're decided on merit only.

The fact that some of the best funded universities win has to do, in part, with the fact that they're able to have very good faculty who put together very good research projects, and they provide our country and our society a great deal of intellectual benefit.

Now, there's some advantage, I guess, politically to appear to be anti-intellectual, to have some desire to know little or less about what's going on in the world about us. But it is not worthy of a great Nation.

Now, Singapore has 4.8 million people. They put $7 billion in the National Science Foundation. We put $7 billion, and we spend our time tonight debating whether we want to cut some money, trying to understand how their political system got to the point of understanding that even in a very small country, it was critically important for them to become indispensable in terms of having a thirst for knowledge.

I would hope that this House would reject this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I have an amendment at the desk labeled as Flake No. 2.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit funding for President Obama's SelectUSA Initiative. It's a program that would otherwise receive just over $6 million in this bill.

Now, if you've never heard of SelectUSA, you're not alone. Virtually nobody has heard of it outside of the committee and those who are funding it.

Last June, President Obama issued an Executive order to establish SelectUSA. It was called the first-ever Federal effort to attract, retain, and expand business investment in the United States.

It seems to me that whenever a new Federal program is touted as the first of its kind, it's usually a pretty good indication that it's completely unnecessary. This is no exception to the rule.

A quick read of the vague ways in which SelectUSA says it serves the firms and economic development organizations certainly proves that-- promoting the benefits of investing in the U.S.A., responding to inquiries about the U.S. business climate, helping investors confused by regulatory processes, offering guidance--these are hardly the responsibilities of the Federal Government.

In reality, it seems that the taxpayers are buying little more than a Web site pitching the benefits of U.S. subsidiaries to foreign companies. It includes 10 pages of links to Federal subsidized programs like Grants.gov, AARP-E, and the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program. That was the program responsible for Solyndra. Only the Federal Government could find a way to waste taxpayer dollars promoting the waste of taxpayer dollars.

Figuring out what SelectUSA does is one thing; deciphering its actual accomplishments is downright impossible. The Web site includes testimonials from companies like Rolls-Royce and Ikea, of plans to invest and develop in the U.S. These companies already do. This SelectUSA isn't helping them any more than it is helping anyone else. All the announcements are dated between 2006 and 2010, long before this program was even established. So these companies are touting the benefits of a program that wasn't even established yet; how do they know?

Hours of research by our staff uncovered only one investment that's even tied to SelectUSA, and those claims are very dubious. There's a company that's called AGS, and the President has touted this in his program as being

responsible for luring AGS to the U.S. It's mentioned in conjunction with the Michigan Economic Development Corporation and other local agencies, and it recently elected to invest more than $20 million in new U.S. manufacturing capabilities. SelectUSA, described as an Obama- launched program, is said to have facilitated coordination between AGS and local officials. But if you look at AGS, AGS has been in this country for more than 40 years, just under a different name. It was called A.G. Simpson Automotive. It's been in business, as I said, with General Motors and Ford for more than 40 years. That company has been a manufacturing presence in the U.S. since it opened a Michigan plant in 1991. Another plant was opened in Louisiana in 2003. This hardly sounds like a company that needed SelectUSA to help it discover the benefits of investing in the U.S.

There is simply no record of this investment outside of the administration press release and the Commerce Department blog post--not from AGS, not from the Michigan Economic Development Corporation, not even from SelectUSA. Only an administration press release touts the involvement of SelectUSA.

Most telling of all, the 2013 Commerce Department budget justification to Congress--which requested $12 million and 20 additional full-time employees--doesn't even include a word about the AGS investment. So what does SelectUSA even do? Well, I think the committee isn't even sure what SelectUSA does because the report language in this bill asks SelectUSA to justify what it does and explain what it does because apparently nobody even knows. Yet we took the request from the administration of $12 million and simply cut it in half and gave them half of what they requested.

Why in the world are we doing this? At what point are we going to say we can't afford to throw money away like this? Congress didn't even create this program. It was just the administration who thought it up and now is trying to justify it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I would simply submit that when the committee has to ask in report language, please justify and tell us what you're doing, it's a pretty good indication that we don't know and that the program is frivolous and we're wasting money with it.

