and it leads to people doing things they should not be doing. we shouldn't give the d.o.d. the same, let's call it temptations, to have to give $100 billion contract to one company. number two. competition. it's interesting now to see how things have switched. you have folk who was been talking about competition when it comes to health care, competition when it comes to business, now saying that competition will bring quality down and bring cost up. mr. hunter: that's not what competition does. competition brings quality up an costs down. i think that that is -- there is definitely bipartisan agreement on that. and number three, i served in afghanistan on my third tour and when i was over there about midway through in 2007, an f-18 went down. it went down here, stateside. an the reason it went down, it had a cracked wing.

what we didn't know at that time was if that was an inherent flaw in the f-18 structure. . we shut down f-18 flights until we could figure out if this problem is inherent in all f-18's or just that one particular f-18. we are going to ground the free world's new jet. that's what will be grounded because the f-45 is being used by other countries except for the army and if it goes down and stop flight for it, it could put people in harm's way. that's why this is frankly not a money issue or a jobs' issue but operational risk. you should have a backup engine for the main fighter in this nation and other nations going forward. with that, mr. chairman, i oppose this amendment. i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey is recognized? >> move to strike the last word. mr. andrews: i thank you for the opportunity to participate in this debate and i ask unanimous consent to extend and revise my remarks. i don't have a dog in this fight. neither of the two fine companies that are arguing over this has jobs in my district that i'm aware of. i'm involved in this argument because i have thousands of service personnel who serve our country and i have hundreds of thousands of taxpayers who pay for the government of our country. and i am convinced that the right answer for our service personnel and for our taxpayers is to oppose this amendment. we have heard many good reasons. i think the ones that stand out the most are these. as the chair well knows, he and i were given the privilege and

responsibility of looking at defense procurement across-the-board the last three or four years. the gentleman, the chair and i worked on this. we produced two pieces of legislation that passed the house unanimously. and in that process of democrat and republican working together, we learned something very disturbing and that was in a major weapons systems, costs skyrocketed by $296 billion over what they were supposed to cost and the delay in fielding these systems had gone from an average of 16 months behind to 22 months behind. that was very unwelcome news. in the course of conducting analysis, we learned something that most americans know. when you have more choice and you have more competition, you get a better result. i think most of us when we have

had to buy a household appliance or a car, go out and get a couple of quotes. we have people compete against each other. that very commonsense argument is the core argument in front of us this evening. and the burden is on those who say we shouldn't have competition and those who say that the status quo would be ok if we had only one contractor. the other point i want to make beyond money is about the operational capacity of our armed forces. the united states enjoys the blessing of military superiority this evening, i think for two essential reasons. the first and most important one is the quality of the young men and women who volunteer to serve us. without question, that's the most important reason. but the second, i believe, is our superiority in the air. our ability in any corner of the globe to establish dominance over the battle space by virtue

of the quality of our air assets. the operability of those air assets, as mr. hunter mentioned a few minutes ago, is at risk if we are dependent upon one supply chain, one manufacturing process, one set of parts and one set of solutions to a problem. you always want to have a plan b. this would be a difficult call if having that plan b operation neal cost us more money. but it isn't a difficult call, because the opposite is true. having the plan b, having the option saves money for the american taxpayer, gamplet a.o. estimated $21 billion over time because of the merits and benefits of choice of competition. we have two fine enterprises involved with these engines and what we ought to do is create a

system where each flourishes not because of the job creation that will occur, but that is a welcomed benefit, but because this is the best way to support those who serve us. this is the best way to avoid putting them at risk because of operational defects and because the benefits and merits of competition will reduce pressure on the taxpayers of $21 i will million. i thank the chair for his work on this subject and urge members to defeat this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. young: i move that the house do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. ayes have it. the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman? the chair: the committee of the whole house having under consideration h.r. 1, it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chairman of the committee of the

whole house has come to no resolution delon. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. dreier: i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee of rules for filing under the rules. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 93, resolution providing for consideration of the senate amendment to the bill h.r. 514, to extend expiring provisions of the u.s.a. patriot and improvement act of 2005 and intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act of 2004 relating to access of business records, individual terrorists as agents of foreign powers and roving wiretaps until december 8, 2011. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. the chair declares the house in the further consideration of h.r. 1. will the gentleman from texas, mr. conaway, kindly resume the

chair. the speaker pro tempore: -- the chair: the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the department of defense and the other departments and agencies of the government for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2011 and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier today, -- for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? mr. chabot: move to strike the last word. i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. mr. chairman, as we debate the funding of a competing engine for the joint strike fighter program, there are a few key points we should keep in mind. first, competition has long been the best way to control costs on large defense programs and competition is the centerpiece

of acquisition reform. by funding competing engines for the joint strike fighter, we can save $21 billion, let me repete, $21 billion according to the government accountability office. beyond the g.a.o.'s projections, competition also leads to a more efficient process, quicker innovation and better contractor responsiveness. the quad drenial defense panel concluded and i quote, history has shown the only reliable source of price reduction through the life of a program is competition between duel services, unquote. additionally, the absence of competition makes it harder to address the issues that inevitably arise with sophisticated and critical technology such as jet engines.

mr. chairman, we are the joint strike fighter. and under the theory it could effectively derive an engine for its engine. unfortunately, it's not as easy as anticipated. the lead engine for the joint strike fighter is billions of dollars over budget and worse, struggling to perform the requirements for the aircraft. i quote direct ily from the g.a.o. report. the pratt engine estimated to cost $7.3 billion, 50% increase over the original cat award. the total projected cost increased $800 million in 2008 alone. engine development cost increases primarily resulted from higher labor and materials,

supplier problems and the rework needed to correct efficiencies with an engine blade during redesign. engine test problems have also slowed development. the g.a.o. further confirmed an additional project cost increase of $1.2 billion in 2010 alone to cover higher than expected costs, tooling and other items. and on february 11, 2011, another cost overrun in the lead engine was announced, this time to the taling $1 billion bringing total cost overruns on the lead engine is $3.5 billion. the department of defense says we don't need a second engine, but these won't fix themselves. only competition will help control costs and create a better, more efficient process. i ask you, how can we not afford to invest in a competing engine.

bottom line, having the engine makers fight head to head will give us a far more capable strike fighter and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut rise? the gentleman is recognized. mr. courtney: mr. speaker, i rise in support of the gentleman from florida's amendment and as a fellow member of the house armed services committee, i want to share some of the length of input that we have had in the armed services committee talking about this issue. we have had the benefit of hearing from the war fighters, heads of the various branches that are dealing with this program, navy, marines, air force and they have repeatedly stated that there is no justification for this wasteful spending which again, both the president and secretary of defense have also supported.

on the sea power subcommittee that i serve on, the head of the navy talked about the disastrous operational impact of having two engines would have in terms of our aircraft carriers. as he stated, one can look at a carrier and see a very large ship, but when the ship is deployed, we have things packed in every nook and cranny to provide that responsiveness. having to stock two different types of engines is not practical. it would be unrealistic to have a situation where the f-35-b and c which are the planes that land have to fly with two separate engines that would require two separate systems of maintenance and repair. and the notion that was stated earlier that they are some how interchangeable, we may as well have one engine system in terms of the f-18 superhornets which

land on aircraft carriers every day of the year. one engine supplier provides the engines for those superhornets, g.e. and good for them. and the admiral said he doesn't care which engine it is, but the navy needs to have only one system in order for them to be operational on the 11 aircraft carriers that make up a key component of our national defense. one person on the committee sort of suggested the fact that maybe a way to solve that problem would be to have g.e. aircraft carriers and pratt-whitney aircraft carriers, which highlights the absurdity of the notion that you will have two engine weapons systems. we have heard a lot of talk about competition. i'm sure there will be rebuttal about the fact there was a competition which led into the selection of the pratt-whitney

engine. but competition is one thing. redundancy and waste is another. we don't have two of everything in terms of our procurement system. we don't have two engines for black hawks or two engines for our ships. we don't have two nuclear reactor systems for our submarines or aircraft carriers. we don't have two separate engines for our destroyers. you have to make decisions sometimes in order to achieve efficiency and that's where we are today with the f-35 program. the notion that we are going to add $3 billion to production costs by having a separate alternate engine and all of the headaches which the add mirl described is not something that our military can afford today. we have reached a tipping point in terms of our military budget and we have to focus on

effective, efficient use of resources to help the war fighter and advance our national security and having a bloated, wasteful system of an alternate engine which is the way the "washington post" described this program is not the way to achieve this goal and i strongly support this amendment and i urge my colleagues to pass this amendment for cost-effective, efficient use of our resources for national defense. . i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlewoman rise? >> to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. >> this is the wrong way to go. mrs. schmidt: congress has provided funding for the development of the alternative engine because congress know it is full well the benefits of

competition in weapons accusation -- acquisition. last session, we passed the weapons acquisition reform act of 2009. in fact, our senate colleagues agreed 95-0. if there is such overwhelming, bipartisan agreement in both chambers on the need for competition in weapons systems acquisition, then why are we taking a vote to eliminate competition for the propulsion system that is going to power 95% of our tactical fighter fleet over the next 40 years? section 202 of the weapons systems acquisition reform act clearly states the secretary of defense shall ensure that the acquisition strategy for each major defense acquisition program includes measures to ensure competition throughout the life cycle of such program.

the joint strike fighter is the department of defense's largest procurement program. the department of defense plan calls for acquiring nearly 2,500 joint strike fighters, hundreds of additional f-35's are expected to be purchased byall lies. if the propulsion system that powers nearly 3,000 tactical defense doesn't qualify i'm not sure what does. this will hand pratt-whitney a $100 billion monopolien a 30-year contract that's never been competitive -- monopoly on a 30-year contract that's never been competitively bid. they will say they won the competition when lockheed martin was awarded the contract for the joint striket fighter. not so fast. last maye, two officials

testified before the house government and oversight reform sche on security that the competition was done at the contractor level and the engines were never actually competed. the point of all this, mr. speaker, is that the engine competition never occurred in this disingenuous -- and it is disingenuous to argue that pratt-whitney has already won. the fact is, the competition will drive down costs, improve product quality and contractor responsiveness, drive technological innovation and ensure that taxpayer dollars are not wasted. history shows that competing engines can result in significant, long-term savings. the great engine war saved the f-16 program 20%, 21% in overall costs according to the 2007 g.a.o. report. this represents $20 billion in

savings for the lifetime of the joint strike fighter engine program. additionally, the alternative engine team represented by g.e. and rolls royce offered the department of defense a fixed price contract. their offer saves $1 billion in the first five years and puts cost overruns at the risk of the contractor. this is an unprecedented move in major defense acquisition. finally, providing for a competitive alternate engine will serve as a hedge against operational risk and ensure that a fighter that makes up 95% of our tactical fleet is not grounded due to engine failures. fully funding the alternative engine is not only prudent risk management but an acknowledgment of the fundament responsibility that congress has to protect and provide the most reliable equipment to our men and women in uniform. mr. speaker, i urge my

colleagues to vote no on this ill-guided amendment. it will not save taxpayers money in the long run. i'm not even sure it's going to save them money in the short run. and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut rise? >> strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. larson: let me commend my colleague from florida, first and foremost, and those that have joined him in this amendment. at the president's state of the union message, there was a symbolic gesture in this chamber for us to sit together. and we did. and we talked about the camaraderie and the need to reach out and work together. i applaud my colleague for his

strong stance and his willingness to work bipartisanly to do what the navy, the air force, the marines, the secretary of defense, the bush administration, and the obama administration have asked congress to do. end this wasteful, duplicative spending. there are new members that have come to congress on both sides with new zeal and the ability to perhaps look outside the beltway at what people have to experience on a regular basis, and they scratch their heads in awe of what seems to be a

common -- a commonsense proposal by the bush administration, by the obama administration, by the air force, by the marines, and by the navy. and that's to end this wasteful spending. we've heard great talk about competition. my god, i'm all for competition. i don't think there isn't a person here who isn't for competition. two engines, why not three? why not four? would it be better overall for our industrial base but the people on the committee know the hard truth, as do all of americans. we've seen it. i fault no one for support of the interest of their state or their district or their employees. but let's be honest about this. we're going to have to make priorities. i witnessed it in the c-17 and

the f-2 2. there -- and the f-22. there comes a time when you recognize that these -- we need these precious dollars. there has to be cuts. both sides have acknowledged. i want to compliment my colleagues on the other side for the zeal they have come here with to say, listen, the pentagon isn't sacrosanct either. and we have to make these cuts. here's the secretary of defense pleading, yesterday, at a conference, saying please, the navy, the marines, the air force do not want this engine. look, competition is great. but let's look at some of the facts here that have been cited as well. if you have 86% of the market currently and you're seeking to

get 92% of it, where does competition lie? with a company that has 86%? i don't think so. and i think anyone who looks at this from a commons perspective comes to that understanding, comes to that difficult decision that has to be made with respect to the nation's deficit now mr. rooney has proposed that this money go directly into a lock box to deal with the nation's deficit. there are a lot of good proposals where to use money. but that's what he has proposed. i submit, as a democrat who would like to see the money going to cops funding, to make sure that liheap funding gets there, that these are the kinds of compromises and decisions we

have to make. and this is what's right for the country. we have to address this deficit. and if we have our leadership, the bush administration, and their pentagon, the obama administration, you heard joe courtney talk about admiral -- about the admiral saying again today the absurdity involved in this argument. it doesn't matter what -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. larson: i strongly support this. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today in support of the amendment. at a time when we're running $1.48 trillion deficits, the

president's budget actually talks about a $1.6 trillion deficit. we're looking at debts of $14 trillion. we have to tighten our belts. there's no question about it. the american public is doing it. we asked the american families and businesses across the land to tighten their belts in order to get by. the federal government should be no different. now, we are very trong on defense. we want to make sure that those in harm's way have everything at their disposal to make sure they can do the task we asked them to do. this, however, is a program that the department of defense, the secretary of defense, has said we don't need it, we don't want it. we need to make sure that we are cutting back across the board in terms of all different departments. we need to go into every single one and say, where are their areas we can cut back? where is there duplication? where is there areas we can find that we don't need to

spend today? this is a program that will save the american taxpayer $3 billion. $3 billion. we admit, competition is good. but why not three engines? why not four engines. mr. dold: the reason why, as someone said, we can't afford it. we can't afford two right now. we want to make sure the engine that's out there the one awarded by the department of defense, has the opportunity to move forward. it is the base for the f-22, certainly it's proved itself in terms of a base engine. they're making improvements. this is an engine they've invested over 20,000 flight hours in. this is something that is going to move forward. the question is, are we going to fund an additional engine. i think that we need to talk about saving dollars. saving $3 billion when both the bush administration, the current administration right now, and the department of

defense, the secretary of defense, and when was the last time you heard any of the secretaries advocating to say we don't need this money? this is probably a very historic moment. they are absolutely, 100% looking out for the safety of those that wear the uniform. i think, and i'm going to urge my colleagues that we have to step forward, we have to cut back on areas, and this is an area that the secretary of defense said we need to cut back on. i'm going to urge you to vote yes in favor of this amendment. mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut rise? >> strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i rise in strong support of the gentleman from florida. cutting spending is not easy. this one should be. i think the gentleman hit it on the head. you're talking about the

department of defense. the secretary of defense, the president. the generals who command the field. all recommending against the development of a second engine, we should listen. . i have heard a lot of discussion about the dual issues about quality and costs. but if this was really about the issues of quality and costs, then we just wouldn't be talking about building a second engine, we would be talking about building a second plane, we would be talking about building a second aircraft carrier. but as representative courtney stated, the reason we aren't talking about competitive bidding for a second plane, the reason we aren't talking about two or three different aircraft carriers is that our generals, military professionals have said it would be an operational nightmare to have the diversity of operational platforms with

respect to these large operating systems. this isn't about quality in the end because the army and the navy, the secretary of defense tell us that it's not about quality. if this is really about quality and costs, then we would have actual, real competition. but we aren't going to have actual, real competition. what we know about these competitive bidding arrangements, there is an implicit floor on the amount of business you get. whichever one of these engines is the inferior engine or more costly engine is going to get 40%. that is not real competition. we want to talk about real competition, there has to be real winners and losers here. that's not what's going on in the proposing before us. and if this is really about quality and costs, they wouldn't have two other programs that have a single engine and have a near spotless record of

performance and cost control. we know how this works in other major aircraft acquisition programs. single engines work. they have worked. i think in the end this is just about who we listen to. i have great respect for members of this congress who have served for years on the armed services committee. but i think that when we get such uniformness of opinion from our military generals, department of defense and the men and women who are going to be flying these planes, we should listen. we should listen because it's the right thing to do, because $3 billion isn't easy to cut, but it's a lot easier when we have the people who are going to be handling the equipment telling us it's the right thing to do. i rise in support of the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia, a member

of the committee, rise? the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i rise in opposition to this amendment. mr. kingston: this amendment is contrary to the interests of taxpayers and our military. it's not a cost-saving amendment but an anti-competition amendment. therefore, will cost us more money in the long run. it's recognized that the department of defense suffers from the lack of competition in the acquisition process. sole-source contracts account for $140 billion or 38% of the $366 billion that d.o.d. spent on contracts in fiscal year 2010. we know from experience that competing the engine on the f-35 is likely to save money and improve the performance on both engines. it's not me saying that, it's the g.a.o. and d.o.d.'s own

internal studies have said it. d.o.d. says it will cost $2.9 billion to develop an alternative engine, although g.a.o. says it may be much less. the f-35 will cost about $100 billion. g.a.o's analysis suggests a savings of about 20% in procurement with an additional savings over the life cycle of the program. the alternative engine would more than pay for itself in future savings even putting aside the potential benefits and performance. the power of our air force is dependent on the success of the f-35 program. the total costs is approaching $400 billion. air frame and engine portions of the program have been riddled with cost growth throughout the development effort. are we to say that it is unreasonable to spend $450 million to ensure our fighter

pilots have the best aircraft and the best engine possible? i'm convinced that competition will make both engines of the f-35 better. and why do we think d.o.d. can stand on a principle that has been proven over and over again in the marketplace? competition leads to lower costs and better performance. our fighters deserve this. the d.o.d.'s position against this engine has been shown to be faulty on analysis and driven only by short-term budget considerations. the independent q. d.r. panel has stated, quote, history has shown the only reliable price reduction is competition between dual sources. this amendment ignores that history. it will not save money and risk the combat effectiveness of our

air forces. i oppose the amendment and i yield back. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does oregon rise? >> move to strike the last word. mr. defazio: only inside the washington, d.c. beltway could we be having this debate. the taxpayers are demanding that we tighten our belts and save money. the pentagon says, let's go ahead with the single engine procurement which resulted from a competition, which is, you know, a quality engine. now if that engine has problems, someone at the pentagon should be fired. if there were problems with the competition, a lot of people should be fired and maybe we ought to look at overhauling procurement process. but to say now, we have a good engine and want competition but we have another company that wishes they did win the

competition and they want to build the engine and the taxpayers should subsidize it and only costs $2.9 billion, inside the washington, d.c. beltway, that's not real money. i guess the joke is inside the washington, d.c. beltway, how many jet engines does it take to fly a single-engine fighter? most americans would think it's not a joke. no, it's two. if we need two on the ground, maybe we need two in the air and redesign a plane and put two engines in the tail, one from one company and one from the other company. if one flames out, we could bring the plane back. maybe we ought to start all over again. come on, guys. let's not be ridiculous here. two supply chains. two sets of mechanics. two sets of spare parts. wait a minute. this plane broke down over here

and the mechanic in the spare parts -- oh, we have to keep them sorted out, where theyr where theyr which mission, which mechanics, which supply chain we send forward. no. this isn't going to save money. this is not going to save money. if you did a crappy procurement, then fix it, but don't do another procurement in the way pentagon always does things so it won't only cost $2.9 billion. we'll hear, well, we thought we could develop one for $2.9 billion but don't worry, it will bring down the overall costs. support this amendment. stand up for the taxpayers and stand up for the military which says we don't need a second engine for this plane. they are the guys who fly them. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from

florida. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the nos have it. the gentleman from florida. >> mr. speaker, we ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> i ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 127, line 17, be considered as read, prisonned in the record and open to amendments at any point. the chair: without objection. are there amendments to that section of the bill? 127 line 17.

for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? the gentleman from north carolina. mr. jones: i offered an amendment pre-printed in the congressional record designated as amendment number 95. the clerk: amendment number 95 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. jones of north carolina. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. jones: mr. speaker, this amendment removes the new $400 million from the afghan restructure fund and would be returned to the spending reduction act. and i bring this amendment to the floor because of the frustration of the american people. here we are trying to find $400 million to put in an infrastructure fund for afghanistan which is borrowed money from the chinese to begin with, and not uncle sam's money

and in addition to that, we are propping up a corrupt, dishonest government headed by president karzai. and at this time in america's history when we are having these debates tonight that i have heard all day long with the frustration with the members of congress from both parties that here we cannot balance the budget of this country and we are trying to find this money to go to the infrastructure of afghanistan and say to the american people, we can't help you if your infrastructure needs in your counties, towns and cities. it makes absolutely no sense to me and more important to me is to the american people. i also would like to mention that the afghan infrastructure fund would help create another bridge to no where. it's going to be money that cannot even be accounted for the majority of the time and i make mention of that for this reason. the recent special inspector

general's report for afghanistan reconstruction report released on january 30, 2011, cited significant, fraud, waste and abuse with afghan reconstruction funds. i do not know why in the world we cannot make the statement to the american people that we're going to see that the $400 million going to a dishonest, dysfunctional government overseas cannot be returned to help reduce the debt and deficit of this country and return to the cities and counties throughout the united states. with that, mr. speaker, i will reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i rise in opposition to the amendment eliminating the $400 million afghanistan reconstruction fund. this fund provides high priority, large-scale

infrastructure programs in support of the civilian military campaign in afghanistan. these projects are critical to convincing the afghan population to reject the insurgency and side with the government. this reduces the threat to our troops and quickens the security transition process, which we all seek. not only is the funding a top priority of the secretary of state and defense, it is also a top priority of general dade petraeus. this fund -- david petraeus. this fund is related to the safety and security of our troops, it needs to be preserved and i urge a no vote on the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. dicks: i move to strike the requisite number of words. it would eliminate funding in the bill, a total of $400 million. establishing this fund was done

at the request of the secretary of defense and the secretary of state in a joint letter to the congressional defense committees in november, 2010. the funding was not added to the bill but derived by reducing the amount available for the commanders of emergency response program. d.o.d. requested that funding for this account be obtained in this manner. the department of defense and state view this fund as essential to completing large scale infrastructure projects in afghanistan, such as electrical power generation. such projects provide the means for economic activity, which will help to reduce risk for u.s. troops and help improve security in afghanistan. so i urge rejection of this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. .

