Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, on January 2, 1974, a gallon of gas cost about 53 cents, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 855, and the top-selling 45 on Billboard's chart was Jim Croce's ``Time in a Bottle.'' That was also the day a recent college graduate, Mary Colleen McCarty, began her professional career, reporting to work in the personal office of Representative Robert H. Mollohan of West Virginia's first congressional district.

On January 2, 2011, Colleen will bring that remarkable career to a close, retiring from my office as Chief of Staff. For the 37 years between those two January days--9 years spent working for my father and 28 in my office--Colleen built a record of service and accomplishment that few congressional staffers can match.

All of us understand how important staff is to our work. It's been one of my privileges to work with many terrific staffers throughout my 28 years in Congress, men and women who have contributed to the first district in a wide variety of ways and whom I am proud to call friends today. But Colleen has always been the one constant. Few staffers survive, let alone thrive, for 37 years in what can be a stressful and demanding work environment. But what's behind that longevity? In Colleen's case, several things.

First is a real commitment to public service. Colleen never lost sight of our purpose here. She came to work every day determined to help the residents of the first district. She began her career as a caseworker, helping somebody get the VA benefits he'd earned or qualify for black lung benefits after a career in the mines, or maybe making sure someone else was getting the right social security check or helping an American stranded overseas with a visa problem. There's nothing abstract about that work; you see the results immediately and tangibly, and that was a lesson that Colleen applied to all of her work in my office--what we do up here matters to people and for that reason alone all of us need to do our best.

Another thing that Colleen brought to work every day was her honesty and the courage of that honesty. I learned early on not to ask Colleen's advice unless I were willing to hear something completely opposite of what I believed or hoped to hear. Colleen never hesitated to speak her mind to me, and, fortunately, she didn't always wait to be asked. I have always understood how important that quality is.

Honesty is only one measure of Colleen's personal integrity. She also has strength and compassion in equal measures. That is true in her personal life as well as her professional one. I know, for example, how deeply her parents came to rely on Colleen as they negotiated the not uncommon challenges of aging. They knew, as I do, that you can always rely on Colleen.

A Congressman's Chief of Staff generally has two major responsibilities. The first is to serve as principal adviser. I just touched on how important Colleen's counsel has been. The other role, of course, is building and managing a good staff, something at which Colleen has always excelled. She cares about people, supports them, and helps them grow, both professionally and personally.

The culture of my office has always been a positive one, and that is thanks in large part to Colleen's leadership. I speak for myself as well as scores of staffers over the years in thanking Colleen for a thousand kindnesses, large and small, visible and hidden. In a very real way, Colleen retires with two bodies of work. The first is her sizable contributions to the congressional work of my father and me. And the second is the large network of staffers who have benefited from her support and mentoring over the years. In both bodies of work, Colleen enters retirement knowing that she made a difference in people's lives, that she left things better than she found them. And what more satisfaction could one ask of any career?

I always dreaded the prospect of having to replace Colleen. She actually tried to retire once or twice but always made the mistake of asking me rather than telling me. My response never varied--``No, Colleen, I just don't think it's the right time.'' And it never was the right time, for me anyway. I simply relied on her too much.

Well, Madam Speaker, now it is, finally, the right time. As I prepare to leave office, I take with me many wonderful things. But few mean as much to me as the support and the friendship of Mary Colleen McCarty. My wife, Barbara, and I offer Colleen our warmest wishes for a wonderful retirement.

Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to stand up and have the opportunity and honor to say a few words about the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, my chairman, David Obey. We all operate on teams here in the Congress. I'm especially proud to be on David Obey's team, serving as one of the chairmen of one of the subcommittees under David's jurisdiction.

David has long distinguished himself in public service. He started in the Wisconsin Assembly in 1963, and served until 1969. At the beginning of his career he may have stumbled into the wrong political party. But seeing the Joe McCarthy experience, he soon learned and developed an aversion for duplicity and felt that the Democratic Party was the home for him. I think they best reflect his Midwestern values and his progressive attitudes. I associate myself with those values and those attitudes, which makes it especially pleasurable to be a part of his team.

I'm sure it's been mentioned here before that David served in Congress for a long time and that he came to the Congress as the youngest Member when he came, at 30 years old, and he's served 42 years. So, do the math. And now he's voluntarily retiring from this institution, having left a very distinguished record from the beginning. Arriving with new ideas about how the Congress ought to operate and how it ought to be more open and how it ought to be more embracing of new Members, he was extremely effective in implementing those ideas, moving on through his career to higher responsibilities and becoming, ultimately, chairman of, as we refer to it, the powerful Appropriations Committee.

His values that he came here with he continued to want to express. It was very important for him to continue his service as chairman of the Labor, HHS, Education Subcommittee where he could really affect all of those constituencies, which really allowed him to do those things that were important to him and to express that progressive attitude.

Madam Speaker, David Obey has been a real contribution to the United States Congress. During his career--and it will be lasting after his career--his mark has been indelible in the reforms that are reflected in how we do business here. I don't know of a person in the institution who could have assimilated within the appropriations process--the rules and changes in procedures in the way we did business in response to legitimate concerns about the appropriations process--better than David Obey. It was his ability to separate the chaff from the grain, to understand what were legitimate expressions of concern about the appropriations process, his ability to deal with them, and his embracing the prerogatives of the appropriations process. At the same time, we recognize the process of the legislative branch reflects that which will really be his legacy.

Madam Speaker, thank you for allowing me to say a few words. I want to personally thank David Obey for his personal considerations.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to alert my colleagues to some growing concerns in Kazakhstan.

As an ex-Soviet republic, Kazakhstan has made great strides in the past several decades. In fact, it was just 1991 when Kazakhstan became the last of the Soviet republics to declare its independence. Today, Kazakhstan serves as the Chair of the 56 member-nation Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

While I commend Kazakhstan for the progress it has made over the past several decades toward becoming a more democratic nation, I am increasingly concerned about ongoing allegations of corruption, human rights abuses, human trafficking, religious persecution, election tampering and suppression of free speech within the nation. In recent years, I have seen reports indicating that Kazakhstan's governmental system lacks the basic rights of democracy--elections are often fraught with fraud; political opposition is suppressed; few independent media outlets exist; and respect for human rights, religious freedom, and freedom of speech is questionable.

The United States has sought a mutually beneficial relationship with Kazakhstan and provides aid to Kazakhstan to enhance economic growth, democracy, security and humanitarian needs. We understand, because of Kazakhstan's centralized location between Europe and Asia, that it is in a unique position to help bridge East and West. However, I am concerned that the current U.S.-Kazakhstan relationship could be compromised and I think it is time we critically evaluate these very serious allegations.

