n.s.f. to apply higher standards when awarding its grants. yesterday the house science committee marked up the first act, legislation that re-authorizes n.s.f. programs. my colleagues and i approved an amendment to the bill that cuts $150 .e. directorate to million, $100 million less than the current fiscal year. that's where we think the discussion ought to start next year. this amendment is only the first step. i also want to point out the s.b.e. directorate isn't the only source of questionable n.s.f. grants. for instance, n.s.f. handed out $700,000 for the great immensity, a climate change musical and $5.6 million far climate change scavenger hunt and phone game. such grants make taxpayers even more skeptical about how their hard-herbed tax dollars are being spent and diminishes

public support for scientific research. investments in science are essential if our country is to continue to lead the world in nanotechnology, supercomputering and other fields that yield new jobs and entire new cities. the way to restore public support is not to continue grants with taxpayer money. the amendment is a small but important step in the right direction and it sets the precedent for the science committee, the appropriations committee, and the house to take additional steps in the future to assure that n.s.f.-funded research is in fact in the national interest. madam chair, 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 virginia seek recognition? mr. wolf: i move to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. wolf: i have no objection to the amendment. i share the opinion that n.s.f. must exercise caution and i

should tell colleagues that n.s.f. funding is at an all-time high. this is a republican committee, if you will. the house. and we support the sciences. i think i want our country to stay ahead of china and the other countries. i want america to be number one, but i appreciate what mr. smith, the chairman, said. n.s.f. must exercise caution and grant awards and ensure -- and i hope n.s.f. is listening today. that every grant is both scientifically meritorious and responsive to the national interest. the subcommittee has already taken steps to help improve accountability and transparency and by including language by the f.y. 2015 report to understand that the agencies is making in its review a communication process. in addition to last week, i sent a letter to the n.s.f.

directorate. she's a very impressive person, very knowledgeable. she's brand new. i think she's committed to making sure that they only fund scientific things, but this letter emphasizes the need for the agencies to be judicious in the grants it awards and to ensure that taxpayer funds are used warrantly. the subcommittee will continue to provide oversight on this topic, as needed. so i thank the gentleman. i think it's important for n.s.f. to note that since the funding is at a record high, in order that america can be and will always be number one in math and science and physics and chemistry, biology and lead the world, with that excess funding, extra funding goes the responsibility to make sure there are not grants that then weaken the program and give opportunity for people to say

this program is -- so i appreciate mr. smith for raising these and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. fattah: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. to fattah: i want acknowledge the great work for the gentleman from texas on patent reform. we worked together and he led the effort to reform our patent system i think in a remarkable way. and the majority leader and i spent some time on one of the last vote days here to go over to n.i.h. and here from dr. collins about great research, particularly interested in pediatric cancers and the like. so these are two gentlemen, authors of this amendment who have been very positive and focused in a number of areas that i share with them.

however, this amendment is misguided. i want to speak in opposition to it. the notion that we would want to eliminate certain investigations by the national science foundation into economic science or behavioral science, when we talk about disasters, the reason why we save so many lives is not just we improved weather forecasting, even though that would be eliminated in terms of the moneys here for investigative purposes by the national science foundation but also understanding the behaviors of people facing disasters is very important. that would be cut. this area of posttraumatic stress is a critical area. we know now that many of our returning soldiers face posttraumatic stress, but we also know that children living in very difficult circumstances in our country are more

traumatized than if they were living in a war zone, an active war zone in another country. soo limb nating cutting back scientific investigations in this regard would be i think disastrous. that's why i'm hoping that whatever is causing this, there will be some reversal of it eventually. but in the meantime, i want to suggest to the house that we should oppose this amendment. we should oppose the notion that somehow we don't want to know certain things. i was at the university of pittsburgh. i saw some results of national science foundation funding that started out 30 years ago that a member on this floor would be on the floor complaining about now. it was an examination of what nerines in a

monkey. well, that research 30 years later literally has a woman because of a disease has no control over her body but can now move an artificial arm through her thoughts. this is the result of research by the national science foundation. it's the world premiere basic science foundation is the model for our economic competitors, they're imitating it, a small country like singapore with less than five million people is investing $7 billion in their national science foundation. here we are, the wealthiest country in the world. we're putting $7.4 billion, which is the highest ever, and i thank the chairman, but now we want to put handcuffs on the agency about what it is that they can look at in terms of improving the life chances of americans. the research has paid off. that's why we're the great country that we are today. the world economic forum says

our nation and our nation's economy is driven by innovation. the last thing that we should be doing on the floor of this house is equivocating or compromising or making it more challenging for those who are engaged in the innovation ecosystem to do their work. so even though i compliment the gentleman, mr. smith, and the majority leader, mr. cantor, for other efforts, i can't imagine for the life of me why we would be on this floor tonight debating a retreat on behavioral science, on economic science. it makes no sense, and i would hope that the house, notwithstanding the fact that there's a majority that is held by the other team, i hope in this instance, as the chairman said, we would realize this is not a competition between democrats and republicans. we are competing against