So, right here, SelectUSA, let me read from the committee report: ``The committee recommends $6.125 million for SelectUSA initiative, which is $3.425 million more than the fiscal year 2012 level and $6.125 million less than the request''--like I said, simply cut the request in half. ``The ITA redirected $2.7 million in FY 2012''--on and on and on. It says:

No later than November 30, 2013, the Secretary shall report

on the location and type of assistance provided, the State to

which firms sought to relocate and why, as well as the number

of foreign firms that actually decided to locate in the

United States as a result of the SelectUSA process.

I would submit that if we didn't know this by now, why in the world are we giving them 6.125 million more dollars? We're running a deficit of $1.3 trillion, and we're frittering away money like this when we don't even know what they're doing.

Let me simply say that when we don't know what they're doing and the only justification comes from the administration that a company called AGS, that has already been investing in this country for more than 40 years, that needs no help in deciding or having a matchmaker pair them with U.S. firms--in fact, this is a Canadian firm investing in the U.S. They actually received trade adjustment assistance during a downturn when employees were laid off from a Canadian company in the U.S. I would submit that if a company knows how to milk the U.S. taxpayer for that, a foreign company, they know how to invest here. They know it pretty well. We've advertised it. In fact, what this Web site of this SelectUSA does is tell them the benefits they can receive if they're here--often subsidies like this.

So I would just submit, Mr. Chairman, we've got to start somewhere, and this ought to be it. I can't stress enough how we've got to start cutting some spending. This is a great place to start.

With that, I urge adoption of the amendment and thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, designated as No. 3.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit the National Science Foundation from using taxpayer dollars to fund political science research.

To be clear, my amendment does not reduce funding for the NSF. Earlier in consideration of this bill, I offered an amendment that would reduce NSF funding. This amendment is simply oriented toward ensuring, at the least, that the NSF does not waste taxpayer dollars on a meritless program.

The Nation is closing in on a $16 trillion debt; deficit, more than $1.3 trillion. Nearly 40 cents of every dollar we spend is borrowed. Congress can either continue funding unnecessary programs like someone is printing cash in the basement, or we can face facts that there simply isn't enough money to go around.

Now, I stand here today and I'll defend responsible Federal spending on matters of Federal responsibility. Among other things, Congress ought to ensure funding for strong national defense, a secure border.

There are things, however, given the economic realities, that Congress ought to reconsider funding on the back of future generations. Just remember, every dollar we're spending in discretionary spending this year, we are borrowing from our kids and our grandkids.

Let me simply say I can think of few finer examples to cut than the National Science Foundation's Political Science Program. According to the NSF Web site, to date, more than $80 million has been awarded to the program's nearly 200 active projects. Three-quarters of these awards, totaling over $46 million, were directed to universities with endowments greater than $1 billion.

Again, three-quarters of these awards under this program for political science research, totaling over $46 million, were directed to universities that have endowments greater than $1 billion.

Think about it. Three out of the four of the grants awarded by the NSF Political Science Program go to the wealthiest universities in the country. Would those who would oppose this amendment have believed that Harvard and Yale would have to close their political science departments if Federal grants are not available for this program? Of course not. These universities and the field of political science will be just fine.

However, my greatest concern is not who received these funds, but how they are spent. Every dollar Congress spends is money we don't have, as I mentioned.

So what kind of research is NSF charging to our credit card? $700,000 to develop a new model for international climate change analysis; $600,000 to try to figure out if policymakers actually do what citizens want them to do.

Let me say that again: $600,000 here spent trying to figure out if policymakers actually do what citizens want them to do. I think we can answer that question in about 5 minutes when we vote on this amendment because I can tell you, people out there want us to quit funding projects like this.

$301,000 to study gender and political ambition among high school and college students; $200,000 to study to determine why political candidates make vague statements. $200,000 to study why political candidates make vague statements. That's what we're paying for here.

These studies might satisfy the curiosities of a few academics, but I seriously doubt society will benefit from them. How can we justify this outcome?

Now, I hold a graduate degree in political science myself. I agree that such research has its benefits. The work of political scientists advances the knowledge and understanding of citizenship and government, politics, and this shouldn't be minimized. But they shouldn't be subsidized by the National Science Foundation.

We can't continue to spend money like this. I urge adoption of the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me just say, and I won't take all the time, but there is something to the ``laugh factor.'' At some point we've got to realize here that the country's watching us, and they're looking to see if we're funding programs like $600,000 to try to figure out if policymakers actually do what citizens want them to do? $200,000 to study why political candidates make vague statements?