>> the reason we have troops in afghanistan is to keep afghanistan from becoming a country where terrorists launch attacks against us. for us to be able to withdraw our troops from afghanistan, the afghan people have to be able to stand on their own two feet. and this fund is designed to help them do that. mr. thornberry: the people there have to be able to resist the taliban, al qaeda and other groups to use after -- that want to use the area as their own base. our own military commander in afghanistan, general petraeus, has this as a priority. as the gentleman from new jersey said this helps keep our own troops safe. when we were able to work with the after began people and develop the country, our troops in the country have a less -- have less danger opposing them.

it is less likely that they will suffer some of the problems from the indigent population. the second reason general petraeus believes this is important is it's an integral part of his counterinsurgency plan. to withdraw this money at this point makes his job more difficult and increases the danger to our troops. i don't think that makes sense at any level. the other point i'd make is this, as the gentleman from washington said, this was a request from the secretary of state, secretary of -- and secretary of defense for a fund that both agencies would work on. one of these days, the government will have to get to interagency funds so you don't have the state department working on one hand, defense department on another, other agencies doing their own thing. we have to have a combined effort. and this fund is at least a step in that direction. the interagency nature of it

helps to prevent waste, abuse, misuse of these funds because you do have the extra oversight on its use. but i think the key point is, this is a key part of our national security to help the afghans stand on their own two feet and i believe the amendment should be rejected. the chair: the gentleman yields back. before further debate, the clerk will read additional information. into the record. the clerk: page 127, line 17, afghanistan infrastrunlture fund including transfer of funds. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i move to strike the requisite number of words. >> thank you. first to my friend from north carolina, who i believe does have the best intentions at heart, i believe he's doing this for the right reason. he wants to get out of afghan. an he believes that afghanistan is a very corrupt country with

very corrupt leadership. the problem is, is that things in this world aren't perfect. i served for six months in the marine corps in afghanistan in 2007, didn't do anything of significance, but when i was there, i saw what really turned the people of afghanistan toward america. mr. hunter: what made them turn around, what made them change their mind. it wasn't us killing people who caused us to stay up at night and worry about them. that's what we're worried about. what the afghans are worried about is do they have electricity? can they drive on the roads? can they put food in their truck and drive it 20 miles and sell it in the next town? is their trash getting picked up? is their sewer getting cleaned out? general petraeus understands this is counterinsurgency. i want to get out of afghanistan too, it's an expensive war in blood and

treasure. but it's a war not started by us, it was starred by two airplanes flying into two towers and it's cost us more, nen has cost us more than afghanistan ever will in what it's done to this nation, makes us second-guess who our friends are, sending us to afghanistan and i would ask my friend from north carolina this, and i'm going to yield the balance of my time to any prend from -- friend from north carolina, if we're not the ones helping out the afghan people, i'll tell you who it's going to be. the taliban. the taliban are the bankers of afghanistan. they have drug money and they use it to loan to the locals in afghanistan. so if we don't help them out if we don't become their friends if we don't befriend the people, the counterinsurgency doesn't work. and i think that my friend, he knew that we would leave quicker, we would leave afghanistan in victory, quicker, by keeping this money there, i think he would

withdraw his amendment. with that, i yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from north carolina. the chair: the gentleman yields his time to the gentleman from north carolina. >> how much time does mr. hunter have? the chair: the gentleman has 2 1/2 minutes. >> i thank him for yielding his time. mr. jones: i'm an honest man that appreciates the american taxpayers' money, i would feel differently, quite frankly. but i realize it's a corrupt government. i wish that uh what you say, i trust you and have great respect for you as well, but we're dealing with a dishonest, dysfunctional government. when karzai was quoted in "the washington post" in december saying i have three enemies, one being the american -- one being america, one being the taliban, one being the international community and if i had to choose one of these as a fren, i would choose the taliban, this is why i wanted to speak tonight, bring this forward, let the members vote

up or down, that's fine with me. but the point is, this is money we could be using right here in this country. if i thought karzai was an honest broker, i would probably not even offer the amendment. mr. hunter: would the gentleman yield? mr. jones: sure, it's your time, and i thank you for yielding. mr. hunter: this is an interagency fund, state department, usaid, different american agency, they'll be disseminating this money, it will go straight to contractor, afghan or from here, from the u.s. or other countries. mr. jens: -- mr. hunter: i yield to the gentleman. mr. jones: my answer would be, i hope that this would prove to be true. the problem is, we always know that when you've got a dysfunctional government, you've got a dishonest man, it might be intended to go this way, but too many times it does not. i would honestly say to you, i offer this amendment on behalf of the american people.

because they can't fix their streets, they can't fix their roads and by god, it's only $400 million but to a lot of people in my district, that's a lot of money going to a dishonest leader of a country in afghanistan. mr. hunter: reclaiming my time, mr. chairman. the chair: 30 seconds. mr. hunter: $400 million is a lot of money. americans do need that money. but i would answer that with this. the men and women who have given their lives in afghanistan, the men and women, as you well know, representing camp lejeune, all those marine the men and women who have given their time and their blood for this country, i think, deserve to be backed up by us by saying we're going to give the money to your boss, yen petraeus, so we can win the war and leave victoriously. i think that's what this $400 million does. with that, i oppose the gentleman's amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time

has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. jones: i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: a recorded vote is asked for. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 8, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina will be postpone the clerk will continue reading. the clerk: after fan stan security forces fund, $11,619,283,000 to remain available until september 30, 202. iraq security forces fund, $1,500,000,000 to remain available in september 30, 2012. >> should we move ahead to the next amendment?

the chair: i believe mr. holt has an amendment. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? the gentleman from new jersey mr. holt's amendment is ready, right? mr. holt: i do have an amendment. the chair: the clerk will read the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 237, prinned in the congressional record, offered by mr. holt of new jersey. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes on his amendment. mr. holt: thank you, mr. chairman. i have an amendment to eliminate the $1.5 billion in funding for the iraqi security forces fund. we're going to be cutting pell grans and nrnl research and heating assistance for families here in the united states, we certainly should take a hard look at pentagon spending as well. would taxpayers want their dollars to go to pay for iraqi

police on the streets of baghdad when we're cutting funding for police in trenton, new jersey, and other cities and towns across our nation? i want my colleagues to understand what the authors of h.r. 1 are proposing here today. it's about choices. my colleagues i'm sure could present a good justification for funding the iraq security forces. i certainly want to see the people of iraq living in peace and freedom, free from harm, either domestic or foreign harm. however, the government of iraq has ample revenue from oil sales to pay for iraq security. in contrast, our country faces not only a budget deficit but critical unmet domestic needs. and this legislation before us today makes many, many unwise cuts. h.r. 1 calls for spending $1.5

billion in taxpayers' money to pay for foreign police officers in iraq while simultaneously cutting $300 million for the highly successful cops program here at home. the cops program is vital. our local police departments count on it to help them hire additional officers to combat crime in our communities and to provide true community policing. the contrast couldn't be more stark and absurd. have american taxpayers foot the bill for police in baghdad but not for police in america. h.r. 1 showcases the misguided priorities of the new majority. what are they thinking? mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman cannot reserve the balance of his time. mr. holt: i yield back the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentleman yields back. >> the iraqi -- i rise in opposition to my friend from new jersey. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> this fund allows the iraqi security forces to reach minimum capabilities to maintain security with defense forces in support while building defense capabilities for the iraqi military forces to provide external defense prior to u.s. forces de'departures on 31 december, 2011. mr. frelinghuysen: this is your nation's commitment, our president's commitment, our commander in chief's commitment. it is a bipartisan commitment. more than just this majority's commitment. to see the departure of our u.s. forces in that time frame. this iraqi security forces fund funds the following five categories. equipment purchases and

transportation of equipment, weapons, ammunitions, vehicles, communications gear and spare parts. infrastructures -- infrastructure projects such as construction improvements, police stations, military base training centers, maintenance facilities and border enforcement facilities among other infrastructure. training and operations projects and programs such as training school and maintenance facilities, vehicles for training centers an training of security forces. sustainment of security forces through maintenance programs, human resources information management system, support service and medical services. other activities such as detainee operation, disarmament, demobilization an reintegration. these are essential to speed our departure from afghanistan. so mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote no on mr. holt's amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back?

mr. frelinghuysen: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. holt: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further activity of the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey will be postponed. clerk will resume reading. the clerk: procurement -- the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i ask that the remainder of the bill be considered as read, printed in the record and open to amendment at any point. the chair: without objection, the clerk will resume reading. the clerk: section 13, not more than 85% of the funds be available for obligation or expenditure until the secretary submits the report to the congressional defense

committees. this division may be cited as the department of defense appropriations act 2011. . the chair: for what purpose does does the gentlewoman from wisconsin rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: offered by ms. baldwin. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i reserve a point of order. the chair: the point of order is reserved. the gentlewoman has five minutes. ms. baldwin: i rise in opposition to h.r. 1, the bill to slash services to the american people, a measure i believe threatens jobs and our fragile economic recovery. i agree with my republican colleagues we must reduce the deficit and bring our budget into balance, but we must be smart about it. this bill harms the people who tend to our health, those who educate our children, and those

who patrol our neighborhoods and protect our safety. this bill frustrates our economic recovery by making job training and career training unattainable for many americans. meanwhile, it does little to restrain excessive military spending or eliminate government handouts to big oil or eliminate tax breaks for multimillionaires. today we spend millions of dollars each day in afghanistan and iraq. spending that is protected in the bill before us. at the same time, this republican bill to slash services cuts community health centers to the core. for those of you who are unfamiliar with the work of community health centers, they provide essential health services to children and families who lack insurance and have extremely limited incomes. community health centers

provide a big bang for the buck. they tend to the health care needs of more than 17 million uninsured or underinsured men, women and children in america each year. the cut in the republican bill before us is so deep, that it will result in the elimination of services to more than half of the current capacity of community health centers today to serve our neighbors. an estimated 127 new health centers in underserved areas will clothe -- will close across the united states. in some cases, patients with diabetes, heart disease, h.i.v. and aids, pregnant women, and sick children will have nowhere to turn except perhaps emergency rooms suited to their needs. thousands of health care workers in rural and urban

underserved communities will lose their jobs. i've already heard from the director of community health centers in both beloit and jamesville, wisconsin. he let me know about the serious impact this slash of funding will have on thousands in just one wisconsin county. mr. chairman, my amendment restores community health center funding, but i pay for it with a commensurate cut in wasteful defense spending. mr. chairman, i said at the outset we need to be smart if we are to cut spending without compromising our jobs, our economic recovery, and our future. i agree with our president when he said, if we are to win the future, we must outeducate, outinnovate, and outbuild the rest of the world. but we can't do that by cutting pell grants for students and

slashing the research budgets for the national institutes for health, the national science foundation and the department of energy. this unwise bill jeopardizes our nation's recovery and future. and it's particularly troublesome to me this week because it falls on top of efforts by wisconsin's governor to cut health, education, and public safety services and to diminish the rights of the public servants who provide them. mr. chairman, i stand here today in solidarity with my fellow wisconsinites as he fight for a better future for all wisconsinites and all americans. i urge an eye vote on the amendment and a no -- an aye vote on my amendment and a no vote on h.r. 1. mr. dicks: i want to say i share your enthusiasm for community health centers. i've seen them all across my district. they are wonderful. we're going to have to keep fighting for them. ms. baldwin: i thank the

gentleman and yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i insist on my point of order. the chair: the gentleman will state his point of order. mr. frelinghuysen: the amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read and the not be considered en bloc and because the amendment proposes to transfer between subcommittees. i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: does anyone wish to be heard on the point of order? the gentlewoman from wisconsin. ms. baldwin: thank you, mr. chairman, i do rise to be heard on the point of order. mr. chairman, here are the rules of the house for the 112th congress, and accompanying it we also have something called h.res. 92. and oftentimes when we get to the floor we talk in inside-the-beltway language that's really hard i think for the american public to follow,

but i just want to make clear that h.res. 92 is a document drafted by the republicans to govern debate on this bill and this bill only. but our house rules specifically allow an amendment such as the one that i have presented to this body and was just debating a moment ago on the house floor, and i think it's a wise rule because it really helps us pay as we go. it allows us to cut funding -- mr. frelinghuysen: the gentlelady needs to state a point of order, regular order, please. ms. baldwin: i believe the gentleman -- i'm debating the point of order. the chair: define the point of order. ms. baldwin: anyways, the underlying house rules specifically permit an amendment such as the one i've offered and earlier debated in front of this body because it allows us to cut spending in one area in order to restore services and programs of greater priority in another. in other words, it aids us in our job to pay as we go. mr. frelinghuysen: mr.