countries that have a big population like china and india. they want to eat our lunch economically. and what we want to do is stop the bickering back and forth and figure out what's best for our country. so the chairman and i voted for simpson-bowles. we were one of just -- less than 40 members who did so. i might be in the minority on this vote, but i'm going to vote on what is in the best interest of our nation. and that's to continue to invest in innovation, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. >> madam chair. 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 texas will be

postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: line 15, major research equipment and $200, ies, construction, 000, 760. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? the clerk: after the dollar amount insert reduced by $760,000. page 70, line 5, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $29,500,000. page 70, line 17, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $37 million. page 71, line 11, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $70,000. page 100, line 17, after the dollar amount insert increase by $57,330,000.

the chair: pursuant to the order of the house today, the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. broun: thank you, madam chairman. i give myself the time that i may consume. the chair: add. mr. broun: this amendment would cut about a $67 million from the national science foundation's appropriations increase. again, increase. not reduce their funding but reduce the increase and apply that amount to the spending reduction account. cuts in this amendment are in four areas not directly involved in basic research, such as construction, education and human resources, agency operations and the office of the national science board. in 2007 and again 2010, n.s.f. was granted funding to launch new stem education programs

under the american competes act. not to mention the recovery act stimulus with the same focus. unfortunately, the u.s. continues to fall behind in producing enough stem workers to compete globally, and our high school graduates, math and science scores are stagnant. 2013 g.a.o. study found that 209 different federal stem education programs overlap across 13 agencies spending a total of $3 billion. $3 billion with a b. g.a.o. also found that 173 of these programs shared similarities and objectives and focus. the underlying committee report acknowledges program reductions and consolidation and yet increases spending on education and human resources by $29.5 million for an abandoned program that will be taken over

by existing programs. more often than not, increasing federal government spending on nonresearch science initiatives grows the federal government, not just the next generation of scientists. today we are the world's leader in combined federal as well as private sector investment in research and development. 465 billion ate, $ for 2014. some worry that china will catch up to us by the 2020's. of course, making that assumption also estimates that both the u.s. and china will be spending $600 billion each by 2022. is federal spending a race in which we want to engage with china? the national government expenditure per capita on r&d per capita.$218 again, r&d in china is $218,

compared to the u.s. per person amount of $1,276. this is not sustainable. as the science community can attest, congress often overpromises on funding and pulls the rug out on projects halfway through. n.s.f. is sitting on unnecessary and outmoded facilities without needed action on whether to close and sell. n.s.f. should not be given more money for new facilities until it has established that n.s.f. is operating existing facilities efficiently and effectively. i urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. fattah: i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. fattah: in defense of the national science foundation and

in opposition to these cuts, i want to yield some time to the gentleman from new jersey, congressman holt, who wants to speak on this point. this is another one of these amendments that works against the effort of the committee which was to try to increase -- in fact, we did increase the national science foundation budget, so i yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from new jersey. the chair: the gentleman from ew jersey is recognized. mr. holt: i thank the gentleman, my good friend. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania must remain standing. the gentleman is recognized. mr. holt: i thank the gentleman, and i thank the chair. i should point out first of all that as a percentage of our economy, the government, the federal government support for scientific research is half of what it was back when i was in college.

now -- well -- many decades ago. the point is, we are not keeping up. part of the problem is, here in this chamber and around the country, people value the fruits of research but they don't have a clue about how it is done. and so we see here on the floor people ridiculing research because of the title. a prominent politician recently ridiculed n.s.f.-funded research in fruit flies. or game theory. you know, she obviously didn't understand that one of the principal representative buy y logical organisms that have been studied are the so-called fruit flies. social and behavioral research is important in understanding how people make decisions about ergy use or how to invest or

disaster response or it tells us a great deal about brain processes. in pointing out to n.s.f. studies to ridicule them because it sounds foolish, we here, we policymakers, can look like the fools. now, i'm a physicist by background so i'm pleased to hear the chairman talk about research in physics and chemistry and math. but we also need studies based on evidence, as n.s.f. studies are, on human behavior. we need to look at library science. it would be easy to ridicule a study that i saw described not long ago in library science, funded by the national science foundation. well it just so happens that

that turned out to be the basis for what we now know as google. yes that research was taxpayer money and it could have been ridiculed as foolish. a waste of taxpayer money. but i think the country's economy has benefited, i think maybe several thousand times over, maybe many thousands of times over, the amount that was spent on that foolish research on library science. you know, we should be asking through n.s.f. studies why humans engage in unhealthy behavior. we could learn a lot about ap apublicable public health programs through such things. so this idea of cutting back on funding in the taxpayer . terest is terribly misguided