We're funding this with taxpayer dollars. The acid test ought to be for all of us, whenever we're spending money here, is this program worth borrowing money from our kids and our grandkids, from some countries, that don't like us very much who are buying our bonds?

And this doesn't pass that test. It doesn't even come close. And if we simply say this is a big NSF budget and this is a very small part of this, this program, if we continue to say that, we'll never cut it, and that's the problem here. We aren't.

The NSF funding, overall, is way up from the post-stimulus level. We said at the time that the stimulus was passed that that's just a one- time deal, and these rates will come down, or these programs will come down. They haven't. We're continuing to fund

them. And programs like this, the country just looks around and says, this is laughable. Look at what our policymakers are doing.

Again, I would say that we will find out the question, the $600,000 question, as to whether or not policymakers actually do what citizens want them to do, by how we vote on this amendment right now.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the Denham amendment. The building his amendment targets does not exist. That's right; the building he wants to prohibit federal agencies from occupying next year in fiscal year 2013 doesn't exist.

The Central District of California courthouse which is scheduled for construction in the near future is sorely needed to meet serious safety and security deficiencies at the current courthouse built in 1940. I am submitting for the record a memo from the U.S. Marshals Service which details these concerns. It tells of criminal defendants being escorted through hallways and in elevators with judges, jurors and the general public. It talks about the physical limitations of the aging building to meet the security challenges of the post 911 world. These issues, along with a shortage of space and concerns for the seismic stability of the building, have prompted the Judicial Conference to list the project as its number one priority since 2003.

The courthouse has been reviewed by OMB and GSA and approved in both Republican and Democratic administrations. For example, President George W. Bush requested funding for the courthouse in two of his annual budget requests to Congress and the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee authorized it with bipartisan support. Furthermore it is important to note that this not new money. The House Appropriations Committee provided funding for this Central District Courthouse several years ago. This project has enjoyed bipartisan support from the Los Angeles County congressional delegation.

For the Record, I am also submitting a letter signed by both of our U.S. Senators and 17 members of the California House delegation urging the General Services Administration to move forward on the project.

Construction of the Central District courthouse will address long standing safety and security issues in the current facility in addition to bringing much needed jobs to the Los Angeles area.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this pointless amendment.

U.S. Department of Justice,

United States Marshals Service,

Los Angeles, CA, Nov. 2, 2011.

Memorandum To: Audrey B. Collins, Chief District Judge.

From: David M. Singer, United States Marshal.

Subject: Security Issues at 312 N. Spring Street.

You have asked me to describe the physical security

deficiencies of the 312 North Spring Street Courthouse. We

can provide you with photographs depicting many of these

deficiencies, if needed.

The United States Courthouse located at 312 North Spring

Street, Los Angeles CA, was built from 1937 to 1940. The age

of this building and design has presented various logistical

problems for The United States Marshals Service (USMS) in

regards to Prisoner Operations, Court Operations, and General

Courthouse Security.

Law Enforcement Gun Storage Lockers

In the Central District of California certain law

enforcement agencies are not authorized to remain armed after

passing the USMS security screening sites. Because of this

rule, there is a need for an area to secure the officers' and

agents' firearms. The only USMS space available out of public

view for the firearms locker, within close proximity to the

screening site, is also the entrance for attorneys to speak

with in-custody defendants. The officers and agents must

remove their firearms in plain view of visiting attorneys and

prisoners, showing where firearms are carried on their

person.

Judge's Underground Parking at the Main Street Entrance

Prisoners transported for court appearances at the

courthouse must be offloaded in the Judges' Main Street

parking garage, in plain view of judicial vehicles, license

plates, make-model-color of judicial vehicles, and at times

while Judges are walking to or from their vehicle.

To reach the USMS cellblock, the prisoner must walk up the

same ramp and pass the same doors as the Judiciary. It is not

uncommon to encounter Judges or court staff while prisoners

are approaching the cellblock area.

There is always the potential for prisoners to attempt

escape or be assisted by an outside threat because the Main

Street garage gate entrance opens directly onto the public

sidewalk and a heavily trafficked entry route to the

freeways.

Movement of Prisoners

The hallway that serves the USMS cellblock, as well as the

only prisoner elevator, is also the only way for Judges to

get to their vehicles.

The area to wait for the prisoner elevator is a highly

traveled common area for various agencies and contractors in

the building. The court's procurement office is located off

this hallway, and court staff, delivery personnel, and

contractors constitute daily traffic.