chairman, respectfully this is not regular order. the chair: the gentlewoman's remarks must be confined to the point of order. ms. baldwin: so under the rules of the house, my amendment would be fine. but in the house resolution 92 to which the gentleman referred which governs simply the debate that we're engaged in this evening, it waves the rule of the underlying -- of the house. it waives the rule of the house, the people's house. so i just want to make it clear. i think i know how the chairman will end up ruling, but this is the republican's will that i cannot advance this amendment and not because of the underlying rules of this house. the chair: does anyone wish to be heard? to be considered in the en bloc pursuant to clause 2-f of rule 21, an amendment must propose only to transfer appropriations among objects in the bill.

because the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from wisconsin proses also another change in the bill, namely to reach back into the reading, it may not avail itself of clause 2-f to address this portion of the bill that's not yet read. the gentlewoman from's amendment -- point of order sustained. resume reading. the clerk: page 156, line 1, division b, full year continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2011. the following sums are hereby appropriated. for fiscal year 2011, namely, title 1, general provisions, section 1101, amounts may be necessary at the level specified in subsection provided in appropriations act for fiscal year 2010 for projects or activities that are not otherwise specifically provided for. for purposes of this division, the term "level" means an amount. the level referred to in subsection a shall be the amount appropriated in the appropriations act referred to

and said subsection, including transfers and obligation limitations. section 1102, appropriations made by section 1101 shall be available in the manner that would be provided by the pertinent appropriations act. section 1103, appropriations provided by this division that carried a multiple year or no year, period, of availability shall retain a comparable period of availability. section 1104. the requirements, authorities, and other provisions of the appropriations act referred to in section 1101-a shall continue in effect to the date specified in section 1106. section 1105. no funds made available or authority granted shall be used to initiate or resume any projects for which appropriation funds or other authority were specifically prohibited during fiscal year 2010. section 1106. unless otherwise provided,

appropriations and funds made available and authority granted pursuant to this division shall be available. section 1107, expenditures made pursuant to the continuing appropriations act 2011, public law 111-242 shall be charged to the applicable appropriation fund or authorization. section 1108, fund appropriated by this division may be obligated and expended, notwithstanding section 10 of public law 91-672. section 1109, in addition, the following amounts shall be available for the following accounts for advanced payments for the first quarter of fiscal year 12012, department of labor, employment standards, administration. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i am asking if it is in order to offer amendment number 3. mr. holt: as the designee of

mr. defazio. the chair: is the gentleman referring to amendment number 97 printed in the record? mr. holt: number 97, that's correct. the chair: the reading has not progressed yet to that point. mr. holt: has not? the chair: has not. the clerk will resume. the clerk: department of labor, employment standards administration special benefits for disabled coal miners. $41 million, department of health and human services, centers for medicare and

medicaid services grant to state for medicaid, $86,445,289,000. department of health and human services, administration for children and families, payments to states for child support enforcement and family support programs, $1,200 mill to remain available until extended. department of health and services, administration for families, payments to state for foster care and permanency, $1, 850,00o 67. social security administration, supplemental security program, $13,400 million. section 1110, amounts incorporated by reference in this division that were previously designated for overseas deployment and other activities pursuant to senate concurrent resolution 13, 111th congress, are designated for contingency operations directly related to the global war on

terrorism. pursuant to section 3-c-2 of house resolution 5, 112th congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 403-a of senate concurrent resolution 13, 111th congress. section 1111, any language specifying an earmark in an appropriations act for fiscal year 2010 or in a committee report or joint statement accompanying such an act shall have no legal effect with respect to funds appropriated by this division. for purposes of this section, the term "earmarked" means congressional earmark or congressionality directed spending item. section 1112, none of the funds appropriated may be used to transfer, release, or assist in the transfer or release to or within the united states as territories or possessions, khalid shaikh mohammed or any detainee who is not a united states citizen or a member of the armed forces of the united states, and is or will -- or is

or was held on or after june 24, 2009, at the united states naval station guantanamo bay, cuba, by the department. section 1113, none of the funds appropriated may be used to transfer any individual detainee at guantanamo to the custody or control of the individual's country of origin. any other foreign country or any other foreign entity unless the secretary submits to congress the certification described in subsection not later than 30 days before the transfer. . for the purposes of this section, the term individual detained at guantanamo means any individual who eel located at naval station guantanamo bay, cuba as of october 1, 2009, is not a citizen of the united states or a member of the armed forces of the united states. and in the custody or under the

effective control of the department. the term foreign terrorist organization means any organization so designated by the secretary under section 219 of the immigration and nationality act. section 1114, none of the funds may be used to construct any facility in the united states, its territories or possessions to have any individual described in subsection c. section 1115, none of the funds may be obligated covered by any executive agency in contravention of its certification requirements of the iran sanctions act of section -- section 550-b as amended by section 550 of public law 111-83 shall be applied by substituting the date in section 1106 of this division of october 4, 2010. section 1117, section 1-b-2 of

the passport act of june, 1920 specified in section 1106 of this division of september 30, 2010. section 1118, 15-d of public law 111-32 shall be substituting the date in section 1106 of this division of october 1, 2010. section 1119, the authority of the foreign affairs reform and restructuring act of 1998 shall remain in effect through the date specified in section 1106 of this division. section 1120, the provisions of title 2 of the mckinley homeless assistance act shall continue in effect. title 2, agricultural rural development, food and drug administration and related agencies, section 1201, the level for agricultural programs, office of the secretary shall be

$5,61,000 000, 00. section 1203, the level for agricultural programs executive operations, office of the chief economist shall be $10,032,0000. executive operations, national appeals division shall be $14, 711,000. the level for agricultural programs and executive operations, office of the budget and program analyst shall be $9 million,0512,000,000. office of advocacy and outreach shall be zero dollars. section 1207 for agricultural programs office of the chief

information officer shall be $17 million. section 1208, the level for agricultural programs office of the chief final officer. section 1209, the level for agricultural programs office of civil rights shall be $21. section 1210, the level for agricultural programs, agricultural buildings and facilities and rental payments shall be $259,751,on 000. the chair: which page are we at now? clerk will continue to read. the clerk: section 1210, level for agricultural buildings and facilities shall be $259

million. section 1211, level for agricultural programs, materials management shall be zero dollars. section 1212, level for agricultural programs department of administration programs $11 million. level for agricultural programs office of the assistant secretary for congressional relations shall be $3,877,000. section 1214, level of agricultural programs office of communications, $9,915,000. level of agricultural programs office of the inspector general $80 million. section 1216, level of agricultural programs office of the general crournl, 39 million. section 1217, level for agricultural programs, economic research service shall be

$79,500,00. section 1218, level of agricultural programs, national agricultural statistics $151 million -- >> i ask unanimous consent that the remainder of section 172222 of the bill through pages 172 to 22 be considered as read, printed in the record and open to amendment at any point. the chair: is there objection? the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. clerk will resume reading. >> at this point, i have an amendment. the chair: clerk will read the next paragraph. 1223. the clerk: section 1223, level of agricultural programs, national institutes of food and agriculture integrated activities, $24 million.

>> i have an amendment at the desk. clerk the -- the chair: the clerk will read the amendment. number 97. the clerk: amendment number 97 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. defazio of oregon. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes on his amendment. mr. defazio: i would like to bring to the attention of the congress we are about to eliminate a program, which is incredibly cost effective, which truly supports of a growing proportion of profitable small family farms in america, which is to help with research and transition to organic production. the -- in the most recent statistics, the organic sector of the agriculture production in

this country was nearly $27 billion. that's up from $4 billion in 1997. there is over 14,500 family farms engaged in organic agriculture and they have been experiencing dramatic experiences. you might say why would we continue to research and help them. we are spending money, research and subsidies on other crops which are totally developed and do not need assistance. in this case, we are talking about many people who own struggling family farms want to convert. they are interested in moving towards organics because there is higher profitability with dramatically increasing demand. in fact, the usda says the average for small, truly small

farms, what some might not consider small farms was $46,000 last year and for all farms, small farms was $26,000. there are many people who are engaged as truly small farming activities who want to stay on the land, don't want to parcel it up and continue to live there and raise their kids there but having trouble making ends meet. and this is an opportunity for many folks, opportunity for both consume rs, who are demanding organic produce and for producers. and i think it would be shortsighted to zero out this program at this point in time. i'm asking that we take a very small percentage of the budget well less than 1% and on at least on a temporary measure restore the cuts to the transitional and/or beganic

research portion of the budget in the hope we can reach agreement on a sustainable way to fund this program in the future and look at more equitable distribution of funds both for research, subsidies and other things that go on in the department of agriculture. the amount of money we are asking for at $5 million is a tiny fraction of 1% of the amount of money we are spending on subsidies for five crops in eight states to pay people not to grow things. i think to help people to grow things, healthy produce, to supply the american people, to be able to live on their farms, support their families and pass on the farm to the next generation, that this would be a very wise investment and i wish this had not been chosen for a cut and i'm hopeful my colleagues will see the wisdom in restoring this cut and looking in the next farm bill or in the next appropriation to an

equitable division of these funds. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. kingston: strikes the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. kingston: i rise to oppose the amendment and i know the two ought thors of this amendment are sincere and they are underscoring people to be organic farmers but if you consider organic farming is a $25 billion industry and my friend just used the number $27 billion, it's a successful ongoing and growing industry already and i do not believe that we need to continue the transition subsidy program to get more farmers in it. american farmers know where the profit is. they follow the commodity. the commodity follows the profit and get into an area where it's

going to be most profitable. but i'm concerned that the animal and plant health inspection service has been cut $38 million and this is a service that enforces animal welfare, pest and diseases and important to all farmers and cut at 4.3% and i hate to see an additional $5 million taken out of it. while i have sympathy for what the gentlemen are trying to do and i in know they are great advocates for organic farming, i oppose the amendment at this time and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. holt: i move to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. holt: our colleagues may recall that mr. defazio and i and others offered essentially this amendment in fiscal year 2007 and it passed,

demonstrating the strong bipartisan support in this house for an increase in funding in this program. the $5 million funding level, however, although it was preserved until now, has been completely eliminated by this continuing resolution. in other words, both sides of this aisle have felt that this is worth while spending. despite the worst economic downturn we have experienced since the depression, the market for organic consumer products grew more than 5% in the past year. several times, the growth of conventional food sales. and growth in organic non-food items was even more pronounced, increasing more than 9% as compared to 1% as compared to conventional non-food items. now, my friend who just spoke in opposition to the legislation,

mr. kingston, said, well, it's a booming industry, why do we need to do this? well, transition from non-organic farming to organic farming is a big step, especially for a small farm. and although there are more than 13,000 certified organic producers in the united states, that's not enough. we still need to help famplers make the transition to -- farmers make the transition to organic farming and this program does more than help make the transition, but helps them build best practice. it is a highly competitive grants program and been extremely important to the organic farming community. funds in research to make the travens is and as i say to understand organic farming. through grants awarded through this program, projects were

funded at ohio state to study the organic animal production in water quality or grfting to improve vegetable production. the small farmers don't have the opportunity to do this research whether to make the transition. at the university of minnesota, this competitive grants program facilitated organic poultry production and helped achieve soybean aphid suppression. in other words, the organic industry benefits from this and you know, we should be talking about job creation. the bill before us today, as it appears, will cost hundreds of thousands of jobs, cost hundreds of thousands of jobs. it will end hundreds of thousands of jobs.