as a country, we are greatly underinvesting in research. and i thank the gentleman for standing up for the -- for n.s.f. research. mr. fattah: i reclaim my time and yield to the gentleman from north carolina, as much time as i have left. and there will be another amendment on n.s.f. you can speak to. >> can i inquire how much time is left? the chair: 45 seconds left. mr. fattah: we yield -- reserve -- i mean -- the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? >> strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> yes, madam chair. i rise in opposition to the amendment of my good friend

from georgia because it would negatively impact a range of n.s.f. activities. first amendment would hamstring n.s.f.'s main operational account that funds activities like grant oversight and procurement. i know the gentleman cares very strongly about protecting taxpayer interest and i don't believe that making it more difficult for n.s.f. to monitor and oversee its funds help those in any way. in addition, the amendment would eliminate the increase that the bill provides for n.s.f. critical stem education programs. these funds are urgently needed to address widespread and serious challenges that we have currently in our u.s. economy. compared to our major international competitors, our k through 12 students don't perform well in stem-related subjects and our university pross deuce a smaller percentage of stem-related graduates. in addition, our stem work force isn't big enough to meet the current or projected demand for skilled employees by high

tech companies. n.s.f. stem education programs will play a major role in solving these programs by improving the quality of stem instructors, attracting more students to stem fields, and enabling talented students to pursue stem degrees. these investments are important to the economy and to the overall importance to the nation as a whole. for this reason, i would urge my fellow members to reject this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> how much time do i have left? the chair: the gentleman has one and a half minutes remaining. mr. broun: all right, reclaiming -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. broun: thank you, madam chairman. i'm not cutting basic reserge here at all. what i'm doing is cut, i'm

suggesting cuts in the directorate, there are just silly things that they have -- climate change narrative, climate change media exhibition portraying scientists and students at work, am zonea which is indoctrination of young girls. matter of origins. i can go on and on. i believe in research. i'm an applied scientist, i'm a physician. we're not cutting research. in fact, i believe in research. but what we're doing is just trying to cut the directorate and save taxpayers money. we are broke as a nation and we've just got to stop spending without random and really responsibility. i encourage acceptance of my amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the

gentleman from georgia. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. fattah -- >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: does the gentleman claim time in opposition in mr. fattah: i do indeed. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. fattah: i would like to yield time to the gentleman from north carolina, he represents in part one of the greatest research tri-triangles outside of philadelphia. in the country there in north carolina. the gentleman, mr. price. mr. price: i thank my friend for yielding. mr. chairman, i rise in strong opposition to these efforts to target funding for the national science foundation's and behavioral and economic sciences directorate. the world is changing rapidly. we need quality research to help us understand how imminent unforeseen changes in areas such as technology, climate will affect our society and our future. these things do have policy

implications. we shouldn't be wasting hard-earned taxpayer money, in fact, on policy solutions that are not rooted in sound research. precisely the type of research that some of these efforts here today seek to curtail. as a result, research funded by the s.b.e., we're learning to better respond to natural and economic disasters, thousand improve educational methods in our nation's classrooms, how to expand outreach to children regarding stem education. we've learned how to increase the safety of our troops in combat, how to better reduce violence among our young people and we have expanded our knowledge of how the human mind works, through the brain initiative, led by ranking member fattah and chairman wolf. in this era of tea party preeminence and so-called fiscal discipline at the expense of rational policy decisions, taking cheap shots at federal programs has become

a favorite indoor sport. i wish my conservative colleagues would spend as much time learning the facts about the programs they deride as they do preparing the flurry of floor amendments and floor speeches to target them. ironically, helping policymakers make informed decisions is what n.s.f.'s political science program in particular is all about. let me just say a word about the political science program. close to my heart by virtue of my previous life. p. has helped inform policymakers on issues as vital as natural disaster response, environmental regulation and foreign policy. here are a few examples. n.s.f.'s political science program helped us gain a better understanding of public reactions to natural disasters including hurricane katrina. that was research at rice university. the b.p. oil spill, research at louisiana state university. that's helped federal, state

and local authorities develop more effective evacuation and recovery plans. it supported research on the causes and consequences of terrorist attacks, a pennsylvania state university and u.n.c. chapel hill. on the competition of natural resources as the driving force in international conflict. that's university of georgia and university of colorado. and on third party peace make, university of notre dame, dispute resolution meck anymores that lead to lasting peace, university of alabama tuscaloosa. this isn't just about political science research but the entire s.b.e. the rigorous peer review process mean that only herer tos you proposals are funded in an era where a quick internet search can yen rate a statistic to support any argument. it's more important that we have clear, dependable, peer-review red search into the most pressing social,

behavioral and economic dwhofse day. should you question the quality of research, i'd like to note that nearly a quarter, 50 of 212, of nobel prize winners in science funded by n.s.f. since 18951 were recipient -- since 1951 were recipients of funding from the social and behavioral program. every win over a nobel prize in economic sciences since 1998 has been an n.s.f. grantee. in short, s.b.e. taps the best minds in the country to help us better understand and address some of the most vexing policy dilemmas we face. the body of work it's produced informs the decisions of america's first responders, our military leaders, our regulators, our diplomats our policymakers. i urge my colleagues to reject misguided attempts to target the work of n.s.f. and in particular of the social and behavioral science research that is uniquely valuable in

informing our country's policy decisions, our country's administrative decisions, as we move forward. with that, i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the amendment is not adopted. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 69, line 23, education and human resources. $876,000,000 to remain available until september 30, 2016. agency operations and award management. $335,000,000. office after -- office of the national science board, $4,370,000. office of inspector general, $14,430,000.

