Alan Mollohan

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I appreciate the gentlelady yielding. The gentlelady is really at the forefront of this issue. She is co- chair of the 131 Member strong Congressional Missing and Exploited Children Caucus. She is to be commended for that. She has worked with me, she has worked with Mr. Frelinghuysen, she has worked with the committee. To some extent she can declare success because she is tenacious in getting additional funding for Missing Children's programs. She has been successful in increasing funding 100 percent, you could argue, since the President asked for no funding here. But we would like to point out that in response to her and the caucus's expressions of concern to the committee, we have funded the Missing Children's program account to the tune of $61.4 million, which is $14 million above the 2007 enacted funding level. That is in large part because of her efforts, and we do appreciate it. She should declare success, and she should be proud of that. She is, as I say, tenacious. And speaking for myself, and Mr. Frelinghuysen who I know shares this interest, we look forward to working with her as we move forward. She is representing this caucus here today, and we look forward to trying to even increase this amount of money as we go to conference. I want to thank her for her efforts and for helping the committee as we have marked up our bill and funded this account.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment, again, not because of the intended purpose of the gentleman trying to do good here and getting additional resources into the crime victims fund. That's worthy. It's being authorized at $625 million, this amendment would raise it to $635 million. And you might ask, if there are additional resources, why don't we disperse all of them? Well, that's because that fund has to be managed to ensure that there's a source of funds that will remain available for the program despite the inconsistent levels of the criminal fees that are deposited there annually. So part of that is trying to manage the account to assure stability year in and year out so that funds will be available for victims to be paid out according to the authority. I would like to point out that the gentleman's offset draws from an account that has been drawn from in the past, and it is the offset is in Commerce. We started out at $58.6 million at the beginning of the day. We've had a $25 million cut, a $10 million cut. This cut would take us down to $23 million, if my math is right. But if my math is not precisely right, my point should be taken that we've gone from $58.6 million down to approximately $23 million in this S&E account. That's a 60 percent reduction. There is going to be nobody left to administer these programs. And that's why we have to think very carefully. And actually, folks coming here and offering amendments go through the same difficult exercise that the subcommittee and the full committee have gone through. How do you apportion funds when I would argue, the allocation is not adequate to fund all the worthy projects and to fund all of the people who need to administer the worthy projects in this bill? A 60 percent cut the gentleman's amendment would effect in this S&E account, it simply cannot stand. So for that reason, I must oppose the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I withdraw my point of order.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. If I might, for the Department of Commerce here, the S&E account is now down to $18 million if the last two amendments are adopted and you add it to the offsets that were affected by the amendments that have already passed. The Department of Commerce S&E account, they are just going to have to shut down their office again. I would just encourage Members, when they offer these amendments, to get serious about the offsets. And, my goodness, I don't know what would have happened to President Bush's budget if we had not increased it, because his S&E account would have been really decimated in increasing the Violence Against Women account. We increased VAWA by $60 million over the President's request, $47 million over 2007. I understand that our colleagues who are offering these amendments are absolutely in the forefront of protecting women. As we oppose these amendments, at the same time we embrace your cause and that that is why we have worked so hard in effecting these funding increases above the President's request. If we had a larger allocation, we would put more money on these accounts. Having said all that, and because the offset is so draconian to the Department of Commerce, I will continue to oppose amendments with these negative offsets. If we aren't able to restore the salaries and administrative accounts to the extent these amendments are successful, the Department of Commerce would have to shut down. That is how, as I have used the word before, cavalier we are being about these offsets. Mr. Chairman, while I certainly support the cause and the purposes of the programs these amendments are increasing funding for, I have to oppose them because of the offsets and because we don't have enough resources to go around, a point which is demonstrated by the offsets that these amendments are having to resort to. I oppose the amendment. 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, we have no objection to the amendment. I yield to the ranking member.