The prisoner elevator does not connect directly to any of

the courtrooms in the courthouse; instead, USMS staff must

escort the prisoner through the public hallway, passing

potential victims, prisoner family members, witnesses,

jurors, and other prisoners in protective custody.

While walking to courtrooms located at the other end of the

building, USMS staff must pass various entrance doors to

judicial chambers.

Only two courtrooms have usable adjacent prisoner holding

cells. As a result, in-custody defendants sitting in the

courtroom galley across from potential victims and prisoner

family.

The courtroom doors leading to judicial chambers cannot be

secured due to the age of the doors' hardware and design,

which cannot be altered due to the building's historic

status.

All prisoner movement is done through public hallways,

creating unnecessary hazards for USMS personnel, court

employees and the public.

The routes from courtrooms back to the USMS cellblock

require the use of the public corridors providing the

potential for inappropriate verbal contact with witnesses,

jurors, family members, etc.

The prisoner elevator is out of service at least once a

week due to the age of the elevator. Prisoners must be

escorted using the public elevators, walking through the main

lobby.

There is no secure circulation for judges. The elevator

utilized by judges opens to the same public lobbies used to

transport prisoners.

Of the 29 courtrooms in the building, only 12 are

accessible using a tunnel system which originates in the USMS

cellblock.

The tunnel access uses a combination of steep stairs and

narrow, winding hallways with restricted head room in various

areas. The hallways have numerous blind spots from camera

coverage, and an elevator that is usually not operational.

For this reason the tunnel system is not regularly used.

If the tunnel access is used, prisoners must still be

escorted through the rear secured judicial hallway that

connects courtrooms and judicial chambers.

Physical Security Issues

The screening stations located at the Main Street entrance,

the Spring Street entrance, and the Spring Street loading

dock were never designed to accommodate current upgraded

security and the large crowds who visit the courthouse on a

daily basis. Despite the additional concerns and potential

threats posed by high threat criminal court cases and

increased violence in society, we are not able to redesign

these security sites due to the historic nature of the

building, and the limited space available.

The ground floor windows around the courthouse are

continuously a target for vandalism due to the increasing

population of homeless people, as well as anti-government

protests occurring daily at surrounding local and state

government buildings. The windows' general make-up is

inconsistent around the building, with some windows being

bullet resistant, some with a protective mylar film, and some

with just solar tinting film. The historic status of the

building makes it difficult, if not impossible, to install

bullet resistant glass in all first floor windows. Three

ground floor windows have been broken by vandals in the past

year alone.

The courthouse lacks available handicap access on the Main

Street entrance, the most heavily used access. The courthouse

thus must have two entrances, Main Street and Spring Street,

which requires staffing by six court security officers (CSOs)

rather than just one entry where we can put less CSOs,

concentrating staffing more effectively at a single

controlled entry point.

High Threat Trials

The Spring Street Courthouse is an unsafe physical facility

for the transport of even one prisoner. Here are examples of

some of the high threat, multi-defendant trials held in

downtown Los Angeles. They provide a vivid picture of the

type of defendant, defendant families, witnesses, and victims

involved in federal criminal proceedings held

in the Spring Street and Roybal court facilities.

1. U.S. v. Orozco et al. The indictment names 53 defendants

who are all members or associates of the 38th Street gang,

and charges them with RICO, VICAR, drug trafficking/

possession, firearms trafficking/possession, and conspiracy

to tamper with witnesses.

2. U.S. v. Santiago Rios, et al. The indictment charges 51

defendants who are all members and associates of the Azusa 13

criminal street gang or validated members and associates of

the Mexican Mafia. The charges are RICO conspiracy, civil

rights violations, weapons and narcotics offenses.

3. U.S. v. Darbinyan. The case involved 70 defendants who

were members or associates of the Armenian Power Criminal

Enterprise. Approximately 15 of the defendants would be

categorized as very dangerous based on their criminal

histories and/or criminal conduct during the investigation.

4. U.S. V. Ron Hirsch. This is the synagogue bomber case.

The defendant is charged with attempting to blow up a

synagogue with a large pipe bomb. This case received

considerable national media coverage.

5. U.S. V. Oscar Juarez, et al. The indictment charges 5

defendants, two of whom are Clanton 14 gang members, with

Hobbs Act Robbery, 924(c), and Conspiracy to Distribute

Cocaine charges.