I applaud the work of the Helsinki Commission under the current leadership of Senator Ben Cardin, and previously, Congressman Alcee Hastings for their ongoing commitment to bringing these matters to light and I would urge my colleagues to take the time to look into this issue.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to call attention to an issue that threatens the economic viability of many industries and the existence of thousands of jobs in and around the coal fields of our Nation. That issue, Madam Speaker, is the Environmental Protection Agency's proposal to regulate fly ash, coal ash, as a hazardous material.

Over the past 2 years, Madam Speaker, the EPA has peppered the Federal Government and the Federal docket with a myriad of proposed rules and undertaken aggressive, zealous enforcement actions targeted at industries in Appalachian States.

This much continued pattern of rulemaking and enforcement action is destructive to the central economic engine that fuels this Nation's energy needs.

In its latest round of regulatory bravado, EPA released a proposed rule in

June to impose additional regulation of coal combustion byproducts, fly ash, under subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, RCRA, as a hazardous waste. I'm speaking today, Madam Speaker, in opposition to EPA's extreme and burdensome rulemaking option to regulate fly ash as a hazardous waste under subtitle C.

This rule, Madam Speaker, would unnecessarily jeopardize construction and manufacturing jobs in addition to increasing the costs of highway and other infrastructure projects which are so vitally needed in my district and in districts throughout the country. Why? Because fly ash is an essential and reasonably priced ingredient in products used by these industries, and this rule would in and of itself dramatically increase that cost.

Why is EPA pursuing the subtitle C option when the agency determined under both Democratic and Republican administrations, Madam Speaker, through two reports to Congress and two final regulatory determinations that coal ash does not warrant regulation as a hazardous waste? During EPA's four prior reviews of this issue, it concluded that States can safely manage coal ash under Federal nonhazardous waste rules. EPA's subtitle C option is wholly inconsistent with its own past decisions.

Clearly, Madam Speaker, the 2009 impoundment failure to Tennessee Valley Authority's Kingston facility, which started all of this review, called important attention to this particular issue and reinforced the need for operational changes to avoid future accidents. The Federal Government must absolutely work to ensure safety and environmental protection where coal impoundments are concerned. EPA's subtitle D option, regulating fly ash as a nonhazardous waste, provides these important protections while protecting the important economic opportunities available through beneficial recycling of coal fly ash.

Madam Speaker, regulating fly ash as a hazardous material is overkill, putting precious jobs at stake, and would cost $1.5 billion a year to implement according to EPA's own estimates. These costs will be absorbed by American families who are already facing constraints of tough economic times.

Coal combustion by-products are currently recycled for several perfectly safe and beneficial uses, including cement, road materials, and wallboard. These beneficial uses of coal ash create jobs. The subtitle C option would unnecessarily stigmatize coal ash and obstruct its beneficial use in these vital, important infrastructure projects. It's counterproductive to add more waste to our landfills when we could be safely putting it to use in our roads and bridges, creating more jobs and building projects at reasonable prices.

In closing, Madam Speaker, EPA's subtitle C option for coal ash regulation will have a significantly adverse impact on job creation and economic recovery. This rule option would be deeply damaging in West Virginia and throughout the Nation, and, therefore, I strongly encourage EPA to pursue the subtitle D option, the nonhazardous option, in its rulemaking process.

I appreciate, Madam Speaker, the opportunity to speak this evening about the importance of protecting West Virginia jobs, the Nation's jobs, and reasonably priced infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5874) making supplemental appropriations for the United States Patent and Trademark Office for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 5874.

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

Mr. Speaker, the United States Patent and Trademark Office, on an annual basis practically, has budgetary problems. It arises from the system under which they are funded and estimate their own finances, and the Appropriations Committee responds to that. It's imperfect because their predictions are obviously imperfect. They are talking about revenues that they may or may not receive into the future.

This legislation addresses their concerns for this year. The activities of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office are fully financed by user fees. And every year Congress appropriates an amount for the agency's activities that is equal to what the agency estimates it will collect in fees.

Based on higher-than-estimated fee collections to date in fiscal year 2010, it appears that the agency could potentially collect more in fees this year than was earlier estimated, and these additional fees would be unavailable to the agency this year under its current 2010 appropriation level.

What this bill, Mr. Speaker, will do, is allow USPTO to spend up to an additional $129 million in patent and trademark fees if the agency actually collects fees over and above the current appropriation level of $1.887 billion. This additional appropriation was requested by President Obama's administration and is based on a revised CBO estimate of the agency's fee collections for fiscal year 2010. This bill reflects the administration's and Congress's commitment to make fee revenue available to USPTO for patent and trademark activities.

The timely and efficient processing of patent and trademark applications is critical to the competitiveness of American businesses and the contributions of individual inventors to economic growth. The USPTO currently takes an average of over 34 months to complete the examination of patent application and has maintained a backlog of unexamined applications for several years. There are approximately 1.2 million patent applications now in the system, with over 750,000 awaiting an initial review by a USPTO patent examiner.

We should be clear, however, about what this bill will do and what this bill will not do. If the additional fees are actually collected in the remaining weeks of the fiscal year, the additional $129 million in budget authority provided by this bill will begin to help the agency address the ongoing patent pendency and backlogs.

Mr. Speaker, what this bill will not do is fix the underlying structural flaws in USPTO's revenue mechanisms that are the major cause for the patent pendency and backlog problems that have plagued USPTO for years. The only path to a meaningful and permanent reduction in patent pendency and the backlog is for stakeholders to support, and Congress to approve, new fee authorities for USPTO that will lead to patent fees that reflect the actual cost to the agency and to our government. But that is beyond the scope of this appropriations bill.

Before concluding, Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that the Appropriations Committee consistently appropriates budget authority for USPTO based on the agency's own estimates of fee collections, and the current year appropriation was no exception to this rule. The administration's request for

this supplemental appropriation is based on higher-than-expected fee collections.

In cases where fees collected by USPTO but not appropriated in an annual appropriations bill are credited to a specific account within the general Treasury, those additional resources can be made available for appropriation to USPTO in subsequent appropriations acts, such as the one we are considering today.

While the bill before us today will not address the underlying problems at USPTO, it will provide additional relief to the agency as it seeks to address the patent backlog issue, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I note the distinguished ranking member's comments about ``the suspension Congress'' and lack of notice with regard to pieces of legislation.

I would just point out that, first of all, he is very familiar with this bill and very familiar with the USPTO. He has handled this legislation very competently as chairman and as ranking member and as a member of the committee. So he is very familiar, I know, with the subject matter of which we speak and the difficulty that USPTO faces because of the structural nature of the way it achieves funding every year.

