Floor Statements

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

This language came about as a result of our former colleague from Virginia, Tom Davis.

There are many ideas behind it. I didn't know the amendment was coming up. I think that is part of the problem around here with the prefiling. It would be nice to let Members know what is coming up so they know. But I did see it, so I ran over.

One, the number of Federal employees. This serves the Pentagon. It serves most of the Federal agencies in the government. But if you looked at the Metro today, most of the people riding it today were tourists from New Jersey and from Texas and from other places like that around.

When you look at Metro with regard to the inauguration and many of the other events, that was the whole concept, that the administration, both Republican and Democrat--and this was a Republican amendment offered by Congressman Tom Davis to have this funding over a period of, I think, if my memory serves me, over a period of 10 years.

So I rise in strong opposition to the Garrett amendment and ask that Congress maintain the integrity of what Congressman Davis and many other Congresses have done in the past.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

I thank the gentleman.

This is the Nation's Capital. We are the Nation's Capital. People from all over the world come here.

And I want to be sure--things are thrown around on this floor many times that are not accurate. A large proportion of the New York system was paid for with Federal taxpayer money.

This was the agreement that was made by the Government Operations Committee, I think, in conjunction with Congressman Davis, Congressman Hoyer, and others a number of years ago. Congressman Davis is no longer here, but that was the whole sentiment with regard behind it.

So I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the Garrett amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I submit remarks delivered at the recent memorial service, at Washington National Cathedral, for the late Chuck Colson.

Emily Colson, Chuck's daughter, gave a compelling personal eulogy which gave us a glimpse into Chuck as a father and grandfather--his undying love and devotion to his family were beautiful to behold.

The Reverend Dr. Timothy George delivered the homily--a stirring charge to those Chuck left behind to ``be not afraid.''

I commend these eloquent, heartfelt tributes which honor a man whose prophetic voice will be sorely missed.

Emily Colson Memorial Service Transcript

Good morning. My name is Emily Colson, and I am very

blessed to be Chuck Colson's daughter. Today we celebrate a

life well lived. I am thankful to be old enough to have known

my father before he became a Christian and to see the change,

the transformation in my father when Christ ruled in his

heart. My father still had the same intellect and drive and

passion for life, but a softness came over him. I think about

my dad's office in his home in Florida, the desk highly

polished where he worked tirelessly, and I think about the

over-stuffed green chair in the corner where every morning he

would kneel and pray. I think of the 3x5 cards my dad carried

in his pocket underneath his jacket. There were 15 or 20 of

them there, an ever growing to do list. But in that list he

also had names, people that he prayed for every day. My dad

became, as Scripture says, a new creation, and he loved his

family differently.

My father in his work changed people all over the world and

he also changed his family. That drive became a source of an

affectionate joke in our family. We love to get together for

family reunions and vacations and all of our family would be

so excited to relax for a week together. And we would find

ourselves in one scheduled fun activity to the next scheduled

fun activity. And then my father would announce, he would

declare, let's all take five minutes and relax. I was teasing

him about it one day, and he looked at me just with a hint of

a smile, and he said ``Emily, six minutes would be

wasteful.''

But even with that drive when I would call my dad or when

he would call me, which was daily (sometimes it was more than

once a day), you would think my dad had nothing else to do in

his life. He was fully present. I thought he only did that

for me. But I now know he has done it for everyone in our

family. He put God first, family second above all else.

That's the mark of a great father and a great leader. I

encourage all of you who are fathers to understand the

powerful impact you can have in your children's lives. Don't

miss it. My father loved his family. He and Patty just

celebrated 48 years. Patty has been there as a partner in

ministry; has kept my dad humble and well fed. My dad loved

his three children, his grandchildren, and he almost lived to

see his first great-grandchild, who will be born next month.

But perhaps for me the greatest mark of my dad's character

has been his relationship with my son, Max. Max is 21 with a

diagnosis of autism. And when we would come, which was

frequently, my dad would clear his schedule and do nothing

else but be present for Max and do everything Max loved,

because Max needed his grandfather. And as it turns out, his

grandfather needed Max.

My father has stood by his convictions even when no one

else was looking. My father has been a defender of the weak.

We will miss his zest for life. He was always the first to

laugh and the last one to stop laughing. Every meal he ate

was the best one he'd ever had, or so he would tell us. He

was our advisor, mentor, friend, shoulder and encourager.

I think of that encouragement today. Today is a celebration

of my father's life. But today is also about us, you and me.

What will we do in the shadow of such an extraordinary role

model. There is work to be done. I encourage you to continue

the work God has begun through my father's life. Do the right

thing. Seek the truth. Defend the weak. Live courageous

lives. My father left a wonderful legacy and he left many

writings for us to follow, to learn from. He left something

for us this morning, for this moment today. ``I want my

funeral services to be joyful. I don't want people to be sad

because I believe with every ounce of conviction in my body

that death is but a homecoming and that we will be in the

presence of God. It is the culmination of life. It's a

celebration.''

Be Not Afraid!

A homily delivered by The Reverend Dr. Timothy George at the Memorial Service for Charles W. Colson at Washington National Cathedral on May

16, 2012

Invocation: In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and

of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

In the ancient book of Joshua we read: ``Now after the

death of Moses, the servant of the Lord, it came to pass that

the Lord spake unto Joshua the son of Nun saying, `Moses my

servant is dead: now therefore arise, go over this Jordan,

thou, and all this people, unto the land which I do give to

them, even to the children of Israel. . . . As I was with

Moses, so I will be with thee: I will not fail thee, nor

forsake thee. Be strong and of a good courage. Be thou strong

and very courageous. Have not I commanded thee? Be strong and

of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed:

for the Lord thy God is with thee whithersoever thou goest.''

(Joshua 1:1 9, selected verses)

Charles Wendell Colson was once the youngest captain in the

United States Marines and, at his request, he was laid to

rest several days ago at Quantico National Cemetery. He loved

his country fiercely and served it well. But we are here

today, in this the nation's church, to celebrate the life of

one who ended his days as a soldier in another army, the

militia Christi, a battalion without bullets, soldiers of

Christ, arrayed in truth, wielding weapons of faith, prayer,

and love. To describe this change in the life of Chuck Colson

requires us to use freighted words such as conversion,

redemption, transformation.

Not that Chuck ever completely outgrew the Marines. There

was an intensity and drivenness about him that could be

formidable. He did not suffer fools gladly and he was not

blessed with an overabundance of patience. Chuck loved to

tell the story about a man who accosted him on a plane one

day, pushing, shoving, jostling for a seat. Chuck said to

him, ``Fella, do you know who you're messing with? I'm an ex-

marine, an ex-con, and if I weren't a Christian you'd be on

the floor of this plane!'' Then he presented the Gospel to

him.

Chuck was not perfect, but he was forgiven. He never got

over the wonder and surprise of having encountered Jesus

Christ as a real person, a living reality; the one person in

human history who passed through the gossamer veil of death

and came back to tell us what was on the other side and how

we should prepare for that journey by living every day in the

light of eternity. Chuck's autobiography, Born Again, tells

the story of a man born in Boston on the wrong side of the

tracks. He clawed his way up the ever-spiraling ladder of

success until he reached the pinnacle of power as Special

Counsel to the President of the United States.

But when his career was shattered in the wake of Watergate,

he found himself in the position of another henchman, Thomas

a Becket, who had done the bidding of King Henry II in the

twelfth century. In a play about his life, Becket stands on

stage, stripped of the insignia of his high office, and

exclaims, ``Oh, God, there must be more, there must be

something more!''

