Alan Mollohan

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I was just going to compliment the gentleman from North Carolina for bringing this issue up. I remember when he first brought it to the Congress, and I want to compliment him for bringing this amendment to the floor. I also want to compliment the chairman for recognizing this has been a problem. It is contained in our report that the Justice Department move quickly. I just want to point out this isn't a hard thing for the Justice Department to do. Rulemaking as simple as this ought to be done in 30 days. Publish the proposed rule, get a few comments and get it out there. It is inexcusable that this program, which is so meritorious, hasn't been implemented for 3 years. I support the gentleman's effort.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes, I would be pleased to work with the chairman and the gentlewoman; pledge to work to increase resources for the State Department's economic bureau to enhance their ability to improve enforcement of intellectual property protection.

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman.

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson- Lee).

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for a colloquy with the chairman.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California for a colloquy with the chairman.

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I appreciate the gentleman yielding time. I rise in opposition to the amendment as well. Obviously, cuts of this kind in the science accounts anywhere in order to transfer money over to other science accounts is just robbing Peter to pay Paul. I think that illustrates where we are with the allocation that we have in this bill. One of the real purposes of consolidating the science accounts into this subcommittee was to be able to look at science across the board and be able to fund it adequately. Well, it hasn't turned out to be that way, and this amendment is a great example of why. Here we are trying to take money from one science account and move it over to another science account. I support the funding of the gentleman's amendment. I have to oppose the offset of the gentleman's amendment. In all of NASA's accounts, it was science that was hurt most. Program after program after program, I don't have it at the moment to recite it, but the President has either eliminated or cut seriously science programs, one right after the other in the NASA account. Well, we are very proud of increases to the National Science Foundation. Although we haven't met the authorization targets, we are very proud about increasing funding to the National Institutes of Health, and that has been funded very robustly over the last number of years. But there are those science accounts and, particularly, NASA, a great science agency, that is not getting adequate funding now. That is about $500 million, I believe, short of where it should be.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I think that the committee has looked very carefully at this. And the committee has, in its report language, if the gentleman who is offering the amendment would look, stated that the committee expects the FBI to set the Name Check fee at a level to adequately cover the cost to conduct the requested background checks. So the provision that allows them to move forward and to be funded is contained in our report, number one. Number two, the gentleman sits on the committee that could address this issue in an authorization, and obviously he is not in the majority so he would have to go to the majority to have this issue addressed. But I would suggest that that might be a good way to approach it if he wants to change the way that the appropriations committee has dealt with the issue. Secondly, the offsets coming from the criminal division, the civil rights division, and the office of immigration litigation are difficult offsets. And again I go back to comments in the opening statements before this committee, before general debate, when we considered general debate on this bill. There are going to be a lot of good amendments. I wish there were more money. We have tried to provide for how this function would be funded by directing the FBI to set a reasonable fee. But the offsets here are difficult offsets. And they cut programs that are important programs. So regrettably, I rise in opposition to the amendment on that basis.

