Floor Statements

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

Mr. Chairman, the National Drug Intelligence Center was requested by the administration. The President's request was for $44.023 million. The request in that amount was approved by the committee. The National Drug Intelligence Center provides strategic drug-related intelligence, document and computer exploitation support, and training assistance to the drug control, public health and law enforcement and intelligence communities in order to reduce the adverse effects of drug trafficking, drug abuse and other drug related criminal activities.

In this bill, Mr. Chairman, the organization is funded at our recommendation of $44.023 million, which, I repeat, is at the budget request.

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 yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina, our majority whip, Mr. Clyburn.

I yield the gentleman from South Carolina 15 seconds.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for the opportunity to stand up and speak about and in favor of the JASON Project.

For those who might not know, the JASON Project is a powerful education program, as Mr. Langevin just described, promoting hands-on learning, science learning, that connects primarily fifth-grade and eighth-grade students and their teachers with great explorers, scientists, role models, cutting-edge research.

This subcommittee, Mr. Chairman, held a number of hearings on science education. It's a topic of great concern for the subcommittee as we fund the National Science Foundation and NASA and NOAA, all agencies that have wonderful science programs, and they also have an education mission.

So we sponsored these hearings to try to determine what is the best educational experience, how do we effectively promote science education among our youth, a challenge that is difficult to me.

The subcommittee heard from Dr. Harold Pratt, former president of the National Science Teachers Association, and Bill Nye the Science Guy--if Members on the floor don't know who he is, their children certainly do--underscores the critical need for science education programs, such as the JASON Project, to attract America's youth to science disciplines and to better equip our teachers through professional development.

Both of our witnesses agree that the struggle to attract and to retain students to science begins early, begins in elementary school, and that the preparation and education of science teachers is one of the most important elements in that recruitment. The JASON Program, which was founded in 1989 by Dr. Robert Ballard, who discovered the Titanic, has helped inspire and motivate more than 7 million students and teachers to become more proficient in science. And I can't think of a program that has a better return on investment than one that has reached so many and that has such a profound impact on America's innovation and competitiveness in the long run.

It does one other thing, Mr. Chairman: It promotes the private-public partnerships that the gentleman, who is the author of the amendment, frequently alludes to. It's a wonderful program. It serves the Nation. And I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Member from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon).

I just wanted to mention to the gentleman from Arizona that I don't know if it's making him feel any better about the 12- percent increase in the bill, which he accurately notes, but approximately 7 percent of that--maybe a little more than 7 percent of that is the increase in Census, about $4 billion to prepare for the 2010 census. It's an unusual increase, and it is directly related to the census and would be a short-term funding increase for that.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I just wanted to tell the gentleman from Arizona that learning that makes us all feel, on this side of the aisle, better about waiting for him tonight.

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

I thank the gentleman for the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. I think it is a fair rule and comprehensive. And, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out the effort that went into fashioning this bill, which was very exhaustive and very inclusive of all parties.

During the review process, Mr. Speaker, for this bill, the fiscal year 2010 budget request for the Commerce, Justice and Science and Related Agencies Appropriation bill, the subcommittee had a total of 24 budget hearings. I understand that we didn't get the budget request until late this year, but we had budget hearings even before we got the request and budget hearings even after we got the request.

The subcommittee received testimony from Members of Congress--many Members of Congress inputted this process early on before we marked up--and some 68 outside witnesses. This testimony was crucial to our fashioning the bill, and the thoughts and the concerns of those who contributed are incorporated in this bill. In addition, officials of the administration representing all of the Departments in the bill one way or another inputted the legislation by testimony or otherwise.

And this year in particular, Mr. Speaker, the subcommittee focused on a series of hearings on investments for all facets of the scientific enterprise--climate science and mitigation--as well as prisoner reentry programs, recidivism reduction, and criminal justice reform.

Mr. Speaker, we focused on some of those areas because we felt that in the past there had been neglect, and that we needed, for our economy and also for just appropriate operation of these agencies, that additional funding was needed.

In brief, the bill totals $64.4 billion, which is an increase of $6.7 billion over last year, and it's $200 million below the President's request. The bill provides $30.6 billion for investments in science, technology, and innovation, an increase of $1 billion over comparable levels from last year.

I think there is a consensus that investments in science technology and investments in innovation are comparable to economic development necessary for us as we prepare for the new economy, as we work our way out of the recession that we find ourselves in. Investments in the new economy are crucial, and this committee that funds science is at the center in the critical path of that effort.

Within this level, the bill provides $6.9 billion for the National Science Foundation and $18.2 billion for NASA. For NIST, the bill provides $781 million, and NOAA is recommended at $4.6 billion. The committee's recommendation continues to provide the resources consistent with the doubling path identified.

It also considers the science and research conducted at NOAA and NASA as critical to the Nation's science enterprise.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the Rules Committee for fashioning a rule that recognizes, first, the welcoming input that this committee has had from our colleagues throughout the process. The minority has been fully a part of the process. We very much appreciate Mr. Wolf's contribution to the bill. Many of his thoughts--I can't think of one that's not incorporated in the legislation one way or another. He was a former chairman of this subcommittee, and therefore his contribution and his insight is particularly beneficial, and we appreciate that contribution.

I support the rule, Mr. Speaker, and hope that our colleagues will as well.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in regard to H.R. 2847, the legislation appropriating funds for Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies for 2010.

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

Mr. Chairman, if this is June, it must be appropriations season, and today I'm pleased to present to the House the first of the appropriations bills for fiscal year 2010, H.R. 2847, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriation bill.

While the summer may be hot and humid, as is typical in the Nation's Capital, with the assistance of this body, our days and nights need not be long for the House to fully consider this and the other 11 appropriations bills in regular order, or so we hope.

