and that's the solution the rules committee brought out last night. they say you have not gotten your say yet for the seventh district of georgia, mr. woodall, but you will get it during this process. not just you but you and you and you and you, that every single member of this house by virtue of the fact that they were elected by american citizens back home, will have the opportunity to come to this floor and have their voice heard. . mr. speaker, this isn't a tough decision today. this is one of the proudest decisions we get to make in this house and that is to have its membership work its will and report out the very best bill that we can, send that over to the senate and see what happens next. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. hastings: i'm very pleased to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from kentucky, my good friend -- connecticut, my good friend, mr.

courtney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to the rule and to allow the tyranny amendment to move forward, which would allow a real solution to the 53-day ticking time bomb for college students and middle class families all across this country. today literally as we're standing here, high school seniors are getting noticed in the mail about whether they've been admitted to college, students are now packing up and leaving for the end of the spring term, already thinking about next year, financial aid offices are trying to plan with families about how to pay for next year's tuition and yet what they have been them is a situation where on july 1, the rates will double from 3.4% to 6.8%. on july 23, the president of the united states stood on that podium and challenged congress to avoid that rate increase from going through and for three months we had a republican majority which stonewalled this issue, no markup, no hearing. i filed legislation the day after that speech, we have over 150 co-sponsors to permanently lock in the lower rate and yet

as mr. miller indicated, what we heard from the house republicans was a bill 10 days ago which bypassed committee, nothing from the education work force committee, rammed through the rules committee and paid for in the most disgraceful, grotesque fashion, taking it out of a fund, wiping out a fund to pay for prevention of heart disease, diabetes, cancer, early childhood diseases. that is not a solution, the president made it clear when that, you know, scam was presented that it would be vetoed immediately. it is a dead letter, it is time for us to, yes, debate a c.g.s. appropriations bill, very important, but those kids, those families need a horizon before them as they deal one -- with one of the most exciting challenges before them which is how to pay for higher education. we should defeat this rule, allow a motion to go forward, which will defuse this ticking time bomb from middle class families all across america, push aside that joke of a bill that passed 10 days ago, and get

down to the business of addressing middle class families' needs and young peoples' needs to help solve the problems of this country and give them the opportunity to succeed. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume to say, i actually had this conversation with some school children in my district over the break. i'm sure everybody in this body did. they call it the break, mr. speaker. truth is it's a district work period. you're working every bit as hard in your home state as you are here, probably harder back home. i'm talking to young people and i said, does anybody here have a parent that just lets them eat anything they want to? drink all the soda they want? eat all the candy they want? there wasn't a single hand that went up. apparently parents had some discipline incorporated in the lives of each one of these children. i asked, who thinks their parents love them? and the answer was every child in that room felt loved by their parents. there was -- they didn't get

everything they wanted all the time, there were limits to it, but they felt loved. mr. speaker, we're in the business of spending other people's money. other people's money. it's not my money, it's not my colleague from florida's money. it is other people's money in this body. and not only are we spending every penny of the money that they send us, mr. speaker, we are borrowing even more. you think about it. we talk about how we spend -- we borrow 40 cents out of every $1 that we spend, what that means then is, mr. speaker, we collect every penny that america's willinging to give us -- willing to give us and we borrow 66% more. 66% more. communities back home aren't operating under that kind of funding mathematics. they understand they can only spend the money that they have. families back home aren't operating under those kind of funny mathematics. only here. so in the case of these programs, again, student loans

are an absolutely no way at issue in the underlying bill, are of no issue in this rule. but just to touch on that topic for a moment, and we had, -- we had the speaker of this house come down and give a passionate plea for votes in support of the very provision that's being discussed here today, not only did he speak on behalf of those provisions, this chamber passed it. we talk about the ticking time bomb, that's a ticking time bomb of inaction in the senate. this body has acted. now what did we do? i have to be one of those folks who took out student loans, mr. speaker, so i know a little bit about student loan process. i happened to take mine out from a private institution, we were using competition to keep the marketplace regulated in those days. now the federal government's the only place you can go for a student loan. that was courtesy of my friends on the other side of the aisle. again, heartfelt. believed in their heart it was going to be a better program if the federal government ran it instead of letting private

financial institutions who lend money for a living manage it. but 6.8% is the below market rate that's available for folks who borrow stafford loan money. you may have had a stafford loan, mr. speaker, other folks out here might have had a stafford loan. but there are two kinds. there's the stafford loan that you pay interest on after you borrowed the money. i imagine that, you borrow the money, you pay interest on it. and then there's the stafford loan that's called the subsidized stafford loan. that's a much smaller piece of the pipe, mr. speaker. we have the loans that families have to go out and get on their own to help pay for their children's education. we have savings that folks are going out and spending on the children's education. we have grant programs that are -- scholarship programs, all that are out there to help with education. we have the plus program out there which is a loan that parents and students can take out together and then we have, in addition to all those program, we have the stafford loans which again some of them are loans you pay interest on immediately and some of them, the very small fraction of them, are loans that are subsidized while you're in school.

this conversation we're having here today is about whether or not this subsidized stafford loan that was over 7% when i borrowed it, is 6.8% in normal times, but the rate was reduced to 3.4% by my colleagues. whether or not that rate should be allowed to return to normal levels. now, and again, i say to folks, there's no money that's coming out of anybody's pocket in this room. this is america's money. america's money that we're borrowing, that we're spending. if we want to borrow that money to cut artificially low rates in half, make them artificially lower, we absolutely can. not only can we, we did. we talk about this as if it's something that might happen one day, we did it. it was two weeks ago, i was down here on the house floor, i sat right over there, in fact. sat right over there. i remember the vote happening. it's done here. did we pay for it, mr. speaker? we did. we paid for it with a program which i would categorize as a

slush fund, it's a $15 billion program that exists over there in the health and human services department, it came out of the affordable care act, the president looked at it and said, you know what? that really was too much of a slush fund. he cut it by almost 1/3. and now we said, you know what? perhaps we should go after the rest of it because accountability's an issue here, mr. speaker. we hear folks talk about prevention and cancer and women and children. i wish that's where the money went. i went and got the list of where those projects are, mr. speaker. you know, in my part of the world it was a $2.5 million grant to the county i grew up in. to help with obesity training in schools. obesity training. i'm in favor of that. i think we ought to absolutely work on obesity. i hope my home school districts already -- district's already working on those. in other parts of the country, new york, for example, this is money that went to lobby in favor of soda taxes. that's right. this money that is being

described by my friends on the other side of the aisle is critical to protecting the health of women so that they can get breast cancer screenings, was spent in new york city to lobby in favor of job-killing taxes for my home state of georgia. this is not about women and children, mr. speaker. this is about unaccountability when you start handing out slush funds to bureaucrats. in philadelphia it was the lobby against cigarettes. is that something we ought to do? golly, we go out and do that on our own every day. does the federal government need to borrow from our children and our grandchildren to help philadelphia lobby against cigarette taxes? in california it's going to put up signs so folks can find the local parks. in the name of obesity training, mr. speaker. in the name of obesity training. going to find the local parks. do we need signs to help us find the local parks? we have them in our community, i thought they had them in other communities. do i need to borrow from my children and my grandchildren to

put up more signs for parks? mr. speaker, we don't. this is not a priority that the american people stood up and voted for. this is a slush fund that is used by bureaucrats to focus on whatever their priority of the day is. and what's so disappointing is that this responsible government endorsed by a vote of this full house is being described by my colleagues as an assault on women's health. it is offensive to me. there are so many things that we legitimately disagree about. go back to where i began, mr. speaker. we disagree from the heart about so many directions in this country. but there's not one person in this body, not one, that wants to put women's health at risk. not one. this is about responsible government. and cutting out the waste,

cutting out the low priority spending, cutting out the dollars that come from taxpayers' pockets in my district to spend for job-killing legislation in new york. mr. speaker, we're going to have a full debate on this. a full debate. every member of this body will be able to bring their voice to the floor. i look forward to that full debate. i believe in this country. i believe in this institution. i believe that full debate's going to take us exactly where we need to be and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i'm very pleased to yield to my very good friend, mr. tierney from massachusetts, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. tierney: i thank the speaker, thank the gentleman for acknowledging this. you know, americans need to know that their family members are going to be able to afford a colonel degree, whether it's a two-year degree or a four-year degree.

too many people are afraid that their child is not going to be able to get through college, too many students don't think they can meet the cost of it. and that's what we need to deal with. public dollars for schools, pell grants, lower interest rates, work study, those are things that we've done together to allow people to have the opportunity of college so that everybody can try to achieve their goal, have an equal opportunity to achieve those goals, with things we've done together in the past. we've been helping businesses find very educated and skilled people to drive our economy. it doesn't matter if you're in $20,000, $30,000, $60,000 or if you're suddenly unemployed because you lost a job, it feels the same. if your kids are pushed out of school, if they can't afford to pay for it. getting a degree really makes a difference for many people, whether or not they're going to be able to get a good job. and helping them do that is something we've all decided to invest in. carrying a huge loan debt, it may mean that you delay starting a family, delay buying a house, taking a job that you otherwise wouldn't take.

pell grants, work study, lower interest rates, all of those things for higher education, the opportunities we all helped to create. so the people that have long been benefiting from special favors, from tax loopholes, corporations, people who are extremely wealthy, they need to do their part. that's what we're asking them to do. we can keep this country moving forward if we invest in our future. what we want to do is find a way and make a time that those benefited so extraordinarily realize that they too have to step up to the plate and scroin the rest of us -- join the rest of us to help pay for those opportunities, to make sure we can move forward. this is good time to invest in america, in americans. we have 250 tax expenditures in the tax code. those are special interest rates, special tax rates, rather, special favors, credits, deductions. our friends on the other side of the aisle apparently think that's what america should borrow for, that's what they should borrow for and pay corporations that made $130 billion last year to give them more money instead of helping people get through college and get a degree that they need to get a good job.

so i filed a bill last week that would have lowered interest rates, back in a time when the republican budget would have let it double. back when the speaker and the chairman of the education committee and the second ranking member of the republican body all voted to keep it at 6.8%. filed a bill and i found a way to pay for it, was taking one tax credit from big oil. that made $130 billion last year. one tax credit that they weren't originally intended to benefit from but it managed to sort of get their way into eventually. here's a way to pay for it. the republicans didn't agree with, it, then they could have found one, but they came around to deciding they wanted to lower the interest rates because they couldn't take the political heat when the president was out there talking to american families and american parents and american students and say, what are you doing? why are you borrowing and giving to oil companies and giving $130 billion of profits plus tax credits when we could make sure our family members get the education they need to get a job and move forward in their lives?

and so the republicans finally came along and said, ok, we'll lower the interest rates, but we're going to find a boysen pill. we're going to look at what the president has planned to do which are screenings for breast cancer, screenings for cervical cancer, immunizations for children and we'll use. that i suggest to my friends on the other side, stop waiting for the senate. use some leadership, come across the aisle and look at those 250 tax expenditures and let's find one we can agree on. not wait for the senate and blame it on them. let's move forward on that. stop being so ideological and let's move forward. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: i yield myself 30 seconds to say there is only one bill in this institution that abolishes not just the oil companies he wants to go after, not just the corporate welfare that he wants to go after, not just all the benefits and exclusions and exemptions that the wealthy in this countryuality lies with their

tax bills. there's one bill that in this congress that abolishes every special exemption, carveout and giveaway in the entire united states tax code. it's h.r. 25. i am the sponsor of that legislation. i join you in your desire to eliminate all those special interest fax breaks and deductions. i welcome your co-sponsorship of that legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. hastings: i'd inform my colleague that i'm the last speaker. i don't know whether you are but i'm prepared to close if you are. mr. woodall: as am i. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i yield myself the balance of the time, and i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, the majority tried once two weeks

ago to go back on what they agreed to. it did not work, so now here we are again trying to redeem ourselves. but this is no way to run an economy, no way to run a budget process and no way to stick up for the millions of struggling americans who need us to focus on improving the economy. we can pretend that the ryan budget has passed when in fact it has not. we can deem it, come here to redeem it, but while we're living in legislative fantasy

land, millions of other americans will still be struggling to find jobs, to pay off their student loans, to access affordable health care and decent housing and really in the final analysis, just to survive in an economy that not just this year or last, in an economy not just in the last decade or the decade before, in an economy that favors those who have the most rather than look out for those who have the least. the celebrated cartoon that carries wile e. coyote, he used

to pretend there was going to be some kind of rubberized format when he landed off a cliff. only to find that soon after that he was in a very long and painful fall to the bottom. i said before and i repeat, we are better people than what's happening here. i agree with my friend, mr. woodall, that we see things differently and in our heart of hearts both of us and many members of this body are in agreement. and want things to be better. as long as republicans insist on replacing substantive debate with partisan gimmicks, broken promises and misplaced

priorities, the fall to the bottom is going to seem very long and is likely to be very painful for millions of americans. i would urge my colleagues to oppose this rule for the reason that it is deeming something that is being pretended to be passed. i ask them to oppose this rule for reason it includes in it marble law that disallows the openness discussion that my colleague rightly points to in an open rule but this particular provision disallows that as it pertains to the reconciliation and that is just no way for us to go about trying to come to terms with the enormous consequences and circumstances that we face by not having faced them many, many, many years ago.

thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has yielded back his time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i thank my colleague from florida for joining me down here for this debate food, and there really are some things that we disagree about here in this body at large. but one thing we don't disagree about is bringing open bills for appropriation bills. this appropriation bill is a 1% reduction from the level the president has proposed. we talk about the doom and the gloom and the kicking of children and the punishing of women. 1%. oh, there's a long hard fall to the bottom coming all right and it's coming in the american economy. i tell you who gets most in a bad economy, it's the poorest and weakest among us. we all know it. we all know it. we're asking for 1% less than

what the president proposed. in the name of taking a small step in the right direction. you could have gotten me for 20%, 25%. just to be clear. this body is trying to move in a responsible fashion. there's only one budget that's passed in this town, mr. speaker. the president's budget didn't pass. it got zero votes in the senate , it got zero votes in the house. only one budget in this town that's passed and that's one that came out of the open process that we had right here. we could take our toys and go home or we could try to do our appropriations bills under the one proposal that has gashered a majority vote in this en-- garnered a majority vote in this entire manner. let's go ahead and start that process. let's go ahead and do for the american people what we promised them to do and that is operate this institution so everybody has a voice and at

the end of the day we move our very best legislation forward. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the resolution. mr. faleomavaega: the question is on ordering the previous question on the -- the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. hastings: mr. speaker. i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by five-minute votes on adoption of house resolution 643, if ordered, and an approval of the journal by the yeas and nays. this is a 15-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 235 and the nays are 174. the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. mr. hastings: mr. speaker. mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida has requested a recorded vote. all those in favor vote aye. those opposed, no. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on

this vote the yeas are 228. the nays are 181. the resolution is adopted. without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 296, the nays are 109. with three voting present. the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 5326, and that i may

include tabular material on the same. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 643 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 5326. the chair appoints the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop, to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 5326, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the department of commerce and justice, science, and related agencies for the fiscal year

ending september 30, 2013, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. the gentleman from virginia, mr. wolf, and the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. fattah, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. one minute. the committee is not in order. would those on either side of the committee please take your conversations offer the floor so committee business can be conducted. once again, would you please take conversations off the floor . the committee will be in order, the gentleman from virginia may continue. mr. wolf: thank you, mr. speaker.

mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. chairman, i'm pleased to begin consideration of h.r. 5326, making appropriations for fiscal year 2013 for commerce, justice, science, and related agencies. the bill provides funding for appropriation whose impact ranges from the safety of people in their homes and communities to the farthest reaches of space. the bill before the house today reflects the dell kit balancing of needs and -- deli cat balancing ever needs and requirements. we have draft add responsible bill for the departments and agencies under the subcommittee's jurisdiction. we have carefully prioritized the funding in this bill and make hard choices about how to spend scarce revenue. i want to thank chairman rogers for supporting us with a fair allocation and helping us to move the bill forward. i also want to thank the ranking member, mr. fattah, who has been an effective and valued partner

and colleague, and i'm grateful. i appreciate his principled commitment and understanding of the programs in the bill. i'd also like to thank the members of the subcommittee fon their help and assistance and also congressman norman dicks, the ranking member of the full committee. i want to recognize the subcommittee staff, including mike, leslie, stephanie, diana, colin, scott, and also derek and bob from the minority staff for their work in preparing the bill for us today. i also want to recognize a number of majority and minority associate staff members which i will insert into the record at this time. all of their name and the offices that they are connected with. the bill totals $51.1 billion in discretionary spending. a reduction of 3.1% below the current fiscal year and 1.4% below the president's request. since the beginning of the 112th

congress, the committee has cut 13.2 billion, reducing the total amounts of the c.j.s. bill by 20% over the three fiscal years. we have focused limited resources on the most critical areas, fighting crime and terrorism, including any focused preventing and investigating cyberattacks, boosting u.s. competitiveness and job creation by investing in science, exports, and manufacturing. the department of commerce the bill includes $7.7 billion, an increase of $96 million above f.y. 12, and the bill makes critical investments in manufacturing, export promotion, and job creation, including a task force and e.p.a. grant program to incentivize u.s. companies to bring their manufacturing and services activity back to the united states, particularly back to the u.s. from china. the bill includes $138 million

including $128 million for the manufacturing extension partnership, $21 million for an advanced manufacturing competitive research program to make the american manufacturing sector a source of job growth. the bill also makes critical investments in weather forecasting and disaster preparedness to save lives and protect property, including funding above the president's request for the national weather service operations and tsunami preparedness. also included is an increase of $126 million for the weather slight acquisition including the full amount requested for the new j.p. jpss satellite. this is necessary to better protect americans from natural disasters such as tornadoes, hurricanes, and tsunamis. just look what we have seen in the midwest this year, kansas, and alabama, places like that. also with regard to snowstorms and drought. science, the primary area of focus in the bill this year is

scientific research and innovation and competitiveness. investments in sign f.s.c. research is a key to long-term economic growth and job creation. the bill includes $7.3 billion for the national science foundation, an increase of $299 million or 4.3% above f.y. 2012 for basic research in science education. this funding will go toward the research and keep america's economy strong by setting the groundwork for the development of new technologies. developing a well educated stem work force is critical to america's competitiveness. more than $1 billion is provided throughout the bill for science education, including $876 million for n.s.f. to improve the quality of science education. nasa, the bill includes $17.6 billion, including funding above the aggregate request to keep the development schedule for the orion heavy lift rocket.

commercial crew development is funded at $500 million, consistent with the current authorization, and the report accompanying the house budget resolution. to find the fast and safest and most cost-effective means of achieving a u.s. capability for access to the space station, the bill directs nasa to win over commercial partners and advance the schedule for moving to traditional government procurement methods. continuing on the current path runs a high risk of failure by one or more companies receiving a government subsidy similar to what we last saw last year on solyndra. leaving the taxpayer with no tangible benefits in exchange for substantial investment. we do not need a space solyndra, i say to members on both sides of the aisle. we have heard solyndra thrown away, we do not need a space solyndra. we have received letters from kneel armstrong, and james lovely endorsing the committee's

approach to commerce, reasonable and appropriate, end quote. according to g.a.o. we invested $100 billion in the station so we need to develop our own capability to get our astronauts up there to use it quickly rather than relying on the russians and paying the russians. the bill also includes $570 million, which is $18.4 million above the request for aeronautics research. aerospace is a pillar of the american manufacturing sector and one of the leading exports and something -- an industry that creates thousands of jobs in america. this investment will boost their aviation competitiveness so america continues to be number one. the bill includes $5.1 billion for nasa's science programs, including $1.4 billion for planetary science. this amount restores cuts in the president's request that would have inhibited progress on all

planetary science goals, including flagship missions to mars and uropa. for the department of justice the bill includes $27.1 billion, $11 million above the current level. the top mission priority of the justice department is depending national security from both internal and external threats. the bill includes $8.3 billion, an increase of $148 billion, for the f.b.i., including increase of $23 million to prevent and combat cyberintrusions. director muller has predicted that cyberwill soon overtake terrorism as the bureau's number one threat. the increase will be the first step in building a nationwide capability for cyberinvestigations and complements the other cyberinitiatives under consideration in the house. . the national gang intelligence center which the president wanted to terminate. every district in this country has violent gangs running throughout your districts.

from ms-13 to many other groups. and if you've been down along the border and see many of the gangs in mexico have operations up here. to shut that down and terminate it at the very time this is a major threat to the country. it provides funding for f.b.i. task forces. now is not the time to retreat in an effort to combat the growing gang problem. not only on the border but throughout the country. bureau of prison operations funded at the requested level of $6.8 billion, an increase of $269 billion above f.y. 2012 to conduct initiatives and secure safe federal prison facilities in light of unfortunate continued population growth. it includes $4.8 billion for justice programs, states, localities and nonprofits. despite the reduction, the bill prioritizes high priority programs, including justice

assistance grants, scaap and the administration -- we are at $165 billion. missing and exploited children and d.n.a. grants. the bill includes funding for prescription drug monitoring grants and i want to give credit to chairman rogers for his effort here. and also significant increase in d.e.a.'s tactical diversion squads to address our nation's fastest growing drug problem, prescription drug abuse. funding for violence against women, for victims of trafficking is increased above the current level and above the president's request. there's more money in here for violence against women than this administration put. we recently marked the fifth anniversary of the shootings at virginia tech. following this tragedy, congress passed a bill to approve the instant background checks system, a critical tool for keeping firearms out of the hands of prohibitive persons. but it is only as effective as

the state's database. it includes $12 billion to improve their record. finally, we're asking the office of inspector general to do a follow-up review of the justice task force that looked at cases affected by fraud f.b.i. lab practices in 1990. the new o.i.g. review is necessary next step to ensure the prosecutors follow through on task force findings and the defendant's rights are upheld. no one should get sentenced to jail for life and when we know that there's information that has not been shared and so we have the o.i. gimplet review and take a look at this. in closing, this is the summary of the bill before us today. it strengthens operation of critical law enforcement. it carries on the fight against terrorism, crime and drugs and provides important increases to boost scientific research, innovation and competitiveness.

provide strong support for all the various nasa missions. it represents our best take on matching needs with scarce resources. we have tried hard to produce the best bill we possibly could within the resources we had and i would hope all members would support the bill and yield back the balance of my time. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to start out thanking my colleague and the chairman of the subcommittee, frank wolf, for continuing to be a model chairman for an appropriations subcommittee. mr. fatah: he's a professional. he's principled and he's involved us, the minority, in every level of the deliberations as we've developed this bill. mr. fattah: i want to thank the committee staff on both the majority and minority side for their work on this bill along with all those who have had input in it.

now, i started out in this process with a number of priorities. first and foremost, in the science arena and neuroscience and i thank the chairman and i'll speak about it in some detail in a minute. but for his collaboration and -- in this effort around brain research. manufacturing. and we will talk about the support in this bill, hundreds of millions of dollars to continue to position our country in terms of manufacturing. we now lead the world in manufacturing. we want to continue that, and we have real competition that we have to contend with. and then also in the area of steering our young people away from anti-social activity, youth mentoring. and the chairman has passed in the subcommittee and full committee and as we bring this bill to the floor, again, make significant improvements in our investment around youth mentoring. so let me start with the

department of commerce. they are funding levels, increasing at the national institute of standards in technology and for the noaa satellite programs which is so important to our weather forecasting challenges as a nation. in the chairman's remark, he wisely rejected the proposed cuts that were going to be made in both the technical capabilities and the personnel at the national weather service, including air quality and the tsunami warning system and profile measurements, which we already invested in tens of millions of dollars as a nation. the bill provides funding at or near the requested level for the department of justice law enforcement agencies. including an increase above the request for the f.b.i. and to augment its capabilities in terms of cyberinvestigations and surveillance. i know all the members of the

committee are -- and all the members of the house understand the very significant challenges that the country faces in terms of cybersecurity and the chairman has appropriately focused resources in that regard. the bill provides an increase of -- for the office of violence against women, grant programs. of course, these are programs that we're dealing with the authorization of and a different part of our processies but very important in terms of support of women who face abuse. and also a small increase for crime victims funded programs. the chairman's mark and the bill passed in the full committee provides a healthy increase for the national science foundation, the world's premiere national entity focused on basic scientific research. the bill makes a strong commitment, and the chairman noted to nasa science. and also fully funds the james

webb telescope, makes a significant investment in commercial crew and in space technology. and i do support the idea that we need to move as rapidly as possible to this new focus on having american enterprise, compete for opportunities to participate fully and in a much more cost-effective level in terms of our space exploration. the bill makes a significant increase in terms of future robotic missions to mars and we make a requirement in the language that this be part of a return mission as the national academy of sciences report indicates. during some part to the limits on the allocation, there are a number of areas in the bill which we should try to improve as we move through this process. and we'll hear some of that in the amendment process and we will do as much as we can in the conference process that

will follow. but this bill is -- because it's based on the ryan budget, is less than the senate counterpart, which was moved out of committee with $731 million higher in this allocation. these -- this will have to be reconciled in this process. and i hope that as we go about that we can look at the e.d.a., the economic development administration, look at the census bureau, most importantly the legal services and the cops program are areas i hope we'll raise two additional levels of funding. the state and local grant programs also take a significant decrease off of what we would hope they could be. but i want to focus a little bit of my comment on the fact that in the full committee there were a number of nonfinancial items added to the bill. one related to firearms. another related to swimming pool regulations for the disabled.

and there are always going to be disagreements around regulatory issues. but i'm not sure this bill is the appropriate place. in fact, i would suggest this bill is not the appropriate place to try to reconcile those issues. and i'm sure that as we move through there will be additional inputs as to how we might deal with this question. but let me talk in some detail for a minute about some of the great initiatives that i think we were able to come to agreement on and, again, i want to thank the chairman and his staff. for our country and for my caucus, there's nothing more important than manufacturing and to see the manufacturing partnership at $128 million, also with a special carveout for the national innovative marketplace, a web-like porter that will help our -- portal that will help our manufacturers at the federal level i think is very important.

$21 million was requested by the president and met in this bill for the advanced manufacturing and technology. and also we provide $149 million to the national science foundation for their advanced manufacturing initiative. we continue a program authorized under the american competes act to help small manufacturers, from technology on, and i would note that the chairman held in his last hearing, a hearing on manufacturing, and i think really brought light to the subject on what the country can and needs to do in terms of helping our manufacturers compete with competitors abroad in much larger countries that are trying to overtake us in terms of manufacturing. i like to personally thank the chairman for fully funding the office of science and technology policy in the white house which has taken the lead in this neuroscience initiative

which has been a bipartisan agreement to really try to build a collaboration of federal agencies focused on some of the challenges that we have in terms of brain research, alzheimer's, parkinson's, autism, addiction, which is a big issue for the chairman of our full committee and chairman rogers and for many of the people that we represent. there are all types of issues related to mr. tiberi: affecting our -- related to traumatic brain injury affecting our veterans. i want to thank them for leading in this effort and for the important work that it does. there's a lot more that i could say. let me conclude, however, because we're going to spend a long time on the floor and i'll have plenty of chances to speak by talking about the youth mentoring initiative which forms a variety of national groups which do work, but i think the shining light at the very top of the pyramid is the

boys and girls club with some 4,000 clubs all across our country on all of our military bases and also in sovereign native american reservations and lands, working with over four million young people. but along with big brothers, big sisters and a number of organizations work to help american youth move in positive directions in their lives. so i think that the bill that we bring to the house, even though it is not the bill in every respect that i would bring and obviously there is room for improvement, and that's part of the process that we'll go through on the floor and in conference, this is a bill that was -- had the complete unanimous, bipartisan support out of committee and was voice voted out of the full committee and i am happy to join my colleague, the chairman, as we present it now for house action. i thank you and i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia.