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in strong support of the amendment. There are 4.5 million Americans suffering from this terrible disease, Alzheimer's, and by 2050 we are looking at over 16 million potential victims of this dementia disease. Wandering is a terrible condition and of great concern to the loved ones of individuals with Alzheimer's. This program addresses that and addresses it very effectively. I compliment the chairman for the amendment and compliment our colleague from California, Ms. Waters, who has been a champion in this field. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. Chairman, I first want to compliment Chairman Wolf on his efforts with regard to this bill. He has had a really tough job balancing the subcommittee's portfolio, which is considerable, with diverse important programs. He has managed in a very tough budgetary climate. I truly admire his passion, and his conviction, which are all evident in this bill. Chairman Wolf characteristically does an excellent job, and certainly his experience working for a number of years on this bill has served him well in a very difficult situation. He is to be complimented here today. There are very definitely some great things, Mr. Chairman, that can be said about this bill. Federal law enforcement is fully funded. Many of those accounts, such as the U.S. Attorney's account, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Bureau of Prisons, are all funded above the President's requested level. Some are funded at the requested level, such as the U.S. Marshal's service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. This funding is a priority. It is important, and I support the Chairman's efforts to provide it. The bill also fully funds the American Competitiveness Initiative, which in this bill will double over 10 years the research and development lines for physical science and engineering at NIST and the National Science Foundation. Two significant funding improvements were made during full committee. The chairman accepted an amendment to increase funding for the Survey of Income and Program Participation by $10 million and accepted an amendment providing partial funding for the SBA Microloan program. These are two programs that many Members expressed concern about, and I am pleased the amendments were adopted after being accepted by the chairman. Mr. Chairman, a number, around 80 to 90 at last count, of well- meaning Members will offer amendments today. We ought to be offering amendments to increase law enforcement funding. We ought to be offering amendments to restore science funding at NASA and to help NASA with the expensive and numerous tasks on its plate. We ought to be offering amendments to increase funding for the Economic Development Administration. The list of programs needing more funding in this bill goes on and on. But the funding just isn't there. The offsets just aren't there. These well-intentioned amendments will come at the cost of important programs when they are offered up as offsets, important programs such as the census, U.N. peacekeeping efforts, salaries and expenses at the Department of State, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Commerce, which have already been cut back. I just want to take a moment, Mr. Chairman, to remind Members about why many of these amendments will need to be opposed. It is because the insufficient budget resolution that was passed on this floor has resulted in a narrow allocation for this bill that will not allow us to fund all of the priorities that Members will advocate for on the floor. As a matter of fact, the number of amendments that are being offered today is the greatest number that I can ever remember being offered on this bill. But they have been increasing every year as that budget allocation has become smaller and smaller because of the budget resolutions that we passed at the beginning of this process. The number of amendments offered here today is in and of itself, I think, one of the best indicators that we are not providing enough money for domestic discretionary programs. Members are recognizing that program by program by program. Members are offering amendments, trying to increase funding for those programs, those worthy programs that I just mentioned. It is beginning to really hurt. It is beginning to really hurt law enforcement, beginning to really hurt NASA and other science programs. It is beginning to really hurt economic development programs. For example, I know the chairman is committed to providing adequate funding for our Nation's law enforcement, the men and women who put their lives on the line every day in the name of public safety back in our communities. The President's budget cut $1.3 billion out of State and local law enforcement, about half of the funding provided in fiscal year 2006. Now, let me repeat that. The request that the President of the United States sent to the United States Congress cut $1.3 billion out of State and local law enforcement, about half the funding that we provided last year. These funds are important resources to the men and women who are keeping our districts safe, our communities safe. Chairman Wolf restored $1.1 billion of this funding, for a total of $2.3 billion for Federal assistance to State and local law enforcement. That is what is in this bill, $2.3 billion for Federal assistance to State and local law enforcement. Last year, Mr. Chairman, the Congress provided $2.5 billion for State and local law enforcement. That was $1 billion above the President's request then, but $300 million below the 2005 level. The 2005 level that we passed here was $1.2 billion above the request, but $200 million below the 2004 level. The 2004 level was $500 million below the 2003 level, and the 2003 level was $500 million below the 2002 level. The 2002 level was $400 million below the high water mark for Federal assistance to State and local law enforcement of $4.4 billion in 2001. While we see what is happening here, the bottom line is that we have cut about $2 billion in funding for State and local law enforcement since 2001. Well, do we care about that? Does that have an effect? Well these cuts, Mr. Chairman, are not without consequences. Preliminary data from the FBI's uniform crime report for 2005 indicate that violent crime rates have increased 2.5 percent from 2004 to 2005. This is the largest increase since 1992. Is anyone surprised? Certainly not. Violent crime rates fell steadily from 1993 to 2002, and this nearly coincides with the establishment of the community policing program known as the COPS program under the Clinton administration. The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, COPS, was