He also knows that their estimating at the beginning of the year is an imperfect process because it's a prediction and it's based upon that prediction coming true in the future and it rarely does. They are either underestimating, or they overestimate. In this case they have financial needs that can be better met with this additional $129 million. And the good news for USPTO is that they underestimated last year. Consequently, if they continue to collect fees at the current rate, they will collect $129 million more than they projected.

Given that, it is only right that we try to address those needs in the context of their newly projected fee collections so that they will be able to reduce this unacceptable backlog. As the gentleman points out, in a negative way, that's not known really until it happens or if the trend line begins to become apparent; and it is becoming apparent.

We're going on recess here in a couple of days. It would be great to have notice on everything; a week in advance, or 3 days in advance or whenever in advance it would be satisfactory. This is a pretty simple proposal actually and I don't think it's difficult to understand.

I must say we on the majority side weren't noticed many minutes before the minority was about the approach to this. I know the gentleman is--or I believe from his remarks and his attitude in the past with regard to recognizing USPTO's needs, not a current but its structural needs of how you fund it, is certainly not opposing this.

I just wanted to assure him that there is no intent on our part in any way to mislead the gentleman.

I would be very chagrined if we ever did anything but treat the gentleman fair. He is an outstanding Member of the Congress.

Mr. Speaker, a lot of Members are very interested in USPTO and interested in fixing it on the authorizing side and, of course, on the appropriations side.

Three of those many Members who are particularly interested in USPTO have cosponsored this legislation. One of them is Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania. Mr. Murphy is here to speak on the legislation. The other two are Chairman Conyers and Chairman Moran: Chairman Conyers in the authorizing committee, and Chairman Moran is a distinguished member of the Appropriations Committee. I just want to note that they've been at the forefront of fighting for PTO and adequate funding so that they can reduce the backlog of which we speak today.

Mr. Murphy is a young Member, a distinguished member of the Commerce, Justice, Science Subcommittee which funds USPTO. He's taken a particular interest in this issue, becoming very knowledgeable about it, and has been in the forefront of moving this legislation that would help them.

It is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to draw your attention to a troubling situation occurring in Ukraine. Less than 100 days ago, President Victor Yanukovich assumed leadership of the Ukrainian government. During this short period of time, there have been alarming reports that many of the democratic achievements of the 2004 Orange Revolution are being rolled back--including the freedoms of speech and media.

Some of the reported actions occurring include the Ukrainian Security Service's, SBU, agents approaching university deans to warn them against their students' participation in pro-opposition rallies, as well as instances of the new government intimidating journalists. Furthermore, two TV channels with a history of independent coverage-- Channel 5 and TVi--are under threat of imminent closure due to reported pressure from executive bodies, including SBU.

These troubling instances of pressure against Ukraine's beleaguered opposition and independent media outlets are arguably part of a disturbing, coordinated effort by the executive to squelch a healthy political debate and assure an uncritical coverage of the government's policies. In fact, these reports are so widespread that the United States Ambassador to Ukraine, John Tefft, even recently expressed his concerns about the increasingly difficult climate for Ukraine's independent media and stressed that ``it is essential to protect and even expand the media freedoms that emerged'' after the country's 2004 Orange Revolution.

I understand that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will visit Kiev, Ukraine on July 2, as part of her five-day, five-nation tour of Eastern Europe. I would encourage Secretary Clinton to raise these issues with President Yanukovich and reiterate the importance of not returning to Ukraine's old system of government pressure on journalists and media companies.

I am including a copy of an article titled, ``Ukraine channels cry foul as frequencies pulled'' that appeared in the June 8 issue of The Financial Times, Europe. As such, I urge my colleagues to follow and engage in this vitally important issue.

[From the Financial Times, June 8, 2010]

Ukraine Channels Cry Foul as Frequencies Pulled

(By Roman Olearchyk in Kiev)

Two Ukrainian television channels cried foul on Tuesday

after a high court pulled crucial broadcasting frequencies

away from them, sparking media freedom activists to reiterate

concerns of an organized attempt to block objective news

coverage.

The development follows weeks of growing complaints by

journalists about the resurgence of censorship and heightens

fears that a Kremlin-styled crackdown on media freedoms could

be in the works five months into the presidency of the

Moscow-friendly Viktor Yanukovich.

Management and journalists from channels 5 and TVi pledged

to appeal against the controversial ruling and hope to remain

on the air in the near term. But during a press conference

held after Tuesday's regional administrative court ruling,

they openly expressed fears that media freedoms and

democratic gains made by Ukraine since 2004 could be at risk

under Mr. Yanukovich. He is accused by oppositionists of

setting up an authoritarian regime.

``We lived through 2004,'' said Channel 5 director Ivan

Adamchuk, recalling attempts by authorities to muzzle the

channel ahead of the pro-democracy Orange Revolution, which

overturned a fraud-marred presidential vote for Mr.

Yanukovich. ``We could not imagine that those times would

return, but they have,'' he added.

Oleh Rybachuk, a former presidential administration chief

turned civic activist, said ``censorship is re-emerging, and

the opposition is not getting so much coverage. There are

similarities to what [Vladimir] Putin did when he came to

power. We are seeing Putin-style attempts to monopolise

power.''

With Mr. Yanukovich's coalition having swiftly consolidated

control over the nation's legislative, executive and judicial

branches of power, the channels could face an uphill battle

if he opposes their survival.

Mr. Yanukovich's administration on Tuesday repeated denials

of cracking down on free press. But media watchdogs warned

that if stripped of the frequencies, the two channels--seen

by media watchdogs as rare sources of reports critical of Mr.

Yanukovich's coalition--would be blacked out from much of the

country.

Such a scenario would preserve the strong grip over

Ukraine's television airwaves held by Mr. Yanukovich's

billionaire business backers.

One of them is Valery Khoroshkovsky, currently head of

Kyiv's SBU spy agency and owner of UA Inter Media Group, the

nation's largest television holding. The latter filed the

court appeal asking for the frequencies to be pulled on

grounds that they were wrongfully issued in January.

Both 5 and TVi have repeatedly accused Mr. Khoroshkovsky of

abusing his power and influence to preserve his monopoly

control over Ukraine's media airwaves and limit objective

news reporting.

Mr. Khoroshkovsky denies wrongdoing and insists his wife

manages his media empire as he dedicates his time to public

service.

But on Tuesday, Mykola Knyazytsky, director of TVi, which

was set up by exiled Russian businessmen, blamed Mr.