mr. wolf: i recognize mr. rogers, chairman of the full committee, such time as he may consume. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for as much time as he shall consume. mr. rogers: i thank the chairman for yielding the time. and i rise in strong support of this bill. this bill, the first for fiscal 2013, marks one of the earliest starts to the appropriations process in recent memory which is a good sipe for moving -- sign for moving all 12 bills before september 30, end of the fiscal year. i look open to a transparent process as we consider each of the bills, staying faithful to our commitment to smart, reduced levels of spending, to help do our part in controlling the federal deficit. i want to especially commend chairman wolf, ranking member

fattah, and the members of the subcommittee and my colleague and ranking member, norm dicks, and all of the staff who've had hard work invested in this bill. . the committee has held more than 100 hearings and briefings since january which helps us determine the best use of limited tax dollars that we must spread out over a great number of vital federal programs, services, and agencies. the commerce, justice, and soyens appropriations bill -- science appropriations bill is in line with the house passed budget resolution, totals $51.1 billion, which is $1.6 billion below current level, and below the prestimulus, prebailout level of 2008.

within this total the committee prioritized programs and services that, one, protect our people from threats at home, aboard, and cyberspace. two, that maintain the competitiveness with american spri and -- industry and businesses. ' three, that encourage scientific research that has kept america at the forefront of the world in innovation. some of these critical investments include $8.3 billion for the f.b.i.. $468 million for the international trade administration. $830 million for the national institute of standards and technology. and $2.4 billion for the drug enforcement agency. in addition, this bill includes various provisions to promote freedom and liberty while also fulfilling our moral obligation to the most vulnerable among us.

the bill helps to uphold our second amendment rights, prevent violence against women, help victims of trafficking and missing and exploited children, and bring under control our country's fastest growing drug threat, the abuse of prescription drugs, which the c.d.c. has now labeled a national epidemic. we are able to fund these programs at adequate, responsible levels while cutting spending. eliminating, terminating duplicative unnecessary or lower priority programs. not all of these decisions were easy to make, and i know many of my colleagues will have amendments to offer as we debate the bill, but i am proud of the work that this committee and this subcommittee has done to

ensure responsibility and sustainability in these federal budgets. while making important reductions that curtail unnecessary overhead and wasteful inefficiencies, this bill makes judicious and sensible investments in programs that make america the great nation she is. an america that is safe and secure. an america that leads the way in scientific development and innovation. and an america that helps get its people back to work. i urge my colleagues to support the bill and i thank the chairman for yielding and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. mr. fattah: i yield as much time as the gentleman may need, the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from washington state. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for as much time as she shall consume. mr. dicks: i thank ranking member fattah for yielding to me

and for his hard work on this important bill. as we begin the floor consideration of this first of the it 2013 appropriations bills, i would like to state as a preface that i regret the majority's decision to not abide by the bipartisan control act, reducing the overall occasion for fiscal year 2013 by an additional $19 billion, which i think is both unnecessary and economically unwise. i believe the reduced discretionary allocation in the ryan budget threatens to stall economic growth and job creation and in the near term it introduces uncertainty in our appropriation process that might imperil our ability to produce these bills in a timely manner. that said, i remain committed to working collaboratively with the majority as we continue through the appropriations process this year, because i remain

cautiously optimistic that this reduced allocation is merely temporary. at the end of the process, i believe the house and senate will come to an agreement that reflects the budget control act. rather than the level of $1.082 trillion based on the ryan budget. with regard to the bill before us i want to thank chairman wolf, ranking member fattah, chairman rogers, and their staffs for their hard work on this bill. the majority worked closely with our side to put this bill together and there were many issues on which we were able to reach agreement. while the level of funding in this bill may not be as low as a strict proportional reduction based on the ryan budget, it is nevertheless not adequate to meet the needs in some areas. in comparison the c.j.s. bill in the other body has passed through committee with only one dissenting vote and it is $731

million higher than the house allocation. clearly there are significant bipartisan support for this higher allocation. the house bill contains several funding levels that will be difficult for democrats to support. the cops hiring program is cut by 76%, even as state and local budgets continue to recover from historic losses in revenue. the legal services corporation is also cut when it should be getting an increase and that has been proposed by the president and supported in the other body. i'm also concerned that some important noaa programs have been cut in part to pay for the necessary new satellites. while i support the development and deployment of new satellites, it is important that we find a way to pay for them without making such drastic reductions in other important nasa programs. let me state there was some very

positive aspects ever this bill. in particular i want to thank the chairman and ranking member for funding the pacific coast salmon recovery fund at this year's enacted level and for once again funding an increase to the program. these are vitally important programs in the pacific northwest. i'm also pleased the subcommittee mark contains $6.4 million for ocean -- for research and ocean acidfication. the measure increases -- the measurable increase in acidity and the world's oceans is already having an economic effect on the shellfish industry in the pacific northwest. interfering with the formations of shells, oysters, mussels, clams, and other organisms such as phytoplaquetons. i also appreciate that this bill provides significant increases for our federal law enforcement

agencies, especially an additional 23 million for the f.b.i. to investigate cyberintrusions. the bill also includes an important increase in funding for youth mentoring programs which provides crucial support to at-risk youth in underserved communities and also to military kids. many of whom are struggling to to adapt to the multiple deployments of one or both parents. i want to echo the words of ranking member fattah about the boys and girls clubs of america. i find that the boys and girls club has been one of the outstanding organizations that has done so much to help youth with their after-school programs. i thank the gentleman again for yielding to me and i yield back the balance of my time to mr. fattah. mr. fattah: thank you. do you have nip at this point?

i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia. mr. wolf: recognize the chairman of the full committee of science, congressman hall. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for such time as he may consume. mr. hall: rise in support of h.r. 5326, commerce, justice, science, and related agencies, f.y. 2013 appropriations act. this bill includes over $30 billion for four key agencies you under the science space, committee. the national institute of standards, and technology, and the national oceanic and atmospheric administration. this is a very strong bill and i want to commend the gentleman from virginia, chairman wolf, for his continued passionate support for science and space, for these issues, and a very challenging fiscal environment. a true champion of science and this bill is reflective of that. i also appreciate chairman

wolf's concerns to address my concerns and our concerns and priorities as chairman of the science, space, and technology committee and want to highlight a few specific areas of importance to me and to us in this bill. with regard to nasa, to nasa, this legislation recognizes the budget realities we must confront by responsibly imposing measured reductions across agencies' portfolio. in part this bill maintains a development of a new heavy launch system and crew capsule. it maintains a healthy space science enterprise. continues to support innovative aeronautics research and funds administration commercial crew program at the 240rsed level of $500 million. our committee will continue to provide oversight of the commercial crew program and work for the appropriations and the appropriators to support a program that has the best chance to succeed on schedule, with appropriate safeguards for the crew and with the best use of taxpayer dollars.

with regard to the national science foundation, a modest increase for the foundation is appropriate. as basic research and development play a critical role in our economic success, i strongly encourage n.s.f. to broadly use this funding for fundamental research which keeps the united states at the very leading edge of discovery and not to blur this essential role with other initiatives best left to the private sector. chairman wolf has also worked to sustain the programs of the national institutes of standards and technology, nist, that directly benefit our nation's competitiveness. the critical link between fundamental measurement, science, and our economic successes allows nist to innovate new ways to help u.s. companies excel within a global marketplace and create high-paying jobs. with respect to noaa, i thank chairman wolf for his continued strong support and oversight of noaa's satellite programs and his efforts to restore balance to noaa and research portfolio.

the bill does this in part by redirecting the administration's proposed significant increases for climate science to higher priority weather research that will help protect lives and property through improved severe weather forecasting. this topic is very important to all regions of our nation and most recently to northeast texas, where an outbreak of tornadoes and severe weather in april caused significant damages to homes and properties, including in my home county in the -- a little city. i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record my communications to you, mr. chairman, in april regarding these weather research priorities. i hope to work with you as the bill moves to conference to preserve and enhance this particular noaa priority. i thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's request is covered by general leave. yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. fattah: i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from the great state of ohio who is senior member of the house

appropriations committee. the chair: the gentlelady from ohio is recognized for two minutes. ms. kaptur: i thank ranking member fattah for granting me this time. mr. speaker, i reluctantly rise today to oppose the fiscal year 2013 commerce, justice, state, and related agencies appropriations bill, but i surely want to commend chairman wolf and ranking member fattah for their truly diligent work on this bill. the bipartisanship showed during the markup of the bill was remarkable in today's political climate and a tribute to both members' willingness to compromise in order to move legislation forward doing the work we were sent here to do. i would also like to thank the appropriations staff for their hard work on the first fiscal 2013 appropriation bill the house will consider. from my perspective the appropriations staff is the hardest working committee staff in congress and deserves recognition for all their efforts. mr. speaker, the legislation we are considering today fails to make the necessary investments

to promote economic growth in jobs across this country. it also fails to provide sufficient resources for law enforcement officials, particularly local law enforcement, as they face difficulties from austerity cutbacks by state and local governments. the total funding for this bill is the result of the republican leadership breaking the agreement made in the budget control act. the agreed upon funding levels were an attempt to get our fiscal house in order in a fair and balanced way. it's unfortunate the republicans are going back on their word and slashing funding for programs that create jobs and support law enforcement. importantly, funding cutbacks at the economic development administration fail to meet president obama's request for that important initiative to strengthen america's manufacturing base. in addition, the underlying bill fails to pro-- provide state and local law enforcement with the federal support they deserve. cutting nearly $400 million from state and local programs at the department of justice is not

overwhelm acceptable but dangerous in my view. a particular concern for me is the lack of resources provided to meet the president's request for additional funding to combat financial and mortgage fraud. the president requested additional resourcings for the f.b.i., the criminal division, civil division, u.s. attorney, but less than half of the funding requested for the f.b.i. is provided in this bill. no other funding is provided to investigate and prosecute financial and mortgage fraud. might i ask the gentleman for an additional 30 seconds. mr. fattah: i yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds. the chair: is recognized. ms. kaptur: i thank the gentleman. the average return on investment for one corporate fraud agent was approximately $54 million over the last three years in fines and restitutions they get back because of their work. what a tremendous return on investment that is for every taxpayer dollar and getting it from combating financial and mortgage fraud is absolutely makes total common sense. .

finally, reductions for nasa, this bill does not conform to the restructuring proposal. for these reasons i oppose the bill in the current form and again commend chairman wolf and congressman fattah, the ranking member, for bringing this to the point and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia. mr. wolf: i yield to the gentleman from illinois, mr. kinzinger. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kinzinger: i rise for a colloquy with the chairman. assessing our global competitiveness in manufacturing through an online tool that will calculate the cost of manufacturing in the united states versus overseas. i'd like to recognize and thank the chairman for including the online manufacturing tool in last year's commerce, justice and science appropriations act. on the energy and commerce

committee, we've been working to find ways to highlight the shift in u.s. manufacturing competitiveness. according to a recent analysis by the boston consulting group, china's overwhelming manufacturing cost advantage is shrinking, and by 2015, the cost gap between the united states and china will virtually close. companies need to reassess their manufacturing strategy with a rigorous analysis of the cost for manufacturing overseas compared to the cost in the united states. i'm excited by the online tool that will be developed by the department of commerce to he assist u.s. companies in determining the cost of manufacturing overseas and i commend the chairman for his work in promoting u.s. competitiveness. mr. wolf: if the gentleman will yield? mr. kinzinger: i will. mr. wolf: i want to thank for your work and bringing up this topic. the department of commerce can educate companies on the benefits of manufacturing in the u.s. we want to make sure that they are using important tools, such

as online calculators, to assist companies. this online tool has the potential of not only educating companies but also provide clarity in the advantage and disadvantages of manufacturing in the u.s. also, i think people ought to know, this is not only a tool, this is almost a moral issue too. we just had hearings with congressman chris smith when congress was away. this country of china had chin and beat up his wife and did a lot of things. so not only is it this issue, it is a moral issue, and apple, if you have an ipad, it's made in china. iphone, made in china. ipod, made in china, and those should be coming home. we have language for grants to repatriate to bring those companies back. china is in trouble. they have a one-child policy. men cannot find wives.

they have corruption in the military. just for the manufacturing to come home, to come back to the united states. i thank the gentleman for raising the issue. i yield back. mr. kinzinger: i look forward to it. i appreciate your leadership on this issue and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania. f.t.a. gnat i'm glad -- mr. fattah: i'm glad there is recognition of the importance of manufacturing, and the gentleman has done a yeoman's job to make sure we attack this. i yield three minutes to my colleague on the committee, the gentleman from new york, mr.er is ano. the chair: the gentleman from -- mr. serrano. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. serrano: i thank congressman wolf and congressman fatah for working together, to -- kongman fattah for working together, to bring this bill to the floor today.