administrative provisions. not to exceed 5% of any appropriations for the national science foundation may be transferred between such appropriations but no such appropriations shall be increased by more than 15%. this title may be cited as the science appropriations act of 2015. title 4, related agencies. commission on civil rights, salaries and expenses. $9 million. equal employment opportunity commission, salary and expenses. $364 million. international trade commission salary and expenses, $84,500,000. legal services corporation, payment to the legal service corporation. $350 million. the chair: the clerk will suspend. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. austin scott of georgia,

page 74, line 13 theambing dollar amount insert reduced by $350 million. page 100, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert increased by $350 million. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of today, he gentleman from georgia, mr. austin, is recognized for five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman. mr. austin: i along with my colleague am offering an amendment to cut funding from legal sore vises corporation. it was established 40 years ago, i have no doubt it was for the right reasons. it hasn't been re-authorized since 1980. at no point in the last 34 years has either party in congress felt this agency was so important it needed to be re-authorized. mr. scott: in fact new york 2012, it was estimated over 94% of the services that legal services was set up to provide were provided by state and

local governments, bar associations and pro bono work by attorneys. this means taxpayers are footing the bill of $1 million a day for this service, yet this organization handles less han 6% of all indigent cases. the purpose is to provide law enforcement to the american people. with $350 million we can employ thousands f.b.i. agents, u.s. marshals who protect americans from drosk threats every day. -- domestic threats every day. instead it provides significant funding to an entity that is plagued by abuse. allow me to provide examples. from the recent l.s.c. inspector general report, the report found continued systemic deficiencies in the legal systems corporation grant program. the inspectors' general office opened 12 new investigations including criminal cases that involved fraudulent activity and financial irregularities by granting employees.

the investigation also had unauthorized outside practice of law as well as other abuses. we are spending millions simply on the inspector general's investigations of legal services corporation. additionally, cases arising out of the inspector general resulted in the restitution of client trust fund moneys that had been converted to personal use. as one example, these investigations resulted in the recovery of more than $21,000 in legal services funds for time spent by grantees attorney in unauthorized outside practices. at a time of record deficits and climbing debt, we should eliminate the funding of this program which has not been re-authorized by congress, including this one, in 34 years. let's take the legal services corporation off the taxpayers' payroll. with that, madam speaker, i reserve the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? >> i claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

>> thank you, madam chairman. i do rise in opposition to my colleague from georgia's amendment. mr. byrne: the recommendations in this amendment provides $350 million for legal services and it's a reduction -- sorry -- mr. aderholt: the reduction from the 2008 level of almost $78 million, and it is $80 million below the 2010 request. i understand there's some concerns with the legal services corporation funded programs, but the bill contains several important restrictions on political activity by the l.s.c. grantees. that would include lobbying, abortion litigation and class action lawsuits. these restrictions cover both the legal services funds as well as private funds. the administration proposed to

eliminate several of these restrictions, but the house bill rejects this proposal. we have included language in the committee report directing the legal services to vigorously enforce the restrictions on political activity which we think is very important. throughout my time in congress, i've supported legal services for americans who would not otherwise have adequate access to civil legal assistance. we're facing an extremely challenging budgetary environment and i realize that, but the recommendation is a fair compromise between the need for austerity and also the balance to provide civil legal assistance to low-income americans. and for that reason, madam chair, i would urge a no vote. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. fattah: i seek time in

opposition. the chair: does the gentleman strike the last word? mr. fattah: indeed. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. fattah: i am opposed to this amendment and, i too, want to yield to the gentlelady from the great state of florida, part of the space coast, and has done an extraordinary job to speak on behalf of legal services. before i do that, i want to make one point. last year alone, legal services 41,000 veterans who were facing foreclosures and other challenges facing disability claims -- this amendment, this notion that we should do away with the access to courts for people who have worn the uniform to protect our rights i think is wrong-headed and i want to yield to the gentlelady from florida to speak further on this subject.