6. U.S. V. Edwin Mauricio Palacios. A 1326 case involving

an MS 13 gang member whose criminal convictions included a

1995 conviction for second degree robbery, 2008 conviction

for terrorist threats, and two arrests for participating in a

prison riot.

7. U.S. v. Raul Mercado Mercado. This is a 1326 case

involving a Sangra gang member with a prior 1996 conviction

for voluntary manslaughter and robbery.

8. Operation Silent Night. There were approximately 30

defendants arrested. Extra manpower was needed at all times

for movement due to the high security risks. The defendants

are charged with numerous homicides, including the murder of

a Burbank Police Officer. They are also charged with

narcotics trafficking, extortion, and racketeering. This is a

capital offense case.

9. Twenty defendants in another case are all gang members

of the East Side Wilmas, and were charged with murder, as

well as conspiracy. They are also charged with distribution

of illegal narcotics.

Terrorism Case

10. U.S. v. Mihalik. The indictment returned August 30,

2011 charges one defendant with making a false statement in a

terrorism matter.

Multi-Defendant Courtroom in Roybal

The availability of this courtroom assists the USMS and

judges in the Spring Street courthouse who need to be

conducting high threat, multi-defendant trials as it was

built out specifically for such proceedings. Use of the

courtroom requires the USMS to provide security

transportation from Spring Street, where the judge has

parking, to Roybal, two blocks away from chambers.

On a regular basis, however, there are far too many

criminal proceedings for the 21 district judges to hold their

criminal calendars all in this one courtroom. In 2011, for

example, 1,685 defendants had proceedings in downtown Los

Angeles, or 48 criminal cases per judge. Virtually all judges

hold criminal calendar on Mondays making use of the Roybal

multi-defendant courtroom unavailable to more than one judge

at a time. Roybal judges also use the courtroom.

I thank the gentleman for his comments and for his active support of STEM education in all forms. We'll be happy to work with the gentleman as we move forward to ensure that NSF and other Agencies in this bill are getting the most appropriate direction on STEM education needs and priorities.

Will the gentleman yield?

I want to thank the gentleman for speaking on this issue. Funding the weather satellites is a very high priority in this bill, as well as the data systems used to store and process data from the satellites. We will work with you and also our other colleagues in the body to ensure that the CLASS program is adequately funded.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I think this amendment has been adopted on other bills. We accepted the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

What does this amendment say if a young person, 15, at a high school in whatever State is watching the House at 7:30, and they say the United States Congress is ready to make it easy to get marijuana, and their mom or dad--what is going on?

This amendment hurts law enforcement. Our law enforcement people are jeopardizing their lives.

Marijuana is one of the most widely abused drugs in the United States. According to the DEA, more young people are now in treatment for marijuana dependency than for alcohol or all other illegal drugs combined.

This amendment does not address the problem of marijuana abuse and possibly makes it worse by sending a message to young people that there can be health benefits.

The Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, describes marijuana as ``the top revenue generator for Mexican drug trafficking organizations, a cash crop that finances corruption and the carnage of violence year after year.''

All you have to do is look at the news. That's why we put money back in here for the National Gang Intelligence unit to keep the Mexican gangs from coming into the United States. The Mexican gangs are being funded and they have a marijuana operation.

I don't understand. I mean, I respect that maybe for medical use at a time. And I will tell you, the first time this issue came up, I voted for it, but it was on a narrow basis. But this is wide open.

And then you're going to tell your 15-year-old or 16-year-old don't use drugs. Well, we've got the marijuana center downtown, and everybody's going in.

The FDA has stated that ``smoked cannabis has no acceptable medical use and treatment in the United States.''

I could go on, but I think that the message that this amendment would send to young people is that Congress wants to aid and abet, if you will. And we all know. We've watched ``60 Minutes.'' We've watched all these shows.

If somebody purely, really--my mom died of cancer. So many people in my family died of cancer. It's so narrow. But this is just wide open. And we've seen it where they're coming in and they're pouring over. In essence, I think this would be bad for the country.

In our hearings, we heard that more young people are dying from overdose of drugs. Then marijuana, then do we go into heroin, and then we go into OxyContin. You just saw today's Washington Post where some of the drug companies were promoting these pain operations which are basically moving and pushing OxyContin, hiring some really prominent lawyers in this town to represent them.

