Alan Mollohan

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, hearts are heavy in West Virginia this week as we mourn the loss of a very special woman: Mrs. Erma Byrd, the beloved wife of our distinguished senior Senator. Robert C. Byrd and Erma Ora James met as students at Mark Twain Grade School in Raleigh county. They married in 1937, at the tender age of 19. In that simple ceremony, a lasting bond was forged, and an incredible journey was begun. Their journey took them from the coalfields of southern West Virginia to the halls of this great Capitol. At every point along the way, Erma Byrd was a constant source of strength, support and inspiration-- whether in raising their wonderful family or anchoring the incredible career of her devoted husband. In his words, she was a ``priceless treasure, a multifaceted woman of great insight and wisdom, of quiet humor and common sense.'' What a wonderful tribute to a wonderful woman. On the sad occasion of her passing, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in expressing heartfelt condolences to Senator Byrd and his family. Our thoughts are with them as they say goodbye to Erma Byrd and cherish the memory of her caring kindness and love.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his kind comments. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), a member of the full committee. (Mr. FARR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano). There is no member of the minority of our subcommittee who has made a greater contribution to the jurisdictions, to the funding in our bill than he. (Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the fiscal year 2006 appropriations conference report for Science, the Departments of State, Justice, Commerce and related agencies. Madam Speaker, right at the beginning, I would especially like to thank Chairman Wolf and his staff: Celia Alvarado, Anne Marie Goldsmith, Joel Kaplan, Christine Kojac, John Martens, and Mike Ringler for their help, their outstanding work on this bill, their professionalism, and for their help in shepherding this bill with all its jurisdictions through the appropriations process. I would also like to thank the minority appropriations staff, Michelle Burkett and David Pomerantz, and my personal staff, Julie Aaronson and Sally Moorehead, for their hard work throughout this long process. Madam Speaker, let me especially express my appreciation to Chairman Wolf for his capability, for his adroit management of a complicated bill with a lot of jurisdictions; and I cannot stress enough the kindness and fairness that he has shown to me, to our committee staff, and to the House minority throughout this process. While Chairman Wolf and I may have had disagreements, we may not have agreed on every provision in this bill, Chairman Wolf has listened to our arguments and, where appropriate, he has looked for ways to accommodate our requests, and we thank him for that. Madam Speaker, this is a good bill. It provides $57.85 billion. That is an increase of $1.6 billion above last year's level for very diverse programs; programs that fund our Federal and local law enforcement activities; programs that invest in our government's major science activities; programs that construct and defend our embassies abroad; programs that provide support to our small businesses, and those which help promote our economic development. There are many high points in this bill. The Department of Justice and all the law enforcement programs that it manages are at $1.1 billion above the President's request and $784 million above fiscal year 2005, while we are disappointed in the funding available for local and State law enforcement. Science activity is up, with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration funded at the requested level of $16.5 billion. That is $260 million above fiscal year 2005. The National Science Foundation receives $5.65 billion in this bill, an increase of $181 million above last year and $49 million above the President's budget request. The State Department and Broadcasting Board of Governors, while funded below the President's request, receives $9.6 billion for worldwide security upgrades, diplomatic and consular programs, and international broadcasting. For our local communities, we restored the Economic Development Administration's funding to last year's level, rejecting in the process the President's proposal to eliminate the Economic Development Administration. In addition, we rejected his proposal to consolidate and shrink proposals that provide Federal investment to strengthen our local communities. In this bill we also included language supporting the role of the economic development districts and reaffirming our commitment to the minimum 50 percent Federal match for local dollars. My constituents and those in rural areas were very vocal on these two points, and I am pleased that the chairman was supportive and that we could be responsive to those requests. Madam Speaker, I am concerned that this year, like last year, we were not able to provide the $80 million needed to subsidize the 7(a) loan program in the Small Business Administration. I have seen firsthand the chilling effect that increased fees have had on small businesses in my State, and I hope we will monitor the 7(a) program during the next year and evaluate to what extent this lack of funding creates a problem for our small businesses accessing needed capital. Finally, Madam Speaker, I would like to draw special attention to section 624 of the conference report. It reads as follows, ``None of the funds made available in this act shall be used in any way whatsoever to support or justify the use of torture of any official or contract employee of the United States Government.'' Madam Speaker, this provision reflects Chairman Wolf's values and his unwavering commitment to human rights. It is the chairman's initiative, and it is to his credit that it is included in our bill. Madam Speaker, again, I want to thank Chairman Wolf, and I urge Members to support this conference report. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 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. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a separate vote on amendment No. 28 offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment; and I certainly understand the reasons for the opposition of the chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) as well. If every one of these studies were challenged in this way, then it would be a lot of activity on these A-76 privatization reviews in the United States Congress. But not every one is, and those that are particularly egregious, I think, need to be brought to the floor. The gentleman from Missouri has done that today, and I compliment him for that. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver) makes the case that is being made by his constituents in Missouri, in addition to the Members from the other side of the Capitol, who are also supportive of his position. Just understand that the National Logistics Support Center is a particularly fine organization, and this review is being undertaken for only one reason. It is because management has been ordered to hit a particular numerical privatization number. That is it. That is how arbitrary it is. It has nothing to do with the organization itself. This organization has won tremendous awards. It does not merit privatization, and I think it would be inefficient to do so. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for allowing me to rise in support of his amendment.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. If we look at it clearly, it is only an affirmation of current law, but I think in the environment in which we are operating, with some of the revelations that are coming out about America's policy with regard to the treatment of incarcerated persons, it is really important to affirm current law. We are identifying and pointing out and prosecuting very low-level people in the military with regard to certain transgressions, and I think it is particularly important to affirm to the whole chain of command, right up to the very top, that our laws with regard to incarceration are to be obeyed.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman probably does not intend his amendment and argument to be thus, but I am afraid he is burgeoning on local police force bashing here. He makes statements like, they take the money and let the aliens go. Well, in fact, by the gentleman's own statistics that he cites, local law enforcement does turn over illegal aliens at some percentage of those that they arrest and identify, and I assume that they turn over a very large percentage of those that they identify. I have not looked closely at that question, but in any regard, it is clear they are participating in this process with the Federal Government of identifying and turning over some illegal aliens. I would suggest to the gentleman that local law enforcement, first of all, are not trained to do this mission. We have a Federal police force. We have Federal agents that are trained to perform this mission. Local law enforcement have a little different mission. They are in the business of trying to maintain stability in neighborhoods, and are particularly trained in identifying criminals in neighborhoods, which is a full-time job. While this is not my constituency, I can imagine in talking to my colleagues who do represent constituencies that have sizeable numbers of newly arrived immigrants, that it is a particularly difficult job to operate in those communities effectively if the policemen are seen as reporters on or, if you will, tattle-talers on the people who live in that community. I can see where it would dry up information about what is going on and have the opposite effect of what we are trying to achieve with the COPS program. We are trying to establish relationships with the local community so we can help the local police force maintain stability and keep down crime in those local communities. So for that reason, I think this is an ill-advised amendment. We do not give local police forces responsibilities of the Federal Government, unless we train them to do that and they freely take on that mission and unless we give them additional resources to fulfill that mission. So first of all, local police have to agree to do what the gentleman is suggesting, go out and perform the Federal mission; and, secondly, if we are going to ask them to take on this Federal mandate, it seems to me we ought to give it to them not on an unfunded basis, but we should give them additional resources to perform that mission, if they would voluntarily accept it. Mr. Chairman, as I have outlined, I am strongly opposed to the Tancredo amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman knows that I have the greatest respect and friendship for him and for all the tremendous work that he does in this body. But I must rise and oppose this across-the- board cut. First of all, I oppose across-the-board cuts generally because they are indiscriminate, and I think anybody who supports across-the-board cuts has to admit that the cuts are bound to affect some good programs, even in their judgment, as well as adversely affect programs that the author of the amendment may not fully appreciate. Having said that, I hope that the body judges this amendment in the same way it has in past years and on other bills and expresses its concern for the offering of across-the-board cuts generally. But having said that, I think that if the gentleman is not successful, if he does not prevail on his amendment, he should feel good for the same reasons I feel bad about this bill, and that is that it represents a huge number of cuts much greater than 1 percent on programs that I consider to be extremely worthy and that I would hope the chairmen of the sub and full committees, as well as ranking, would consider the same. NASA is increased by 2 percent, the Justice Department by 4 percent, and the FBI by 10 percent. That is the good news. Federal law enforcement programs have increased. Almost everything else in the bill has decreased a lot more than 1 percent. State and local law enforcement experienced a 22 percent reduction. The COPS program, a 13 percent reduction. Juvenile justice programs, a 12 percent reduction. The Commerce Department, a 12 percent reduction. And the State Department is receiving 11 percent less than the current level, in addition to international organizations receiving 10 percent less. The gentleman ought to be pleased with the reductions in most of this bill, and surely he