I want to thank the ranking member of this subcommittee with most sincerity for his assistance, help, counsel, and guidance in the development of this bill. Mr. Frank Wolf of Virginia was chairman of this committee for a number of years, served on it for a great number of years. We served on it together. He brings to this bill a lot of experience and knowledge and that is really helpful as you work up an appropriation bill, and I appreciate, Frank, very much your assistance on the bill and the credibility and knowledge you bring to it.

I also want to thank publicly and personally the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Obey, for his assistance in developing this bill. Mr. Obey's courtesy and the assistance of the front office has been very much appreciated, and we also appreciate, Mr. Chairman, the allocation that you've given us for this bill that's allowed us to do what we are allowed to do, however short the allocation may be.

I would also like to sincerely recognize the staff: the excellent work of the clerk, John Blazey, and the leadership he's provided to the rest of the staff, and all of them have done excellent work, which I appreciate: Adrienne Simonson, Dixon Butler, Diana Simpson, Darek Newby, Tracey LaTurner, Scott Sammis, all with the subcommittee; Mike Ringler and John Martens on the minority staff. And then on my personal staff, Sally Moorhead and Julie Aaronson.

It's a lot of work putting together one of these appropriation bills, as anybody who's been involved with it or close to it understands, and they have worked long hours diligently with great competence to move this bill forward, and I most sincerely thank them for the efforts. We couldn't do this without them.

Mr. Chairman, in brief summary, this bill totals $64.4 billion, an increase of $6.7 billion over last year, but it is $200 million below the President's budget request. The bill provides $30.6 billion for investments in science, technology, and innovation, an increase of $1 billion over comparable levels from last year.

Within this level, the bill provides $6.9 billion for the National Science Foundation and $18.2 billion for NASA. For NIST, the bill provides $781.1 million. For NOAA, it's recommended at $4.6 billion. The committee's recommendation continues to provide resources consistent with the doubling path identified for NSF and NIST in the COMPETES Act. It also considers the science and research conducted at NOAA and at NASA as critical to the Nation's science enterprise just as that performed by NSF and NIST.

For law enforcement and other agencies of the Department of Justice, the bill provides a total of $27.7 billion. Full funding of $7.9 billion for the FBI, $2 billion for the DEA, and $1.1 billion for ATF.

For the Bureau of Prisons, the bill provides $6.2 billion to address longstanding critical shortages in corrections' staffing and education, in addition to drug treatment. For State and local law enforcement activities, the bill provides a total of more than $3.4 billion, restoring, in large part, reductions proposed by the administration.

For programs funded through the Office of Violence Against Women, the bill provides an increase of $11 million, including a $10 million increase for STOP Formula Grants, and a $1 million increase for Sexual Assault Victims Services.

I want to be clear that while the funding table in the report for the Office of Violence Against Women may appear in the report to show a funding decrease, that is only because the bill moves a number of programs to the Office of Justice programs which actually administers those programs.

So, let me repeat, the bill increases funding for the Office of Violence Against Women by $11 million.

The bill provides a full funding of $298 million for the COPS hiring program. In other areas within the Justice Department, the bill provides $325 million--an increase of $41 million over the fiscal year 2009 level--for the Adam Walsh Act.

With respect to border security, the bill provides $1.5 billion, a 30 percent increase over fiscal year 2009. These funds will be used to address firearms and narcotics trafficking between the United States and Mexico, an issue on which every Member of this body has concerns, and we're pleased to provide these increases.

For the Second Chance Act, the bill includes a total of $114 million to develop and implement evidence-based strategies and programs at the Federal and State levels to reduce recidivism and the future costs of incarceration. I want to particularly compliment the authorizing committee for the good job that they have done with the Second Chance Act and other legislation they are considering. We are looking forward and appreciate the opportunity to cooperate with them on the funding side.

A significant initiative across the Department of Justice is increased investments in law enforcement and prosecution efforts in Indian Country, for which the bill provides approximately $155 million, and that is an increase of $65 million over fiscal 2009.

For SCAAP, which the President proposed to eliminate, Mr. Chairman, the bill includes $300 million.

With respect to the Department of Commerce, $4.6 billion is slated for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, an increase of $129 million above the request.

The bill provides $7.4 million for Census, the same level as the budget request.

For NASA, the bill provides a total of $18.2 billion, an increase of $420 million over last year's level. Investments have been made in Earth science to further the decadal surveys. The recommendation, however, acknowledges, and this is important for Members to consider and take note of, that the administration has established a blue ribbon panel, Mr. Chairman, led by Dr. Norm Augustine, to review the current vision for human spaceflight.

Funds are provided in this bill to continue investments in human spaceflight at the level of last year. Reductions from the budget request should not be viewed by this body as any diminution of certainly my support or the committee's support in NASA's human spaceflight activities. Rather, it is a deferral. It is a deferral taken without prejudice. It is a pause. It is a timeout.

Call it what you will, it is an opportunity for the President to establish his vision for human space exploration, looking at the Augustine report when it becomes available in August, and then for his administration to consider what their vision will be, and then, most importantly, certainly for our committee, Mr. Chairman, to come forward with a realistic future funding scheme for the human space exploration program.

We hope it is a vision worthy of the program, and we look forward to realistic funding levels, which we have never had, or haven't had for many, many years, for human spaceflight.

It is also important to note that the total funding contained in this bill for NASA is an increase of $421 million over the fiscal year 2009 level, and, moreover, some $1 billion was provided in the Recovery Act for NASA activities.

Lastly, the bill provides $440 million for the Legal Services Administration. Appropriations for Legal Services increased by almost $90 million over the last couple of years, with which we are very pleased. It is still underfunded compared to base years in the nineties. This is indicative of the rising need for legal support for the poor, particularly because of mortgage fraud and the home crisis.

The bill continues the existing limitations, Mr. Chairman, on the use of these funds, except that it lifts the current restrictions on attorney's fees.