. we should focus or efforts on jobs. $5 million would do a great deal for the quality of life of farmers, but also for jobs. in america. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment to restore $5 million to the organic transitions program. and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much. i wasn't going to speak on this but let me tell you why i changed my mind. mr. filner: i represent earthbound farms which is the largest shipper of organic products in the united states. and what concerns me, you totally wiped out the program,

zeroed it out. mr. farr: and it is organic transition grants. one, they're competitive because they're grants and two, it's about people transitioning from traditional agriculture which is agriculture that uses pesticides, herbicides and so on into a organic -- you have to lay your land fallo which means you can't use any of those fume grants -- those fumigrants on your land. it's not major agriculture that need these transition grants but the really small farmer who finds, as was stated previously, an organic niche they want to sell to and need assistance both in research and how do you get certified? because after you -- in order to be organic, you have to have people test everything and be certified as organic before you're allowed to use the organic label on your marketing. so it's a small amount of money

but to zero it out is going too far. i support the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the amendment offered by the gentleman from from oregon. 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 georgia. mr. kingston: i ask for a recorded vote is ordered. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon will be postponed. clerk resume reading. the clerk: page 173, line 11, section 1224, the section for agriculture programs, section on plant health service, salaries and expenses should be $892,553. section 1225, the level for agricultural programs, agricultural marketing services

shall be $81,711,000. section 1226, the level for agricultural programs, agricultural marketing service, limitation on administrative expenses shall be $60,947,000. section 1227, the amounts included under the heading agriculture programs, agriculture marketing service funds for strengthening markets, income and supply, and public law 111-80 shall be applied to funds appropriated by substituting zero dollars for $10 million. section 1228, the level for agricultural programs, grain inspection, packers, and stockyards administration salaries and expenses shall be $40, 342,000. section 1229, the level for agricultural programs, grain inspection, packers and stockyards, administrations, limitation on inspection and weighing services expenses,

$45,41,000. section 1230, the level for agricultural programs, food safety and inspection service shall be $930,129,000. the chair: the gentleman from virginia. >> mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk, number 93. it would restore funding for the washington metropolitan -- the chair: the clerk will read. the clerk: amendment 3 presented in the congressional record offered by mr. connolly of virginia. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from of georgia rise. mr. kingston: point of order. the chair: the gentleman from virginia will speak on his amendment. mr. connolly: i thank the speaker -- or the chairman. and i offer this amendment on behalf of myself, mr. hoyer, mr. moran, ms. edwards, mr. van hollen. in its final term in congress my republican predecessor, tom

davis, helped broker an agreement to boost metro funding by the local and state and federal government. under this agreement the federal government invested $150 million annually to be matched by virginia, maryland, and the district of columbia. this investment is essential for our region and is provided with funding to begin fixing the safety problems identified by the national transportation safety board which will cost over $1 billion cumulatively. it also is essential for the federal government to function efficiently. even as the federal government fails to pay its fair share compared to local and state funding for metro. finally, unlike any other transit system in america, our metro system serves 12 million tourists annually who come to visit their nation's capital. the federal government relies on the functional metro system. mr. chairman, over half of all metro stations serve federal offices and 40% of the entire federal work force uses metro to get to work every day. as congress itself knows passing the national capital

region transportation act in 1960 and improved transportation system of the national capital region is essential to the continued and effective performance of the functions of the government of united states. from september 11 to the blizzards from last year, we've learned through hard experience that metro is essential to move people both through severe weather and emergencies in our region. president obama included the $150 million that my republican predecessors authorization bill called for in his budget but the republican leadership removed it in this continuing resolution. perhaps my newer colleagues have not yet had a chance to visit northern virginia where metro will extension to dulles airport is spurring billions in private investment while providing thousands of jobs for the construction workers building the rail line. if my colleagues had visited this project, they might hesitate to eliminate investments like this which

will be repaid many times over by subsequent private investment. in recognition of the importance of this metro funding, i introduced an amendment on behalf of my colleagues and myself to restore $150 million in federal funding to be matched by governments and to reduce the deficit, i propose offsetting expense by cutting payments to large agribusiness. as we great this bill there are people at work building dulles and if the republican majority succeeds in passing appropriations bills such as this those transportation projects, jobs and real estate investment will be a thing of the past. one step we can take to reduce the damage done by this c.r. is to restore this critical metro funding and mr. chairman, i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman cannot reserve. does the gentleman yield? mr. connolly: i do. the chair: the gentleman from georgia. mr. kingston: mr. chairman, the

amendment -- the chair: the gentleman is speaking on the point of order? mr. kingston: yes, i'm speaking on the point of order. the chair: go ahead. point of order. mr. kingston: the amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read. the amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2-f of rule 21 because the amendment proposes to transfer funds between the subcommittees and here's what's going on. you mixed your capital funds on this particular account and this committee does not have jurisdiction over those accounts. and i want to point out that the subcommittees work very hard to balance all these very difficult cuts and we're trying to work within our 302-b allocation, we're in a situation right now for every dollar that we spend as the u.s. government, 40 cents is borrowed.

a lot of that money is -- i'm speaking to the point of order. the chair: does the gentleman wish to be heard on the point of order? the gentleman from virginia. mr. connolly: i deeply regret my colleague would invoke a point of order. as i said, the metro funding in this case, he talks about difficult decisions, this zeros out the entire federal amount of the subsidy for capital construction and safety improvements from a system that is over 30 years old, reaching capacity, and serves first and foremost the federal work force. the chair: the gentleman is confine it his remarks to the point of order. mr. connolly: i can't hear. oh, i thought i was speaking to the point of order and the points made by our colleague. the chair: your remarks need to be towards the point of order, not your amendment. mr. connolly: i deeply regret my colleague would cite a point

of order on a bill of such importance to the capital region. the chair: does anyone else wish to be heard? to be considered in the en bloc pursuant of 2-f of rule 2157bd section 2 of house resolution 92 to an amendment must propose only to transfer appropriations among objects in the bill and may not address objects within more than one indication made under the subcommittee of section 302-b of the congressional budget act of 1974. because the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia proposes to transfer appropriations among objects following more than one such suballocation may not avail itself of clause 2-f to address portions of the bill not yet read. the amendment is not in order. the clerk will resume reading the bill. the clerk: page 174, line 18, section 1231, the level for agricultural programs, farm service agencies, salaries and expenses, shall be $1,63,558,000.

section 1232, the level for agricultural programs, farm service agency, grassroot source water protection program shall be $4,630,000. section 1233, under the heading agricultural programs, farm service agency, agricultural credit insurance fund program account and public law 111-80 shall be applied to funds appropriated by this division. section 1234, the level for agricultural programs, risk management agencies shall be $77,177,000. section 1235, the level for conservation programs, natural resources, conservation service, conservation operations shall be $836,000. section 1236, the level for conservation programs, natural resources, conservation service, watershed and flood prevention operations shall be zero dollars. section 1237, the level of

conservation programs, natural resources, conservation service, watershed rehabilitation program shall be $20 million. section 1238, the level for conservation programs, natural resources conservation service, resource conservation and development shall be zero dollars. section 1239, the level for rural development programs, rural development salaries and expenses shall be $181, 181,987,000. section 1240, amounts under the heading rural development programs, rural housing service, rural housing insurance fund program account and public law 111-80 shall be applied to funds appropriated by this division by substituting $34,04,000 or $34, or $5 million for $24 million.

section 1241, rural housing service, rural housing insurance fund housing accounts for the cost of direct and guaranteed loans shall be $70, 200,000. section 1242, the level for rural development programs, rural housing service, rural housing insurance fund program account for the cost of housing repair loans shall be $ 6,437,000. section 1243, the level for rural development programs, rural housing service, rural housing insurance fund program accounts for the cost of repair, rehabilitation and new construction of rental housing shall be $23,446,000. section 1244, the level for rural development programs, rural housing service, rural housing fund insurance accounts for the cost of multifamily housing guaranteed loans shall be $12,513,000.

section 1245, the loans appropriated to the secretary of agriculture, $288,000. for the section 523, self-help housing land development loans. section 1246, the level for rural development programs, rural housing service, rural housing fund account, for administrative expenses, shall be $454,383,000. section 1247, the level for rural development programs, rural housing service, rental assistance programs shall be $955,635,000. . the clerk: level for rural development programs, multi-family housing shall be $16,400,000. section 1249, level for rural development programs, rural housing service and mutual

self-help grants, $37 million. rural housing service shall be $40 million. section 1251, level for rural development programs rural housing rural community facilities program accounts shall be $32,450,000. section 1252, levels for rural development programs for business cooperative service rural business program account $84 million 500,000. section 1253, rural development programs rural development loan fund program accounts for the principal amount of direct loans $21,936,000. section 1254, in connection with the rural development programs rural business cooperative service --

the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from from -- >> i ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 196 line 18 be considered as read, printed in the record and open to amendment at any point. the chair: is there objection? so ordered. there amendments to this portion of the bill? >> mr. speaker. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> i rise to offer an amendment. the chair: gentleman specify the amendment. mr. michaud: 153. the clerk: --

the chair: no. not yet. the chair: through line 8. the clerk: through line 18. the chair: chair is mistaken. the amendment is in order. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 153, printed in the congressional record offered by mr. michaud of maine. the chair: the gentleman from maine is recognized for five minutes. mr. michaud: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today to offer this amendment to restore funding to

the economic development administration. the investment made by e.d.a. in all of our districts lead to economic development and job creation. by these investments are not just some government handouts. by law, e.d.a.'s projects require a 50% local cost share and must leverage significant private sector investment. e.d.a.'s investments are also competitive and based on a regional comprehensive economic development strategy that are spearheaded by local officials, private sector leaders and community representatives. the agency utilizes this approach to reflect the local and regional priorities of our communities. but most importantly, all e.d.a. project investments must result in creation and retention of high quality jobs. let me repeat. e.d.a. is the one agency of the

federal government that has a singular focus of creating jobs and it has a strong track record of success in my home state of maine and throughout the country. in fact, from 2004 toll 2008, e.d.a.-funded projects directly led to the creation of approximately 200,000 jobs. all of the support cuts to spending to get our fiscal house in order, we are realistic. we know actions of one program or agency won't be enough to solve the nation's jobs problem. but at a time when our state, local communities and businesses continue to struggle, it's the wrong time to be cutting a program that is a proven job creator. it's the wrong time to turn our backs on investments in our communities that will make a real difference. but it is the right time to set

our priorities and incease on our investments as focused to job creation. i would urge my colleagues to support this amendment. the fiscal year 2010 level was $293 million with c.r. cuts to $175 million. this amendment will bring it up to $255 million. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky. the question is on the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the nos have it and the amendment is not agreed to. mr. michaud: i request the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings

on the amendment offered by the gentleman from maine will be postponed. are there amendments to this portion of the bill? the clerk will resume reading. the clerk: 196, line 19, section 1303 to level for department of commerce, minority business development agency, minority business development. section 1304, levels for department of commerce, national telecommunications and information administration salaries and expenses shall be $40 mill. section 351305, national institutes of standards and technology,son particular i have research and services, $469 million. section 1306, levels for department of commerce, national institutes of standards and technology, industrial technology services, $169

million. section 1307, level for department of commerce, national oceanic and atmospheric administration, pacific coastal recovery shall be $50 million. section 1308, level for department of justice, general administration, national drug intelligence centers $34,023,000 mr. flake: i rise to offer an amendment, deathed as amendment number 368. the clerk: amendment number 368 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for five minutes. mr. flake: i thank the speaker. this amendment is straightforward and rewould reduce more than $34 million in funding for the national drug intelligence center and transfer that money into the account. it would zero the national drug