created in 1994; 100,000 police officers were put on the beat by funds provided under the COPS program. Consider these facts. COPS funded its 100,000th community policing professional in May of 1999, and violent crime rates continued to fall. Congress funded State and local assistance programs at $4.4 billion, their highest level in 2001. Violent crime rates dropped between 2001 and 2002. Congress decreased State and local law enforcement funding in 2002 by $400 million, as I mentioned before, and violent crime rates increased in 2003 and rose again in 2004 and rose again dramatically in 2005, coinciding with the lack of assistance coming from the Federal Government to help our State and local law enforcement. Well, Mr. Chairman, there is a correlation between the funding we provide here in this committee for State and local law enforcement and incidents of violent crime. There is a relationship. With respect to this bill, Mr. Chairman, the President's fiscal 2007 budget, for the second year in a row, contained a .02 cents per pound tax on the users of explosives. My State, due to its extraction industry, would bear the largest share of the burden with this tax. The repeated proposal of this tax by the President, coupled with the inadequate allocation provided our subcommittee, has resulted in an insufficient budget resolution; and this placed the chairman, Chairman Wolf, in a very difficult position. So he used part of that tax, understanding that in the process this would be challenged, and at the appropriate point, Mr. Chairman, during consideration of this bill, I intend to make a point of order against this tax. We appreciate the Rules Committee not protecting this provision. Well, anyone on this subcommittee knows of the chairman's passion for helping the weakest and most vulnerable in our society. To that end, Chairman Wolf restored $367 million to the Justice Assistance Formula Grant Program funds that helps our youngest and our most troubled citizens. These funds were zeroed out by the President, and I applaud Chairman Wolf for restoring them. Further, in continuance of his commitment to assisting law enforcement with the ever-increasing gang epidemic in this country, Chairman Wolf has restored $25 million cut from the President's budget from the anti-gang initiative in the COPS program. In the Department of Commerce, the funding provided for the American Competitiveness Initiative came at a price. One of the programs that couldn't be fully restored is the Manufacturing Extension Partnership. This program is very important to basic industry areas across this country. Mr. Chairman, the President slashed the funding for this program but the chairman doubled it, bringing it to $92 million, about $17 million below last year's enacted program. Another program that suffers is the Advanced Technology Program, which was eliminated by the President. We are able to fully fund the decennial census and the American Community Survey. I well remember the problems that arose during the last census and the fight for emergency funding for census on the floor, and full funding this year keeps us on track for the future. In NASA, the President's budget request again made dramatic reductions to science and aeronautics funding, as NASA tries to fit in these programs and the return to flight, the International Space Station and the Moon-Mars proposal at the same time it fails to deliver on promised funding. The chairman again is forward-looking in his restoration of $75 million to the science programs and $100 million to aeronautics, which is a huge contributor to the American economy. Despite these increases, however, funding levels will still generate cause for alarm from our science community. The bottom line is, for all of these programs and numerous others that I have not mentioned, $59.8 billion is simply not enough. The chairman has been extremely responsive to Members and to the needs of the people who benefit from these programs, restoring and increasing where he was able to do so in this tight allocation. But, despite these noble efforts, we have seen for the past several years and will see again this year programs being whittled away through attrition by the administration that is reducing necessary discretionary spending in the name of balancing a budget which, in truth, these actions would demonstrate the administration has no intention of balancing. One could easily make the argument that this bill needs several billion dollar in additional funding, increased funding for the Economic Development Administration, for the Small Business Administration Microloans, for Legal Services Corporation, for funding above the restoration that the Chairman provided for State and local justice programs, funding for OSHA and for fisheries programs in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a program supported by so many Members here. More funding is needed for life sciences funding at NASA and biology funding at the National Science Foundation and the perceived need to accelerate the Crew Exploration Vehicle at NASA to maintain the United States' access to space after shuttle retirement. These all add up quickly. Each of these is a need for which I have heard support, either from constituents or from the community at large or from other Members. And each of these needs has meritorious arguments for funding. I would hope all Members would view favorably any opportunity to seek an increased allocation to support these critical programs. I would like to again note how fortunate we are to have had such a principled chairman for the past 6 years. It has been an honor to work with you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to working with you again next year, regardless of whether you remain on this subcommittee or move to another one. And, Mr. Chairman, I would like to note that every member of the minority on this subcommittee has equally high regard for the chairman, as he has worked with more than one of us as his ranking member. I also would like to thank the majority staff, Mike Ringler, Christine Kojac, John Martens, Anne Marie Goldsmith, Clelia Alvarado and Darryl Hill, as well as J.T. Griffin from the chairman's personal staff, for the fair and open way in which they have worked with the minority in crafting this bill. Our input and the chairman's output was accepted at every turn. I also want to thank the minority appropriations staff, David Pomerantz, Michelle Burkett, and Chris Martin for their tireless efforts. And I want to thank Sally Moorhead and Julie Aaronson, of my personal staff, for their valuable work on this bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Obey.