Alan Mollohan

Mr. MOLLOHAN

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.

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 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. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

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. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and at the same time, let me compliment her for her leadership in this area and her concern for this huge problem and these extremely important programs that are focused in these organizations. We have funded this account handsomely. The bill provides $61.4 million for missing children programs. As we move to conference, I know the gentlelady is interested in funding for particular organizations to focus on the problem. We are as well. At the same time, we want the universe to be able to access these programs, and that's the way we have structured our bill. As we move toward conference, we look forward to working with the gentlelady with regard to her particular concerns in this area.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, we are and we will work toward that. I know that we are going to become more specific in these accounts as we move toward conference. We anticipate that, and we look forward to working with the gentlelady in that regard.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Mr. Etheridge's amendment. I can tell you that the beneficiaries of the Public Safety Officers' Benefit Program and the Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefit Program are extremely lucky to have advocates like Mr. Etheridge in the United States House of Representatives. I mention him first and most often because he has been all over this issue for the last 6 months, since I have been chairman of this subcommittee. I am extremely pleased to see Mr. Reichert on this, a person who comes from law enforcement, who understands the issues of law enforcement, and is probably personally acquainted with cases of disappointment of beneficiaries under this program. It is tremendous that this program is bipartisan. You can tell by Mr. Kennedy's remarks and the sincerity behind them that this is an issue of vital concern to the subcommittee as well. Mr. Kennedy has been championing Mr. Etheridge's cause and Mr. Reichert's cause through the process of this bill. I give credit to these people because they have been especially attentive to this concern. It is, indeed, something that we should be concerned about. As we talk about homeland security, as we talk about State and local law enforcement, and as we recommend a bill with this kind of funding to the House of Representatives, we have to be mindful of those people who have made sacrifices and who have suffered greatly. That's what these programs are about. That's why the Congress authorized them, and that's why we have provided appropriations for them. It is not acceptable that the Department of Justice has not moved these beneficiary cases, with far greater expediency than they have. It is actually a denial of the benefit that some of these cases have been processed so slowly. So that's the initiative, that's the purpose of Mr. Etheridge's amendment. I am pleased to accept the amendment because of its merit. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my ranking member, who has likewise been passionate about ensuring that the Department of Justice moves these beneficiary programs in the Office of Justice programs.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we accept the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I admit to being a bit confused by the gentleman's logic here, who I have great respect and great regard for. He comes out of an exemplary academic background, and I can't imagine how we could be thinking differently on this amendment. Nevertheless, we do, and I rise in strong opposition to the amendment as I understand it. I am particularly pleased that the bill provides $80 million for State and local grants to address violent crime and gun crime across the Nation, the two issues that the gentleman expresses concern about. I hope he agreed with the committee when we increased funding for this purpose by $35 million over 2007. I have to oppose his amendment because of the offset of $15 million for law enforcement costs of offender reentry programs. These are the programs that go hand in glove with our other law enforcement activities. Recidivism is a terrible problem. These programs establish partnerships with correctional institutions, with community corrections, with social services, with faith-based institutions and with community policing groups. They want to help make our communities safer. Our Nation's prisons are bursting at the seams. In the Federal prisons alone we have an inmate population that has risen six-fold since 1980; we have 195,000 inmates in Federal prison. The recidivism rate is 40 percent, and in the States it is 67 percent. If we reduce those numbers, we are dramatically not only reducing crime in the country and reducing the recidivism rate in the process, we are doing both at one time. So these statistics being deplorable, we need more resources applied to addressing recidivism. For those reasons, I must oppose the gentleman's amendment. In light of the fact that we have increased funding significantly for the violent gang and the gun crimes across the country by $35 million and by providing $80 million in this bill, that seems to be a healthy increase for that purpose that the gentleman expressed his concern about.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. It certainly is.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I can assure the gentleman that I am fully in support of his purpose. This is the first time that I have been introduced to his concerns specifically, and I am advised our staff haven't really talked. I don't know if there is a way that the gentleman feels we can accommodate him.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I just can't believe that we cannot do that, if the gentleman would wish to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, let me commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for bringing this matter before the body again this year. The point is being made that this particular act is not being funded and it should be. It's extremely meritorious. The sacrifice, and the dedication, the commitment of our law enforcement people throughout the country need to be recognized, and this is the reason we passed the legislation. As we move this bill forward to conference, I hope that we can work with the gentleman and assure that there is funding on this provision, and we will commit to the gentleman to work with him in that regard.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. The gentlelady makes her point. And out of the Office of Justice programs, we funded the Missing Children account higher than any other programs. So she can take credit for a great success, and we appreciate her help.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I thank the gentlelady. I think this amendment is one more expression of a number one concern about the attention that education is getting in our various science accounts. We have attempted very diligently, pointedly, to address that by increasing funding in education accounts across the bill. This account, the NASA account, first of all, we broke it out as a separate account and then increased it by $66.6 million for a total of $220 million. The fact that the gentlelady is reaching out to NASA, NASA should be listening. Universities, education, K-12, they want NASA. They realize how important, and the gentlelady realizes how important, NASA is to inspiring youth and also getting resources on programs and funding them. That's the gentlelady's purpose behind this. I hope that the gentlelady will allow us to work with her to achieve her purposes as this bill moves forward within the funding allocations that we have received. I want her to know that I have heard her interest, and we intend to be responsive to her as we move forward. I commend her for her leadership in this area. We will be as responsive as possible, and I appreciate the opportunity to do so.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentlelady for bringing this issue to our attention. I want her to know that the House knows she knows something about basic industry in America. She knows something about the challenges of transitioning economies, and she knows something about the importance of USTR trying to protect the very best interests of American citizens and American workers working in all sectors of the economy. From my perspective, I am particularly concerned about those workers in basic industry, in extraction-related industries in America. A lot of us have concerns about the USTR and the Trade Representative's actual commitment to representing the very best interests of those sectors of our economy. As we transition into an increasingly international economic community, we have to be cognizant of the impacts of a trade policy that is precipitous to the point of creating real chaos and tremendous hardship, particularly in those sectors of the economy that I represent and that I know the gentlelady is particularly sensitive to. So we need to provide oversight of the USTR as we encourage them to enforce our trade laws and to be aggressive advocates, advocates for our best interests as they approach our trading partners and trade negotiations. They should be looking at issues to balance and level the playing field, such as insisting that trade agreements include environmental laws that we have correctly imposed upon our industry and our manufacturing processes. Incorporating those regulations into the manufacturing process is expensive. Our competitors around the world, many of them, particularly in the developing countries, don't have those costs. Where we have incorporated health and safety regulations in the workplace, statutorily imposed, that has cost money. The USTR needs to be sensitive to that. The administration needs to be sensitive to that. It needs to incorporate those kinds of public interest concerns as they negotiate trade agreements. Why? Why? Because we have done it, and we are their competitors. We are a country with a higher standard of living, and if we can't level the playing field with regard to regulatory activity, then we will never be able to begin to be competitive with our competitors from developing nations. Let me again compliment the gentlelady for being focused on this very early in her career, being a champion for the working people, and for the best interests of our trade policy generally in all sectors of the economy, and for bringing this to our attention in this bill. I can assure her that we will be sensitive in large part because of the concerns that she expresses here today. Thank you very much, Ms. Sutton, for bringing that to our attention. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.