intelligence center which has survived by a broken earmarking process. for many institutions, drugs are handled with a zero tolerance policy. i would submit that taxpayers should send a clear signal here that we have a zero tolerance policy for this kind of wasteful spending. there has been no better example of wasteful spending than the entity i have come to the floor many times in the past to criticize and limit funding, not just me but many other members. pet project that once belonged to a powerful member of congress, it was established in 1992 and recipient of hundreds of millions of dollars since then. in 2005, the white house o.m.b. reported that the n.d.i.c. has prove genuine effective in doing its assigned mission. a spoastman said the resources

should be realigned to counterterrorism and national security initiatives and yet here we are five years later funding ndic in spite of what will be three years of $1 trillion deficit and skyrocketing national debt. an article from today, the deputy attorney general said many of the center's functions could be pfled better elsewhere. the president's budget request released yesterday, the ndic is slated to receive a cut from its current level of funding of $44 million down to $25 million. i submit that is $25 mill i don't know too much. according to the 2011 budget summary, we spent more than $15 billion on anti-drug and drug control efforts in 2010. if you believe it is effective and that it pulls its own weight the anti-drug effort, like the budget of department of defense

should not be immune from commonsense cuts that increase efficiency and i could think of few things more efficient than closing down the ndic once and for all. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. the "wall street journal" said at one point, conservatives have argued that the center is a waste of taxpayers' money and never fulfilled its analysis of high quality drug networks. the proposal aims to nearly save $17 million. this is clearly, clearly, i think everybody admits, there is no reason for this facility to exist anymore than to keep sucking millions and millions of dollars every year from the taxpayer. the white house, successive white houses have said this is inefficient and not fulfilling its mission so it's up to

congress now when we are running a $1.5 trillion deficit that stacks up against a $14 trillion debt to look at programs like this and say all right, enough is enough, it's time we close them down. so, with that, mr. chairman, i would say let's adopt this amendment. if we can't do this, where can we save money? if we can't close down a center that has received hundreds of millions of dollars that the white house, successive administrations, republican and democrats have said, it is duplicative and not fulfilling its mission, if we can't close these down, when are we going to save money. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. question is -- the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

mr. dicks: i appreciate the gentleman's zeal for finding savings but this goes too far without considering the impact. ndic plays an important role in analyzing and disseminating information to law enforcement and the intelligence community about the production, trafficking and consumption of illegal drugs. it produces the annual drug threat assessment as well as local and regional assessments. d.o.j. is proposing a reduced funding level in 2012, along with some of the alignment functions to the drug enforcement administration. we will have to look closely at that proposal to ensure it would not set it back in dealing with the drug case. one cannot eliminate an agency overnight. it performs significant functions that are critical to our law enforcement efforts and those functions can't be simply

shut down and transferred without significant planning. nd inch c has been operating under the current c.r. for several months and has obligated a significant amount of funding already so it's no way to cut its funding to zero. c.b.o. scores the amendment as saving only $16 million in budget authority, not $34 million. i urge my colleagues to defeat this flake amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment of the the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. dicks: mr. chairman, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. the clerk: section 1309, level for department of justice, general administration, justice information sharing technology

shall be $78,285,000. section 1310, level for department of justice, general administration, task task call law enforcement wireless communications delrks 136 million. section 1311, level for department of justice, general administration, detention trustees $1533,663,000. section 1312. level for department of justice legal activities, salaries and expenses, general legal activities $865,997,00. section 1313, level for department of justice, united states marshals service, construction $16,929,000. section 1314, level for department of justice, federal bureau of investigation

construction shall be $106 million -- mr. holt: mr. chairman, i have an amendment. the chair: will the gentleman specify which amendment? . mr. dicks: amendment 235. the chair: amendment 235. the chair will note the reading has progressed past that point in the bill. is the gentleman seeking unanimous consent to consider his amendment. mr. holt: seeking unanimous consent. the chair: is there objection? >> reserving my -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized on his reservation. >> as i understand it, the gentleman wants to go back to a section which we've already covered? the chair: the gentleman is correct. >> mr. chairman, in order to

move things along -- we have to have rules. >> will the gentleman yield? >> i have to object. the chair: the objection is heard. the clerk will continue to read. the clerk: section 1315, the level for department of justice federal pension system salaries and expenses shall be $6,325,231,000. section 1316, the level for office of science and technology policies shall be $6,500,000. section 1317, the level for national service foundation research and related activities shall be $5,467,920,000. section 1318, the level for national service foundation, major research equipment and facilities construction shall

be $54,790,000. section 1319, the level for national science foundation, education, and human resources shall be $725,760,000. section 1320, the level for department of commerce, bureau of census -- periodic census and programs shall be $913,707,000. section 1321, the level for each of the following accounts shall be zero dollars. department of commerce, national telecommunications and information administration, public telecommunications facilities, planning and construction, department of justice, bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives. construction. and department of justice, office of justice programs, weed and seed program fund, section 1322, the following set asides include in division b of

public law 111-117 for projects specified in the explanatory statement accompanying this act shall not apply to funds appropriated by this division. department of commerce, international trade administration, operations and administration, $5,215,000. section 1323, the departments of commerce and justice and national aeronautics and space administration and the national science foundation are directed to submit spending plans to the house and senate committees on appropriations within 60 days of enactment of this division. section 1324, the set aside included in the heading department of commerce, united states patent and trademark office, salaries and expenses shall not apply to funds appropriated by this division. section 1325, $44,900,000 shall be for technology, innovation program. section 1326.

>> i have -- the chair: the gentleman from ohio. >> i rise to offer an amendment, 260, which has been printed in the congressional record. the chair: the gentleman will allow the clerk to complete the reading of the section and then he can make his amendment. the clerk: section 1326, the level of department of congress national institute of technology, construction of research facilities shall be $58 million. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from rise? >> i offer amendment 260. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 260 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. latta of ohio. mr. latta: i offer amendment 260 for construction of

research facilities account by $10 million and transfer those funds to the spending reduction account. this program provides government money for construction of research science buildings, current h.r. 1 funds the technology, construction of research facilities, account at $58 million and this amendment reduces to $48 million. while scientific research is important, our nation is having massive deficits we have to make these difficult cuts. we have a forecast of a deficit of $1.6 trillion with the national debt scheduled to triple in 10 years. i propose cutting spending from a program that received over $123 million in increased funding in the stimulus. the president released his budget proposal this week which reflects a pattern of record spending and higher taxes and continued spending as funds that the u.s. government does not have as we continue to borrow from other countries. during the last session alone, the president signed into law over $1.8 trillion in new government spending and over $760 billion in new job damaging tax hikes.

my $10 million tax cut is just an example 6 difficult cuts that have to be made on our federal budget. furthermore, the department of commerce established a national program office under the national institute of standards and technology to begin development implementation of the national strategy of trusts and identities in cyberspace. the general goal is to secure and protect transactions in cyberspace through use of a special i.d. or digital identity so people can prove who they say they are. let me say cybersecurity and privacy are extremely important issues to all americans and i have strong concerns this government-directed effort could destroy online anonymity, become the equivalent of national i.d. and crowd out private efforts. this project could potentially lead to the unique internet i.d. that would serve as a single identifier to password protected website is frightening. it is equally concerning to think this single digital identity the hacker would have

access to a wide range of user personal information and accounts, security of the cyberdomain ises serious by a government run or government directed internet i.d. system is a risk for liberty and strategy -- and this strategy is not the way to go about achieving this goal. the elected representatives of congress shall address these issues and not the government bureaucracy. i will oven an amendment to block the amendment of the strategy and that is why i'm offering this amendment, number 260, funding for the national institute of standards and technology. i thank you and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> this account has been hit very hard already. each reduction in the bill was carefully determined. the funding level provided for this construction in the bill, $89 million below f.w. 2010.

mr. wolf: it played a key role in the infrastructure for advanced manufacturing services and scientists. this works with the private sector and other government agencies and university to develop an applied technology measurement standards for new and improved products. we've already reduced the funding in this account quite dramatically and this would really, i think, hurt the jobs effort and hurt manufacturers. >> will the gentleman yield? mr. wolf: i yield. mr. dicks: we've already cut this account by $58 million, with a reduction of $89 million or 60% below f.q. 10 and it does very good work so i support the chairman in opposition to the latta amendment and that's for a vote on the amendment. mr. wolf: i reclaim the time. we want science, jobs, math, science, physics, chemistry, biology to create opportunities

for manufacturing. i urge a no vote on the amendment and yields back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. anybody else wish to be heard? seeing none, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio. all those signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the nays have it. >> i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 6 -- does the gentleman ask for a recorded vote is ordered. mr. dicks: i ask for a recorded vote is ordered. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 201, line 9, section 1327, the level for department of commerce national oceanic and atmospheric research and facilities shall be $2,850,883,000. section 1328, the level for department of commerce,

national oceanic and atmospheric administration, procurement, acquisition and construction, shall be $1,455,353,000. section 132 , the level for department of justice office of justice programs, justice assistance shall be $225 million. section 1330, the level for department of justice office of justice programs, state and local law enforcement assistance shall be $953,500,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. holt: i rise to offer amendment 12 as a designee of mrs. mccarthy. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 12 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. holt of new jersey. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment. mr. holt: i thank the chair.

this amendment is to restore -- to make sure we continue the good work of the national instant criminal background check system. the nics is a national database system that keeps track of individuals who are disqualified under current law from purchasing and possessing firearms. need i remind my colleagues of the many reminders we have had of the need for this. the amendment before us here seeks to ensure that the department of justice continues funding the nics improvement amendments act of 2007 at the current level of $20 million. it was signed into law in january of 2008, requires all states to provide the nics with relevant records that are needed to conduct effective background checks. additionally, the nics

improvement act provides grants to states and territories to update their records and transmit the records to the nics database. nics is a critical tool in the fight to keep firearms from those legally disqualified from purchasing and possessing them. the only way to enforce the law is to make sure they have updated records. we understand the constraint. however, continuing to fund this program at the current f.y. 2010 level we continue the vital effort to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them. i encourage members to support this amendment. and had i had the floor before i would have offered an amendment to restore the $310 million that was cut from the lifesaving community oriented policing or cops program.

but i was denied that opportunity. so i ask for support for the amendment from mrs. mccarthy and me to fund the nics improvement amendments act. and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia. >> the gentleman will get that because we'll accept the amendment. the chair: does the gentleman seek recognition? >> i do, for five minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. wolf: the appropriations committee will require the department of justice to come back to the committee with a spending plan that they intend to use the funds provided on the state and local law enforcement and we accept the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. and the amendment is adopted.