those of us on our side, we nor there are folks on the other side that speak only about budget cuts. but when it comes to chairman wolf, in is a desire to balance, the desire having those budget cuts along with making sure that these bills in fact accomplish servicing the american people. and so i stand ready with the ranking member, to be supportive of this bill with the understanding there are two things that have to happen that are very serious to that final vote. one of them is a continued commitment that as this process goes along we will work to make the bill better than it is now and that we will work to remedy those situations that exist within the bill now that need to be taken care of. and secondly, that in the large and perhaps vast amendment process that we will have, which is a good sign of being able to have this kind of an open rule, the bill doesn't get brought back to a situation

where some of us cannot be supportive of it. and i single out, for instance, just two agencies that need better men and not necessarily destroyed, and that's the census bureau and the legal services corporation. both of those agencies serve a vital purpose in our society. they come under heavy attack on so many occasions, and i think it's important to know that many of us would be looking to make sure that we don't step back even further than the bill speaks to now on these two agencies. and as i said before, that we work jointly to make the bill even better than it is today. but understanding fully the work that chairman wolf and chairman fattah have done during this period of time is important to me and important to many members of the committee and of the whole house. and so with that in mind, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia. mr. wolf: i recognize the

gentleman from kansas, mr. yoder, for such time as he may consume. the chair: the gentleman from kansas is recognized. mr. yoder: well, thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today in support of the commerce, justice and science 2013 appropriations bill. our first appropriations bill of the upcoming fiscal year. i'd like to commend the chairman, members of both parties and their efforts to -- in their efforts to put together some bipartisan reforms in this legislation and also find ways to reduce spending to get our national debt back in line. like many americans i'm concerned about the national debt crisis in this country. almost $16 trillion in national debt that we have racked up that is a factor in economic decisions we have to face every day. and it will be a burden that will be passed on to our children and grandchildren for generations to come. to find ways to get our budget back in line should be supported by this congress as we attempt to become fiscally responsible. we've had a spending epidemic in this city far too long. many times not finding cure on

this house floor. so i want to commend the committee for fuelly reducing spending in this legislation, below the 2008 levels, below the prestimulus levels to try to put us back on a frack to fiscal responsibility. it used to be in washington the spending cut was not getting the amount of increase you requested. you only got a 2% increase. an agency felt they were cut. so we're changing that on its head. we're changing the course of business in this town and fuelly reducing spending from one year fought next. it's a good first step. there are many miles to go. this legislation heads us in the right direction and it does so in a responsible way. not only does the legislation reduce spending but it reprioritizes spending to those that have the greatest value to those in america and makes an economic impact. not only does it increase support for f.b.i., different law enforcement agencies, but it also supports the national science foundation with an increase in spending, the commerce department and our

trade and patent offices. those types of bottle neck agencys that make the difference on whether small business owners and entrepreneurs can get commerce under way. this legislation goes in the right direction towards cleaning up some of those problems and supporting the programs that have the greatest impact by reprioritizing spending. so if you're focused like i am on reducing spending, but you also want to see washington spend less resources on endless bureaucracy in washington, d.c. and more and the types of programs that help americans back at home, this is the right type of legislation. it strikes the right balance. my hope is the two political parties can work to support this legislation. let's start producing the types of priorities and the types of bills that the american people want us to continue to work on, productive on, reduce the national debt, reduce spending but finding ways to

reprioritize those. i thank the chairman and ranking member for working together and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. fattah: the chairman and i voted for the bowles-simpson, so -- proposal, so we're for a balanced fiscal approach but we also know we have to make important investments. i want to yield to the gentleman, mr. keating, from the commonwealth of massachusetts, who i believe will enter into a colloquy on an important matter related to marine science. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. keating: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise to engage in a col key with the chairman. i -- colloquy with the chairman. i thank the gentleman from virginia for his leadership and his willingness to preserve resources for marine, mammal stranding response in the fiscal 2013 commerce, justice and science appropriations

bill. i understand that house report 112-463 will -- the competitive prescott marine mammal assistant grant program is a cost-effective, community-oriented program that works with stranded mammals, enables the collection of data to prevent future strandings and deals with the practical dilemma communities face with beached dolphins weighing 200 to 500 pounds as well as with whales. based on conversations with the chairman and the ranking member, i will not be offering my amendment specifying this grant at this time. i look forward, rather, to working with the gentleman from virginia towards inserting this language in conference and with that i yield back my time. mr. wolf: i want to thank the gentleman from massachusetts for raising the issue and i promise we will work with him and our colleagues in the senate during the conference to

ensure adequate level of funding for this program. mr. fattah: i reserve the balance of my time. mr. wolf: we have no further speakers. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: does the gentleman from pennsylvania yield back? mr. fattah: i have one final speaker. the chair: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. fattah: i'd like to yield to my fraternity brother, representative from the great state of michigan, mr. clarke, for two minutes to talk about the importance of science and stem-related education. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. mr. clarke: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, chairman wolf, ranking member fattah, members of the greatest fraternity there is, as a member of the science, space and technology committee that authorizes the national science foundation, i wanted to thank the leaders of this budget for fully funding the national science foundation's education budget,

according to the president's recommendations. this is going to help us provide more education to our young people, especially youth from the inner city who very rarely get a chance to be educated in the areas of science, technology, engineering and mathematics, because this is the only way, one of the most powerful ways that our young people can get the education and training that they need to get good paying jobs. this funding in this budget will help centers such as the detroit science center better reach out to these young people, and we're looking forward to the soon reopening of the detroit science center and, again, we thank this budget for the support of the national science foundation, which will be able to help provide resources on a competitive basis to centers around the country such as the detroit science center. thank you and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields

back. the gentleman from virginia controls the time. mr. wolf: i reserve. the chair: reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. fattah: on behalf of the democrats, we yield back the balance of our time. we have no further speakers. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back. the gentleman from virginia. mr. wolf: we yield back. the chair: yields back as well. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. during consideration of the bill for amendments, the chair may accord priority in recognition to a member offering an amendment who has caused it to be printed in the designated place in the congressional record. those amendments will be considered read. the clerk will read. the clerk: be it enacted that the following sums are appropriated out of any money in the treasury for the fiscal year 2013, title 1, department of commerce. international trade administration, operations and administration. $467,713,000 to remain available until september 30, 2014.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? >> i rise to offer an amendment on this paragraph. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. peters of michigan. page 3, line 10, after the dollar amount insert increase by $9 million. page 65, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert reduced by $17 million. page 76, line 16, after the dollar amount insert increase by $1,797,000. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for five minutes for his amendment. mr. peters: there's a lot of talk here in washington about the need to cut our budget deficits and while that is certainly true, we also need to be talking about another deficit and that's our country's trade deficit. last year the united states ran a trade deficit of $558 billion. if you look just at the trade in

goods, this number jumps to an astounding $737 billion. according to a recent report by the economic policy institute, the growth in the u.s. trade deficit with china alone has led to the loss of almost three million american jobs in the last 10 years. too often the u.s. opens its markets to foreign competition without resip are a -- without access. while we play by the rules here in the united states, other countries impose unfair tariffs, duties and technical barriers and even use techniques like currency manipulation to gain international trade rules. china aggressively uses trade policies including currency mama niplation to protect -- manipulation to protect and subsidize their domestic industries while undermining american companies. in response to the world trade organization case that the united states brought against china, the chinese government recently imposed new retaliatory duties on american-made vehicles

which are clearly in violation of w.t.o. requirements. additionally china consistently advances policies to force technology transfers from non-chinese companies and obtain the intellectual property that drives these advanced technologies. china has also used these policies to help gain an advantage in a number of different industries including wind turbines and water purification. given the aggressive actions taken by china and other countries, we simply cannot afford to not use every tool at our disposal to combat unfair trade practices. this is why representative michaud and i have joined with our colleagues from across the aisle, representatives mccotter and latourette, to bring forward a bipartisan amendment to fully fund the new interagency trade enforcement center or itec. president obama created itec to enhance the administration's capabilities to proactively challenge unfair trade practices

around the world including in china. itec represents a new aggressive whole of government approach to addressing unfair trade practices and will serve as the primary forum within the federal government for executive democratics and agencies to coordinate enforcement of international and domestic trade rules. it is now up to us here in congress to fund itec and give it the teeth it needs to aggressively attack unfair and illegal foreign practices. it is certainly a step in the right direction that the appropriations committee provided $15 million of the requested $26 million in funding for itec to get it off the ground. but with our nation running a half a trillion-dollar trade deficit, now is not the time for half measures. we must do everything possible to level the playing field for american workers and american companies. our budget-neutral, bipartisan amendment will fully fund itec by making a small reduction in the cross-agency support of

nasa, an item funded at $2.84 billion. this amounts to a reduction of less than .6% for this item and while i certainly support nasa, this reduction does not come from their core budget items of education, exploration or arrow astronautics. american workers have the best in the world and they can outcompete anybody, but congress must pass legislation to ensure that they compete on a level playing field. whether you believe in aggressively moving forward with additional trade agreements or you believe that we need to rethink american trade policy, we should all agree that we cannot and must not let foreign governments cheat. because when they do, american workers and american firms lose. a vote against this commonsense amendment is a vote to allow china and other nations to continue gaining international trade laws. stand up for american workers, fully fund itec and vote yes on the

peters-mccotter-michaud-latouret te amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from michigan yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i thank the gentlelady. i rise in support of the bipartisan peters-mccotter-michaud-latouret te amendment, to fully fund the interagency trade enforcement center. mr. mccotter: common sense is afoot. i know the novelty is frightening to many in this chamber. however let us start by examining some of the premises behind this necessary amendment. first derks spite what many claim -- first, despite what many claim, we do not live in a period of time where we have free trade. we live in a period of time of negotiated trade. and as such trade must be

reciprocal, not suicidal. the united states, throughout our lifetimes, has been the economic engine of the world. it has remained so because we are a free people. free to engage in contracts, free to engage in research and development, free to innovate, free to manufacture, free to show the world what we can achieve economically as well as politically. what this amendment will do is something that is a long time coming. it is to treat other nations, unfair trade practices, as a -- nations' unfair trade practices as a comprehensive problem. no more whackamole, no more pretending the problem doesn't exist. what we need to do is quite simply take a root and branch approach to those countries whose own oppression leads to the lack of necessary freedom for their people to be able to

achieve and compete with the united states. a refusal to support this amendment simply shows that we will continue to go on the same old tired path of watching the best workers and the best entrepreneurs in the world be cheated out of their pursuit of prosperity and us all be cheated out of a healthier, more vibrant economy. i urge my colleagues to embrace this bipartisanship, this common sense so, that together -- common sense, so that together we can strike a blow for free and fair trade and protect american jobs by allowing for free and fair competition amongst nations. i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. wolf: the bill already includes important increases for trade enforcement, including $15

million for the interagency trade enforcement center, an increase in nearly $11 million. we pushed kirk to add chinese speakers. he wouldn't even do it. he wouldn't even do it. we have pushed him to do it. this is a bad amendment. the offset is a problem. sometimes you can come here and be for one thing, but also want to be to protect the other. the cross-agency supported count is not free money that can be cut without consequences. the committee has already extracted more than $150 million of savings from this account relative to fiscal year 2012. and nasa will not be able to absorb the additional reductions through fshtsies. nasa has already been cut, now we want to cut it more. these cuts will include critical programic functions. these functions that they want to kind of cut in their cybersecurity, cybersecurity to fend off relentless attacks by china. their computers have been hit

while nasa, also much of its technology has military implications and this is a national and economic. that area, they'll be taking money from that. human space flight safety oversight. we learned the hard way on the challenger and columbia tragedies that relentless attention to safety is necessary. cuts to this account could hamstring nasa's efforts to minimize the risk of life and property. software that operates satellites and space station. we send billions of dollars on these space projects and these investments could easily be wasted by fundamental software errors if such software isn't rigorously tested. this account also gives medical support services to keep the astronauts and ground workers healthy. many nasa employers -- employees work regularly in hazardous environments and i don't want to

be responsible for endanger. procurement, operation of agencywide testing, this account is a big source for jobs. it funds nearly 10,000 contractor work years and nearly 8,000 government employees. f.t.e.'s who carry out these activities. just because it's called cross -- it cuts vital important things for nasa. and if you want to cut nasa, then you ought to cut this. if you support sticking it to nasa and cutting nasa, then -- if you're against the commercial crew, if you're against all the things they do for space safety, support this eafment about you -- amendment. but if you -- nasa takes a back seat to no one in this body criticizing the chinese government. but frankly this administration has been weak with regard to aggressively pushing with regard to trade and things like that. we forced and urged and told

kirk to put chinese speakers on and took the wrong money. we put the money in for chinese speakers when they didn't even ask for it. i urge, if you want to protect nasa, i urge a no vote on the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> i rise out of a desire to have my cake and eat it too. i agree with the gentleman, mr. peters -- the chair: does the gentleman move to strike the last word? >> yes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. fattah: i agree with mr. peters that trade enforcement is critically important and this administration has put a premium in a that regard, bringing case after case, the tire case against the chinese, we could go through the laundry list. there is an $11 million increase embedded in the bill as it's come to the floor over last year's appropriation. i'm not sure you can find a part of this budget where there's been a more significant increase. however, it is not at the level of what the administration had requested. i can support moving additional dollars in this direction, but

this target of the cross-agency account at nasa, which we're going to see repeated dozens of times on the floor, i think is not the appropriate way to go. we don't want to rob our space agency of the important resources it needs to protect our astronauts, to protect its cybersystems. we have to be careful here. so i would say to the gentleman that i will -- no matter what the result on the amendment -- be glad to work with him as we go forward in the conference to try to find additional resources for trade enforcement. i think this administration's done a great job fighting the good fight, but they do need the resources. the chairman has provided $11 million in additional resources but if we could find a few more dollars in that direction, i think it's a worthy investment. thank you. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from

michigan. 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 virginia. mr. wolf: ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. broun of georgia, page 3, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert, reduce by $13,7 48,,000. page 4, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert, reduce by $2,019,990. page 6, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert, reduce by $1,125,000.

page 6, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert, reduce by $860,670. the chair: the gentleman from georgia. mr. broun: i ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered read. the chair: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the gentleman from georgia is recognized for five minutes. mr. broun: thank you, madam chairman. this amendment would reduce the administrative spending, salaries and expense accounts in the underlying bill by just 3%. during this time of fiscal crisis, it is imperative that congress work to get both entitlement as well as discretionary spending under control. as we all know, over the last two years, house members have voted to reduce their own administrative accounts. there are members representational of just over 11%. yet over the same period, many agencies have seen much lower

cuts in their spending and have even seen increases in their spending. for example, under this bill, the national telecommunications and information administration would see a $12 -- 12% increase in its salaries and expenses account between f.y. 2011 and f.y. 2013. the federal prison system would receive an additional 9% increase in salaries and expenses. the office of u.s. trade representative would receive a 7% increase. the u.s. marshals, f.b.i. and drug enforcement administration would all receive a 6% increase. now some may argue that these agencies perform important tasks. we can all agree that those employed by law enforcement agencies funded by this bill are deserving of the pay which they receive. but, madam chairman, the fiscal writing is on the wall. the u.s. government is broke. we here in congress must face the facts and stop the denial of our economic position and

crisis that we're in. if we are serious about reducing spending, if we are serious about reducing our deficit, we have to ask every agency to follow congress' lead to take a small reduction in their tad minute straightive funding. to be clear, a 3% reduction in these accounts would in many cases still result in less than a 10% reduction in funding from the y. 2011 funding levels. while this amount is small, it will pay dividends, rich dividends, resulting in nearly $875 million in savings in this bill alone. it's long time past to get serious about spending. madam chairman, this amendment represents a balanced way to achieve significant savings. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. fattah: i rise in

opposition to this amendment, but i won't prolong -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. fattah: just let me give one example and i will stand in opposition to the amendment. on page 30, line 15, this amendment would cut the f.b.i. by $245 million. now, we know of the important work being done on behalf of the safety of americans throughout the world by the f.b.i. and most particularly here in our own country. the idea that the appropriations committee, our job under the constitution is to figure out what appropriations are needed. it is under our constitution of the ways and means committee's responsibility to figure out how to pay for it. we can't say somehow that the safety of our citizens is too expensive for the wealthiest, greatest country on the face of the earth. i stand in opposition of this

amendment. mr. broun: if the gentleman will yield? mr. fattah: i'd be glad to yield. mr. broun: i want to remind my good friends on the other side opposed to this, the f.b.i. still gets a 6% increase. what the funding is over today, if my amendment is passed. so they still not only continue their funding but have an increase over current funding levels. so this would just reduce administrative costs, not the f.b.i. agents out in the field. it's not going to interfere with the security. mr. fattah: reclaiming my time. rame. and you are indeed a person who provides a lot of leadership here in the house and you lead our thursday prayer efforts. i want to thank you for all the work that you do. in this instance, i disagree with you. ok. that is -- i met with director muller right in my office. the f.b.i. needs additional resources.

