[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 20562-20601]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2008

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 562 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3093.

                              {time}  1306


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 3093) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and 
Justice, and

[[Page 20563]]

Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
2008, and for other purposes, with Mr. Snyder in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, today we're considering the fiscal year 
2008 appropriations bill for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, 
Science and Related Agencies.
  Before I get into the substance of the bill, Mr. Chairman, I want to 
thank my ranking member, Rodney Frelinghuysen, for his important 
contributions to this bill. He's done an outstanding job. He's been a 
terrific partner, and I respect and appreciate the expertise that he 
brings to our subcommittee. He has a strong commitment to our law 
enforcement agencies and grant programs for at-risk individuals. Mr. 
Chairman, he's demonstrated a real desire to make sure that the U.S. 
has adequate resources to negotiate fair trade agreements and the means 
to obtain an accurate census. I thank him for his assistance. I 
sincerely also want to thank his personal staff, Katie Hazlett and 
Nancy Fox, and minority staff, Frank Cushing and Mike Ringler, for 
their help during this whole process.
  Mr. Chairman, I also want to express my thanks to Chairman David Obey 
who has done an excellent job leading the Appropriations Committee 
through a hectic year that began with a continuing resolution.
  I also want to express my sincere gratitude to a tremendous 
subcommittee staff. This bill would not have been possible without the 
extreme hard work of Michelle Burkett, Meg Thompson, Marjorie Duske, 
Tracey LaTurner, Dennis Dauphin and Jennifer Eskra, who sacrificed long 
hours many days to complete this bill.
  I also appreciate the strong efforts and expertise of the full 
committee, including majority staff director Rob Nabors, John Daniel, 
David Reich, and Leslie Turner.
  Lastly, I want to recognize my personal staff for their hard work, 
Sally Moorhead and Julie Aaronson, who have done a tremendous job 
working on the bill as well.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, turning to the substance of the bill. Mr. 
Chairman, this bill totals $53.6 billion in spending and was formulated 
with input gathered from 24 hearings, including agencies that had not 
had a hearing since fiscal year 2005. We also heard expert testimony 
from outside witnesses regarding law enforcement needs, the importance 
of scientific research for our Nation's competitiveness, and the need 
for Federal investment in local and regional economic development.
  Through these hearings, we developed a fair and bipartisan 
appropriations bill that responds to legislative priorities supported 
on both sides of the aisle. Those priorities include both programmatic 
funding and congressionally directed spending for projects in 
individual districts. Pursuant to the strong rules put in place by the 
House and the full Appropriations Committee this year, designated 
funding has been cut in half from the fiscal year 2006 enacted level, 
and oversight has been increased by examining closely and carefully 
each earmark request and the accompanying certification letters.
  In several areas in the bill, Mr. Chairman, this subcommittee has 
eliminated earmarks and instead has created competitive accounts in 
which eligible entities may compete by submitting proposals to the 
agency for Federal funding. This process will increase transparency, 
spur innovative solutions, and allow programs nationwide to compete in 
the marketplace of ideas.
  Mr. Chairman, I'm particularly pleased that this subcommittee, which 
funds the major science agencies for the Federal Government, has taken 
on the issue of climate change. This bill funds $1.9 billion worth of 
climate change initiatives, an increase of $164 million above the 
President's request. Now that the scientific community has determined 
that global warming and the resulting climate changes are real 
phenomena, we must identify steps to be taken and strategies to be 
adopted in response to global climate change, and this bill does so by 
funding new programs in the Department of Commerce, in NASA, and in the 
National Science Foundation. Some of the climate change initiatives in 
this bill include:
  Funds to improve data collection associated with understanding global 
climate change, including restoring critically important sensors on the 
National Polar-orbiting Operating Environmental Satellite System, 
NPOESS;
  Second, funding increases for competitive climate research grants in 
NOAA's operating, research and facilities account;
  Third, two new education programs directed at climate change as 
recommended by the National Academies;
  Fourth, additional funds to the Marine Mammal Commission for 
monitoring mammal adaptation to climate change;
  And, finally, Mr. Chairman, $6 million in NOAA for an investigation 
and study by the National Academy of Sciences on climate change.
  This climate change study by the National Academy of Sciences will be 
a science-driven report examining the climate change data that has been 
collected in the last decade to provide the Federal Government, the 
business sector and other interested parties with an understanding of 
what we know and what we don't know about climate change and the 
options for how to proceed in the future. This landmark study process 
will begin with a 3-day climate change summit, at which top experts in 
the field will gather to determine the study's scope and topics. This 
subcommittee will take great efforts in this process to assure that 
agency agendas and politics do not get in the way of good science 
guidance to this country which it needs to move forward.
  Mr. Chairman, perhaps the most vital theme in this bill is law 
enforcement and protection for our communities. The job of funding the 
Department of Justice was made more challenging by funding holes in the 
President's inadequate budget request. In this bill, we increased 
funding for the Department of Justice above the President's request by 
$1.68 billion for a total funding for the Department of Justice of 
$23.9 billion.
  The President requested $1.475 billion for State and local law 
enforcement. Well, this was $1.4 billion below the fiscal year 2007 
enacted level, thus creating a huge hole in the bill.

                              {time}  1315

  The bill provides $3.195 billion for State and local law enforcement, 
and that is a 53 percent increase above the President's request and a 
10 percent increase above fiscal year 2007 levels.
  The President's request would eliminate the existing Office of 
Justice Program's formula program and discretionary grants, and create 
three vaguely defined initiatives to be administered under the sole 
discretion of the Attorney General. This bill rejects the 
administration's proposal and provides funds directly to State and 
local law enforcement.
  Other key funding increases in the Department of Justice include two 
new competitive grant programs. The first is the Youth Mentoring 
Grants, funded at $100 million. The second, a $10 million program, will 
provide competitive grants to programs of national significance to 
prevent crime and improve the administration of justice or assist 
victims of crime. This bill provides $725 million for the Community 
Oriented Policing Services programs, which played a vital major role in 
reducing crime in the 1990s.
  Within this total, $100 million is for restarting the COPS hiring 
program, which has not been funded since 2005. Many Members contacted 
the subcommittee and myself and the ranking member with regard to the 
COPS program. I am very pleased that we were able to restart this COPS 
hiring program, which was extremely effective in reducing that crime 
rate in the 1990s.

[[Page 20564]]

  This bill also offers comprehensive funding to help State and local 
law enforcement address the methamphetamine epidemic, including $600 
million in Justice Assistance Grants, $85 million for meth-specific 
COPS grants, $40 million for Drug Court programs, $10 million for State 
Prison Treatment Drug Programs, and $20.6 million for DEA Mobile 
Enforcement teams, which Mr. Frelinghuysen was so instrumental in 
advocating. The President proposed to terminate all of these programs.
  The bill also provides funding for Southwest Border Methamphetamine 
Enforcement. The bill increases funding for Violence Against Women Act, 
the VAWA programs, by $60 million for a total funding of $430 million, 
and rejects the President's proposal for VAWA's 14 grant programs. 
Tremendous interest among both the parties, Democrats, Republicans, for 
VAWA, and we are very pleased to bring a bill to the floor that can 
increase the violence against women programs by $60 million, I repeat, 
for a total of $430 million.
  Lastly, within the Department of Justice, the bill provides $25.4 
million and increases for several Federal law enforcement agencies to 
implement the Adam Walsh Act of 2006. Increased funding is provided in 
several accounts within the Department of Justice for the apprehension 
and prosecution of sex offenders. An increase of $14 million, for a 
total of $61.4 million, is also provided for the Missing Children 
programs.
  Mr. Chairman, the Department of Commerce recommendation is $7 
billion, a little over $7 billion, an increase of $497 million above 
the President's request.
  In the bill the committee restores funding for a number of programs 
that the President cut or eliminated, including the Advanced Technology 
Program, the Manufacturing Extension Program, and the Public 
Telecommunications Facilities Program.
  In the Census Bureau, funds were restored for the Survey of Income 
and Program Participation, an extremely important program with great 
interest among the body, and community partnership program has been 
restored as well. For the Economic Development Administration, an 
increase of $100 million was provided to reverse a recent downward 
trend in funding. The bill also rejects the President's proposal to 
consolidate the economic development programs into a single regional 
development account.
  Mr. Chairman, for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, the bill provides robust funding of almost $4 billion. 
The bill establishes competitive funding in the Coastal Estuarine and 
the Land Conservation Program and the Integrated Ocean Observing 
System, and also competitive funding in the education account.
  In support of the Innovation Agenda, the committee funds the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology at $831 million, an increase of 
$190 million above the President's request, and provides $6.5 billion 
to the National Science Foundation to continue the goal of doubling the 
National Science Foundation funding in 10 years.
  The bill also provides an increase of $72 million in National Science 
Foundation over the President's request for education programs.
  In NASA, the bill provides $17.6 billion, an increase of $313 million 
above the President's request. This funding restores the cuts made by 
the administration in science and aeronautics and the education 
portfolios, and provides the funding in a new account structure to 
improve transparency and understandability of NASA's submissions.
  We have tried in a small way to give NASA the increases that it needs 
where the President has been negligent. The President's budget request 
made an ambitious proposal in the Vision for Space Exploration for the 
United States to return to the moon and to eventually go to Mars; 
however, by all accounts, he did not fund his vision adequately. The 
most recent telling evidence of this shortfall is the fact that the 
President's proposal assumes the inability of the United States to 
access space for a gap of 4 years between when the space station 
retires and when the CEV launches on its first official flight, the 
crew exploration vehicle. This leaves the United States with no 
guaranteed source of transportation during that gap to the space 
station.
  I want to make clear to Members that the gap has nothing to do with 
the continuing resolution of last year. Full ownership of this gap 
resides with the President. His unfunded mandate of the vision, as well 
as the fact that NASA had to pay for return to flight after the 
Columbia accident out of its own hide, has resulted in NASA being 
forced to rob Peter, science and aeronautics, to pay for Paul, shuttle, 
space station and exploration. In the end there is not enough for 
either Peter or Paul.
  The President has to acknowledge his inadequate budget request in 
this area. We invite him to reinvigorate and legitimize the Vision for 
Space Exploration by asking for necessary funds for returning to the 
moon and for going to Mars eventually and for other key NASA missions 
through a budget amendment or through an adequate fiscal year 2009 
request. Otherwise, limited U.S. access to space and stagnation of key 
NASA programs will be, in this area, the President's legacy, the 
President's legacy in space.
  This bill makes positive changes in some of the smaller agencies. We 
have added $66 million above the President's request to the Legal 
Services Corporation for a total of $337 million. We have added $5 
million to the EEOC to reduce the backlog of pending cases, and 
included a provision to eliminate the outsourcing of the EEOC call 
center. We have restored funding for the National Veterans Business 
Development Corporation, which was zeroed out in the President's 
request, and we have provided additional funds to the Marine Mammal 
Commission for monitoring mammal adaptation to climate change.
  There are many worthwhile programs in this bill. This reviews the 
highlights of them, and this bill represents a responsible bipartisan 
approach to funding these priorities, and we are pleased to bring it to 
the body today.

[[Page 20565]]

TH25JY07.001



[[Page 20566]]

TH25JY07.002



[[Page 20567]]

TH25JY07.003



[[Page 20568]]

TH25JY07.004



[[Page 20569]]

TH25JY07.005



[[Page 20570]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I am pleased to join my chairman, the gentleman from West Virginia 
(Mr. Mollohan), in beginning the consideration of H.R. 3093, making 
appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for the Departments of Commerce and 
Justice, and Science, and Related Agencies. This bill provides funding 
for programs whose impact ranges from the safety of people in their 
homes and communities to the farthest reaches of space exploration.
  The bill before the House today addresses a number of critical 
national needs and requirements. The chairman has done an outstanding 
job in balancing many competing interests and has put together a solid 
bill in a fair and even-handed manner. I appreciate his openness and 
responsiveness, as well as his thorough understanding of each and every 
program in this bill.
  I would also like to thank all Members of the subcommittee for their 
help and assistance and their advocacy, and also the staff on both 
sides of the aisle who spent long, long hours in putting this bill and 
report together.
  On the minority side Mike Ringler and Frank Cushing, who have been 
mentioned; and Nancy Fox and Katie Hazlett of my personal staff; and on 
the majority side, Michelle Burkett, Marjorie Duske, Tracey LaTurner, 
Meg Thompson, Dennis Dauphin, Jennifer Eskra; and, as the chairman has 
noted, his great personal staff, Sally Moorhead and Julia Aaronsen.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill includes important increases to priority 
programs that all Members can support. Throughout our extensive hearing 
schedule, we heard about urgent funding requests, including the need to 
address a growing violent crime rate that has begun to rise again after 
many years of decline, and the need to boost our Nation's 
competitiveness through more investments in scientific research and 
science and math education.
  However, I also believe we could have met the most pressing needs by 
prioritizing within a lower allocation, the allocation giving this 
subcommittee $53.5 billion, which is $3.2 billion, or 6.4 percent, over 
2007; and $2.3 billion, or 4.5 percent, over the President's request. 
This very generous allocation allows everything to grow and is, I 
believe, more than sufficient to address the highest-priority needs in 
a satisfactory way.
  By comparison, the House passed a CJS bill with an allocation that 
exceeded the President's request by less than a quarter of 1 percent 
last year. That bill addressed critical priorities and passed 
overwhelmingly on the House floor.
  As others have stated about earlier bills, the size of the allocation 
this year may make it more difficult to produce a bill that will get 
signed into law, so I look forward to continuing to work together with 
the chairman towards that goal.
  I would also like to briefly highlight some of the more important 
contents of the bill. For the Department of Commerce, the bill includes 
$7.1 billion, including the full requested level for the critical 
functions of the National Weather Service, and important investments in 
NOAA's ocean and climate research.
  I appreciate the chairman has included funding in the bill to 
strongly support the trade agencies empowering the U.S. Trade 
Representative in the International Trade Administration to negotiate, 
verify and enforce trade agreements that are free and fair, and to 
ensure an even playing field for American businesses and workers.
  Requested increases for NIST under the President's American 
Competitiveness Initiative are fully funded, as is the Manufacturing 
Extension Partnership at $108.8 million.
  The bill also included $1.9 billion, or an 8\1/2\ percent increase, 
for the Patent and Trademark Office, and fully funds the request to 
support the ramp-up to the 2010 decennial census.
  On the Justice side for the Department of Justice, the bill includes 
$23.7 billion, $1.7 billion above the request. The bill restores $1.7 
billion to the administration proposed to reduce from State and local 
law enforcement accounts, including programs addressing violence 
against women, violent gangs, the meth epidemic, child exploitation and 
the continuing need for interoperable law enforcement communications.
  I am very pleased that the chairman agrees that we must insist on 
standards and best practices for the use of these types of grant funds. 
It is not acceptable simply to pass out money to local jurisdictions 
without stringent requirements to follow accepted standards and proven 
program models. I salute the chairman for including language 
specifically under the COPs law enforcement technologies to ensure that 
funds go towards equipment that meets all relevant Federal standards.
  Despite the sizeable increase in State and local law enforcement 
programs, many Members are concerned about the funding for SCAAP, the 
State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. An amendment to increase the 
funding to the current-year level was adopted at the committee level.

                              {time}  1330

  We may see further amendments to increase it even further. The costs 
incurred to incarcerate undocumented criminal aliens continue to be an 
enormous financial burden on our towns and cities. The SCAAP program 
provides important partial Federal reimbursement for costs relating to 
what is truly a national, not a local, problem, immigration 
enforcement.
  The bill also includes important investments to fight the national 
epidemic methamphetamine abuse: $600 million for Justice Assistance 
Grants which support local drug task forces, the Byrne Grants; $85 
million in grants to combat meth, that epidemic; $40 million for drug 
courts; and funding for the DEA to support State and local efforts and 
to fight international drug trafficking.
  The FBI is funded above the President's request, which is necessary 
in order to continue current staffing and operations levels while also 
funding urgent increases in counterterrorism programs. The 
Appropriations Committee has been at the forefront of the FBI's 
transformation into our Nation's premier counterterrorism agency, and I 
am pleased we are able to continue that support this year.
  Too often we fail to recognize the critical and often dangerous work 
that the FBI special agents and, may I say, also the DEA and AFT 
special agents do both at home and abroad in order to detect and 
prevent terrorist and other types of attacks. This is incredibly 
important work. This bill strongly supports those efforts while 
providing necessary funding for the FBI to fulfill its traditional 
roles and address emerging problems, such as child exploitation, the 
growth of violent gangs, and human trafficking.
  One area where I believe we should have done more in light of the 
generous allocation is in Federal law enforcement. In the joint 
resolution for 2007, the Congress provided more than $1 billion above 
the freeze to support current operations and urgent increases for 
Federal law enforcement. In many cases, these increases were not 
assumed in the formulation of the President's budget for 2008. So while 
most Federal law enforcement accounts are funded at least at the 
President's request in this bill, there still will be some negative 
consequences in the form of personnel reductions and hiring freezes at 
some agencies, including the DEA, the AFT, and the new National 
Security Division. The chairman has been very cooperative thus far in 
helping to lessen the impacts on the DEA, and I hope we can work 
together to improve funding for Federal law enforcement generally as 
the bill moves forward to conference.
  In addition, I am concerned that the Justice Department rescissions 
included in this bill may turn out to be based on unrealistic 
assumptions. The balances available could likely fall far short of the 
rescinded amounts, and I hope to continue to work with the chairman to 
avoid any harmful cuts.
  In the area of science, this bill also funds important initiatives in 
science and competitiveness. The capacity to innovate is the primary 
engine of our

[[Page 20571]]

economy and our way of life. In order to sustain it, we must increase 
our investment in basic scientific research and strengthen science 
education.
  This bill fully funds the President's competitive initiative, which 
includes a commitment to double the funding for basic scientific 
research over 10 years, and also to strengthen and encourage education 
and entrepreneurship.
  For the National Science Foundation, the bill provides $6.5 billion, 
or 10 percent, above the current year for research that will set the 
groundwork of the development of new technologies and science education 
programs that will continue to ensure that we have a well-educated and 
skilled workforce to improve our competitiveness.
  For NASA, the bill provides $17.6 billion. This level supports the 
President's vision for space exploration with the full request for the 
continuing development of the Crew Exploration Vehicle and the Crew 
Launch Vehicle, keeping to a minimum the gap in flight capability after 
the retirement of the shuttle.
  The bill also includes funding for the request for aeronautics 
research, space science programs, and NASA education programs.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, despite concerns about the overall level of 
spending, this bill represents the chairman's best efforts to 
distribute the allocation he was given to the various competing 
requirements under our subcommittee's jurisdiction. I highly commend 
him for an outstanding job and will be urging all Members to support 
this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he might consume to 
the distinguished chairman of the full Appropriations Committee, Mr. 
Obey.
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman for the time.
  Let me simply say that I do appreciate very much the initiatives that 
are being taken by this subcommittee with respect to the climate change 
problem facing the globe. These are small initiatives; they are 
nonetheless important. They are not nearly sufficient to deal with the 
long-term problem, but we will have to mount a much greater effort on 
this front in the years to come.
  I would like to comment on what has happened with respect to local 
law enforcement assistance over the past 3 years. We have had a Kabuki 
dance going on for years between the White House and the Congress of 
the United States. Each year, the President proposes very deep cuts in 
the law enforcement assistance grants to localities, and each year the 
Congress only partially restores those cuts. It then pats itself on the 
back, says, ``Oh, what a good boy am I. Look how much we added to law 
enforcement,'' when, in fact, all they did is restore a small portion 
of the President's reductions. As a result, these programs, which were 
funded at the $4.4 billion level in fiscal 2001, are now funded at 
about $2.8 billion, $1.6 billion below the high watermark. That is ill-
advised, in my view.
  I appreciate the fact that this bill provides a substantial increase 
in that funding for local law enforcement, $1.7 billion, or 53 percent, 
above the President's request. I think that is essential.
  The committee also recognizes that State and local law enforcement 
benefits from the criminal investigation resources and capabilities of 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and so this bill provides $148 
million over the President's request for that purpose. I think that 
money is very badly needed.
  Having said that, I have to confess a significant degree of 
discomfort with the way the FBI has performed in recent years. As we 
know, investigations of the use of national security letters by the FBI 
have told us that the FBI issued approximately 8,500 of those in 2000. 
The March 2007 Senate investigation of the Justice Department's 
Inspector General puts that number now at over 143,000 NSLs issued 
between 2003 and 2005. The same investigation found serious FBI abuses 
of NSL regulations. And what is even more alarming is the report that 
the FBI's own lawyers counseled against the illegal use of emergency 
letters requesting telephone and Internet information, and still the 
practice continued for 2 years. This practice continued for 2 years, 
despite counsel's recommendation to cease, and Congress only found out 
about the situation upon public release of the IG report when the FBI's 
general counsel had been briefing special agents in charge on reversing 
the practice for 2 months prior to that.
  I am disconcerted by that fact, and I have talked to the director of 
the FBI about this on two occasions. I was pleased when he got the job 
in the first place, but I am not pleased with the way this has worked 
out. I would certainly hope that the agency would shape up so that it 
does not continue to be an embarrassment in terms of its declining to 
adhere to rule of law.
  With that said, I also am pleased that the Legal Service Corporation 
is funded at a level $66 million higher than the President's request. 
All I can say about that is that it is about time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), an outstanding member of 
the committee.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want 
to commend him and Chairman Mollohan for fully funding the exploration 
initiative. These are the funds that will allow us to continue to 
operate the shuttle and as well to continue to develop a replacement 
for the shuttle. And, importantly, that replacement, the Orion capsule, 
will be a safer and less expensive space vehicle, and so it is very 
important that we keep funding on track.
  I want to commend Chairman Mollohan for bringing up the important 
issue of the gap in human space flight. I would simply point out that 
when the President originally put forward this proposal, I shared 
Chairman Mollohan's criticism that this gap in human space flight is 
not good for America, and I am certainly anxious to work with the 
administration and with the committee to see if it will be possible for 
us in the years ahead to reduce that time where Americans will be 
relying on the Russians, essentially, to put our astronauts into space.
  While I certainly share the concerns raised by Ranking Member 
Frelinghuysen about the veto threat against this bill because of the 
excessive spending, I just want to go on record regarding the spending 
increase concerns raised by the administration in the aeronautics 
account.
  I am very concerned about our air traffic control system and its 
ability to handle the ever-increasing volume of commercial air traffic, 
and that we are falling behind on this critical investment of 
modernizing our air traffic control system.
  Additionally, I want to comment on the accounting changes in the NASA 
account that Chairman Mollohan has championed. While I agree that they 
represent perhaps a more elegant way for us to keep track of NASA 
funding, the 90-day time window he has provided NASA to implement this 
new initiative may not be physically feasible for the agency, and I am 
certainly hoping that he is willing to work with NASA officials in the 
years ahead.
  And then, finally, I just want to comment on two other important 
issues. One, I am very pleased that both the chairman and the ranking 
member are seeking to protect the census account. This is a very 
important account. It is probably one of the few constitutionally 
mandated responsibilities in this bill. I know that the census account 
is frequently used as a piggy bank by Members seeking to increase 
various sections of the bill, and I am pleased and I would want to 
continue to encourage both the chairman and the ranking member to 
protect the census account.
  Then finally, I want to comment on two amendments that I am offering 
in the bill. I have two amendments that deal with the issue of cities 
and municipalities that create sanctuaries for illegal aliens who 
basically say that we are not going to enforce Federal laws in our 
jurisdiction, and then they turn around and apply for grants in this 
bill to help them with the responsibility of

[[Page 20572]]

dealing with criminal illegal aliens. In my opinion, that is 
inappropriate, and if they want to have access to the money, they 
shouldn't be creating sanctuaries.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to a 
distinguished member of the subcommittee. We have a great subcommittee 
on both sides, Democrats and Republicans, who work extremely well, and 
every one of them brings a lot to the bill as we marked up, and Mr. 
Honda is certainly no exception.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3093.
  Mr. Chairman, this is my first year as a member of the CJS 
Subcommittee. It has been a great experience working under the 
leadership of Mr. Mollohan and Mr. Frelinghuysen, and I just want to 
indicate that it has been a good experience because it has been very 
bipartisan.
  I wanted to make a couple of comments about law enforcement. Between 
2001 and 2006, the funding for State and local law enforcement grants 
was cut 43 percent during the time when State and local law enforcement 
agencies have been expected to take on increased homeland security 
responsibilities. As a result, last year the FBI reported that violent 
crime has had its biggest increase in over a decade. This bill reverses 
that trend, making its biggest investment in restoring the State and 
local grants and funding for the FBI.
  The bill includes funding to restart the COPS hiring program to put 
more than 2,800 police officers on the streets to fight crime, and in 
my district it is critical to be able to address the gang activities 
out there.