would not oppose the increases to the FBI and the Justice Department and hopefully not NASA. This bill has taken its fair share of cuts. It has experienced the pain that has been imposed upon domestic discretionary programs generally, by the budget resolution; and I will note an inordinate number of amendments being offered by the majority here in the last 3 days have been trying to increase the author of each amendment's particular favorite domestic discretionary program. But you add them all up and the majority has offered a lot of amendments increasing domestic discretionary spending. For those who have done that, I suggest that you look at the budget resolution the next time around, understand the relationship, the real relationship between a vote for the budget resolution and a squeeze on domestic discretionary programs as I have just described in response to the gentleman from Colorado's (Mr. Hefley) amendment. For all those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hefley amendment and hope that my colleagues will turn it down.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. How much time remains, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in joining the chairman in opposition to this amendment, and I hope the same majority of our colleagues reject this amendment this year as did last year. I would note that this is the same or an extremely similar amendment that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) introduced last year and was defeated by a 83-to-355 vote majority. I hope that the body takes the same position with regard to this amendment this year as it did last. At a time when the United States is involved in a war against global terrorism, at a time when the international economic community is becoming increasingly integrated and the world is becoming increasingly smaller and we are increasingly bumping up against our friends and adversaries around the world, this is no time to do away with the organization. However imperfect it may be, that brings together all of those divergent political interests, all those divergent countries, all those divergent political philosophies that represent people around the world. We need to bring people closer to us so that we can debate them, so that we can fight them in the context of a civilized body, rather than going out and fighting them in wars. That is what the U.N., at its best represents. That is what we ought to be aspiring to, that is, perfecting the U.N., making it better, dealing with its imperfections instead of doing away with it. We are lucky to have the U.N. in that sense. We are also fortunate to be a powerful enough country to influence the U.N. for the better because of the size of our contribution. If we were to withdraw our contribution, there is no doubt that that whole process would unravel. That would be a tragedy. For all the above reasons, Mr. Chairman, I oppose the gentleman's amendment and urge my colleagues to oppose it as well. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out that this amendment by the gentlewoman simply asks the Attorney General, the State authorizing agencies, to do what they are supposed to do under the law and to do it accurately and faithfully and that, among other things, it refers to requiring complete criminal histories, to include final disposition of arrests, the full automation of criminal justice histories and fingerprint records, the frequency and quality of the criminal history reports and the improvement of State records systems. I think it is very benign in that sense and requires States and governments to report as they are supposed to report under our laws. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I express my support for it. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Tancredo amendment. Let me first say that I take a back seat to no one in being concerned about the effects of the internationalization of our economy. I represent the steel industry and other basic industries that have been disadvantaged in this whole process terribly, and we have been concerned about the inadequacy of trade agreements as they do not protect these industries during the short term. The first thing I want to say about the Tancredo amendment, is that this is a particularly bad vehicle to make the kind of decisions that this amendment is trying to make. This is an appropriations bill. This is for the Committee on Ways and Means, to do, and not to try to slip into an appropriations bill. Second, this amendment addresses legal immigration. If there is anything we need to do, it is to be able to debate and discuss and compromise on how we deal with legal immigration, not to limit it on an appropriation bill. Finally, Mr. Chairman, there are skills that we need in this country, and we have to be very careful about how we might impact our ability to access those skills through this kind of a process.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. With that representation, I will not oppose the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. There is no question that Coastal Zone Management grants are important, and the committee addressed it as best they could. This is not a good place to take money from. The mission of the bureau is to advance U.S. national security, U.S. foreign policy and economic interests. It regulates the export of sensitive goods and technologies, enforces export control, anti-boycott and public safety laws. This may not be a high visibility public organization, but they do extremely important work, and they have received accolades from the commission on intelligence capabilities of the United States regarding weapons of mass destruction report. The point is that this agency does a lot of very good work, and I agree with the chairman. As we move forward, if there are any opportunities to put money into Coastal Zone Management grants or some of these other worthy accounts, we should take every opportunity to do that. However, again, this is a balancing act, and I think that the bill reflects the right balance with regard to this account. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to the amendment. It is my understanding that the gentleman will withdraw his amendment upon an understanding that the chairman, who I would support, would encourage a GAO study?