Khoroshkovsky for the crack down on the two channels and

described his simultaneous role as a presidential backer,

intelligence chief and media mogul as a ``huge and blatant

conflict of interest.''

I thank my friend and colleague from West Virginia for yielding. And I know we have many tender memories of the Senator.

Mr. Speaker, it was with profound sadness that I learned yesterday of the passing of Senator Robert C. Byrd. This country knew Senator Byrd as one of the lions of the Senate, a ferocious advocate for his State and a principled spokesman for his beliefs, whether it was his opposition to the war in Iraq or his commitment to improve safety and working conditions in the coal fields of West Virginia.

This Congress, both sides of the Capitol, knew Robert C. Byrd as the chief defender of its constitutional prerogatives, an unequaled master of its parliamentary rules, an expert on its history, and one of the ablest legislative tacticians either Chamber has ever seen.

West Virginia knew Senator Robert C. Byrd as her own. It's difficult to adequately describe the bond of profound connection between the man and the State. People from outside the State might assume that this connection was built on the senator's legendary success in delivering Federal funds to West Virginia, and that would be wrong.

West Virginians understand how important that success was, of course. We know that those material contributions are literally incalculable in dollars invested, roads paved, buildings constructed, and jobs created. But the bond between Senator Byrd and West Virginia went far beyond that. It is almost as though his personal story not only inspired West Virginians, as it would most Americans, but that it captured so much of our State's culture

and our State's values. That personal history is known throughout the State.

Senator Byrd was the adopted son of a miner who graduated as class valedictorian. He was the manual worker who earned a law degree while serving in the United States Senate. He was the husband who relied for almost 70 years on his beloved wife, Erma. Those qualities of discipline, of integrity, and commitment forged in the mountains of West Virginia and exercised in the halls of Washington speak more strongly to West Virginians than any material measure of his immense contributions to the State.

I cannot imagine Robert C. Byrd representing any State other than West Virginia, and it is difficult to imagine West Virginia without Senator Byrd.

I knew Senator Byrd as a mentor. I was first elected to Congress in 1983. And after 28 years, I like to think of myself as a reasonably seasoned veteran of this body. But then I remind myself, before I took my first oath of office, Senator Byrd had already served more years than I have today. Twenty-eight years ago he was already a master of the legislative branch.

From my very first days in this House, Senator Byrd never withheld his support or his counsel. I can remember many times Senator Byrd calling Congressman Rahall and myself over to his office just to consult, to ask what was going on in West Virginia, or to take counsel himself on what was going on in the House of Representatives, or just to find out what was going on in our personal lives, how our parents were, how our fathers were, how our mothers were. Those were touching moments.

Senator Byrd, many people have asked me, well, what is Senator Byrd really like? You know, he is such a disciplined person in public. People want to know, well, what is he like in private? And I think there are several insights that we have had glimpses of in previous speakers here this afternoon into what he was like as a man beyond a legislator. I can remember his being very touching and very concerned about his dog Billy, and bringing him to the Congress, or if he were home, worrying about how he was getting along. Very concerned and obviously loving toward a pet.

But most poignant was Senator Byrd's relationship with his wife, Erma. It was long. She was his childhood sweetheart. Senator Byrd used to tell the story about courting Erma with another young man's candy. The young man would come to school, and Senator Byrd and him would catch up, and the young man would give Senator Byrd a piece of candy. And Senator Byrd wouldn't eat that candy; he would save it and give it to his future wife, his sweetheart, Erma. That relationship lasted and grew and was warm and inspiring throughout his life. And her passing a number of years ago was a very sad time in the life of Senator Byrd, obviously. It was also a very sad time in the State of West Virginia. They were a couple to be beloved by West Virginia.

I remember another touching moment, when my father passed almost 10 years ago. Senator Byrd attended the funeral and continued on after the service for about an hour's drive to where Dad was interred. And Senator Byrd after the service, he pulled me aside and told me what a lovely cemetery this was for Dad's resting place.

Finally, I knew Senator Byrd as a friend. I cannot remember a time when he was not in my life. And I will miss my friend. My wife, Barbara, and I offer our deepest condolences and our best wishes to Senator Byrd's family, to his staff, and to that close, wonderful circle of people who knew him and loved him.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding, and I thank him also for his leadership on mine safety and workplace safety.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank the sponsor of this resolution, my colleague from West Virginia's Third Congressional District, Nick Rahall. Coal miners and the coal industry have no greater champion than the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, Chairman Rahall.

Mr. Speaker, tragedy has visited West Virginia's coal mines again. It is a visitor our State knows all too well. The names of the communities change with each visit, and the years do as well. Monongah in 1907, Dola in 1963, Farmington in 1968, Sago in 2006, and now Raleigh County, April 2010. The names change, Mr. Speaker, but the grief and the sorrow, they stay exactly the same. The mother who lost her son last week is united with the sister who lost her brother in 1968 and the daughter who lost her father in 1907.

Mr. Speaker, shy of 2 million people live in my State. Maybe one in 90 earns a living as a coal miner in the coal fields. Most West Virginias have never been underground, and most never will be. But every one of us lives with the knowledge and the full appreciation of what can go wrong whenever a new shift of miners goes underground. Coal mining is not just my State's most important industry, it is central to our culture and our social identity. When tragedy visits one of our communities, it visits our entire State. It brings us together. It reminds us in sometimes a difficult life we can always look to that larger community for support.

We saw those bonds in the rescue crews last week battling fatigue and risking their lives. We see those bonds in the volunteers on-site in Raleigh County today. And we see those bonds in the churches and the union halls and the schools throughout the State, wherever West Virginians come together.

There is hard work ahead of us and there is pragmatic work ahead of us. The engineers and the experts, they will come and they will analyze what went wrong in Raleigh County last week. This Congress will debate what went wrong last week. We will assign responsibility. And we will consider what actions are necessary to make the hard work of taking coal from the ground less dangerous, to do all that is possible to prevent such future tragedies. That will be the most lasting testimonial we can offer those who lost their lives in Raleigh County.

But today we acknowledge their loss, we thank those who tried to save them, we offer our deepest condolences to the miners' families, and we come together again in support of our community.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 3650, the Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of 2009, which recognizes the growing problem of harmful algal blooms in coastal and freshwater environments.

Unfortunately, I know all too well the need for this legislation. In September of 2009, a fish kill occurred in Dunkard Creek, a 38-mile creek on the border of West Virginia and Pennsylvania. According to news reports, this massive fish kill eliminated more than 160 species of fish, salamanders and endangered mussels from one of the most biologically-diverse streams in either State. The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection determined that golden algae caused the kill, but much remains unknown. How did the algae arrive in West Virginia? What factors contributed to the bloom? How can blooms be contained from moving throughout the watershed? More information is needed to develop a thoughtful process to mitigate and control the growth and spread of harmful algae.