Chuck Colson had such a moment in the summer of 1973.

Sitting alone late one night in the driveway of his friend

Tom Phillips, filled with guilt and despair, he burst into

tears ``crying so hard,'' he later said, ``it was like tying

to swim underwater.'' That night he prayed his first real

prayer, ``God, I don't know how to find you. But I'm going to

try. Somehow I want to give myself to you.'' Take me, take

me, take me, he repeated over and over.

And God did take Chuck Colson from that moment of surrender

to a federal prison in Alabama, to the experience of baptism

as a new believer in Christ, to the founding of Prison

Fellowship, a wonderful ministry to prisoners and their

families now chartered in 113 countries around the world. And

God took Chuck to the side of Mary Kay Beard, a former inmate

and bank robber who could boast of being on the FBI's Ten

Most Wanted list. At our fundraisers, Chuck used to say that

no one could ask for money like Mary Kay! Together with Chuck

she founded a ministry called Angel Tree that has served some

six million children of prisoners over the last three

decades. Chuck never forgot that he served a Savior who had

been crucified as a prisoner, one who knew what it was like

to be stripped, sentenced, beaten, and mocked. He never

forgot Jesus' words: ``I was in prison and you visited me.''

Chuck's conversion was not only emotional, it was also

intellectual and moral as well. ``I could not sidestep,'' he

said, ``the central question God had placed squarely before

me. Was I to accept without reservation Jesus Christ as Lord

of my life? It was like a gate before me. There was no way to

walk around it. I would step through or I would remain

outside. A `maybe' or `I need more time' was kidding myself.

The phrase `accept Jesus Christ' had sounded at first both

pious and mystical, the language of the zealot, maybe black

magic stuff. But the question was: did I believe what Jesus

said? If I did, then I accepted. Not mystical or weird at

all, and with no in-between ground left. Either I would

believe or I would not--and believe it all or none of it.''

Of course, there have been and still are the critics. When

Born Again was released, Chuck's hometown newspaper, The

Boston Globe, wrote: ``If Colson can repent, there just has

to be hope for everyone!'' To which

Chuck would be the first to say, Yes! that's exactly the

point. Hope for everyone, anyone. The invitation has gone out

with your name on it. It says RSVP. There is no limit to this

love of God. His grace and forgiveness reach to the least,

the last, and the lost, which, at the end of the day, is all

of us, each of us sooner or later, in one way or other.

Of all the tributes that have been written about Chuck in

recent days, the one that touched me most deeply was by Mr.

Lanny Davis, who served as Special Counsel to President

Clinton, the same title Chuck Colson had in his work at the

White House with President Nixon. Mr. Davis described his

meeting with Chuck several years ago at a dinner before the

National Prayer Breakfast. They greeted one another, and

Chuck said to Mr. Davis, ``I've wanted for a very long time

to say something to you: I am sorry, may God forgive me.''

``I looked at him, stunned,'' Mr. Davis wrote. Chuck

continued, ``You know, I'm the guy who put you on the enemies

list--that was wrong, please forgive me.'' Mr. Davis said,

``I looked into his eyes and I felt a strange and deep peace.

It was eerie. I also saw a profound goodness and

spirituality. My eyes teared up. `Of course I forgive you,

Mr. Colson.' Mr. Davis then asked for Chuck's forgiveness, as

years before he himself had spoken with hatred about Chuck.

Immediately, Chuck hugged him. ``I learned an important

lesson that night,'' Lanny Davis said. ``I vowed that I would

never use the word `hate' about people in politics with whom

I disagreed.''

Over the years, Chuck came to see the close connection

between the despair he witnessed within the prisons and the

``culture of death'' in society on the outside. He knew that

genuine reform had to embrace the family, the community, and

the church as well as the state. He came to see that the work

he had done, and continued to do, in the prisons would

ultimately fail unless it was undergirded by a robust

Christian worldview, an understanding of what it is we

believe and how it applies to our lives.

This perspective was reinforced by the three great

intellectual heroes to whom Chuck turned again and again.

William Wilberforce, the young member of Parliament who

devoted his life to the abolition of the slave trade. And

Abraham Kuyper, the Reformed theologian and prime minister of

the Netherlands whom Chuck quoted, I believe, more than

anyone else. Kuyper said: ``There is not one square inch in

the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ,

who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: `Mine, that belongs

to me!' '' And there was Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a champion of

faith and conscience in one of the darkest moments of human

history. Bonhoeffer, who preached a gospel of costly grace

and who, in 1937, wrote ``When Christ calls a man, he bids

him come and die.''

Chuck Colson was a Baptist but he had a passion for

Christian unity that reached far beyond his own denomination.

In the early nineteen-nineties, Chuck and his close friend,

the late Father Richard John Neuhaus, brought together a

group known as Evangelicals and Catholics Together--not a

mere coalition but a fellowship of earnest Evangelicals and

faithful Catholics who recognized that beyond all the

differences that continued to separate us, we shared a

fundamental unity as brothers and sisters in Christ, a vision

for reconciliation that continues still.

This same impulse was behind the 2009 Manhattan

Declaration, which began as a statement and has now become a

movement of more than half a million Protestant, Catholic,

and Orthodox believers all committed to the three most

pressing, and increasingly contested moral issues of our

time: the sanctity of life for every single person including

the elderly, the weak, and the pre-born, each of whom is made

in the image of God (imago Dei) and is worthy of our respect

and protection; the historic institution of marriage, not for

the sake of traditionalism but for the flourishing of

families and the nurture of children, an institution Cardinal

Timothy Dolan has called the cornerstone of society; and

religious freedom, not only for Christians, but for all

persons everywhere, and for religious institutions as well as

for individuals, for synagogues, mosques, temples and

churches and the work they do on behalf of the common good in

education and benevolence. Chuck believed in these things and

he stood for them with courage, charity and civility.

For those who thought that this was just the old political

Colson in a new disguise, he reminded them that while

citizens in a representative democracy such as ours have a

special responsibility, the fundamental issue is not

political but spiritual. What Chuck advocated was a chastened

form of civic virtue based on the fact that Christians hold a

dual citizenship, one in this world, and the other, as St.

Paul said, in heaven. With St. Augustine, Chuck wanted us to

avoid two mistakes that Christians have often made and that

still tempt us today.

One is the lure of utopianism, the mistake of thinking that

we can produce a human society that will solve our problems

and bring about the Kingdom of God on earth. This was the

basic error of both liberalism and Marxism in the nineteenth

century. But the other error is equally disastrous: cynicism.

This happens when we become so jaded by the evil around us

that we are tempted to give up on this world altogether,

to retreat into our own self-contained circle of

contentment, which can be either a pious holy huddle or a

secular skeptics club. How are we to avoid such reactions?

Perhaps Francis of Assisi can help us here. One day after

his conversion to Christ when he was riding back to Assisi,

he saw a leper on the road. He reached out to embrace the

leper and actually gave him a kiss. It was the kiss of peace.

In that moment when he embraced this filthy diseased outcast,

Francis said that he was overcome by a dual sensation. On the

one hand, he was nauseated. He wanted to throw up. On the

other hand, he was permeated with a sense of sweetness

(suavitas) and well-being, and both sensations were in that

one embrace.

Chuck Colson knew that both reactions were critical to our

faith. If all we experience is nausea, we will become cynics.

We will give up on the world and turn away from it in

despair. But if all we have is sweetness, then our faith will

amount to little more that sentimental fluff, what

Schopenhauer called an ``unscrupulous optimism that leads us

nowhere but to vanity.'' Genuine faith and true ministry take

place on the thin edge between nausea and sweetness.