Mr. Chairman, that is a brief summary of the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for those kind comments about our Bureau of Prisons hearings. I would like to comment he was the leader with regard to prison reform and has been for a great number of years. Based upon those hearings, he is the one that contacted the State Council of Governments to encourage them to follow up with their proceedings in the fall. Thank you, Mr. Wolf.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the full committee, Mr. Obey.

Mr. Chairman, let me thank my colleague, Congressman Culberson, who is a fine member of our subcommittee, and who brings particular expertise. As I often say, I aspire to know as much about the sciences as he does and he makes significant contributions to our committee. I thank him for his passion to our committee, and also to our Nation's space programs.

I share the sentiments the gentleman just expressed. I should note that the bill before the House today does not cut human spaceflight programs in fiscal year 2010; rather, the bill level funds ongoing activities until such time as the Augustine Commission completes its review, and the Obama administration commits to the next generation of human spaceflight.

I appreciate the work of both my colleagues from Texas. I appreciate and agree with the sentiments that they've expressed here today. I just wish I could have expressed them as eloquently as my colleague and committee member, Mr. Culberson, particularly as he alludes to the Civil War. I can think of no comparison to match it. But the sentiment I agree with.

I thank the gentleman for his comments, and look forward to working with him on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Carney).

I thank the gentleman. I appreciate his rising on this important issue, and I appreciate his leadership in supporting increased funding for the Bureau of Prisons.

BOP funding has simply not kept pace, Mr. Chairman, with the rising prison population and the aging BOP infrastructure. 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 4.9-1. We must begin to turn that around, and this bill takes a big step in that direction. This committee has had this concern for a number of years and has been working diligently to increase this funding.

The bill provides an increase of $481.5 million above the fiscal year 2009 level for the Bureau of Prisons salaries and expenses, which is $97.4 million above the administration's request. We added that $97.4 million to help restore the BOP's base budget, which has been progressively hollowed out in recent years by inadequate budget requests. These additional funds will enable the Bureau of Prisons to hire additional correctional officers and activate two newly constructed prisons.

I yield another 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Kosmas).

Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to enter into a colloquy with the gentlewoman from Florida.

The gentlewoman is correct. That is the committee's position.

Mr. Chairman, I yield another 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Florida.

I thank the gentlewoman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Griffith).

Let me just say that I appreciate my colleague's comments this afternoon.

Mr. Chairman, let me first note that the bill before the House today does not actually cut human spaceflight programs in fiscal year 2010. Rather, the bill level funds ongoing activities until such time as the Augustine Commission completes its review and the Obama administration commits to the next generation of human spaceflight. In fact, the total in the bill before the House today provides an increase of over $420 million over the fiscal year 2009-enacted level across all NASA activities and programs.

We're talking only about the human spaceflight program here. I believe that the Augustine panel is well-positioned to make an informed review of planned U.S. human spaceflight activities and alternatives to ensure that the Nation is undertaking efforts that are safe, innovative, affordable, and sustainable in the years following the completion of space shuttle manifests and its retirement.

When that panel provides its information, its informed judgment, to us and to our new President and when we have had an opportunity to embrace the Nation's next human spaceflight program and to budget accordingly, we look forward to moving forward.

I thank the gentleman with those assurances, too.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona, Chairwoman Giffords.

That is absolutely correct.

The funding deferral does not signify any weakening of the committee's support for human spaceflight and exploration. I would also direct the attention of my colleague to the bill's accompanying report that states this very fact.

And if I could find it here quickly, I would read it for her.

And I did find it. At page 146 of that report, I would refer the gentlelady to read a pertinent part. ``Accordingly, after the work of the panel is complete''--that's the Augustine Panel--``the committee expects the administration will amend its fiscal year 2010 budget request to fund fully the plan advocated by the panel, and that the administration's subsequent budget request shall similarly include resources that fund fully the Nation's Human Space Flight Program.'' That's in our report. And I am pleased to reaffirm that here tonight with the gentlelady with this colloquy and with the others that we've had colloquy.

I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.

Yes, I do. And I stated as much at the subcommittee markup of this legislation. Again, I would turn my colleague's attention to the accompanying report where these sentiments are also expressed.

I believe that the Augustine Panel is well positioned to make an informed review of planned U.S. human space flight activities and alternatives to ensure that the Nation is undertaking efforts that are safe, innovative, affordable and sustainable in the years following the completion of the space station manifest and retirement. And when that panel provides its informed judgment to us and the President and we are able to evaluate it, our new President and our authorizers will have a chance to look at it and act on it, our new President--and we--will have an opportunity to move forward together on our Nation's future human space flight program and budget accordingly.

The gentlelady, among these other colleagues, is a champion of the program. Thank you.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

Let me first commend the gentlelady for her good work in this area in the short time she has been in the United States Congress and for her input into our subcommittee, which has certainly influenced our markup of the bill in this important area.

I thank the gentlelady for her comments. And I appreciate her support and commitment to programs funded through the Office of Violence Against Women.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Arizona (Mrs. Kirkpatrick).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. Chairman, would the Chair be kind enough to let both sides know how much time they have remaining, respectively?

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee).

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

Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time in general debate. Let me again reiterate my appreciation to the committee, subcommittee, and ranking member in marking up this bill. And we look to proceeding through amendments at this time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment. I'm offering this amendment on behalf of Mr. Honda, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Lewis of California, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Culberson, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California, Mr. Dreier, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Gary G. Miller of California, Ms. Giffords, Mr. McCaul, Mrs. Kirkpatrick of Arizona, Mr. Connolly of Virginia, and Mr. Marshall.

This amendment would provide an additional $100 million, Mr. Chairman, for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, restoring it to the fiscal year 2009 funding level of $400 million.