the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. castor: thank you and thank you to the ranking member for the time. i rise today to oppose the scott amendment and urge the house to oppose the excessive cuts to the nonprofit and legal services corporation. i'm right in sync with the ranking member's comments and appreciate the republican committee's chair's opposition to this amendment. legal services has a mission to provide equal access to the system of justice in america. it is the most important provider of civil legal aid for americans who cannot afford high priced legal counsel. in fact, legal representation often is out of reach for many american families. this amendment will make the lives of millions of american families even more challenging. plus, if you take away legal counsel, you also complicate the resolution of disputes for businesses and others as well. now, you all know legal services is not a

washington-based bureaucratic program. to the contrary, there are legal aid attorneys and professionals in every state with more than 800 offices. legal services' moneys are put to work back home across america outside of washington. in my tampa bay community, bay area legal services has a number of community-based offices and are helping the wheels of justice turn for everyone. what type of legal help? foreclosure, consumer assistance, domestic violence. many of the domestic violence victims are simply trying to keep their children safe and their families together. others include veterans returning from war, families with housing issues, those that are hit hard by natural disasters and are dealing with the aftermath and families involved in child custody disputes. i've seen these advocates in action and many members of congress refer cases to legal services groups in our areas. they help families navigate the

justice system, and they also boost the economy through avoided costs and swift resolution of disputes. i'd also like to remind my colleagues that legal services has already undergone significant cuts, as mentioned by the chairman, over the past few years. the chairman's mark of $350 million is a cut from current funding. funding for legal services was $420 million in fiscal year 2010. it was cut especially after sequestration in 2013, and any further cuts will do severe damage. this amendment jeopardizes access to justice and the rule of law. there have already been layoffs back home, closed offices, reduced services. and what you're doing there is you're saying to families, you can't get help. you can't avoid a foreclosure. you can't escape an abusive relationship or defend yourself against consumer scams. we cannot allow hundreds of thousands of veterans, elderly victims of foreclosure, women

and children desperate to escape domestic violence to be denied assistance. so i strongly urge a no vote on the scott amendment and i yield back the balance of my time to mr. fattah. mr. fattah: thank you. in closing, i participated with district attorney general for providing pro bono services. that's great. however, national legal services and many of these rural communities, unlike a big city like philadelphia, they don't have the benefit of big law firms where they can have probono partners and the like -- pro bono partners and the like. if they are going to have a lawyer for a soldier or a veteran who needs help on a foreclosure, it's going to be legal services. so to cut off their access to the courts is the wrong thing for us to do and i oppose the amendment. the chair: does the gentleman yield back? mr. fattah: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields

back. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. scott: madam chair, if only legal services were limited to the things that the gentlelady and the gentleman discussed like helping our veterans with foreclosures and other things, but in my part of the country, in the rural areas that i come from, legal services corporation has hired plaintiffs that are pursuing our formers and quite honestly trying to put farmers out of business in georgia and that's unacceptable and taxpayers' funds should not be used for that. with that, madam speaker, i'd like to yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from georgia, mr. westmoreland. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. westmoreland: i want to thank the gentleman for yielding. as the gentleman stated, we have no problem with the services that the legal service corporation offered to the poor and to our veterans. what we do have a problem with is the fact that they are targeting our farmers, especially in georgia. and we have brought this to the attention of legal services

corporation on more than one time. and we feel like some of the tactics that are being used on our farmers are not the right way and not the intent of what the legal services, corporation, is trying to do. civil and t both criminal for this country, including state funds, local funds, from lawyers' interest trust funds and other funds, we year in billion a indigent defense. and so the point is we believe in giving the poor representation. we just don't agree in the manner that it's being done. and we hope that through this amendment attention will be brought to that and there can be work on all sides to make sure that the intent of the legal services corporation is to do what it was intended to

do, to not go out and solicit clipets but to help the poor. and i admire them for the help they have given all the veterans across this great country, but at some point you have to draw a line and i think this amendment sends a clear message to legal services that we want to get their attention and we want them to act appropriately as far as -- especially as far as our agriculture goes. these people work very hard every day to produce our food, and we do not take -- we do not need to take advantage of them in the situation that we have now. with that i yield back. >> if the gentleman will yield? mr. westmoreland: sure. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. scott: thank you, madam speaker. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. aderholt: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

the noes have it. he amendment is not adopted. the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: madam chair, i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia will be postponed. the clerk will read. page 75, line 8, administrative provision, legal services corporation, none of the funds appropriated to the legal services corporation shall be expended to any of the provisions of sections 501, 506 of , 504, 505 and public law 105-119. marine mammal commission, salaries and expenses, $3,250,000.