Chuck Colson often experienced that thin edge. Once while

visiting Trivandrum, India, he was taken to a camp with more

than a thousand inmates, most of them ``untouchables.'' Caged

in squalid holes, with no toilets or running water, they were

totally dehumanized, treated as outcasts. Speaking through a

Hindi translator, Chuck shared his own testimony of grace and

forgiveness. After the closing prayer, acting against the

advice he had been given, he jumped down from the platform

and ran to touch the men before him. Later, he wrote about

this event: ``Suddenly, like a flight of birds, men rose to

their feet and circled around me. I shook every hand I could.

Most of the men just reached and touched; they were desperate

to `touch,' to know that the love God offers is real.''

Later, they went back to their grim cells. But that night,

through the witness of Chuck Colson, they had received some

good news: in Jesus Christ there are no untouchables. All of

us bear that message whenever we walk the thin edge of costly

discipleship.

John Calvin was right when he warned against extravagant

speculation in the mystery of death. There is much we do not

know. And this is a good occasion for each of us to think

about our own deaths, for death waits for each of us around

the next corner, or the next. John Donne spoke of the

democracy of the dead. Mortality is egalitarian. It comes

equally to each of us, and when it comes, it makes us all

equal. Today we mourn with Chuck's beloved Patty, the Colson

family, and countless citizens across our land and around the

world who have lost a great friend, champion, leader, and

world Christian statesman. But we do not grieve as those who

have no hope, for as St. Paul has reminded us, to live is

Christ and to die is gain.

It has been said that this life is a chasm of light

suspended between two eternities of darkness. But the Gospel

Chuck Colson believed and proclaimed tells a different story:

this life is the real shadowland, and often a vale of tears,

suspended between two eternities of light. We come into this

world, each of us, from the hands of the invisible God who

dwells in light inaccessible. And, we leave this world,

trusting in Jesus Christ, to go into what the African

American preacher calls the land of ``no more,'' no more

sorrow, no more crying, no more pain or death, no more crime

or violence, no more prison and no more night, for we go into

that land beyond the shadows where we shall have no need of

candles, nor light of the sun, for the Lord God will give

light to all those gathered around his throne and that of the

Lamb.

And in the meantime? How now shall we live?

One of Chuck's last books was titled The Good Life. And it

closes with these words: ``The good life? A life worth

living? Indeed. But the good life is possible only if we live

in expectation that life will end as richly as we lived it,

if we laugh off the maggots and affirm that these bones shall

live in the resurrection. Live each day as if it were the

best of days and the last of days. And when the last of days

comes, live it as the best of days.''

And who will take the place of Chuck Colson? Earlier this

year I visited the grave of the great evangelist D.L. Moody

who died in 1899 in Northfield, Massachusetts. At that time,

everyone was saying, who can fill the shoes of the great D.L.

Moody? There seemed no one on the horizon who commanded the

respect and loyalty that Moody had. It's quite depressing to

read the religious press of those days. But unbeknownst to

anyone on earth at the time, a little baby named John was

about to be born to Sir Arnold Stott and his wife Lily. About

the same time, another little boy named Billy entered the

Graham family in Charlotte. A few years later, Pastor and

Sister King in Atlanta celebrated the birth of baby Martin.

And in 1931, in a hardscrabble section of Boston, a baby

named Charlie Colson arrived.

Today the servant of God named Chuck Colson is dead and the

Lord is saying to us as he said to Joshua and the children of

Israel long ago: as I was with Chuck, so I will be with you.

Be not afraid! I will not fail you, nor forsake you. Be

strong and of a good courage. Be not afraid! Be not dismayed.

For the Lord your God is with you wherever you go.

Let us pray: Oh, God, whose days are without end and whose

mercies cannot be numbered: Make us, we beseech thee, deeply

sensible of the shortness and uncertainty of life. Remind us

of the wonderful promise of our

Lord Jesus Christ who said: ``Come unto me, all ye that labor

and are heavy laden and I will give you rest. We praise thee

that through his atoning death on the cross, and his glorious

resurrection, Jesus has opened wide the gates of eternal life

to all who believe.

Today we give thanks for thy servant Charles Wendell

Colson, for his steadfastness in faith, obedience to thy

Word, and love for thy Church, for his gracious smile, loving

touch, and contagious confidence in Jesus Christ his only

comfort in life and death, and ours as well. We say farewell

in the sure and certain hope of the resurrection, until we

meet again in that blessed land of ``no more'', through Jesus

Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the

Holy Ghost now and forevermore. Amen.

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

Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the Commerce, Justice and Science Subcommittee, I am very sympathetic to the concerns raised by the gentleman from Texas.

I understand that last year DOJ notified prospective FY11 SCAAP applicants of this coming change and encouraged jurisdictions to work closely with DHS to increase inmate alien status verification. I did not hear of any concerns with this new requirement during the consideration of CJS appropriations for FY12 or 13, but I would be pleased to work with you, as well as the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security, to help ensure that the SCAAP reimbursement methodology is equitable for all types of jurisdictions and maximizes the verification of status for individual aliens.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Inspiring Leaders in Technology and Engineering, ILITE, Robotics Team at Battlefield High School in Haymarket, Virginia, for its outstanding performance in winning the FIRST Robotics World Championship.

Ninety thousand students from around the world competed in the FIRST Robotics competition. Battlefield's FIRST Tech Challenge team won the world championship title at the world championship in St. Louis, Missouri, this April, while the First Robotics Competition, FRC, team finished as a quarter-finalist. Both teams won awards at the regional and state level prior to participating in the world championship.

I was pleased to visit Battlefield High School on May 21, and meet with students from the robotics team after their championship victory. Educating American students in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, STEM, is critical to maintaining U.S. competitiveness, and I commend ILITE Robotics at Battlefield High School on their success.

The ILITE Robotics Team is coached by Professor Gail Drake, and is comprised of: Chris Blaylock, Gaelan Dean, Jon Gallion, Aaron Guo, Logan Hambrick, John Hitt, Jacob Hogan, Natalie Jones, Terri Jones, Joel Kaminski, Colin Kauv, Kent Komine, Jakob Kressel, William Lahann, Jaehoon Lee, Daniel Lopez, Jacob Maltbie, Joseph Melir, Alex Missar, Deanna Moser, Matt Moser, Sara O'Malley, Garrett Ormond, Wonsik (David) Park, David Powell, Rainier Rabena, Cary Reese, Melanie Sattler, Erik Seastead, Joanna Senseng, Clayton Shablom, Donny Shaw, Justin Shaw, Jordan Soriano, Evan Teitelman, Michael Toman, Logan Wilding.

Mr. Speaker, I submit my recent correspondence with Mr. Carter G. Phillips, managing partner for Sidley Austin LLP, regarding the firm's representation of Chinese telecom firm Huawei. As noted in the letters, the U.S. national security community has serious concerns with Huawei's connections to the People's Liberation Army and Chinese intelligence.

Equally troubling is Huawei's well-documented history of supporting America's greatest adversaries--some of the most repressive and brutal regimes in modern history--including the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq and the current regime in Iran.

Today, through Huawei, China exports its repressive technologies to likeminded governments. An October 27, 2011, Wall Street Journal piece reported that the Chinese telecom giant Huawei ``now dominates Iran's government-controlled mobile-phone industry . . . it plays a role in enabling Iran's state security network.''