Mr. Chairman, the current administration and the predecessor administrations have in turn each year proposed elimination of the SCAAP program. And since our allocation is $200 million below the administration's request, it is difficult to restore moneys such as to the SCAAP program to $300 million in the subcommittee mark. When the administration requests zero and then you have to fill that hole, that makes a tremendous strain on the other accounts in the bill.

I opposed the SCAAP amendment during committee consideration of this bill largely because it would have unadvisedly used the Bureau of Census as an offset. We are in the final year, final months of preparing for a census that's just a year away, and this is not any time to take money away from the Census. We have overcome hurdles in the Census and challenges as a result of some mismanagement with regard to census preparation. We are on track now. And this is not the time, given this short period before we have to conduct the census, to take money away from the Census, so we opposed it.

However, I am aware that there is considerable support, as reflected by the number of our colleagues who want to be cosponsors on this amendment here today. There is tremendous broad-based support in the body for the SCAAP program. It is supported by many Members; so I offer this amendment in recognition of that support.

Mr. Honda is a member of the subcommittee and a cosponsor of this amendment, and he has been particularly persuasive about the need to restore SCAAP funding to the level that this amendment would bring it to.

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

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

We're willing to accept the amendment. What happens in conference is in the future, and I wouldn't be able to make any commitments with regard to that in any way.

Will the gentleman yield?

As the gentleman understands--the gentleman has been to conference before on bills.

And the gentleman understands that conferees come to the conference from many different directions and have many different attitudes. There are many different issues in the bill during conference. I will tell the gentleman that we take seriously our bill as it is fashioned, as we bring it to the floor, and as it is amended on the floor as we proceed to conference.

Beyond that, the gentleman clearly understands that conferences are about process and that there's give-and-take in the Congress. All of the attitudes expressed in conference must be taken into consideration, and there is nothing about this amendment that precludes our not seriously supporting it in conference. But the gentleman is asking for something that the gentleman knows in the process cannot be guaranteed, and that is, I guarantee that we're going to do something in conference. I hope that's satisfactory. If it's not, it's the best I can do for the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

We will approach the conference, my colleague from Indiana, exactly the way I described to you. We will consider every issue that is in the bill as it comes out of the House of Representatives seriously as we approach conference. If it's accepted, it will be in the conference report. You have the ranking minority member. He is going to be a part of the conference. The other members of the committee are going to be a part of the conference, and we will treat this issue just as seriously as we treat all issues. We will support it in conference, and it will be a part of the process of the conference as it moves forward. I hope that is satisfactory to the gentleman.

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

Offered By: Mr. Mollohan

Amendment No.11: Page 3, line 4, after the dollar amount

insert ``(reduced by $100,000)''

Page 23, line 18 and 19, after each dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $21,132,000)''.

Page 45, lines 1, 4, and 13, after each dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $78,768,000)''.

Page 47, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $100,000,000)''.

Page 48, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $100,000,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, division B of the bill before the House today includes appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Science Foundation, and other independent and related agencies for fiscal year 2009.

At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the former ranking member of this subcommittee, Mr. Frelinghuysen, who I think is on the floor here this afternoon, for his contribution to this title. Mr. Frelinghuysen leaves the subcommittee this year to become the ranking member of the Energy and Water Subcommittee. Over the past 2 years, we have worked cooperatively together, and I'm very much appreciative of his recommendations in crafting this portion of the bill and the bipartisan approach he brings to his work generally. While it is with disappointment that he leaves our subcommittee, we are equally pleased to welcome Congressman Frank Wolf back to the subcommittee. Once its chairman, Congressman Wolf returns again this year as our ranking member in the 111th Congress. He too has a reputation for bipartisanship and the passion he brings to his work. I am pleased to welcome him and look forward to working with.

Division B of the bill provides nearly $57.7 billion for programs of the Justice and Commerce Departments, NASA,

NSF, and those related agencies. This level is an increase of $5.8 billion over comparable fiscal year 2008 levels. Programs funded within this division of the bill touch and enrich the lives of every American in many varied ways. Whether assisting the poor with legal representation; combating crime; and deterring terrorism and the scourge of drugs; improving and protecting our Nation's oceans, waters, and natural habitats; or enabling new discoveries in science here in our Nation's laboratories on Earth or in its heavens that lead to improvements in our health, this bill covers a broad swath. Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that passage of this bill provides basic operating components of all of those agencies and does it well.

In closing, let me acknowledge the work of the staff. They have put in long hours to get us here. My thanks to the staff's director, John Blazey, for his outstanding performance leading an excellent staff. Diana Simpson, Adrienne Simonson, Tracey LaTurner, and Scott Sammis have each brought their considerable talents and dedication to the task of producing this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, in particular let me recognize the contributions of Marjorie Duske. A new appropriations structure providing discrete appropriations for the salaries, expenses, and management of the Department of Justice's State and local law enforcement programs shall be a testament to her commitment to detail, program analysis, and tenacity. Marjorie worked for the House of Representatives for nearly 18 years, the last 2 of which were on the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science. Marjorie is not here with us today as she has left the committee to begin a new opportunity in the upper body, and in a way returning a bit closer to her home, she now serves the senior Senator from Minnesota. In any event we on the committee wish her Godspeed and thank her for her service to the body.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the valuable contributions that Special Agent Scott Sammis of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has made to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies this past

year specifically, and to Members of the Congress and the American people more generally.

Special Agent Scott Sammis came to the Subcommittee in February of 2008 on a professional detail from the ATF. At that time, Special Agent Sammis was Acting Division Chief of the Liaison Division within the Office of Public and Governmental Affairs. Special Agent Sammis joined the ATF nearly 20 years ago, and was first assigned to the Buffalo, New York field office. Soon after being assigned to that field office, Scott was the sole case agent on the Love Canal Bomber investigation. That investigation involved individuals who detonated two pipe bombs and set several fires in the vacant homes around the contaminated area, which had recently been declared habitable again. The individuals were arrested by Special Agent Sammis and ultimately convicted in U.S. District Court.