                              {time}  1345

  I represent Silicon Valley, Mr. Chairman, and it's the home of 
technological innovation in America, so I'm keenly aware of how 
innovation is the driving force behind our Nation's economy, and that 
to keep our economic preeminence in the world, we need to stay on the 
cutting edge of science and technology.
  It's been mentioned before, our support for NSF and for NASA, and I 
support that, and I think that it's a good step in the right direction. 
And realigning how we budget NASA has made a critical difference, being 
that it's going from FTEs to mission-oriented budgeting. That's going 
to make a great big change.
  In the Department of Commerce, the National Institute of Standards 
and Technology, we see a funding increase that restores program cuts 
that would have been eliminated by the President that included ATP and 
the Manufacturing Extension Program. These are critical programs to 
continue to fund if we're going to maintain our edge.
  NOAA has been funded just over $4 billion, and since climate change 
is such a big issue, NOAA has a big role in that, and we need to 
continue to support that group.
  I'd like to thank, again, the leadership and this opportunity to be 
part of the committee.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to 
another distinguished member of the subcommittee, Mr. Ruppersberger.
  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this very 
responsible funding bill. I commend the Chair and the ranking member 
for working together in a bipartisan way to come up with an outstanding 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, you are a true leader, and I respect the way you've 
handled yourself throughout the process.
  In my former position as a Baltimore County Executive I was required 
to submit a $2 million operating budget each year, and I did so without 
raising taxes and without cutting vital public safety or economic 
development programs.
  I call this bill today our Law Enforcement and Investment Budget for 
America. This is where we fulfill our obligation to protect our 
citizens from crime. It is where we invest in our economy, our sciences 
and new technologies. This is where we keep America competitive in a 
global economy.
  I learned in my former position as county executive that if you 
neglect public safety, and you neglect public investment, the taxpayers 
end up paying a higher price down the road and get less for their 
money. They pay in more crime, a lagging economy and a higher price tag 
on new infrastructure.
  Some of my friends on the other side are proposing across-the-board 
cuts. Congress should never impose such cuts for two reasons. First, 
you cut the meat with the fat, the good programs with the bad. Second, 
as a leader, you fail in your duty to make tough choices and to provide 
vision and direction for our country.
  A proposed 1 percent cut would mean we can fund about 7,000 fewer 
bulletproof vests for cops in your police and sheriff departments.
  A proposed 6 percent cut means $12 million less for STOP grants to 
fight violence against women.
  For many years Congress has neglected the law enforcement budget in 
the CJS appropriations bill. We have underfunded law enforcement.
  As a former prosecutor, I was shocked this year when the 
administration proposed a hiring freeze for the DEA at a time when 
drugs are the scourge of so many of our communities. This bill corrects 
that.
  These are tough fiscal times, yet this is the first time in the 
history of our country that we have cut taxes while we are at war. We 
borrow from our children and countries like China, and then continue to 
spend and spend in Iraq. What kind of fiscal management is this? It 
leads to huge deficits, and it is fiscally irresponsible.
  This CJS bill reflects new priorities and new direction. Congress 
would never propose a 1 percent cut in the funding of our troops in 
Iraq. Congress should never have a 1 percent cut in funding for cops on 
the beat in our communities. It is time we stand up for our cops and 
first responders, just like we stand up for or troops.
  It is bad fiscal policy to have across-the-board cuts in the vital 
economic development programs of Commerce, Department and Census 
Bureau. Cuts in the census harm our local communities and leave us 
behind in the information economy.
  Mr. Chair, if we did not have this deficit we confront today, I would 
support even more funding for law enforcement.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
another distinguished member of the subcommittee, Ms. DeLauro.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this bill and 
want to commend the chairman and the staff for an excellent bill which 
signals a new direction and reflects our priorities as a Nation. The 
goal of this bill has always been to make a strong investment in our 
future, to take seriously our responsibility to the American public.
  I'm proud to see that this bill will provide $10 million to the 
Sexual Assault Service Program directly for rape crisis centers, State 
and territorial sexual assault coalitions and culturally specific 
programs and tribes.
  This is the only Federal funding stream dedicated entirely to 
providing direct services for victims of sexual violence. That is vital 
because, without a consistent and a specialized funding stream for 
direct services, rape crisis centers are stretched to the limit trying 
to meet increased demand for services with reduced government funding.
  We are finding other ways as well to strengthen services to victims 
of all domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking, 
by significantly boosting funds for the Office of Violence Against 
Women, $430 million, or $60 million above the President's request.
  We know these programs are both necessary and effective. Since the 
Violence Against Women Act was first passed in 1994, reports of 
domestic violence have decreased by half. But as long as domestic 
violence continues, we must continue fighting to ensure women have the 
tools to fight back.
  The bill also works to strengthen local law enforcement $3.2 billion 
to protect our communities and our quality of life, including COPS 
grants to

[[Page 20573]]

put 2,800 new police officers on the streets, drug courts, Byrne grants 
for local crime prevention programs, and a competitive youth mentoring 
grants program to prevent juvenile delinquency.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill reflects a commitment to our longstanding 
responsibilities and true fiscal responsibility. Together we can meet 
our obligations as a Congress and a Nation to the American people.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to another 
distinguished member of the subcommittee, Mr. Kennedy.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Rhode Island is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, let me just commend both the chairman and 
the ranking member for producing a bill which certainly goes a long 
ways to meeting the needs of our country in a number of areas.
  But let me particularly point out an area that concerns me a great 
deal, and that's the area where I think there's a large indictment on 
our country; that's the area of the fact that this country has more 
people incarcerated in its jail system per capita than any other 
industrialized Nation on the Earth. More people in jail in our country 
than any other free Nation on the Earth.
  My friends, that is an indictment on us as a Nation, that we can't do 
better. This bill invests more in preventing people getting in jail.
  We add over $80 million to the Juvenile Justice Delinquency Act, 
section 5, title 5, which is prevention dollars. We have decreased that 
money over $280 million over the last 5 years, under the previous 
Congress. This year, under this bill, we increase it by $50 million, 
add another $30 million to the JBAG program, which is the gang 
prevention section of the Juvenile Justice act. We add $10 million to 
the Mentally Ill Offender Program, which helps us to put more money 
into identifying mentally ill offenders at the time of their offense, 
helping them to divert them from having to go into jail, and properly 
treating them, rather than accepting them into prison. And we quadruple 
the amount of dollars that are going into drug courts, the best-known 
source of reducing recidivism that we have in this country.
  If you want to have a war on drugs, the best war on drugs is to treat 
people for their addictions rather than to put them in jail, and this 
bill goes a long ways in doing just that.
  I want to commend the chairman for his work on this matter.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
Mr. Gilchrest from Maryland, a strong voice for the Chesapeake.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I want to stand and thank Mr. Mollohan 
and Mr. Frelinghuysen for bringing forward this comprehensive piece of 
legislation. And in particular, I want to thank both of these men for 
recognizing the work of the Ocean Commission and the Pew Oceans 
Commission in understanding the world's oceans.
  There's $4 billion to NOAA in this legislation, $4 billion. To some 
folks it might sound like a lot of money, but that is actually a very 
small sum. We appreciate that sum, but it's a small sum considering 
what's at stake.
  Three-fourths of the world's surface is covered by oceans. It governs 
our everyday weather. It governs the climate. It is the source of air 
we breathe. It is the source of food for much of the world's 
population. Coastal communities, the economy, literally of all our 
coastal communities are dependent upon the health of the oceans. Our 
national security is dependent on understanding the nature and changes 
of our world's oceans. Literally, life on this planet is dependent upon 
our knowledge of the world's oceans. And this $4 billion given to NOAA 
will be to do more research to understand more effects and to implement 
better policies dealing with the pervasive dead zones; red tides; coral 
reefs, which is a predominant area where fish spawn; fish habitats; the 
acidification of the world's oceans as a result of CO2.
  Now, the acidification of the world's oceans, that's what happened to 
the northeastern forest as a result of acid rain from sulfur dioxide 
from power plants. The same thing as a result of global warming is 
having an effect to the world's oceans. Because of human activities and 
its degrading effect, now with climate change, NOAA needs the dollars 
and the tools to make the oceans resilient.
  I urge an ``aye'' vote on the legislation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, the problem of animal fighting has been in 
the news a lot lately, with the recent indictment of quarterback 
Michael Vick, who is alleged to have been involved in a major 
dogfighting ring. As we are debating the bill that provides funding for 
the Department of Justice, I wanted to express my hope that the 
Department will devote the needed resources to bring an end to this 
vicious so-called ``sport.'' It's cruel and barbaric, and often 
associated with other crimes. I commend the Department for its ongoing 
work to determine the truth of the allegations in the Vick case, and 
urge that it continues to expand its efforts to crack down on animal 
fighting across the country. I also wanted to note that the DOJ's Safe 
Streets Task Force could play a key role in increasing law enforcement 
action against dogfighting.
  Sadly, animal fighting occurs in all corners of our country, 
impacting hundreds of thousands of animals every year, and also our 
communities. Indeed, it is estimated that there are more than 40,000 
professional dogfighters nationwide and 10 underground dogfighting 
magazines. Cockfighting is also a multi-million dollar nationwide 
industry.
  I'm pleased that this Congress took action against animal fighting 
earlier this year when we passed the Federal Animal Fighting 
Prohibition Enforcement Act and established felony penalties for these 
crimes. That measure will provide an important additional tool for law 
enforcement to combat dogfighting and cockfighting enterprises.
  To make this new law truly effective, though, we need to encourage 
the active and ongoing participation of Federal law enforcement. Such 
participation would bolster protection for our neighborhoods in 
addition to assuring the welfare of animals. Animal fighting is often 
associated with illegal gambling and acts of human violence. The 
Chicago Police Department recently revealed that over a 3 year time 
period, two-thirds of 332 people arrested for animal abuse crimes in 
the city were also involved in drug crimes, according to the Humane 
Society of the United States.
  To combat dogfighting and associated crimes, I recommend that the 
Safe Streets Task Force devote a considerable amount of its attention 
and funding to the issue of dogfighting.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, in accordance with House earmark reforms, 
I would like to place in the Record a listing of the congressionally 
directed projects in my home State of Idaho that are contained in the 
report of the FY08 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Bill.
  I would like to take just a few minutes to describe why I supported 
these projects and why they are valuable to the Nation and its 
taxpayers.
  The report contains $1,200,000 for the Idaho State Police to 
participate in the Criminal Information Sharing Alliance Network, 
CISAnet. CISAnet is a fully functional information-sharing network 
comprised of law enforcement agencies from 10 States, including Idaho. 
The program focuses on drug trafficking and border security issues. 
Sharing of criminal law enforcement information by and between these 10 
States is vital to securing an area regarded as one of the most 
vulnerable to our Nation's security. These funds would enable Idaho to 
continue participating in CISAnet. This program has received Federal 
funding in previous fiscal years.
  This project was requested by the Idaho State Police.
  The report contains $800,000 for the Idaho Department of Corrections 
to participate in the National Consortium of Offender Management 
Systems, NCOMS, Sharing Software Development Project. NCOMS is a web-
based system allowing States and governmental agencies to share 
offender information. NCOMS and the CIS system make it a reality to 
track offenders across State lines and beyond with the use of 
Extensible Markup Language, XML, global standards and partnerships 
across the law enforcement and corrections communities. Funding would 
be used to allow more government agencies and entities to effectively 
use the system and to modify the ``coding'' of the application to make 
it more modular, allowing organizations to implement pieces of the 
application as needed. This program has received Federal funding in 
previous fiscal years.
  This project was requested by the Idaho Department of Corrections.

[[Page 20574]]

  I appreciate the opportunity to provide a list of Congressionally 
directed projects in my district and an explanation of my support for 
them.
  1. $1,200,000 for Criminal Information Sharing Alliance Network, 
CISAnet; Idaho State Police
  2. $800,000 for National Consortium of Offender Management Systems, 
NCOMS, Sharing Software Development Project; Idaho Department of 
Corrections
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill, in large 
part because of its support for NASA. The Committee did an admirable 
job of finding money to keep NASA healthy and balanced in the face of a 
destructive budget request from the Administration.
  Ultimately, inadequate funding puts at risk NASA's most valuable 
asset, its workers. It is the workers who have won the awards and have 
driven the incredible accomplishments the agency has amassed. When its 
world class work force gets a message from Congress or from the 
Administration that funding is not reliable, the workers often feel the 
need to leave the agency. When given the choice, no worker wants to 
worry about whether their job will be there next year. When employees 
leave, they not only take their award winning talent and intelligence, 
but their deep institutional knowledge. These losses are dents in 
NASA's armor that take years, if not decades, to repair.
  That is why I am so glad to know that the committee has acted to 
protect NASA. This bill prevents unnecessary layoffs, it funds 
Aeronautics and Exploration in order to fulfill the agency's mission, 
and it prevents the administration from moving large chunks of money 
around the agency against the will of Congress.
  I am proud to represent the NASA Glenn Research Center in Brook Park, 
Ohio. Its economic impact is felt throughout the entire state. In FY04, 
the year for which we have the most recent data, the economic output of 
NASA Glenn alone was $1.2 billion per year. It was responsible for over 
10,000 jobs and household earnings amounted to $568 million.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill and to protect NASA.
  Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
support of the 2008 Departments of Commerce, Justice, Science and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Bill. This bill funds domestic 
priorities that are important to all Americans and invests in our 
Nation's future.
  To help keep our families and neighborhoods safe, it provides a much-
needed increase to the COPS program. To support American 
competitiveness and improve science and technology education, this bill 
increases funding for the National Science Foundation.
  In a global economy, investment in American innovation and regional 
development must be a priority. Madam Speaker, I am pleased that this 
appropriations bill provides over $300 million for the Economic 
Development Administration and encourages new investment in green 
technologies to reduce energy use.
  Over the past 50 years, my district in Bucks County, Pennsylvania has 
lost most of its manufacturing jobs. While towns in my district still 
struggle with these dramatic economic changes, I am encouraged by 
forward thinking plans that have brought high-tech and green energy 
companies to my district.
  Fairless Hills, Bucks County, once home to heavy steel manufacturing, 
now boasts one of Pennsylvania's premier examples of industrial 
revitalization. Twenty-four hundred acres in Fairless Hills, known as 
the Keystone Industrial Port Complex (KIPC), are designated a Keystone 
Opportunity Improvement Zone by the State of Pennsylvania. The 
important economic incentives available at KIPC, coupled with its 
strategic location on the Delaware River, make the site attractive to 
new companies. Two renewable energy companies have already located 
there.
  Public and private economic development professionals continue to 
work hard at every level to attract new investment, support workforce 
development and improve regional infrastructure. I am a proud partner 
in these endeavors because I know the enormous potential of this 
project to revitalize the region.
  The United States must look to the future and support proactive 
regional initiatives that not only create jobs, but advance our 
Nation's commitment to energy independence. New investments for the 
Economic Development Administration will go a long way toward achieving 
these goals.
  Mr. Chairman, by passing this bill, we provide our communities with 
the resources necessary for successful development and we invest in 
America's future.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this 
bill.
  The bill includes funding for many important programs, and while I 
think some do deserve more funding than the bill provides, I recognize 
that the appropriators had a challenging task in shaping the bill 
because of budget constraints. Overall, I think the bill is a good one 
and I congratulate Chairmen Obey and Mollohan for making these 
difficult decisions in a very constructive manner.
  As Chairman of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee of the House 
Committee on Science, I am pleased that the bill includes $17.6 billion 
for National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) funding. 
NASA's work in human space exploration, space and earth science, and 
aeronautics plays an important role in advancing our knowledge, 
expanding our economy and inspiring Americans both young and old. I 
believe NASA performs important research which allows us to better 
understand our climate, our planet and the universe beyond.
  I am pleased that the Committee funds NASA's Science Mission 
Directorate at $5.7 billion, an increase of $180 million over the 
President's request. This increase will help reverse the recent decline 
in funding for science at NASA. NASA research helps us better 
understand the universe at large, but it also greatly contributes to 
our knowledge of our own planet.
  I am especially encouraged that the Committee recognized the 
recommendations of the National Research Council's recent Decadal 
Survey on Earth Science by targeting $60 million towards the highest 
priority missions recommended in that survey, as well as ensuring that 
work on critical climate instruments that were de-manifested from the 
National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System 
(NPOESS) can continue. The Committee specifically noted the importance 
of the Total Solar Irradiance Sensor (TSIS), which is being built by 
the University of Colorado's Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space 
Physics in my district, and instructs NASA to continue to support this 
program. TSIS will ensure that we continue to receive important 
information on the sun and how it interacts with our climate--a data 
stream that has been continuous since 1979 and has contributed to our 
understanding of climate change.
  I am also pleased that the Committee increases NASA's aeronautics 
budget by $146 million over the President's request. Progress in 
aeronautics is crucial to the health of the Nation's air transportation 
industry, which in turn is critical both to the continued strength of 
our domestic economy and to our international competitiveness. The 
additional funding will help NASA contribute meaningfully to the 
development of the Nation's Next Generation Air Transportation System, 
which will enhance the capability of our air transportation system to 
handle the enormous increases in air travel projected over the next 20 
years. Moreover, this bill recognizes that aeronautics R&D at NASA can 
help develop more environmentally compatible commercial aircraft, with 
significantly lower noise, emissions, and energy consumption compared 
to aircraft in commercial service today, and the bill provides funding 
to support that R&D.
  This bill also provides significant funding for the President's 
exploration initiative at NASA by providing the President's full 
request of $3.9 billion. I support the President's Vision for Space 
Exploration and believe human space exploration is a worthwhile 
undertaking. The funding in this bill will keep the Crew Exploration 
Vehicle on track in FY 2008. However, I am concerned that the 
administration's current plan for the shuttle replacement system, the 
crew exploration vehicle (CEV), is not scheduled to be finished until 
2015. This will leave a potential 4 to 5 year gap when the United 
States will be dependent on other countries to travel to and from the 
International Space Station. It is within the administration's power to 
send over budget requests in FY 2009 and FY 2010 to address this gap 
within the context of a balanced overall NASA program, and I hope that 
the administration will do so.
  I am pleased that the Committee increases NASA's education programs 
to $217 million, up $64 million over the President's request. This 
increase will provide additional funds for the Space Grant program, 
which helps undergraduate students participate in cutting-edge 
research, and in the process trains and inspires the next generation of 
scientists. The Committee also provides $2 million for the NASA 
Aeronautics Scholarships program, which encourages more students to 
pursue graduate degrees in aeronautics. I helped create this program in 
the 2005 NASA Reauthorization Act and am pleased that the Committee has 
recognized its importance.
  The Committee provides $6.7 billion for space operations, which is a 
$100 million cut

[[Page 20575]]

relative to the President's request. I understand that the Committee 
had difficult decisions to make, but I am concerned about the impact 
that these cuts will have on the International Space Station's reserves 
posture, as well as on the upcoming Tracking and Data Relay Satellite 
System (TDRSS) procurement. I hope that it will be possible to address 
these problems when the House and Senate move to conference on this 
legislation.
  Funding for the National Institute of Standards and Technology 
(NIST), which has one of its two laboratories based in my district in 
Colorado, is also an improvement on past years. I am pleased that the 
Committee met the President's request of $500 million for research, 
which will help fund components of the Innovation Agenda, such as 
nanotechnology and materials science.
  I also support the bill's inclusion of $109 million for the 
Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) and $93 million for the 
Advanced Technology Program (ATP). MEP serves small- and medium-sized 
manufacturing companies nationally to enhance their ability to compete 
globally. Every federal dollar appropriated for MEP leverages $2 in 
state and private-sector funding, which means that a small federal 
investment of $109 million translates into more millions of dollars in 
benefits for the economy in terms of jobs created and retained, 
investment, and sales. ATP helps businesses develop high-risk, high-
reward research into commercial applications that often have wider 
social benefits.
  And, because of its importance for my own Congressional District, I 
am glad to note that the NIST budget includes $129 million for 
construction and specifically $28 million for the extension of building 
1 at the Boulder facilities. NIST's Boulder laboratories were built in 
the 1950s and are in critical need of modernization to ensure the 
continuation of world-class research.
  After several years of disappointing funding for the National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), I am pleased that this bill will 
set NOAA back on the right track. The Committee funds NOAA at $3.950 
billion, an increase over both the President's budget and the fiscal 
year 2007 spend plan. There is certainly still room for improvement, 
but I hope that this is the first step forward for increasing NOAA 
funding.
  The office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), which funds the 
important work being conducted in the NOAA labs in my district, is 
funded at $410 million in the bill--an increase of $52 million over the 
President's request and $46 million over the FY 2007 spend plan. This 
funding will help NOAA continue to perform vital research in climate 
change and other areas.
  In particular, I am encouraged that the Space Environment Center is 
being funded at the President's request of $6.2 million. While this 
funding is still below the $7.2 million that the SEC received in FY 
2002, it is an increase over what Congress appropriated in FY 2006 and 
indicates that the Committee realizes the important work that the SEC 
does on space weather monitoring and prediction.
  The bill also includes important funding for law enforcement, at both 
the federal and state level.
  It rejects the President's proposal to slash the COPS program by 94 
percent and instead provides $725 million, $183 million above 2007. 
This includes funding for such items as: $100 million for the COPS 
hiring program; $175 million for expanding DNA analysis and forensic 
crime lab capacity; and $85 million for beefing up enforcement in 
``meth hot spots,'' places where meth is a serious problem.
  Similarly, the bill includes $600 million for Byrne Justice 
Assistance Grants to assist local law enforcement agencies and which 
the President's budget proposed to terminate. It also includes 
continued funding for the State Criminal Alien Assistance program 
(SCAAP), which assists state and local governments with the costs of 
jailing undocumented immigrants who have committed crimes not related 
to their immigration status--another vital program the President's 
budget proposed for elimination.
  The bill also rejects proposed cuts in the Violence Against Women 
programs and includes vital support for competitive youth mentoring 
grants, delinquency prevention grants, and Justice Accountability Block 
Grants.
  In summary, Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill that provides funding 
for many important purposes. It is good for Colorado and good for the 
country, and it deserves approval.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he or 
she has printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. 
Those amendments will be considered read.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 3093

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, namely:

                    TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

                  Trade and Infrastructure Development

                   International Trade Administration


                     operations and administration

       For necessary expenses for international trade activities 
     of the Department of Commerce provided for by law, and for 
     engaging in trade promotional activities abroad, including 
     expenses of grants and cooperative agreements for the purpose 
     of promoting exports of United States firms, without regard 
     to 44 U.S.C. 3702 and 3703; full medical coverage for 
     dependent members of immediate families of employees 
     stationed overseas and employees temporarily posted overseas; 
     travel and transportation of employees of the United States 
     and Foreign Commercial Service between two points abroad, 
     without regard to 49 U.S.C. 40118; employment of Americans 
     and aliens by contract for services; rental of space abroad 
     for periods not exceeding 10 years, and expenses of 
     alteration, repair, or improvement; purchase or construction 
     of temporary demountable exhibition structures for use 
     abroad; payment of tort claims, in the manner authorized in 
     the first paragraph of 28 U.S.C. 2672 when such claims arise 
     in foreign countries; not to exceed $327,000 for official 
     representation expenses abroad; purchase of passenger motor 
     vehicles for official use abroad, not to exceed $45,000 per 
     vehicle; obtaining insurance on official motor vehicles; and 
     rental of tie lines, $430,431,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2009, of which $8,000,000 is to be derived from 
     fees to be retained and used by the International Trade 
     Administration, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302: Provided, 
     That $49,564,000 shall be for Manufacturing and Services; 
     $42,960,000 shall be for Market Access and Compliance; 
     $65,601,000 shall be for the Import Administration of which 
     $5,900,000 shall be for the Office of China Compliance; 
     $245,702,000 shall be for the United States and Foreign 
     Commercial Service; and $26,604,000 shall be for Executive 
     Direction and Administration: Provided further, That the 
     provisions of the first sentence of section 105(f) and all of 
     section 108(c) of the Mutual Educational and Cultural 
     Exchange Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2455(f) and 2458(c)) shall 
     apply in carrying out these activities without regard to 
     section 5412 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 
     1988 (15 U.S.C. 4912); and that for the purpose of this Act, 
     contributions under the provisions of the Mutual Educational 
     and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 shall include payment for 
     assessments for services provided as part of these 
     activities.

  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of H.R. 3093 as 
reported by the Appropriations Committee with the understanding that 
Chairman Obey, Chairman Mollohan and the other House conferees will 
make every effort to restore $30 million in funding for the Census 
Bureau that was removed during the committee's markup of this important 
funding bill.
  As reported by the Commerce, Justice, Science Subcommittee, the bill 
included $13 million above the President's request to fund the 
partnership program which is so critical to our efforts to count 
traditionally undercounted populations.
  The bill also included $35 million above the President's request for 
the SIPP program, which was slated for elimination until the Census 
Bureau and the Department of Commerce, to their credit, reevaluated and 
reversed that misguided policy decision.
  I applaud Chairman Mollohan, Mr. Ruppersberger and others for their 
leadership in working to include funding for this vital program in the 
original bill, in spite of the administration's decision not to fund 
them in fiscal year 2008.
  Unfortunately, both of these advances would be jeopardized if the $30 
million removed in full committee is not restored. This would undermine 
our efforts to achieve a thorough and

[[Page 20576]]

accurate enumeration of the U.S. population in 2010. It would also 
hamper our ability to gather critical data about poverty, program 
participation and performance in the future. The data collected during 
the decennial census and annually by the SIPP impact the way billions 
of dollars are allocated and the way the programs throughout our 
government are run.

                              {time}  1400

  Indeed, cutting the money from the Census would undermine the very 
program our colleagues are trying to fund at the expense of the Census 
Bureau.
  And now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman from West 
Virginia in a colloquy.
  Let me begin by congratulating the chairman for his leadership in 
working to provide and protect funding for the Census Bureau. As we 
continue the fight to protect the Bureau's funding from being raided to 
support other programs, I would like to ask the gentleman about his 
commitment to ensuring that the Bureau is inclusive in its contracting 
activity, particularly with regard to the 2010 census. And as the 
gentleman knows, the Census Bureau, according to GAO, will ``make the 
most extensive use of contractors in history,'' which includes 
information technology systems, advertising, and the leasing of local 
census officers.
  I believe the gentleman shares my view that in order to carry out its 
mission effectively, the Bureau must have a workforce that reflects the 
diversity of this Nation and that that idea extends to the private 
entities with which the Bureau contracts to perform mission critical 
activities.
  I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman for raising this 
issue. I assure him that I share his concern. I think most members of 
our subcommittee share his concern with any unwise cuts to Census. That 
happened in full committee. There was an amendment which used Census as 
an offset; $25 million came from the periodic census, $5 million came 
from salaries and expenses. Both of them were very regrettable offsets. 
We are going to work to restore those offsets as we move forward into 
conference, and I have a considerable amount of confidence that we will 
be able to achieve that.
  Again, I commend the gentleman for bringing this up and giving us an 
opportunity to express and share our concerns with him and also to make 
that commitment that we are going to work as hard as we can as we move 
forward to restore this funding to Census. It is usually important to 
the Nation that the decennial census move according to a regular 
process which requires a lot of preparation in the early years. And the 
gentleman's foresight in seeing that and his insistence on our 
proceeding accordingly is really appreciated because we want that 
pressure from the body to make sure that we adequately fund Census.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am certainly aware and 
the gentleman is aware also that it is so important that the Census be 
diverse and that they practice it in their contracting opportunities as 
well as within the makeup of the Bureau itself, because I think that 
the Bureau should reflect this country and its diversity.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Absolutely. And we will take the gentleman's concerns 
about that to heart as well.
  We appreciate the gentleman's hard work on this and appreciate the 
excellent staff work that he has had in bringing this to the floor.


           Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Rogers of Michigan

  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Rogers of Michigan:
       Page 3, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $6,000,000)''.
       Page 3, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $6,000,000)''.
       Page 6, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $6,000,000)''.

  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, to my distinguished colleagues, 
I certainly understand the efforts to fence off issues when it comes to 
the census, and I think there are some issues of which we can find a 
level of importance to take a very small amount of money, make that 
census more efficient, and do some great good for the United States of 
America.
  Think about some of the goods that we have had coming to the United 
States of America from China that have been counterfeited, adulterated, 
contaminated just recently: pet food, toothpaste, bottled water, auto 
parts. There is an assessment that just counterfeit auto parts coming 
out of China alone cost American jobs to the tune of $750,000.
  A couple of years ago, in 2004, the Department of Commerce's Trade 
Agreement Compliance Center was created, and it was designed to 
specifically and solely go after Chinese unfair trading practices. And 
if we are going to have free trade, it must be fair trade. The deficit 
with China in 2006 was $230 billion, and it is getting bigger. But 
think of the products that they are selling. Think of the products that 
they are working into the system. Think of the unfairness to American 
workers who are playing by the rules, producing products that are safe 
and legal and in compliance with intellectual property.
  So you think about what they are doing: currency manipulation to 
unjustly compete against American jobs that robs us of jobs unfairly in 
the trade world, certainly not appropriate. Counterfeiting not only of 
auto parts that we have just seen, but the things they have done with 
pet food and toothpaste and bottled water. The chemicals used on some 
food products that they brought in a few years ago. Michigan apples is 
an example where they used a pesticide that we don't allow in the 
United States because it is dangerous to public health. All of those 
things have happened and will continue to happen if we don't step up 
and make a serious statement about our commitment to stop unfair trade 
practices by China and stop counterfeit parts that are robbing jobs and 
products that may, in fact, take the lives of Americans. This is 
serious business.
  We ask for just $6 million. It will double the Office of Compliance 
where these trade cops will look specifically at Chinese trade 
violations. I can't think of anything more important for us to do given 
the recent cases that are coming out of China. And only with vigorous 
and well-funded trade monitoring and enforcement can we provide a level 
playing field and allow U.S. manufacturers to compete around the world.
  In order to deliver the promises of free trade, we need to guarantee 
fair trade. I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
and, at the same time, I share concern with the gentleman for our 
ability to monitor, carefully and comprehensively, compliance regarding 
our trade with China.
  We have an Office of China Compliance, which the gentleman wants to 
increase by $6 million, which about doubles the funding. There is a 
group in the Congress, and I am certainly one of them, who are 
extremely concerned about foreign competition. I am very concerned 
about how, as this world increasingly is becoming a smaller economic 
community, how we compete successfully, particularly as competition 
relates to the impact on traditional industries in this country and 
making sure that a fair and level playing field exists. That is why we 
have the Office of China Compliance. That is why we have funded it in 
this bill.
  The gentleman suggests that the funding level is inadequate, and we 
have very consciously funded it at the President's request. A $6 
million increase doubles the Office of China Compliance, and given the 
balances that are necessary in this bill and the funding demands that 
exist, we feel that

[[Page 20577]]

the level that we funded it at is adequate.
  Let me also comment about the gentleman's offset. He offsets the 
Census Bureau, the salaries and expenses account, I believe. That is 
unacceptable.
  Does the gentleman offset the salaries and expenses or the decennial 
census account? The decennial census account. That is a terrible 
offset, respectfully, because we have to prepare for the decennial 
census, and we have to prepare for it carefully and adequately.
  First of all, I think the account is funded adequately at the 
President's request in last year's funding. Secondly, the offset is 
just terrible.
  I would invite the gentleman to work with us as we move forward to 
conference and look carefully at the account and make more careful 
judgments about the adequacy of the funding, if he would like to do 
that.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the distinguished ranking member.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, quite reluctantly, I oppose the 
gentleman's amendment, but certainly your views are held by quite a lot 
of people. I think it would be a mistake to cut the census, which is 
obviously a constitutional obligation. As I remember looking at that 
account, the Member's suggesting that we double the account, actually I 
think ITA got $10 million more than the President requested. So they 
actually have more money to deal with, maybe not the specific Office of 
China Compliance, but I think it would be a mistake to cut the Census, 
which is a pretty important thing we are trying to ramp up.
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  And I see I was wrong about your offset. But the point applies to 
your offset.
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. So it is not nearly as terrible.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. No. It's terminal. It's a bad offset. It degrades the 
Census Bureau's ability to collect economic statistics, which is 
terrible. But please.
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I understand. I think a little under a 3 
percent cut for counting versus our ability to go after what we know we 
have found. Contaminated pet food; contaminated toothpaste, which 
people consume, which is certainly a public health hazard; and auto 
parts that rob our manufacturers of important jobs must take priority. 
It obviously hasn't worked the way we want it. We should step up in a 
big way. A $230 billion trade deficit. This is the right investment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I just will stipulate 
to our concerns about trade with China and the necessity to review it. 
That is why we have this office. You are suggesting that we need 
additional funding. You are suggesting doubling the funding, which 
impacts Census in its ability to collect economic statistics, which is 
also extremely important to the economic viability of the country.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from West Virginia has 
expired.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Rhode Island is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that if we are serious 
about looking at this issue of compliance, $6 million, frankly, for a 
country as big as China that is exporting to Wal-Mart toothpaste, pet 
food, auto parts and the like, $6 million ain't going to cut it; $6 
million out of a budget that we are looking at here is really 
infinitesimal to think about in terms of really being serious about 
inspection.
  If we are serious about looking at protecting consumer product 
safety, we ought to look at making sure that industry themselves are 
employing the proper safeguards in their own inspection safety, that 
they are obviously having to comply with our own U.S. inspection codes 
if they are selling within our own market. They are not having to 
comply with China's inspection. They have to comply with ours if they 
are selling in our marketplace.
  So this is a broader issue in addition to just trade, and I think 
there are a lot of other significant aspects to this issue that we need 
to consider. I think we need to bring the trade groups that are 
involved with these issues to the table, and I would suggest that maybe 
the chairman and others maybe down the road we can begin to convene 
some of these trade groups.
  I know from my State some of these interested groups are already 
working within their industries to deal with this because they know 
they have great liability. If they import products that they have 
manufactured in China here to this country that are faulty, they are on 
the hook and they are liable if those products are faulty, as they 
should be liable; that is, provided that they are not indemnified by 
the other side through product liability indemnification.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan will be 
postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                    Bureau of Industry and Security


                     operations and administration

       For necessary expenses for export administration and 
     national security activities of the Department of Commerce, 
     including costs associated with the performance of export 
     administration field activities both domestically and abroad; 
     full medical coverage for dependent members of immediate 
     families of employees stationed overseas; employment of 
     Americans and aliens by contract for services abroad; payment 
     of tort claims, in the manner authorized in the first 
     paragraph of 28 U.S.C. 2672 when such claims arise in foreign 
     countries; not to exceed $15,000 for official representation 
     expenses abroad; awards of compensation to informers under 
     the Export Administration Act of 1979, and as authorized by 
     section 1 of title VI of the Act of June 15, 1917 (22 U.S.C. 
     401(b)); and purchase of passenger motor vehicles for 
     official use and motor vehicles for law enforcement use with 
     special requirement vehicles eligible for purchase without 
     regard to any price limitation otherwise established by law, 
     $78,776,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $14,767,000 shall be for inspections and other activities 
     related to national security: Provided, That the provisions 
     of the first sentence of section 105(f) and all of section 
     108(c) of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 
     1961 (22 U.S.C. 2455(f) and 2458(c)) shall apply in carrying 
     out these activities: Provided further, That payments and 
     contributions collected and accepted for materials or 
     services provided as part of such activities may be retained 
     for use in covering the cost of such activities, and for 
     providing information to the public with respect to the 
     export administration and national security activities of the 
     Department of Commerce and other export control programs of 
     the United States and other governments.

                  Economic Development Administration


                economic development assistance programs

       For grants for economic development assistance as provided 
     by the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, and 
     for trade adjustment assistance, $270,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Sessions

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Sessions:
       Page 5, line 15, insert ``(reduced by $100,000,000)'' after 
     the dollar amount.
       Page 29, line 19, insert ``(increased by $6,000,000)'' 
     after the dollar amount.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. It would 
provide an additional $6 million to the FBI, and to reduce the Economic 
Development Administration account to offset this cost.
  I think that Congress must do all that we can do to provide 
appropriate resources to the hardworking men and women serving at the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation. Every day these brave public servants 
stand on the front lines of our Federal law enforcement efforts

[[Page 20578]]

and on the domestic front on the war on terror, and they need and they 
deserve all the support that Congress can give.
  Many of my colleagues know that I have a real and very personal 
appreciation of the organization of which my father served as Director 
of the FBI between 1987 and 1993. I have nothing but the greatest 
respect for all the sacrifices that these agents make on behalf of our 
country, and I am happy to be able to come to the floor today with this 
amendment to support that great work.
  As the report to the bill notes, since September 11, 2001, the FBI 
has undergone a significant transformation. They are being asked to 
make hard choices about resource allocation as they track domestic 
terrorist threats, arrest suspected drug kingpins, and ensure that 
criminals, from bank robbers to corrupt businessmen to tax cheats, are 
brought to justice.
  Even with an increase of around $500 million in this bill, the FBI's 
salary request still faces a deficit. While I wish this amendment could 
go further, I understand the constraints of the budget authority and 
the outlay rules that Congress must follow.
  Regardless, I believe that this is an amendment that will send a 
clear and unmistakable signal to the men and women of the FBI that we 
support them, that we support their hard work, and that we support all 
that they are doing to keep us safe.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to show your 
support for these brave men and women.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me summarize the basic facts. The 
Economic Development Administration budget last year was $250 million. 
The President's request for this year was $170 million. The committee 
added $100 million to the President's request to take it to $270 
million, and the gentleman's amendment would take it back down to $170 
million, which is a 32 percent reduction below the amount provided last 
year.
  With respect to the FBI, the committee has already added $148 million 
to the amount that the President requested. We are substantially above 
last year's budget. The FBI has been treated very, very well.
  I find no reasonable justification for saying that we ought to 
provide the $6 million increase for the FBI when it's already received 
an increase of $148 million. And I certainly don't find any reason to 
say that we ought to reduce our efforts to support economic development 
around the country.
  Economic development funds are used, among other things, to help 
localities establish industrial parks. I have to tell you there are 
literally thousands of jobs that have been added in my own district by 
corporations who were able to move into these industrial parks to get 
their services and grow. We have developed a very strong electronics 
industry in my district through the use of funds through EDA.
  I think the key to this bill is balance. We have provided a 
significant increase for the FBI. We've provided a modest increase for 
EDA. And I think that the country is better off if we stick with the 
committee recommendations.
  I would urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment by the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Sessions).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of administering the economic 
     development assistance programs as provided for by law, 
     $32,800,000: Provided, That these funds may be used to 
     monitor projects approved pursuant to title I of the Public 
     Works Employment Act of 1976, title II of the Trade Act of 
     1974, and the Community Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1977.

                  Minority Business Development Agency


                     minority business development

       For necessary expenses of the Department of Commerce in 
     fostering, promoting, and developing minority business 
     enterprise, including expenses of grants, contracts, and 
     other agreements with public or private organizations, 
     $31,225,000.

                Economic and Information Infrastructure

                   Economic and Statistical Analysis


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses, as authorized by law, of economic 
     and statistical analysis programs of the Department of 
     Commerce, $86,500,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2009.

                          Bureau of the Census


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary for collecting, compiling, 
     analyzing, preparing, and publishing statistics, provided for 
     by law, $196,838,000.


                     periodic censuses and programs

       For necessary expenses to collect and publish statistics 
     for periodic censuses and programs provided for by law, 
     $1,035,406,000, to remain available until September 30, 2009: 
     Provided, That none of the funds provided in this or any 
     other Act for any fiscal year may be used for the collection 
     of census data on race identification that does not include 
     ``some other race'' as a category.


                    Amendment Offered by Mrs. Capito

  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Capito:
       Page 6, line 23, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 42, line 8, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 43, line 8, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to 
enhance America's ability to prosecute and detain illegal aliens around 
our southwest border.
  State and local law enforcement agencies along America's southwest 
border grapple with the serious consequences of our porous border every 
day. Prosecutors, probation officers, courts and detention facilities 
are all vital. They process drug and illegal alien cases referred from 
Federal arrests.
  Currently, if the Federal Government decides to no longer pursue 
Federal criminal charges against the defendant, they often turn over 
the case to local law enforcement agencies. State and local agencies 
often need to be reimbursed for the costs of prosecution and court 
costs, as well as pre- and post-trial detention.
  The Southwest Border Prosecutor Initiative helps relieve border 
communities of the steep costs of Federal drug prosecutions. Cases 
involving illegal aliens and drug traffickers are complex and urgent. 
That's why the Southwest Border Prosecutor Initiative needs and 
deserves vigorous Federal support.
  Last year Congress funded this program with $29,617,000. The 
committee's recommended funding level for this year, 2008, amounts to 
only a 1 percent increase over last year's appropriation for the 
Southwest Border Prosecutor Initiative. Meanwhile, the Census Bureau 
stands to receive over $369 million more than last year. That amounts 
to an increase of 40 percent for the census.
  Right now, I, along with the constituents I represent, believe the 
higher priority for our country must be to get a handle on our borders. 
Some aliens who illegally enter America only seek jobs, but then there 
are others who are very, very dangerous. These aliens, especially the 
drug traffickers, call for extra attention. My amendment would boost 
funding to the Southwest Border Prosecutor Initiative by $10 million, 
without costing the taxpayers any more money.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in support of this important 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment 
which, again, shows there is a run on the Census Bureau; it's as though 
the

[[Page 20579]]

Census Bureau wasn't important, and it's crucially important.
  We have funded the southwest border prosecutors program at $30 
million in this bill, and the President requested zero for it in this 
bill. So I think we're keeping faith with the southwest border 
prosecutors. And we have kept faith and funded in this bill tremendous 
amounts of money for State and local law enforcement above the 
President's request, $1.7 billion above the President's request. So we 
really are addressing these concerns.
  We can go anywhere in the bill for any worthy cause, especially all 
of the law enforcement accounts, they're all worthy causes, and say, 
oh, let's increase the funding for that. It makes it sound like we are 
newly addressing an issue where it has been substantively addressed 
previously in this bill.
  Now, let's look at the offset. And again, we're looking at Census 
like it's not important, and it's crucially important. Specifically 
these cuts that were represented by the offsets to this increase would 
eliminate the current Industrial Reports Program used by the Federal 
Reserve Board for the index of industrial production and also used in 
trade negotiations by our U.S. Trade Representative, the International 
Trade Commission and the Department of Commerce's Office of Textiles 
and Apparel. This amendment will also make it impossible to assess the 
impact of increased imports on domestic industries.
  Secondly, this offset would eliminate the quarterly financial reports 
which are the government's most current and comprehensive reports on 
corporate financial activity. This break in this valuable time series 
program, which goes back 60 years, there is a continuity to this 
program, would erode the quality of our statistical measurements, 
hinder public and private decisionmakers and eliminate a critical 
source of information on corporate profits.
  Next, Mr. Chairman, it would eliminate the Survey of Business Owners 
and Self-Employed Persons, which is the only comprehensive source of 
information on selected economic and demographic characteristics for 
businesses and business owners. The survey data is absolutely critical 
to the missions of the Minority Business Development Agency, the Small 
Business Administration, and other Federal, State and local agencies to 
assess changes in women and minority-owned business, and to analyze the 
effectiveness of these programs. And the amendment it would eliminate 
funding to the Foreign Research and Analysis Program, which generates 
economic, social and demographic information.
  Do we see the harm that this amendment and this offset would do to 
the Census Bureau, to the statistics we gather that are absolutely 
crucial to business, in addition to the overall attitude about an 
almost frivolousness as we deal with the important business that the 
Census Bureau does?
  Let's respect the Census Bureau. Let's respect the surveys and the 
reports and economic statistics which it generates, which we rely on in 
our daily lives for social programs, but also for the important purpose 
of assessing where we are and where we stand in business in an 
increasingly competitive world.
  I oppose the gentlelady's amendment on all of those grounds, Mr. 
Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to my 
good friend's amendment. The census is critically important. It's even 
required in our Constitution. The importance of an accurate census 
cannot be overstated. The Founding Fathers of our country understood 
it; they wrote it right into Article I, section 2 of the Constitution.
  It is very, very important for the reasons that Chairman Mollohan 
mentioned, but it's absolutely our constitutional obligation to conduct 
the census and to do it to the very best of our ability.
  To delete very important programs that put together data on which we 
make decisions, policy decisions, in our country is extremely short-
sighted.
  I rise in strong opposition, not because I oppose the program it 
seeks to add funding to, but because I oppose the offset, the cut to 
the census. And I think that it's easy to say that programs that fight 
crime or aid local law enforcement need this money more than the 
census. On the surface the census does not seem to have the direct 
connection to public safety that some of these programs do.

                              {time}  1430

  What many people do not realize, however, is that local law 
enforcements rely on the Census every day and an inaccurate count could 
jeopardize their ability to fight crime. Our businesses rely on it. Our 
funding formulas are tied to it.
  We are required to conduct the census every 10 years by our 
Constitution in order to have reapportionment. Our representation is 
tied to it. So when you cut the money to the Census, you are cutting 
representation. You are cutting accurate data so that we can make 
accurate decisions in this body. It is very short-sighted.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to this amendment, 
not because I oppose the program it seeks to add funding too, but 
because I oppose the offset. Every year we have the same fight to 
maintain funding for the Census Bureau. I don't know how many times 
I've had to come down here to try and explain how essential it is that 
we not cut funds for the Census Bureau.
  The Census is the largest peacetime mobilization in history. It 
requires recruitment and training of over 500,000 enumerators and 
census workers, to count more than 300 million residents at 130 million 
unique addresses. All of this massive preparation takes place according 
to a strict, decade-long schedule. The closer we get to the decennial, 
the more important it is to adhere to that schedule. In 2008, there are 
two full dress rehearsals planned, one in California, and one in North 
Carolina.
  Former Census Bureau Director Kenneth Prewitt once said that it is 
difficult to do a really good census, but it is easy to do a bad one. 
If we cut funds to the Census Bureau, we will easily do a bad one.

                  Census as a Good Taxpayer Investment

  The Federal government depends on census data in three important 
ways. First, to distribute funding through eligibility criteria and 
allocation formulas. 69.3% of the Federal grants given out in FY2004 
(the most recent year that we have this data for) were allocated based 
on Census Bureau data. Second, census data are used to enforce Federal 
civil rights and anti-discrimination laws such as the Voting Rights Act 
and the Fair Housing Act. Third, the Federal government uses census 
data to create models and estimates for various Federal programs, and 
to then evaluate their efficacy.
  State and local governments use census data for different purposes. 
They allocate criminal justice resources based on crime maps and 
demographic profiles. They base disaster response plans on census data. 
They analyze their transportation systems using information from the 
Census Bureau. The list goes on.
  Not only do governments of all levels rely on the census, but the 
private sector does as well. Businesses conduct market research based 
on census data. Hospitals identify their constituencies and how to 
better serve their needs based on census data. The real estate sector 
uses it to . . . .
  One can argue, therefore, that the census is essential not only to 
democracy, but to the U.S. economy as well. With so many governments 
and businesses who rely on data, it is absolutely essential that that 
data be accurate.
  Over ten years, the 2010 census will cost approximately $11.5 
billion. That's an average of $1.2 billion per year. Divide that by the 
population of the U.S., and the cost is approximately $4 per person, 
per year. Four dollars. That's it. I don't know about you, Mr. 
Chairman, but I am willing to spend $4 a year to ensure that Federal, 
State, and local governments, businesses and non-profits, all have 
accurate data to conduct their business. In fact, considering the 
enormous benefit that the economy gains by having an accurate census, 
I'm willing to wager that this is one of the most cost-effective uses 
of taxpayer dollars. I urge my colleagues to spend your constituents' 
tax dollars wisely by opposing any amendments that cut funding from the 
census.


                       Constitutional Obligation

  The importance of an accurate census enumeration cannot be 
overstated. The founding

[[Page 20580]]

fathers of our country understood, they wrote it right into the 
Constitution. In Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, it says that 
congressional representation and taxes shall be based on the 
population. I quote directly, ``The actual Enumeration shall be made 
within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the 
United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such 
manner as they shall by law direct.'' By extension, the census affects 
Presidential election, as the number of electoral college votes for 
each State is based on the number of representatives and senators from 
that State. There are several instances (listed below) in recent 
history where very close elections and redistricting hinged directly on 
census data. When the founding fathers rooted our representative 
democracy in an accurate enumeration of the population, they placed a 
great burden on the census. It is our constitutional obligation to 
conduct this census, and to absolutely do it to the best of our 
ability.
  After Census 2000, the state of Utah missed gaining a fourth 
Congressional seat and sixth electoral vote by 856 residents; the 435th 
seat and 538th electoral vote went to North Carolina instead. Utah's 
experience has been highly instructive to states with regard to the 
2010 Census. Realizing that apportionment is a zero sum game, more 
states will be working aggressively to bring about a full count.
  The result of the 2000 presidential election turned on the accuracy 
of the 1990 census. The election was so close that a slightly more or 
less accurate census could have produced another pattern of 
Congressional apportionment and so a different outcome.
  In 2003, the Texas state legislature's redrawing of Congressional 
Districts produced quite a commotion, as some legislators in the 
minority left the state in the hopes of blocking approval of the new 
boundaries.

                             Crime-fighting

  It is very easy to say that programs that fight crime or aid local 
law enforcement need this money more than the census. On the surface, 
the census does not seem to have the direct connection to public safety 
that (anti-meth program, COPS, SCAAP) does. What many people don't 
realize, however, is that local law enforcement officials rely on the 
census every day, and an inaccurate count could jeopardize their 
ability to fight crime. One of the most valuable tools for local law 
enforcement is crime mapping. This technology allows them to more 
effectively allocate limited resources and manpower based on crime 
statistics and information on neighborhood characteristics. They are 
better able to predict where crimes will occur based on this 
information, and can therefore send more police officers as a 
preventative measure. Crime mapping programs draw heavily from 
demographic and housing data from both the decennial census and the 
yearly American Community Survey (ACS). When a census or ACS count is 
less accurate due to lower funding levels, it will jeopardize our 
ability to effectively fight crime at the local level.

                           Domestic Violence

  Let's be clear, I am extremely supportive of funding for programs to 
combat domestic violence. I have devoted much of my career to making 
women's lives better, and have been an outspoken advocate of reducing 
violence against women. However, I cannot support this amendment. 
Taking money from the census to fund a domestic violence prevention 
program is nonsensical. These programs rely on census data to recognize 
patterns of domestic violence, such as the link between poverty and 
domestic violence. Domestic violence advocates also use census data to 
analyze the impact of these programs. And finally, the funds that we 
would give to these programs will be based on funding formulas that use 
data from the census. If we do not have the most accurate census 
possible, this program, and all the other programs that receive Federal 
funding, will be at risk.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield, we 
obviously respect our colleague's attempt to improve the financial 
situation for these border prosecutors, but the general feeling is that 
Census accounts are not the ones we want to use for that purpose. But 
we certainly respect what you would like to do to enhance their 
resources.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from West Virginia will be 
postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       National Telecommunications and Information Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses, as provided for by law, of the 
     National Telecommunications and Information Administration 
     (NTIA), $18,581,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2009: Provided, That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 1535(d), the 
     Secretary of Commerce shall charge Federal agencies for costs 
     incurred in spectrum management, analysis, and operations, 
     and related services and such fees shall be retained and used 
     as offsetting collections for costs of such spectrum 
     services, to remain available until expended: Provided 
     further, That the Secretary of Commerce is authorized to 
     retain and use as offsetting collections all funds 
     transferred, or previously transferred, from other Government 
     agencies for all costs incurred in telecommunications 
     research, engineering, and related activities by the 
     Institute for Telecommunication Sciences of NTIA, in 
     furtherance of its assigned functions under this paragraph, 
     and such funds received from other Government agencies shall 
     remain available until expended.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Shimkus

  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Shimkus:
       Page 7, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 21, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $5,000,000)''.