office of the united states trade representatives, salaries and icks spences, $53,500,000. state justice institute, salaries and expenses, $5,121,000. title 5, general provisions, including recisions. section 501, no part of any appropriation shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes not authorized by congress. section 502, no part of any appropriation shall remain available for obligation unless expressly so provided herein. section 503, the expenditure of any appropriation for any consulting service shall be limited to those contracts where such expenditures are a matter of public record. section 504, if any provision of this act shall be held invalid, the remainder of the act shall not be affected thereby. section 505, none of the funds

provided under previous appropriations to the agencies that remain available for obligation shall be available for obligation or expenditure through a reprogramming of funds that creates or initiates new program. section 506, if it has been determined by a court that any person intentionally affixed a label bearing a made in america description to any product shipped to or sold in the united states that was not made in the united states the person shall be ineligible to receive any contract. section 507, the department of commevers and justice, the national science foundation and the nearble err naughtic and space administration shall provide to the committees and the senate a quarterly report on the status of balances of appropriations. section 508, any costs incurred by a department under this act resulting from personnel actions shall be absorbed within the total budgetary

resources available to such department. section 509. none of the funds shall be available to promote the sale of tobacco or seek reduction by any foreign country of restrictions on the marketing of tobacco. section 510. none of the funds made available in this act hay may be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel of the department of justice to obligate more than $770 million during fiscal year 2015. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> madam chairwoman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. costa of california, page 81, line 22, after the dollar amount insert increased by $230 million. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house, the gentleman from california, mr. costa, and a member opposed each will control five minutes.

>> madam chair. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> i receive a -- reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: a point of order are se -- is reserved. the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. costa: i rise to offer an amendment to h.r. 4660. this amendment would increase the cap on the crime victims' fund to $1 billion, providing needed funding for victims while maintaining the stability of the fund for years to come. since 1984, the victims of the crime act has provided federal grants to provide essential and oftentimes life-saving services for victims of crimes across america. the crime victims' fund is not financed, let's be clear about this, by taxpayer collar -- dollars but by fines, forfeitures and other penalties paid by federal criminal offenders who have been convicted. by statute the fund is dedicated to solely supporting

the victims services. because these dollars have been collected and deposited into the fundraising the cap doesn't add to the national deficit or the debt. right now the crime victims fund is more than $10 billion sitting in the account, waiting to reach the hands of our nation's victims of crime. however, budgetary rules that make no sense whatsoever in my opinion are preventing this critical fund from serving our nation's crime victims. the underlying bill caps the crime victim's fund to $770 million. that's what's in the bill. leaving billions of dollars for the government to use to offset for other federal spending. this is wrong. it's immoral. it's what our taxpayers don't like about the system here in washington. thankfully, there is a solution. congressman judge poe, my good

friend, and i introduced legislation, which would create a lock box for the fund because the fund contains no taxpayer dollars, it should not be considered as a part of the budget. without this legislation, congress will continue to place artificially low caps on the fund which only denies and delays necessary services for victims of crime. congressman poe and i intend to withdraw the amendment with the recognition we must fix this problem going forward. i'd like to thank chairman wolf and ranking member fattah for your your work on this bill and i hope that judge poe and i can work with you and your staff to fix the rules to prevent this funding -- that prevent this is funding from reaching crime victims. at this point i'd like to yield the balance of my time to my good friend, the congressman from texas a co-chair of the victims' rights caucus, judge ted poe. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for the remaining time. mr. poe: i thank the gentleman from california, my friend, mr.

costa, for this amendment and not only this but his hard work on victim's issues even before he came to congress in california, being the author and with the concept of the three strikes and you're out rule that's in california and many other states. i want to congratulate him on this. madam speaker, the victims of crime act fund is a great idea. what it is is, when criminals are convicted in federal court, federal judges impose fees and fines on that criminal and that money go into a fund that is designed to go to victims of crime. great idea. let those criminals pay the rent on the courthouse, pay for the system they have created. $10 billion is in that fund. but less than 10% of it gets spent every year. why is that? because more money keeps coming in, those federal judges are nailing those criminals, more

money come into the fund every year. it's $10 billion, now we're only spending a little bit of it for victim's services and the reason is, this is my opinion, fuzzy math in the accounting procedure. if more money is spent for some reason, that's counted as an increase in spending. even though it's not taxpayer money. the money belongs to victims. funded by criminals. and so because of the accounting procedure, we're only abe to spend a fraction of the money each queer. we want to spend more of the money, more keeps coming in, it's immoral that this money is not being spent for victims. that is in this fund. so we understand the problem with the point of order. we would like future possibility to have the bill that mr. costa and i have sponsored to get it on the floor, to make it simple, the money that goes in the fund goes to criminals, it's not used to pay offsets for other

government projects. and so i would thank the gentleman. i want to thank chairman wolf for working with us. he understands the problem, working with us to try to spend more of the money that belongs to victims that criminals have donated, maybe unwillingly, to the system. i yield back the reasons of my -- the rest of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. costa: i want to thank my good friend from texas. i could not have said it any better. commonsense should suggest that we fix this problem. i thank the chairman and the ranking member. we yield back the balance of our time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of the time. does the gentleman seek to withdraw the point of order? of >> madam chairman, i make a point of order against the amendment. mr. costa: i will withdraw the amendment. the chair: is there objection to withdrawing the amendment?

without objection, the mendment is withdrawn. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment by mr. thompson of california. amendment by mr. polis of colorado. amendment by mr. cicilline of rhode island. amendment by mr. smith of texas. amendment by mr. scott of georgia. the chair will reduce to two minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california, mr. thompson, on which further proceedings were postponed and

on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. thompson of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. of a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be 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 chair: on this this 260, the nays are 145 with one member voting present. he amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. poe less of colorado. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device.