Then in December of 1993, four package bombs detonated throughout New York State, killing five people and injuring two. Two other packages were intercepted and rendered safe by local law enforcement. Special Agent Sammis had been investigating a large recovery of dynamite from three months earlier, and was able to connect the two investigations on the night of the bombings. He subsequently identified a suspect and obtained a 44-page signed confession within 18 hours of the bombings. The two suspects were convicted in U.S. District Court. Sammis received ATF's Johnny Masengale Memorial Award for his work on this investigation. This annual award was established in memory of Special Agent Johnny A. Masengale to recognize ATF employees involved in a special effort or special achievement in an explosives investigation or an explosives-related support activity. Special Agent Sammis and his impressive work leading to these arrests were featured on American Justice.

In October 1997, Special Agent Sammis was assigned to the Intelligence Division; specifically, the National Church Arson Task Force. As a project officer in this group, Special Agent Sammis utilized his computer skills to set up a database to track the hundreds of church fires occurring in the late 1990s. The honing of these computer skills would prove particularly invaluable to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies.

Over the following ten years, Special Agent Sammis would be assigned various positions within the ATF, including a position within the Resource Management Branch (RMB) of ATF's Financial Management Division and as the Resident Agent in Charge of the Richmond, Virginia Field Office.

Upon joining the Subcommittee, Special Agent Sammis was responsible for managing the sizable and complex database of congressional requests made of the Subcommittee. The database included several thousand individual requests made by members of Congress. His tenacity, ingenuity and thoroughness brought clarity and order to the cumbersome and time-consuming process of reviewing and tracking the myriad annual requests. He worked tirelessly into the early morning hours to ensure that the tabular material for inclusion in the Committee reports was complete and accurate and that certification letters were correct and submitted in accordance with the Rules of the House. During conference deliberations with the Senate, Scott ensured that the House and Senate tables merged correctly--a difficult task given that the House and Senate Subcommittees use different databases. Scott, as always, rose to the occasion and volunteered to take on this extremely important, time- consuming task.

In addition, Special Agent Sammis reviewed the congressional budget submissions of several independent agencies, and, at only the appropriate times, offered his impressions and observations based on his unique, personal experience in the field when questions related to law enforcement arose. When the work of the Subcommittee required late- night or extended hours, Special Agent Sammis ensured that the Subcommittee staff did not go without proper nourishment, offering suggestions from the menus of neighborhood eateries. He kept a catalog of quotable quips, day-to-day musings that brought him private amusement. His nail pin compressor, electric drill and hammer were always ready at hand, and for the sake of expediency, he insisted on moving office furniture in his suit and tie. There was little he would not do gladly. He performed his job admirably, with good humor and patience. Simply, Special Agent Sammis covered all the bases, and exceeded everyone's expectations.

It is with regret that the Subcommittee returns Special Agent Sammis to the ATF today. He has represented the law enforcement agents of the ATF with distinction and honor. I personally want to extend my appreciation, and that of Ranking Member Rodney Frelinghuysen, Senators Barbara Mikulski and Richard Shelby, and the Subcommittee staff for a job very well done. Once again, Scott, you have served the Congress and the American people well.

I want to thank both my colleagues for their very kind, gracious remarks about West Virginia University and the game that we speak of today, particularly the Fiesta Bowl game.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 938, congratulating the West Virginia University Mountaineer football team for its recent outstanding Fiesta Bowl victory.

The Mountaineers' regular season closed with an unexpected and a bit demoralizing loss that ended the team's bid for a national championship. As a further complication, as has been pointed out by my colleagues, the team began preparation for the Fiesta Bowl without its head coach, who left suddenly for another opportunity. WVU consequently was branded the underdog for the Fiesta Bowl appearance.

But these young men and the able interim head coach, who is now the permanent head coach, who stepped into the void were steady, they were confident, and they were prepared to pursue a game plan unaffected by the swirling controversies and the many media pundits who predicted defeat.

Mr. Speaker, seeing that team demonstrate grit, skill, and determination,

as described by my colleagues, to silence its critics, while overcoming challenges, reminds us of the potential for accomplishment that resides in us all. I hope all of my colleagues will join me in supporting H. Res. 938, as it offers a ``well done'' to a team that set a high bar for accomplishment, focus, and determination.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXII and by direction of the Committee on Appropriations, I move to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3093) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman that this amendment would send an important message to the EEOC, but I agree it's important for a different reason. I think it's important because I think it would be a perverse message.

The United States Congress has, in previous years, passed legislation specifically granting to the EEOC authorization and responsibility to work on behalf of employees where they face discrimination in the workplace. That legislation anticipated an opening of a remedy for employees. This amendment would close a remedy for employees.

These cases should be decided on their facts. If we were to adopt this motion and the conference were to include the amendment in its agreement, then the EEOC would not have an opportunity to look at the facts and represent employees pursuant thereto. Therefore, we do oppose the amendment.

I want to point out that the court in this case upheld the decision and upheld the position of the employer in this case. That's well and good.

What's important in that is that the court, through due process, decided the matter. That's the way the EEOC ought to operate, not through Congress in a motion to instruct conferees and in an appropriation conference, taking away what the Congress has already given jurisdiction in these cases.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge in the strongest terms opposition to the motion.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, the policy that this amendment addresses is obviously authorizing the policy that the EEOC has followed in this area through Democratic and Republican administrations. They have had a consistent position on the employer English-only policies throughout both Democratic and Republican administrations. This amendment would undermine that long standing policy. If the gentlelady and the gentleman want to change that, they ought to take it to the authorizing committee where they can have hearings and have a full-blown discussion, rather than trying to change this policy that has been in place for a long period of time, through both Democratic and Republican administrations. The amendment should be opposed.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to support the gentleman from Maine's program. This funding supports scientific staff who monitor the health of Maine lobster fisheries, a crucial industry in his area and a crucial resource for the whole country.