Fortunately, the legislation under consideration today recognizes the increasing number of freshwater algal blooms, and establishes a partnership between NOAA and EPA to research, monitor and respond to those freshwater blooms. Ultimately, this legislation will put West Virginia in a better position to address existing blooms in the State and prevent further spread of golden algae.

For West Virginia, this is an ecological and economic issue. Our rivers, creeks and watersheds are recreation destinations, modes of transportation, and are critical to local economies. I am pleased to support this measure, and look forward to its enactment.

Madam Speaker, I join my colleagues today to express my deep sadness at the passing of our colleague, Jack Murtha.

As I look around the Floor of the House this evening, I see Democrats and I see Republicans. I see veteran members of the so-called ``Pennsylvania corner'' and I see freshmen members--from California, from the northeast, from the south. I see Jack's fellow appropriators, and I see members who, on other days perhaps, boast proudly of never seeking earmarks. Jack Murtha was one of the few members of this body who could draw together such an eclectic group.

That is not a surprise--for Jack Murtha was truly a man of the House. He was a Member's Member. He cared about his colleagues, and he respected his colleagues--even when he thought they were wrong. Being able to disagree civilly has--to the great detriment of our public life--become an uncommon quality in Washington. Jack practiced it better than anyone.

Jack was a legislator. His ability and willingness to work with almost anyone was one of the reasons Jack was so effective--if you're a Democrat and wanted something done, you wanted Jack on your side. If you're a Republican and wanted something done, you wanted Jack on your side.

Jack was a Representative. He loved his District, respected his constituents, and worked as hard for them as any Member ever has.

Jack was an institutionalist. He believed in this House of Representatives, he defended its prerogatives, and he protected them. It has been my great privilege to work closely with

two of the greatest defenders Congress has ever seen--the senior Senator from my own state . . . and Jack Murtha.

Jack was a leader. His respect for his colleagues and his commitment to this House informed his role as Chairman. Jack recognized the importance of what we do here, and Jack was always--always--prepared. There was never a man more suited to the gavel than Jack Murtha.

Jack was a Marine. If he had not been a Marine, he could have played the part--the man radiated strength and purpose in every action he took. But Jack not only looked the part, he was the genuine article. And there is, of course, no such thing as a former Marine--once a Marine, always a Marine. As fiercely as Jack defended the prerogatives of Congress, his commitment to our House took a back seat to his commitment to men and women in uniform. The service member--an infantryman outside Fallujah, a Marine in Afghanistan, an airman in Bagram, a sailor in the Persian Gulf--has never had a better protector than Jack Murtha. Jack was one of them.

That is the chief reason he didn't hesitate when he came out so publicly against the War in Iraq--something that earned him the respect of many and the enmity of some. I don't know that he didn't care about either judgment, but I do know that neither applause nor condemnation guided his decision at all. His allegiance was to the men and women in the field.

To me, Jack was a friend and a mentor. In a sense that was a relationship I inherited. My father, who represented West Virginia's First District until he retired in 1982, worked closely with Jack. Shortly after I won election to his seat, Dad told me that I would never go wrong seeking Jack's counsel. He was right.

Finally, Jack was a family man, a loving husband and partner to his wife, Joyce, and parent to Donna, John, and Patrick. Their loss cannot be described by words. They have my deepest condolences.

Jack will be missed by all.

Madam Speaker, Senator Robert C. Byrd today becomes the longest-serving Member of Congress in our nation's history. I join my fellow West Virginians and, indeed, citizens from across the country in congratulating Senator Byrd for this historic record.

We mark Senator Byrd's longevity today, but that longevity is not what captures his greatness. I have worked with Senator Byrd for more than a quarter of a century--barely half of his tenure in the Senate-- and I have known him for most of my life. His greatness is built on three pillars.

First is his personal story and the way that it has always informed his career. Robert C.

Byrd grew up as the adopted son of a miner, graduated as class valedictorian in the depths of the Great Depression. Unable to afford college, he worked where he could find employment--pumping gas, selling produce, cutting meat, welding metal in shipyards. He courted, married, and relied for almost 70 years on his beloved wife, Erma. He earned a law degree even while serving as a Member of Congress. The qualities of discipline, industry, integrity, and commitment underlying that personal history would define greatness in any man no matter his station in life.

Second is his profound connection to the people of West Virginia. Senator Byrd is of the people and he is for the people. He has given West Virginians a lifetime of commitment and faithful service, and the people in turn have given him an unbreakable bond of trust, respect, and deep affection. I cannot imagine Robert C. Byrd representing any state other than West Virginia--and I cannot imagine West Virginia without the decades of service Senator Byrd has given it.

Finally, Senator Byrd's greatness derives from his devotion to the Senate and reverence for the Constitution that established it. As that other icon of the Senate, Ted Kennedy, put it, ``Bob Byrd personifies what our founding fathers were thinking about when they were thinking about a United States Senate. He brings the kind of qualities that the founding fathers believed were so important for service to the nation.''

Madam Speaker, even as we congratulate Senator Byrd for his years of service to his state and his country, we also recognize that it is not the number of those years we are celebrating but the content of those years. That content demands that for as long as there are people who care about the history of this nation, the name Robert C. Byrd will be mentioned in the same breath as Daniel Webster, Robert La Follette, Henry Clay, Edward Kennedy--the half dozen or so true giants of the Senate.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. For those of you of my colleagues who might support this amendment because you believe that withholding clean needles from addicted drug users is somehow helping in the fight against illegal drug use, please allow me to suggest that that is a mistaken view and that you are really promoting the incidence of infection, of disease, and death among active addicts and those with whom they socialize. Indeed, that's the point. Needle exchange is not about promoting drug use. It is in fact about preventing disease.

Now, to understand why this is true, you really must understand that at the heart of addiction is craving. An addict, a person who is addicted, they are addicted because they crave. They have to have the drug that artificially gives them that feeling of well-being, that instantaneous euphoria. There is a powerful craving.

There are lots of ways to enable drug use. There's lots of ways to help promote drug use in the country, to enable. Families allowing drug users to have access to resources is the most prominent one.

But the needle exchange program advocated for and carried out by health professionals is not one of those enablers because, again, why? At the moment that an addicted person has to have the drug, he or she is driven by this craving and the condition of the needle is not going to deter its use.

Now, while that may not be rational, while people who are standing around thinking rationally, Gee, you wouldn't use a bad needle. They are not acting in a rational way. And that's the point.

