Alan Mollohan

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would rise to strike the last word and I don't intend to take 5 minutes. But I do want to make this point. You know, this is chickens coming home to roost. If you voted for these budget resolutions that increasingly cut the allocation to the Appropriations Committee, and in turn the full appropriations committee gives smaller and smaller allocations to the subcommittees, this is where we get. We get to this point. I mean, there is a real relationship between voting for a budget resolution. The whole budget process, the hearings and making a budget, coming forth with a budget resolution, the whole process, in my opinion, is not real except that it does set the cap on domestic discretionary and defense spending. And that has gone down and down and down. So now we are at the point that we have 100-about amendments offered here today, a lot of them from the majority side, a lot of them from the minority side, looking at the consequences of budget resolutions that don't provide adequate allocation. Everybody's looking at programs saying, oh, my goodness, you mean we are cutting law enforcement programs like this? You mean the President comes forward and zeroes out State and local law enforcement; the chairman comes back and tries to restore it but, boy, it is not enough. And Byrne grant programs. Golly, the allocation is not enough. Well, surprise. Budget resolutions mean something at the allocation level. The whole process gets down to how much money do we have for domestic discretionary. Some folks are very concerned about NASA. Some folks are very concerned about science spending. Some folks are very concerned about law enforcement. Some people are concerned about the Bureau of Prisons. Well, if you voted for the budget resolution, this is what you get, chickens coming home to roost. There is not enough money for these programs. And I just want to make the point that when you get down to a really small pie, then you start cannibalizing good programs. Are you suggesting that really that we don't need this $50 million for census programs? I mean, do we not need that? The subcommittee went through a rigorous process of hearings. We went through a rigorous process with the majority staff, the chairman of the committee, coming forward with this bill. It is the best bill that can come forward given our allocation. We cut these census programs and the Justice Department isn't going to have the information it needs in order to spend its dollars wisely. You cut the census program, come 2010, we are not going to be able to conduct a proper census, decennial census. That is the consequences of it. You can cut it now. You can cut census program, you can try to cut some of these other programs, these unacceptable offsets. But there is a consequence for it. And what you are really acknowledging here tonight is that you shouldn't have voted for that budget resolution. You shouldn't have voted for a budget resolution that does not provide for an adequate allocation for us to do our job for law enforcement. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yielded back my time, but I would ask unanimous consent to claim any time I had remaining and to yield it to the gentlemen.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I am only trying to yield it to the gentlemen.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in support of my amendment. But before I describe the amendment, let me first note that Chairman Wolf has done a tremendous job with the narrow allocation he had. However, the reductions and the eliminations proposed by the administration are really undermining our ability to protect our communities, to assist the neediest in our country, and to invest in cutting-edge innovations. All of those programs, addressing those concerns and those community needs are under the jurisdiction of this bill. This amendment takes a step to correcting those underfundings and those deficiencies. First, Mr. Chairman, my amendment would provide an increase of $341 million to State and local law enforcement grants, restoring these grants to the full authorization level of $900 million. Federal assistance to State and local law enforcement has been cut by about $2 billion since 2001, and violent crime rates are up 2.5 percent, the largest percentage increase since 1992. Now, Mr. Chairman, let me emphasize this. This is State and local law enforcement. This is the program the Federal Government has that assists State and local law enforcement in performing the protective function that they have on a daily basis, dangerous job; and they don't have the resources. The Federal Government has recognized that State and local law enforcement does not have the resources to do its job. We have recognized that for a number of years, and we have programs to supplement their resources to ensure that they are able to do that. But this bill, and the President's request over the last number of years, has by attrition cut by nearly $2 billion since 2001 Federal assistance to State and local law enforcement. Those are real cuts, and they have had real impacts. And the impact is best measured by the increase in violent crime by 2.5 percent since 1992. Mr. Chairman, second, this amendment would provide an increase of $67 million to the Economic Development Administration, bringing the funding level up to the $327 million request. This would provide EDA with a $44 million increase above last year's enacted level to better provide for economically distressed regions with high unemployment and low incomes. Third, this amendment provides an increase of $81 million to the Legal Services Corporation, bringing