the chairman has provided $128 million in this committee bill. to cut $245 million while we're trying to deal with the principal responsibility for the -- is to provide protection against terrorist attacks. we just saw in the news today of a new device attempting to be used to bring down an american commercial airliner. if such a device were to go off, it would cost our economy more. not just in lives but in real economic costs if we had to reshape our airline industry. it will be i think foolish of us as a nation to retreat from investments at this time in f.b.i., and at that point, on page 30, line 15, i oppose this amendment. i ask my colleagues to do likewise. the chair: the gentleman from virginia. mr. wolf: thank you. i rise in opposition. i want to thank the gentleman -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. wolf: his heart is in the

right place. the concept of getting the deficit under control is good. i rise in opposition. it would cut the f.b.i., the d.e.a., nist, national trade rep, national science foundation. some of the increases are in here because the house intelligence committee approached us, as mr. rogers said, there are two companies here in america. those who have been hit by cyberattacks and those hit by cyber by the chinese and do not know it. this would severely hurt them. i thank the gentleman for his amendment. what he's trying to do is important but i think is the wrong way to do it. i ask my colleagues to vote no and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to.

the gentleman from georgia. mr. broun: i request a recorded vote, the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> madam chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: page 3, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert reduced by $277,824,000. page 101, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert increase by $277,824,000. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. mcclintock: i thank you, madam chairman. this amendment cuts more than a quarter billion dollars in unauthorized, i repeat, unauthorized appropriations from the international trade administration. now, what does the

international trade tad mferings do? well, it's got -- trade administration do? well, i.t.a. also, quote, from their own material, provides counseling to american companies in order to develop the most profitable and sustainable plans for pricing, export and ful range of public and private treat promotion assistance as well as market intelligence and industry and market-specific research, end quote. well, that's all well and good, madam chairman, but isn't that what businesses and trade associations and the chambers of commerce are supposed to do with their own money? why should taxpayers be subsidizing the profits of individual businesses? if a specific business or industry is the beneficiary of these services, shouldn't they be the sole financers of those services, either individually

or collectively through trade associations? it's true this program has been around for generations, but franklin roosevelt, who was hardly a champion of smaller government, had the right idea when he slashed its budget in 1932 and closed 31 of its offices. the thing is that reform did not fake. today the i.t.a. have some 240 offices. now the authorization lapsed way back in 1996, 16 years ago. it's not been reviewed or authorized by congress since then, but we still keep shoveling money out the door at them. but although it hasn't been reviewed by congress in all of these years, it has been thoroughly weighed by the congressional budget office, the office of management and the budget, and most recently the president's fiscal commission, and they have all found it sadly wanting. the simpson-bowles report

summed it up nicely and i quote, services provided by i.t.a. u.s. commercial services and other divisions directly providing assistance to u.s. companies should be financed by the beneficiaries of this assistance. while the agency charges fees for those services, its fees do not cover the costs of all of its activities. additionally, it is argued that the benefits of trade promotion activities are passed on to foreigners in the form of decreased export costs. simpson-bowles goes on to say, according to a study by the office of management and budget, businesses can receive similar services from state, local and private sector entities. the c.b.o. option to eliminate i.t.a.'s promotion activities saves $267 million in 2010 and $1.6 billion through 2014, end of quote. and madam chairman, if the

c.b.o., the o.m.b., and the president's fiscal commission agree this is wasteful and congress hasn't bothered to re-authorize it since it expired 16 years ago, why do we continue spending money we don't have, duplicating services that the beneficiaries of those services either don't need or are quite capable of funding on their own? and if the companies that we are told directly benefit from all of these essential services are not willing to fund them, well, maybe that's nature's way of telling us we shouldn't be taking our constituents' money to fund them either. why should we ask american taxpayers to sdice the export activities of foreigners that simpson-bowles notes? madam chairman, the rules of the house were specifically written to prevent this type of unauthorized expenditure, and they provide for a point guard to be raised if it's -- point

of order to be raised if it's included in an appropriations bill if asked but that is waived making this amendment the only possible way of fehertying out this duplicative program and out-- ferreting out this duplicative program. and we ought to be done with it. the chair: the gentleman yields his time? does the gentleman from california yield back his time? the gentleman from california yields back his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. fattah: i rise in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. fattah: less than 1% of american businesses export to any other country. we've been engaged in a process to increase the level of exports. in part, the re-authorization of the export-import bank, a number of these activities are connected, but this is an activity that has borne fruit.

i have met with businesses, and the people who run these efforts around the country and they're doing real work, helping real businesses all across our country. and it creates real jobs. so i -- i'm against the amendment, and i guess if you don't think that we should be focused on jobs and exports, you could oppose it, but as for myself and i would ask those who want to support american jobs and partly we have to do that through selling to the 90% of the consumers who are somewhere else other in our own country, and so i support continued funding for this effort. the chair: does the gentleman yield back his time? mr. fattah: i do. the chair: the gentleman from virginia. mr. wolf: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. wolf: it would be a draconian cut, and wal-mart, i heard that 5,000 of the 6,000 products in wal-mart are made in china. we want to export a job, we

want to export our products. we want to make cars in michigan and send them around the world. we want to make things and export them. we want to develop applesauce and export it. we want export. we want export. i have a long list i'm not going to say. there are things in this bill not authorized. i mean, there are four pages that are not authorized. if we didn't do things that weren't authorized, we'd have to shut this place down and move off to some other place. i just any it's a bad amendment. i understand what the gentleman is trying to do, save money, but i think we need to export and create jobs, and i want to see american products sold in china. american products sold in england, american products sold in berlin, american products sold in indonesia. i urge a no vote for the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia yields back his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. and those in favor say aye.

opposed will say no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from california. mr. mcclintock: madam chair, on that i ask for a roll call. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. turner of ohio. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for five minutes. mr. turner: madam chair, my amendment increases by $5 million the minimum level of funding for the international trade administration in the amount they must devote to cracking down on unfair chinese trade practices. we must ensure that u.s. manufacturers and workers can compete on a level playing field in the global marketplace. unfortunately, unfair trade practices from countries like china make this increasingly difficult. since the year 2000 there has

been a 300% increase in the amount of goods imported from china to the united states. moreover, the import administration tasked with cracking down on unfair trade practices has for years experienced a growing workload of cases involving trade with china. in my own deyton community, paper producers and their employers have been hurt by unfairly sdiced imports of paper -- unsubsidized imports of paper from china. the international trade administration is to devote the same level of funding, $11.4 million, for china anti-dumping and compliance activities. given the rise in chinese imports and the increased complexity of cases, the i.t.a. must evaluate, we must ensure that efforts to protect u.s. manufacturers and employees from unfair trade practices receive sufficient dedicated funding. my amendment increases the amount the i.t.a. must use for

these activities by $5 million, from $11.4 million to $16.4 million, using existing resources provided for under the bill. i want to thank chairman wolf for working me on this amendment and i want to encourage all of my colleagues to support the amendment. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from ohio yields back his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> we would agree to the amendment. mr. wolf: i accept the amendment. i think it's a good amendment. the committee continues to support international trade administration, particularly with regard to china. i won't go on, but i thank the gentleman for the amendment and i completely agree with it and urge all members to support it. the chair: the gentleman from virginia yields back his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the be of the chair, the ayes -- in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to.

the clerk will read. the clerk: page 4, line 1, bureau of industry and security operations and administration, $101 million. economic development administration, economic development assistance programs, $182 million. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from maine seek recognition? >> thank you, madam chair. i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. michaud of maine. page 5, line 17, insert, increase by $38 million. page 7, line 11, after the dollar amount insert, reduce by $38 million. the chair: the gentleman from maine is recognized for five minutes. mr. mitchell: thank you, madam chair -- mr. michaud: thank you, madam chair.

e.d.a. is the only federal agency with a single mission of creating high-quality jobs here at home. the investments made by e.d.a. in all of our districts lead to economic development and job creation. by law e.d.a. projects require a 50% local share and must leverage significant private sector investment. as a result e.d.a. funding goes to projects that have been developed and vetted by local leaders and businesses. their investments are competitive, merit based and based on regional comprehensive economic development strategies. as a result e.d.a. projects reflect local priorities and contributes to broader economic development in the area. but most importantly all e.d.a. investments must result in their creation and retention of high-quality jobs.

and the program has a strong track record of success in my home state of maine and throughout the country. in fact, between 2005 and 2010 e.d.a. investments have helped to create over 314,000 jobs nationwide. at a time when our economic recovery continues to be slow and millions of americans are out of jobs, it does not make sense to cut the one federal program singly dedicated to the project putting them back to work. my amendment will maintain the level of funding to e.d.a. and is offset by cuts to the periodic census and programs account which is currently funded at 3 1/2 times that of e.d.a. even though the next census is eight years away, the overall census program was cut by just under $10 million. e.d.a. was cut by $38 million. reducing the census account by $38 million is only a 6%

decrease. by cutting e.d.a. by the same amount is a 17% decrease in their funding. some might come to the floor today to criticize e.d.a. or its investments. i agree that we should do everything we can to make sure this and other federal programs work well. by cutting e.d.a.'s funding or eliminating it altogether would be shortsighted at a time when we need every job-creating tool at our disposal. my amendment continues level funding for a program that is uniquely designed to address almost any economic development activity. it continues funding for a program that has specific tools an expertise to address chronically poor and distressed areas. post-disastrous economic recovery and consequences of plant closures or downsizing. i am offering this amendment

because i believe it is the wrong time to turn our backs on investments in our communities that will make a real difference. and because i believe that it is the right time to get our priorities right and insist on federal investments that are focused on job creation. i offered this amendment last year and more than 300 members of the house join me in voting to restore e.d.a. funding. i urge my colleagues to join me once again this year and help pass this amendment to restore the funding to e.d.a. and to support a proven job creator. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from maine yields back the balance of his time. >> i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman from kansas. for five minutes. >> i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman from kansas is recognized for five minutes. >> i thank you for the time and i rise in opposition to this amendment, just because you call something economic development does not make it so.

we could name an agency many things. this administration is one that most folks have never heard of. i've never heard of it before i came to congress 16 months ago. this is a classic case of federal government taking from one and giving to another. often for the benefit of private companies. you'll see in a minute that i've got an amendment that takes a very different approach to economic development, how we ought to attack this problem. but i urge the -- i heard the gentleman talk about job creation. it's one thing for elected officials to go to a ribbon had been cutting, stand in front of a facility and talk about jobs and say, here's all the jobs we created. mr. pompeo: when in fact those jobs were created by taking money from taxpayers. where elected officials often don't want to go is stand in front of the unemployment line or talk about folks who had to go and pay too much in taxes or stand there and tell someone why that company got money and the company on the other side didn't get this particular grant from the economic development administration. i've seen this agency up close and personal. it is a very, very political use

of capital. this is not the free market that we all know. this is an agency that distributes money all over the country, very, very intentionally. it's a $-- into 400-plus districts all across america, with the aim of making sure that this agency continues to exist in perpetuity. this is precisely the kind of stimulus that we have demonstrated time and time again in america doesn't work and for that reason i oppose increasing the funding for the economic development administration and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? ms. kaptur: i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. kaptur: i'd like to rise in strong support of the michaud amendment to keep level funding for the economic development administration, and i want to thank congressman michaud for offering this important amendment. he's a true leader in protecting american manufacturing, jobs and businesses from unfair free trade and agreements and works tirelessly to promote jobs and economic development here at home. i want to say to our dear

colleague from kansas, you know, when you look across america, and i realize this may be just your first term, but you know, the whole state of kansas is held up by the federal government. all those agricultural subsidies, c.r.p., rural development, wetlands reserve, when one takes a look at the farm, whole farm credit administration, for heaven's sake, not every community in america has those sorts of props under them. it's a success story. agriculture's doing very well. we in ohio understand that. but there's parts of ohio that aren't covered by programs like your state benefits from and that's where you need agencies like economic development administration. those corners of america that actually manufacture but may not grow things. and so i'd be more than pleased to yield when i finish. the republican majority claims their priority is to create jobs and promote economic development. however, here we are today with an appropriation bill that drastically cuts resources for

the only government agency whose sole mission is economic development. e.d.a.'s diverse portfolio of construction, technical assistance, finance and investment planning, technical assistance are designed to help communities build upon their regional assets, to foster job creation and business expansion. particularly at a time when banks are hoarding capital and not lending. e.d.a.'s capacity becomes even more important and vital. the american society of civil engineers gave america's infrastructure a d grade. an estimate -- and estimated that over the next five years, $2.2 trillion are needed to up-to-date grade our nation's infrastructure. ports, for example, to ship some of that grain. tham that's why i'm a strong supporter of e.d.a. and particularly to its public works program. which funds a variety of infrastructure projects that can help america address our aging infrastructure. i don't understand why republicans don't want to help

fund investments in america's infrastructure. the greatest job creator we could possibly have in this year of 2012. e.d.a.'s work is generating real return. so the argument of being concerned with the deficit falls short when you consider e.d.a. every dollar in e.d.a. funding is expected to leverage nearly $7 worth of private investment. we've seen it in state after state after state. in fiscal year 2010 e.d.a. created or retained about 48,500 jobs and generated nearly $6 billion in private investment. what a good story that is. mr. chairman, i support mr. michaud's amendment to restore e.d.a. funding, to f.y. 2012 levels, and i'd be very pleased to yield to the gentleman from kansas for any comments he might have. >> thank you very much for yielding. you said maybe i don't understand, perhaps it's because you've been here a couple of