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New York have 3 additional minutes.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, with Mr. Culberson speaking on this issue with such knowledge, he's a member of our subcommittee and I respect his knowledge of border issues so much that I approach this debate with fear and trembling. I know that he is passionate about this issue as he has talked with me about it before, in addition with the other border issues that I'm totally serious he is nigh an expert on. Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, I have to rise in opposition to this amendment for a number of reasons, but principally, let's get our jobs straight here. We're article I. We're the legislature. We pass the laws. We appropriate the dollars, and then the executive branch, of course they administer, and it goes on and on. But the executive branch is article III, and the executive branch takes these criminal cases and they process them. I heard some really excellent defense summary arguments here before juries in support of this amendment. I cannot imagine a body less capable, less appropriate to adjudicate the issues surrounding the incarceration, conviction, prosecuting of the cases against these two gentlemen than the United States House of Representatives. First of all, it is a very serious issue, and if we were to act as a jury, we ought to be sitting here. And look around and we're not, not very many of us. But secondly, it's not at all the appropriate forum. So we really shouldn't even be taking this up. This is a limitation amendment on an expenditure of funds to incarcerate two individuals who have been processed, due process arguably, and have had a very unfavorable result so far as they are concerned. This issue ought to be resolved in the courts surely, or if the President of the United States wanted to take it up, he has the power that we don't have, to my knowledge. He has a pardoning power. We don't have that here, but in effect, we are attempting to act as if we did here with these two amendments. So I don't even begin to speak to the merits of the cases, and some folks have spoken to the merits of the cases here. I don't have the facts to argue the case, but I do know this is a particularly inappropriate forum and a particularly inappropriate and imperfect process by which to address these gentlemen's grievances. So I rise in opposition to the amendment. I trust the body will recognize the merit of the arguments that I'm making, because I think they're sound, and will likewise oppose these amendments. Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, my only point is that we have the power to define jurisdictions for the courts. It's in the Constitution. We don't have power to adjudicate the guilt or innocence of two individuals.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, in a way, I hardly know where to start here, but I might start with the gentleman's question that he poses time and time again, not only today but in previous days: Is it the Federal Government's role to fund these projects? He has several different arguments against projects. When projects of a very significant nature are pointed out that are going on in his district, he says, oh, well, in the past they were authorized, appropriated, and he says they have oversight. To what extent, we don't know. But the point is, they went through a process here in Congress. Article I, section 7 doesn't say what process it should go through. It says that it's the Congress' job to do that. Every Member of this body is looking at their congressional district and thinking about economic developments and what are the needs. If you are in a transition economy, transitioning from a basic industry, manufacturing economy to a new economy, tourism is a very important part of that new economy, of that vision into the future. We have seen a lot of projects from industrial areas that fall into that category, whether they are museums, whether they are trails, whether they are any of those kinds of appurtenances, if you will, that contribute to the economic development in the tourism realm. Well, if the gentleman's question is, is it the government's role, the Federal Government's role, to fund these projects, which he asks over and over again, as the alternative argument against these projects, then it has been answered over and over and over again. It is the Federal Government's role to do it through this body. Constitutionally, it is our responsibility. Article I makes that very clear. So I just want to point that out and then speak and thank the gentleman for the opportunity to stand up to speak for Friends of Cheat, because they are doing just that. They are laying the kind of infrastructure that is necessary and crucial to that new economy, and that aspect of our economy in the future of West Virginia is going to be tourism. He has allowed me to speak to that. Before I speak to it, I would like to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his leadership and review of this project. I know his staff has spent hours on it, because my staff has spent hours on the projects that we have approved. But this funding will be used, as the gentleman said, to acquire land and develop a trail in order to create those kinds of infrastructure that are attractive and make usable the bounty that is West Virginia. I thank the gentleman for allowing me the opportunity to speak in favor of this project. I want to compliment him for the tremendous assets that are going into Arizona. I am extremely impressed; it's an affluent area. His predecessors have worked very hard, as has been pointed out here today. There is nothing the matter with that, and there is nothing the matter with the process that those projects went through. Nor is there anything the matter with the projects that we are talking about here today have gone through. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for the opportunity to highlight a unique economic development opportunity in my district. This funding would be used to renovate, as he suggested, a historic glass factory in Star City, West Virginia, just outside Morgantown. This location will serve as a business incubator for start-up artist businesses and will house the West Virginia University ceramics program and the West Virginia University Creative Arts Community Center. To understand the importance of the project, you have to understand West Virginia. For decades, our economy has been focused on coal, timber and basic manufacturing, and those industries have suffered under unreasonable regulation, free trade agreements and unfair foreign competition. I've worked hard and will continue to do so to keep those industries strong. But along the way, West Virginians have realized that we also need to diversify our economy to ensure a viable economic future. Mr. Chairman, that diversification can occur in part by focusing on another sector of our rich history, our cultural history. This earmark provides that opportunity by nurturing new artists and businesses in cooperation with distinguished university programs and will develop Star City and the greater Morgantown area into a destination. Star City has identified the arts project as an economic development model for the community. And this request responds to the importance the community has placed on redevelopment. I should also note that this Federal investment will be used to leverage funds from the State's Commission on the Arts. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased the committee selected this project. I appreciate their consideration, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the floor about it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity the gentleman offering the amendment gives me to speak in favor of the funding for the Wetzel County Courthouse. This amendment, Mr. Chairman, would strike funding needed to repair the Wetzel County Courthouse, a very valuable historic structure in that community. It was built, Mr. Chairman, in the first decade of the 20th century. This courthouse is listed on the National Historic Register, and this courthouse serves as the centerpiece for New Martinsville's efforts to preserve its legacy and expand new tourism opportunities. Wetzel County, Mr. Chairman, is one of the smallest counties in my district, and the county has very limited funds available for capital improvements and repairs to its structures. They need this grant to help protect this important historic property. Finally, Mr. Chairman, it's important to note that the Wetzel County Courthouse is not just a historic building, however historic and what a grand legacy it has in the county; it still functions as a courthouse and a county office complex. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I will yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank you and Mr. Tiahrt both for your careful review of this project and the opportunity to input it in the process. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd stood in the Senate chamber to do his duty. It was not to deliver a persuasive and enlightening speech featuring laser-focused common sense on the issue at hand. It was not to educate his colleagues on tradition and precedent as the Senate's most prolific historian. And, it was not to politely and eloquently offer an opposing opinion to another Senator's statement. It was to perform what he considers one of his most sacred duties--to cast his vote as a representative of the people. It was not just any vote, Speaker. It was the 18,000th time that Senator Byrd responded to his duty and it was a monumental moment in the history of the Senate. No other Senator has performed that honored duty as often as the gentleman from West Virginia. He has voted nearly 3,000 more times than the next individual on the list of distinguished public servants who have cast votes in the Senate. He is, truly, the iron man of the United States Senate. West Virginians love Senator Byrd for many reasons. He has been an avid and effective defender of and advocate for his state; an articulate representative of their views on pressing national issues; and a champion facilitator of federal assistance for thousands of important projects that make peoples' lives better. But, they also love him because of what his never-to-be-matched Senate voting record really represents--an unflinching devotion to the responsibility they have entrusted him to perform. I have had the honor of watching Senator Byrd for most of my life. He and my father came to Washington together as freshmen members of the House in 1952. Seldom have I ever seen a public servant work so hard to honor the responsibility entrusted to him by his people and the obligation imposed upon him by the United States Constitution. The range of topics covered by those 18,000 votes must be staggering from the critical to the mundane. But they all received equal attention from Senator Byrd as a sacred duty. He once wrote that Senators have an obligation to this great Nation to see that the powers of democracy are used effectively to settle important issues. Democracy, he has reasoned, requires us to work together. He wrote: ``Neither presidents nor Congress can act by fiat, but must work together, each keeping a firm eye on the other branch, and each jealously guarding its own prerogatives. At the same time, we are all judged by the American people who elect us. I have frequently said that I have full faith in the restorative powers of our democracy. What is unchecked will be balanced. What is wrong will be righted in time by our open and democratic system of government. So it has been for the first 200 years in the history of the United States Senate, and so it will be in the future.'' Madam Speaker, Senator Byrd has expressed his faith in our democracy 18,000 times. Today I humbly honor Senator Byrd not just for casting those 18,000 votes as an avid practitioner of democracy. I honor him for his faith in America, in people and in the form of government crafted by the framers of our Constitution.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I thank the gentleman. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution opposing the President's decision to escalate this war. My position on the Iraq war is uncomplicated. I voted against the initial war resolution back in 2002, mostly because I never believed the President made a compelling argument that Iraq posed the sort of substantive threat to the United States that would justify war, and the considerable human, political, and financial costs that it would bring. I thought it was a bad decision at the time, and I think it is a bad decision today. In my limited time this afternoon, I would like to comment on a couple of refrains that we keep hearing. The first is the President's repeated criticism that those who support this resolution are prejudging a plan that hasn't even been ``given a chance to work.'' He makes that charge with a tone of wonderment, as though somehow it weren't our duty to anticipate the consequences of different courses of action and to avoid the bad ones before embracing them. If more of us had prejudged his 2002 decision, taking us to war before it was ``given a chance to work,'' we wouldn't be having this debate today. The difference between today and 2002 is that a majority of this House and this Congress are no longer willing to give the President the benefit of the doubt he enjoyed 5 years ago. We are no longer willing to suspend judgment and trust the decider. That should surprise precisely no one. For 4 years we have been asked to trust this administration, to trust, as the Vice President emphatically declared, that they knew where the weapons of