Alan Mollohan

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) says before we get into this argument between COPS and NSF and NOAA and all of the other good programs in this bill, we are into the argument of balancing. He says we are trying to balance two ideals. I want to assure the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) that the chairman, the ranking member, and all of the subcommittees, in addition to the full Committee on Appropriations, have gone through an extensive exercise of balancing these ideals, more than two ideals. There are many competing domestic programs in this bill. They are all worthy purposes and projects, and they all serve our country in different ways; and given our allocation, we spent a lot of time balancing these ideals. I suggest that this amendment puts these ideals in imbalance, particularly with regard to NSF. The whole stated purpose of moving the science programs from VA-HUD and independent agencies last year as we went through what I considered to be an unnecessary exercise of eliminating that committee, the stated purpose was to reemphasize science. In a small way this committee has been able to do that in the sense that the chairman restored to the National Science Foundation moneys that we were not able to give it last year. In other words, in 2005 we cut NSF. That was a terrible thing to do, and it was for reasons I will speak to in just a moment. However, we have restored that money in this bill. We have done the best for the COPS program, for the law enforcement programs that we could. Although State and local law enforcement, as we have seen by the Obey amendments and the debate with regard to them, are certainly underfunded, so is the National Science Foundation which is such a critical area for the Nation's future economy. I think everybody agrees that science research is the cutting edge, is the precursor, if you will, for a modern economy. If we are going to stay ahead of the economic conditions, of the economic realities, of the economic phenomenon that we all find ourselves in with economic globalization, we need to be at the forefront of research. We need to be at the forefront of development. That requires a Federal role in facilitating, in sponsoring, in sending the signal that the country needs to invest in research in collaboration with our great university institutions and our great corporations and small businesses and the nonprofit sector that are so active with the National Science Foundation funding. I would point out these are competitive grants. They are particularly important as they facilitate the research that gives us that economic edge in the world. I strongly support maintaining our funding for the National Science Foundation. It would be disastrous and it would be extremely shortsighted for all of the reasons I stated to do otherwise. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment and would strongly encourage all of our colleagues on a bipartisan basis to oppose this amendment, not because we oppose COPS; we support the COPS program, and we will do everything we can for that program. At the same time, the other ideal that the sponsor of the amendment talked about, the NSF, cannot experience this kind of a cut and do the job that it needs to do.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise not in opposition, I am going to agree to the amendment, but I would like to have some comment before I do. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a regrettable amendment for a number of reasons. First of all, it involves an awfully little bit of money. Secondly, I think it sends a really bad signal. Indeed, one of NASA's missions is to inspire; and it has had an arts program, a very small arts program since 1962. Such luminaries as Norman Rockwell have participated in it over the years. It is in furtherance of part of NASA's mission. NASA's mission is to inspire, to educate. Indeed, in the education theme of NASA's FY 2006 budget, it states: ``To develop the next generation of explorers, NASA must do its part to inspire and motivate students to pursue careers in science and technology and engineering and in mathematics.'' A part of it is connectivity. One of the ways NASA has done that, if anyone has visited its facilities, is through beautiful murals and other art initiatives. This particular initiative that the gentleman is speaking to is the appointment of Laurie Anderson as an artist-in-residence, which is another phase, if you will, in NASA's arts program. It is a worthy program. It has developed over those years since 1962 an awful lot of memorable artworks. There is no reason to believe that this initiative, which is so modest in nature, would do anything but further enhance the arts program at NASA. Again, it is so small that it is just minuscule. I am afraid the amendment really represents more art bashing than it does good fiscal policy.