The condition of the needle is not the deterrence and therefore withholding clean needles simply means that they likely use and share dirty needles--and this spreads disease.

Would the gentleman yield?

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. 2847, and that I may include tabular material in the same.

Will the gentlelady yield for purposes of accepting the amendment?

Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the amendment, and we accept the amendment.

I thank the gentlelady, and thank her for her amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to accept the amendment.

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

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

Indeed, this would be a huge impact on the Bureau of Prisons. There is not an agency in this bill that is in greater need of additional salaries and expenses money. This amendment would eliminate $97.4 million, the increase for the Bureau of Prisons' salaries and expenses account that the committee provided above the budget request.

The amount of the increase was not pulled out of thin air. It was precisely calculated based on an in-depth analysis by the Appropriation Committee's surveys and investigations staff to be the minimum amount necessary to restore BOP's base budget, which has been progressively hollowed out in recent years by inadequate budget requests.

Without this $97.4 million, the Bureau of Prisons will be unable to hire additional correctional officers, which it desperately needs, and will likely be unable to activate two newly constructed prisons. The BOP simply cannot sustain another year without additional prison capacity and staffing. The Bureau of Prisons prisoner population is currently 37 percent above the rated capacity for BOP facilities, and the prisoner-to-staff ratio is an appalling

4.9 to 1. A ratio of 3.2 to 1 is the average for the States, which is far better than the average that the Bureau of Prisons used to approach.

Not only does inadequate investment in Federal prisons result in unsafe working conditions for prison staff, as we have seen from attacks and even fatalities in our prison system, it also makes it impossible to do the kind of reentry programming necessary to reduce recidivism. The result is more crime in our communities and a higher long-term cost to the taxpayer of future incarceration.

I am really not exaggerating, Mr. Chairman, when I say that there is no other agency in the bill for which I am more confident about the need for additional resources. I urge our Members in as strong as possible terms to reject this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

The gentleman is correct. This is an important program, and we are inclined to accept his amendment.

Will the gentlelady yield?

I thank the gentlelady for her leadership in this area with this amendment, and Mr. Chairman, we are inclined to accept the amendment.

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

As part of his argument in support of the amendment to strike all funds and language for the Legal Services Corporation, the gentleman appeals to our concern about the national debt.

Well, we all have a concern about the national debt, and it's all about priorities. This amendment would attempt to effect a balancing of the national debt or a reduction of it on the backs of those who are the absolutely least able to afford it and making an extremely small contribution in the process.

Now, more than ever, the Legal Services Corporation really needs a healthy Federal appropriation. Difficult economic circumstances across the country are driving record numbers of Americans under the income thresholds that establish eligibility for Legal Services Corporation. Fifty-one million Americans are now eligible for legal aid, including, Mr. Chairman, 18 million children.

At the same time, non-Federal funding sources for legal aid are declining as State budget deficits and pressures on private charitable organizations have reduced legal aid contributions by outside entities. Now is the very time that legal aid needs Federal support. LSC providers already turn away one out of every two eligible clients who seek assistance. So already, in a difficult economy, when those seeking legal aid are becoming increasingly eligible, we're turning away 50 percent of those who need the service.

With no Federal funding, as the gentleman has proposed in his amendment, Legal Services Corporation grantees would be forced to turn away even more clients who are in desperate need of help.

I urge Members to consider the true human impact of that proposal and oppose the amendment. And I go back to where I started. This is the wrong place to try to balance the budget, on the backs of those who are least able to make a contribution.

I oppose the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment which would essentially prohibit any funds to be spent with regard to the implementation of the Executive order requiring the closure of the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay.

I believe that the closing of Guantanamo is the right policy decision. The President believes that, and the President has acted on that. It's an embarrassment to the country. It's a symbol that has really fomented a lot of opposition to the United States around the world. The continued existence of Gitmo is a basic assault on our values, and it undermines the success in our counterterrorism programs.

President Obama and I aren't the only ones who believe this. Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen and the Nation's top civilian and military defense officials agree that it should be closed. Also, both President Bush's Secretaries of State and a variety of other bipartisan political officials agree that it should be closed. So this is a bipartisan position.

We have already clearly communicated to the White House that they must submit a plan showing how they intend to proceed. The White House has agreed, and I am confident that their plan will show a reasonable path forward.

The bill before you today, Mr. Chairman, includes provisions to ensure that the Congress will have sufficient opportunity to weigh in on that plan, when it is submitted, and to preclude most activities prior to that. This legislation before us tonight does not permit the release of Gitmo detainees into the United States during fiscal year 2010. It does not permit the transfer of detainees to the U.S. for detention or prosecution purposes until 2 months after we've received the plan. It does not permit the transfer of detainees to foreign countries without notification and certifications to the Congress, and it does not provide any funds for activities relating to the Gitmo closure. This will ensure that we have additional opportunities to debate this issue when the administration requests a budget amendment or a supplemental to fund this plan.

We have established a good process for the consideration of this issue, and it should be allowed to play out before we start prejudicing a plan that we don't even have before us. This bill postures this issue in a good way. I oppose the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment.

I scratch my head as I did in full committee. Why would the gentleman be offering an amendment to jerk the rug out from under the Recovery Act at a time when the Recovery Act is beginning to stimulate and to help the recovery of our economy in the Nation? It is just the wrong time to do this, and

I still question the gentleman's logic in this.

Mr. Tiahrt's amendment attempts to prevent the obligation of Recovery Act funds for the Economic Development Administration. If there is one agency in the Federal Government that is focused on fomenting economic development, it is the Economic Development Administration. This agency is charged with stimulating economic development in areas that are most needy head on and the amendment is trying to undermine its ability to do its mission.

NTIA's digital-to-analog converter box program is attacked, as is the NIST research construction account. There is criticism in a lot of areas, and certainly in some quarters on the other side of the aisle, by those who oppose the Recovery Act, that funds are not getting out quickly enough for construction. Those are the areas that demonstratively provide real jobs in real time.

So it's unclear why Mr. Tiahrt is singling out these agencies when so many other agencies in this bill also receive funds under the Recovery Act. It is the wrong time to reach back and to try to undo the stimulus package at a time when the economy is recovering. Recovery is measured by a lot of things--by the recovery in the credit markets, by improvements in the capital markets.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. It is an unwise time to do this, and I would hope that the body would oppose the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would close by repeating again that this is the wrong time. The markets are improving. Credit is being reestablished. Confidence in the economy is increasing. This is the wrong time to jerk the rug out from under the stimulus package, which has gone a long way in achieving this progress. I oppose the amendment.