this is a two-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 chair: on this vote the yeas are 66, the nays are 339, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by

voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. cicilline of rhode island. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-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 chair: the nays are 212. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment offered by the gentleman from texas, mr. smith, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the yeas prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. smith of texas. the chair: recorded vote's been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-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 chair: the yeas are 208. the nays are 201. he amendment is adopted.

the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia, mr. scott, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. austin scott of georgia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in the support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-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 chair: on this vote the yeas are 116. he nays are --

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 116. the nays are 290. he amendment is not adopted. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. wolf: mr. chairman, i move hat the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the motion is adopted.

accordingly the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. hairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 4660 directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 4660 and has come to no resolution thereon.

he house will be in order. the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 604, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 4745, making appropriations for the departments of transportation and housing and urban development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2015, and for other purposes. providing for consideration of the bill, h.r. 4681, to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2014 and 2015 for intelligence and intelligence related activities of the united states government, the community management account, and the central intelligence agency retirement and

disability system, and for other purposes, and for other purpose the. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house daled and ordered printed. pursuant to house resolution 585 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 4660. will the gentleman from california, mr. denham, kindly esume the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 4660. which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the departments of commerce and justice, science and related agencies for the fiscal year nding september 30, twirt, and for what purpose does -- 2015, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier today, an amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia had been disposed of and the bill had been read through page 81,

line 24. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 82, line 1. section 511, none of the funds made available to the department may be used to discriminate against the religious beliefs of students who participate in programs. section 512, none of the funds made available may be transferred to any department except pursuant to a transfer made by or transfer authority provided in this act. section 513, any funds provided used to implement the egovernment initiative shall be subject to the procedures set forth in section 505. section 514, the inspectors general shall conduct audits and shall submit reports to ongress. section 515, none of the funds appropriated may be used by the departments to acquire a

high-impact information system unless the agency has reviewed the supply chain risk for the information systems against riteria developed by nist. section 516, none of the funds made available shall be used in any way to support or justify the use of torture by any official or a contract employee of the united states government. section 517, none of the funds appropriated under this act may be expended or obligated to pay administrative expenses in connection with requiring an expert license for the export to canada of components or attachments for firearms. with a total value not xceeding $500. section 518, no department, agency or instrumentality of the united states shall obligate funds to pay administrative expenses for any

office or to deny any application pursuant to 22, united states code, 2778-b-1-b, for a permit to import firearms, parts or ammunition. section 519, none of the funds made available may be used to include in any new bilateral or multilateral trade agreement the text of paragraph 2 of article 16.7 of the united states singapore free trade agreement -- united states-singapore free trade agreement. section 520. none of the funds maybe used to authorize a national security letter inen to that invention of any laws -- in contra invention of any laws to issue national security letters. section 521, if the program manager of a project within the jurisdiction of the departments totaling more than $75 million has cause to believe that the total program cost has increased by 10% or more, the

program manager shall immediately inform the respective secretary. section 522, funds made available for intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically authorized by the congress. section 523, none of the funds appropriated may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5 million unless the perspective contractor certifies that the contractor has filed all federal tax returns required during the three years preceding the certification. section 524, of the unobligated balances available for department of commerce, departmental management franchise fund, $2,906,000 is ereby rescinded. section 525, none of the funds may be used to purchase first-class airline travel. section 526, none of the funds

may be used to send or otherwise pay for the attendance of more than 50 employees from a federal department or agency at any single conference outside the united states. the chair: the clerk will suspend. does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. wolf: move to strike the last word. whoip the clerk will read -- the chair: the clerk will read. mr. wolf: strike the last words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. wolf: i yield to the gentleman from texas. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to engage in a olloquy with the chairman. the chair: proceed. >> as the gentleman from virginia is aware, i have serious concerns about the nonresponsiveness of certain federal officials to legitimate congressional oversight activities. in some of these situations there have been action take bin the house to hold these officials in contempt of

congress. as the gentleman is aware, i was considering offering an amendment to this bill that would simply prohibit funding for any federal employee who has been found in contempt of congress. it's my firm belief that the american people should not be footing the bill for federal employees who stonewall congress or rewarding government officials' bad behavior. mr. farenthold: if the average american failed to do his or her job, she would hard will be i -- hardly be rewarded. however based on the conversations i've had the chairman and other members, i don't plan to offer the amendment to the bill with the understanding that the chairman of the committee will continue to work with me to ensure that this matter is considered in an appropriate bill. and i'd like to ask the gentleman if he would commit to working with me to find a satisfactory vehicle for addressing the issue of compensation for public officials found in contempt of congress. i yield back. mr. wolf: i thank the gentleman for the opportunity to address this important issue. and it is an important one. and i can assure him that we will work with him on this as we move forward in the appropriations process. mr. farenthold: thank you, sir.