for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: i have an amendment under section 1332. >> we're not there yet, are we? the chair: the reading has not progressed to that point yet. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 203, line 5, section 1331. the level for department of justice, office of justice programs, juvenile justice programs, shall be $232,500,000. section 1332, the level for department of justice community oriented policing services shall be $290,500,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i have an an amendment, amendment 240. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 240 printed in the congressional record, offered by ms. sheila jackson lee of the administration. -- lee of texas. the chair: for what purpose

does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> i reserve a point of order against the gentlewoman's amendment. the chair: the point of order is reserved. the gentlelady is recognized in support of her amendment for five minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman, and i thank the ranking member and of course the manager of the -- for the majority. . i rise for a very important discussion. as a member of the house judiciary committee and someone who truly believes that the cops program that has been initiated over a long tenure of time has truly brought down the crime statistics across america. whether you are a rural hamlet or whether you are a major city, the cops program has been an anchor for neighborhoods who

can't pay for their own private police services. this amendment restores the $600 million that is offered to be taken from the present funding. and it restores or would prevent the taking of 1,330 cops off the street and as well, it will provide the safety net that is necessary. if i had command of the floor earlier, i would have also added to this discussion the elimination of salaries that are eliminating the use of resources for the enforcement of the voting rights act and the resources necessary to enforce the voting rights act in the new redistricting plans that will be coming forward. but it is certainly a shame to take in the middle of municipal

budget years a sizeable amount of dollars of which they had been operating on and depend ent on. there are local communities which the cops program provides one police officer, two police officers, 20 police officers, 30, and that is the very existence of that community. in cities around america, cops have been laid off, and that should be an effort or decision of last resort. when you talk about going forward, my question to my friends on the other side of the aisle is is the purpose of this legislation job creation or job elimination? how can you do such damage to the municipal work force that are on the front lines of serving local communities? the cops program has been an enormous success. it has survived several

administrations, republican and democrat. and to suggest ta the cops program would be obliterated or at least devastated in such an amount would, from my perspective, be the wrong direction to go. cops academy classes have been been put on hold. mayors have eliminated classes. i have seen that in cities around america. and as a member of the house judiciary committee, we have had several encounters of eliminating cops funding. this amendment simply strikes the elimination or the intent to eliminate a certain amount of funding for the cops program. i would ask my colleagues to ask themselves a question, do the american people deserve safety and security in a time where, as

a member of the homeland security committee, we continue to face international and homeland security threats here in the united states? the domestic law enforcement is a key element of providing that kind of safety net, training, the opportunity for security and the opportunity for ensuring that hamlets, towns, cities, rural communities, counties, do not have to suffer through the crisis of the lack of security. so i would ask my colleagues to consider a waiver so that we can address this question of the funding of a very important program. and i might add that i look forward to working with the senate to restore those salaries to the department of justice so we don't have to undermine the enforcement of an important initiative one that martin

luther king and john lewis fought hard for and one that has withstood the test of time and that is enforcement of the voting rights act and i look forward to be able to enforce the value of the laws, the requirements of the voting rights act as relates to the 2011 redistricting that will take place in the coming months. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the go yield back the balance of her time? you can't reserve time. ms. jackson lee: i yield back.

the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. wolf: i rise for a point of order. the -- before i comment, this does not cut the voting rights act, so that's not accurate. this does not, this does not cut the voting rights act. secondly -- the chair: the gentleman may state his point of order. mr. wolf: the amendment is not in order, it shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a general appropriation proposing a net increase and budget authority in the bill unless considered en bloc in amendments creating pursuant to clause 2-f of rule 21. the amendment proposes an increase in violation of such section and i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: does any other member wish to address the point of

order? ms. jackson lee: i do. as i indicated before, the gentleman was mishearing what i said. i indicated that i had an earlier amendment that i decided not to offer because i intend to work with the other body on it, but it would have diminished the ability to enforce the voting rights act. that's not what we're -- i gee with you and i wanted to clarify that i was not speaking on this amendment. and this amendment, i have simply asked for a waiver. frankly, this is too important an issue to be addressed by the gentleman's point of order. i asked for a waiver. this is denying, if you will, of huge amounts of money to many municipalities across this nation, $600 million is ludicrous and creates loss of jobs and safety of the united states. i ask for a waiver on the point of order. i yield back. the chair: the chair is prepared to rule on the point of order. the gentleman from new york. >> the intention of the rule

that the chairman is referring to is to make sure we aren't adding additional spending. but in fact by cutting the cops program, you are adding an expenditure in the long run. about preserving cops on the street you have less crime, lower insurance rates, less costs for prevention. you wind up -- cops on the beat save money. they save money because localities don't need to raise taxes to keep these cops on the street. the gentlelady's amendment is a net budget safer. sometimes we invest in things that save money and the gentlelady's amendment does that so it's in compliance with the rule. the chair: the chair is prepared to rule on the point of order. anyone wish to be heard? the gentleman makes a point order that the amendment offered by the gentlelady of texas violates section 3-j 3.

and it proposes a net increase. the chair has been guided by an estimate from the chair -- of the committee on the budget that the amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill. therefore the point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order. are there other amendments? the gentleman from seek recognition? clerk will read. the clerk: section 1332 is the pending section. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 125, printed in the congressional record offered by mr. wiener of new york. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes. mr. weiner: before i proceed i ask unanimous consent, there is an error that says should say

$298 million and only has five zeros. i ask unanimous consent to add the intrazero so it makes sense. >> no objection. the chair: the amendment is so modified. mr. weiner: mr. chairman and my colleagues, this is to restore the cops program and take money out of states. but before i do that, i -- before i do that, i have to say, i don't think this process is on the level. what are we doing here. we are figuring out which diminished amount we are going to take and restore another diminished amount. this bill isn't going to become law. the president today said he is going to veto this bill and should. it slashes funding on so many important things to our communities. most of the authors of the bill are praying he vetoes this bill. but the fact is we are in here playing this game. we are trying to take from one slashed account and move funds

to another slashed account. but in the clear case of how the republicans are swinging a meat axe, cops programs, cops on the beat. the cops program has been a success not because it has been a big city program. look at this. you have cops over the first 10 years of the program in every single state, every single community has increased because of police officers. and i thought being tough on crime was a republican ideal. you slash this funding and what's going to wind up happening is your localities is going to have one of two choices, lay off police officers or raise taxes some other way. it's going to be a net zero effect because they want to keep the cops on the beat. where do we keep the money from? we aren't going to replace it but take it out of space exploration. i want to see mars but i want cops in brooklyn and queens. but let's face something about

this budget. it is an irresponsible budget you put on the floor. mr. dicks would agree, it's irresponsible to slash air traffic controllers 20%. who thinks that's a good idea. irresponsible to cut 1,500 cops on the street. it's irresponsible to say to parents who are getting pell grants, sorry, your kids can't go to college next year. the president has said he is going to veto. stop right now, fold it up and go back and try to get this right. let's try to come up with -- we know there are cuts that are necessary, but to the cops program? i mean, we have to understand here that these are going to require some tough choices and i had a joking exchange with mr. dicks earlier, we can get more from defense and agriculture, i get it. but i believe there are some values that should transcend politics and communities and one of them is how many police officers. and not only are there a lot of

cops in these communities, let's look at what's happening, in jackson, mississippi, 347 cops, they had a 12% reduction of crime, detroit, michigan, boston, massachusetts, 29% reduction in crime. this is a good law enforcement program. and so i would say on behalf of all of my colleagues and congressman defazio, congressman cohen, congressman pallone, congressman reichert on your side is interested, if we ask every person to stand up who had cops hired in their district, you would have to stand up. let's keep the program going. do i like the idea we have to take it from nasa space exploration? i don't know the crime statistics on mars and i'm interested, but it's a bad choice. and any of you like space exploration? i do. in a way i'm playing the game,

too, i'm taking from one place to give another but it's in the interest of all of us to set these priorities straight. one of the things is vote yes on the wiener amendment. it's late and gone through this exercise for a while. it is a dance and this document isn't going to become law and the president is going to veto it and the american people aren't going to sit back for 20% reduction in air traffic controllers, how is it a republican ideal? how is it that somehow drove this congress? it shouldn't be. nor should it be reducing the number of police officers on the street. that's not who we are as a country or congress. i hope you support the wiener amendment by taking from mars and putting it on the streets of your district and then i think it's late, but let's fold up the rest of the bill and go back and have bipartisan discussion and figure out the way to do this and in a way the president won't veto and i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia. mr. wolf: i rise in opposition to the amendment. . the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. wolf: if the president had not failed by leading this country by rejecting the simpson commission recommendation, president obama support it and apointed the people to the simpson commission, we've seen in the union message none of the cuts being done tonight would have to be done if the president had done what he had been done if he'd done to the commission. if i had been appointed to the commission i would have been in support of it. if durbin can be in support of it, we can hopefully come together. but all the opposition would not have to take place if the president had failed to provide the leadership he had failed to have done. this bureau makes deliberate choices with nasa to strike an

appropriate balance between achieving budget savings, procurement support for nasa, $16 billion in annual contract safety mission assurance prevents space flight accidents. to do this you would almost guarantee some of this could potentially happen. i.t. security to protect the chinese from having cyberattacks. we had hearing the other day that the chinese committed cyberattacks against nasa's computers. this amendment would say it's ok we can have the cyberattacks, we'll put it somewhere else. in addition, i see the gentlelady from houston is here. this would cause the civil servants and -- cost the contractors jobs. if president obama had done what he had done by appointing that commission he we wouldn't have cuts. willie sutton said, since we're talking about crime, willie sutton said he robbed banks and the reason is that's where the money is. the money is in the

entitlements. had we dealt with the obama commission of bowls-simpson we would not be here today. >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> willie sutton would love it if the cops weren't trying to protect the banks, that would be great but the cops are important. at my first job at a law school was attorney for the memphis police department. one of the first things i learned is the best deterrent to crime is patrol and patrol is policemen on the beat. that's the most effective way to reduce crime. when you have high unemployment and a great recession we experienced with high unemployment, crime naturally does go up. mr. cohen: when you have crime up you need more cops to protect property and individuals and lives. this cops program has been successful, it was successful in the 1990's and saw tremendous decrease in crime. mr. weiner pointed out and i praise him for being a champion in this so many years, it's

been an effective program that's saved lives and property, kept insurance rates down and kept order, ordered liberty in our country. willie sutton would not be for this amendment, he'd like to see the cops off the street, away from the banks, away from the widows, away from the children, away from everybody who is in the arms of a potential crime and in the way of potential crime and that's something we shouldn't have in this country. the cost of this program to get rid of it would be tremendous. the fact is the cops program saves money and this amendment zeros out the cops program. it isn't a simple change because limiting some of the moneys. it eliminates the programs and that's a mistake. local police are struggling with shrinking budgets. tax rates are down as people have spent less money and don't have the money to support our police and keep our law enforcement at the levels in which it should be and to cut police and law enforcement is a mistake, a serious mistake that

will cost the american people. you can't put it down in dollars and cents. lives will be lost. that's one place among others but particularly here the first line of defense. the police powers of the state, the first one is safety and there are other areas where we could save money and if we want to keep the budget, cut it, there are a lot of defense budgets that could be cut, there are defense programs not effectively keeping us safe from foreign problems or from foreign adversaries but there are on our streets and every city in this nation and every hamlet has the need for police. such cuts to the cops program is simply irresponsible and disregards the american public's regard and need for safety on the streets and safety in their communities. we should support our police, make our streets safer, and i'd ask that we support this amendment and i'd ask that the people on the other side

understand that law enforcement is a primary concern of government and the reduction of this program and elimination of this program will cost the american public dearly and lives will be lost. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield my time. the chair: the gentleman yields his time back. who seeks recognition? the gentleman from california. >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, i fully support the effort to restore funding to the cops hiring program. mr. royce: we should look for savings and reduce costs in the federal budget and not be withdrawing support for law enforcement while cities and towns across the country are struggling to maintain their police forces. a good example is camden, new jersey, which was forced by budget shortfalls to lay off 168 police officers last month. the city recently raised property taxes enough to restore about 20% of those positions but law enforcement in the city is still woefully understaffed. the c.r. cuts cops programs by $501 million including a reduction of $298 million that

specifically zeros out the cops hiring program. elimination of cops hiring would result in 1,330 fewer cops hired or rehired in f.y. 2011 compared to f.y. 2010 with fewer cops hired in f.y. 2011 compared to the f.y. 2011 request of $600 million. towns across the country need federal assistance to help them get through this difficult economic period and that's exactly what this amendment is designed to do. by restoring cops funding for cops hiring grants, camden and other municipalities all across the country could get grants to cover the three-year cost of rehiring officers they were forced to lay off or hiring new officers they need but have been unable to afford. after three years when the economies expected to be in much better shape these municipalities would be required to take on the cost of these officers. while i support the gentleman's