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

I thank the gentleman.

I commend him for his efforts in this area, environmentally conscious, and I appreciate his contribution to our bill.

Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for his contribution to the bill. It is a real one, and we are pleased to accept the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, while I may not be in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

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

Mr. Chairman, an across-the-board cut to this bill of 5 percent is really disastrous. As a general proposition, cuts that are indiscriminate affect every account in a

bill--whether it's this appropriation bill or any other appropriation bill--and one of the best reasons to oppose them is for that reason, they're indiscriminate. They affect every account in the bill, and that, of course, means that someone has not done a thoughtful exercise in going through and trying to find out where there might be a few extra dollars with regard to this account or that account.

I would also suggest that that's exactly what this subcommittee has done, both the majority and the minority, and we have done it in close cooperation with the minority as we have worked this bill this year and brought it to the floor of the House. We have looked at every single one of these accounts. We have done exactly what this amendment does not do. We have done the hard work of thinking about where dollars should be applied, where the need exists, and where that need exists, we've increased funding in accounts, not indiscriminately, but very consciously through a thoughtful process.

Now, just a couple of examples of what a 5 percent cut would do. In the Department of Commerce, a 5 percent reduction would result in the complete elimination of $370 million of Census contingency funding, significantly increasing the risk of unforeseen events impacting field operations with regard to the census.

Mr. Chairman, we are on the brink of conducting the 2010 census. The census has had a lot of starts and stops along the way. Those matters have been corrected, and we are in a position to have a good, accurate census conducted in this country. This is the wrong time to take any cut with regard to Census.

A reduction of $230 million to NOAA would eliminate the entire National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service, or alternatively, literally wipe out all salmon and endangered species funding.

Mr. Chairman, a reduction of $92.4 million to the rest of the title 1 would eliminate the Minority Business Development Agency and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration salaries and expenses, as well as Public Telecommunications Facilities' planning and construction account. Those are accounts that directly impact people sitting around tables in kitchens across the country.

For NASA, this cut would significantly reduce needed contingency in the development of all new NASA missions, missions for which we just heard Democrats and Republicans speak about with great concern.

The National Science Foundation is another example. This drop in government support for research and development, on top of the falloff in corporate research investment and private foundation support, would stress the Nation's research universities at the time that this country needs to invest in research, needs to invest in development so that we're at the cutting edge of the new economy as we go forward, which is at the very heart of President Obama's new economic recovery plan and strategy.

An across-the-board cut, an indiscriminate cut of any kind--5 percent, 1 percent, 2 percent--I consider it to be mindless. It's not a careful consideration of fashioning fiscal policy.

I hope that this amendment will be opposed by the body.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to my friend from Indiana's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am sympathetic to the gentleman's interest. But I don't share his concern. There was some talk earlier this year about the White House taking the census or taking a leadership role in the census. We have had public assurances and private assurances that indeed the White House has no such intention.

The fact is that the census was admittedly mishandled during much of the Bush administration, so that toward the latter part of the administration everybody was scrambling to try to repair the damage that had been done. To its credit, the Department of Commerce, the Bureau of Census, conceived of a census in 2010 that would involve as much technology, as much automation, as possible. The vision was to be accurate and to be less expensive.

Unfortunately, the contractor and the Secretary of Commerce actually took a lot of responsibility for the agency, for the contractor not having correct instructions. But in fact the job was not well- performed, whether it was the fault of the Commerce Department and the bureau or whether it was the contractor.

The point is that we have spent a lot of time during the last years of the Bush administration and certainly this year ensuring that we corrected those problems, that we got ahead of those problems, so that we could rely on a credible, accurate census. Those adjustments have been made.

I would just assure the gentleman that there is no inappropriate involvement by the White House. I absolutely embrace his notion that the Congress should be fashioning it, and I think we are doing that with quite a bit of oversight. I know this appropriations subcommittee has been conducting a lot of oversight.

So my remarks in opposition to his amendment I hope are more in the way of assuring him that we are on top of this, and we are looking at it. I know there is a lot of concern. I hear it on radio, I see it on television, certain talk radios are obsessing with regard to ACORN, and I think, personally, in many ways demonizing a whole organization for the conduct of a few.

Yes, ACORN could be a part of the 30,000 partnerships that the Census Bureau will embrace to reach out to communities, many of them hard-to- identify communities. I know the gentleman shares the goal of having as accurate a census count as possible, and I know the gentleman understands that there are hard-to-access communities, and I am sure that the gentleman embraces the idea of partnerships to reach out and give assurances to those communities so we can count as many folks as possible.

There is no money associated with ACORN through those partnerships.

So, again, I oppose the gentleman's amendment, and my comments are such that I oppose it more to reassure him that we are all about an accurate, just census, and we intend to do our part to ensure that.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment is a 1 percent cut. The amendment we argued a few minutes ago was a 5 percent cut. The gentleman's amendment is arguably just five times less destructive to programs that this subcommittee on both sides of the aisle have carefully balanced as we have worked months and months in drafting this legislation.

The gentleman is correct; it is a 1 percent cut to the bill, as written. The agencies could look at it and they could apply the cuts as they saw fit. But understand that they are cuts.

Imagine a couple of places where these cuts would be felt. For example, safety and security of inmates and corrections officers in Federal prisons. It is an area that we have been working on for several years to understand exactly what the needs are. The bill is carefully drafted to provide adequate funding to the Bureau of Prisons to ensure safety and security for inmates and corrections officers in Federal prisons. A 1 percent cut would be $71 million if applied to BOP.

A 1 percent cut would eliminate $345 million in new funds to safeguard the Southwest border. It would undermine the Southwest Border Initiative perhaps, Mr. Chairman, if that is where the cuts were taken.

There is $3.4 billion in grant funding for State and local law enforcement assistance, including $298 million to put additional cops on the beat. $100 million for prisoner reentry initiatives. $94 million for tribal law enforcement assistance. All of this represents funding that again has been carefully fashioned, carefully considered and carefully appropriated by the appropriations subcommittee and by the full committee as we moved this bill to the floor. A 1 percent cut would undermine any or all of those programs by that amount.

Mr. Chairman, for all of those reasons, I oppose this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the use of the word ``irresponsible'' gives me pause because if the Appropriations Subcommittee for Commerce, Justice, Science has done anything during the last 6 months, it has responsibly considered the administration's requests with regard to funding of these accounts. Indeed, our Appropriations Committee has cut $200 million from the administration's request. At the same time we have filled a lot of holes that the administration left such as $300 million for SCAAP. We filled that hole because the administration requested zero for SCAAP. On the floor yesterday we added $100 million more to SCAAP because it has such broad bipartisan support in this House.