years that you don't understand how jobs are created in the real world, not here in washington, d.c. mr. pompeo: you talked about kansas. you may have forgotten that the air capital of the world, the business i was in for a decade, was good manufacturing jobs. what we didn't need was more taxes and more government spending. what we needed was the government out of the way. i yield back and thank you for yielding me time. ms. kaptur: i'm really glad the gentleman stated that because as a member of defense subcommittee, i know exactly where the r&d comes from for fighter aircraft, for all of our support craft, for all of our air guard, and i know how the commercial sector benefits and why we lead the world in terms of airline exports and so forth. but you know, that doesn't and gate the government, that doesn't nullify the argument i offered that the whole state of kansas is doing very well and has a very close relationship to the federal government. agriculture gets a special place in this economy, but that's not true in many other sectors and

particularly where we're talking about aging infrastructure which belongs to all of us. e.d.a. is really vitally important. it's an important ingredient in helping us to modernize coast-to-coast. so, i just want to say to the gentleman from maine, thank you so very much for keeping the program level. we're not talking about egregious spending here. we're talking about trying to help rebuild this country and we know, these -- the most important investment we can make in order to create jobs in this country, after unemployment benefits, which gets spent immediately in the economy, is investment in infrastructure. it's too bad that the republicans cabinet seem to move a highway bill, a transportation bill, out of this congress. that would be the best thing we could do to create more jobs in this country in the year of 2012. but in any case, passing the gentleman's amendment to fully fund e.d.a. makes common sense and it certainly makes job sense. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from

new york. >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. i don't think the issue here should be looked at as whether or not the e.d.a. needs more help. it's why again we are bashing the census bureau. and i really think that it's surprising that we would do it on this side since we will note for the next many hours that there's plenty of folks on that side that will want to do that. mr. serrano: when i first got on this subcommittee years ago, and i had the privilege of being ranking member through chairman rogers and the ranking members to chairman wolf, i could never figure out what the attack was on the census bureau. then it dawned on me and i may be totally wrong, that some folks would just like the census bureau to do just enough, meaning if you count yourself, that's fine, but if you have to, go out and spend some extra dollars to count folks who

ordinarily may not count themselves, then that's not good for some folks and the results may be something they don't want to see. and that's the only explanation i could come up with, the fact that as we will see in the next hours, there will be many desires to cut the census bureau and in some cases get rid of the whole department. and what we need to know and remind ourselves is that there's probably very few vital functions of agencies like the census bureau that are more important than this one. plans, policies, redistricting, other decisions in this country are based on that count that takes place every 10 years. unlike other things we do in this congress and in this country, this is a constitutional mandate, to count the people amongst the states, and every 10 years the census bureau gives up for it. we have found in the past that

when we make cuts to the census bureau, it ened up costing us more money later when we had to try to get back some of that money and then states that may be supportive now of cuts, later run to us and say, no, we need a better count, we need a fair account, we need a count that will make my state show the true growth in population. so i suspect that the end of today, when this vote is taken, there will be a mass vote, as has been in the past, for this amendment. but i really think it is totally foolish to continuously bash the census bureau and continuously desire not to have a proper count in this country. it is a vital issue and it's one we should continue to protect and that's why i would be one of the few voting against this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition?

mr. fattah: i rise in support of the spirit of this amendment. the chair: does the gentleman strike the last word? mr. fattah: yes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. fattah: i have reservations about the offset. e.d.a. is critically important. i'm sorry. i want to apologize to the gentlelady from ohio. we don't want in this debate to substitute insult for insight. i think what we want to do is focus on the issue at hand. we do want to create jobs. the e.d.a. is a program that i think almost everyone should be able to support because it's local decisionmaking, investing in communities of interest, it's worked in every state in the country to help communities work through difficult economic circumstances when plants close and the like. it's a return of taxpayers' money to their communities for economic development activities. what we need to do as we go forward is think about how we pay for this. now, this is a $38 million

increase that will have political attractiveness. but the truth is we can't substitute that for our constitutional responsibilities, to conduct a census, and to do it properly and we have to prepare for it. so i want to work with the gentleman, to find additional dollars for e.d.a. i hope at the end of the day we are able to provide more revenue for the census to do our job as a congress to further fund our constitutional responsibilities to have a census and to do it correctly. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from maine, and those in favor will signify by saying aye. opposed will say no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from maine. mr. michaud: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings

on the amendment offered by the gentleman from maine will be postponed. the gentleman from kansas. and the clerk will report the amendment. -- designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. pompeo of kansas. the chair: the gentleman from kansas is recognized for five minutes. mr. pompeo: thank you, madam chair woman. i rise today to talk about something that congress doesn't get a chance to do. my constituents say, we never get rid of everything. programs grow and they go away for a little bit and they come back. we have a real opportunity here. my amendment is to eliminate the entire economic development administration. we're $16 trillion in debt. this gives members on both sides to address a serious spending problem in a real way. this amendment has bipartisan support that i'll talk about in just a little bit. having spent over $1.5 billion on grants, the e.d.a. does

nothing but simply pick winners and losers, by region, by industry, by community, particularly businesses. it's very similar to earmarks. this administration uses the e.d.a. to advance local projects and benefit a particular company or group. at its core, it's nothing but a wealth of redistribution program. a stimulus bill built up in the nature of an agency that was built in 1965. let me describe how it works. it begins by taking dollars all across the country. that money flows to washington, d.c., and before it ever goes back out, over 20% of it is consumed here in washington, d.c. no value returned. then it has companies to apply for free money from the federal government to renovate a movie theater, to build a in industrial parks. some of these are ridiculous. some of them perhaps not so bad. however shes each one of the local projects that the government has no business being involved in and almost every one of these projects would advance without taxpayer

resources. a frequent flyer, they travel all over the country for groundbreakings and ribbon cuttings. he proudly took credit for a $1.6 billion steel plant in florida with is .1% of the profit. he had no idea that money was in his capital structure. let me talk about just a couple of projects. in 2008, the e.d.a. provided $2 million to begin construction of the harry reid technology park. as best as i can tell, that facility continues to be empty. sometime later, the e.d.a. granted money for a -- an amphitheater. some $2 million of your money.

then $1.5 million from what i'm sure is a beautiful theater but what business does the federal government in providing money for a theater such as this? we have many in kansas, too we didn't get this particular grant. we didn't strike the e.d.a. lottery. and finally, half a million dollars, as far back as the 1980's, to build replicas of the egyptian pyramids. you can't drive to this facility that's uncompleted. half a million dollars of taxpayer money spoiled and wasted. i ask my colleagues to support this amendment. folks who believe in private sector's capacity to create jobs support this. i close with this thought. i talked about this big being bipartisan. the simpson-bowles included the elimination of e.d.a. in its recommendation. they said it should go away in a bipartisan basis. but more surprisingly, i want to quote from then senator, now

president base realignment and closure, who criticized the -- president barack obama, who criticized the e.d.a. i hope my colleagues will support the pompeo amendment. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from kansas yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. wolf: thank you, madam chair. i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. it would zero out -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. wolf: it would zero out e.d.a., and last year the house voted 305-127 to strangely enough to increase funding for e.d.a. by $80 million. this year we are funding the e.d.a. at $219.5 million which is $35 million less than the base appropriation provided to e.d.a. last year. last year and this year, we in the subcommittee directed the e.d.a. to designate a portion of its grant funding to work

with companies to bring back their outsourced manufacturing activities to economically distressed communities in the united states. so we have asked them to change their whole thrust of the grants to not do what the gentleman said and i think he made some valid points there but to now have it where a community working to incentivize, to bring a company back from china or back from mexico. so last year the house voted 305-127 to increase the funding to e.d.a. by $80 million. this year we were at $219.5, $35 million less. so i urge a no vote and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from maine seek recognition? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. michaud: i rise today in strong opposition to this amendment, to eliminate funding

for e.d.a. as i mentioned earlier, e.d.a. is the only federal program whose focus is to create jobs. the program funds merit-based competitive grants for projects that also requires local funding. and e.d.a.'s grant decision process is void of political influence and awards grants based on merit. the economy is improving, but we're not back on our feet yet. and the 12 million americans are out there still looking for work. now is not the time to eliminate this program. my friend from kansas calls e.d.a. a wealth distribution program and argues in a it picks winners and losers. the financial crisis picked winners and losers. in contrast, e.d.a. is bound by law to provide investment only to communities experiencing economic distress.

305 members of the house from both parties, including the gentleman from kansas, voted to fully fund this program last year. so i urge my colleagues to once again support the e.d.a. and vote against this amendment to eliminate this program. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. fattah: i rise in opposition to the amendment and i think that -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. fattah: and i think the gentleman might be in opposition. last year he voted to increase by $80 million to e.d.a. as we went through this process and today he comes and says he wants to zero it out. let me put this in some context. as we've cienegas prices go down for the last five weeks alone -- as we've seen gas prices go down for the last five weeks alone, we have 5.6 million jobs created in the

past 26 months. unlike those in europe which have slumped in a double dip recession, we have 25% unemployment in spain, america is coming back. so these -- this notion that somehow we need to kind of just stop trying to help communities move in the right direction i don't think makes a lot of sense today. so i join the chairman on the majority's side, ask him to oppose this amendment. if there are some people somewhere that don't want economic development, assistance from the federal government, they don't need to apply. these are merit-based, locally decided and it's helping companies all across the country. we had testimony from members on both sides of the aisle of work being done by e.d., in alabama, all a-- e.d.a., in alabama, all across our country. so we need to zero this out i

don't think moves us in the right direction. i move to oppose this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> madam chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mcclintock: i rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from kansas. the new house republican majority was elected last year with the specific charge to bring wasteful spending under control. we can't blame the senate or the president if there's waste in the budget any more. money doesn't get spent by this government unless the house says it gets spent in a very real constitutional sense. the buck starts here. now, here we have an appropriations bill originating in this house that still has outrageously wasteful and indefensible programs in it and the flagship of that waste is

the $182 million in unauthorized -- there's that word again -- in unauthorized spending for the economic development administration. this is solely and simply a slush fund that gives away money for the most dubious of local projects. local projects that benefit local communities should be funded locally. we shouldn't be robbing st. petersburg to pay st. paul. we got to ask ourselves, if these projects are so important to local communities, why are those local communities unwilling to pay for them? and if the communities that directly benefit from these projects are unwilling to pay for them, why are we spending federal money that we don't have? to add insult to insanity, this particular agency is sitting right now on $845 million. why on earth would we provide it with another $180 million?

we ought to abolish this agency and we cover the unspent funds, not throw good money after bad. you know, tim carney hit it on the head in "the washington examiner" last october when he wrote this -- he said, quote, nearly every republican voted against president obama's stimulus in 2009 arguing that the deficit was too high, the government shouldn't be in the game of picking winners and losers and that washington doesn't create jobs. but the e.d.a. adds to the deficit, picks winners and losers and purports to create jobs. if republicans vote to continue the e.d.a., they flaunt their hypocrisy to critics. i have to agree. i appreciate that the appropriations bills are making incremental improvements in the status quo. but these are times that demand much, much more than that.

when members vote for these appropriations bills, they become responsible for the spending in them and for the waste in them and i for one do not intend to explain to my constituents that a culinary theater was worthy of $2 million of their hard-earned taxes. this spend something simply gran with little if any accountability this ought to be the poster child for waste in government. i appreciate the fact that the leaderships agreed to an open amendment process, giving us the opportunity to correct this particular oversight on the floor. but the fact of the matter is, the house is ill-equipped to exre henceably do this from the floor and we must do better in both the authorizing and the appropriations committees, in combing these bills earlier in the process for these kind of

unconscionable and indefensible expenditures. i commend the gentleman from kansas for offering the amendment. i wholeheartedly support it and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? >> in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> my district has historically lagged behind in the commonwealth and in the nation. which is why i have made the economic development of rural kentucky my top priority since coming to congress. creating jobs in a mountainous region without sufficient roadways or suitable water infrastructure, my -- infrastructure might seem an insurmountable challenge but i always encouraged my constituents and community leaders to plan their work and work their plan. mr. rogers: with the help of

e.d.a., this is what we've done. in southern and eastern kentucky. the economic development administration is one of the few entities in our federal government uniquely qualified to address the needs of communities with chronically high unemployment or facing enormous setbacks due to natural disasters. e.d.a.'s grants, awarded in a competitive fashion, leverage over $10 from the private sector for every federal dollar invested. and are targeted at facilities that are essential for private industry to remain or locate in these underachieving areas. as a result of these targeted investments in water systems, work force training centers and mobile facilities or broadband networks, struggling communities around the country have seen the creation of some 1314,000 jobs in the last seven years --

314,000 jobs in the last seven years. i wholeheartedly concur with the sponsor of the amendment, that the role of the federal government isn't to create jobs but instead to create the conditions favorable for private sector job creation. by partnering with local area development districts, leveraging public and private dollars, and engaging the local work force, e.d.a. does just that. this bill provides $220 million for the agency, which is already $38 million below the current level, rejects the administration's request to shift funds away from vital public works programs, and supports a lone guarantee program to development -- loan guarantee program that will keep rural areas competitive nationally and globally. with unemployment in rural areas around the country still hovering well above the national average, this is an investment we cannot afford to lose.