Respected national security reporter Bill Gertz also recently reported that Huawei has also been ``linked to sanctions-busting in Saddam Hussein's Iraq during the 1990s, when the company helped network Iraqi air defenses at a time when U.S. and allied jets were flying patrols to enforce a no-fly zone. The company also worked with the Taliban during its short reign in Afghanistan to install a phone system in Kabul.''

For these reasons, I also wrote to Ms. Samantha Power, the director for multilateral affairs on the National Security Council at the White House. I also submit this letter for the Record. Given Huawei's troubling activities in Iran, I urged Ms. Power, in her capacity as chair of the newly-created Atrocities Prevention Board, to consider whether the company should be sanctioned.

It is inconceivable to me that a respected law firm like Sidley Austin would represent a Chinese state-directed company like Huawei, given the significant national security concerns as well as its appalling record of supporting some of the world's worst regimes.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, April 25, 2012.

Mr. Carter G. Phillips,

Managing Partner, Sidley Austin LLP, Washington DC.

Dear Mr. Phillips: It has recently come to my attention

that a lobbyist with your firm has been retained by the

Chinese telecom firm Huawei to lobby Congress and the

administration.

Given the longstanding and serious concerns from senior

officials in the U.S. intelligence and defense communities,

as well as the Congress, about Huawei's connections to the

Peoples' Liberation Army and the potential vulnerabilities of

its telecom products, I was surprised that a firm of your

caliber would agree to represent a company that is so closely

connected to the Chinese government.

In all my years in Washington, very rarely have I seen the

leadership of defense, intelligence and civilian agencies

come together in such a concerted effort to warn of a

security threat from a foreign entity. When the White House,

intelligence community, Defense Department and the Commerce

Department all have worked to block Huawei from gaining

greater access to U.S. networks, everyone should take notice.

Just last month, during a hearing before the House

Commerce-Justice-Science (CJS) Appropriations subcommittee,

which I chair, Secretary of Commerce John Bryson noted that

the ``Commerce Department has been very focused on Huawei.''

Secretary Bryson told the panel ``I think you're right in

characterizing that as a considerable challenge to our

country. It appears that Huawei has capabilities that we may

not fully detect to divert information. It's a challenge to

our country . . . we have taken some steps to not have Huawei

advance yet further in our country but the reality is in the

market--they are advancing further so we need to address that

further.''

Also noteworthy is that shortly after Secretary Bryson's

testimony before the CJS subcommittee, Australia announced

that is has banned Huawei from bidding to help build a

nationwide high-speed Internet network due to concern about

cyber attacks traced to China. Australia's actions follow

several similar moves by the U.S. government to block Huawei

access to American networks.

In 2009, The Washington Post reported that the National

Security Agency ``called AT&T because of fears that China's

intelligence agencies could insert digital trapdoors into

Huawei's technology that would serve as secret listening

posts in the U.S. communications network. In 2010, then-

Commerce Secretary Locke called Sprint CEO Dan Hesse to raise

concerns about Huawei, which ultimately resulted in Sprint

choosing not to use Huawei equipment.

These moves should not be surprising given Huawei's long-

documented deep ties to the Chinese government and the

Peoples Liberation Army. According to a 2005 report by the

RAND Corporation, ``both the [Chinese] government and the

military tout Huawei as a national champion,'' and ``one does

not need to dig too deeply to discover that [many Chinese

information technology and telecommunications firms] are the

public face for, sprang from, or are significantly engaged in

joint research with state research institutes under the

Ministry of Information Industry, defense-industrial

corporations, or the military.''

The U.S. business community also is concerned about Huawei.

On April 6, The Wall Street Journal reported that ``Cisco

Systems Inc. Chief Executive John Chambers identified Huawei

Technologies Co. as its toughest rival, stating that the

Chinese company doesn't always `play by the rules' in areas

such as intellectual property protection and computer

security . . . he suggested that, [unlike Huawei], Cisco is

considered trustworthy by governments around the world.''

It's not just Huawei's longstanding and close connections

to Chinese intelligence that is troubling. Huawei has also

been a leading supplier of critical telecom services to some

of the worst regimes around the world. Last year, The Wall

Street Journal reported that Huawei ``now dominates Iran's

government-controlled mobile-phone industry . . . it plays a

role in enabling Iran's state security network.'' And given

the president's April 23 executive order addressing entities

that are providing Iran and Syria with technologies to

repress their people, I would think representing Huawei would

give you further pause.

For these reasons, I urge you to reconsider your firm's

relationship with Huawei. I think you would agree that Sidley

Austin's reputation and integrity is worth far more than its

contract with a state-directed company like Huawei.

Best wishes.

Sincerely,

Frank R. Wolf,

Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, today is the 150th anniversary of the founding of the Department of Agriculture, which was established by President Lincoln on May 15, 1862.

I commend the hardworking individuals at the department who work with all elements of the food supply chain--including our farmers, growers, and ranchers, to support for packers and shippers, marketers and processors, equipment suppliers, researchers, and retailers--to ensure that Americans have access to affordable, safe and abundant food.

The USDA also assists with important conservation efforts, and connects the most vulnerable in our society with critical food resources. As we mark this anniversary, I hope we all will take this opportunity to recognize the continued need that exists at our local food pantries. I meet with food banks and pantries on a regular basis, and demand is at an all-time high. Families who use to donate food regularly are now coming to receive food.

I appreciate the support of my colleagues for the inclusion of language in the FY12 agriculture spending bill that was signed into law to make it easier to donate excess food from the Federal school lunch program to local food banks by ensuring they are covered by the Good Samaritan Act.

The American agriculture community should be commended for their work to ensure that everyone has safe food on the table.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

You know, Mr. Nadler, you could have offered an amendment last night. We had a whole total open process. And Mr. Runyan--where is Mr. Runyan?--Mr. Runyan added money to this project, to Violence Against Women.

Secondly, this is a bipartisan bill. There's been no political shenanigans at all. And let me tell you something--I wasn't going to mention it; we didn't make it a big deal--this bill has $420 million. We're $7.5 million above the current fiscal year for this issue. Also, we're $7.5 million above President Obama's request for Violence Against Women. We're above it. And then with Mr. Runyan, we are even higher above it.

Also, this administration has not been good on sexual trafficking. We have language in this bill to direct the Attorney General to have a task force at every U.S. attorney's office for sexual trafficking. We are above the administration on sexual trafficking. So, I mean, it is kind of political. We are above the administration, and we have a task force on this issue. And so I could go on and on and on.

But last night, we had a whole, totally open, and we accepted a number of amendments. You could have come down here up to midnight last night.

There is no disagreement about the importance of these programs and need to stop it. It is very important. This is a good bill, a solid bill, bipartisan support. Members on both sides of the aisle had ample opportunity to have their amendments considered. In fact, on floor consideration, 63 amendments were offered and 36 were adopted.

We were above the President's request on Violence Against Women. We were above the President's request on the issue of sexual trafficking. Also, and I know some of you were concerned about it, the NICS background check, we were above the administration on that, and also have language directing the Attorney General to deal with that NICS issue. The Brady Commission, the Brady people support it, and the NRA supports it. So on all of those issues, we were above the administration.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I think we have actually said enough. I think it is a good bill. I want to thank again Mr. Fattah and all the Members on both sides of the aisle. It was a good, bipartisan bill. I urge rejection of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in honor of the 18th annual Vietnam Human Rights Day on Friday, May 11, 2012, I would like to highlight a petition that can be found on the ``We the People'' section of the White House's Web site. This particular petition, which collected over 150,000 signatures from across the country, urges the administration to ``stop expanding trade at the expense of human rights.''