the amount near the fiscal year 1995 high water mark of $415 million. The bill currently provides $313 million to Legal Services Corporation, an increase of $3 million above the President's request, but a dramatic $12.7 million reduction from last year's enacted level. Legal Services Corporation's budget has suffered cuts in each of the last three fiscal years, despite a steadily rising poverty rate. Need going up, funding going down for this program. Fourth, this amendment provides $10 million to the Small Business Administration for microloans, which were zeroed out in the President's budget. However, during full committee, the chairman accepted an amendment to partially restore the funding. An additional $10 million is needed to fully fund the microloan program, which is the single largest source of funding for microenterprise development in the Nation, and helps high-risk business owners who seek grants of $35,000 or less, helping the neediest of our small business entrepreneurs. Fifth, Mr. Chairman, this amendment provides an increase of $100 million for NASA science and education. Of this amount, $25 million would be for NASA education to reverse the trend of damaging cuts that we have seen in the past few years, restoring the funding to the fiscal year 2005 funding level of $178.9 million. The remaining $75 million is available to increase important science programs that have been cut seriously or eliminated. In the NASA budget, as the President emphasizes space exploration, deemphasizes science and research, this amendment would change that, providing that additional funding, the amount cut, from science programs. All this would be accomplished by an offset that would nick the average tax break for those with incomes of more than $1 million by 1.45 percent, or $1,657. Now, to a lot of taxpayers, and to the average American, $1,657 is a lot of money. But the average tax break before this amendment, for those with incomes more than $1 million, is $114,172. Voting for this amendment, if the amendment were made in order, would have invested $600 million back into law enforcement, low income, and millionaires would still receive a $112,000 tax break, just suffering $1,600 to do all that good, Mr. Chairman. Point of Order

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I am not sure exactly what the gentleman is attempting to achieve here, but I really find myself in disagreement at both ends. I find myself in disagreement with the offset, certainly. However imperfect the U.S. Human Rights Council and its memberships may or may not be, I am not sure that taking this money from that organization for that purpose, even if it were to come from that account, would address the problem. I might point out that Chairman Wolf is extremely sensitive to human rights, and has been for a long time; and when he addresses human rights issues in this bill, he is very conscious about them. I really feel confident in the way that he has treated the overall State Department accounts, particularly as any of that account might be contributing to the U.N. Human Rights Council budget, if that is the focus of this offset, even though it comes from the international organizations, account which is a much broader account. On the other side of it, to increase funding for the Bureau of Prisons by $500,000, I am really pleased that the gentleman recognizes that we do need additional dollars within the Bureau of Prisons, and I agree that to a large extent the Bureau of Prisons is underfunded. It is underfunded in a lot of areas. If we are concerned about assaults on guards, if we are concerned about those kinds of issues, then maybe we ought to be looking for those types of programs that could be funded, but it would cost a lot more than $500,000 in the Bureau of Prisons, to would address education, training, and those kinds of programs that would be remedial with regard to prisoners; and we could reduce the concerns that he is trying to address with this offset. So on both ends, Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I join Chairman Wolf in opposing this amendment. The amendment would increase Byrne grants by $50 million. That is the good news. No question about it. We would like to have more money for law enforcement. The offset would be a corresponding reduction to the 2010 decennial census by $50 million. It is totally unacceptable, Mr. Chairman. I go back to my original statement where I say that we are going to oppose a lot of amendments today that are good amendments except for the offset. This is really the wrong place for this offset, which I might add is still totally inadequate to Census Bureau funding to meet the needs of our communities, not to mention that the law enforcement uses census data to determine how to allocate manpower and equipment. An article by the Brookings Institute fellow Andrew Reamer speaks to this point, and I quote, crime mapping has emerged as a critical tool in ensuring that these scarce resources are used to the best effect. Crime mapping applications at the State and local level rely heavily on the Census Bureau's demographic and housing data. For State and local crime mappers, the Census Bureau has the single most important population and housing data at the neighborhood level. This bill has been carefully crafted. Fifty million dollars out of the Census Bureau is a lot of money, which we cannot afford. Remember, folks, we are moving to 2010 when we are going to do a new decennial census. Taking money out of the census today means that we are not able to do a good job with that tomorrow. I can remember when we had to do an emergency funding for the Census Bureau in the last census. I oppose this amendment.