amendment, we should restore funding for the cops program, i am deeply concerned about the offset the amendment relies upon. mr. schiff: nasa's cross agency support account funds for many of the vital efforts for nasa's centers across the country. currently there is a backlog of deferred maintenance needs at nasa facilities and this backlog has been growing at a rate of 9% a year. growing funding will only make 2345sa's backlog worse and impede nasa's mission. we need to support cops hiring at adequate levels and hope by the end of this process we can find a way to do that. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. who seeks recognition? the gentleman from oregon. does the gentleman move to strike the last word? mr. defaws joe: i move to strike the last word. the requisite number of words, whatever is appropriate at this point in time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. defaws joe: --

mr. defazio. when i first was elected, i served with a conservative and he used to say government is about roads and ropes. he was talking about the basis for, you know, our system here in america. basics. transportation, the boston post road, the original roads of america that tied a young nation together and ropes, law enforcement, here on earth protecting american citizens from criminals. now, somehow the cross agency support account, which is an unbelievable catch-all slush fund at nasa which has grown in the last two years from $550 million to $3 billion and will actually be increased in this continuing resolution. by $36 million. it's more important than

defending the american people from criminals, from lawbreakers, from the most basic requirement of the government of the united states. now, this isn't even like real stuff at nasa. it's not the fantasy about going to mars or any of the other things they're engaged in for many billions of dollars. this is the cross agency support budget which has gone up six times, 600% in two years and it's going to go up again here today and we're going to slash the heck out of the cops program. now, go home and explain that to your constituents and tell them -- you can't say look up there because it's not a satellite, it's not headed to the moon or mars, you have to say it's the cross agency support budget at nasa and when the criminals are breaking down your door, call nasa. that probably isn't going to work too well. this not only supports police on the streets and overstretched agencies, it supports, and we've had a lot of talk about urban america, sheriffs in our rural areas which are woefully unpoliced.

and in my district we have money out of this account which you're cutting by 65% to go after methamphetamine manufacturing and mexican cartels moving methamphetamine up the west coast of the united states. we're going to cut that 65% because it's more important we fund the cross agency support budget of nasa and we increase it by 600% in two years and we decrease funding for cops and sheriffs and drug reduction in our communities, in our schools, in our rural areas by 65%. you go on home and campaign on that and i'll be campaigning on my issues. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. does anyone wish to be heard on the amendment? the gentleman from new jersey. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: you move to strike the last word? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

>> we used to argue on this floor whether or not to help communities. mr. pascrell: we argued on the floor whether this was a federal issue, whether the federal government had any responsibility in terms of firefighters, i remember the debates and police officers. and we made a decision on a bipartisan basis that it was a responsibility because we needed to protect the homeland. so democrats and republicans supported the protection in trying to help communities fight crime and put out fires. we made that on a bipartisan basis. and it is a shame that we do not even consider the cops program as part of homeland

security. because if you don't have it here, you have it nowhere. this is a security issue. it is a priority. how many officers in the past two months have been shot down doing their job in this country? double last year. and we know that small communities and large communities have taken advantage of the cops program. this is important to our communities. i was a mayor of the third largest city in new jersey. i know what those police officers on the street and the communities mean to protecting folks in my town where i still live. i know the results. since 1992. i know those results inside and

out. you heard mr. weiner who showed us the charts about what it has meant right across the united states of america. we're making a big mistake here. throughout the united states of america. everybody, citizens know that when they see police officers walking the beat, they know there is a priority that the federal government has not forgotten. i ask you, you cannot do to police officers and firefighters what this budget, at least for the next six months, is being represented by the other side. we're going to take up the fire act pretty soon, the safer act pretty soon with our firefighters. we can't do this. we can't pat them on the back and say great job. we can't go to the parades and say look at this, this is the protection we have in america and do this in a program that's

successful. no one has stood and questioned the success of either of tease programs. no one. i haven't heard one word tonight if the program wasn't working. if cops weren't doing their job on the beat. you'd stand and you would defend that particular position. this is not the way to do it. this is not the way to protect the homeland. this is not the way to pat police officers on the back and then send them out there without the resources and without their brothers and sisters fighting alongside of them to protect the united states of america. . this is a serious problem. we argued on this floor to protect the soldier in the field in foreign lands. i'm here today to support defazio, wiener and the rest of the folks that talked on this, to defend our police officers on

the street, we owe them know less. i ask you to restore this money, the money that has been taken away in this seven-month budget. i don't think it's fair and i don't think it's wise. and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment as offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. . those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the nos have it and the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from new york. mr. weiner: i would like a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. scott: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. scott: the c.r. proposal before us proposes to cut $190 mill nile -- million from

juvenile programs. this is research and demonstration programs to show evidence-based crime prevention programs save a lot of money and avoid incarceration and other expenditures and save more than the programs cost. the current justice department is making excellent progress in ensuring crime prevention programs and funding only used for those programs that are proven ineffectiveness through vigorous evaluation and study and programs that have shown their effectiveness. i can see that cutting unproven programs as a result of earmarks that haven't gone through that vigorous demonstration would be appropriate, but the programs in the justice department should not be cut. mr. chairman, there are a lot of

organizations that have written in opposition of the cuts in the juvenile justice programs. they include, the national disability rights network, campaign for justice, chirns' law center, cultural center, after school alliance, campaign for fair justice, sentencing of youth and coalition for juvenile justice. mr. speaker, last month we passed a tax bill that increased the deficit by $400 billion a year for two years. now we obviously need to cut the budget to pay for those tax cuts, but cutting funding for juvenile justice programs that are proven to save more money than they cost is not the right thing to do. we need to defeat this bill and come back with a bill that fully funds the juvenile justice programs so we can save money and reduce crime. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 204 line 16,

section 1333, percentage limitations on transfers between appropriations of the department of justice shall not apply to funds provided by this division or under previous appropriations acts to the department of justice that remain available for obligation or expenditure. section 1334, the provision limiting the use of funds under the heading of national area nautics and space exploration in division b of public law 111-117. section 1335, the level for national area nautics and space administration space operations $5,836,046,000. >> i have an amendment at the desk and ask for immediate consideration. the clerk: amendment number 78 offered by mr. ol son of texas.

the chair: the gentleman from from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. olson: i rise today in support of my amendment to shift funds in the nasa budget. i appreciate the work that chairman wolf and his colleagues have put in drafting this bill. i know how tough it must have been. we were elected to make tough decisions, to cut spending and to put our fiscal house in order. our nation's current fiscal situation, we must send clear and prudent guidelines on how our limited tax dollars are spent. i proposed today that we set limits within nasa to get better use out of our money. climate research is currently being conducted in 16 different agencies, including nasa and received over $35 billion through stimulus in last year's appropriations bills. human space flight is conducted

in exact lid one agency. nasa. this tight budget cycle, we must reduce spending and target our resources where they will be most beneficial. the 15 other agencies conducting climate research can pick up the slack while freeing up resources for nasa to make unique contributions, maintaining u.s. dominance in human space flight. accordingly, my amendment proposes to reallocate $517 million that could be spent on nasa science programs that will be available to maintain stable operations for human space flight. the amendment does not, does not change the overall nasa funding level. it simply reallocates within the total. i understand the tough task the c.r. has been for all.

nasa has been doing more with less for almost a decade. and that is why i'm offering this amendment. i appreciate the opportunity to discuss nasa priorities and i ask for his commitment to go forward as we begin the appropriations process to ensure that we get nasa away from climate missions and back to its unique human space flight missions. mr. speaker, i would like to yield to chairman wolf for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy. mr. wolf: i thank the gentleman. my understanding is that the gentleman is withdrawing the amendment and i thank the gentleman for raising critically important points about the nasa space program and the need to fully support it and no one is a stronger supporter of nasa than the gentleman from texas. i share his concern that

exploration is funded and nasa remains on a clear path to achieve space flight goals laid out in last year's authorization. i will be happy to work together as close as we can to finish 2011 and move forward into 2012 to maintain a robust human space flight program at nasa just as mr. olson would like it to be. it will be necessary to identify wasteful or lower priority activities in nasa's science program or any other nasa account so we can remain a sustainable budget. i look forward to working with the gentleman and our colleagues who support nasa and thank him for his continuing efforts in this area. mr. olson: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. the gentlelady from texas. ms. jackson lee: i move to

strike the last word. i rise to support the amendment that mr. olson has offered and i'm delighted that we have the opportunity to work together collaboratively with the chairman and with mr. dicks on this very important issue. i'd like to say publicly that democrats and republicans in the state of texas have worked together on supporting nasa and human space exploration. i'm sorry that i will not have the opportunity to support mr. olson's amendment or vote for it. he is absolutely right. human space flight is conducted in exactly one agency, nasa. and the general houston area and texas are impacted enormously. we have already lost 4,000 jobs. there will be a decrease of $1 billion going to nasa johnson. that will impact the impact in human space exploration. one very well knows a member of

our community, captain mark kelly, the husband of our dear and beloved member, congresswoman giffords, will have the opportunity to be on one of the final shuttles, but what most of us are not aware of is because our memory fades us is how much we begin from human space exploration, research in hiv-aids in stroke and heart disease, in weather research, all improving the quality of life of americans. and so i stand solidly behind continuing to fund human space exploration and join mr. olson and the leadership he has given. this is a tight budget, but the president talked about investment, competitiveness, creating jobs. nasa creates jobs, creates jobs for small businesses, it creates jobs for large contractors, it creates thousands upon thousands of jobs. and so i hope in this instance

that committee -- we can speak in a bipartisan manner to speak to the administration on the value of continuing to support nasa. it is difficult when we have a c.r. that, in fact, is cutting millions from the nasa budget. and i would hope that there would be a recognition that it is important to put $517 million back into nasa as was offered by this amendment. i can't imagine a nation without the ability for young people to aspire to the heights that those who have gone on before, those who have been astronauts, those who have explored the skies and done important research on the various trips that have been taken that have provided the

research and as well, the space station, which has been an enormous asset that has brought international partners together and helped develop science. having traveled to most of the centers that are under the nasa administration, each and every one i have been to have been a quality of staff that have been doing their job in the name of progress for the american people. so i'm disappointed with this c.r. that has caused these enormous cuts. and i would hope that we have the opportunity to restore them. where are we if we quash the genius of america? where are we if we extinguish the dream of young students and scientists around america? where are we if we quash the jobs that can be created by science? nasa is an asset and a jewel and i hope together in this congress and of course, working together with the administration, we can

realize it once and for all. why we have to battle so hard for something that has done so much for the american people baffles me and i look forward to the reinvestment in science and competitiveness. and i yield back. and i thank the gentleman for his leadership and i hope to work in a bipartisan manner. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does gentlelady from florida seek recognition? >> i move to strike the last word. >> i join my colleague to transfer $517 out of nasa's climate research fund and into human space flight, a proven economic driver and job creator. this amendment sends a clear message to the administration and leadership of nasa that it is congress' intent that human space flight should not be marginalized. the purpose of this amendment is to highlight the approach to nasa at a time when unemployment

is at 12% in florida and 9% nationwide and our country is facing $trillion deficits. funds are better in human space flight program and not climate research. doing so will put people back to work and stimulate the economy. the united states has made a commitment to human space exploration creating thousands of jobs and continuing -- contributing to the economies in places like central florida, texas, mississippi and alabama. with the shuttle program winding down and the constellation program no longer a priority for this administration, i want the american people to understand the fear and uncertainty felt by hard-working families in the 24th district of florida. they need to know the great benefits the nasa program has brought to this nation and a policy shift in nays h nasa to increase research in potential climate changes would