This would not be a good amendment for the country; it would be a bad amendment for the young people, and I urge defeat of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I hear people talking about States' rights. If a State said sexual trafficking is okay, would we honor that and say that we're not going to protect? I would hope not. States, in the past, have done some things that have not been good in this country.

Secondly, we know that many of these marijuana dispensaries are simply fronts for illegal marijuana distribution. The FDA noted in 2006 that ``there is currently sound evidence that smoked marijuana is harmful''--harmful--and that ``no sound scientific study supported medical use of marijuana for treatment in the United States, and no animal or human data supported the safety of efficacy of marijuana for general medical use.''

As required by the Controlled Substances Act, the DEA requested a scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendation from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. And what was concluded is ``that marijuana,'' the stuff that we're saying tonight-- anybody, if you saw the ``60 Minutes'' piece, they come in, they buy, they take. We talk about doctors. The number of doctors that were ripping off people with OxyContin, the number of doctors that were devastating--

You can go down to Broward County, Florida, and go into some of these pain clinics. There are buses coming down and planes coming down to buy it. And doctors are writing prescriptions. So we're going to hide behind and just say doctors are? The number of doctors that ruin, that ruin young people on OxyContin, whereby they died--they died. So to hide behind a doctor says that that means it's okay--but Health and Human Services said, ``Marijuana has a high potential for abuse, has no accepted medical use in the United States, and lacks an acceptable level of safety for use under medical supervision.''

I may be the only one in this body that feels this way, but I will tell you, I think if this amendment passes and this becomes the law, this would be a gateway to young people. This will literally send a message down to the Mexican cartels. There is going to be a market all over.

It will also increase automobile accidents because you will basically be finding people that are driving while they are high versus driving while they are intoxicated.

So, lastly, I would just hope and ask that we defeat this amendment.

Why don't you have hearings in the Judiciary Committee? Why don't you have hearings some other place? But at 7:30--and my friend from Massachusetts was joking about the time. The time is now 8:05, and we're doing this. We're changing the law. And I think it would be bad for the country and urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I want to thank the gentleman and the gentlelady for raising this issue and standing up. This was not done by our committee. This was done by the Justice Department, by the administration.

But what we will do is next week we will ask the three or four who spoke, that we bring the Justice Department in. We will get them to come up here whereby they can sit down with all of you together and your staffs to explain why, and see if they can justify this. But I just want to be clear, this was not done at the committee's request. This was the Justice Department.

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank you, and with that I yield back the balance of my time.

I share the comments made by Mr. Fattah and by my friend from New York (Mr. King).

At every hearing we have, we raise this issue with Director Mueller. Director Mueller may be the best--not one of the best--the best Director that we've ever had at the FBI. I think Director Mueller has stood with the NYPD. He had an opportunity to speak and to say something negative. He did not.

My good friend--and he is my friend. I think we throw words around there, but I like Rush Holt, and he knows how I feel about him. Yet this is not a good amendment, and it almost makes the FBI or the NYPD look like they're doing something wrong. It's one thing to have a colloquy on the floor, but another to have an amendment that looks like it's a direct kind of attack on it after. I looked at the original amendment, and you had to kind of change it for it to be in order.

Secondly, I think Ray Kelly is one of the finest police chiefs we've ever had in the country, and if you were an NYPD policeman, you would see this and think.

Thirdly, to validate what Mr. King said, I will read here:

President Barack Obama's top counterterrorism adviser

praised the New York Police Department's work Friday, saying

the agency has struck an appropriate balance between keeping

people safe and protecting their rights.

We have to remember Major Hasan was responsible for the death of 13 people, and there were targets and signs that nobody wanted to kind of identify. As Mr. King said, there are about 180 people from my congressional district who died in the attack at the Pentagon.

Brennan goes on to say:

It is not a trade-off between our security and our freedoms

and our rights as citizens, John Brennan said Friday at an

appearance at NYPD headquarters.

I believe that balance that we strike has been an

appropriate one. We want to make sure that we're able to

optimize our security at the same time we optimize those

freedoms we hold and cherish so deeply.

Brennan's comments represent a White House stamp of approval of the NYPD's tactics. For months, the Obama administration has sized up the question about the NYPD surveillance program while insisting on the importance of building partnerships with American Muslims.

