Alan Mollohan

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. There have been earmarks for it, and what we are looking forward to doing is working with the Senate on this, and we anticipate and will work with the gentlelady to do just that. I can't commit to a specific result here, but I can assure the gentlelady that we will work for funding for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, as we move through conference. All this time working with her is all that I can commit to specifically.

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes, and that's the intent of the committee, to work with you in this regard.

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, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, this provision is simply a provision of fairness. It provides that contracting out of Federal employees in the U.S. Bureau of Prisons cannot be done under these A-76 guidelines and puts a prohibition on that. Now, we have accommodated in our language in our manager's amendments all of the concerns that we received from private industry. We have accommodated that. And the bill and report language were modified in the full committee's manager's amendment to clarify that the general provision does not impact the Bureau of Prisons' practice of contracting with State, local and private entities to meet needs for existing and new prison capacity. This language is compromise language. It protects Federal employees, professionals working in the Bureau of Prisons, who obviously have a very sensitive job and position, at the same time it accommodates the concerns of private industry with regard to appropriate contracting out by State and local and private entities. I urge opposition to the amendment on that basis. The bill is a good, balanced approach and accommodates the Federal employees who risk their lives every day working in correctional situations, but at the same time it accommodates the legitimate concerns of the private sector. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and first of all, I want to acknowledge the compelling story of the gentleman from Indiana. That's truly moving. There's no two ways about it, and that's why we have this program, and that's why the subcommittee and the full committee strongly supported funding for VAWA and all of these grant programs, acknowledging at the same time that there are additional grant programs authorized under VAWA that have not received funding. We look forward to working on those, and this one in particular, as we move forward through conference. But let me suggest to the body that we would love to increase funding for programs like this, the Violence Against Women Act Programs. There's more compelling argument for it, particularly as described. Let me note, however, for the record that we have increased VAWA funding to $430 million. We rejected the President's proposal to shrink the grant program, actually to eliminate these individual grant programs, and to have a bloc grant program. We have continued to fund the various categories, and we certainly look forward to considering other authorized grant programs that are not currently funded. We funded, at $430 million, VAWA programs, a $60 million increase over the President's request, and $47 million over the 2007 funding level. That is a sizeable increase to this very worthy program, not that there couldn't be more. So I can't argue for one second to either of my colleagues against adding funding to VAWA. The real point is that we have significantly increased that funding because we share the concerns of the gentlemen who have spoken here, and I hope that we can all understand and agree with that. We are again targeting offsets in a general administration account. A $14 million cut to the Department of Justice general administration account will require layoffs. And let me just put this in perspective. We've already had a $30 million cut to this account. We're down from $104 million in Department of Justice general administration to $74 million, and we're looking at another $14 million cut. At some point, everybody has to appreciate that there has to be some money in these administrative accounts to administer these programs that we all care about, and we have to get real about this process. This is obviously a very strong and passioned expression of support for the programs we've authorized to prevent violence against women, and we're all working in that venue. The committee did it by increasing the funding by $60 million over the President's request, almost $50 million over last year. You're doing it here today by adding another $14 million. And we can't argue with the merit of that sentiment, but we can express concern and try to bring some reality to the offset suggested here. We are cutting Department of Justice general administration accounts below the level in which they can effectively operate and administer the very programs which we are increasing. So, reluctantly, I oppose the amendment. At the same time, I do look forward to working with the gentlemen, no matter what the outcome of the amendment, as the process moves forward. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I thank the gentleman from Texas for his tireless efforts on behalf of NASA. He has been working, I know, diligently in that vineyard all year long. I know, personally, because he has been contacting me and the committee in order to advance the best interests of NASA, to personally facilitate important meetings between the NASA Administrator, and I know the chairman of our full committee Mr. Obey, and several of our colleagues throughout the year. These meetings and my talks with the gentleman from Texas have made it clear how important NASA funding is to the gentleman, significantly contributing to NASA's ability to meet all of its mission commitments. The gentleman is to be commended for his commitment and his hard work on behalf of NASA and on behalf of NASA's employees. I will continue to work on the House floor and in conference to maintain funding levels as reported out of the subcommittee. I sincerely appreciate the gentleman's interest and hard work.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. As the gentleman knows, our bill funds NASA in excess of the President's request. We intend to work very hard between now and conference and through the signing ceremony to ensure that funding is maintained. The gentleman is a champion for NASA here in the House. I know he is working hard for that part of NASA that's back in his district, and we look forward to his support as we move forward.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. The committee has heard the gentleman. In years past the gentleman has been very concerned. He has asked for increases to the Criminal Records Upgrade Program grants, and the committee has been very receptive to that. Indeed, the committee this year has increased funding for this program by $2.1 million over 2007, which in part was an effort to be responsive to the gentleman's consistently expressed concerns about this, and genuine concerns, about this account. If the gentleman has looked at this carefully, we respect his expertise in this area, and we would be interested in visiting with him as we move this to conference and understanding more clearly the justification for an additional increase. And because of who the gentleman is, I have no doubt that his reasons are valid. And so we look forward to working with him to find a better offset and to be responsive to his needs, if at all possible, as we move to and through conference.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, I just want to emphasize that in response to your efforts, we've increased it this year above last year, so we've already been successful.

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. We would, at that point, talk about the point of order a little more. We want to be responsive to the gentleman. I have not gotten deeply into his concerns, so I'm not sure exactly where he's coming from on this. But I can commit to him that we're willing to talk about it, we're willing to understand more clearly what his concerns are and in good faith work with him. And if there is an accommodation, we certainly want to make it in good faith. But I certainly cannot telegraph or represent to the gentleman an outcome; I can only promise him the process to work with him in good faith on this issue.

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order. The gentleman raises an interesting concern. We have just been handed this amendment. We would be pleased to work with the gentleman as we move forward. In response to his withdrawing the amendment, we are going to have to insist on our point of order if we don't proceed in that fashion. I hope the gentleman will allow us to work with him.

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

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I commend the sentiments of the gentleman who's bringing forth this amendment. I don't for a second do anything but think that that's laudable, and I make no judgment about the merits of this case. As the gentleman describes the merits in the favor of these gentlemen, they're powerful. I mean, it sounds like the equities are running all in their favor. I make no comment on that at all because I don't know the facts. And I have read about it, and it does make one sympathetic based upon the facts as you cited. But I don't make any judgments about that. I just oppose it because I don't think this is the right forum. The President, of course, would be an appropriate forum, but that's the only basis of my concern about the amendment. So I commend the gentleman for bringing the issue to the House.

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to this amendment. We're going to accept this amendment.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during consideration of H.R. 3093 pursuant to House Resolution 562, the Chair may reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting under clause 6 of rule XVIII and clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX.