representatives in washington, they say, why on earth can't you find that? why didn't you -- can't you find that? we ought to be able to do this. not doing this is morally reprehensible. not doing this is irresponsible. not doing this is an abrogation of our duty. not doing this is a woeful lack of leadership. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. mollohan: the use of the word irresponsible gives me pause because if the appropriations subcommittee for commerce, justice, state -- commerce, justice, science has done anything during the last six months, it has responsibly considered the administration's requests with regard to funding of these accounts. indeed, our appropriations committee has cut $200 million from the administration's request at the same time, we have filled a lot of holes the

administration left. $300 million for scaap. we filled that hole, which the administration requested zero for that on the floor here yesterday we added another $100 million to scaap because it has such support, broad, bipartisan support in this house. . we restored $400 million to this legislation, money to help our local police, our local sheriffs, our state police as they do their job in very tough times. as a matter of fact back home, providing safety to our citizens. this legislation has been very responsibly considered. and while our appropriation is less than the president requested, it still goes a long way to adequately fund all the accounts in the bill. now the gentleman makes light of a 1% cut, but understand a 1%

cut in a $64 billion bill is $644 million. $644 million is $200 million above the scaap hole we had to fill. $200 million above the $400 million in the state and local law enforcement assistance grants that we filled. so the gentleman, 1%, when it is said like that doesn't sound like much. but this bill we bring to the floor today is below the president's request and at the same time, we have provided funding for scaap. we provided funding for state and local law enforcement to the tune of $400 million above the president's request. state and local law enforcement across the country -- and i would just imagine in the gentleman's district are very much appreciative of that support as they deal with crime

in tough economic times when local and state governments are having trouble meeting that in order to fund that safety. a lot of this is ideological. and the gentleman looks to these domestic accounts to achieve these reductions. and i just would point out that these accounts are not -- this bill we bring to the floor is below the president's request. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: all time having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. price: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the

gentleman from georgia will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? mr. jordan: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 100 offered by mr. jordan of ohio. the chair: the gentleman from ohio and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the gentleman from ohio is recognized for five minutes. mr. jordan: i thank the chairman and thank my ranking member and the chairman of the subcommittee. the chairman of the subcommittee was just boasting about the fact that the committee reduced the amount of dollars appropriated in this bill from what the administration had requested. i think it's important to point out that request came after we had the stimulus, the omnibus, tarp, all the spending had taken place in the first six months of this congress. i don't know that's anything to brag about. this amendment actually goes back to what this congress was allocated and what was being

spent in the various agencies. it would reduce the spending in this bill by $12,500,000,000 prior to the stimulus. it is about preserving opportunity for our children and grandchildren. the american people get it. they are tightening their belts as many speakers have indicated on the floor this evening. they're tired of this blank check, this bailout mentality that has got a hold of washington. they're sick of the bailouts. they're sick of the deficits, the debt we keep piling up. think of the number of bailouts. the financial industry, the auto industry bailout, a deficit that is approaching $2 trillion this fiscal year, a national zebt over $11 trillion slated to move to $23 trillion over the next

decade. at some point -- i was an economic major. there's no free lunch, it has to be paid back. $23 trillion we are slated to go to over the next 10 years. to pay back, think what has to happen. we have to balance the budget. we have to not spend more than what we take in and run a surplus of $1 trillion for 23 straight years and that doesn't count the interest. one of the things that makes this country great, one of the reasons we are the greatest nation in history is because parents make sacrifices for their kids so when they grow up, they can have life better than they did. and that cycle continues and it's why we are the greatest economic power in human history. when you begin to turn that around and go the other direction, that's where we are having problems and that's where we are at right now. it's so important we get

discipline on how we budget and spend the taxpayer money. i had a coach and teacher in high school, taught chemistry and psysics and talked about discipline every stinking day. i got tired hearing about it. you need discipline if you want to succeed. and he had a great definition. he said discipline is doing what you don't want to do when you don't want to do it. and that meant doing it his way than doing it your way. the easy thing to do is to spend taxpayer money. the discipline thing, the tough thing to do is say you know what? we're going to limit overall spending and make some tough decisions, because if we don't our kids and grandkids are going to inherit a debt we cannot repay. it's important to adopt this amendment and get a handle on the out-of-control spending.

i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. mollohan: i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mollohan: i just point out that this is a $19 -- 19.4% reduction in the funding of the bill. and that equates by my math and what i heard to $12.5 billion, $12.5 billion below this committee's recommendation to the full house. it would be $5 billion below the 2009 funding level. i understand that this right off the top, this subcommittee has a $4 billion additional obligation in order to fund as we move into the 2010 census. that just immediately

demonstrates, i think, graphically demonstrates what kind of effect this kind of a cut this would have on the bill. for all those reasons i have in debating these various other percentage cuts to the funding in this bill, i oppose this amendment, mr. chairman. and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from ohio. mr. jordan: mr. chairman, let me say this. the gentleman makes it sound so dramatic. it takes us right back to where we were spending -- less than a year ago, less than a year ago to what these departments were operating on. think about this. a year ago, tiger woods was getting ready to win the u.s. open. brett favre was thinking of coming out of retirement. yankees and boston red sox fans don't like each other. this is no big deal. this is going back to where we

were one year ago. a lot of families across this country are having to do that. a lot of businesses are having to do that. why is it during tough economic times the only people who have to suck it up are the american people and small business owners? why can't government suck it up? this is what this is about. this goes back to where we were one year ago. i yield back the balance of my time. and i urge a yes vote. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. mollohan: mr. chairman, a small point. one year ago, i don't know what numbers the gentleman is looking at and doesn't affect his overall point. and i understand he wants to reduce the bill by a significant amount of money. one year ago the accounts funded in this bill totalled $57 billion. as i understand the gentleman's cut and as we have done the math

on it, his cut would take us down to $52 billion, which would be $4 billion below. mr. jordan: i appreciate the gentleman yielding. a year ago, we were -- it's my recollection, we were functioning under a continuing resolution, which would be the 2008 fiscal year spending level. that's why i'm saying one year ago we are functioning as to where this amendment would take us to. not the 2009. the 2008 continuing resolution. mr. mollohan: i'm looking at the actual number here. mr. chairman, i oppose the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: all time having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. mollohan: i request the yeas

and nays. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 114 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. reichert of washington. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 552, the gentleman from washington and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the gentleman from washington. mr. reichert: mr. chairman, after listening to the discussion back and forth here for the last hour or two, i would hope that my amendment would not be quite so contentious and it is migrate hope we could come together in agreement on the amendment that i'm about to offer. i am suggesting that we take $2.5 million from the department of commerce, salaries and expenses' account, which is totaling $60 million and 

receiving a $7 million increase. to remove $2.5 million from a $7 million increase from a $60 million budget to support teens through education, step, which helps high schools collaborate with sexual assault providers, law enforcement, courts and other organizations to improve school safety. this vital program was authorized by congress under the violence against women's act, but was never funded. our schools should be safe havens for our children to learn and grow. unfortunately, violence in schools has left many kids afraid of the very places we send them to learn and grow. they increasingly find themselves becoming victims of dating violence, bullying, harassment, gang-related violence in the classrooms, hallways and school yards.

in the buses and in the area of the school, this law would apply. when violence occurs in our schools, our children find themselves in difficult situations. they go to school where they spend six to eight hours a day with the very people that have perpetrated the crime against them placing them in very dangerous situations. for example, a 16-year-old girl breaks up with her 16-year-old boyfriend in texas, at a high school. and during the day, she goes to her teacher and says i'm afraid. this boyfriend of mine is becoming more and more violent and i'm afraid for my safety. can you help me? two hours later, this young lady is found dead in the hallways of her own school. in 2007, at a high school in seattle, a young girl is assaulted, dragged into the boys' rest room and assaulted even further.

the girl pushed herself away from the suspect and ran away and told the teachers. reported the incident to the teachers. the principal of the school. the school did nothing. for three weeks this young lady had to go back to school and face these three individuals, three individuals who assaulted her. they did nothing. didn't report it to the police. didn't tell anybody. our schools need more effective procedures to address these problems when they occur amongst students. teachers, coaches and counselors have important roles to play in the lives of our children, as we all know, and they can be a key to curbing violence among our youth. studies show that 25% of the teens say they would confide in a teacher or a school counselor if they became involved in an abusive relationship or were assaulted. unfortunately, school personnel are not current try trained and

equipped with the knowledge or resources needed to address these issues effectively at school. by supporting my amendment, we could help schools address bullying, sexual violence and the step program can train school personnel and provide support services for students experiencing abuse, help schools foster appropriate responses to the affected students. the national education association, the national network of domestic violence, the national center for victims of crime, the national families prevention fund have endorsed this amendment and i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment to create a safe learning environment for our children across this country. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia rise? mr. mollohan: i rise to claim the time in opposition, although i'm not in opposition. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for

five minutes. . i want to complement the gentleman from washington for his concern here. he's absolutely correct this program is authorized under the violence against women legislation. it was not funded in this bill. there are a number of programs in it. we have found it difficult to fund all of them. we want every year we add to them. but the gentleman's contribution here to the bill and to fighting violence against women is real and we appreciate it and we accept the amendment. domestic and dating violence is something that's very serious. it's something that can be dealt with through the program that the gentleman is advocating. so we thank him for his contribution to our bill here. and look forward to working with him as we move this legislation through conversation -- conference to ensure his efforts here are retained.

the chair: does the gentleman reserve his time? the gentleman from washington. mr. reichert: mr. speaker, thank you. i want to take a moment just to thank the gentleman for his support and kind words of support and the majority support of the minority amendmentle is a pleasant change in the atmosphere over the last day or two. we appreciate that. i yield back. mr. mola han: i yield back. the chair: both sides having yielded back, the qui is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington, so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the gentleman from washington. mr. reichert: i would request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. broun: i have an amendment at the desk. it's number 59. the chair: the clerk will

designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 59, printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. broun of georgia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 552, the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the gentleman from georgia. mr. broun: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. broun: i rise today with an amendment which will strip funding from this bill that is aimed at imblementing a new national climate certificate -- implementing a new national climate service. at best this agency is duplicative. at worse this is an egregious waste of taxpayer dollars. for an endeavor which is not even based on sound science. mr. speaker, there is no consensus among policymakers, academics, researchers, or bureaucrats about how a national climate service should even be structured. yet here we are funding it.

this lack of agreement was not more evident than during a science and technology subcommittee hearing just last month regarding the development of this exact agency. at that hearing four alternative structural proposals were presented by different witnesses. they range from emerging existing -- merging existing agencies to the creation of a nonprofit entity to provide the research. but each and every one of them was shot down. in order to implement any entity of this any ture, we -- nature, we must first be sure the infrastructure for monitoring our weather and climate patterns is already in place. but that infrastructure is currently not there. in fact, according to the national academy of sciences, the u.s. climate observing system is in rapid decline. this includes both our ground based and our satellite based measuring systems. updating these systems and making sure that the information

they provide should be the foremost priority when it comes to monitoring our climate. just today in the committee of science and technology we just heard how the orbiting satellite system has tremendous cost overruns and they are not flying the satellites and how noaa just desperately, particularly noaa, desperately need these satellites to help them give us proper weather predictions. but we are not funding that. we are funding this national climate service, and we are putting off these pressing needs instead of focusing on establishing yet another bure klattic -- bureaucratic web to navigate through, we are doing nothing more than decreasing efficiency and increasing federal red tape. what we know for sure is that this new unnecessary agency will grant broad sweeping authority to the executive branch with

little congressional input. that's it. the details are being left up to some federal bureaucrat. as we all know by now, the devil is in the details. additionally, there is an absolute dearth of information regarding the cost and benefit of setting up such an entity. without such basic knowledge, how, how in the world can we in good conscience fund this endeavor? we have no assurance this is national climate service will turn out to be anything more than a new regulatory agency for the proposed tax and cap scheme. but maybe that's really the goal here. i do not like to think ill of the intentions of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, but with such an ambiguous mandate and obviously little congressional oversight, what else are we to assume? mr. speaker, this congress has time and time again jumped headfirst into the deep end of

issues which we still know little about. the wall street bailout, the auto bailout, the stimulus, and now the national climate service are all prime examples of how congress' eyes are bigger than its grasp. so i ask my colleagues to please support my amendment. let's re-evaluate this attempt at funding and top stop the funding for the new national climate service. thank you, mr. speaker. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia rise? mr. mollahan: i rise in opposition to the the gentleman's amendment. mr. chairman, i first point out to the gentleman that i'm not sure this is the -- for the gentleman to make his arguments against a national climate service. it is true that there is considerable discussion within

the administration, within the constituency community outside of government, and there is some consideration of a national climate service i understand in the authorizing committees here in the congress. it's also true we have some money in this bill, research some satellite money, that would be useful, that would -- one might consider and we do consider it actually in anticipation of the creation of a national climate or legislative authorization of a national climate service. that money's also perfectly needed with regard to weather service. of course the gentleman understands we fund the national weather service through the commerce department accounts. but to really try to impact the creation or the noncreation of a national climate service in this

bill i suggest to the gentleman is the wrong place to go. i think that we ought to respect the authorizing process, of course. the gentleman i would assume will direct his efforts with regard to frustrating the creation of a national climate service when the authorizing process moves -- the gentleman may serve on that committee, i don't know. you may be dealing with it now. but that's the place that i think respectfully that you could better direct your efforts. in an appropriation bill which particularly in an organization that's not even stood up is i think the wrong place for the gentleman to direct his energies. nor that reason -- for that reason and a number of other reasons that i could go into on this page dealing with the necessity for this nation and the world to better understand

what's happening to the world's climate and who global -- how global climate change is going to adversely impact our lives across the board and around the world. i support -- i would oppose the gentleman's amendment for those substantive reasons. most importantly i would like to suggest to the gentleman this isn't the place to deal with this issue. particularly at this time. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. broun: i respectfully disagree with my friend that this is not the place. we are throwing money at something that's not been established. you're funding something that's not needed. a whole new agency. noaa has not -- has no clue of how to deal with this new national climate service. we have gone through in science

committee through the authorization process. we have had multiple propols given to us. over and over again the majority has shot down every proposal besides just establishing this new agency that's not needed. nobody knows how to operate this thing. what it's going to do. it's going to take -- if indeed this is funded, it's going to totally remove from congress any oversight, anything else and put it in the executive branch. we've got to save the taxpayers dollars. we've got to stop this egregious spending of money we don't have. it just has to stop. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. mollohan: i would just close my opposition with the observation that there are no funds in the bill to establish a national climate service. there is money in the bill to -- funds for climate observations, for weather observations which

become climate observations. and there is considerable climate data, weather data, which becomes climate data over time, that is collected in the normal course of the weather service. so we do anticipate the authorizing committee coming forward with such a suggestion. we'll see how fairs on the floor of the house and congress. if the president signs it into law as time goes forward. but there is in fact no money going to establish the national climate service in this bill. i yield. mr. broun: would you assure me in conversation -- conference that if the authorizers do not put into place an authorization of new climate service that no funds would be expended on establishing a new national climate service? mr. mollohan: noer for the same reason i wouldn't -- no, for the same reason i wouldn't assure the gentleman from indiana before what happens in

conference is in the context of all the issues being considered in conference. i can't predict that future and i won't commit to any specific attitude in conference. i will point out that the authorizing committee is considering this. we respect the authorizing committee process. if they were not to authorize the national climate service, then that would be something that we would take seriously into account as we engage in conference with the senate. mr. broun: would the gentleman yield? mr. mollohan: i would yield. mr. broun: there are funds appropriated. that's in this bill to establish this unneeded, totally -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. broun: i'm against establishing that. the chair: all time having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no.