mass destruction are; to trust that the Iraqis would welcome us as liberators; to trust that we had a large enough invasion force to stabilize the country; to trust that the Shi'a would find common cause with the Sunni and the Kurd in a united Iraq; to trust that Iraq's oil reserves would pay for its reconstruction; to trust that Iraq would serve as a beacon of democratic ideals throughout the Middle East; to trust that those early signs of a growing insurgency were nothing more than the ``last throes of a few dead- enders.'' And now the President asks us not to prejudge his plan to put another 21,000 Americans in harm's way. He asks us to trust him yet again. With respect and humility, Madam Speaker, I ask him, how can we? And how can he even ask it of us? Paraphrasing the President, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me five times, shame on me. And another criticism of this measure that we have heard repeated over and over this week is that, as a nonbinding resolution, its passage and this debate is meaningless. Madam Speaker, this resolution is far from meaningless. If need be, Congress will end this war with binding legislation. As even the President acknowledged, we retain the power of the purse, and we have ample opportunity to exercise that power. But just as wars should be started with a united government, so, too, should wars be ended with a united government. And that is the meaningfulness of this resolution. It is the last chance to draw this government back together on Iraq. It is the last call for us to work together, Democratic and Republican, legislative and executive, on ending this war. It is the last call for the President to come back to the people. He may ignore that call. He may dismiss this resolution and this debate as meaningless. He may dismiss the voice of the people expressed through 439 newly elected Representatives as meaningless. But if he does, Madam Speaker, he forces us to move forward without him. I hope that doesn't happen. I urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution, and I urge the President to listen to this debate and to join with us.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Madam Speaker, the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee and the Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Subcommittee will soon bid farewell to our Congressional Fellow, Christopher Martin, as he begins his next assignment with the U.S. Coast Guard. Lieutenant Commander Martin has proven himself to be a tremendous asset to the work of both of these subcommittees. As he assisted subcommittee staff members, Chris brought a unique perspective to bear on many of the lively debates and sometimes convoluted issues we face as we craft appropriations bills, and in overseeing the agencies and programs in our jurisdiction. Throughout his service here, Chris's unqualified professionalism, perceptiveness, willingness to pitch in, and cool head have helped these subcommittees and the Congress move forward on a wide range of policy and budgetary issues. His assistance in planning for and coordinating a complicated trip to review all of the border and immigration issues on the southern border was of particular benefit to us. Lieutenant Commander Martin has served these subcommittees, and the House well. Each of us on the Homeland Security and Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Subcommittees wish Chris all the best as he resumes his Coast Guard career, and expect to see great things there.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5013, the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006. I was pleased to vote in favor of this bill, which passed the House by a vote of 322-99. During Hurricane Katrina, hundreds of citizens had their guns confiscated, depriving them of their Second Amendment right to bear arms when they needed it most. H.R. 5013 ensures that this type of confiscation can never happen again. The legislation prohibits the confiscation of legally owned weapons during national emergencies or presidential declared disasters, unless other Federal or State law permits the confiscation. This law applies to Federal officers and employees, including uniformed services, who receive Federal funds, are under the control of the Federal Government, or provide services to such personnel in support of relief efforts. Additionally, the bill prevents the temporary or permanent seizures of firearms, or the authorization of such seizures; prevents requiring the registration of firearms, if registration is not required by Federal or State law; prevents prohibiting the possession of a firearm, or issuing regulations or orders prohibiting the possession of a firearm if the possession is permitted under law; and prevents prohibiting the carrying of firearms by a person who is otherwise authorized to do so under State or Federal laws solely because that person is operating under the direction, control, or supervision of a Federal agency. I have been a proud defender of our second amendment right throughout my tenure in Congress. This vote preserves and protects this Constitutional right during times of extreme disasters and emergencies, when the need for law-abiding citizens to exercise their basic right to defend themselves and their families is the greatest. I am pleased to have stood up for those rights by casting my vote in favor of H.R. 5013, the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I also rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, this is a simple solution to a complicated problem that is being worked on at a number of different levels. I know that the authorizers, which you just heard from in the authorizing committee, they are very supportive of the implementation of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative and they are working hard on that. Because it is a complicated problem, we have experts not only in the House of Representatives and the United States Senate in the legislative branch but also in the executive branch; and they are working to accommodate this problem to all of the real needs out there. The U.S. military, Federal agencies, travelling, they are working on identification processes. This amendment, for example, would preclude the use of secure identification issued by the U.S. military and Federal agencies that would not be accepted under this amendment. It would be extremely unfortunate as all this work has been done in order to ensure that we can have quick access across the border and perfectly adequate, secure identification and do it in a way that accommodates all of the needs. Finally, I would like to say, this is an authorizing issue and really not an issue appropriately considered here on this appropriation bill. It is complicated, as the gentleman has mentioned. It is too simple a solution and not appropriately considered in this forum.