Vietnam's human rights record remains disgraceful and I look forward to the day when we can gather together to celebrate true freedom in Vietnam. This administration must show the world that promotion of human rights is a priority in U.S. foreign policy.

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

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I rise in support of the amendment.

I think truthfulness and accuracy are essential components of any oversight process. And the amendment simply requires the Justice Department and all Federal agencies funded by this bill provide only forthright and truthful statements or representations.

With that, I ask for a ``yea'' vote, and yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Maybe when we go to conference--last year this said $4 million. So in a tight budget year when the Ryan budget comes and the other budget comes, we're actually increasing this from $4 million to $10 million, which I think every other program would just say, I don't quite understand. Secondly, the Senate put in $4 million. Maybe we can talk as we move on.

I was looking to see if Mr. Schiff was here or Mr. Culberson was here. This was part of a delicate compromise with regard to the Mars program and the Europa program. The committee took great pains to ensure that NASA science funding reflected the planetary science priorities and goals of the National Academy of Science and included the development of sample return missions to Mars. It's the Decadal Survey. To take this out of that, when it was so difficult, I think would be a mistake.

Such a mission would represent an unprecedented scientific undertaking and enable the next fundamental advance of Mars science and ensure that America's undisputed leadership in Mars exploration remains unchanged. This is the imaginative part of the space program.

Two weeks ago, when the shuttle flew over Washington and this building, literally everyone went outside to look at it. This was one of the most imaginative and creative things for America to continue to be number one in space. I would tell the gentleman I would hope we would vote it down, particularly with $4 million last year and when the Senate is at $4 million. The Senate has $781 million more money in allocation than we had. And for us to jump this up when other programs have been severely hit--I don't know how Mr. Fattah would feel. We could try to work as we go to conference and all, but I would hope that we could vote this down, particularly since it takes it from Mars. And I will give the gentleman my assurance to move ahead and see what we can do to it, but not take it from Mars.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) for yielding and for outlining the concerns that a number of people have about this program.

I believe that, despite our differences--and it may not really be that much of a difference--we share a common goal of providing reliable domestic access to the space station in the fastest and most cost- effective manner. We are paying the Russians $60 million a seat to get there. So we want to get there as fast as we can for the lowest cost that we can so we can utilize that space station, which cost us $100 billion.

I know the gentleman is a staunch supporter of commercial spaceflight. And if the gentleman believes that he can get NASA to come up with a clearer and more reasonable plan, we want to work with him. We look forward to discussing results as we move forward with the process. And I will tell him that we will work together.

Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order on the gentlelady's amendment.

I thank the gentlelady from Guam for raising this important matter. We will work with the Senate to ensure that funding for these important programs, including coral research activities, is sufficiently maintained.

I want to thank both of you for your commitment to safety and mission success at NASA. This is an issue that they have been active on for a while now, and they have raised a number of significant questions. We will be happy to work with both of your offices to ensure that those questions are answered and that the decision-making on NASA's facility promotes safe and effective management. So we'll work with both of you to do that.

I object.

Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to request a recorded vote on the amendment of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Webster).

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

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

Will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

I yield to the gentleman.

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

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

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

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

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

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

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

President Barack Obama's top counterterrorism adviser

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

the agency has struck an appropriate balance between keeping

people safe and protecting their rights.

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

Brennan goes on to say:

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

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

appearance at NYPD headquarters.

I believe that balance that we strike has been an

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

optimize our security at the same time we optimize those

freedoms we hold and cherish so deeply.

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

Then it goes on to say:

City officials said the police department has done nothing

illegal and argued that the NYPD would have endangered the

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

preventative measures. Officers cannot wait to open an

investigation until a crime is committed, they argue. Police

Commissioner Raymond Kelly has said it is a

mischaracterization to describe the department's tactics as

spying.

I will close with this:

In a speech to the police department's officials and

representatives from private security firms, Brennan then

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

essential to the safety of the Nation's citizens.

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

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

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

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

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

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentlelady yield?

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

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

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

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

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I was the only member of the Virginia delegation to vote for the Voting Rights Act in 1982. I attended school for 1 year in a State in which I saw things that were different than I had seen before. And there is a Simon and Garfunkel song called ``The Boxer'': ``The man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.'' We really can't disregard what has taken place in the country.

Now, we may be reaching a point at which this should be looked at again. I believe there is no discrimination now in my State. I think the Judiciary Committee ought to look at this carefully, but this is not the place to do this, and it is such a sensitive issue.

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act applies to jurisdictions determined to have had a history of discrimination against minority voters. Section 5 requires certain covered jurisdictions, based on the formula set forth in section 4, to pre-clear their congressional redistricting plans with either the Department of Justice or with the U.S. Court for the District of Columbia before implementation. In order to be granted pre-clearance, jurisdiction has the burden of proving that the proposed voting change neither has the purpose nor will have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color or membership in a language minority group.

Litigation is pending now in the Federal District Court, including the case of Texas v. Holder, which challenges the constitutionality of the coverage formula and pre-clearance requirements in sections 4 and 5. In its 2009 decision in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder, the Supreme Court may have signaled a willingness to reconsider the constitutionality of the pre-clearance regime and coverage formula.

But this is not an amendment that, I think, is appropriate here. Again, as we deal with this thing, we have to be very, very sensitive because, quite frankly, I remember in 1982, when I voted for this, there were editorials in the Richmond Times-Dispatch that were ripping me apart for this vote.

But because I do believe that everyone should have the right to vote, I voted for it.

But I would also say, to end, we may be approaching a time that this would go because we want a Nation where no one is discriminated against, and we may have reached that point. But I think the Judiciary Committee should hold extensive hearings and we should see what the Supreme Court does. I don't think this is the place to do it, and I strongly rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

I am not a legal scholar, and at 10:10, I don't think I can do it, but there may be a time.

I believe now in my State there is not discrimination with regard to voting. I think our Governor is a good, decent guy, and I don't think he wants to discriminate against anybody. The members of the general assembly are of that same mind. Yet there had been in a case in previous times in the State of Virginia, so I'm not going to be the--I went to Georgetown Law School. It's an accredited law school, but I'm not going to sit here tonight and lay it out.

I don't think this is what we ought to do tonight. I initially wasn't going to speak, but I just feel strongly. Again, I go back. I remember in 1982 voting for this, and people felt it and I just felt in my heart this was the right thing to do. As of now in my heart, it tells me we ought not adopt this amendment, and we can have the Judiciary Committee hold hearings both in the House and the Senate. We can see what the Supreme Court will do. I just don't think this is the place for this amendment, and I strongly oppose the amendment.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for his interest in and advocacy for STEM education. I share his belief that STEM education must be a national priority, and I think the more we invest in it, it is very important for this country so the 21st century is the American century and not the Chinese century. And I look forward to working with him on this issue as we move forward.

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

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.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 12 o'clock and 1 minute a.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until today, Thursday, May 10, 2012, at 9 a.m.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dan Scandling and Thomas Culligan in my office; Michelle

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

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

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

Bonner's office; Tyler Grassmeyer, Steven Gilleland and

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

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

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

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

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

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

Modaff and Colin Sheldon in Ranking Member Dicks' office.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08MY12.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08MY12.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08MY12.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08MY12.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08MY12.005

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

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

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

Will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

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

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

Will the gentleman yield?

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

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

I rise in opposition to this amendment.

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

The FBI was one of the few agencies in this bill to receive

funding above its requested level, and I've always been a strong proponent of providing the necessary resources for law enforcement personnel to protect the American people.