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, this is a provision that the chairman and I understand the dilemma which he is in. For the last 2 years, the President, when he has submitted his budget request, has proffered this tax increase on the commercial explosives industry, which is particularly oppressive. Mr. Chairman, in West Virginia, as a matter of fact, of course we use explosives in mining and extraction and for road building purposes, and this would have a very injurious effect on the customers of explosives in my State, costing a tremendous amount of money. As I say, the President has requested this for the last 2 years in order to fund BATF functions. It constitutes a tax, and the committee appropriately disapproved this request from the President last year. This year, the chairman, in an effort to make the point I think, and certainly from my standpoint to make the point, that this is an inappropriate way to try to fund the functions of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and making the request and not knowing that it probably would not be approved by the Congress, makes a huge hole in our bill. The chairman is putting it into the bill at a much lower level, and I do not know whether he anticipated this particular action, and I am not going to speak for him on that, but this I think demonstrates to the administration that this kind of a tactic, knowing that the administration, relying on the fund and the Congress not approving it, and then have to take the money out of some other account, we are just not going to continue do that. So, by striking it, I hope that what results is that there is a hole in BATF's budget at the end of the year, and making the point that this is probably not a good idea for the administration to do if they, in fact, want all of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearm programs to be funded into the future. So I hope after this is struck that this hole remains and that the point is made in a telling way.

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I rise in support of her amendment. I know from my own experience in my congressional district, which is a rural district and in need of loans, by small entrepreneurs, there is a disappointment in the way the 7(a) program is being administered. These fee increases particularly are causing lending to drop. Recent lending figures from SBA show that entrepreneurs received $160 million less through the 7(a) program for the first half of fiscal year 2006 when compared to the same period the previous year. I don't know what you do with that statistic. They are receiving less. We are providing less funding, and certainly the need is not less. I can tell you in rural areas it is not. Over this same span, entrepreneurs received 1,000 fewer loans, demonstrating that fewer small businesses are able to benefit from the 7(a) program. Fees increase. Businesses are responsive as consumers are responsive; and, of course, businesses are consumers of this program. When fees go up, when costs go up, people stop participating in the program. That is marketplace economics at work here in a government program. The damage to our economy is even more severe when you consider that the 7(a) program is $500 million below where it was before the fee hikes were imposed, another indication that the current program of charging fees and increasingly charging fees and continuing to charge fees and having increased four times in the last 2 years is resulting in the program not being able to be accessed the way it was in the past. The gentlewoman's amendment addresses some of these concerns, and, while we are in a tight budget, this is an important program. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support it.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the two provisions on page 15, line 18, through page 16, line 4. The provisions constitute legislation on an appropriations bill in violation of clause 2, rule XXI.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. We have no opposition, Mr. Chairman, but I will claim the 5 minutes.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, how is the time controlled on this amendment; and how much time is on the amendment?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think that is an interesting question. I think that is a question that the authorizing committee in the first instance has the responsibility to explore with the FBI.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

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 am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), who served as the ranking member on this subcommittee in the last several years.

