Alan Mollohan

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, an across-the-board cut to this bill of 5 percent is really disastrous. As a general proposition, cuts that are indiscriminate affect every account in a bill--whether it's this appropriation bill or any other appropriation bill--and one of the best reasons to oppose them is for that reason, they're indiscriminate. They affect every account in the bill, and that, of course, means that someone has not done a thoughtful exercise in going through and trying to find out where there might be a few extra dollars with regard to this account or that account. I would also suggest that that's exactly what this subcommittee has done, both the majority and the minority, and we have done it in close cooperation with the minority as we have worked this bill this year and brought it to the floor of the House. We have looked at every single one of these accounts. We have done exactly what this amendment does not do. We have done the hard work of thinking about where dollars should be applied, where the need exists, and where that need exists, we've increased funding in accounts, not indiscriminately, but very consciously through a thoughtful process. Now, just a couple of examples of what a 5 percent cut would do. In the Department of Commerce, a 5 percent reduction would result in the complete elimination of $370 million of Census contingency funding, significantly increasing the risk of unforeseen events impacting field operations with regard to the census. Mr. Chairman, we are on the brink of conducting the 2010 census. The census has had a lot of starts and stops along the way. Those matters have been corrected, and we are in a position to have a good, accurate census conducted in this country. This is the wrong time to take any cut with regard to Census. A reduction of $230 million to NOAA would eliminate the entire National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service, or alternatively, literally wipe out all salmon and endangered species funding. Mr. Chairman, a reduction of $92.4 million to the rest of the title 1 would eliminate the Minority Business Development Agency and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration salaries and expenses, as well as Public Telecommunications Facilities' planning and construction account. Those are accounts that directly impact people sitting around tables in kitchens across the country. For NASA, this cut would significantly reduce needed contingency in the development of all new NASA missions, missions for which we just heard Democrats and Republicans speak about with great concern. The National Science Foundation is another example. This drop in government support for research and development, on top of the falloff in corporate research investment and private foundation support, would stress the Nation's research universities at the time that this country needs to invest in research, needs to invest in development so that we're at the cutting edge of the new economy as we go forward, which is at the very heart of President Obama's new economic recovery plan and strategy. An across-the-board cut, an indiscriminate cut of any kind--5 percent, 1 percent, 2 percent--I consider it to be mindless. It's not a careful consideration of fashioning fiscal policy. I hope that this amendment will be opposed by the body. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to my friend from Indiana's amendment.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am sympathetic to the gentleman's interest. But I don't share his concern. There was some talk earlier this year about the White House taking the census or taking a leadership role in the census. We have had public assurances and private assurances that indeed the White House has no such intention. The fact is that the census was admittedly mishandled during much of the Bush administration, so that toward the latter part of the administration everybody was scrambling to try to repair the damage that had been done. To its credit, the Department of Commerce, the Bureau of Census, conceived of a census in 2010 that would involve as much technology, as much automation, as possible. The vision was to be accurate and to be less expensive. Unfortunately, the contractor and the Secretary of Commerce actually took a lot of responsibility for the agency, for the contractor not having correct instructions. But in fact the job was not well- performed, whether it was the fault of the Commerce Department and the bureau or whether it was the contractor. The point is that we have spent a lot of time during the last years of the Bush administration and certainly this year ensuring that we corrected those problems, that we got ahead of those problems, so that we could rely on a credible, accurate census. Those adjustments have been made. I would just assure the gentleman that there is no inappropriate involvement by the White House. I absolutely embrace his notion that the Congress should be fashioning it, and I think we are doing that with quite a bit of oversight. I know this appropriations subcommittee has been conducting a lot of oversight. So my remarks in opposition to his amendment I hope are more in the way of assuring him that we are on top of this, and we are looking at it. I know there is a lot of concern. I hear it on radio, I see it on television, certain talk radios are obsessing with regard to ACORN, and I think, personally, in many ways demonizing a whole organization for the conduct of a few. Yes, ACORN could be a part of the 30,000 partnerships that the Census Bureau will embrace to reach out to communities, many of them hard-to- identify communities. I know the gentleman shares the goal of having as accurate a census count as possible, and I know the gentleman understands that there are hard-to-access communities, and I am sure that the gentleman embraces the idea of partnerships to reach out and give assurances to those communities so we can count as many folks as possible. There is no money associated with ACORN through those partnerships. So, again, I oppose the gentleman's amendment, and my comments are such that I oppose it more to reassure him that we are all about an accurate, just census, and we intend to do our part to ensure that. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment is a 1 percent cut. The amendment we argued a few minutes ago was a 5 percent cut. The gentleman's amendment is arguably just five times less destructive to programs that this subcommittee on both sides of the aisle have carefully balanced as we have worked months and months in drafting this legislation. The gentleman is correct; it is a 1 percent cut to the bill, as written. The agencies could look at it and they could apply the cuts as they saw fit. But understand that they are cuts. Imagine a couple of places where these cuts would be felt. For example, safety and security of inmates and corrections officers in Federal prisons. It is an area that we have been working on for several years to understand exactly what the needs are. The bill is carefully drafted to provide adequate funding to the Bureau of Prisons to ensure safety and security for inmates and corrections officers in Federal prisons. A 1 percent cut would be $71 million if applied to BOP. A 1 percent cut would eliminate $345 million in new funds to safeguard the Southwest border. It would undermine the Southwest Border Initiative perhaps, Mr. Chairman, if that is where the cuts were taken. There is $3.4 billion in grant funding for State and local law enforcement assistance, including $298 million to put additional cops on the beat. $100 million for prisoner reentry initiatives. $94 million for tribal law enforcement assistance. All of this represents funding that again has been carefully fashioned, carefully considered and carefully appropriated by the appropriations subcommittee and by the full committee as we moved this bill to