As you noted, the bill includes a program increase of $6.6 million above the current level for agents and support personnel to combat financial fraud. The Senate has reported their CJS total a higher allocation. I think they were $781 million above us. As we go to conference with the Senate, the gentlelady can rest assured that we will work to ensure that the FBI has the resources that they need.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for bringing the issue of funding for veterans treatment courts to the attention of the CJS Subcommittee for its assistance.

At the behest of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, we had the honor of welcoming the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Seamus McCaffery to the subcommittee, where he testified about the importance of supporting veterans treatment courts.

I also want to thank Mr. Fattah for being very supportive. Also, Mr. Yoder was very supportive. I'm not sure he is here, but he spoke out very much for it and the entire committee. So I want to thank the gentlemen again. I appreciate it very much.

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Before I make a statement, I want to congratulate Congressman Davis for his work, and I see Congressman Bobby Scott there, too. I think this is very important. I support it completely. And I want to kind of put it in the framework of where we are.

I rise in opposition to the amendment. The bill represents the best efforts to thoughtfully and effectively fund the important programs under its jurisdiction. I am an ardent supporter of efforts to improve outcomes for people returning to communities from prisons and jails.

The Second Chance Act grants help with employment assistance, substance abuse, and does a lot of good work, as Congressman Davis said. That is why this bill, our bill here, provides $70 million for Second Chance Act programs, $70 million, which is an increase of $7 million above 2012. And interestingly enough, it's $45 million above the amount provided in the bill reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee. The Senate Appropriations Committee had 780 or $781 million greater allocation than we had, and yet we are $45 million above the amount provided.

In addition to providing the necessary funds for Second Chance, the committee was also committed to recommending significant funding for the SCAAP program. This bill includes $165 million for SCAAP, which is still $75 million below the FY 2012 levels. So SCAAP was below it, and now we're taking more from it.

So I oppose this $10 million reduction in SCAAP funding because SCAAP is an important program that assists State and local governments with the cost of incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens. The cost is a direct result of the Federal failure to control illegal immigration. So for that reason, we have an increase. We are at $70 million. We have an increase of $7 million over 2012. There are not many programs that are higher.

But also, when you compare this with the Senate, which had a very high allocation, we are $45 million above the amount required. And I know the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) is a strong supporter of this program too. So we can go to conference. But to take $10 million out of SCAAP now would not be a good idea.

So for that reason, I urge a ``no'' vote and yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I support the amendment. We accept the amendment. The Internet Crimes Against Children program is one of several programs funded under the Missing and Exploited Children activities account. This program helps State and local law enforcement agencies develop an effective response to cyber-enticement and child pornography cases.

So I commend the gentlelady and accept it and yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

The cross-agency support account is not free money. It's not a place that you can just--I think they ought to change the name, ``cross- agency support.'' That's like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, it's kind of cheap grace; you can just kind of go someplace and get some money there because it's just a cross-agency support account.

Why don't we want to cut this cross-agency support account? Because NASA will not be able to absorb this. They will literally not be able to absorb this. This deals with safety, it deals with security, and the mission's success. Cybersecurity measures defend off relentless attacks by China and others. While NASA is a civil Agency, much of its technology has military applications.

But let's get it from the cross-agency support account. What does it mean? It doesn't mean anything. Yes, it does. It is a very important function with regard to NASA. Human space flight safety oversight, it comes partly out of that. We have learned the hard way from the Challenger and the Columbia tragedies that relentless attention to safety is necessary.

Cuts to this account will hamstring NASA's efforts to minimize the risk of loss of life and property. But, hey, let's go to the cross- agency support account. It doesn't mean anything because nobody cares. Yet it does; it's validation and mission critical software.

Medical support services keep astronauts and ground-crew workers healthy. Many NASA employees work regularly with regard to hazardous issues. Procurement support. This account is a question of a lot of jobs. I can go on and on and on.

If you wanted to kind of find it, maybe you should have gone some other place; but to take it out of NASA and to put a spear right at NASA's heart, I think, is a mistake.

If you want to be for this--and my father was a Philadelphia policeman, the City of Philadelphia, 21 years--if you want to be for this, fine. I think you should have found another spot. And we would have been trying to work with you once we get to conference because the Senate, what is it, $781 million off? But I'll tell you, if you care about NASA--well, maybe they don't care about NASA. So if you don't care about NASA, I urge strong support for this. If you do care about NASA, I urge you to reject the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

My dad was a policeman in the city of Philadelphia. Actually, you know, with my dad, I couldn't say they were cops because it was a derogatory term. My dad was a policeman, and I loved my father.

And when we go to conference, we will attempt to really deal with this. And I think Mr. Fattah and I agree. NASA's not the place to go.

I'm very sympathetic. We're given a budget that many of these guys, some guys over on our side want to take the budget down even more. The Republican Study Committee wanted to take it down even more. I mean, will some guys who voted for the Republican Study Committee come down here and be for this?

So, listen, I am committed to do everything we can when we go to conference. The allocation was different.

Just let me say, I will do everything we can as we go to conference, depending on how the allocation is, to see what we can really do, because I want to do everything we can.

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

I rise in opposition to the amendment. The bill already includes a $7 million increase for the EEOC, which will allow the agency to continue making progress in addressing its backlog with discrimination complaints. And in a context of a reduced total allocation in which many agencies and accounts in this bill have been level funded or even cut, that $7 million increase is a substantial show of support.

Lastly--and I'm not going to go into detail--this again cuts NASA by $26 million. NASA has gradually been cut down and down, in addition to where it takes it from.

I would ask for a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I rise in opposition.

I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake). He's a good Member and very consistent in trying to cut, but I rise in opposition to this amendment, which would reduce NSF funding by $1.2 billion from the levels provided in the bill.

This amendment challenges broad, long-standing, bipartisan agreement on the needs to prioritize Federal investments in basic research, math and science and physics and chemistry and biology in order that America can be number one. This agreement is based on a strong and unambiguous link between investments in research and development and growth and employment and productivity and GDP. This link has been documented repeatedly by expert researchers, economists, and analysts working in administrations and congressional majorities in both parties, as well as private and nonprofit entities.

The link is also well-known and understood internationally, where major foreign competitors, including the European Union, China, and South Korea are investing strongly, are investing much higher, at a much higher level than we are, at a much higher level than we are in research, in the hopes of producing or attracting high-value economic activity. We have already lost a good deal of competitive advantage that we previously held over those countries, and if we fail to keep pace with them in research and development, our situation will only worsen.

Unfortunately, this amendment would contribute to precisely that scenario by not only eliminating any potential growth in NSF basic research next year, but actually reducing basic research expenditures by nearly $1 billion.

As a father of five kids, my wife and I, we have 16 grandkids. I want the 21st century to be the American century and not the Chinese century.

I urge strongly, I urge a ``no'' vote for this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

The bill that we are considering tonight provides $328 million for legal services, which is a reduction to the fiscal year 2006 level. It is almost $100 million below the FY 2010 level, and we are $74 million below the request by the administration. LSC helps many people. Last year, 2.3 million people were provided assistance in more than 300,000 family law cases, 105,000 domestic violence cases, thousands of veterans benefit cases, 25,000 unemployment cases, and 20,000 foreclosure cases.

Those cuts would result in 400,000 fewer people being served nationwide and in 160,000 fewer cases closed. This includes returning veterans who are seeking benefits, and it includes elderly victims of foreclosure. The elderly have been taken advantage of in so many cases. It also includes women who are seeking safety for themselves and for their children from domestic violence.