Then it goes on to say:

City officials said the police department has done nothing

illegal and argued that the NYPD would have endangered the

city it is charged with protecting if it did not take such

preventative measures. Officers cannot wait to open an

investigation until a crime is committed, they argue. Police

Commissioner Raymond Kelly has said it is a

mischaracterization to describe the department's tactics as

spying.

I will close with this:

In a speech to the police department's officials and

representatives from private security firms, Brennan then

went on to say, The NYPD's counterterrorism work was

essential to the safety of the Nation's citizens.

So I agree with Mr. King, and I agree with Mr. Holt.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

In reclaiming my time, I do take Mr. Brennan at his word. I think Mr. Brennan is actually a constituent who lives in my congressional district. He has a pretty distinguished career in having been our station chief in Saudi Arabia and the head of the Counterterrorism Center, and he probably knows more about terrorism than any Member here in the Congress but for, perhaps, Mr. Rogers or Mr. Ruppersberger.

Secondly, Director Mueller, I maintain, is one of the best Directors. Director Mueller is an honest, decent, ethical guy, who cares deeply with regard to civil rights. Mr. Serrano is not here, but God bless Mr. Serrano. At every hearing, Mr. Serrano always bears in to make sure that the FBI is doing things appropriately. I believe they are, and he validated what the NYPD did.

It's just not a good idea to be attacking our law enforcement and saying this when they're actually doing a good job. So I stand with Mr. Fattah, and I stand with Mr. King.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Will the gentlelady yield?

We have a little concern, but we are going to accept the amendment with the idea we can work as we go to conference. We will accept the amendment.

I thank the gentleman from Alaska. We will work with the other body to ensure that these programs are adequately funded.

I have no objection. I support the amendment. It's appropriate to reduce the Agency's representation funds in this austere fiscal environment. Last year, the House and Senate conference committee on the bill reduced every representation account in

the bill by 10 percent. So I think MEP is a great program, and I support the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I have no objection to the amendment. I accept the amendment, and yield back the balance of my time.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, the amendment that I'm offering is intended to fortify the underlying appropriations bill. Under the bill, the National Marine Fisheries Service and this amendment seek to ensure that funding doesn't have a detrimental impact on my district.

This amendment was adopted on the floor by a voice vote last year and added to the Energy and Water appropriations bill. Further, it was also supported in H.R. 1837 earlier this year, and you would have supported what this amendment will achieve.

The San Joaquin River Restoration Program continues to push forward on an ill-advised path of wasting water out of the ocean under the guise of saving salmon. Every year, the San Joaquin River Restoration Program would require the reintroduction of salmon into the San Joaquin River if this ill-advised attempt to introduce the species fails.

The problem is that the river is not yet in a condition where the salmon can survive.

There's still a number of different problems and projects along the river that need to be completed, from a bypass to several fish screens, and even in one section of the river the administration hasn't even designated a channel from where the river will flow--and will not for another 2 years.

Premature introduction of salmon in the river will only lead to their death at a high cost to taxpayers and the local community. This amendment simply prohibits the premature reintroduction of an endangered salmon species into an uninhabitable river. Central Valley salmon runs are struggling to regain healthy numbers. This amendment ensures that bureaucrats don't purposely reduce the numbers of available salmon in other streams just to plant them into the San Joaquin system and further threaten and endanger current runs.

Agencies already possess the necessary authority to make the right decision and delay the reintroduction of salmon into a river that cannot sustain the life cycle of the salmon, but they continue to bend to an environmental agenda. More time is needed to build the infrastructure required for the San Joaquin River Restoration Program before the river can sustain the salmon run.

Finally, even the National Marine Fisheries Service has doubts about the success of reintroduction. Contained within the final draft of their reintroduction strategies, the Service stated the river would not support full-scale reintroduction of the salmon. And, further, the Department of the Interior and the Department of Commerce jointly stated that the completion of phase 1 of the restoration project was needed before reintroduction of salmon can be successful.

This is a very commonsense amendment. The river needs several different projects to be completed for the salmon to even survive. So why would we, year after year, take salmon off of other tributaries, move them to somewhere they can't survive at a huge expense to taxpayers?

Mr. Chairman, it's a commonsense amendment to prevent taxpayer dollars from being wasted on killing an endangered species.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you for yielding.

As my friend from California completely understands, we can't reintroduce salmon in an area that isn't inhabitable by salmon. It's just not only a waste of money, but it's going to kill the endangered species. Why move them from one tributary where they are surviving to one where they can't survive?