  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I come down to offer this amendment with 
respect to myself and my colleague, Anna Eshoo. She is tied up in an 
Intel briefing, or she would be down in support of this amendment.
  We both cochair the E9-1-1 Caucus in which, in 2004, we passed on 
this floor an authorization of $1.2 billion over 5 years to help our 
first line responders roll out ENHANCE 9/11 in a 50 percent grant 
program with our public safety officials. Under Republican control over 
the past 2 years, and now under a Democrat-controlled appropriation 
budget, we have yet to see our first dollar from the appropriation 
process committed to ENHANCE 9/11.
  So the basic premise of this amendment is just to get started. There 
is $1.2 billion authorized. This is the third year with no dollars 
appropriated. We are asking for a shifting of funds of $5 million to 
make this happen. Again, this amendment is supported by the National 
Emergency Numbering Association, which is commonly referred to as NENA; 
and APCO, which is the Association of Public-Safety Communications 
Officials.
  We all know the stories about people who expect that when they dial 
9/11 on a cellular phone that not only will someone answer that, but 
people will know where they are. I represent rural southern Illinois, 
parts of 30 counties. It is one of the largest congressional districts 
east of the Mississippi. You can go off in some area and folks may not 
find you until it is too late.
  So the whole emphasis behind ENHANCE 9/11 is to use technology, work 
with the land line companies, work with the cell companies, work with 
the public service answering points of PSAPs, or we call them the E9-1-
1 call centers, and in so doing, make sure that we move our country 
forward to be able to identify folks when they call 9/11 on their 
cellular phone. Again, I would venture to guess that almost everyone 
voted for ENHANCE 9/11, cellular identification authorization amount 
$1.2 billion over 5 years.
  So it is time, my colleagues. Congresswoman Eshoo and I just want us 
to start. I think the public service, the first line responders and the 
public safety communities really want us to at least show some good-
faith effort by finally releasing some dollars. That is the intent of 
this amendment.
  I see there is some activity on the other side. I was hoping that the 
chairman would pay attention, because I am going to call, obviously, 
for the voice vote, but because of the way that it is worded, I will 
not call for a recorded vote, but I would like for him to be receptive 
to moving this provision, especially when it is brought in a bipartisan 
manner with a major member of the Commerce Subcommittee and the 
Telecommunications Subcommittee.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page 20581]]


  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is currently balanced among the many 
competing priorities between the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and 
Science. The amendment significantly upsets that balance.
  This Congress has already provided the proper funding mechanism for 
enhanced 9/11 grants, which is through proceeds realized through the 
sale of the spectrum space. I have grave concerns about a $5 million 
reduction to the general administration account of the Department of 
Justice.
  The Department may have to lay off its current personnel, reduce key 
projects that might have to be terminated, and substantially scale back 
others in order to absorb a reduction in this office.
  We have to be respectful in the requests and the necessity of having 
adequate funding and adequate personnel to run these programs, to run 
the Department of Justice. Let's not be cavalier in these offsets. Just 
because the account is called ``general'' doesn't mean that it doesn't 
need funding. It also doesn't mean that we haven't been careful and 
deliberate as we have looked at the needs and funded these accounts. 
These are real people we are talking about laying off. They have real 
jobs, and they administer real programs.
  So when we offer an amendment and suggest a $5 million offset, we 
have to be mindful of the consequences of that. DOJ is currently 
challenged to fill authorized positions at all of its components. We 
are increasing funding at the DOJ. Partly these funding requirements 
are the result of chronic gaps between the funding requested and 
appropriated for the S&E accounts and the true cost of pay raises. 
Let's be respectful of other people in their jobs as we consider these 
offsets.
  I yield to the distinguished ranking member.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, like the chairman, we want to salute 
Representative Eshoo and Mr. Shimkus. This is sort of a promise that 
has not been delivered on, and we are mindful of it. But I would agree 
with the chairman, to take a whack out of the Department of Justice 
general administration accounts would affect people that are working 
there presently.
  There is the expectation, which, of course, it might irritate you for 
me to mention this, that somewhere along the line, goodness knows when 
it will happen, there will be a spectrum auction. I don't know, there 
is $40 or $50 million. I know you are looking for $250 million. It is 
not exactly inexpensive. When the auction should occur, this is the 
type of necessary project that needs to be funded.
  But I would concur with the chairman, I know you tried to choose 
wisely, I am not sure these are the accounts that I would recommend 
taking money from. So I would concur with the chairman.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
distinguished ranking member for those thoughts. If I have any time 
left, Mr. Chairman, I would just point out that about 90 percent of the 
account where the gentleman is seeking an offset, the general 
administrative account, goes towards operational support for the 
Department of Justice agencies and their missions, by maintaining and 
overseeing facilities, for procurement of law enforcement tools for 
agents and employees, and for management of financial systems.
  Cutting this account could prevent implementation of a unified 
financial management system that would limit the fraud, waste, and 
abuse that everyone in this body talks about. These are not the areas 
in which we want to make cuts.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that Mr. Shimkus and I are 
offering will provide $5 million for the National Telecommunications 
and Information Administration (NTIA) with the intent of allowing them 
to issue grants to upgrade Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs), 
otherwise known as 9-1-1 call centers. Call centers across our country 
today need to enhance their 9-1-1 technology in order to actually 
locate where a mobile phone caller in crisis is.
  Annually, over 200 million 9-1-1 calls are made, and increasingly 
those calls are made from mobile phones. According to CTIA, the 
wireless industry association, more than 10 percent of households now 
rely on wireless phones as their only telephone service. No wonder it's 
surprising to many Americans to learn that a 9-1-1 call center may not 
have enhanced technology to trace an emergency call from a mobile phone 
in order to dispatch help to exactly where it is needed.
  Imagine calling 9-1-1 from your mobile phone at the scene of a car 
accident or a crime and being told the operator has no idea where you 
are.
  Millions of Americans face this risk every day.
  While coverage in many areas is improving, there are significant gaps 
in the public safety system, particularly in small, rural, and poor 
communities where federal assistance could be most meaningful.
  In 26 states, more than 20 percent of counties have not deployed the 
latest 9-1-1 technology. In 15 states, well over half the counties 
haven't deployed this technology. In West Virginia (Chairman Mollohan's 
home state), nearly one third of the population doesn't have enhanced 
9-1-1 coverage. In Ohio, half the state's population lacks this 
coverage, and in Mississippi, two-thirds.
  In 2004, Congress and the President attempted to address this problem 
by enacting the ENHANCE 9-1-1 Act. The law that Mr. Shimkus and I 
authored created a grant program to pay 50 percent of the cost for 
upgrading 9-1-1 call centers and ensure the most precise location 
(within 300 meters in most cases) of an emergency call from a mobile 
phone.
  The program was authorized to provide up to $1.25 billion in grants 
over 5 years. Regrettably, 3 years later Congress has yet to fund the 
program. In fact, the NTIA and National Highway Traffic Administration 
(NHTSA), the agencies with responsibility for this program, haven't 
even established regulations for awarding grants. With only 2 years 
left in the authorization, it's time to get the program underway.
  The modest amount of funding in our amendment will provide grants to 
approximately 54 smaller counties to upgrade their wireless E9-1-1 
capabilities or up to 17 grants to counties with populations over 
100,000. This public safety funding is offset by reducing funds from 
the Justice Department's General Administration.
  Our Amendment has been endorsed by the Association of Public-Safety 
Communications Officials and the National Emergency Number Association 
and I urge my colleagues to join me and Representative Shimkus in 
voting for it.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois will be 
postponed.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I intended to offer an amendment with 
regard to sea turtles. I would like to engage in that discussion for a 
bit. I will not offer that amendment; I would like to discuss it with 
the chairman of this Appropriations Committee.
  There are currently six species of sea turtles, the green, the 
hawksbill, the Kemp's Ridley, the leatherback, the loggerhead and the 
Olive Ridley sea turtle. All six are listed as threatened or endangered 
species under the Endangered Species Act.
  Sea turtles face a range of threats from land and sea. Their nesting 
beaches are under constant attack from pollution, trash, debris, 
predators and vehicles driving on the dunes.
  Once out of the nest, sea turtle hatchlings use light cues to find 
the sea. Artificial lighting near the beach can disorient hatchlings, 
leading to dehydration and death.
  In the water, sea turtles face even more serious threats. Every year, 
thousands of sea turtles are injured or die

[[Page 20582]]

after becoming entangled in discarded fishing gear and other marine 
debris, from ingesting plastic bags or oil and tar, from being crushed 
by dredges, and by being accidentally caught by U.S. commercial fishing 
operations. The latter is one of the most serious threats facing sea 
turtles.
  Sea turtles are accidentally caught in gill nets, trawls, long-lines 
and dredges, subjecting them to severe injury, crushing, or drowning.
  The U.S. Government authorizes commercial fisheries to kill nearly 
10,000 sea turtles and harm another 334,000 each year. And that is only 
what is authorized, not what actually occurs.
  In addition, the government does not adequately take into account 
that when a sea turtle is injured, its swimming, hunting, and 
reproductive abilities may be severely impaired, further jeopardizing 
the population.
  Currently, approximately one in 1,000 sea turtle hatchlings survives 
to adulthood, one in 1,000. While they are long-lived, they also reach 
reproductive maturity late in life. Due to the many risks they face, 
however, relatively few sea turtles survive to maturity, and even fewer 
live to reproduce.
  In order for the sea turtle population to recover, we must do a 
better job monitoring the population and strengthen the necessary 
protective enforcement measures. The Cardoza-Hastings-Castor amendment 
was quite simple: it provided an additional $1 million for sea turtles 
under the Protective Species Research and Management account for the 
National Marine Fisheries Service.
  What I have done with the chairman is to request that the chairman 
work with us, and I would like to now yield to discuss with the 
chairman what we might do moving forward.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, first of 
all, I want to commend the gentleman for raising this issue. Six of the 
seven sea turtle species are endangered. It is a real concern. It is a 
real plight. We can be particularly proactive trying to address the 
endangered status of these turtles in our borders. It becomes far more 
difficult as we go out around the world.

                              {time}  1445

  It is important that we address it and we pay increasing attention to 
it. The gentleman requests an additional $1 million. There is a $9 
million program looking at this. We intend to work with the gentleman, 
if he so desires, to ensure that NOAA is increasingly focusing on the 
problem, and we will be bringing the gentleman's concern to their 
attention, and letting them understand that. We will be working with 
the professionals at NOAA, and we want to give them all of the support 
that we can and let them know that this is a priority for us.
  So I commend the gentleman for bringing the issue to our attention, 
and assure him that we look forward to working with him not only as we 
process this bill through to completion, but subsequent to that and 
throughout the year to ensure that NOAA gives it the adequate attention 
that this issue deserves.
  Mr. CARDOZA. I thank the chairman. I look forward to working with 
him. That is acceptable to us. We will work together as this bill goes 
to conference to see how we can better deal with this issue.
  My daughter Brittany is 13 years old, and my daughter Elaina is 10. 
They both have encouraged me to work on this. One knows that we have to 
try to abide by our children because they usually have the right take 
on what is right in the world. I thank the chairman for allowing me to 
work on this issue.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. They do have the right take, and she obviously has 
picked a substantive issue to be concerned about and defend, and the 
gentleman is to be commended for picking it up and fighting for her and 
sea turtles.
  Mr. CARDOZA. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California has expired.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Again we have worked with the chairman. There was an 
amendment that I was going to offer with regard to the CASA, Court 
Appointed Special Advocates, program. This is an issue I am very 
passionate about as two of my children are adopted. They were into the 
foster care system and into adoptive placement because of a CASA 
volunteer seeing the desperate situation they were both in.
  The current CASA funding only allows for 50 percent of the children 
who are under court supervision, under court custody to receive the 
assistance of a CASA volunteer. The program is underfunded.
  I had originally intended to fully increase this funding so that 
every child could have a child advocate and a CASA. That is not 
authorized under the authorization, so we have withdrawn the amendment 
at this time, but I will work with the gentleman in the future to make 
sure that we do the right authorizing legislation so this appropriation 
can be dealt with in the appropriate way in the future.
  I thank the gentleman for his advice and leadership in helping me 
work on this issue.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I point out that when 
the gentleman brought his interest in CASA to the attention of the 
committee, I pointed out to him that CASA is funded in our bill at the 
authorized limit of $12 million. We don't suggest that it does not 
merit and that the need isn't there for considerably additional 
funding. That is something that we can look at in the future, and I 
thank the gentleman from California for bringing this matter to the 
attention of the committee and to the attention of the full body.
  CASA is a vital program that is important in the lives of countless 
children in foster care, and we will continue to work with the 
gentleman on his concern of ensuring that soon every child has a CASA 
representative.
  As the gentleman represents, only 50 percent, if it is 50 percent, of 
those in need are served by this vital program. As my colleagues may 
know, 7 years ago, and as the gentleman pointed out, and we are very 
impressed by that fact and taken by it, adopted two foster children. 
There is no greater love than adopting children. We look forward to 
working with the gentleman as we move forward.
  Mr. CARDOZA. I thank the gentleman for his extraordinary leadership 
and for his indulgence of his time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


    public telecommunications facilities, planning and construction

       For the administration of grants authorized by section 392 
     of the Communications Act of 1934, $21,728,000, to remain 
     available until expended as authorized by section 391 of the 
     Act: Provided, That not to exceed $2,000,000 shall be 
     available for program administration as authorized by section 
     391 of the Act: Provided further, That, notwithstanding the 
     provisions of section 391 of the Act, the prior year 
     unobligated balances may be made available for grants for 
     projects for which applications have been submitted and 
     approved during any fiscal year.

               United States Patent and Trademark Office


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the United States Patent and 
     Trademark Office provided for by law, including defense of 
     suits instituted against the Under Secretary of Commerce for 
     Intellectual Property and Director of the United States 
     Patent and Trademark Office, $1,915,500,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That the sum herein 
     appropriated from the general fund shall be reduced as 
     offsetting collections assessed and collected pursuant to 
     section 31 of Act of July 5, 1946 (60 Stat. 437; 15 U.S.C. 
     1113) and 35 U.S.C. 41 and 376 are received during fiscal 
     year 2008, so as to result in a fiscal year 2008 
     appropriation from the general fund estimated at $0: Provided 
     further, That during fiscal year 2008, should the total 
     amount of offsetting fee collections be less than 
     $1,915,500,000, this amount shall be reduced accordingly: 
     Provided further, That from amounts provided herein, not to 
     exceed $1,000 shall be made available in fiscal year 2008 for 
     official reception and representation expenses: Provided 
     further, That in fiscal year 2008 from the amounts made 
     available for ``Salaries and Expenses'' for the United

[[Page 20583]]

     States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), the amounts 
     necessary to pay: (1) the difference between the percentage 
     of basic pay contributed by the PTO and employees under 
     section 8334(a) of title 5, United States Code, and the 
     normal cost percentage (as defined by section 8331(17) of 
     that title) of basic pay, of employees subject to subchapter 
     III of chapter 83 of that title; and (2) the present value of 
     the otherwise unfunded accruing costs, as determined by the 
     Office of Personnel Management, of post-retirement life 
     insurance and post-retirement health benefits coverage for 
     all PTO employees, shall be transferred to the Civil Service 
     Retirement and Disability Fund, the Employees Life Insurance 
     Fund, and the Employees Health Benefits Fund, as appropriate, 
     and shall be available for the authorized purposes of those 
     accounts: Provided further, That sections 801, 802, and 803 
     of division B, of Public Law 108-447 shall remain in effect 
     during fiscal year 2008.

                         Science and Technology

                       Technology Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Under Secretary for 
     Technology, $1,000,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2009.

             National Institute of Standards and Technology


             scientific and technical research and services

       For necessary expenses of the National Institute of 
     Standards and Technology, $500,517,000, to remain available 
     until expended, of which not to exceed $12,500,000 may be 
     transferred to the ``Working Capital Fund''.

                     industrial technology services

       For necessary expenses of the Hollings Manufacturing 
     Extension Partnership of the National Institute of Standards 
     and Technology, $108,757,000, to remain available until 
     expended.
       In addition, for necessary expenses of the Advanced 
     Technology Program of the National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology, $93,062,000, to remain available until expended.


                  construction of research facilities

       For construction of new research facilities, including 
     architectural and engineering design, and for renovation and 
     maintenance of existing facilities, not otherwise provided 
     for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, as 
     authorized by the Act entitled ``An Act to establish the 
     National Bureau of Standards'' (15 U.S.C. 278c-278e), 
     $128,865,000, to remain available until expended.

            National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration


                  operations, research, and facilities

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses of activities authorized by law for 
     the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
     including maintenance, operation, and hire of aircraft and 
     vessels; grants, contracts, or other payments to nonprofit 
     organizations for the purposes of conducting activities 
     pursuant to cooperative agreements; and relocation of 
     facilities, $2,847,556,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2009, except for funds provided for cooperative 
     enforcement which shall remain available until September 30, 
     2010: Provided, That fees and donations received by the 
     National Ocean Service for the management of national marine 
     sanctuaries may be retained and used for the salaries and 
     expenses associated with those activities, notwithstanding 31 
     U.S.C. 3302: Provided further, That the Administrator of the 
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration may engage in 
     formal and informal education activities, including primary 
     and secondary education, related to the agency's mission 
     goals: Provided further, That in addition, $3,000,000 shall 
     be derived by transfer from the fund entitled ``Coastal Zone 
     Management'' and in addition $77,000,000 shall be derived by 
     transfer from the fund entitled ``Promote and Develop Fishery 
     Products and Research Pertaining to American Fisheries'': 
     Provided further, That of the $2,938,556,000 provided for in 
     direct obligations under this heading $2,847,556,000 is 
     appropriated from the general fund, $80,000,000 is provided 
     by transfer, and $11,000,000 is derived from recoveries of 
     prior year obligations. Provided further, That any deviation 
     from the amounts designated for specific activities in the 
     report accompanying this Act, or any use of deobligated 
     balances of funds provided under this heading in previous 
     years, shall be subject to the procedures set forth in 
     section 505 of this Act.


        Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. English of Pennsylvania

  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 22 offered by Mr. English of Pennsylvania:
       Page 11, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 68, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am 
offering today would redirect a very modest amount of funds from NOAA 
to the United States International Trade Commission, we hope to good 
effect.
  The ITC serves on the frontline in the trade war against unfair and 
illegal imports. The Commission, an independent, quasi-judicial Federal 
agency, is part of America's critical network of ``trade cops.''
  The Commission investigates the effects of dumped and subsidized 
imports on domestic employers and American workers, and conducts global 
safeguard investigations on import surges. The Commission also 
adjudicates cases involving infringement by imports of intellectual 
property rights.
  Very simply, this amendment presents a clear choice and a simple one: 
Jobs for constituents in industries threatened by illegal and predatory 
trade practices, or more money for administration and bureaucracy.
  Whatever an individual Member's views on international trade, no one 
can disagree with the notion that the United States is becoming more 
and more integrated into the global marketplace. U.S. exports are 
increasing; and, perhaps unfortunately, so are imports.
  Unfortunately, all too often countries do not fulfill their promises 
to stay within the rules of the global trading system. These 
rulebreakers do not only cheat the system at our expense, but their 
action has the effect of costing America jobs. It is precisely for 
these reasons that we have laws on the books to police our markets, to 
combat illegal trade practices like dumping, subsidies and intellectual 
property theft. These laws, however, are only as good as the 
enforcement mechanism that sustains them.
  There are countless examples of employers in congressional districts 
across the country that are being adversely affected by illegal trade 
practices. Everything from Channellock pliers in my district, or the 
Club in your car, to Zippo lighters are under assault by intellectual 
pirates. Everything from tires to lemon juice to honey to live swine to 
furniture to computer chips is under assault by illegal subsidies or 
dumping. And everything from steel pipe, hangers and brake drums and 
rotors are under assault from Chinese import surges. These industries 
illustrate the range of American employers that turn to the Commission 
to hear their case when our trading partners run afoul of their 
obligations.
  And because of the volume of cases before the Commission, which is 
exploding, it is incumbent upon us to provide the necessary resources 
to our trade cops.
  Intellectual property cases before the Commission have more than 
tripled since fiscal year 2000. The Commission expects an increase in 
dumping and antisubsidy investigations for the fiscal year 2008 
compared to a relative decline in 2005 and 2006.
  Also, the Commission will be tasked with examining the economywide 
economic impact that pending FTAs will have on our country.
  All of these facets of the Commission are far too important not to 
put the necessary resources into the Commission to allow it to complete 
its mission. If we are concerned about the effects that illegal and 
unfair trade is having on the average working American, this amendment 
is the very least we can do.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, this amendment presents a simple choice, jobs 
for constituents in industries threatened by illegal and predatory 
trade practices, or more money for administration and bureaucracy. I 
choose American jobs, and I hope my colleagues join me in passing this 
amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. The 
gentleman attempts to move $2 million out of NOAA, out of the very 
important programs that fund the National

[[Page 20584]]

Weather Service--fisheries, oceans, climate--money that is used to do a 
lot of the research that is extremely important to all of these areas, 
including climate change.
  We have tried to fund NOAA in a way that respects its mission this 
year in the House of Representatives. Typically we don't do that, and 
the Senate earmarks it. We have tried to go through account by account 
and look at the National Weather Service, look at the fisheries, look 
at oceans and look at climate change, and fund these programs 
accordingly. This money will take away from that effort.
  Now, where is the money going? It is going to the ITC. During a 
hearing we specifically asked Chairman Pearson if he got his request, 
and he got the funding he requested as he requested it, if he would be 
happy and if he would be made whole. And his testimony specifically to 
us: ``If you do that, Mr. Chairman, then we are very happy.'' And 
that's what we did in this bill, so I really don't see the need under 
any circumstances for increasing the ITC at this time.
  The gentleman mentioned all of the important missions of the ITC and 
all of the work it does. And you know what? We respect that, and we 
have funded it completely in this bill and been responsive to the 
Chairman Pearson's request. He represented to us at the hearing that if 
we were to do that, which we did, that he would be totally happy with 
this funding.
  I have to say that the gentleman is laboring on behalf of an agency 
that is fully funded and above that has received all of the funding 
requested in this bill. So I oppose this amendment to take money from 
science programs and to take it for no compelling reason from NOAA.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania will be 
postponed.


                Amendment No. 17 Offered by Ms. Bordallo

  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 17 offered by Ms. Bordallo:
       Page 11, line 19, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $500,000) (increased by $500,000)''.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment for the purpose of 
ensuring that not less than $500,000 is expended by NOAA in 2008 for 
Western Pacific Fishery Demonstration Projects.
  This amendment would effectively ensure that such funding is provided 
for this program. The Western Pacific Fishery Demonstration Projects 
program was authorized by the 104th Congress through the passage of an 
act that reauthorized the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act. This is a program that was funded at the level this 
amendment proposes each year from 1999 to 2005. However, unfortunately, 
this program has not been funded in the past 2 years.
  Valuable and economically innovative projects have been demonstrated 
and explored in the past through this program. It is important to the 
communities represented by the Western Pacific Fishery Management 
Council, which includes my home district of Guam, for this program to 
be funded.
  This is a competitive program, and project proposals are reviewed 
against criteria established by NOAA. The program's chief purpose is to 
protect and promote traditional fishing practices in the American 
Pacific basin.

                              {time}  1500

  Development of sustainable fisheries in the islands is important to 
their economic diversification, growth and preservation of traditional 
cultural practices.
  On Guam, for example, a proposal deemed to have merit awaits funding. 
Our fishermen and -women need continued support to demonstrate and 
establish a deep-set longline fishery. Funding this program is the key 
to ensuring that such a meritorious project can be pursued in a 
Federal-local partnership.
  I am grateful for the opportunity to offer this amendment, and I want 
to thank the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) 
and our colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) at this time for 
their able leadership in bringing this bill to the floor, and also as 
Chair of the Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans Subcommittee, I also want 
to acknowledge the full committee Chair, Mr. Obey, here on the floor 
for his work and leadership on behalf of Members of this body, and I 
also would like to recognize Mr. Lewis, the ranking member.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I accept the gentlelady's amendment.
  The level of funding for this program needs to be increased to help 
foster and promote traditional indigenous fishing practices. The 
gentlelady has been a tireless supporter of assisting the indigenous 
people of Guam, Hawaiian Islands and the South Pacific.
  And this funding provides funds for a competitive grant within NOAA 
to allow indigenous peoples of the western Pacific to explore new 
fishing means both which are safe and economically sustainable.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo).
  The amendment was agreed to.


           Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Rogers of Michigan

  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 27 offered by Mr. Rogers of Michigan:
       Page 11, line 19, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $16,000,000)''.
       Page 29, line 19, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $16,000,000)''.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I have a series of three 
amendments, and what we are trying to do here today is solve a couple 
of very real problems for average FBI agents who, in my day, were 
called brick agents. These are the folks who are doing the real work, 
working organized crime or collecting intelligence on foreign spies or 
doing counterterrorism work here in the United States, trying to save 
and prevent any hazards from happening in our homeland, doing violent 
crime or chasing gangsters or involved in the public corruption that is 
pervasive in so many of our cities around the United States.
  They're doing great work, and these are very talented people, and we 
don't really pay them a lot of money. We ask a lot of them. We tell 
them to move around a lot. We send them to very high-cost cities, New 
York City, and think what about we do.
  We have an agent who's been in, say, 7, 8, 9, 10 years, he makes 
about $89,000 as a supervisor of other FBI agents, and he's in Alabama. 
You can do pretty well at that standard. And then we tell him or her, 
because his or her talents are needed in New York City, You're going to 
go. So you pack up your family and you show up in one of the world's 
most expensive cities, and for that, we give you $3,000.
  So he or she goes from living pretty decently in a place like Alabama 
on $89,000 to a high-cost city making $92,000, and the hardship begins. 
It's

[[Page 20585]]

wrong that we treat some of our frontline defenders in homeland defense 
in this way.
  So, last summer, we sat down and tried to work with the FBI director 
to get a couple of things accomplished. One was a housing allowance. 
Other agencies in the city of New York have housing allowances for 
their agents and their officers who serve there because they recognize 
the need for, A, constant moving; and B, in high-cost areas, you need a 
little extra help just to get by. Some of these agents have 3-hour 
commutes to go into work, 3-hour commutes, work a very long day, longer 
than most Americans; then they have a 3-hour commute to go home. It's 
pretty tough on their family life. It's tough on their finances, and 
it's wrong that we ask these agents to suffer under that kind of 
financial difficulty. We should and could do better.
  So, last summer, we agreed with the FBI director, of which we have 
public statements to the effect, that we would try a pilot housing 
project here in Washington, DC, another high-cost area. It's hard to 
attract FBI agents to come back to Washington, DC, because of the high 
cost that is uncompensated. So we agreed that we would try a pilot 
project here to see if we couldn't work out the kinks. Now, the FBI has 
agreed to this program. They said it's the right thing to do. They will 
try a pilot project. If it works here, we'll see where else it can go.
  So we take a very small amount of money, about half of 1 percent from 
the $2 billion plus going to NOAA, and we say we're just going to 
redirect a little of this money into something that we know can make a 
difference for those who are defending the United States of America and 
doing some of the hardest work that is out there.
  So, if we do this amendment, I won't have to do an amendment later on 
that specifically outlines how we would do a housing project for FBI 
agents across America. And think of those high-cost cities like Los 
Angeles or Miami or Chicago, New York City, places in New Jersey, 
Atlantic City, the cost of housing is ridiculous. And they're not well-
compensated to begin with, and to ask that extra burden isn't right.
  So we're going to do two things. We're going to do that. Hopefully, 
if we do this, I will be able to withdraw my second amendment on the 
FBI housing allowance. And secondly, they have something called an up-
or-out policy of which, by the way, I oppose, but I worked with the 
director to protect the pensions of those FBI agents that have been 
impacted by this up-or-out policy.
  And by the way, the FBI, after this agreement last summer, sent an 
internal communications and said basically, hey, we're going to do this 
for you. For those of you who are impacted, and these are supervisors 
who have served well for their country and their community and the 
Bureau who had to step down from being a supervisor because they didn't 
want to be forced to move to a high-cost city in Washington, DC, to 
further their career. Maybe their kids were in school, maybe they had 
to make other considerations. So they were forced not because of their 
lack of good work but because they were just serving in that capacity 
for 5 years. And those who were close to retirement, it significantly 
impacted their retirement, their pensions, and it's wrong.
  There's a small number of agents that we can fix with this proposal 
that takes care of those agents who have served us all well. While we 
were sleeping, they were working. While we were in the safety of our 
barbecues, they were in danger protecting this country.
  We owe it to them to have these two fixed. It's agreed to by the FBI 
director. It's agreed to by the FBI. We just need to get some language 
in to accomplish that. I would urge support of this amendment.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in the bill. 
I don't think that's the intention, but that's the effect.
  The fact is that the outlay rate in the NOAA account is 65 percent. 
The outlay rate in the FBI account is 80 percent. Therefore, the 
amendment is not budget neutral, and I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, this certainly seems to me a 
change in policy. This is a straight transfer. Now, the other two 
amendments I understand we may have something to chat about, but this 
is a straight dollar transfer. We have reduced one account and 
increased another account. It is a straight transfer and should be 
considered made in order.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if I could respond, the fact is this may be a 
straight transfer as far as budget authority is concerned, but that is 
not the impact on the outlay side, and therefore, I ask for a ruling 
from the Chair against the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order.
  To be considered en bloc pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI, an 
amendment must not propose to increase the levels of budget authority 
or outlays in the bill. Because the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Michigan proposes a net increase in the level of outlays in the 
bill, as argued by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, it 
may not avail itself of clause 2(f) to address portions of the bill not 
yet read. The point of order is sustained.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Mack

  Mr. MACK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Mack:
       Page 11, line 19, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $21,100,000)''.
       Page 16, line 20, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $21,100,000)''.

  Mr. MACK. Mr. Chairman, I first would like to start off by saying 
that I'm only here this afternoon because of a concern for an algae 
bloom that continues to grow off my coast. It's called red tide. It 
causes economic damage. It causes quality of life damage. It's also 
harmful to the fisheries.
  I also understand that the majority is not really comfortable the way 
we constructed this amendment. I do want to say for the record that 
I've had a lot of support from Kathy Castor and Vern Buchanan on 
working, trying to get more research dollars on red tide.
  Currently, NOAA has a program, a peer-reviewed program, that moneys 
are appropriated to that then are used for research all around the 
country on red tide and harmful algae blooms. This amendment would then 
fully fund to $30 million a year those research projects.
  I spoke earlier to the chairman of the committee, and we talked about 
how we can move this ball down the road, how we can move forward on 
trying to get those research dollars up. It has a significant impact 
for our communities. The chairman was kind enough to agree to speak on 
this and to work with me and to work with my colleagues on ensuring 
that we at least have the discussion about making sure the research 
dollars are there.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MACK. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to discuss this matter with 
the gentleman.
  This issue was brought before the committee rather late, after we had 
marked up. The point was made on a bipartisan basis that the 
authorization for this program was not adequate. We accepted the 
authorization change on our bill and supported an increase in the 
authorization, I believe to $30 million.
  The bill is already marked up, and we have funded this program at 
$8.9 million, recognizing that, like a lot of accounts in this bill, 
additional resources are needed. We would be pleased to work with the 
gentleman as the bill moves forward to see how we can augment this 
funding.
  That's a difficult proposition, but we do commit ourselves to looking 
to see how and where we might be able to find some additional resources 
to fund these

[[Page 20586]]

accounts, and we look forward to working with the gentleman in that 
regard.
  Mr. MACK. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your 
remarks, and I do apologize for the last minute on this. We've been 
kind of trying to look through the language and understand completely 
what was there and what we need to do. We're going to continue to work 
through the authorizing committee as well. I appreciate the chairman's 
support.
  Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Mack-
Castor-Buchanan amendment to provide critical funding for red tide 
research.
  Red tide threatens our environment, our health and our economy. But 
in recent years, the harmful effects of red tide have killed sea life, 
driven people from our beaches to our emergency rooms, and cost the 
economy millions of dollars in lost revenues.
  This is a problem not just in Florida but in other coastal States.
  Red tide is a naturally occurring phenomenon. Scientists differ on 
whether it is occurring more frequently and for longer periods of time. 
There is also disagreement on whether we should try to kill, contain, 
or minimize the impact of red tide.
  That's why additional research dollars are needed. And that's why I 
support the Mack-Castor-Buchanan amendment.
  My district is home to Mote Marine Laboratory, one of the Nation's 
premier private marine research laboratories. Mote conducts on-going 
red tide research and research related to new methods for early 
detection of red tide, the role of coastal pollution and studies of 
ways to mitigate and control blooms.
  This amendment would fund additional research at places like Mote 
Marine to better understand the issue, and these results of these 
studies can be used to develop better methods to predict and detect red 
tide, and if a consensus can be developed, control and mitigate red 
tide.
  I want to thank my colleagues Connie Mack and Kathy Castor for 
working with me on this important issue.
   Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Jindal

  Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Jindal:
       Page 11, line 19, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 21, line 7, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $2,000,000)''.

  Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Chairman, the 2005 hurricane season featured 14 
hurricanes, including Hurricane Katrina, which devastated the gulf 
coast and became the most costly natural disaster in U.S. history. The 
season's hurricanes were responsible for over $100 billion in damage 
and over 1,800 deaths. Both Hurricanes Katrina and Rita devastated my 
home State of Louisiana.
  On August 23, 2005, Hurricane Katrina was nothing more than a mass of 
organized clouds over the Bahamas, but later that day, the storm 
quickly intensified and headed toward the U.S. coastline. Late on 
August 25, the storm made the first landfall just south of Fort 
Lauderdale, Florida, as a category 1 hurricane. By early in the morning 
of August 28, Hurricane Katrina's winds reached a remarkable 175 miles 
per hour, a category 5 storm. Hurricane Katrina seemingly intensified 
overnight from category 3 to a category 5 hurricane.
  Just before Hurricane Katrina made landfall on August 29, NASA's 
QuikSCAT satellite mapped the storm's wind speeds. The data from the 
satellite helped forecasters describe Katrina's dangers in public 
information bulletins issued just before the storm slamming into New 
Orleans. Unfortunately, forecasting efforts may be crippled as data 
from the QuikSCAT satellite will become unavailable as the satellite's 
lifespan expires.
  Measuring a storm's intensity and tracking its direction are critical 
to determining appropriate level of emergency preparedness efforts. 
Forecasters need alternate methods to measure intensity in order to 
convey potential storm damage. In addition to space-based monitoring 
platforms on which hurricane research and forecasting scientists rely, 
new research is now being conducted by NOAA that will allow forecasters 
to recognize rapid changes in intensity much more quickly.

                              {time}  1515

  The National Hurricane Research Initiative has been estimated to have 
an annual cost of as much as $300 million, but will accelerate and 
improve measurement of hurricane wind structure. The President's 2008 
budget request calls for just $2 million in additional studies aimed at 
improving hurricane intensity forecasts, an area that the NOAA 
Administrator claims is one of the agency's key concerns.
  The amendment that I offer to the appropriations bill would double 
the President's increase for NOAA's hurricane intensity research. The 
amendment adds an additional $2 million to improve NOAA's ability to 
forecast hurricane intensity and to provide better and more usable 
information for emergency managers and the public. The activities will 
aid NOAA's operational hurricane forecasters and improve understanding 
of hurricane intensity and changes in storm structure, especially on 
the gulf coast where residents are so sensitive about potential 
evacuations, it would be extremely helpful to have better and more 
accurate information about intensity as well as the direction of a 
storm.
  The offset comes out of salaries and expenses in the General 
Administration for the Department of Justice. This account received 
$104.7 million, which is $6.9 million more than last year's funding 
levels.
  My amendment will reduce errors in the 48-hour hurricane intensity 
forecasting. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman seeks to increase by a 
factor of two the hurricane intensity forecast capability.
  There is a lot of concern with regard to this. We certainly are 
extremely sympathetic to the purpose of the amendment. We do not like 
the offset at all.
  I am wondering if the gentleman would, and I will yield to him for a 
discussion of this, if the gentleman would like to work with us and 
secure this funding, do everything we can. I think $2 million we 
certainly can do as we process this bill forward to conference.
  Mr. JINDAL. If the gentleman would yield?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield.
  Mr. JINDAL. I certainly would be happy to withdraw the amendment. I 
look forward to working with the chairman. I thank him for his interest 
in improving the ability of NOAA and to predict the accuracy and 
intensity of hurricanes as they form along the coast.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. The gentleman is totally correct. Additional funding in 
this area could be used. We are convinced of that. We look forward to 
working with the gentleman.
  Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       In addition, for necessary retired pay expenses under the 
     Retired Serviceman's Family Protection and Survivor Benefits 
     Plan, and for payments for the medical care of retired 
     personnel and their dependents under the Dependents, Medical 
     Care Act (10 U.S.C. ch. 55), such sums as may be necessary.


                     National Academy of Sciences'

                     climate change study committee

       Of the amounts provided for the ``National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration, Operations, Research and 
     Facilities'', $6,000,000 shall be for necessary expenses in 
     support of an agreement between the Administrator of the 
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the 
     National Academies under which the National Academies shall 
     establish the Climate Change Study Committee to investigate 
     and study the serious and sweeping issues relating to global 
     climate change and make recommendations regarding what steps 
     must be taken and what strategies must be adopted in response 
     to global climate change, including the science and 
     technology challenges thereof.

[[Page 20587]]

       The agreement shall provide for: establishment of and 
     appointment of members to the Climate Change Study Committee 
     by the National Academies; organization by the National 
     Academies of a Summit on Global Climate Change to help define 
     the parameters of the study, not to exceed three days in 
     length and to be attended by preeminent experts on global 
     climate change selected by the National Academies; and 
     issuance of a report by the Climate Change Study Committee 
     not later than 2 years after the date the Climate Change 
     Study Committee is first convened, containing its findings, 
     conclusions, and recommendations. Of such amount, $1,000,000 
     shall be for the Summit on Global Climate Change and 
     $5,000,000 shall be for the other activities of the Climate 
     Change Study Committee.


               procurement, acquisition and construction

       For procurement, acquisition and construction of capital 
     assets, including alteration and modification costs, of the 
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
     $1,039,098,000, to remain available until September 30, 2010, 
     except funds provided for construction of facilities which 
     shall remain available until expended: Provided, That of the 
     amounts provided for the National Polar-orbiting Operational 
     Environmental Satellite System, funds shall only be made 
     available on a dollar-for-dollar matching basis with funds 
     provided for the same purpose by the Department of Defense: 
     Provided further, That except to the extent expressly 
     prohibited by any other law, the Department of Defense may 
     delegate procurement functions related to the National Polar-
     orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System to 
     officials of the Department of Commerce pursuant to section 
     2311 of title 10, United States Code. Provided further, That 
     any deviation from the amounts designated for specific 
     activities in the report accompanying this Act, or any use of 
     deobligated balances of funds provided under this heading in 
     previous years, shall be subject to the procedures set forth 
     in section 505 of this Act.


                    pacific coastal salmon recovery

       For necessary expenses associated with the restoration of 
     Pacific salmon populations, $64,825,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2009: Provided, That of the funds 
     provided herein the Secretary of Commerce may issue grants to 
     the States of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, California, and 
     Alaska, and the Columbia River and Pacific Coastal Tribes for 
     projects necessary for restoration of salmon and steelhead 
     populations that are listed as threatened or endangered, or 
     identified by a State as at-risk to be so-listed, for 
     maintaining populations necessary for exercise of tribal 
     treaty fishing rights or native subsistence fishing, or for 
     conservation of Pacific coastal salmon and steelhead habitat, 
     based on guidelines to be developed by the Secretary of 
     Commerce: Provided further, That funds disbursed to States 
     shall be subject to a matching requirement of funds or 
     documented in-kind contributions of at least 33 percent of 
     the Federal funds: Provided further, That non-Federal funds 
     provided pursuant to the second proviso be used in direct 
     support of this program.


                      coastal zone management fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Of amounts collected pursuant to section 308 of the Coastal 
     Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1456a), not to exceed 
     $3,000,000 shall be transferred to the ``Operations, 
     Research, and Facilities'' account to offset the costs of 
     implementing such Act.


                   fisheries finance program account

       Subject to section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974, during fiscal year 2008, obligations of direct loans 
     may not exceed $8,000,000 for Individual Fishing Quota loans 
     as authorized by the Merchant Marine Act, 1936.

                                 Other

                        Departmental Management


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary for the departmental management of 
     the Department of Commerce provided for by law, including not 
     to exceed $5,000 for official entertainment, $58,693,000.


                 Amendment Offered by Ms. Zoe Lofgren 
                             of California

  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California:
       Page 16, line 20, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $25,000,000)''.
       Page 21, line 7, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $25,000,000)''.
       Page 30, line 10, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 42, line 8, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $55,000,000)''.
       Page 43, line 3, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $55,000,000)''.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I 
ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and 
printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment 
on behalf of myself, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California, Mr. Dreier of 
California, Mr. Hunter, and Mr. Carter of Texas.
  This amendment would increase the State Criminal Alien Assistance 
Program funding by $55 million, a 14-percent increase over the funding 
level currently included in the bill.
  The offset for this increase would be a transfer from three different 
accounts, $25 million from the departmental management of the 
Department of Commerce, $25 million from the Department of 
Administration from the Department of Justice and $5 million from the 
FBI's Construction and Acquisition Fund.
  The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, or SCAAP, provides 
critical reimbursement to States and localities for the incarceration 
of undocumented criminal aliens. This program was created in 1994 to 
ease the fiscal burden on States and local governments.
  SCAAP had its highest funding relative to authorization in fiscal 
year 1998, 1999 and 2000 under the Clinton administration when $585 
million was appropriated. By increasing SCAAP by $55 million, this 
amendment would bring funding to States and local governments closer to 
the authorized amount. I would note that this would still be under 50 
percent of the authorized amount for SCAAP of 48 percent, in fact. It 
would bring needed assistance to States such as California, Arizona, 
Texas, Florida and New York, all of whom have come to rely on SCAAP 
reimbursement to help absorb the high financial cost of incarceration 
of aliens.
  Over the last 6 months, I have met with many Members of this House, 
both Republican and Democrat, to listen to their concerns about 
immigration as we examined the comprehensive immigration reform 
proposals and various elements of it. One of the issues that was raised 
on both sides of the aisle is the cost of incarcerating undocumented 
criminal aliens that is being passed on to States, counties and other 
localities.
  I would note that this amendment, a modest increase of 14 percent, is 
endorsed by the National Association of Counties, and, likewise, we 
have a letter from 17 Governors who support increased SCAAP funding 
going to their States. These States' Governors include Arizona, 
Oklahoma, South Dakota, Oregon, California, Washington, Utah, Georgia, 
Florida, Kansas, Illinois, Virginia, New Mexico, New York, Minnesota, 
Texas and Nevada.
  This is a good investment for local governments, for our States. It's 
part of shouldering our responsibility, because immigration is a 
Federal responsibility.
  I think it's an item where, on a bipartisan basis, Mr. Dreier and I 
chair our respective State delegations, he the Republican delegation, I 
the Democratic delegation, that we can deliver jointly.
  I respect a great deal, as Mr. Mollohan knows, the chairman of this 
subcommittee. We have worked together on many items. This amendment 
should not be seen as critical of his wonderful efforts, but I think we 
can do just a little bit better, and I think our constituents and 
counties and our constituents and States will appreciate that we are 
doing something to ease the burden of incarcerating illegal immigrants.
  I would note that all of the studies show that immigration is good 
for America. Legal immigration is good for America. It boosts 
productivity. We know that in our high-tech sector, more than half of 
the startups in Silicon Valley have an immigrant cofounder. There is 
much to revel in immigration in America.
  But having said that, there are costs. This is one of them, something 
we can do something about, do something about. This bipartisan 
amendment really deserves the support of us all.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the cosponsor, Ms. 
Linda T. Sanchez of California, noting that the Judiciary Committee on 
which we both serve is the authorizing committee. She has been a true 
partner in this effort.

[[Page 20588]]


  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank our 
chairwoman of the subcommittee, Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California, for her 
efforts on behalf of this issue and many others as well.
  I rise today to urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan 
amendment to increase funding for the State Criminal Alien Assistance 
Program, the SCAAP program.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe 
Lofgren) has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Dreier, and by unanimous consent, Ms. Zoe Lofgren 
of California was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I would yield the 2 
minutes to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. When the Federal Government 
passed SCAAP in 1994, it recognized its responsibility to reimburse 
States and localities for the arrest, incarceration and transportation 
costs associated with criminal aliens.
  Unfortunately, this program has been consistently underfunded. In 
fact, the President's budget proposal for next year provided no funds 
for SCAAP whatsoever. Fortunately, the Appropriations Committee and 
Chairman Mollohan wisely allocated $405 million, $164 million more than 
the current level. However, this is not even enough.
  States and localities are still only getting a small fraction of what 
they are spending. This inadequate funding has had a devastating effect 
on public safety, especially in California and other border States. At 
a time when many States and counties face budget shortfalls, every 
dollar reduced in SCAAP reimbursement means one dollar less to spend on 
essential public safety services.
  Following SCAAP funding cuts in 2003, the L.A. County Sheriff's 
Department was forced to implement a new early release policy for 
inmates convicted of misdemeanors. From a public safety standpoint, it 
is far better for criminals to serve their full sentences.
  Without adequate resources, other programs will have to be scaled 
back or cut all together. Programs that are in jeopardy could include 
basic police protection, anti-gang activities, homicide investigations, 
anti-terrorism activities and rehabilitation programs to reduce 
recidivism. We introduced this amendment to ensure that police chiefs 
and sheriffs do not have to choose between keeping children out of 
gangs and incarcerating criminal aliens.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment.
  I would like to first express my appreciation first to Chairman 
Mollohan and to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) and 
to the members of the Appropriations Committee for increasing the level 
of funding within the committee.
  My colleague Mr. Carter, who is a coauthor of this amendment and was 
involved in this, in the work of the Appropriations Committee, I have 
to finally say we brought the level of the committee funding to exactly 
$405 million, which is where we actually had it last year.
  I would say I was very pleased in working with then-chairman Jerry 
Lewis and other members of the Appropriations Committee in the 109th 
Congress to add an additional $50 million to the State Criminal Alien 
Assistance Program. We got to that $405 million level. This year we are 
at the same level thanks to the work of Messrs. Mollohan, 
Frelinghuysen, Carter, and others who have been involved in this.
  This was an issue that actually came to the forefront in 1994 when a 
number of us felt very strongly about the fact that cities, counties 
and States are not responsible for protecting international borders. It 
is the responsibility of the Federal Government to secure our Nation's 
borders.
  It saddens me greatly that here we are, 13 years later, still 
struggling with the issue of securing our borders. Ms. Zoe Lofgren, the 
distinguished Chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, has 
spent a great deal of time reaching out to me and others working on our 
effort to try to deal with this issue of border security and bringing 
an end to illegal immigration.
  I will say that we haven't gotten there yet, as we found from the 
actions or lack of actions so far in the other body, and, frankly, in 
this House as well, on the issue. What we do know is it is still the 
responsibility of the Federal Government to secure our Nation's 
borders. That is why we should not, as a Federal Government, be 
imposing on cities, townships, counties or States the responsibility 
for incarcerating those who have come into this country illegally and 
have committed crimes against our fellow Americans.

                              {time}  1530

  I happen to live in Los Angeles County, and our county alone, the 
cost for incarcerating people who are in this country illegally and 
have committed crimes is in excess of $150 million a year.
  The level of funding in this program is $405 million right now. If we 
are successful, which I suspect we will be, with passage of this 
amendment, we will add $55 million taken from accounts which I know 
concern the distinguished ranking member and I suspect the chairman as 
well, deal with the $5 million from the construction fund for the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the administrative funds in both 
the Department of Commerce and the Department of Justice.
  Mr. Chairman, we feel very strongly that as we look at the challenge 
of securing our borders, of ending illegal immigration, and of 
creating, creating a degree of equity when we look at the costs 
inflicted on local and State taxpayers, we need to pass this amendment.
  We know that as we look at the challenges ahead, the costs are going 
to continue to be very, very high, as I said, with my county alone at 
$150 million. And the total program will end up, assuming passage of 
this amendment, to be $460 million for the entire country. We still 
have a ways to go.
  I was very pleased, Mr. Chairman, in the 109th Congress, as I said, 
to have offered this amendment. I was hoping in the 109th Congress to 
have built the kind of bipartisan support that we enjoy for this 
amendment. I was saddened that we weren't able to do that, but we were 
nevertheless able to succeed in passing that and at the end of the day 
actually have that funding level increased. But as the problem 
continues, it is essential that we step up to the plate and take on our 
responsibility for dealing with this issue.
  So once again, Mr. Chairman, I express my appreciation to all 
involved. The lead author of this amendment, Ms. Zoe Lofgren, has 
worked, as I said, on the immigration issue for a long period of time, 
and I believe that she is going a long way towards addressing this 
question.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Dreier was allowed to proceed for 3 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield time to my friend from 
Texas, a member of the Appropriations Committee who has worked very, 
very hard on this, Judge Carter.
  Mr. CARTER. I thank my friend for yielding, and I thank both the 
chairman and ranking member of my committee.
  I bring to this discussion and this bipartisan support, I hope, the 
perspective of having been in the trenches and having dealt with this 
issue.
  I can't count on all the digits that I have the number of times that 
I have sat in a meeting of the Williamson County law enforcement group 
about the overcrowdedness of our jail in Williamson County, Texas, now 
a county of about 350,000 people.
  We always look to see how many Federal prisoners we had in our jail, 
and always we would see 22 to 30 percent of these people would be what 
we considered Federal prisoners, illegal