I understand that there are some concerns about LSC-funded programs. Our committee has carried numerous restrictions on political activity by the LSC grantees, to include: lobbying, abortion litigation, class action lawsuits. These restrictions cover both LSC funds, as well as private funds.

The administration proposes to eliminate several of these restrictions, but the House bill does not. The committee conducted vigorous oversight over the LSC in March. We heard testimony from a sheep herder who has concerns about the LSC grantee's violating restrictions. We have included language directing LSC to rigorously enforce the restrictions on political activity. Wherever there is any political activity, we are going to shut it down. We are facing an extremely difficult time, and I think many poor people would be hurt. As a result of that, I would ask for a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the amendment, too.

I think the arguments have already been made to the gentleman from Georgia, and the same argument would also hold true here.

And let me say one other thing. If any Member has any information with regard to lobbying or any violation of the law, I hope they'll call, because we have made clear that the committee carries numerous restrictions on political activity from LSC grantees, including lobbying abortion litigation and class action lawsuits. And they cover both the LSC funds as well as the private funds. So if anybody has any information on either side, we will hold a public hearing and deal with the issue. But based on this, this zeros it out. So I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I support the amendment. I urge adoption, and yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for his support for Federal science Agencies and his advocacy for programs like this one, which ensure that taxpayer investment in research and development provides returns to the economy in the forms of jobs, revenue, and export opportunities. I'll be happy to work with the gentleman as the bill continues through the appropriations process to ensure that I-Corps and related efforts receive the appropriate amount of support.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Maybe I don't completely understand the amendment, and it pains me to oppose the amendment from my good friend, but this is basically, from the way that we read it, a notification requirement exists so that the Congress can track significant changes in an Agency's activities over the course of the entire fiscal year.

There isn't any reason to believe, unless I misunderstand this--and if I do, I apologize--removing the requirement would result in the administration choosing to contract out government function with any greater frequency or scope. It does, though, guarantee that they will execute any existing plan without any congressional oversight. So, really, regardless of how you feel about the merits of contracting out, we should be able to agree that it's in the best institutional interest for the Congress to know.

Basically, it would be like, and I may be wrong, we are giving this authority. We are saying, Eric Holder, you take this and you can do whatever you want to do and do not tell us. And believe me, he would take this and he would not tell us. I write Eric Holder seven letters, and I get back one letter thanking me and he quotes each and every date and never answers the question.

Basically, I think you have to have the requirement of a 15-day notification to allow the committee to sort of look at it and see what they were doing. But basically, I think it could be viewed, and perhaps I misunderstand the amendment, turning over much more congressional authority to the executive branch; and since we are on the bill dealing with the Justice Department and I've had some really difficult times with Eric Holder--you think Fast and Furious, we try to get information on so many things--if they didn't have to come up before the committee, I think they would have unfettered rights to do whatever. So based on my understanding of it, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

I yield to the gentleman.

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

Mr. Chairman, we have $125 million. We are at the administration's request of $125 million for DNA, $117 million for the DNA backlog. The gentlelady is accurate, it is a very important program. The Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant program provides grants to States and units of local law enforcement and local governments to conduct DNA analysis and backlog. But we're at the administration's request. And what this will do is cut from ATF $34 million. It would require the RIFing of a number of ATF employees; it would impact on the Violent Crime Impact Teams in dozens of cities. The foundation of the Violent Crime Impact Team program is the identification and targeting, disruption, arrests, and prosecution of the worst of the worst criminals possible. We have met the administration's request. We are at $125 million. It is an important program. There will be $117 million for the DNA backlog. So we've met the request. It would devastate the ATF is what it would do.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Reclaiming my time, we have fully funded this. This would require a reduction of ATF salaries and expense accounts. A cut of this magnitude would result in the loss of 268 ATF personnel, including 111 agents. That's more than 4 percent of ATF's onboard agent staffing. It would require that each ATF remaining staff be furloughed for 5 days.

We're at the amount. It's very important. You have my commitment. We'll fight to make sure that we save the amount. I don't know where the Senate is on this. It's very important. But to go above what the administration asked and to devastate the ATF, I think, would not be a good idea. So I'm committed to the program, but we're at the level; and I don't think we should go higher and devastate the ATF and bring about the number of RIFs and furloughs and reductions, particularly in so many important roles the ATF does.

I think we should. I completely agree with you. And If there is any additional allocation and we can go, we will. But we're at the request, and I don't think that we can now devastate the ATF. But, yes, I completely agree with you.

Adam Schiff is on the committee. I don't see Mr. Schiff here. He's been a strong advocate of this, as has the chairman. This is not a good amendment; but the program is good, and we'll continue. If we get a better allocation and things happen, we'll be very sympathetic to it . But I ask, based on the fact that we have met the administration level, $117 million for the DNA backlog, that we don't devastate the ATF.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I appreciate what the gentlelady said. Frankly, what we should do here is--I'll take the amendment tonight and support it, and we can reform Social Security. I mean, we gave Jimmy Buffett and Warren Buffett a big break on Social Security with the payroll tax. We literally bankrupt the Social Security system.

So if there is an amendment, I will take an amendment. If you want to take an amendment tonight, I will take it to close the loophole.

In 2010, everyone here who paid their taxes paid more taxes than GE. They fought 57,000 pages of tax reform. And they were one of the highest taxpayers in China. If you've got a GE taxpaying amendment, I'll take it tonight.

But every dollar is not the same. Let's cut Eric Holder more than we cut Director Mueller. Let's cut some climate issue over at NOAA, where nobody knows, more than we cut cyberterrorism. Let's cut something else rather than cutting the DA's backlog. To take it across the board is just not a good idea.

Across-the-board cuts--and I think the gentlelady had it right-- really does kind of impact on the work that's gone on in the bill. It says $1 in one agency is just as dispensable and the same as any other agency. I agree with her that we've got to do everything we can.

I was one of the people here who supported Simpson-Bowles. I never signed a Grover Norquist tax pledge. I want to do whatever we can to deal with this issue. I want to put everything on the table. But now we're going through the appropriations process. And to go across the board, FBI and Eric Holder--if I had to make it, I would take $2 of Eric Holder and give $2 to Director Mueller, but not across the board. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to request a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

This would be great news for the prisoners in prison because it would cut the prison system by $600 million and we'd have to let a lot of people out of prisons or we couldn't operate them. But I commend the gentleman. He's been very consistent throughout the night. I think this would be an impact on DEA probably in the rage of $200 million, when we think of the drugs coming into the country.

So, while I appreciate the gentleman's compromise spirit of taking it down from 25 percent to half that, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the awardees of the Warren Coalition's Youth Hero medal: James Brogan, Austin Farley, Logan Putman, Chayanne Villalobos, Adrianna Nesbitt and Kaylee Williams. These awardees will be honored at the Warren Coalition's first annual Celebrate Kids Day on April 28.

The Warren Coalition is a drug, alcohol and violence prevention agency supporting the youth of Warren County, Virginia. The theme for the event is ``We Can Be Drug-Free'' and will highlight all the wonderful things that young people do in our community.

I want to congratulate these award winners who selflessly serve their community without seeking recognition, and often overcome disabilities or difficult odds. I sincerely appreciate their hard work and service to Warren County. I commend these students for their strong commitment to staying healthy and building a better, safer community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark a historic occurrence-- the first conviction of a head of state in an international war crimes court since World War II. Of course Adolph Hitler, convicted at the Nuremberg Trials, had committed suicide prior to the verdict.