The funding provides infrastructure to improve science research efforts in this regard. Funding is crucial to understanding the health of the lobster fishery industry, and he stresses that in his remarks.

This amendment is supported by the subcommittee. It's a good earmark, it's a good project, and this Member has concluded that it's essential in his area and to support this very important industry in his area. The subcommittee strongly supports this Member's project in this regard.

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

First of all, let me compliment the gentleman from Indiana on his project. We are here arguing, debating, describing, justifying, and questioning the merits of this particular project. However you want to describe it, the gentleman who offers the amendment, his basis of offering these amendments is, on the one hand, that we shouldn't be doing this. We talk about that on almost every amendment, the fact that indeed it is the job of the United States Congress and particularly the House of Representatives in the first instance under Article I of the Constitution to do just exactly this. This is our job. This is what we do--we provide funding for the United States of America.

The gentleman, I'm paraphrasing, said one Member of the body or of the Appropriations Committee or one Member of the Congress brings a project forward. Well, there's nobody in the Congress who would bring a project forward for this gentleman's congressional district if it were not this gentleman.

And then we get to the merits of the particular project. This one seems eminently justifiable; funding for equipment to train young people in forecasting. If you believe in government participation in education, that's what we do, and this is how we can empower this institution, this educational institution, so that they can bring excellent training for weather forecasting, which I think we all have to stipulate is extremely important for the Midwest in light of the kind of weather conditions they have.

So let me compliment the gentleman from Indiana for his project, and for bringing it to us. We have looked at it carefully, and perhaps we should say thank you to the gentleman who raises the amendment for giving the gentleman from Indiana an opportunity to stand up and discuss and describe his amendment for us and for his constituency.

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

I move to strike the last word.

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

The gentleman alludes to the Defense Department. He could save a lot more than $2 million for the United States Government if he turned his attention to the Defense Department and some of the contracting activities that are certainly going on in Iraq. And perhaps that's something he will want to look at.

But let me say with regard to the textile-designated funding in this bill, I don't know a project that has actually had more scrutiny, or more broad-based support than this project. And in a time when our industries are competing internationally, the textile industry is particularly under siege around the world. This initiative has probably saved the textile industry that continues to struggle to exist in this country. To the extent that this program has been able to save it, the research and development that has come out of the textile industry's research can largely take credit for that.

I want to commend the Members who represent these areas. And it's not one area. It's not two areas. There are eight universities involved in this, focusing on this and being ahead of the problem enough in order to be able to fund, promote, and facilitate the research that has allowed the textile industry to be as competitive as it is around the world. It is only research, it is only new discoveries, it is only new materials, new ways of manufacturing

that have allowed the textile industry in this country to survive. So actually, these gentlemen are to be commended, each and every one of them for their foresight in supporting this project. I think I heard the textile industry has 60,000 employees across this country, and is a $60 billion industry. This is really a small amount of money which has had a huge pay-off for the textile industry and the economy of the country. It's a good project, Mr. Chairman.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, the FEC is planning to issue new regulations to comply with the Supreme Court ruling that the gentleman reference. That issue, with regard to mentioning candidates, may be seen in the run-up to elections. This amendment would not interfere with that process. Mr. Chairman, we'll accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from New Jersey for bringing this important technology, place-based data collection stations, to my attention. I am pleased to consider this funding need as we move forward to conference should funds become available.

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

Mr. Chairman, under this project, funds would be used to support the East Coast shellfish aquaculture industry. I think the gentlelady has eloquently stated the merits of this request. The committee has looked at it, vetted it, spent hours going over all projects, including the gentlelady's, who serves as a distinguished member of our subcommittee, and we strongly support this project and oppose the amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, we have no objection. We accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I totally agree with the gentleman with regard to the appropriate forum to deal with this issue. We will count on the gentleman to move that and get it to the floor even before we get to conference so that it will be a good result.

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

Mr. Chairman, we are awaiting the arrival of the unanimous consent, which has been a long time coming, and it is still slow in arriving. Once it gets here, it will facilitate and speed up our business for the day. It will allow us to, in an orderly fashion, finish our business on CJS, not as expeditiously as we would like. If he hadn't just arrived, I would have been asking my ranking minority member to get up and contribute to this.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during further consideration of H.R. 3093 in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House Resolution 562, notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no further amendment to the bill may be offered except:

Pro forma amendments offered at any point in the reading by the chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees for the purpose of debate;

An amendment by Mr. Price of Georgia regarding funding for the Executive Office of Immigration Review;

An amendment by Mr. Campbell of California reducing funds in the bill by 0.05 percent, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes;

An amendment by Mr. Capuano regarding funding for young witness assistance;

An amendment by Mr. Conaway regarding use of reductions made through amendment for deficit reduction;

An amendment by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey limiting funds for attendance at international conferences;

An amendment by Mr. Inslee regarding Federal law enforcement on tribal land;

An amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas regarding the early release of prisoners;

An amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas regarding transit workers' access to interoperable communications;

An amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas regarding the safety of the International Space Station;

An amendment by Mr. Jordan of Ohio reducing funds in the bill by 3 percent, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes;

An amendment by Mr. Mack or Mr. Flake limiting funds for certain FBI letters unless certain reporting requirements are met;

An amendment by Mr. McHenry limiting funds to award a grant or contract on the basis of race, ethnicity or sex;

An amendment by Mrs. Musgrave reducing funds in the bill by 0.5 percent, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes;

An amendment by Mr. Obey regarding earmarks;

An amendment by Mr. Price of Georgia reducing funds in the bill, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes;

An amendment by Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California regarding the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program;

An amendment by Mr. Tancredo or Mr. Hunter limiting funds for the Security and Prosperity Partnership;