We restored $400 million for State and local law enforcement, money to help our local police, our local sheriffs, our State police, as they do their job in very tough times protecting our citizens back home.

This legislation has been very responsibly considered, and while our appropriation is less than the President requested, it still goes a long way to adequately fund all the accounts in the bill.

Now, the gentleman makes light of a 1 percent cut. But understand, a 1 percent cut in a $64 billion bill is $644 million. $644 million is $200 million above the SCAAP hole that we had to fill. It's just $200 million above the $400 million in the State and local law enforcement assistance grants that we filled.

So the gentleman, 1 percent, when it's said like that, sounds like just a little bit. But understand, this bill that we bring to you to the floor today is below the President's request and, at the same time, we have provided funding for SCAAP to the tune of $400 million above the President's request, which was zero.

I can tell you, State and local enforcement across the country, and I would just imagine in the gentleman's district, are very much appreciative of that support as they deal with crime in tough economic times when local government and State government are having trouble meeting those budgets in order to fund that safety.

A lot of this is ideological, and the gentleman looks to these domestic accounts to achieve these reductions. I would point out that these accounts are not flush with funding. Indeed, our funding in this bill is below the President's request.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I'd just point out that this is a 19.4 percent reduction in the funding of the bill. And that equates, by my math, to $12.5 billion below this bill's recommendation. This committee's recommendation to the full House would be $5 billion below the 2009 funding level.

Understand that, just right off the top, this subcommittee has a $4 billion additional obligation to fund the census as we move into 2010. That immediately and graphically demonstrates the effect this kind of a cut would have on the bill.

For all the reasons that I have particularized in debating other percentage cuts to the funding in this bill, I oppose this amendment, Mr. Chairman.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, it's just a small point, but I don't know what numbers the gentleman is looking at from 1 year ago, and it doesn't affect his overall point, which I totally

understand. He wants to reduce the bill by a significant amount of money.

But 1 year ago the accounts funded in this bill totaled $57.651 billion. As I understand the gentleman's cut, and as we have done the math on it, his cut would take us down to $52 billion, which would be $4 billion or $5 billion below.

I yield.

I will reclaim my time. I'm looking at the actual number here, but the gentleman's point is well taken.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I am not in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I am thrilled to support an amendment from the minority, and I want to compliment the gentleman from Washington for his concern.

He is absolutely correct. This program is authorized under the Violence Against Women legislation. It was not funded in this bill. There are a number of programs in VAWA and we found it difficult to fund all of them. Every year, we want to add to them. The gentleman's contribution to the bill and to fighting violence against women is real, and we appreciate it. We accept the amendment.

Domestic and dating violence is very serious and can be dealt with through the program that the gentleman is advocating, so we thank him for his contribution, and we look forward to working with him as we move this legislation through conference to ensure that his efforts here are retained.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman.

I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would first point out to the gentleman that I am not sure this is the bill on which the gentleman should make his arguments against a National Climate Service.

It is true that there is considerable discussion within the administration and outside of government in consideration of a National Climate Service and also in the authorizing committees here in the Congress.

It is also true that we have some money in this bill--for research and satellites--that is in anticipation of an authorization of a National Climate Service. That money is also needed by the Weather Service. Of course, the gentleman understands we fund the National Weather Service through the Commerce Department accounts.

To really try to impact or prevent the creation of the National Climate Service, I would suggest to the gentleman that this is the wrong place to go. We ought to respect the authorizing process. The gentleman, I would assume, will direct his efforts with regard to frustrating the creation of a National Climate Service to the authorizing process--and the gentleman may serve on that committee, I don't know. That's the place where, respectfully, where you could better direct your efforts. An appropriations bill, particularly in one in which the organization is not even stood up, is, I think, the wrong place for the gentleman to direct his energies.

So, for that reason and others that deal with the necessity for this Nation and for the world to better understand what is happening to the world's climate and how global climate change is going to adversely impact our lives, I would oppose the gentleman's amendment.

Most importantly, I would just like to suggest to the gentleman that this isn't the place to deal with this issue particularly at this time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would close my opposition with the observation that there are no funds in the bill to establish a National Climate Service. There is money in the bill to fund weather observations, which relate to climate observations, and which is collected in the normal course of the National Weather Service's operations.

We anticipate the authorizing committee will come forward with such a suggestion. We'll see how it fares on the floor of the House and in Congress and if the President signs it into law as time goes forward; but there is, in fact, no money going to establish the National Climate Service in this bill.

I will yield.

No, for the same reason I wouldn't assure the gentleman from Indiana before.

What happens in conference is in the context of all of the issues that are being considered in conference. So I can't predict that future, and I won't

commit to any specific attitude in conference.

I will point out that the authorizing committee is considering this. We respect the authorizing committee process. If they were not to authorize a National Climate Service, then that would be something that we would take seriously into account as we engage in conference with the Senate.

I will yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to assure the gentleman that the Census Bureau will not use sampling for purposes of apportionment. To the extent that's a concern, I want to extend that assurance. The Supreme Court has already ruled against the use of sampling for the purposes of apportionment, and it will play no role in the apportionment next year. Existing law prohibits the use of sampling for apportionment.

This amendment would prevent the Census Bureau from completing important aspects of the census that are unrelated to apportionment, such as coverage measurement. Coverage measurement is used to measure the undercount and thus assure the quality, and provides a performance measure, if you will, Mr. Chairman, for the decennial activities. The Bureau needs this data to identify gaps in coverage and to improve its process so that Americans can be assured of the best possible census in the future.

Now, I've heard this debate for the last several censuses. Sitting on this committee, we deal with this issue every 10 years. Sampling is a statistically sound methodology. Again, it's not going to be used for apportionment, assuring the gentleman. But it is a statistically significant and accurate way to have a better count. It's sound, and it achieves accuracy, and that's the whole point, through a scientific method.

Now, I didn't take statistics, so I have to rely upon the scientists to tell you this, but I've listened to enough of them assure us that that's the way they get a better count, a more accurate count, and isn't that tremendous that we have these sophisticated methods to achieve that?

So to oppose sampling in and of itself, I think, is to disagree that sampling does achieve greater accuracy, and I think that is disagreed with by the scientific community.

Mr. Chairman, at this point I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns).

Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas, a member of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Berry.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlelady from Maine (Ms. Pingree) who is a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud).

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California, a member of our subcommittee, doing an excellent job on that subcommittee, Mr. Honda.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

Thank you for reminding me of that, Mr. Chairman.

I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

I yield for a response to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.