i urge a no vote. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from kansas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from kansas. mr. pompeo: i request a roll call vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from kansas will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. cicilline: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. cicilline of rhode island. page 5, line 17, strike grants and insert grants including grants authorized under section 27 of the stevenson-wideler technology innovation act of 1980, 15, u.s.c., 5722. the chair: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for five minutes. mr. cicilline: thank you. in an effort to drive innovation and regional collaboration, the

america competes re-authorization act of 2010 mandated the creation of regional innovation program within the economic development administration. this program is intended to encourage and support the development of regional innovation strategies, including regional innovation clusters and science and research parks. the president's fiscal year 2013 budget requested $25 million to fund the regional innovation strategies program. funding for the regional innovation program would support the economic development's interagency effort to build clusters including the jobs and innovation accelerator challenge. the jobs accelerator is a competitive interagency grant that supports the advancing of high-growth regional industry clusters, very important all across america and particularly important in my home state of rhode island. e.d.a. is currently working in partnership with other federal agencies including the department of labor, employment and the small business

administration to promote regional collaboration. the jobs accelerator aggregates existing developments and technical assistance from multiple federal agencies to strengthen regional industry clusters. networks of interconnected firms and institutions working to accelerate job growth, business formation and expansion, innovation, work force training and small business development. a targeted investment in this program will help federal, state and local entities leverage existing resources, spur regional collaboration and advance economic recovery and job creation efforts in high-growth industries. through the regional innovation program, local leaders are empowered to maximize existing assets and are provided resources to ensure historically under-represented communities, including those hardest hit by unemployment and economic decline, are able to participate in and benefit from the regional cluster. my amendment is simple and straightforward. it does not create any new program or authorization, it does not increase or decrease a

single account on the appropriations bill for the department of commerce and justice, science and related agencies. rather, this amendment serves to specifically cite the regional innovation program to focus attention on its vitally important job-creating initiative at the appropriation process -- as the appropriation process moves forward. the program has been specifically supported and cited in both the facecal year 2012 and fiscal year 2013 senate c.j.s. appropriations committee report. we have to recognize that innovation is critically important to america's ability to compete in the global economy and supporting the development of regional innovation clusters will strengthen our capacity to create and retain new jobs and sustain our economic recovery. the regional program will help federal, state and local entities leverage existing resources, spur regional collaboration and support economic recovery and job creation in these high-growth industries. i urge my colleagues to support this very straightforward, simple amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields

back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. wolf: we have no objection to the amendment except the amendment. -- amendment, accept the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from rhode island. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 6, line 4, salaries and expenses, $37,500,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? >> i have an amendment the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. scalise of louisiana. page 6, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert, reduce by $7,500,000. page 17, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert, reduce by $10,706,000. page 101, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert, increased by $18,206,000.

the chair: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for five minutes. mr. scalise: thank you, madam chair. the amendment that i bring to the desk brings the two agencies, e.d.a. and commerce, back to the pre-2008 spending levels. and as we're focusing on bringing overall spending in this bill, the c.g.s. bill, to pre-2008 levels, i wanted to also bring those two agencies in line on their overhead and that's specifically what my amendment deals with. i want to first applaud the chairman, the gentleman from virginia, for the work that he and his committee have done to start the process of reducing spending. we recognize that washington has a spending problem and some of us here are willing to do something about it and start forcing washington to live within its means. and that means we have to start the process of setting priorities. one of the things that was done in the original c.g.s. bill that's been filed is to implement a 52% cut to the

programs that are implemented, for example, in e.d.a. and again i applaud the gentleman for making those improvements and those reforms in the base of the bill, to actually bring the spending in those programs in line with pre-2008 levels. but one thing that was not done was the spending for the salaries and expenses, the overhead of those agencies. so as the agencies are being trimmed back, their salaries and overheads are not being subsequently trimmed back. that's what we do in this amendment. we actually reduce spending to the point where we will save $18.2 million that will reduce the federal deficit. again, this is one small step in a large number of steps that we need to take as a body, but i want to talk a little bit about what these cuts will mean and what the subsequent corresponding cuts will mean to the cuts that have already been made in the programs themselves. i think there have been good examples shown of these programs, what e.d.a. does, and

some of the money that's wasted. and when you go and look through what these agencies have spent money on, again, this is money we don't have. they've spent money on things like building a replica of the great pyramids, building a replica of the great wall of china, $2 million was spent giving money that we don't have to a city to build a theater with a wine tasting room. i'm sure there are a lot of people in that theater who would like going to the wine tasting room but there's lots of places you can go in the private sector that already do that without borrowing money from china to go and mr. these things that we -- with money we don't have. and so, again, as the committee did the work of cutting 52% of the e.d.a. program, they did make some cuts in the overhead, but not to bring it to the 2008 levels. so, as the bill currently stands in its base form, these agencies, these two agencies will see a 25% increase in their

overhead from the 2008 budget. so in that four-year period, even with the cuts that have already been made, these two agencies still have a 25% increase in their spending. keep in mind, this is coming at a time when states, when local governments, when families in our districts back home have been cutting back, have actually been making due with less, to live within their means. as everyone should when times get tough. and yet in washington, even though 42 cents of every dollar that's spent here is borrowed money, washington still hasn't cut back subsequently to live within its means and we've got to start that process. and that means setting priorities. these agencies would still have combined $74 million to spend on their overhead. but at least it brings them back to their 2008 levels. just as the programs that their administering have been brought back to 2008 levels. so think about it. if my amendment were not to pass, you know, we're asking

people to do more with less. if my amendment doesn't pass, they would be asked to do less with more. the programs that they administer are being cut and yet the salaries and overhead are not being cut subsequently. and we just had a district work period this last week. i go back home and i talk to small businesses throughout my district in southeast louisiana. and what they tell me, the things that are holding them back from creating jobs are the regulations, the red tape, and the excessive spending coming out of washington. and yet if you look at this, you know, nobody in my district said that they need to see the great wall of china being built with taxpayer money. but what they do say is what's holding them back from creating jobs is borrowing money from china to spend on programs that we just can't afford to fund. and so while i applaud the cutting of those programs, because the programs in the base of this bill have been cut, what hasn't been cut subsequently is the overhead to go along with it, to bring it to those pre-2008 levels.

this is a step we need to take to not only save $18.2 million that will reduce the deficit but to start sending the signal that we're living within our means and with that, madam chair, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. fattah: yes, i rise to oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. fattah: thank you. my colleague mentioned small businesses. it brings to mind that in today's "financial times," it showed that we have the highest enthusiasm for hiring and economic optimism in the small business community that we've had in this country since a very long time. and over $70 billion was made available through the obama administration for small business loans, through 2009 and 2010, and we now see the results of it. we see millions of private sector jobs being created. our economy has seen a decrease

from an unemployment rate of 9.1% to 8.1% and most economists agree it's going to drop into the 7% number over the next few months. this notion that we cap cut programs and therefore we should cut administration sounds like a lot of common sense. but when you think about it, whether one member comes to the floor to speak today or 100 members, we still have to have staff on the floor, there's still security, there are still lights, there are still expenses in an agency when you have to run any part of the prm. so if you have to run loan programs and other programs, you need the expertise of the staff to do it, then you cut the -- whether you cut the program back a little bit, it's like a class in a school, unless you're going to eliminate an entire classroom you need to hire a teacher and have the lights on. i would suggest that even though the gentleman may be

focused on try to do something about the deficit new york reality, unless he's trying to cripple the commerce department as it competes with much larger countries like china and india, economic competitors like the european union, trying to work on behalf of american businesses, our commerce department, we cannot afford to be cutting back and cutting in a way that actually does harm to our economy. so i rise in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed thosme gentleman from louisiana. mr. scalise: i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further action on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana will be postponed.

the clerk will read. the clerk: page 6, line 12, minority business development agency, minority business development. $28,689,000. economic -- the chair: for what purpose d does the gentlelady from new york seek recognition? >> i rise to speak on behalf of my amendment, madam chair. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. clarke of new york, page 6, line 18, after the dollar amount seek increased by $3,111,000. page 11, line 11, insert re deuced by $5,311,000. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. clarke: madam chair, i rise today in support of additional funding for the minority business development agency, an offset for this amendment is by

$5.3 million from the $79 million increase to the national institute for standards and technology. madam chair, minority firms currently provide 5.8 million people with employment. and we know that they have the untapped potential to create even more. that's why, madam chair, ms. chu of california, mr. cohen of tennessee, who are co-sponsors of this amendment, and myself, along with 33 of our colleagues, sent a letter to the c.j.s. subcommittee in march, seeking mbda funding levels at $34 million. in direct response to the then-planned closure of the mbda regional offices and to expand mbda's network of business centers. in 2010, mbda secured $1.6

billion in contracts and $2.2 billion in financing for minority firms. that same year, they realized a 125% return on their investment. our nation's economy will not and cannot fully recover until all small businesses are active participants in a robust economy -- robust recovery. the mbda's mission of supporting minority businesses is absolutely fundamental to the overall recovery of the economy. madam chair, i yield to my colleagues -- to my colleague, mr. cohen, at this time. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee. mr. cohen: thank you, madam speaker. i thank my colleague from new york for yielding the time. this is a particularly important amendment because minority business development agencies give people a hand up, not a handout. the fact is, the folks on the other side are always talking

about opportunity. and businesses and small business. this is the ideal type of federal government program where small business, minorities, are given opportunity to get knowledge about contracting opportunities with the federal government and get a share and get financing capabilities. minorities have long been denied the opportunity to get adequate financing from our banking system and have been less than properly represented in the amount of contracts they get from the federal government. the minority business development agency just put an office in my district new york memphis, tennessee. the largest metropolitan population, african-american population in this country and it wasn't until this year that the minority business office was placed there, the first in the state of tennessee. there's a lot more that needs to be done. in this recession, small businesses have been hurt and minorities have been hurt, and minorities have been hurt in a

disproportionate manner. this will allow minority businesses to thrive and make opportunities and make economic development growth throughout america. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. i thank you and i yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> i rise in opposition to the gentlelady's increase and i rise in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. wolf: the administration has not asked for more money and the offset would not be good, it would cut the scientific research activities at nst that are vital to giving an edge to american manufacturer and doing a lot of work in the area of cyber. funding research programs has been a top priority of both

political parties. i urge my colleagues to reject this increase and vote down the amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i rise in support of the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. fattah: this amendment will likely not pass in the house today but i want to associate myself with the remarks from the gentlelady from new york. i share a birthday with dick durbin, the majority leader in the senate, and with the gentlelady from new york. we all happen to be born on the same day, and -- but she is, at least between me and durbin, she is the best among us. but this effort to increase our focus on underserved communities i think is an important one and that's why i'm happy she, along with the

gentleman from tennessee, have brought this amendment forward because i think that in order to increase economic opportunity in our country, we need to be focused in this agency, not so much whether we save an office here or there, but we need increased focus on loans and technical assistance and contracting opportunities for businesses that have been left out. i know the chairman agrees with me in this regard. we need to continue to look for ways to increase the opportunities for this agency to serve these communities. thank you very much. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the sque on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 6, line 19, economic and statistical

analysis, salaries and expenses. $96 million to remain available until september 30, 2014. bureau of the census, salaries and expenses, $253,336,000. periodic censuses and programs, $625,325,000 to remain available until september 30, 2013. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? >> madam chair, i believe i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk wil8 report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. lynch of massachusetts. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. lynch: i rise to offer an amendment to h.r. 5326 making appropriations for departments of science, commerce and justice related bill.

it would appropriate for the office of justice drug court program. the $4 million added to the drug court's program will be offset by a decreasing amount by $4 million in the funding for periodic censuses and related programs. to say there's a drug addiction problem in the united states is an understatement. we're dealing with an epidemic that that's, that is in every city and town in this country and reaches across every demographic. addiction does in the discriminate as it shatters lives, breaks up families and costs hundreds of billions of dollars annually. in fact, according to the national institute of drug abuse, estimates of the total overall cost related to substance abuse in the united states, including productivity, health and crime related costs exceed $600 billion annually. drug courts are specialized court dockets designed to handle cases involving drug and or alcohol dependent offenders commonly charged with

possession of controlled substance or other nonviolent offenses determined to have been caused or influenced by their addiction. these cases are handled through a comprehensive program of supervisors, officers and other measures to reduce the recidivism rates of these particular offenders. people who don't comply with the requirements of drug court go to jail and go to jail quickly and for various periods of time. it's a get tough policy. particular offenders have recidivism rates redeuced by helping them overcome their substance abuse problem, which are the primary and predicate cause of their criminal activities. drug courts coordinate the efforts of judiciary, prosecution, probation, law enforcement, mental health, social services and child protective services to break the cycle of abuse, addiction and crime.

if we can break that cycle, we'll all benefit. drug courts redeuce crime and restore families. according to the national association of drug court professionals, the drug court approach reduces crimely bias much as 45% more than other sentencing options. nationally, 75% of drug courts graduates remain arrest free at least two years after leaving the program and reductions in crime by those offenders is long term. in addition to reducing crime, drug courts save money and that is a theme that's become very popular around here lately. as reported by the national association of drug court professionals, nationwide, for every dollar invested in drug courts, taxpayers save as much as $27. 24 substantial savings comes from avoiding criminal costs, prison costs and health care youthly sargse, all areas in which vast sums of money are spent. most importantly, drug courts hope restore and preserve families.

according to statistics, family reunification rates are 20% higher for those that go through drug courts. addicts lose a sense of self and returning to their family is a first step toward normalcy. the original bill provides more for drug courts than the 2011 level but this $4 million increase would bring funding in line with its historical average of $45 million since 2001. i appreciate the good work of the census and believe this modest offset can be accounted for in the coming year bus the work of the drug courts meets an immediate and critical need. i thank the gentleman for yielding and yield back the plans of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia.