An amendment by Mr. Upton, Ms. Harman, Mr. Lipinski, or Mr. Inglis of South Carolina regarding use of Energy Star certified light bulbs;

An amendment by Mr. Weldon of Florida limiting Community Oriented Policing funds for State and local governments acting in contravention of section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act;

An amendment by Mr. Weldon of Florida or Mr. King of Iowa limiting State Criminal Alien Assistance Funds for State and local governments acting in contravention of section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act;

An amendment by Mr. King of Iowa limiting State Criminal Alien Assistance Funds for State and local governments unless certain reporting requirements are met;

An amendment by Mr. King of Iowa regarding a study of aliens in prison;

An amendment by Mr. King of Iowa limiting funds to employ workers described in section 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act;

An amendment by Mr. King of Iowa limiting funds for the Institute for Scientific Research, the West Virginia High Tech Consortium Foundation, the Vandalia Heritage Foundation, the MountainMade Foundation; or the Canaan Valley Institute; and

An amendment or amendments by Mr. Mollohan regarding funding levels.

Each such amendment may be offered only by the Member named in this request or a designee, shall be considered as read, shall not be subject to amendment except that the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations and the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies each may offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of debate; and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.

Except as otherwise specified, each amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. An amendment shall be considered to fit the description stated in this request if it addresses in whole or in part the object described.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we commend the gentlewoman for bringing this to the attention of us, and we have no objection to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the amendment. The gentlelady's insights into this issue are clear. The committee actually welcomes the thought, the amendment, and we accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

I appreciate the gentlelady yielding.

NASA has been on the forefront of safety on the NASA side, these provisions she has worked on in 2005 to incorporate into authorizing. She is reaffirming these safety procedures in this amendment, and we certainly have no objection on that.

We accept the amendment and compliment her on her efforts to improve and insist upon safety in NASA operations.

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

Mr. Chairman, I just want to expand on the excellent debate and the points that have been made in opposition to this amendment.

The fact is we are in a period of rising crime. In the last 2 years we have experienced a rise in crime. We are looking at an amendment that proposes an across-the-board cut.

The first thing you all need to understand about this amendment is that it is indiscriminate. It doesn't look at what programs are being cut. It doesn't talk about cutting one program more because it's a lower priority or that program less because it's a higher priority, or excluding some programs from being cut because they are a tremendously high priority.

My colleague just talked about State and local law enforcement. The previous amendment would have cut the

Justice Department by some $681 million. This amendment cuts the Justice Department by $335 million. Those are real dollars and real cuts to law enforcement. Those cuts translate directly to local law enforcement and the people that are actually fighting crime in the streets.

What the Federal Government has done to support those folks in the past is given them resources, as the gentleman just described. If you are the sheriff's department in rural America, or you are the chief of police in urban America, or if you are a local law enforcement coordinator, then you are hurt badly by this across-the-board cut amendment.

The last amendment was a $45 million cut to State and local law enforcement. That means, as the gentleman just eloquently described, a large cut to our State and local law enforcement.

I would like to describe another area of the bill that would be cut by this amendment. To emphasize how real these cuts are, let's look at NASA. We have acknowledged that NASA is not being funded at a level that allows it to meet its missions across the board. If you are at Glenn Research Center or the Ames Research Center, and you are out there listening to this amendment, you need to understand that across- the-board cuts are going to mean significant things to your institutes. It means you are going to have fewer resources when right now you have a mission that you already lack resources to perform.

Employees at Kennedy Space Center, Marshall Space Flight Center, Goddard Space Flight Center and Johnson Space Flight Center in Texas, or who live in the communities and depend on it will be impacted by this amendment.

Science. This amendment would cut $79.7 million out of the science account. In this bill we tried to increase the science account so they will be able to do their missions.

Aeronautics; $9 million. And out of exploration--Johnson Space Flight Center and Kennedy Space Flight Center ought to be really tuned in to this--$54.9 million.

A total cut for NASA, Mr. Chairman, of $246.7 million. NASA is concerned about that. NASA says, and let me read, ``The consequence of these cuts is that NASA will not be able to make as effective or safe a transition to the new systems as originally planned. There will likely be significant workforce impacts as a result. Thus these budget reductions have ripple effects over many years due to the highly integrated nature of the shuttle and exploration systems. Many shuttle employees are at risk with these across-the-board cuts.''

So, Mr. Chairman, this is just another reason of why we should be against these across-the-board cuts.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, this amendment, as we understand it, is merely a restatement of current law, which already prohibits the employment of unauthorized aliens. We don't read into it that it imposes any new burden on those who are using funds appropriated under the act. It is fully consistent with current legal obligations imposed on all employers, regardless of whether or not they use such funds.

We would accept the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we have reviewed the amendment, think it's a good amendment, and we are willing to accept it.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. If I heard the gentleman from California correctly, I believe he misspoke and said that he encouraged a vote against the motion to recommit. Of course he's not against the motion to recommit, but if he were, that would be the only place that I agree with him on this amendment.

Obviously this is a killer amendment. This is the ``I got you'' amendment. It provides for promptly returning the bill back to the House. That means that the bill will not pass today on the Floor. That's the ``got you'' part of each one of these motions to recommit. It means we wouldn't be able to pass the bill here today.

Additionally, the amendment asks for additional funding for the Department of Justice immigration law enforcement capabilities. We just had a number of amendments proposing across-the-board cuts during this proceeding. Many of their supporters have argued that there's too much money in these bills and in these accounts. We're funding this bill substantially above the President's request, $3.2 billion above last year and $2.3 billion above the President's request.

It would always be good to have additional funding in law enforcement, but we're proud of how robustly we are funding law enforcement, and particularly for State and local law enforcement, which is $1.7 billion above the President's request. Those funds help with the local law enforcement, including prosecutorial, incarceration programs, and many others across the board. While this bill is well in excess of the President's request, much of that is for funding for law enforcement above last year's levels.