[[Page 20589]]

aliens, that had committed crimes. Now, yes, this is an immigration 
issue. Yes, it is a border protection issue. And these are issues that 
we all agree we must address. We will, I am confident, address them. 
But it is also a law enforcement issue. It is an issue that our people 
who enforce our laws at the local level and do the right thing, take 
them to court, try them, convict them, hold them while they are ready 
for trial, have space taken up by a responsibility of our Federal 
Government. And what we are doing here today is providing resources for 
those local people so that they can do their job and enforce the laws 
of the United States and of our various States.
  This is a good use of our money to assist our locals, counties, 
States, and other authorities that have this duty of enforcing our laws 
in America, to help them do their job so we are not burdening the 
taxpayer at the local level and shifting funds from good things that 
keep our communities safe in order to keep these people in jail. And, 
believe me, they will do what it takes to keep them in jail.
  So, therefore, let's do our job. Let's pass this additional funds for 
helping those who would incarcerate criminals on our behalf, and by 
that, I think we will be doing a good thing for our country.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, let me express my appreciation to the 
gentleman from Texas and, again, congratulate him on the hard work that 
he has put in this effort. His judicial experience is such that he 
understands this problem as well as any Member of this body. And I will 
join again of my California colleagues, Ms. Sanchez and Ms. Zoe 
Lofgren, that I do believe that recognition now that we can do this in 
a bipartisan way is a very, very, very important achievement for this 
institution.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. 
And I want to begin by saying I am very impressed by the bipartisan 
presentation by the representatives from California, all of whom I 
respect very highly and many of whom I work very closely with.
  Let me start off by saying their support for increasing SCAAP is not 
misplaced on its merits. Indeed, I am struck by the fact that their 
efforts on a bipartisan basis are evidence, pretty strong evidence, of 
inadequate funding, certainly in the request of the President. We have 
increased SCAAP by multi-billions of dollars, as we have already said, 
above the President's request. But the one argument against the bill 
that comes from the minority side is that we have too much money in 
this bill to fund the priorities in this bill.
  I think this amendment is evidence in an argument against that 
position. There is not too much money in this bill to fund the 
priorities in this bill, and SCAAP is certainly a priority.
  Let me help those who are moving this amendment with their argument. 
Certified requests for reimbursement to this SCAAP account from the 
jails, the sheriffs, and the State prison systems would demonstrate or 
would evidence the fact that there is twice the certified merit for 
reimbursement of this program than this program has funded.
  In other words, we are only having 50 percent of the money that is in 
the bill. And even if we raise it, it is virtually not increased much 
more. We are only funding 50 percent of the certified demand for this 
program in this bill. Well, that is not unusual. There are a number of 
programs in this bill that certifiably we are only meeting 50 percent 
of the need.
  When I was before the Rules Committee, the distinguished gentleman, 
Mr. Dreier from California, talked about our increase in funding for 
Legal Services. Well, we have increased Legal Services by $28 million 
in this bill to $377 million. And there is a study that was recently 
completed, a credible study that we are only serving 50 percent, just 
coincidentally, of the demand of people across the country who need 
legal services, but because of their financial condition cannot access 
the courts of this land. Now, that is meritorious.
  It is meritorious, I believe, that we have a program, Legal Services 
Corporation, that meets that need and allows people to access the legal 
system. If equal protection under the law means anything, it means 
equal access to the law. So we have a legal services program to do 
that, but it is only 50 percent adequate in its funding. Well, SCAAP is 
only 50 percent. So we all have to sacrifice here, and this is a 
reimbursement program to States and local governments that are 
incarcerating illegal aliens. It is meritorious. So is Legal Services. 
I am just saying that the funding is inadequate, Mr. Chairman, and that 
we need additional resources in this bill.
  So now we are down to prioritizing, and we think that we have done a 
good job in crafting the priorities of this bill. We are funding Legal 
Services at 50 percent. Legal Services' high watermark in 1995 was $400 
million. We are not there, but SCAAP is there. We are not there. We are 
not back there. We are at $377 million in this bill.
  SCAAP is not disadvantaged in this bill. Relatively speaking, look 
back over the years. In 2005, SCAAP was funded at $305 million. From 
2005 to 2006, it jumped to $405 million. Why? Because of the good 
efforts of the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee 
at the time, Chairman Lewis, and the chairman of the Rules Committee at 
the time, Mr. Dreier, to effect an increase of $100 million.
  So if you go off the base of 2005 of $305 million, Legal Services was 
increased to $405 million; we funded it at $375 million. At full 
committee, it was increased back up to $405 million. It is where it 
was. It is where it was last year. Relatively speaking, off of that 
2005 base, SCAAP is enjoying a privileged position in this bill of 
strongly competing programs which rate merit.
  So now where is the offset? So I am just saying, admitting, 
acknowledging, stipulating to SCAAP being underfunded, along with a lot 
of programs, State and local programs, as well as agency programs in 
this bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and 
to yield 2 minutes to my chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes and yields 2 minutes.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I thank my distinguished ranking member, Mr. 
Frelinghuysen.
  Since we are talking about increasing inadequate funding in the bill, 
Mr. Chairman, let me explain that in our law enforcement agencies, we 
had a gap in the funding of the bill versus the need. The Department of 
Justice faced the challenge to fill authorized positions in all of its 
components, and partly as a result of chronic gaps between the funding 
requested by the President and the appropriation for these 
administration accounts and the true cost of paying for raises. We had 
going into this bill, underfunding in the Department of Justice, which 
we have tried very hard to address.
  The offsets for funding SCAAP in this amendment impact those 
administration accounts in Justice and in Commerce. These are real 
people doing real jobs, and we have very carefully funded them. These 
accounts are underfunded by the President, just like SCAAP and just 
like Legal Services are underfunded. We have tried to balance 
priorities as we move forward, and there are lots of people concerned 
about these offsets.
  This amendment proposes to offset $25 million in the S&E accounts for 
the Department of Commerce. Commerce runs good programs. The amendment 
proposes to offset $25 million in the Department of Justice for general 
administration. The Department of Justice has a lot of programs to 
administer, and many are State and local programs which distribute 
those funds to our local law enforcement. We can't cut either program 
by $25 million. This would hurt real people with real jobs. We are not 
funding overemployment in

[[Page 20590]]

these agencies and we are not funding salary increases at adequate 
levels, either.
  A lot of folks are concerned about this, and that is why we tried to 
balance the bill fairly. The folks that are going to be RIFed and laid 
off are government employees and are concerned about it. Their union 
representatives, the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-
CIO, are concerned about amendments such as this one and they have 
written us a letter:
  ``Dear Chairman Mollohan, On behalf of the American Federation of 
Government Employees, AFL-CIO, I strongly urge you to oppose any 
amendments that would substantially reduce fiscal year 2008 funding for 
the salaries and expenses account in the Department of Justice 
agencies.'' And they are concerned about the others besides Commerce 
and Justice as well. These offsets have cavalierly, I would say, 
respectfully, targeted these administrative accounts.
  I thank my ranking member for yielding me time. I respectfully engage 
this debate with my colleagues who I respect, and it brings me to 
respectfully opposing this SCAAP amendment. If our bill were to receive 
any more money, and I note that the Senate has $800 million more, maybe 
we can address these concerns in conference.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly oppose the amendment 
as well. And obviously we have a strong appreciation and affection for 
the power and the reasonableness of the delegations from California and 
Texas. The nexus between Texas and California is a pretty strong nexus 
here.
  And I am supportive of SCAAP. I think Mr. Dreier kindly has 
acknowledged that the committee did put money in there through a Honda 
amendment, and obviously we would like to plus it up. The costs have 
somewhat escalated from what we originally anticipated from the floor 
debate here.
  But I would agree with the chairman. The cuts that are proposed from 
these accounts actually affect real people.

                              {time}  1545

  And in the Commerce Department management account, and I know Mr. 
Dreier is an advocate of trade, it's a 40 percent cut in the management 
account for the Department of Commerce, which leaves them with 60 
percent for operating costs. And for the Justice Department general 
account, which is $104 million, $104.8 million, this account is reduced 
by $25 million. They're down to $79 million. That means people out the 
door who are doing prosecutions that are important to all of us, 
perhaps even related to the issues that we're focused on today, which 
is criminal aliens.
  So I reluctantly oppose the amendment, but certainly am sympathetic 
and have been because I've been well educated by not only the Member of 
Congress from California.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Dreier, and by unanimous consent, Mr. 
Frelinghuysen was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California is 
kind to yield to me. I reluctantly oppose the amendment.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. And, Mr. Chairman, I will 
again state my great appreciation to the distinguished chairman from 
West Virginia and the gentleman from New Jersey. And the gentleman from 
New Jersey has just bragged on the States of Texas and California, and 
I will reciprocate by bragging on both New Jersey and West Virginia and 
saying that they're both great and very important States.
  And I suspect that in West Virginia and New Jersey, the challenge of 
trying to deal with the cost of the incarceration of people who are in 
this country illegally and have committed crimes is a very serious and 
important one, and I recognize the sensitivity.
  I personally am not a huge proponent, as I said earlier in response 
to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee's comments on the 
Legal Services Corporation when he was testifying before our Rules 
Committee. And as I look at the numbers for both of these accounts, and 
I know that my friend from New Jersey, when the chairman and the 
ranking member were testifying before the Rules Committee, argued for a 
slightly, he said that he believed that the level overall could be 
slightly lower. And I looked at the level of funding, and the gentleman 
is absolutely right. I am a huge proponent of trade, breaking down 
barriers, and I want to do everything that I possibly can to expand 
export opportunities for the United States around the world.
  But as I look at the level of funding, Mr. Chairman, for both the 
Department of Commerce and the Department of Justice, the Department of 
Commerce actually has a 7 percent increase over the President's 
request, 6 percent of the level of funding last year. That's $468 
million more than has been requested by the President, and that's in 
the case of the Commerce Department. In the case of the Department of 
Justice, it's $1.7 billion more than the President has requested.
  Now, in both of these areas we know that the President is absolutely 
committed to dealing with the crime problem, which is a very serious 
one, and obviously with the issue of expanding trade opportunities. And 
the overall level of funding in both of these areas is significantly 
higher than what was expended last year and what the President's 
request level is.
  And I think that as we look at establishing priorities, it, from my 
perspective, is relatively, relatively, and I'll say that a third time, 
relatively easy. And I know how tough it is for the two gentlemen who 
manage this area to find that State Criminal Alien Assistance Program 
funding is, in fact, a very high priority for both Democrats and 
Republicans, as I said, for people in both West Virginia and New 
Jersey, as well as California and Texas and, frankly, all across the 
country. And so I would hope that as we move ahead with this process, 
that we'll see support in this House for this amendment.
  And I know that as the two gentlemen head to working with our 
colleagues in the other body and ultimately with the administration, I 
hope that we will be able to keep this issue on the forefront as a very 
important priority.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Members are advised that under the 5-minute rule, 
Members who move to strike the last word may yield to other Members, 
but not for specific lengths of time. When the Chair purported to 
recognize Mr. Mollohan for 2 minutes, in actuality that signified only 
that Mr. Frelinghuysen would reclaim his time after that interval.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California will be 
postponed.


            Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 26 offered by Mr. Price of Georgia:
       Page 16, line 20, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 65, line 21, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment in a little 
different vein. It's an amendment to increase funding in the Math and 
Science

[[Page 20591]]

Partnership Program under the National Science Foundation by $2 
million, and reduce by $2 million the Department management salaries 
and expenses under the Department of Commerce.
  I'll offer an amendment here to increase American competitiveness and 
to improve opportunities for America's children. My amendment proposes 
to offer additional funding to the Math-Science Partnership Program 
under the National Science Foundation. We must fund important 
priorities to ensure that our Nation continues to see positive growth 
in our youth in the area of math and science.
  In my home State of Georgia, I recently had the opportunity to join 
over 25,000 students and teachers and researchers from 31 different 
countries at the Georgia Dome for the FIRST competition. The FIRST, as 
many of my colleagues know, stands for For Inspiration and Recognition 
of Science and Technology. It's a robotics competition. If any of my 
colleagues haven't been to a robotics competition, I encourage them to 
go see one. It is a remarkable experience.
  I was extremely impressed with the level of enthusiasm and the 
remarkable educational benefit with this type of an initiative that's 
provided to thousands of American students. We should continue to 
promote this and other similar programs throughout the Nation.
  I'm sure that my colleagues recognize the significance of promoting a 
strong interest in math and science and technology education. These 
fields of learning and research are vital to our country's continued 
success. In fact, investment in basic research and programs like this 
is an essential element in assuring future prosperity, security and 
leadership in our rapidly evolving world.
  The National Science Foundation has a mission to achieve excellence 
in science and technology, engineering and mathematics educational at 
all levels and all settings, from kindergarten through postdoctoral 
training. One of the most important successful initiatives under the 
NSF is the Math and Science Partnership Program, established in 2002, 
to strengthen and reform mathematics and science education for children 
around the Nation.
  It's important to offer children guidance and examples set by mentors 
and role models, and provide students the opportunity to learn about 
the importance of higher education, and they're exposed to career 
options, especially from those folks who love and are enthusiastic 
about science and engineering and mathematics.
  Under this commendable program, each State administers its own 
competitive grant program for institutions of higher education, K-12 
schools and local partners.
  In addition, the MSP program focuses on raising educational standards 
to prepare children for postsecondary education in math, science or 
engineering.
  This program is worthy of additional funding because of its positive 
results for improving math and science skills which are vital for a 
developing workforce that's capable of increasing America's 
competitiveness internationally.
  All jobs of the future will require a basic understanding of math and 
science. In fact, the 10-year employment projections showed that of the 
20 fastest-growing occupations, 15 of them require significant math and 
science preparation.
  This small adjustment is a symbol of our greater commitment to STEM 
education programs. Support for these programs is vital for the 
continued success of our children, our citizens and our Nation, and I 
encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I find myself agreeing with everything 
the gentleman has argued, and at the same time being, unfortunately, 
opposed to his amendment.
  It's hard for any of us to argue or to have a desire in our hearts to 
do anything but increase the National Science Foundation. We all 
understand what good work it does.
  NSF provides competitive, peer-reviewed granting that translates into 
cutting-edge research that is the foundation for the future economic 
viability of the Nation. Our economy is increasingly becoming an 
international one, and we have to be on the cutting edge.
  That's why we have funded NSF at a rate that guarantees its doubling 
in a 10-year time span. We embrace and salute the doubling and have 
been responsive to that need that is expressed by members and the 
community.
  Nothing is more important than funding education, and increasing NSF 
and its ability to develop and implement programs to facilitate 
education and to incentivize our best and brightest young people to go 
into math and science, and to choose those careers. That's what NSF 
does very well. The gentleman wants to facilitate that by augmenting 
our funding in the education accounts for math and science 
partnerships. I commend him for the initiative.
  I oppose the amendment because we have funded the Math and Science 
Partnership Program. We increase it significantly in our bill, and I'm 
sure the gentleman knows that. We increased it $20 million over the 
President's request of $46 million for a total of $66 million. That's a 
43 percent increase. And I will say that not only is it a generous 
increase, but perhaps it's an increase they need time to absorb.
  The fact is that we have significantly increased Math and Science 
Partnerships $20 million over the President's request, funding it at 
$66 million.
  Where does the offset money come from? It comes from Commerce. For 
every one million dollars that you offset in these administration 
accounts, at least seven people would be laid off. We're not funding 
these administrative and S&E accounts with the idea that we can use 
this funding for amendments on the floor. We're funding these accounts 
at the requested level or at the levels that we've discerned are 
adequate pursuant to information that we've received in our hearings. 
We're on the level with funding in these administration accounts. 
Again, I think these offsets are cavalier. No matter how meritorious 
the object of the funding increase, it's cavalier to cut S&E accounts.
  The employees are saying, help. Time out. Stop. Their organizations, 
like the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, are 
writing to us. They're saying, please stop invading these 
administrative accounts.
  With that comment, Mr. Chairman, I yield to my distinguished ranking 
member.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, let me join with you in 
congratulating Mr. Price for pushing something which the committee has 
pushed, which is promoting math and science, especially encouraging 
young women to get into those pursuits and academics.
  Mr. Price has indicated to me that he would be willing to withdraw 
his amendment if he had a commitment from us that we would work hard as 
we progress in putting our bill together matching it with the Senate to 
see what we could do to increase these accounts.
  I should point out that we are doing more, as you have noted, for the 
National Science Foundation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Mollohan was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  But our committee reverberates in every sense. It is an echo chamber 
that not only NSF, but NOAA, NASA, and all of these agencies ought to 
be promoting math and science education. So I will be happy to work 
with you.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank my friend from New Jersey, and I 
appreciate the chairman's comments, and I

[[Page 20592]]

appreciate what the committee has done in terms of bumping up this 
money. I'm so impressed with the opportunities that children can have 
with appropriate programs like the FIRST program and like the math and 
science program.
  I look forward to working with you as we move forward through this 
process to make certain that we're bringing all the resources to bear 
to be able to give our kids the greatest opportunity in the area of 
math and science.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. With that representation, I'll be extremely pleased to 
work with the gentleman in that regard.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1600

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                   hchb renovation and modernization

       For expenses necessary for the renovation and modernization 
     of the Herbert C. Hoover Building, $3,364,000, to remain 
     available until expended.


                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.), $23,426,000.


  national intellectual property law enforcement coordination council

       For necessary expenses of the National Intellectual 
     Property Law Enforcement Coordination Council to coordinate 
     domestic and international intellectual property protection 
     and law enforcement relating to intellectual property among 
     Federal and foreign entities, $1,000,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2009.

               General Provisions--Department of Commerce


                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 101. During the current fiscal year, applicable 
     appropriations and funds made available to the Department of 
     Commerce by this Act shall be available for the activities 
     specified in the Act of October 26, 1949 (15 U.S.C. 1514), to 
     the extent and in the manner prescribed by the Act, and, 
     notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3324, may be used for advanced 
     payments not otherwise authorized only upon the certification 
     of officials designated by the Secretary of Commerce that 
     such payments are in the public interest.
       Sec. 102. During the current fiscal year, appropriations 
     made available to the Department of Commerce by this Act for 
     salaries and expenses shall be available for hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343 and 
     1344; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; and uniforms 
     or allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902.
       Sec. 103. Not to exceed five percent of any appropriation 
     made available for the current fiscal year for the Department 
     of Commerce in this Act may be transferred between such 
     appropriations, but no such appropriation shall be increased 
     by more than ten percent by any such transfers: Provided, 
     That any transfer pursuant to this section shall be treated 
     as a reprogramming of funds under section 505 of this Act and 
     shall not be available for obligation or expenditure except 
     in compliance with the procedures set forth in that section: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary of Commerce shall notify 
     the Committee on Appropriations at least 15 days in advance 
     of the acquisition or disposal of any capital asset 
     (including land, structures, and equipment) not specifically 
     provided for in this Act or any other law appropriating funds 
     for the Department of Commerce.
       Sec. 104. Any costs incurred by a department or agency 
     funded under this title resulting from personnel actions 
     taken in response to funding reductions included in this 
     title or from actions taken for the care and protection of 
     loan collateral or grant property shall be absorbed within 
     the total budgetary resources available to such department or 
     agency: Provided, That the authority to transfer funds 
     between appropriations accounts as may be necessary to carry 
     out this section is provided in addition to authorities 
     included elsewhere in this Act: Provided further, That use of 
     funds to carry out this section shall be treated as a 
     reprogramming of funds under section 505 of this Act and 
     shall not be available for obligation or expenditure except 
     in compliance with the procedures set forth in that section.
       Sec. 105. Section 3315b of title 19, U.S.C., is amended by 
     inserting ``, including food when sequestered,'' following 
     ``for the establishment and operations of the United States 
     Section and for the payment of the United States share of the 
     expenses''.
       Sec. 106. Section 214 of division B, Public Law 108-447 
     (118 Stat. 2884-86) is amended by:
       (1) inserting ``and subject to subsection (f)'' after 
     ``program'' in subsection (a); and
       (2) deleting subsection (f) and inserting the following:
       ``(f) Funding.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out the provisions of this section, up to $4,000,000 
     annually.''.
       Sec. 107. (a) Section 318 of the National Marine 
     Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1445c) is amended by:
       (1) inserting ``and subject to subsection (e)'' following 
     the word ``program'' in subsection (a); and
       (2) deleting subsection (e) and inserting:
       ``(e) Funding.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Secretary of Commerce up to $500,000 annually, to carry 
     out the provisions of this section.''.
       (b) Section 210 of the Department of Commerce and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law 106-553) is 
     repealed.
       Sec. 108. Notwithstanding the requirements of subsection 
     (d) of section 4703 of title 5, United States Code, the 
     personnel management demonstration project established by the 
     Department of Commerce pursuant to such section 4703 may be 
     expanded to involve more than 5,000 individuals, and is 
     extended indefinitely.
       Sec. 109. (a) The Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation 
     Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.) is amended by striking 
     section 5 and paragraphs (1) and (3) of section 4, and 
     redesignating paragraphs (2) and (4) through (13) of section 
     4 as paragraphs (1) through (11), respectively.
       (b) Section 212(b) of the National Technical Information 
     Act of 1988 (15 U.S.C. 3704b) is amended by striking ``Under 
     Secretary of Commerce for Technology'' and inserting 
     ``Director of the National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology''.

                    TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                         General Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary for the administration of the 
     Department of Justice, $104,777,000, of which not to exceed 
     $3,317,000 is for security for and construction of Department 
     of Justice facilities, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That not to exceed 45 permanent positions, 46 full-
     time equivalent workyears, and $12,684,000 shall be expended 
     for the Department Leadership Program: Provided further, That 
     not to exceed 24 permanent positions, 24 full-time equivalent 
     workyears, and $3,734,000 shall be expended for the Office of 
     Legislative Affairs: Provided further, That not to exceed 22 
     permanent positions, 22 full-time equivalent workyears, and 
     $2,968,000 shall be expended for the Office of Public 
     Affairs: Provided further, That the latter two aforementioned 
     offices may utilize non-reimbursable details of career 
     employees within the caps described in the preceding two 
     provisos.

  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, it had been previously the 
intention of Mr. Platts and myself to offer an amendment to title II of 
the bill. In discussions with the chairman, we will not be offering 
that amendment today, but I rise to speak briefly on an issue that I 
know is of great importance to Chairman Mollohan, and that is the issue 
of juvenile justice.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman Mollohan for his 
incredibly hard work on this bill. I am particularly glad that the bill 
contains a significant increase for the Department of Justice's Office 
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. At $400 million, the 
OJJDP saw a $62 million increase from last year's level. It received 
$120 million more than the President requested in his budget. It would 
be hard to overstate how meaningful these increases are going to be to 
the juvenile justice community.
  The amendment that Mr. Platts and I were going to offer today would 
have increased the Juvenile Justice Title II State Formula Grants by $5 
million. States rely on these grants to achieve and maintain compliance 
with the core requirements and protections of the Juvenile Justice 
Delinquency Prevention Act. These requirements protect children who 
become involved with the courts and ensure that the treatment and 
services they receive are appropriate for their age, their stage of 
development, and are suited to their specific offense.
  Mr. Chairman, when I was in the State legislature, I had the great 
honor of working on issues related to juvenile justice, and we made 
great strides in Connecticut in terms of bringing more appropriate care 
to children in our juvenile justice system and really moving from 
simply punishment and towards prevention and rehabilitation. These kids 
don't have lobbyists. Many of them don't even have a home. And as a 
result, they are often forgotten and voiceless in the halls of State 
legislatures and here in Congress. Mr.

[[Page 20593]]

Mollohan and his office have sought to bring a voice back to these 
children, and I hope that we can build on that.
  Since 2002, States have seen an 11 percent decrease in State formula 
grants authorized under the JJDPA, meaning that States have had fewer 
resources with which to keep kids safe and handle their cases 
appropriately. States use these formula grants to divert status 
offenders away from jails and towards appropriate community-based 
programs to assist them and their families. Status offenders are 
children under the age of 8 who have committed acts that would 
otherwise not be considered crimes if they were adults, like skipping 
school, running away from home, and the possession or use of tobacco. 
Status offenders may not be held in secure detention or confinement, 
with a few exceptions.
  States also use these funds to monitor adult lockups and ensure that 
youth are housed in age-appropriate settings. They enact mandates that 
youth may not be detained in adult jails and lockups. When children are 
placed in adult jails or lockups for any period of time, sight and 
sound contact with adults is prohibited.
  States across the Nation are using these funds for very innovative 
programs to provide children with much more appropriate care. There is 
very little political utility in State legislatures and here in 
Congress to stand up for children who have gotten into our criminal 
justice system, but these funds are used to give these children another 
shot at success in life.
  I am glad to be joined by Mr. Platts from Pennsylvania, who was going 
to cosponsor this amendment, and I would be glad to yield to him at 
this time.
  Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Chairman, I will quickly just say that I am honored 
to have joined with the gentleman from Connecticut in offering this 
amendment. I want to commend him for his leadership both in the State 
legislature and now here in Washington on issues important to our 
Nation's youth.
  I also want to reference I am the ranking member of the Healthy 
Families and Communities Subcommittee of the Committee on Education. 
And our chairwoman, Chairwoman McCarthy, has been a great leader this 
year on issues dealing with juvenile justice and the needs of our 
youth. And I just appreciate the efforts here in trying to strengthen 
our juvenile justice system and our treatment programs so that our 
youth get the services, the treatments they need as well, as the 
appropriate imposition of justice based on their age and stage of 
development. And that is what this amendment sought to do.
  I very much appreciate the chairman of the subcommittee and the 
ranking member for their efforts in addressing the funding needs of 
this area and their efforts to work with the gentleman from Connecticut 
and me and others as we go forward to strengthen the funding for these 
very important programs so we can do right by the youth of our Nation 
and help those who are troubled and get into difficulties with the law 
to be treated and be rehabilitated and, as the title of the underlying 
act, the Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act, to prevent 
delinquency in the years to come.
  So, again, I appreciate the gentleman from Connecticut's leadership 
on this issue.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Platts again. 
And I would like to thank Mr. Mollohan for his commitment to this 
issue. This is a very important increase in the underlying bill in 
juvenile justice funds. I know he is committed to continuing that 
upward trend. That is going to mean a great deal to the children who 
have ban caught in our juvenile justice system and still have a great 
opportunity to be productive members of society once their time is 
served.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Connecticut has expired.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Our bill demonstrates an upward trend in juvenile 
justice programs, indeed, Mr. Chairman. That has been a real focus and 
priority of this subcommittee as we have marked up the bill.
  We have increased funding in juvenile justice programs $120 million 
over the President's request, and that is $62 million over 2007 
funding. Why? Because of efforts from Members like Mr. Murphy, who has 
been all over this issue, and I value very much his expertise as he has 
communicated with the subcommittee. He has expressed his concerns about 
juvenile justice, about the problems that these programs address; and 
he is really to be commended. He has also made it clear that Mr. Platts 
has been very active in this effort as his colleague, and I commend Mr. 
Platts as well.
  We look forward to working with them as we move this bill forward, 
but also in future years to ensure that the juvenile justice programs 
not only are funded appropriately but also that they are focused as 
they should be so that we make sure this funding is spent to maximize 
not only its efficiency but its effectiveness.
  So, Mr. Platts, Mr. Murphy, we thank you for your assistance with 
regard to this issue, and we look forward to working with you.


                   Amendment Offered by Mrs. Biggert

  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Biggert:
        Page 21, line 7, insert after the dollar amount ``(reduced 
     by $6,250,000)''.
       Page 25, line 12, insert after the dollar amount 
     ``(increased by $750,000)''.
       Page 29, line 19, insert after the dollar amount 
     ``(increased by $5,500,000)''.