mr. wolf: thank you very much. the chair: the clerk will read. the clerk: page 93, line 16, section 527, none of the funds may be used in a manner that is inconsistent with respect to trade remedy laws, to preserve the ability of the united states to enforce vigorously its trade laws. section 528, none of the funds may be used to transfer or assist in the transfer or release to or within the united states, its territories or possessions, khalid sheik mohammed or any other detainee who is not a united states citizen or a member of the armed forces of the united states. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. wolf: i have and at the desk -- mr. moran: i have an amendment at the desk. mr. chairman, the amendment would strike both section 528 and 529 so i ask unanimous consent that they be considered

en bloc. the chair: is there objection to consideration of the amendment at this point? if not, the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 13 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. moran of virginia. the chair: purr subte to the order -- pursuant to the order of the house, the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran, and a member each opposed will ontrol five minutes. mr. moran: does anyone claim time in opposition? mr. wolf: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. moran: mr. chairman, sections 528 and 529 of this bill would restrict the department of justice from transferring detainees to the united states. the problem with this is that guantanamo is now a rallying cry for extremists around the world and until we transfer and

try these detainees, there is no denying that guantanamo is hurting our national security. and so my amendment would strike sections 52 and 529 -- 528 and 529 and i will yield myself approximately three minutes and then yield to mr. nattler. -- nadler. mr. chairman, we're currently pending $2,670,000 per detainee per year at guantanamo. compared to $34,000 per year at a high security federal prison here in the united states. in f.y. 2014 the department of defense estimates that it's going to spend $435 million in operations of personnel costs to operate this facility. that money could so much better be spent on military readiness, medical research, improving the quality of life for our men and women in uniform. the fact is, mr. chairman,

nearly 500 defendants charged with crimes related to international terrorism have been successfully convicted in the united states since 9/11. including a former gitmo detainee, the times square bomber, the shoe bomber and a 9/11 co-conspirator. all of them are incarcerated in 98 federal prisons here in the united states with no security incidents. now, by comparison, military commissions, which is the alternative, have managed to prosecute eight cases in that time and many of them have in fact been overturned on appeal. there are six d.o.d. facilities where gitmo detainees could be held in the united states that are currently only at 48% capacity. the political and legal expediency of the detention center at guantanamo bay is not

worth the cost to america's reputation around the world, nor to the erosion of our legal and ethical standards here at home and i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. wolf: i rise in opposition to the amendment. and i want to thank the gentleman. we visited guantanamo bay together. i think any member who has not been down there, you should go down and see what is there. these are important provisions that have been included in appropriation bills for the last several years. they represent a strong and enduring consensus in congress. striking these provisions would have unknown consequences for u.s. communities. imagine bringing khalid sheik mohammed, who beheaded daniel pearl, and who was the stermind of the 9/11 attack,

about 170 people from my district died in the attack on the pentagon. can you imagine? they were initially going to bring him to new york city and mayor bloomberg and senator schumer all opposed it because they knew what the impact was going to be and the security requirements. so this would have an unbelievable impact on communities. putting detainees in u.s. prisons, as the administration originally proposed, would be disruptive and i think disastrous. former f.b.i. director mueller has stated, quote, to transfer detainees to local jails could affect or infect other prisoners or have the capability of affecting events outside the prison system, end of quote. one of the things i think members have to understand is pirate who was a

was, if you saw the movie "captain phillips," he was arrested, he was arrested and tried and they said that he would be convicted and there would be no way that he would ever be released. , he was tried and he was acquitted and now he's seeking asylum, he's in virginia, he's seeking asylum maybe in virginia. there was another case, if you recall, attorney general holder said there was no way that this guy will ever get off and he convicted on one count and had that count not been a conviction he would have been released. that , there were uighurs

were arrested in tora bora in a training camp run by osama bin laden. they were there to learn how to kill americans but also to kill chinese. if you follow the concerns that the -- of the uighur issue in china. the administration had reserved apartments, they were in guantanamo bay, they reserved apartments in northern virginia at seven corners for them to live here. so i think -- i know the gentleman is well meaning, but i think to bring guantanamo bay detainees here, people like khalid sheik mohammed, people like that, and then if they were tried here and acquitted and then can you imagine, they then apply for asylum because we're now going to see a case where one pirate acquitted is

applying for asylum and now is living in virginia and may very well want to stay in virginia. so i urge the defeat of this amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. moran: mr. chairman, how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman has 2 1/2 minutes. mr. moran: i'll speak -- i will at this point yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, from the judiciary committee. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. nadler: i thank the gentleman. mr. chairman, i understand that there is an irrational fear of bringing guantanamo detainees nto the united states. even though we'd only do so to bring them to justice. the military to courts which have not been successful at prosecuting them. one of the 9/11 terrorists is in a u.s. prison. the shoe bomber is in