Don't take my word for it. Take the word of the National Marine Fisheries Service or the Department of the Interior or the Department of Commerce. Take the opinion of the Exchange Contractors Water Authority, the San Luis & Delta Mendota. These are the locals that live there. Why waste the money?

He knows the issue. So either he wants to kill the salmon at a huge expense or he just wants to waste the money. This does nothing to overturn the settlement. All it merely says is let's follow what was originally intended, wait until 2014 when the projects are complete, give the salmon a fighting chance to survive, and let's not waste a lot of money in the meantime.

Let's not confuse the issue. He understands this has passed the House by a voice vote. It has passed the House in a bill. And now, once again, after being debated several times in committee, in the light of day, with many amendments, with many opportunities, with the American public watching, we're going to pass it one more time.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk, amendment No. 27.

Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. This simply just prevents the funds from being used to divert vital resources to an unneeded Federal courthouse in Los Angeles.

I have the distinct privilege of chairing the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings & Emergency Management. In that capacity, I have oversight over the Federal courts.

The last Congress, at the request of this subcommittee, the GAO completed a review of the 33 courthouses constructed between 2000 and 2010. What the GAO found was incredible. GSA has built over 3.5 million square feet of courthouse space that we don't need--at a cost of $800 million. As a result, the Judiciary abandoned existing courthouses across the country and severely underutilizes every single new courthouse.

The GAO identified three reasons:

First of all, when GSA is not busy taking vacations in Las Vegas, they continue to build bigger courthouses than Congress authorizes.

It is the new amendment that is at the desk that corrects the printed amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I was saying, the GAO identified three different reasons:

GSA continues to build courthouses bigger than what Congress authorizes. Congress authorizes one thing, but then GSA goes out and builds not only something completely different, but much bigger and at much greater expense.

Number two, we don't have the judges that were once proposed.

Third, judges don't share courtrooms. These courtrooms get used about 2 hours a day, and we don't have any courtroom sharing across the Nation.

We could be utilizing these courthouses quite a bit more than what they are today. As a result, we demanded that the judiciary conduct a real courtroom-sharing study so that a third party can figure out how many judges are needed. And over the last 11 years, the judiciary projected there would be somewhere between 72 and 81 judges in L.A. by 2011.

The judiciary declared L.A. the number one judicial space emergency in the United States and proposed a massive, huge new courthouse. However, today we know the primary justification for an L.A. courthouse was wrong. There are fewer judges in L.A. today than there were in 1997. Today we have two buildings with 61 courtrooms and 59 judges. We have 61 courtrooms and only 59 judges, no courtroom sharing, being utilized less than 2 hours a day.

In that light, I have asked GSA to stop its plans to spend $400 million on a courthouse in Los Angeles. GSA has told me explicitly that they will continue with the project at whatever cost. After building a $400 million courthouse, we will have 85 courthouses and 59 judges, 85 courtrooms and 59 judges.

All of these judges--not only do we need less courtrooms, we don't need to build the one that we currently are proposing to build. You could put all of these judges in one courthouse, sell off the other courthouse, and never build the one that's being proposed at $400 million.

We've seen this before at least seven times in other cities where new courthouses were built and the old ones sit vacant today, a burden to the taxpayer and eyesores to the community. There's a big courthouse in Miami, sitting vacant. One being redone in New York, vacant. And yet we want to spend $400 million on something we don't need in Los Angeles.

I personally toured the L.A. courthouse facilities and found there's vacant space currently not being used in both the Roybal building as well as the Spring Street building. GAO ran a centralized sharing model for L.A. and found that all the judges could fit in the Roybal building alone.

This country has a $15 trillion debt, and GSA continues to waste millions of dollars on projects that no one needs. What we do need is to move everybody into the Roybal building, get rid of the vacant space, and sell off the other courthouse. At a time like this, we should be utilizing the best use of taxpayer dollars.

This is why I introduced the Civilian Property Realignment Act, to get this out of the hands of the legislature, to make sure that we are actually selling off properties we don't need.

We've sold 82 properties over the last decade, and we have 14,000 that are sitting on the vacant list. We can do a much better job, but it starts right here with the L.A. courthouse. Before we can sell off the things that we don't need, we ought to stop building the things that we don't need. Sell off the property. We can create jobs by letting the private sector go there and build something to get out of a lot of the lease space that we have in the L.A. area.

I ask my colleagues to support my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.