  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment with my colleague 
from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) to the fiscal year 2008 
appropriations bill to help the Department of Justice crack down on 
mortgage fraud.
  This amendment will increase funding to allow the Department of 
Justice to secure two additional prosecutors, enable the FBI to hire 30 
additional agents, and support the FBI's interagency task force 
operations to combat mortgage fraud.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I understand what the gentlewoman wants to do 
in terms of mortgage problems, and I understand that the source of her 
money, the offset, is from general administration for the Department of 
Justice.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. That is correct.
  Mr. OBEY. And given the performance of the Attorney General in the 
other body yesterday, I see no great harm in taking $6 million away 
from him; so I would be happy to accept your amendment.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman.
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in 
strong support of the Biggert-Brown-Waite amendment to H.R. 3093, the 
Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations bill.
  Our amendment is vital in the FBI's efforts to crack down on the 
rampant mortgage fraud in our Nation.
  FBI research showed over 3,000 reported incidents of mortgage fraud 
in 2000, but more than 37,000 in 2006.
  This shocking, 10-fold increase shows that predators are hitting more 
and more homeowners in all walks of life--from first-time homebuyers to 
seniors.
  My great State of Florida reported the highest incidents of mortgage 
fraud in 2006, followed closely by California, Michigan, and Georgia.
  The FBI's fraud caseload is growing dramatically, but the funds in 
this bill do not go far enough to keep pace.
  Our amendment transfers $6.25 million from the Department of 
Justice's General Administration account to the Offices of the United 
States Attorney and the FBI.
  These funds will help provide additional staffing and resources so 
the FBI can get an adequate handle on these growing cases and bring 
relief to Americans who, in trying to achieve their dream of owning a 
home, have instead experienced their greatest nightmare.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Biggert-Brown- Waite amendment.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page 20594]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Weiner

  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Weiner:

       Page 21, line 7, insert ``(reduced by $4,500,000)'' after 
     the dollar amount.
       Page 21, line 26, insert ``(reduced by $4,125,000)'' after 
     the dollar amount.
       Page 22, line 9, insert ``(reduced by $3,375,000)'' after 
     the dollar amount.
       Page 22, line 19, insert ``(reduced by $10,500,000)'' after 
     the dollar amount.
       Page 22, line 25, insert ``(reduced by $52,500,000)'' after 
     the dollar amount.
       Page 46, line 6, insert ``(increased by $75,000,000)'' 
     after the dollar amount.
       Page 47, line 24, insert ``(increased by $75,000,000)'' 
     after the dollar amount.

  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, for those viewers of this debate each year 
and for my colleagues who think that really very little had changed 
when the House of Representatives changed from majority Republican to 
majority Democrat, we are seeing in this bill very profound changes in 
policy in this country, and none is more profound than the difference 
in the approach to the COPS program. This year's bill has $100 million 
for hiring in the COPS program.
  In the COPS program, as many of you know, more than 100,000 police 
officers in small towns, big cities throughout the country were hired 
in the period beginning in 1995. Yet shortly after the beginning of the 
Bush administration, the COPS program was slashed and slashed and 
slashed to essentially die on the vine.
  As you see in this chart, in 1995 you had in the neighborhood of 
20,000 cops being hired each and every year. In 2005 and 2006, 2007, it 
was down to zero.
  In this year's bill, to the enduring credit of the chairman and 
ranking member and members of the committee, this is now being funded 
at $100 million. That is going to allow us an opportunity to hire many, 
many more police officers.
  Now, we have also, in the first couple of months of the new Congress, 
passed a reauthorization of the COPS program for another 50,000 cops on 
the beat. Now, it has gone to the other side of this building. It has 
gone to the other body and seems to be doing what so much legislation 
does, and that is dying a slow, excruciating death. They say the other 
body is the ``cooling saucer of democracy.'' They have turned into the 
deep freeze when it comes to many of the things that this House is 
doing.
  But what this amendment seeks to do is to say let's take that success 
and let's take it even further. This is one of the programs, the COPS 
program, it is democratic with a small ``d.'' If you are in a small 
town, conservative neighborhood, you have gotten COPS. If you are in a 
big city like mine, you have gotten COPS. What the COPS program argues 
is that Federal law enforcement, that Federal anti-terrorism means 
helping local authorities hire more police officers. That is why the 
Fraternal Order of Police, the International Association of Chiefs of 
Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, the U.S. 
Conference of Mayors, the National Sheriffs Association all support 
dramatically increasing this program.

                              {time}  1615

  Now, Chairman Mollohan has taken a program that has essentially been 
killed and gives it more life. And this is what we need to continue on 
the trend towards. Now, whether we do it more in this bill with my 
amendment, or whether we finally get the other body to reauthorize the 
program and we can start doing this in regular order, we need to 
realize that as Tom Ridge, the former Secretary of Homeland Security, 
once said, ``Homeland security starts in our hometown.'' We can't just 
say to cities, go out and protect yourselves. We need a Federal program 
that works.
  Now, I don't mind pointing out that at the apex of the hiring was 
also the highest point in our crime reduction in this country. We have 
seen over the course of several FBI index reports that it has started 
to creep up more and more and more, and by no small measure because of 
the reduction in the COPS program.
  We need to continue on this arc. The committee has done an excellent 
job in doing that.
  I would be glad to yield to the chairman if he has any feedback for 
me.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I appreciate the gentleman from New York's interest in 
this. As a matter of fact, he was the mover and shaker in the Congress 
in pointing out that we had 2 years of successive increases in violent 
crime in the country. He was the first one to point out that in the 
1990s, the COPS, the Community Policing Cops on the Beat Program, was 
extremely effective in reducing that; and in large part, along with 
other Members, advocated and encouraged the committee to reactivate the 
COPS hiring program, and we've done that. We've done that with $100 
million, which we think will fund approximately 2,700 policemen.
  This is a down payment. This is an initiative, and the gentleman is 
to be commended for providing the impetus for that initiative. So I 
thank him. We look forward to working with him in future years. I know 
this is a program that, because of its proven effectiveness in the 
past, is going to get increasing attention in the future.
  Mr. WEINER. Reclaiming my time, I thank you for your attention. And 
when you're in conference with the other body, if you can grab them by 
their institutional lapels and get them to move on our COPS throughout 
the Nation.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. We're going to be up to it.
  Mr. WEINER. I appreciate it.
  Mr. Chairman, I request unanimous consent that my amendment be 
withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                 justice information sharing technology

       For necessary expenses for information sharing technology, 
     including planning, development, deployment and departmental 
     direction, $100,500,000, to remain available until expended, 
     of which not less than $21,000,000 is for the unified 
     financial management system.


            tactical law enforcement wireless communications

       For the costs of developing and implementing a nation-wide 
     Integrated Wireless Network supporting Federal law 
     enforcement and homeland security missions, and for the costs 
     of operations and maintenance of existing Land Mobile Radio 
     legacy systems, $81,353,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2009: Provided, That the Attorney General shall 
     transfer to this account all funds made available to the 
     Department of Justice for the purchase of portable and mobile 
     radios: Provided further, That any transfer made under the 
     preceding proviso shall be subject to section 505 of this 
     Act.


                   administrative review and appeals

       For expenses necessary for the administration of pardon and 
     clemency petitions and immigration-related activities, 
     $251,499,000, of which, $4,000,000 shall be derived by 
     transfer from the Executive Office for Immigration Review 
     fees deposited in the ``Immigration Examination Fee'' 
     account.


                           detention trustee

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Detention Trustee, 
     $1,260,872,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That the Trustee shall be responsible for managing the 
     Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System: Provided 
     further, That not to exceed $5,000,000 shall be considered 
     ``funds appropriated for State and local law enforcement 
     assistance'' pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 4013(b).


                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General, 
     $74,708,000 including not to exceed $10,000 to meet 
     unforeseen emergencies of a confidential character.

                    United States Parole Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the United States Parole 
     Commission as authorized, $12,194,000.

                            Legal Activities


            salaries and expenses, general legal activities

       For expenses necessary for the legal activities of the 
     Department of Justice, not otherwise provided for, including 
     not to exceed $20,000 for expenses of collecting evidence, to 
     be expended under the direction of, and to be accounted for 
     solely under the certificate of, the Attorney General; and 
     rent of private or Government-owned space in the District of 
     Columbia, $750,584,000, of which not to exceed

[[Page 20595]]

     $10,000,000 for litigation support contracts shall remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That of the total amount 
     appropriated, not to exceed $1,000 shall be available to the 
     United States National Central Bureau, INTERPOL, for official 
     reception and representation expenses: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding section 205 of this Act, upon a determination 
     by the Attorney General that emergent circumstances require 
     additional funding for litigation activities of the Civil 
     Division, the Attorney General may transfer such amounts to 
     ``Salaries and Expenses, General Legal Activities'' from 
     available appropriations for the current fiscal year for the 
     Department of Justice, as may be necessary to respond to such 
     circumstances: Provided further, That any transfer pursuant 
     to the previous proviso shall be treated as a reprogramming 
     under section 505 of this Act and shall not be available for 
     obligation or expenditure except in compliance with the 
     procedures set forth in that section.
       In addition, for reimbursement of expenses of the 
     Department of Justice associated with processing cases under 
     the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, not to 
     exceed $6,833,000, to be appropriated from the Vaccine Injury 
     Compensation Trust Fund.


               salaries and expenses, antitrust division

       For expenses necessary for the enforcement of antitrust and 
     kindred laws, $155,097,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That, notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, fees collected for premerger notification filings 
     under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 
     1976 (15 U.S.C. 18a), regardless of the year of collection 
     (and estimated to be $139,000,000 in fiscal year 2008), shall 
     be retained and used for necessary expenses in this 
     appropriation, and shall remain available until expended: 
     Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated from the 
     general fund shall be reduced as such offsetting collections 
     are received during fiscal year 2008, so as to result in a 
     final fiscal year 2008 appropriation from the general fund 
     estimated at $16,097,000.


             salaries and expenses, united states attorneys

       For necessary expenses of the Offices of the United States 
     Attorneys, including inter-governmental and cooperative 
     agreements, $1,747,822,000: Provided, That of the total 
     amount appropriated, not to exceed $8,000 shall be available 
     for official reception and representation expenses: Provided 
     further, That not to exceed $20,000,000 shall remain 
     available until expended.


                   united states trustee system fund

       For necessary expenses of the United States Trustee System, 
     as authorized, $189,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended and to be derived from the United States Trustee 
     System Fund: Provided, That amounts deposited in the Fund in 
     fiscal year 2008 in excess of $184,000,000, but not to exceed 
     $231,899,000, shall be available until expended for the 
     necessary expenses of the United States Trustee System as 
     provided in section 589a(a) of title 28, United States Code: 
     Provided further, That, notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, deposits to the Fund shall be available in such 
     amounts as may be necessary to pay refunds due depositors.


      salaries and expenses, foreign claims settlement commission

       For expenses necessary to carry out the activities of the 
     Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, including services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $1,709,000.


                     united states marshals service

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the United States Marshals 
     Service, $883,766,000; of which not to exceed $6,000 shall be 
     available for official reception and representation expenses; 
     of which not to exceed $4,000,000 shall be for information 
     technology systems and shall remain available until expended; 
     and of which not less than $12,397,000 shall be available for 
     the costs of courthouse security equipment, including 
     furnishings, relocations, and telephone systems and cabling, 
     and shall remain available until expended.


                              construction

       For construction in space controlled, occupied or utilized 
     by the United States Marshals Service for prisoner holding 
     and related support, $2,451,000, to remain available until 
     expended.


                     fees and expenses of witnesses

       For fees and expenses of witnesses, for expenses of 
     contracts for the procurement and supervision of expert 
     witnesses, for private counsel expenses, including advances, 
     and for expenses of foreign counsel, $168,300,000, to remain 
     available until expended, of which not to exceed $10,000,000 
     is for construction of buildings for protected witness 
     safesites; not to exceed $3,000,000 is for the purchase and 
     maintenance of armored and other vehicles for witness 
     security caravans; and not to exceed $9,000,000 is for the 
     purchase, installation, maintenance and upgrade of secure 
     telecommunications equipment and a secure automated 
     information network to store and retrieve the identities and 
     locations of protected witnesses.


           salaries and expenses, community relations service

       For necessary expenses of the Community Relations Service, 
     $9,794,000: Provided, That notwithstanding section 205 of 
     this Act, upon a determination by the Attorney General that 
     emergent circumstances require additional funding for 
     conflict resolution and violence prevention activities of the 
     Community Relations Service, the Attorney General may 
     transfer such amounts to the Community Relations Service, 
     from available appropriations for the current fiscal year for 
     the Department of Justice, as may be necessary to respond to 
     such circumstances: Provided further, That any transfer 
     pursuant to the previous proviso shall be treated as a 
     reprogramming under section 505 of this Act and shall not be 
     available for obligation or expenditure except in compliance 
     with the procedures set forth in that section.


                         assets forfeiture fund

       For expenses authorized by 28 U.S.C. 524(c)(1)(B), (F), and 
     (G), $20,990,000, to be derived from the Department of 
     Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund.


           salaries and expenses, national security division

       For expenses necessary to carry out the activities of the 
     National Security Division, $78,056,000; of which not to 
     exceed $5,000,000 for information technology systems shall 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding section 205 of this Act, upon a determination 
     by the Attorney General that emergent circumstances require 
     additional funding for the activities of the National 
     Security Division, the Attorney General may transfer such 
     amounts to this heading from available appropriations for the 
     current fiscal year for the Department of Justice, as may be 
     necessary to respond to such circumstances: Provided further, 
     That any such transfer shall be treated as a reprogramming 
     under section 505 of this Act and shall not be available for 
     obligation or expenditure except in compliance with the 
     procedures set forth in that section.

                      Interagency Law Enforcement


                 interagency crime and drug enforcement

       For necessary expenses for the identification, 
     investigation, and prosecution of individuals associated with 
     the most significant drug trafficking and affiliated money 
     laundering organizations not otherwise provided for, to 
     include inter-governmental agreements with State and local 
     law enforcement agencies engaged in the investigation and 
     prosecution of individuals involved in organized crime drug 
     trafficking, $509,154,000, of which $50,000,000 shall remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That any amounts 
     obligated from these appropriations may be used under 
     authorities available to the organizations reimbursed from 
     this appropriation.

                    Federal Bureau of Investigation


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation for detection, investigation, and prosecution 
     of crimes against the United States; $6,498,111,000; of which 
     not to exceed $150,000,000 shall remain available until 
     expended; and of which $2,308,580,000 shall be for 
     counterterrorism investigations, foreign counterintelligence, 
     and other activities related to our national security: 
     Provided, That not to exceed $205,000 shall be available for 
     official reception and representation expenses: Provided 
     further, That not to exceed $170,000 shall be available in 
     2008 for expenses associated with the celebration of the 
     100th anniversary of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. King of Iowa:
       Page 29, line 19, insert ``, increased by $1,000,000 and 
     decreased by $1,000,000,'' after ``$6,498, 111,000''.

  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that I bring to 
the floor here reluctantly. It's an issue of conscience, and I think an 
issue of appropriate posture that this Congress should take.
  We have been, throughout the course of some in the 108th, and many in 
the 109th, and now more issues coming up within the 110th Congress that 
have to do with questions about the propriety of some of our Members, 
both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats. And we're well 
aware of some of those cases. In a number of those cases, it was a good 
thing for us to step above that and seek to improve the integrity of 
this body.
  The public is aware, I believe, that there is an investigation that 
is underway. It has been taken up by the Department of Justice and 
published in the New York Times, in the Wall Street Journal, and a 
number of other places, and the circumstances being that a former 
member of the Ethics Committee stepped down from the Ethics Committee 
to avoid the appearance

[[Page 20596]]

of impropriety during an investigation. And yet, since that 
investigation began, the same Member has opted to step forward and take 
on the gavel of the very appropriations committee that deals with the 
funding of the investigation that's being conducted.
  This was an issue that was a subject matter before the Judiciary 
Committee in hearings that brought our Attorney General Alberto 
Gonzales forward. And I asked the Attorney General, after the 
allegation was made by a majority member on the committee about 
impropriety of investigations or political intimidations on the part of 
the Department of Justice, I asked the Attorney General if he was 
intimidated. I said, ``The question I would ask,'' and this is quoting 
from the Congressional Record, ``to you is, Mr. Attorney General, if 
the chairman of the Justice Appropriations Committee happened to have 
been under that kind of scrutiny, would that affect the kind of 
prosecution that takes place out of your Justice Department with regard 
to that particular Member of Congress?''
  The question has been raised, it's been raised by the national media, 
it's been raised before the Judiciary Committee, and it needs to be 
raised here on this floor while we deal with this issue of propriety. I 
make no allegations about guilt or innocence. I simply say that there 
is a huge question of impropriety when the chairman of justice approps 
has in one hand the gavel, and in the other hand the pursestrings that 
funds the very people that are conducting the investigation.
  I bring this amendment forward to strike $1 million out and put $1 
million in so that that $1 million can be used directly and exclusively 
for the investigation that's going forward and has been going on since 
December 2005. That's not swift and sure justice. That doesn't let this 
Member off the hook. He deserves an answer far more quickly from 
December 2005 until at least July of 2007.
  All of those issues before us are raised and should be considered by 
this body. And I urge that the Members consider the reason that I 
reluctantly brought this amendment forward to take $1 million out and 
put $1 million, but to direct that that money be used to accelerate and 
complete the investigation that's underway now that casts such a shadow 
over this entire process, and particularly this appropriations process 
that's taking place before us here on the floor of Congress.
  I think it's inappropriate. I think a decision should have been made 
by the Member. It has not been. That's why I have to bring this 
forward.
  I urge the Members to support this amendment, and I intend to be able 
to review the Record that we expect to have on this amendment. So I 
would urge adoption of this amendment directing $1 million for the FBI 
to continue and accelerate their investigation so that they can either 
move forward to completion, or clear the individual who sits underneath 
this cloud.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, it's obvious how reluctant the gentleman is 
to bring this before the body. He has offered an amendment which does 
absolutely nothing in order to give him an opportunity to talk about 
something he says he doesn't want to talk about. Only in Washington 
would that be believable.
  Let me simply say that I think I know something about the Code of 
Ethics in this House. I wrote the Code of Ethics in this House in the 
1970s, and I think I know something about what this House regards as a 
conflict of interest.
  Let me simply point out that the gentleman from Iowa has objected to 
a Member of the House chairing a subcommittee which oversees the 
agencies that he says are involved in an investigation of that Member. 
The fact is that that gentleman in question has recused himself from 
all matters relating to the FBI, the Attorney General, the Criminal 
Division, and U.S. attorneys. That's why I am here on the floor 
handling those portions of the bill today.
  The gentleman in question has not reviewed any reprogramming letters. 
He has not reviewed any Member requests for any of the attendant 
agencies involved in that investigation. He has not presided over any 
hearings. He has not participated or made any recommendations with 
respect to funding either on this bill or in the continuing resolution.
  So let me simply say that if the gentleman has a strong view about 
what the House rules ought to be, then the proper place to take that up 
is not on an appropriation bill. The proper place for him to take that 
up is with the Standards Committee and with the leadership of both 
Houses. By taking it up here, it is simply an excuse to bring into 
question the actions of one Member. And it would be very easy for us to 
respond in kind with respect to the activities of a number of Members 
on that side of the aisle. We choose to stay above that and allow the 
proper committee to deal with the issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I do, very regretfully, yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed by the 
introduction and consideration of this amendment.
  I can attest to what the chairman of the full committee said about my 
colleague and friend recusing himself from any consideration. He has 
been absolutely scrupulous in terms of that regard.
  I'm not a lawyer, but there are quite a number of lawyers here. 
Everyone under the law is entitled to due process. And I can't talk 
about how long this process has taken, but I have every confidence that 
justice will be served, and hopefully in an expeditious manner.
  But I'm, indeed, sorry that this amendment has been brought to the 
floor. I think it is totally inappropriate. Obviously Members have a 
right to make motions of this kind.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Rhode Island is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. As cochair of the Judiciary Appropriation Subcommittee, 
someone who has attended these hearings all the way through, I am 
disappointed by this because I think it calls into question every 
single member of this committee and the integrity of every single 
member of this committee in saying that you're calling into question 
the integrity of this committee and what we have done as a work product 
as a committee. This is not the product of one individual; this is a 
product of a committee. So I take great exception to this Member's 
amendment and the questions that he has raised here.
  I stand behind this work product, as do the colleagues that I serve 
with on this committee, both Republicans and Democrats. I serve proudly 
with this chairman. And we've worked as a bipartisan committee, worked 
together on a bipartisan basis in order to produce a work product that 
meets the needs of the public, to meet the needs of the law enforcement 
community in this country, and, I might add, way over and above the 
President of the United States' request for law enforcement, way over 
and above the request for law enforcement that this administration has 
put forward.
  So I might say that it is ironic that this amendment comes up, that 
under this chairman, this law enforcement has gone further and farther 
than it has, indeed, under many, many previous chairs of this 
committee.

                              {time}  1630

  For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I support today's mark and I ask my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.

[[Page 20597]]


  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, in this body, anyone has a right and an 
opportunity, as the gentleman has taken advantage of, to raise whatever 
issue one wants. The gentleman raises an issue in the context of 
virtuousness and virtuosity. He raises a virtue issue here; he argues 
it from a premise of virtuosity.
  I have no doubt that the gentleman is a good person and that the 
gentleman is a virtuous person. But I would suggest that the gentleman, 
number one, has expressed a greater knowledge about any investigation 
than I have. Perhaps he has inside knowledge about it. But I could not 
tell you actually if it exists, because I have never been approached 
with regard to it.
  Number two, I would suggest that as the gentleman raises his point in 
the context of virtue, that he might want to be very cautious, because, 
as he says, he reluctantly does it, and he might want to be concerned 
about those who have raised this issue initially perhaps failing his 
test of virtue. I simply suggest that as a caution to him when he 
raises this kind of an issue in this context.
  I could suggest that it is unworthy to raise it in this context 
because it is obviously ad hominem. But I am not going to go there. I 
would just suggest that the gentleman, as he contemplates this issue 
and as he raises a virtue question, that he satisfy himself in his own 
mind that those who have initiated and perpetrated this effort, that he 
contemplate the possibility that their motives are not pure and that 
they, in this instance, are not virtuous.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for 
coming to the floor and gaining some time to give me the ability to 
respond to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. Chairman, I listened to his response. His response was measured. 
It was appropriate. But I didn't hear a response to the question about 
the intimidation factor and, in fact, the appearance of impropriety 
that the man holding the gavel is also holding the purse strings of the 
agency that is doing the investigation, according to the New York Times 
and the Wall Street Journal and a number of other publications across 
this country.
  I think that is an appropriate question. I think this Congress has to 
ask that question. I think we have to answer that question. I had hoped 
that it would get asked and answered by the leadership on the majority 
side of the aisle. The leadership knew about this when they made the 
appointments to the Chairs of the committee.
  So it is reluctantly that I bring this here. I wish that someone had 
stepped forward and taken this cup from me. But I can't cross this 
spot, which I recognize to be the Rubicon, knowing what I know, without 
raising the issue for the Members, to ask them to make a decision as 
well.
  It is appropriate for any Member to raise an issue when it hasn't 
been properly dealt with by the leadership of this Congress. It is 
appropriate to lay facts out in front and debate those facts. It is not 
inappropriate to ask questions and ask for answers.
  There is a lot more data here that I am aware of, but, factually, 
this is as far as I care to go with this issue. I want to ask the 
Members to make a decision. History will make a decision on this moment 
here on the floor of this Congress. Our decision is just temporary, but 
history will write this.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa will be postponed.


           Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Rogers of Michigan

  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Rogers of Michigan:
       Page 30, line 4, strike the period and insert the 
     following: ``: Provided further,  That not to exceed 
     $16,000,000 shall be available for a housing allowance pilot 
     program for Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation.''.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin reserves a point of order.
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, distinguished Chair of the 
Appropriations Committee, I hope we can work this issue out. This is 
language that was agreed last year by both parties to take care of two, 
I think, very important fixes for the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
  We have a segment of agents who are being punished, for lack of a 
better term, for not choosing to come back to Washington, DC. They have 
served their countries ably. They have served their tours as brick 
agents and worked the streets, and kicked in doors, and arrested drug 
dealers and mobsters, and gone after terrorists, and done all that hard 
work that we ask them to do every single day. Unselfishly, so, they 
have done it.
  Through that course, they have decided to be supervisors and pick an 
area of expertise. In this particular case, they have picked a 
supervisory specialty that might be white collar crime, or it might be 
organized crime, or it might be counterterrorism or it might be foreign 
counterintelligence. That expertise allows them to lead these agents to 
better investigations.
  In a new policy implemented by the FBI Director, these fairly senior 
agents, it asked them to step aside if they chose not to come back to 
Washington, DC. Some of them had their kids in high school.
  You can imagine being in Des Moines, Iowa, close to home, and you 
have got 18 or 19 years of Federal service, maybe they are former 
military before that. They have got lots of Federal service, looking to 
move on in a few years. That is a hard choice for them to make. In 
doing so, it cost them that added benefit to their pension for serving 
in a leadership capacity in the FBI.
  So what we simply did is last summer worked out some language with 
the FBI Director that said we were not going to let these 200 or so 
agents be punished by this new policy. They deserved to have that 
pension at the rate of service which they have ably given their 
country. Again, this language was agreed to by both parties last year, 
but because this was a continuing resolution and it was dropped in 
conference, we did not have that opportunity to get this fixed.
  The second part of that, which I can talk to in the second amendment, 
is also about a housing allowance that would allow agents, for the 
first time, like other Federal agencies working in major cities across 
the United States, to enjoy a housing allowance in these very high-cost 
areas, so that we can keep, retain and really say thank you to the 
hardest working FBI agents who are working to protect the homeland.
  With that, I would hope that the chairman and I could work this 
through and try to find some conclusion to what we have already agreed 
to needs to get fixed for these people, who, by the way, have already 
been told their pensions will be fixed, and yet to this date have not.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I must insist on my point of order.
  Mr. Chairman, I certainly understand what the gentleman is trying to 
accomplish, and I probably agree with it. But, nonetheless, this 
committee is not the proper venue and this legislation is

[[Page 20598]]

not the proper legislation upon which to raise the issue.
  During the consideration of the Labor-H bill last week, I had to 
object to a number of amendments and lodge points of order because they 
were not appropriately offered to that bill, even though some of them 
were from my side of the aisle and I agreed with them.
  This amendment, while I would certainly be happy to work with the 
gentleman, this amendment cannot be accepted by the committee without 
violating the rules of the House, and so therefore I make a point of 
order against the amendment because it provides an appropriation for a 
non-authorized program and therefore violates clause 2, rule XXI, which 
states in pertinent part: ``An appropriation may not be in order as an 
amendment for an expenditure not previously authorized by law.''
  The amendment proposes to appropriate funds for a program that is not 
authorized and therefore violates clause 2, rule XXI.
  I ask for a ruling of the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New Jersey wish to be heard on 
the point of order?
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me thank Mr. 
Rogers not only for his congressional service, but for his other life 
before he came to Congress. As I sort of said in my opening remarks, 
all of us on this floor salute the men and women who are special 
agents. They do dangerous work. The gentleman has been unstinting in 
terms of educating me as the new ranking member, you didn't have to do 
it to the other side, as to the sort of things that were discussed by 
Representatives Wolf, Hobson and Rogers.
  We tried in our bill to give some direction and impetus to having 
these issues of retention up and out and housing allowance raised to a 
higher level of interest by the FBI Director. We are not going to stop 
that push.
  The gentleman may or may not be successful with his amendments, but I 
am still committed, and I am sure the majority is, if there is 
something going on here that is unfair, promises haven't been kept, we 
are going to do our level best without authorizing on this bill to see 
that it is done.
  I support the Chairman's point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Michigan wish to be heard on 
the point of order?
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do.
  Mr. Chairman, I thought this amendment was in order. But, in that 
vein, I thought I heard the chairman say that he would be willing to 
work with us maybe in conference and we could find some language that 
might be acceptable to the chairman where we could kind of conclude 
this deal that I think we all have agreed to in the past, that maybe we 
can work out that language in the conference.
  Mr. Chairman, I just thank the gentleman for his willingness to sit 
down and work with us.
  The CHAIRMAN. If no one else wishes to be heard on the point of 
order, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The proponent of an item of appropriation carries a burden of 
persuasion on the question of whether it is supported by an 
authorization in law. Having reviewed the amendment and entertained 
argument on the point of order, the Chair is unable to conclude that 
the item of appropriation in question is authorized in law. The Chair 
is therefore constrained to sustain the point of order under clause 
2(a) of rule XXI.


           Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Rogers of Michigan

  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Rogers of Michigan:
       Page 30, line 4, strike the period and insert the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That funds shall be 
     available for annuity protection for Special Agents of the 
     Federal Bureau of Investigation who had completed a total of 
     3 or more years in field supervisory positions as of June 3, 
     2004, who are subsequently transferred to positions at a 
     lower grade because they chose not to accept transfers to 
     equivalent or higher positions within the FBI pursuant to the 
     Field Office Supervisory Term Limit Policy issued on that 
     date, and are not subsequently reduced in grade or removed 
     for performance or misconduct reasons. `Average pay' for 
     purposes of section 8331(4) or 8401(3) of title 5, United 
     States Code, as applicable, shall be the larger of (1) the 
     amount to which such Agents are entitled under those 
     provisions, or (2) the amount to which such Agents would have 
     been entitled under those provisions had they remained in the 
     field supervisory position at the same grade and step until 
     the date of their retirement. This provision shall be 
     retroactive to the date the Federal Breau of Investigation 
     began implementing the policy.''.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin reserves a point of order.
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, just for the purpose of a very 
short colloquy, I think we established the two issues here that we are 
trying to get resolved, and I would again just ask the chairman if he 
would have that willingness to work with us and see if we couldn't find 
some language acceptable to the chairman to correct these two egregious 
items. These agents certainly shouldn't bear the brunt of any 
disagreement.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I think on this 
issue there are certainly questions of equity on both sides. I think 
they need to be resolved. I understand why the FBI wants to follow the 
policy that they follow. I also understand why agents themselves feel 
it is unfair leaving them with the reduced retirement possibility.
  So, again, I would be happy to work with the gentleman to see if we 
can't persuade the agency to come up with an agreeable solution to the 
problem.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              Construction

       For necessary expenses to construct or acquire buildings 
     and sites by purchase, or as otherwise authorized by law 
     (including equipment for such buildings); conversion and 
     extension of Federally-owned buildings; and preliminary 
     planning and design of projects; $33,191,000, to remain 
     available unitl expended.

                    Drug Enforcement Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Drug Enforcement 
     Administration, including not to exceed $70,000 to meet 
     unforeseen emergencies of a confidential character pursuant 
     to 28 U.S.C. 530C; and expenses for conducting drug education 
     and training programs, including travel and related expenses 
     for participants in such programs and the distribution of 
     items of token value that promote the goals of such programs, 
     $1,842,569,000; of which not to exceed $75,000,000 shall 
     remain available until expended; and of which not to exceed 
     $100,000 shall be available for official reception and 
     representation expenses.

          Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 
     Firearms and Explosives, including the purchase of not to 
     exceed 822 vehicles for police-type use, of which 650 shall 
     be for replacement only; not to exceed $25,000 for official 
     reception and representation expenses; for training of State 
     and local law enforcement agencies with or without 
     reimbursement, including training in connection with the 
     training and acquisition of canines for explosives and fire 
     accelerants detection; and for provision of laboratory 
     assistance to State and local law enforcement agencies, with 
     or without reimbursement, $1,013,980,000, of which not to 
     exceed $1,000,000 shall be available for the payment of 
     attorneys' fees as provided by 18 U.S.C. 924(d)(2); and of 
     which $10,000,000 shall remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That no funds appropriated herein shall be 
     available for salaries or administrative expenses in 
     connection with consolidating or centralizing, within the 
     Department of Justice, the records, or any portion thereof, 
     of acquisition and disposition of firearms maintained by 
     Federal firearms licensees: Provided further, That no funds 
     appropriated herein shall be used to pay administrative 
     expenses or the compensation of any officer or employee of 
     the United States to implement an amendment or amendments to 
     27 CFR 178.118 or to

[[Page 20599]]

     change the definition of ``Curios or relics'' in 27 CFR 
     178.11 or remove any item from ATF Publication 5300.11 as it 
     existed on January 1, 1994: Provided further, That none of 
     the funds appropriated herein shall be available to 
     investigate or act upon applications for relief from Federal 
     firearms disabilities under 18 U.S.C. 925(c): Provided 
     further, That such funds shall be available to investigate 
     and act upon applications filed by corporations for relief 
     from Federal firearms disabilities under section 925(c) of 
     title 18, United States Code: Provided further, That no funds 
     made available by this or any other Act may be used to 
     transfer the functions, missions, or activities of the Bureau 
     of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to other 
     agencies or Departments in fiscal year 2008: Provided 
     further, That, beginning in fiscal year 2008 and thereafter, 
     no funds appropriated under this or any other Act may be used 
     to disclose part or all of the contents of the Firearms Trace 
     System database maintained by the National Trace Center of 
     the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives or 
     any information required to be kept by licensees pursuant to 
     section 923(g) of title 18, United States Code, or required 
     to be reported pursuant to paragraphs (3) and (7) of such 
     section 923(g), except to (1) a Federal, State, local, 
     tribal, or foreign law enforcement agency, or a Federal, 
     State, or local prosecutor, solely in connection with and for 
     use in a criminal investigation or prosecution, or (2) a 
     Federal agency for a national security or intelligence 
     purpose; and all such data shall be immune from legal 
     process, shall not be subject to subpoena or other discovery, 
     shall be inadmissible in evidence, and shall not be used, 
     relied on, or disclosed in any manner, nor shall testimony or 
     other evidence be permitted based on the data, in a civil 
     action in any State (including the District of Columbia) or 
     Federal court or in an administrative proceeding other than a 
     proceeding commenced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 
     Firearms and Explosives to enforce the provisions of chapter 
     44 of such title, or a review of such an action or 
     proceeding; except that this proviso shall not be construed 
     to prevent (1) the disclosure of statistical information 
     concerning total production, importation, and exportation by 
     each licensed importer (as defined in section 921(a)(9) of 
     such title) and licensed manufacturer (as defined in section 
     921(1)(10) of such title), (2) the sharing or exchange of 
     such information among and between Federal, State, local, or 
     foreign law enforcement agencies, Federal, State, or local 
     prosecutors, and Federal national security, intelligence, or 
     counterterrorism officials, or (3) the publication of annual 
     statistical reports on products regulated by the Bureau of 
     Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, including total 
     production, importation, and exportation by each licensed 
     importer (as so defined) and licensed manufacturer (as so 
     defined), or statistical aggregate data regarding firearms 
     traffickers and trafficking channels, or firearms misuse, 
     felons, and trafficking investigations: Provided further, 
     That no funds made available by this or any other Act shall 
     be expended to promulgate or implement any rule requiring a 
     physical inventory of any business licensed under section 923 
     of title 18, United States Code: Provided further, That no 
     funds under this Act may be used to electronically retrieve 
     information gathered pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 923(g)(4) by name 
     or any personal identification code: Provided further, That 
     no funds authorized or made available under this or any other 
     Act may be used to deny any application for a license under 
     section 923 of title 18, United States Code, or renewal of 
     such a license due to a lack of business activity, provided 
     that the applicant is otherwise eligible to receive such a 
     license, and is eligible to report business income or to 
     claim an income tax deduction for business expenses under the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

                         Federal Prison System


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Prison System for the 
     administration, operation, and maintenance of Federal penal 
     and correctional institutions, including purchase (not to 
     exceed 669, of which 642 are for replacement only) and hire 
     of law enforcement and passenger motor vehicles, and for the 
     provision of technical assistance and advice on corrections 
     related issues to foreign governments, $5,171,440,000: 
     Provided, That the Attorney General may transfer to the 
     Health Resources and Services Administration such amounts as 
     may be necessary for direct expenditures by that 
     Administration for medical relief for inmates of Federal 
     penal and correctional institutions: Provided further, That 
     the Director of the Federal Prison System, where necessary, 
     may enter into contracts with a fiscal agent or fiscal 
     intermediary claims processor to determine the amounts 
     payable to persons who, on behalf of the Federal Prison 
     System, furnish health services to individuals committed to 
     the custody of the Federal Prison System: Provided further, 
     That not to exceed $6,000 shall be available for official 
     reception and representation expenses: Provided further, That 
     not to exceed $50,000,000 shall remain available for 
     necessary operations until September 30, 2009: Provided 
     further, That, of the amounts provided for contract 
     confinement, not to exceed $20,000,000 shall remain available 
     until expended to make payments in advance for grants, 
     contracts and reimbursable agreements, and other expenses 
     authorized by section 501(c) of the Refugee Education 
     Assistance Act of 1980, for the care and security in the 
     United States of Cuban and Haitian entrants: Provided 
     further, That the Director of the Federal Prison System may 
     accept donated property and services relating to the 
     operation of the prison card program from a not-for-profit 
     entity which has operated such program in the past 
     notwithstanding the fact that such not-for-profit entity 
     furnishes services under contracts to the Federal Prison 
     System relating to the operation of pre-release services, 
     halfway houses, or other custodial facilities.


                        buildings and facilities

       For the modernization, maintenance, and repair of buildings 
     and facilities, including all necessary expenses incident 
     thereto, by contract or force account, $95,003,000, to remain 
     available until expended, of which not to exceed $14,000,000 
     shall be available to construct areas for inmate work 
     programs: Provided, That labor of United States prisoners may 
     be used for work performed under this appropriation.


                federal prison industries, incorporated

       The Federal Prison Industries, Incorporated, is hereby 
     authorized to make such expenditures, within the limits of 
     funds and borrowing authority available, and in accord with 
     the law, and to make such contracts and commitments, without 
     regard to fiscal year limitations as provided by section 9104 
     of title 31, United States Code, as may be necessary in 
     carrying out the program set forth in the budget for the 
     current fiscal year for such corporation, including purchase 
     (not to exceed five for replacement only) and hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles.


   limitation on administrative expenses, federal prison industries, 
                              incorporated

       Not to exceed $2,477,000 of the funds of the Federal Prison 
     Industries, Incorporated shall be available for its 
     administrative expenses, and for services as authorized by 5 
     U.S.C. 3109, to be computed on an accrual basis to be 
     determined in accordance with the corporation's current 
     prescribed accounting system, and such amounts shall be 
     exclusive of depreciation, payment of claims, and 
     expenditures which such accounting system requires to be 
     capitalized or charged to cost of commodities acquired or 
     produced, including selling and shipping expenses, and 
     expenses in connection with acquisition, construction, 
     operation, maintenance, improvement, protection, or 
     disposition of facilities and other property belonging to the 
     corporation or in which it has an interest.

                    Office on Violence Against Women


       violence against women prevention and prosecution programs

       For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other 
     assistance for the prevention and prosecution of violence 
     against women, as authorized by the Omnibus Crime Control and 
     Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3711 et seq.) (``the 1968 
     Act''); the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 
     1994 (Public Law 103-322) (``the 1994 Act''); the Victims of 
     Child Abuse Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-647) (``the 1990 
     Act''); the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the 
     Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-
     21); the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act 
     of 2000 (Public Law 106-386) (``the 2000 Act''); and the 
     Violence Against Women and Department of Justice 
     Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-162) (``the 2005 
     Act''); $430,000,000, including amounts for administrative 
     costs, to remain available until expended as follows:
       (1) $12,000,000 for the court-appointed special advocate 
     program, as authorized by section 217 of the 1990 Act;
       (2) $3,000,000 for child abuse training programs for 
     judicial personnel and practitioners, as authorized by 
     section 222 of the 1990 Act;
       (3) $205,000,000 for grants to combat violence against 
     women, as authorized by part T of the 1968 Act, as amended by 
     section 101 of the 2005 Act, of which--
       (A) $20,000,000 shall be for transitional housing 
     assistance grants for victims of domestic violence, stalking 
     or sexual assault as authorized by section 40299 of the 1994 
     Act, as amended by section 602 of the 2005 Act; and
       (B) $2,000,000 shall be for the National Institute of 
     Justice for research and evaluation of violence against 
     women;
       (4) $63,000,000 for grants to encourage arrest policies as 
     authorized by part U of the 1968 Act, as amended by section 
     102 of the 2005 Act;
       (5) $10,000,000 for sexual assault victims assistance, as 
     authorized by section 202 of the 2005 Act;
       (6) $40,000,000 for rural domestic violence and child abuse 
     enforcement assistance grants, as authorized by section 40295 
     of the 1994 Act, as amended by section 203 of the 2005 Act;
       (7) $6,000,000 for training programs as authorized by 
     section 40152 of the 1994 Act, as amended by section 108 of 
     the 2005 Act, and for related local demonstration projects;
       (8) $3,000,000 for grants to improve the stalking and 
     domestic violence databases, as authorized by section 40602 
     of the 1994 Act, as amended by section 109 of the 2005 Act;

[[Page 20600]]

       (9) $10,000,000 for grants to reduce violent crimes against 
     women on campus, as authorized by section 304 of the 2005 
     Act;
       (10) $40,000,000 for legal assistance for victims, as 
     authorized by section 1201 of the 2000 Act, as amended by 
     section 103 of the 2005 Act;
       (11) $5,000,000 for enhancing protection for older and 
     disabled women from domestic violence and sexual assault, as 
     authorized by section 40802 of the 1994 Act, as amended by 
     section 205 of the 2005 Act;
       (12) $15,000,000 for the safe havens for children program, 
     as authorized by section 1301 of the 2000 Act, as amended by 
     section 306 of the 2005 Act;
       (13) $8,000,000 for education and training to end violence 
     against and abuse of women with disabilities, as authorized 
     by section 1402 of the 2000 Act, as amended by section 204 of 
     the 2005 Act; and
       (14) $10,000,000 for an engaging men and youth in 
     prevention program, as authorized by the 2005 Act.


                    Amendment Offered by Mrs. Capito

  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Capito:
       Page 38, line 20, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 39, line 22, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 66, line 7, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $10,000,000)''.

  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin, first of all, by 
thanking the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member for 
their good, hard work on this bill. They are very dedicated to seeing 
that we spend our taxpayers' dollars wisely.
  Today I rise to offer an amendment to help break the cycle of 
violence against women, especially those living in the rural areas. We 
are facing an epidemic in this country. Sexual and domestic violence 
can happen to anyone, regardless of race, age, sexual orientation, 
religion or gender. One in four women will experience domestic violence 
during her lifetime. It is a frightening statistic, I think.
  To be safe in their communities, women need to be safe in their own 
homes. Of the over 12,000 domestic violence victims reported in my 
State of West Virginia in 2005, a total of over 8,600, or 68 percent, 
were victims of intimate partner violence. What used to be called a 
``family matter'' is now a crime. The Violence Against Women Act was 
much-needed landmark legislation that helped transform the perception 
of domestic abuse as a serious crime and created programs to increase 
access to services for women and victims.
  My amendment builds on the successes of the last decade and prevents 
more women from suffering in silence. Victims of domestic violence and 
sexual assault in rural and remote communities face unique obstacles in 
their efforts to escape abusive and dangerous relationships. The 
geographic isolation, economic structure, and particularly strong 
cultural pressures and social pressures, and lack of available 
resources in rural jurisdictions significantly compound the problems 
confronted by those seeking support and services. Nonreporting of 
sexual assault in rural areas is a particular problem.
  Other barriers to domestic violence and sexual assault intervention 
in rural communities may include gaps in the 911 emergency system that 
may delay responses, underfunded and understaffed law enforcement 
agencies that hamper the criminal justice response, and lack of legal 
representation for protective orders and other civil matters pertaining 
to domestic violence.
  Rural Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, Stalking, 
and Child Abuse Enforcement Assistance Grants fund cooperative efforts 
between law enforcement, prosecutors, and victim services. They provide 
treatment, counseling and assistance to victims, and work with rural 
communities to develop education and prevention strategies.
  Last year Congress funded this program with $38.8 million. The 
committee's recommended funding level for this year amounts to only a 
$1.2 million increase over last year's appropriations for the Rural 
Domestic Violence Grants program.
  Meanwhile, the National Science Foundation Agency Operations and 
Award Management line item, which was the old salary and expense line 
item, stands to receive $285.59 million. This amounts to an increase of 
over $37 million, or 13 percent.
  My amendment would boost funding for the Rural Domestic Violence and 
Child Abuse Enforcement Assistance Grants by $10 million without 
costing the taxpayers additional money.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in support of this important amendment 
to help provide victims with the protection and services in the rural 
areas they need to pursue safe and healthy lives while simultaneously 
enabling communities to hold offenders accountable for their violence.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentlelady offers an amendment to one 
of the grant programs in the Violence Against Women Office of the U.S. 
Department of Justice. To give a little bit of context to the 
amendment, the Office of Violence Against Women was funded in fiscal 
year 2007 at $382.571 million. The President requested $370 million, 
about $12.5 million less than was funded in 2007. So the President's 
request for the office was decreased. He requested less money than was 
appropriated last year.
  In addition to that, the President wanted to eliminate all of the 
grant programs, including the one that the gentlelady seeks today to 
increase funding for specifically. The subcommittee increased funding 
over the President's request by $60 million. So the subcommittee looked 
at the Violence Against Women Office and looked at the scourge that 
office addresses and fights every day and the programs that the office 
administers, and we said not only do we need to increase the 
President's request from last year's level, we need to increase this 
program above the President's request, and we did by $60 million. We 
also rejected the President's request to eliminate all of the grant 
programs under Violence Against Women. We retained those grant programs 
and those categories, and then we funded each and every one of them 
handsomely.
  So the request before us today, or the recommendation of the 
committee before the body today, increases over Fiscal Year 2007 
funding by $47 million, over the President's request by $60 million. As 
for the grant program that the gentlelady offers an amendment to, we 
fund it at $40 million, which is 100 percent over the President's 
request, because he wanted to eliminate that program, and 3 percent 
over the 2007 funding.
  Now, there is no question that the Office of Violence Against Women 
deserves adequate funding. That is why we funded it at $60 million over 
the President's request. It enjoys a privileged position on our 
committee. Chairwoman DeLauro is aggressive in her leadership on this 
issue as is every member of our subcommittee. The Rural Domestic 
Violence Assistance Grants have been funded at $40 million and are 
extremely proud of that funding level.
  The gentlelady looks for her offset in the National Science 
Foundation, the premier research and development agency in the United 
States Government. It offers peer-reviewed granting; it looks at 
education programs; it looks at research programs, cutting-edge, 
transformational research, the research that we rely upon in order to 
ensure our competitiveness in the arena and also lay a foundation for 
our competitiveness in the global economic marketplace.
  Don't make any mistake about it, everyone who has testified before 
our committee agrees the National Science Foundation is not only an 
economic security issue, it is a national security issue, and it is not 
the place where we ought to be taking funding. There is a recognition 
that we need to double the funding for the National Science Foundation, 
and that is the track we are on with the level of funding in this bill. 
We should not, and hopefully we won't, reduce funding to the National 
Science Foundation by $10 million. That would knock us off of the 
track.

[[Page 20601]]

  To summarize, Mr. Chairman, funding in the Violence Against Women 
programs is robust: $60 million above the President's request. The 
particular grant programs, one of which the gentlelady addresses, each 
have been retained, and each of those grant programs has been funded 
robustly.
  So, like every other account in this bill, we could use additional 
money, and if the budget resolutions that the minority would vote for 
would allow us additional money, we would be pleased to look at 
increasing funding for violence against women programs.
  But given our allocation, and given the priorities and the 
conflicting demands in the bill, and given the importance of the 
National Science Foundation and the robust nature of our funding for 
violence against women, I must oppose the gentlelady's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BAIRD. I have great respect for the gentlelady's intent here. As 
a clinical psychologist before entering this body, I worked with 
victims of domestic violence and have been a strong advocate for the 
Violence Against Women Act and other things to support victims of 
domestic violence.
  The challenge I face here, and I think we all face, is that this is 
not a good offset. As Chair of the Research and Education Subcommittee 
of the Science Committee, I have met extensively with the National 
Science Foundation, and I will tell you that they are already 
substantially overstretched in their ability to manage the numbers of 
grant applications and oversee the grants that are already being 
administered.
  The President himself has asked for a substantial increase in funding 
for the National Science Foundation. That has broad bipartisan support 
within this body and within the other body.
  If we were to cut the management funds, as this proposes, we would 
dramatically impair the NSF's ability to manage that increase; indeed, 
to manage their current workload.
  I have met with the people managing the grant process at the NSF. I 
have met with the applicants, and we have spent extensive time on this 
in our subcommittee. While I support the intent of trying to provide 
more funding for violence against women, this is not the way to do it.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BAIRD. I yield to the gentlewoman from West Virginia.
  Mrs. CAPITO. I would like to read very briefly from the agency 
operation and award management section because I agree with you. I was 
a science major in college. I am very dedicated to the forward-leaning 
research and development that NSF has provided.
  But in this particular account, this is for agency operations and 
award management necessary in carrying out the National Science 
Foundation Act, services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, hire of passenger 
motor vehicles, not to exceed $9,000 for official reception and 
representation expenses, uniforms or allowances therefor, rental of 
conference rooms in the District of Columbia, and reimbursement for 
security guard services.
  I tried to look for an area that would not harm research or 
researchers or the dedicated folks that are working on forward-leaning 
and futuristic advances for our Nation. I am very concerned about 
domestic violence in the rural area, and that is why I pinpointed this 
particular area.
  Mr. BAIRD. I appreciate that. I understand you have done that, and I 
respect the diligence here.
  The challenge they face is they are literally bursting at the seams. 
They do not have office space, sufficient computer architecture, they 
do not have sufficient personnel. I can't vouch, and it would be 
foolish for any of us to try to line-item or justify each and every 
expense, but I can tell you what they have told me is they lack the 
space.
  If you are finding items for conference room rentals for meetings, 
that is perfectly understandable to me that when you have people coming 
back to have meetings, you may occasionally need additional space.
  My bottom line here is this is an agency that I think by and large 
gives a very strong return on investment for the government and for the 
taxpayers, and a $10 million cut to an administrative fund for an 
agency that already tells us they lack adequate resources I think is 
excessive.
  I am sorry, I am going to have to say we should defeat this amendment 
and try to find other ways. As the distinguished gentleman mentioned 
earlier, we have already seen substantial investments in this area over 
and above the President's request as far as the area of violence 
against women.

                              {time}  1700

  I would just encourage the gentlelady to say well done to the 
Democratic majority for adding to this relative to what the President 
offered.
  But I would urge my colleagues, and I can tell you personally from 
having met with and visited with NSF administration, they do not feel, 
and my understanding, they can sustain a $10 million cut to any portion 
of their budget. But the administration portion is what enables them to 
manage the grants, to manage the research that this country's future 
and domestic security and economic competitiveness depends on.
  So I'd urge defeat of this well-intentioned amendment with 
unfortunately an undesirable offset.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from West Virginia will be 
postponed.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Fattah) having assumed the Chair, Mr. Snyder, Chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3093) making 
appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, and 
Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
2008, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________