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the floor this afternoon about the needs of work in West Virginia in this particular appropriation. If there is any town in our Nation that is deserving of economic development dollars from this appropriation bill, it is Weirton, West Virginia. Weirton is a steel town. Growing up around a nearby steel mill started in 1909, the mill and the town grew quickly, and at its peak, the mill employed about 14,000 employees. However, downturns in the steel industry in the late 1970s and early 1980s reduced the number of employees to approximately 7,000; and today, as a result of our Nation's trade policies that are very injurious to basic industry America and, in particular, our steel towns across the Nation, today the number of employees at Weirton Steel hovers around 1,250, down from that 14,000 number several years ago. The West Virginia congressional delegation, in cooperation with the Independent Steelworkers Union, we fight every day for policies that favor Weirton's hardworking steelworkers and their families. Well, despite our best efforts, Mr. Chairman, the loss of steel jobs has resulted in some of the highest unemployment rates in my State. Brook County and Hancock County have unemployment rates approaching 7.6 and 8.6 percent. This grant combats those unemployment rates. As requested by the city of Weirton, these funds, coupled with other funds like CDBG dollars, generally would be used to develop a meaningful regional competitiveness plan. The language in the bill is that the funding is for planning and design, perhaps construction, perhaps renovation, we would hope; but specifically the city wants to use these dollars to evaluate regional economic and business trends and hone in on specific sectors that have the strongest growth potential within Hancock and Brook County. They are looking for economic diversification as an alternative to the condition that they are experiencing. For example, as an industrial town, Weirton and the surrounding area have a number of brownfield properties. These properties sit idle, but if properly redeveloped and integrated into a sound economic development effort, strategically planned, they could be home to new businesses and could generate high-paying job opportunities for those unemployed constituents. Examples of those businesses might be a period in this area that would include clean coal technology industry, medical device manufacturing, but moving from brownfields to a thriving economic sector takes careful planning, which is what this funding provides. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, this is a landmark day in the history of the United States Congress. On this day, the man who leads our West Virginia delegation with such energy, integrity, and effectiveness becomes the longest-serving member in the history of the United States Senate. It is a great honor for me to join my colleagues in saluting this latest record achievement of our senior Senator, the Honorable Robert C. Byrd. The distinguished career of Senator Byrd is well-known to those of us who are so fortunate to serve with him and to learn from him. He is a master of the legislative process, a strong defender of our Democratic institutions, a great intellect on policy issues, a constant voice of clarity and of reason. And, most important of all, he is an unwavering champion of the people he was elected to serve: the citizens of West Virginia. He never fails to give his very best to them. It is this lifetime of faithful service that has created such an amazing bond between Senator Byrd and the people of the mountain State--a bond built on trust, respect and a deep gratitude for all that he accomplishes on our behalf. So on this day--his 17,327th as the Senator from West Virginia--I call upon my colleagues to salute Senator Robert C. Byrd on this extraordinary milestone. We are honored, indeed, to serve alongside such a gifted and accomplished leader.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen from California, each, for yielding and for their work on this important legislation and a lifetime of work for safety for workers. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2803, The Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006. The need for improvements in coal mine health and safety has been tragically reaffirmed by the mine disasters in my home State earlier this year. On January 2, 2006, an explosion in the Sago mine in Upshur County, West Virginia, followed on January 19 by a second disaster in the Aracoma Alma mine in Logan County, took the lives of our Nation's finest, our coal miners, forever changing the lives of their loved ones and shocking the State and the Nation into once again revisiting the adequacy of our coal mine health and safety laws. The entire West Virginia delegation is in support of this bill. In the Senate it passed unanimously with the backing of West Virginia's esteemed delegation, Senator Robert C. Byrd and Senator John D. Rockefeller. Here in the House, Mr. Rahall, Mrs. Capito and I recently introduced the House companion to that bill, H.R. 5432. I urge passage of S. 2803 today so that the important work to improve mine safety can begin immediately. New approaches to safety challenges are clearly needed, particularly in light of advances in technology, and we cannot afford to waste another minute. Among other things, the MINER Act that we consider here requires that miners have emergency air breathable for a sustained period of time and that caches providing at least 2 hours of breathable air per miner be placed at 30-minute intervals from the working area to the surface. It also requires that a redundant means of communicating with the surface be provided in each mine as well as a post-accident tracking system. I should note that the United Mine Workers of America and the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations both, Mr. Speaker, support this legislation. While not perfect, this is the first best effort to quickly bring significant enhancements to safety in our Nation's coal mines.