Charles Taylor organized and ordered armed attacks throughout Sierra Leone to terrorize the civilian population and ultimately punish them for failing to provide sufficient support to the Revolutionary United Front (RUF), or for supporting the legitimate government. The attacks were brutal in nature and routinely included unlawful killings, abductions, forced labor, physical and sexual violence, the use of child soldiers, looting and Taylor's trademark--mass amputations.

I visited Sierra Leone in 1999 with my good friend, former Member of Congress Tony Hall. I heard the tales of horror with my own ears and witnessed with my own eyes the nightmare Taylor left in his wake. Taylor's interest in promoting and supporting the RUF insurgency was driven by greed--specifically Sierra Leone's vast diamond resources. Victims told us that when the RUF would arrive in a village, they would ask their victims if they wanted ``a long sleeve'' or ``a short sleeve'' and amputate accordingly.

While it was years in the making, this week's historic verdict marks a triumph for justice. I especially want to note the dedication of Dr. Alan W. White, chief investigator responsible for putting the case together, David M. Crane, chief prosecutor at the Hague, and my former staffer Chris Santoro who served as a trial attorney in the Taylor case.

Perhaps most significantly, Taylor's conviction, in the words of an Associated Press story that I submit for the Record, sends a ``warning to tyrants.'' Foremost among them is Sudanese president Omar Bashir-- himself an internationally indicted war criminal with blood on his hands. Furthermore, this verdict ought to be a wake-up call to the countries and governments that persist in hosting Bashir on official travel--they will find themselves on the wrong side of history.

Charles Taylor Conviction Sends Warning to Tyrants

(By Mike Corder)

Leidschendam, Netherlands.--Former Liberian President

Charles Taylor became the first head of state since World War

II to be convicted by an international war crimes court, a

historic verdict that sends a message that tyrants worldwide

will be tracked down and brought to justice.

The warlord-turned-president was found guilty on Thursday

of 11 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity for

arming Sierra Leone rebels in exchange for ``blood diamonds''

mined by slave laborers and smuggled across the border.

Judges at the Special Court for Sierra Leone said Taylor

played a crucial role in allowing the rebels to continue a

bloody rampage during that West African nation's 11-year

civil war, which ended in 2002 with more than 50,000 dead.

Ten years after the war ended, Sierra Leone is still

struggling to rebuild.

The rebels gained international notoriety for hacking off

the limbs of their victims and carving their groups' initials

into opponents and even children they kidnapped, drugged and

turned into killers. The rebels developed gruesome terms for

the mutilations that became their chilling trademark: They

would offer their victims the choice of ``long sleeves'' or

``short sleeves''--having their hands hacked off or their

arms sliced off above the elbow.

The 64-year-old Taylor will be sentenced next month after a

separate hearing.

The court has no death penalty and no life sentence. Judges

have given eight other rebels as much as 52 years in prison.

The verdict was hailed by prosecutors, victims and rights

activists as a watershed moment in efforts to end impunity

for leaders responsible for atrocities.

The ruling ``permanently locks in and solidifies the idea

that heads of state are now accountable for what they do to

their own people,'' said David Crane, the former prosecutor

who indicted Taylor in 2003 and is now a professor of

international law at Syracuse University. ``This is a bell

that has been rung and clearly rings throughout the world. If

you are a head of state and you are killing your own people,

you could be next.''

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon hailed the judgment as

``a significant milestone for international criminal

justice'' that ``sends a strong signal to all leaders that

they are and will be held accountable for their actions,''

said U.N. deputy spokesman Eduardo del Buey.

U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said

Taylor's prosecution ``delivers a strong message to all

perpetrators of atrocities, including those in the highest

positions of power, that they will be held accountable.''

Despite optimism over the verdict, international efforts to

prosecute leaders have been spotty at best. Slobodan

Milosevic died in his cell before a verdict could be reached

on charges of fomenting the Balkan wars. Moammar Gadhafi was

killed by rebels last year before he could be turned over for

trial. Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir is openly defying

attempts to arrest him on international genocide charges.

In one success story, prosecutors at the U.N.'s Yugoslav

war crimes tribunal are close to wrapping up their case

against former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic although

it took more than a decade to have him arrested.

The global implications meant little to survivors of the

war in Sierra Leone who celebrated Taylor's conviction.

``I am happy that the truth has come out . . . that Charles

Taylor is fully and solely responsible for the crimes

committed against the people of Sierra Leone,'' said Jusu

Jarka, who had both his arms hacked off by rebels in 1999 and

who now runs a support group for fellow amputees.

Crowds that gathered to watch the verdict live on

television in the Sierra Leone capital, Freetown, sighed with

relief when the conviction was announced. Some carried

posters that exposed still-simmering anger. ``Shame on you

Charles Taylor. Give us your diamonds before going to

prison,'' one read.

Prosecuting Taylor proved how hard it is to bring leaders

to justice. He fled into exile in Nigeria after being

indicted in 2003 and wasn't arrested for three years. And

while the Sierra Leone court is based in that country's

capital, Taylor's trial was staged in the Netherlands for

fear it could destabilize the region.

There was no clear paper trail linking Taylor to rebels,

and the three-judge panel wound up convicting him of aiding

and abetting the fighters. He was cleared of direct command

responsibility over the rebels.

In their verdict, reached after 13 months of deliberations,

the judges said Taylor regularly received diamonds from

rebels. But they made no mention of the most famous witness

to testify about the gems--supermodel Naomi Campbell, who

recalled being given a bag of ``very small, dirty-looking

stones'' at a 1997 dinner at Nelson Mandela's official

mansion in South Africa.

Taylor attended the dinner, and prosecutors had hoped

Campbell would testify that he gave her the diamonds. But

Campbell did not, and Taylor's lawyer, Courtenay Griffiths,

dismissed the testimony on Thursday as ``a large, fat zero.''

Taylor, impeccably dressed as usual in suit and tie, said

nothing in court and showed no emotion as the verdict was

read.

There was emotion enough during the five-year trial as 91

prosecution witnesses outlined the horrors of Sierra Leone's

war, many of them describing murders, mutilations, torture

and acts of cannibalism by rebels and the children they

turned into merciless killers.

Taylor insisted he was an innocent victim of neocolonialism

and a political process aimed at preventing him from

returning to power in Liberia. In seven months of testimony

in his own defense, he cast himself as a peacemaker and

statesman in West Africa.

Crane--a vocal supporter of efforts to hold leaders

accountable--concedes that while war crimes tribunals are

independent, they are hard to separate from geopolitical

realities.

Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime is widely accused of

atrocities as it battles to put down a popular revolt, and

yet the prospect that he or any of his generals will be

indicted anytime soon appears remote. Syria does not

recognize the International Criminal Court, meaning

prosecutors there cannot intervene unless the U.N. Security

Council asks them to. Russia and China would likely veto any

such move.

The ICC has indicted al-Bashir for genocide in Darfur,

Sudan, but he has openly defied an international arrest

warrant by flying to friendly nations and has recently

cranked up war rhetoric in his country's border dispute with

South Sudan.

Most likely the next former leader to face justice will be

former Ivory Coast President Laurent Gbagbo, who is jailed in

The Hague on charges of attacking political opponents as he

attempted to cling to power following elections last year.

Edward Songo Conteh, of Sierra Leone's Amputee and War

Wounded Association, was in court Thursday to watch the

verdict. His only regret was that Taylor was not immediately

sentenced.

``I want to see this man behind bars for the rest of his

life,'' said Conteh, who had one of his hands hacked off by

child soldiers.