The other provision of this motion to recommit would fund the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program at the level authorized. Let me just suggest that the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program is a privileged account in this bill. We began funding through subcommittee at $375 million. In full committee, it increased to $405 million. On the floor, this program was again increased now to $460 million. It is certainly getting its fair share of funding relative to other accounts in the bill.

Indeed, if this motion to recommit were passed and were acted upon, we would have to go back and cut State and local law enforcement, FBI, DEA, and meth programs. We would have to cut law enforcement funding that puts police on the streets, that hires additional FBI agents, additional DEA agents, and funds meth programs.

If we approve this motion to recommit, we would really have to go back and cut all of that funding.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule for consideration of the fiscal year 2008 appropriations bill for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, Science and related agencies.

I would first like to thank distinguished Chairwoman Slaughter, Ranking Member Dreier and the entire Rules Committee for this open rule.

Mr. Speaker, we bring before you today a balanced appropriation bill that's responsive to Member input on both sides of the aisle and reflects the legislative priorities of this Congress. This bill is creative in addressing problems that face our Nation, such as the

rising crime rates that can only be addressed through additional law enforcement resources, the need for scientific research and discovery to inspire our youth and maintain our competitive edge in an increasingly competitive world economy, and the need for our country to understand and address the documented phenomena of global climate change.

In this diverse bill we have gone to great lengths to address these and many other issues, and, Mr. Speaker, I think the House will be pleased with the result. And again, I urge support for this rule.

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. 3093 and that I may include tabular material on the same.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Rogers of Michigan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield to the distinguished ranking member.

I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield to the distinguished ranking member.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield to the gentleman from California.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I thank my distinguished ranking member, Mr. Frelinghuysen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment Offered by Mrs. Biggert

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

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

We're going to be up to it.

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

Mr. Chairman, in this body, anyone has a right and an

opportunity, as the gentleman has taken advantage of, to raise whatever issue one wants. The gentleman raises an issue in the context of virtuousness and virtuosity. He raises a virtue issue here; he argues it from a premise of virtuosity.

I have no doubt that the gentleman is a good person and that the gentleman is a virtuous person. But I would suggest that the gentleman, number one, has expressed a greater knowledge about any investigation than I have. Perhaps he has inside knowledge about it. But I could not tell you actually if it exists, because I have never been approached with regard to it.

Number two, I would suggest that as the gentleman raises his point in the context of virtue, that he might want to be very cautious, because, as he says, he reluctantly does it, and he might want to be concerned about those who have raised this issue initially perhaps failing his test of virtue. I simply suggest that as a caution to him when he raises this kind of an issue in this context.

I could suggest that it is unworthy to raise it in this context because it is obviously ad hominem. But I am not going to go there. I would just suggest that the gentleman, as he contemplates this issue and as he raises a virtue question, that he satisfy himself in his own mind that those who have initiated and perpetrated this effort, that he contemplate the possibility that their motives are not pure and that they, in this instance, are not virtuous.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentlelady offers an amendment to one of the grant programs in the Violence Against Women Office of the U.S. Department of Justice. To give a little bit of context to the amendment, the Office of Violence Against Women was funded in fiscal year 2007 at $382.571 million. The President requested $370 million, about $12.5 million less than was funded in 2007. So the President's request for the office was decreased. He requested less money than was appropriated last year.

In addition to that, the President wanted to eliminate all of the grant programs, including the one that the gentlelady seeks today to increase funding for specifically. The subcommittee increased funding over the President's request by $60 million. So the subcommittee looked at the Violence Against Women Office and looked at the scourge that office addresses and fights every day and the programs that the office administers, and we said not only do we need to increase the President's request from last year's level, we need to increase this program above the President's request, and we did by $60 million. We also rejected the President's request to eliminate all of the grant programs under Violence Against Women. We retained those grant programs and those categories, and then we funded each and every one of them handsomely.

So the request before us today, or the recommendation of the committee before the body today, increases over Fiscal Year 2007 funding by $47 million, over the President's request by $60 million. As for the grant program that the gentlelady offers an amendment to, we fund it at $40 million, which is 100 percent over the President's request, because he wanted to eliminate that program, and 3 percent over the 2007 funding.

Now, there is no question that the Office of Violence Against Women deserves adequate funding. That is why we funded it at $60 million over the President's request. It enjoys a privileged position on our committee. Chairwoman DeLauro is aggressive in her leadership on this issue as is every member of our subcommittee. The Rural Domestic Violence Assistance Grants have been funded at $40 million and are extremely proud of that funding level.

The gentlelady looks for her offset in the National Science Foundation, the premier research and development agency in the United States Government. It offers peer-reviewed granting; it looks at education programs; it looks at research programs, cutting-edge, transformational research, the research that we rely upon in order to ensure our competitiveness in the arena and also lay a foundation for our competitiveness in the global economic marketplace.

Don't make any mistake about it, everyone who has testified before our committee agrees the National Science Foundation is not only an economic security issue, it is a national security issue, and it is not the place where we ought to be taking funding. There is a recognition that we need to double the funding for the National Science Foundation, and that is the track we are on with the level of funding in this bill. We should not, and hopefully we won't, reduce funding to the National Science Foundation by $10 million. That would knock us off of the track.

To summarize, Mr. Chairman, funding in the Violence Against Women programs is robust: $60 million above the President's request. The particular grant programs, one of which the gentlelady addresses, each have been retained, and each of those grant programs has been funded robustly.

So, like every other account in this bill, we could use additional money, and if the budget resolutions that the minority would vote for would allow us additional money, we would be pleased to look at increasing funding for violence against women programs.

But given our allocation, and given the priorities and the conflicting demands in the bill, and given the importance of the National Science Foundation and the robust nature of our funding for violence against women, I must oppose the gentlelady's amendment.

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

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