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman's reasoning, and I agree to accept the amendment.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel) for purposes of a colloquy.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the chairman has put together a good bill for us this year in the face of some really large reductions and legislative proposals that were contained in the President's budget request. He has crafted a bipartisan bill, and, during the process, the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) took into consideration all concerns that the minority expressed. He has been as accommodating in that process as he could be within the allocation that this committee was given, and the minority, Mr. Chairman, are really appreciative of that. He has done an excellent job, and his staff, likewise, has worked cooperatively with the minority genuinely to craft this bill. Our allocation for the Science, State, Justice and Commerce bill, as the chairman indicated, is $57.45 billion, an increase of 2.1 percent from the fiscal year 2005 enacted level, but a decrease from the President's fiscal year 2005 request. It certainly sounds like a lot of money, but this year's increase does not keep pace with inflation, and it is not adequate to meet the varied needs of the important Federal agencies contained in this bill. I am concerned that when we look at funding trends for these crucial programs over time, we are systematically reducing the Federal investments in our communities. For example, the chairman has restored about $1 billion over the President's cuts to the State and local law enforcement, but the bill is still about $400 million below last year's level. Now, that is a crucial fact. As we face terrorism, as we continue to fight crime, as we have been successful with it over the last 10 years in large part because of the Federal contribution to State and local levels, this is no time to back off of this support; but this bill is $400 million below last year's level for support to State and local law enforcement. Mr. Chairman, the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), went before the Committee on Rules. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) asked to be made in order an amendment to restore some of this funding and to have an offset, that would have been particularly appropriate, to offset just a small part of the tax cut that the most wealthy 1 percent in this country have received over the last 4 and 5 years, to support State and local law enforcement. I cannot think of a worthier program to support, a more important program to support in this time of national emergency and terrorist threats, and I cannot think of a more fair offset from a percentage of our population, the most wealthy, who have enjoyed the benefit of the tax cuts greater than anyone else in our country. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is going to offer an amendment on the floor to address this issue, and I would hope that there would not be an objection against it. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) has also restored $200 million to the Economic Development Administration's grant program. This was eliminated in the President's proposal. However, that restoration of $200 million is approximately two-thirds of last year's enacted amount for an extremely important program, the Economic Development Administration grants. They help the most needy communities in our Nation, and that is an area that did not need to be cut in the President's request, and we appreciate the chairman restoring it partially. Smaller programs that are important to our States and our local communities were also zeroed out in the President's budget and could not be restored. The Public Telecommunications Facilities and Planning Account, the Advanced Technology program, and the SBA Prime program were not funded. The President has also proposed zeroing out the Steel Loan Guarantee program. And I very much appreciate the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) restoring $15 million to the Steel Loan Guarantee program so that we can argue in conference for this valuable program, which has been so important to significant steel producers in the past. For some agencies, this bill is a mix of good news and bad news. In the Department of Commerce, the President's so-called Strengthening America's Communities proposal was rejected, and some funding was restored to EDA, but we were not able to include requested funding for the National Institute of Standards and Technology for construction of new facilities. In the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, funding was increased for the National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service, but the National Marine Fisheries and the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery program are both reduced. The National Science Foundation overall fares well. The cuts this agency faced last year have been restored, and this bill provides $170 million more than last year's enacted level. But within the Education and Human Resources Directorate, many of the education programs are flat-funded, including EPSCOR, Informal Science, Advanced Technology Education, and Historically Black Colleges and Universities. NASA, Mr. Chairman, is funded slightly above the President's request. The Space Shuttle's Return to Flight is fully funded, and the chairman has restored aeronautics funding to last year's level, and has increased the Science Accounts to $40 million. However, I am concerned that crucial science and aeronautics programs are being reduced, deferred, and ultimately will wither. The Science Account, including programs such as Solar System Exploration, Universe Exploration, and the Earth Sun System would receive less than a 1 percent increase over this budget proposal; yet the most recent successes have come from this program. The clear winner in this bill is Federal law enforcement. The FBI received $50 million above the President's request, including funding for drug agents that the President proposed to transfer into organized crime and drug enforcement task forces. DEA and the Marshal Service are both funded above the President's request. The bill rejects the President's proposal to tax the explosives industry by adding new fees, and rejects the proposal to transfer the High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, the HIDTA program, into the Department of Justice from ONDCP. We certainly can have a discussion on the merits of locating a program in one agency versus another, but, in this instance, when the HIDTA coordination efforts are going well, I think we can all agree that the program should be fully funded wherever it is located. I hope the Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, HUD, The Judiciary, District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies is looking at this issue as they prepare their bill. The bill before us overcomes many deficits in the President's budget, but, over the long term, Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that the constraints placed on the Committee on Appropriations through the budget resolution are continuing the systemic reduction of domestic discretionary programs that are crucial to our State and local communities. I would, as the chairman did, like to recognize and thank our staffs for doing such an outstanding job. They are dedicated, and they have been very dedicated to efforts on this bill. To Mike Ringler, Christine Kojac, John Martens, Anne Marie Goldsmith, Joel Kaplan, and Clelia Alvarado with the majority, I express thanks; and to David Pomerantz and Michelle Burkett, Dana Polk with the minority staff, and Sally Moorehead and Julie Aaronson on my personal staff, have put in a great deal of time, a great deal of hard work into the bill, and I know that the chairman and I share his deep sense of appreciation for their efforts. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time. My point is, Mr. Chairman, the cuts are simply unacceptable. The purpose is laudable. The offsets are unacceptable.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman think that his amendment, which cuts DE mobile enforcement teams, which go out and help State and local fight methamphetamine, does the gentleman think we can afford to cut those programs?

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, as I yield to another gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) to close, I note that the minuscule amount results in 100 RIFs out of NOAA. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, much for the same reason I rose in opposition to the previous amendment. It is not that the additional funding is not needed in the program, it is that the money that is the funded to the Census Bureau is needed in the Census Bureau. The chairman and I have worked very hard in trying to balance these accounts. They are delicately balanced because of the bad allocation that we received. The Census Bureau in order to do its job has to prepare early. It looks like a lot of money. It is a big job. It is extremely important that it is done right. While I am totally supportive in increasing these local and State law enforcement assistance programs, the offsets are just untenable, this one included. I rise to oppose the amendment.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, if I may inquire, what was the unanimous consent request stated by the gentleman from Virginia?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I just want the gentlewoman to understand it. I do not think she did understand it.