mr. wolf: i have no objection to the amendment. i think it's a good amendment. the committee has been very supportive. these are also based on the recommendations of mr. meehan and broadened with regard to veterans too, but i think we should accept the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. fattah: i rise also to say i support the amendment, i led the effort in the pennsylvania legislature to create drug courts in our state, i'm a big supporter and i think the chairman, in the bill before us, we've increased this account but i think that the amendment offered by my colleague is something we would support. thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 7, line 15, national telecommunications and

information administration, salaries and expenses, $45,568,000 to remain available until september 30, 2014. public telecommunications facilities, planning and construction, for administration of prior year grants, recoveries and unobligated balances are available until their expiration. u.s. patent and trademark office, salaries and expenses, $2,933,241,000. national institute of standards and technology, scientific and technical research inservices, $621,173,000. industrial technology services, $149 million. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the

desk. the chair: account cl -- the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. quail of arizona. after the collar amount insert, reduced by $21 million. page 11, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert, reduced by $21 million. page 101, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert, increased by $21 million. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for five minutes. mr. quayle: thank you, madam chair. madam chair, this amendment would strike the new advanced manufacturing technology consortia, also called amtec, and apply the $21 million that was provided in the bill to the spending reduction account. this new program is intended to establish a public-private partnership initiative that would provide federal grands to identify and support research projects focused on long-term industrial needs. now, we all recognize the importance of advanced manufacturing. and the value of collaboration in innovation policy. my hometown of phoenix has a

strong high-tech base and great research universities. i also serve as chairman of the subcommittee on technology innovation which has just diction. our committee has a long bipartisan record of support for nist and its contributions. that being said, in the current budget environment, i simply do not believe it is appropriate to be establishing and funding a new program. even without the new $21 million advanced manufacturing technology consortia, this budget is still nearly 8% higher than was provided last year. when you look at the amount of debt that we have accumulated over the course of many years and you look at the budget process we're going through right now, this amtc was requested for the funding last time around when we were going through the appropriations process and we rightfully did not fund this new program. there are already programs in place for manufacturing and there's other places that we can go in the private sector to be able to deal with that in the

research and developing new ways to be innovated in advanced manufacturing. it is not the time to be wasting another $21 million in spending that we don't have in order to put forth a new program. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. wolf: i rise in opposition. the amendment would cut $21 million we provided for nist to establish an advanced manufacturing technology consortia or amtc. revitalizing the manufacturing sector is important to a strong economy. i mean, is america going to make anything? aren't we all tired of going into wal-mart and seeing "made in china," "made in china," "made in china"? we have to begin to make things in this country. amtech would leverage existing or establish new industry-led consortia to develop research

needs and support research at universities and government labs. am tech will address components of the innovation cycle from discovery to commercialization, to accelerate the pace of innovation through the various industrial sectors. these are precisely the type of programs that we need now to support american manufacturing and innovation and nist has a strong track record of proven success in supporting the american manufacturing. manufacturing should be the cornerstone of the economy. and this amendment would help stop it. you know, i'm going to digress for just a second. when this congress on two different occasions was asked by the administration to do away with the so-called payroll tax, that cost this congress $125 billion. by doing that both sides of this congress and the administration gave jimmy buffett a break and warren buffett a break and they created no new jobs.

we took $250 billion and literally threw it away and jeopardized the social security program. we jeopardized it. and they said we were going to pay for it by borrowing it from the general fund. the general fund is broke. this is manufacturing and we need a manufacturer, we need to create jobs in this country. so i know the gentleman, i think he's got a great record on the cutting, but this is not the place we want to do it and i urge a no vote and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. fattah: i rise in opposition . there's nothing more important to our country than the revie value of manufacturing. over the decade of the -- the first decade of this century we lost so many manufacturing jobs. but now at the front edge of this recovery is manufacturing so 370,000 new jobs, to take our federal laboratories, which we

invest billions of dollars in. i visited the firmer lab. we have tens of thousands of scientists and researchers there. this consortia program will allow them to work with local manufacturers and communities to help build our manufacturing base -- manufacturing base so that as we compete across the globe to build it here and sell it everywhere, that we have the manufacturing capabilities to do it. i think this is an amendment that's unwise. we have a budget that's built not only agreement last year but on the ryan budget, we're operating within the 302-b allocation so those that rise and say we don't have the money. no, this is the money that's been allocated by the majority republican congress to spend on behalf of moving our country forward. so we should have a debate about what's important. i think manufacturing's important. i hope that we will reject this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields

back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from arizona. mr. quayle: i request the yeas and nays. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 11, line 23, construction of research facilities, $60 million. national oceanic and atmospheric administration, operations, research and facilities, $2,968,371,000 to remain available until september 30, 2014. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition?

maryland? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 10 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. harris of maryland. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for five minutes. mr. harris: thank you very much, madam chairman. first i want to congratulate the committee for doing its work, to help curb the rise in government spending. i rise to offer an amendment to provide level funning for noaaa's climate portal program. rather than the increase in the funding requested by the president and included in the bill as it currently stands. the program is actually a website run by noa. and in committee testimony, the doctor suggested this was a science website. this is where you can share climate science information and make decisions. and the request is a 56% increase in funding. the only thing that's gotten

that increase in the last four years is the size of the federal deficit and the debt. that's the only thing that's increased. so my amendment merely reduces it, the level of funding, to the current level. but i want to read, as you click on some of these topics, what the science is at this point. i'm going to read from an article just published on the website, on may 2. it talks about farming. the rain was as loud as pennies falling on the roof of the truck's cab. later on in the paragraph, we've been watching johnson work in his field until the fat drops of rain sent us racing for cover. next paragraph, the machine behind the tractor makes it easier than ever for him to roll the grass into submission, thousands of stalks pointing accusingly at the device that just pancaked them. madam chairman, that's not a scientific article. that's something i read to my children at bedtime. but this is what noaa is advancing as a scientific website to share scientific

information and asking for a 56% increase in their funding. my amendment's simple. let's just level fund the website, let's revert it to a truly scientific nature and come back next year if and when our finances are better. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from -- mr. wolf: i think it's a good amendment and i accept the amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from virginia yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. mcdermott: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. dicks: it is our understanding that this affects climate change, is that correct? and we think that we should not cut it. and i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: a record the vote is requested. first of all, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts.

those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. -- maryland. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from maryland. a recorded vote is requested. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings offered by the gentleman from maryland will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from -- the gentlelady from hawaii rise? >> madam speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. hanabusa of hawaii. page 13, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert, increase by $1,600,000. page 32, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert, reduced by $1,900,000. the chair: the gentlelady from hawaii is recognized for five minutes. ms. hanabusa: thank you, madam speaker. first i'd like to say that this is a bipartisan amendment. congressman young from alaska has joined in the amendment, as

well as congresswoman bordallo and congressman sablan. so -- and i have another co-sponsor, the gentleman from washington, congressman dicks. so, madam speaker, this is a very important issue and it's not asking for much in terms of funding. it's asking for funding to be restored to the fiscal year 2012 level. and let's look at what we're talking about here. we're talking about the marine debris line which funds noaa's marine debris program. which really was established and mandated by marine debris research prevention and reduction act of 2006. as you know, the program works to map, identify, assist, remove and prohibit marine debris. marine debris is of course the worst pollution that we're dealing with in our oceans. but it has become even more relevant to us after the

tsunami, the earthquake and of course fukushima daiichi in japan on march 11, 2011. and we have i'm sure all sat there in amazement as reports have been made of a soccer ball being found, intellectual, -- i believe, in alaska, and a motorcycle in canada, definitely the debris hitting north america. i represent hawaii and we are on watch as well and all indications are is that the debris is making its way, it will hit the northern hawaiian islands maybe in the later part of this year, but definitely we expect that the coast will be hit by 2013 as well as hawaii and other eeleds -- islands. and think about what this means. you're not talking about a ship, you're not talking about things being dropped in the ocean. you're talking about whole cities, i'm sure we can all recall seeing that, in japan,

the tsunami coming in and wiping out cities. and think about where that went. i think the problem that many of us have is that we stand there in awe of what happens but we don't think about what the consequences are. and the consequences here are major. that is floating in the ocean and making its way to us. that is why this amendment has been proposed and that is why i believe this amendment has the sponsors that it does have, because we are simply asking to be restored to the level of fiscal year 2012. what that will give us, remember at that point, we were monitor, we didn't have any clear evidence as to what was happening. now we know. all this does is say, restore it to at least that level. so that marine debris program

can do its work and map, identify, assess, remove and prohibit more marine deprix -- debris from hitting our shores. think about the consequences for us. madam speaker, that is why i ask that we all support this amendment and on page 13, line 2, increase the amount by $1,600,000, just for the fiscal year 20 -- just to the fiscal year 2012 level. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from haye. those in favor say aye. -- from hawaii. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the eas have it. -- the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> iffer an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. grimm of new york, page 42, line 3rk after the dollar

amount insert increased by $18 million. page 42, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert increased by $18 million. page 3, line 2 after the dollar amount, insert reduced by $18 million. page 13, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert reduced by $18 million. page 13, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert, reduced by $18 million. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman -- the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for fife minutes. mr. grimm: i ask that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the chair: without objection. mr. grimm: i rise to offer an amendment i introduced along with my colleagues, mr. king from new york, mr. barlett tarks and mr. runyan, that would ensure funding is maintained for regional information sharing programs such as for risk, a program

establish 30d years ago for nationwide law enforcement to share criminal information. the house c.j.s. appropriations bill requests $27 million in funding for this important program. a 40% reduction over past years. our amendment would restore regional information sharing activities to the 2011 funding lelving of $45 million. in 2013, commerce, justice and science premises act, it is offset by reducing funding for climate research. this is a valuable tool that helps nearly 9,000 federal, state and local law enforcement agencies in all 50 states, the district of columbia, and u.s. territories. they share information more effectively in order to combat terrific, dangerous criminals, gangs and sex offenders.

since 2000, this support has yielded $942.5 million in narcotics, property, and case seizures alone and 223% return on federal investment. this contributed to more than 57,360 arrests. numbers don't lie. it's clear information sharing more than pays for itself. these positive results have spurred a greater demand for services, however, with the program experiencing funding cuts in 2012, agency needs could not always be met. with these additional cuts in fiscal year 2013, they'll need to implement widespread layoffs and potentially dismantle critical intelligence centers. so in order to maximize the ability of law enforcement to combat crime and keep our community safe, regional information sharing activities must remain adequately funded.

i strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia. mr. wolf: i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. wolf: i wish we could have worked something out. i visited the center in bucks county, i take a back seat to no one on the issue of crime. but it is a -- it doesn't cut climate, what we're cutting is weather. we're cutting the national oceanic and atmospheric research, it would cut funds for the national weather service and the satellite that processes all the data with regard to weather, hurricanes, tornadoes, and as we go on, no matter the outcome of the amendment, we'll try but it doesn't cut climate service and

also this is she same level fiscal year as it was in 2012 level and -- in the request. some members come down here wants more cuts, others want increases, this bill is below the president's numbers, it is below last year's, it's a good program but it's balancing out. i hope people, i would urge people to note vo and as we go to conference, i'll tell the gentleman we'll work on it but as of now, i urge a no vote. if you vote yes, the money is coming out of the weather. if there's a hurricane, tornado, snowstorm, or problem, you make your own judgment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york, those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the no haves it. the amendment -- the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to.

mr. grimm: i request a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further action on the amendment of the gentleman will be postpone the clerk will reread -- will read. the clerk: page 13, line 3, in addition for payments of medical care, procurement acquisition and construction, $1,931,948,000 to remain available until september 30, 2015, except funds provided for construction of facilities shall remain available until expended. pacific coastal salmon recovery, $65 million to remain available until september 30, 2014. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: an amendment offered

by mr. broun of georgia, page 15, line 13, after the dollar amount insert reducededly $13 million. page 101, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert increased by $13 million. the chair: the gentleman veck niced. mr. broun: my amendment would reduce funding for the salmon program to the president's request of $13 million. i love a mono-- salmon, love to eat them, love to fish for them, i'm a conservationist, conservation issues are what started my political activism. but we're in an economic crisis as a nation. this program is basically an earmark. we should be eliminating it altogether. but that's not what my amendment does. >> will the gentleman yield? mr. broun: no, sir. i'm sorry. i'm simply asking that we revert to funding levels back to those requested by the president.

$50 million in funding gsh if $50 million in funding is good enough for the administration, that's the amount of taxpayer money this amendment should receive and not a cent more. given our current economic emergency, everyone -- everyone needs to pull their weight when it comes to cutting spending. congress has had to slash its own budget. agencies across the federal government are tightening their belts left and right. our nation's families are reining in spending to deal with our failing and flailing economy. but yet the pacific coast salmon recovery is requesting $65 million in their funding. a $15 million increase in their budget from what the president himself has recommended for this year. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment and to simply say -- save american taxpayers $15 million by maintaining the status quo for the pacific coastal salmon recovery funding. i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman from georgia yields back. the gentleman from washington. >> i move to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcder not: i object to his use of the word earmark. this is a national program, it affects california -- mr. dicks: it affects california, washington, idaho, washington, these states are in the midst of a lot of endangered species that go woast-wide, they're trying to save the salmon run. i have been in the midst of an effort to try to recover our salmon runs in our state. we have marked our fish, we have gone to selective harvest, we're protecting our wild runs.

we're trying to do everything we can to recover these salmon runs. today on the colombia river in washington state, we will be very fortunate to get 600,000 salmon back. at a time in the 1930's, we'd have 20 million fish coming back every year. wild salmon. and also several varieties of salmon. i think this is a very good program. we have worked hard to make sure the money is used for strong habitat restoration work, that we have worked to improve our hatcheries, we've done hatchery reform, we've done everything we can to restore the habitat for these fish. and again, this is a national program that was created during the clinton squad mrgs, it is strongly supported in the pacific northwest by both

democrats and republicans. i see my good friend from alaska, mr. young, has arrived on the floor. i just want to -- want you to know that alaska, where we still have many wild fish, also participates in this program from time to time. so i urge that we vote no on this amendment. this is a national program. it has been in existence for 12 years. it is doing a good -- we're fighting a very difficult problem. and we still need to keep working on this because of the endangered species listings and we still have work to be done and to cut this back, i think, is a mistake. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia, those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed. to the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a -- the chair: a recorded vote is requested. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further action on the motion of the gentleman from washington will be post-poped this eclerk will read. the clerk: page 18, line 8, fisherman's contingent fund, public law 95-372, not to exceed $350,000. fisheries finance program account, obligations of direct loans may not exceed $24 million for individual fishing quo to loans and not to exceed $59 million for traditional direct loans authorized by the merchant marine act of 1936. departmental management salaries and expenses, $55 million.

office of inspector general, $28,753,000. general provisions, department of commerce, section 101, appropriations funds made available to the department by this act shall be available for the activity specified in the act of october 26, 1949. section 102, appropriations made available to the department shall be available for hire of passenger motor vehicles. section 103, not that exceed 25% of any department may be transferred between appropriations but no such appropriation may be increased by more than 10%. section 24, costs ingird a department from personal actions taken shall be absorbed within the total budgetary resources available to such department. section 105. section 105-f of the