the floor. A 1 percent cut would undermine any or all of those programs by that amount. Mr. Chairman, for all of those reasons, I oppose this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, the use of the word ``irresponsible'' gives me pause because if the Appropriations Subcommittee for Commerce, Justice, Science has done anything during the last 6 months, it has responsibly considered the administration's requests with regard to funding of these accounts. Indeed, our Appropriations Committee has cut $200 million from the administration's request. At the same time we have filled a lot of holes that the administration left such as $300 million for SCAAP. We filled that hole because the administration requested zero for SCAAP. On the floor yesterday we added $100 million more to SCAAP because it has such broad bipartisan support in this House. We restored $400 million for State and local law enforcement, money to help our local police, our local sheriffs, our State police, as they do their job in very tough times protecting our citizens back home. This legislation has been very responsibly considered, and while our appropriation is less than the President requested, it still goes a long way to adequately fund all the accounts in the bill. Now, the gentleman makes light of a 1 percent cut. But understand, a 1 percent cut in a $64 billion bill is $644 million. $644 million is $200 million above the SCAAP hole that we had to fill. It's just $200 million above the $400 million in the State and local law enforcement assistance grants that we filled. So the gentleman, 1 percent, when it's said like that, sounds like just a little bit. But understand, this bill that we bring to you to the floor today is below the President's request and, at the same time, we have provided funding for SCAAP to the tune of $400 million above the President's request, which was zero. I can tell you, State and local enforcement across the country, and I would just imagine in the gentleman's district, are very much appreciative of that support as they deal with crime in tough economic times when local government and State government are having trouble meeting those budgets in order to fund that safety. A lot of this is ideological, and the gentleman looks to these domestic accounts to achieve these reductions. I would point out that these accounts are not flush with funding. Indeed, our funding in this bill is below the President's request. I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I'd just point out that this is a 19.4 percent reduction in the funding of the bill. And that equates, by my math, to $12.5 billion below this bill's recommendation. This committee's recommendation to the full House would be $5 billion below the 2009 funding level. Understand that, just right off the top, this subcommittee has a $4 billion additional obligation to fund the census as we move into 2010. That immediately and graphically demonstrates the effect this kind of a cut would have on the bill. For all the reasons that I have particularized in debating other percentage cuts to the funding in this bill, I oppose this amendment, Mr. Chairman. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, it's just a small point, but I don't know what numbers the gentleman is looking at from 1 year ago, and it doesn't affect his overall point, which I totally understand. He wants to reduce the bill by a significant amount of money. But 1 year ago the accounts funded in this bill totaled $57.651 billion. As I understand the gentleman's cut, and as we have done the math on it, his cut would take us down to $52 billion, which would be $4 billion or $5 billion below.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I will reclaim my time. I'm looking at the actual number here, but the gentleman's point is well taken. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I am not in opposition.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am thrilled to support an amendment from the minority, and I want to compliment the gentleman from Washington for his concern. He is absolutely correct. This program is authorized under the Violence Against Women legislation. It was not funded in this bill. There are a number of programs in VAWA and we found it difficult to fund all of them. Every year, we want to add to them. The gentleman's contribution to the bill and to fighting violence against women is real, and we appreciate it. We accept the amendment. Domestic and dating violence is very serious and can be dealt with through the program that the gentleman is advocating, so we thank him for his contribution, and we look forward to working with him as we move this legislation through conference to ensure that his efforts here are retained. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I thank the gentleman. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I would first point out to the gentleman that I am not sure this is the bill on which the gentleman should make his arguments against a National Climate Service. It is true that there is considerable discussion within the administration and outside of government in consideration of a National Climate Service and also in the authorizing committees here in the Congress. It is also true that we have some money in this bill--for research and satellites--that is in anticipation of an authorization of a National Climate Service. That money is also needed by the Weather Service. Of course, the gentleman understands we fund the National Weather Service through the Commerce Department accounts. To really try to impact or prevent the creation of the National Climate Service, I would suggest to the gentleman that this is the wrong place to go. We ought to respect the authorizing process. The gentleman, I would assume, will direct his efforts with regard to frustrating the creation of a National Climate Service to the authorizing process--and the gentleman may serve on that committee, I don't know. That's the place where, respectfully, where you could better direct your efforts. An appropriations bill, particularly in one in which the organization is not even stood up, is, I think, the wrong place for the gentleman to direct his energies. So, for that reason and others that deal with the necessity for this Nation and for the world to better understand what is happening to the world's climate and how global climate change is going to adversely impact our lives, I would oppose the gentleman's amendment. Most importantly, I would just like to suggest to the gentleman that this isn't the place to deal with this issue particularly at this time. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I would close my opposition with the observation that there are no funds in the bill to establish a National Climate Service. There is money in the bill to fund weather observations, which relate to climate observations, and which is collected in the normal course of the National Weather Service's operations. We anticipate the authorizing committee will come forward with such a suggestion. We'll see how it fares on the floor of the House and in Congress and if the President signs it into law as time goes forward; but there is, in fact, no money going to establish the National Climate Service in this bill.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I will yield.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. No, for the same reason I wouldn't assure the gentleman from Indiana before. What happens in conference is in the context of all of the issues that are being considered in conference. So I can't predict that future, and I won't commit to any specific attitude in conference. I will point out that the authorizing committee is considering this. We respect the authorizing committee process. If they were not to authorize a National Climate Service, then that would be something that we would take seriously into account as we engage in conference with the Senate.