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

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. This is awful. Can we not find a more vulnerable group in the country to take money away from? At a time when the country is rewarding wealth by huge high-income tax cuts, surely we can find money for worthy purposes someplace other than Legal Services. The fact is the poor people, if they are going to participate in the American dream, if they are going to participate in the American legal system that we all are so proud of, then they have to be able to have support in that effort. That is recognized. The whole premise of the Legal Services Corporation recognizes that, and its services are totally inadequate. Fifty percent of the potential clients were turned away from Legal Services and not served at all last year. In West Virginia we are turning away 90 percent of the people requesting services. Legal Services requested more money than we were able to appropriate to them. This is not a place to cut for anything, for law enforcement. And the other irony here is where the gentleman finds money to support law enforcement, he finds money from folks who are living in the communities that need this additional law enforcement. I would suggest to him that he go to the high income tax people who have received inordinate benefits from the tax cuts we have given them in the last 5 years to find his offsets to support the policing that is needed most in the communities from where the people who are seeking legal services aid in the Legal Services Corporation come from. This is a bad amendment. It cuts a program that is desperately needed if we expect everybody in the country to participate in the American legal system, and we should expect and want and make sure that everybody participates in the American legal system that we are all so proud of and bragging about.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time because I only have 2 minutes, I need a little more efficient answer. Does the gentleman think that the FBI's counterterrorism program can stand a $50 million cut from what we have appropriated and recommend in this bill?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment is not a benign amendment. It is an anti-ocean amendment. Understand, it is really not an amendment fighting immigration on the border; it is a reimbursement amendment. I will be corrected if I am wrong in my interpretation, but it is a reimbursement amendment to States who have expended money on incarceration of illegal aliens. My point is that as it is a reimbursement to States, it is not for fighting on-the-line illegal immigration. Secondly, Mr. Chairman, it is not benign in a very important way: the House mark already cuts the NOAA budget by over $486 million from the 2005 enacted levels and $153 million from the President's request. So NOAA in this bill is already feeling the pain, along with a lot of the other accounts, because of our inadequate allocation. This amendment is extremely difficult to NOAA for a lot of reasons. First and foremost, just looking at it overall, this amendment would result in RIFs to NOAA. Over 100 employees, NOAA employees, government employees, would be affected, would be RIF'd by this amendment, and over 200 nongovernmental researchers and staff. This comes from operations, a lot of this money, Mr. Chairman; and it would have a real employee impact. These are some of the operations it would cut, and they include research: $5 million from the NOAA core and program support; $12 million from the National Marine Fisheries Service. It is certainly a very anti-ocean amendment: $8 million from the National Oceans Service; $3 million from the National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service; $7 million from the Oceanic, Atmospheric and Research Activities; and, extremely important, and we ought to understand as we deal with this amendment, it would involve a $14.9 million, almost a $15 million, reduction out of operations for the National Weather Service Hurricane and Other Severe Weather Warnings. As I said in the beginning, Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. It is not benign. It has a lot of very harmful effects on NOAA, an organization that has already experienced its fair share of pain as we moved this bill to the floor. Again, this bill has been well balanced. For those agencies, the pain has been spread evenly. For us to go in and start having these kinds of severe cuts in agencies like NOAA is very harmful. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, the way the time was divided up, the minority got no time in opposition to this amendment. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent for 8 additional minutes, to be divided equally between the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and myself.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment not because I oppose the COPS program, because I know the chairman does not oppose the Community-Oriented Policing Services program. As he indicated, his family understands how important community policing is. But I rise in opposition to this amendment because of the offsets. As Chairman Wolf has pointed out, the gentleman makes unacceptable offsets here. I would ask, does the gentleman from Washington really think that a $50 million cut from the FBI, including funding for counterterrorism and counterintelligence programs, is something that the FBI can do without?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) for the purposes of a colloquy.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, it is a shame that we are debating this Obey amendment. I just want to reemphasize that we should be debating the Obey amendment that was denied by the Rules Committee, because that would be the amendment with the appropriate offset. Everybody understands, I think, and I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle agree that this cut that we are experiencing to State and local law enforcement, the cuts that we are experiencing in the COPS program, and the cuts that we are experiencing in juvenile justice programs, are lamentable. They are cuts from last year, and they are serious. State and local law enforcement is funded at 22 percent less than the current level. At a time when State and local law enforcement need resources, we are cutting resources. The COPS program, a tremendous program, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) pointed out, is provided 13 percent less than the current level funding in this bill. Juvenile justice programs, those programs that are in the forefront of helping our youth, and addressing at-risk youth issues experience a 12 percent cut from the current level. There is no question that the restoration side of the gentleman from Wisconsin's amendment needs to be addressed. He went to the Rules Committee and tried to get it addressed in an appropriate way by having the perfect offset. The offset is a small cut to those who have earned income of over $1 million, who currently enjoy a tax cut of approximately $140,000. The Obey amendment just reduces that tax cut a little bit, by $2,000. That would have been the appropriate offset. The offset that the ranking member is using in this second amendment, which he is forced to do because the Rules Committee did not give him a rule for the high-income offset, is a lamentable offset.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I just want to associate myself with the ranking member's comments and express appreciation for the majority side in working hard on this. The number of amendments we have agreed to reflects the interest in the bill. It is an important bill, and we are certainly going to thoroughly consider it. I just want to express my appreciation for working out this unanimous consent request. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.