Frank Wolf

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I am going to accept the amendment, but I know there is going to be another amendment later that cuts $200 million out. Secondly, I think the membership should know that in our bill last year, we had language setting up the Gingrich-Mitchell Reform Task Force, which is making their report, I believe, tomorrow or the next day, and they had some fairly dramatic recommendations to reform the U.N., and I think that is really the way to go. Thirdly, while it is true the U.N. has failed in Srebrenica, they failed in Sarajevo, they failed in Rwanda, and they are failing in Darfur, the recommendations of the Gingrich-Mitchell can make a large difference. Lastly, the peacekeepers that we have in some places, for instance, the peacekeepers in Sudan, keep American men and women, military, from being on the ground. So I would urge Members, where we are going to accept the amendment, to look at the Gingrich-Mitchell recommendations which will be coming out this week which will be dramatically reforming the U.N. on a bipartisan basis. So having said that, I accept the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall).

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to the amendment. Former Congressman John Erlenborn did a great job of restraining and bringing some sense to the Legal Services. Legal Services had an event years ago when I was running, and they criticized me. I mean, they were very political, very political, and they have changed that now. The American Bar Association asked for $364 million. We only did $330 million. But I think we really need to in this society make sure that we are representing the poor, too, when the rich can get representation, and it is even difficult for the middle class. And I have never been a great fan of Legal Services. I have had some serious problems. The fact is, I will try to find the tape where they criticized me. But I think this year it is a good balance, it is a good level; and I think on behalf of making sure that the poor have legal representation, although I understand what the gentleman is trying to do, I would ask that we do not support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment, and any amendments thereto, conclude by 10 minutes, and that the remaining time be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the opponent.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), the chairman of the SBA committee, such time as he may use.

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlewoman. He goes on to say: ``I am proud to report that as of May 20, 2005, SBA has shattered that record by guaranteeing more than $9.2 billion in loans to America's entrepreneurs.'' Then he goes on to say: ``If you go deeper into these statistics, you can see that 7(a) loan volume has increased for women and minority entrepreneurs in fiscal year 2005, up 52 percent to African Americans, up 49 percent to women, up 15 percent to Hispanics, and up 16 percent to Asian Americans. ``At this pace,'' Mr. Barreto goes on to say, ``SBA will likely surpass the fiscal year 2004 figures for both dollars guaranteed and the number of loans approved; especially if you consider that the fourth quarter of the fiscal year traditionally witnesses the highest volume of loans.'' He closes by saying, ``Mr. Chairman, I believe these number speak for themselves,'' and they do speak for themselves, ``and should serve to reassure supporters that the 7(a) program is running strong without need of a subsidy or a reduction in fees.'' I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo). He was on the other side last year. Not many people in this institution do that. I mean, he got up and said, yes, this is right, and I commend him for that. I think it is the right thing to do. The thing that I worry about, if anyone is listening to this, is if we roll this back in this tight budget, where do we find the money? I mean, if there was really a crisis with regard to small business, I would be for this amendment, but the loans are up, and if they are up, and to take all this, if I can just ask the staff how much would this amendment take, $79 million? We just had a debate on meth. If we are going to do anything, let us put $79 million in meth. If we are going to do anything, let us put $79 million in fighting the drug trade. But we are going to take $79 million when we do not have a problem. Let us give it to the war on terrorism. Let us give it to the first responders, but not to a program that does not even need it, does not even want it, does not even ask for it. I understand what they are saying, but if this amendment passes, I am going to go home very discouraged tonight. I think the passage of this amendment, in my own mind, if this amendment is passed, it will tell me, and it should be telling the American people, that we will never, ever be able to deal with the deficit again. There is no need for this, they are not asking for it, and the figures show that loans are up by 24 percent. The chairman for the committee who was for this amendment last year is now against it, and there is just no hope. It is a Katie- bar-the-door, we are going to spend whatever we need to spend.

Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. WOLF. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I just do not think the American people could ever understand that by spending $79 million of additional money that we will help the deficit. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. WOLF. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), the chairman of the Small Business Committee who last year supported this amendment, is now supportive of the program continuing to operate without a subsidy appropriation. He has written a Dear Colleague letter, and I hope every Member has read that Dear Colleague letter in support of the status quo. This would really hit Justice Department programs and State Department programs. So in summary, Mr. Chairman, it is not necessary to provide a subsidy appropriation for 7(a) loan programs. With the legislative and appropriation changes made last year, the program is running strong. The offsets are not a good idea. I urge Members to oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. If we were to pass this amendment, then you can never write to your constituents and say you really care about the deficit. And I know the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) is going to speak about this. We dealt with this program last year. We are now at a record level of loans. So if you vote for this, you will never be able to write and say that I am concerned about the deficit. The 7(a) program has been operating at record levels without subsidy appropriations since the beginning of fiscal year 2005 when the fees on lenders and borrowers reverted to the pre-2003 level. The SBA administrator continues to assure us the program is running strong, does not require a subsidy. Since lending levels are no longer tied to appropriation, the program has been able to meet the demand. The program is on track, Mr. Chairman, to far exceed the previous lending levels and in fact may come close to the $16 billion authorized level. Media reports all over the country have touted the recent success of the 7(a) lending. To highlight this, I have articles which we will put in the Record, if it is appropriate at this time, from the Chicago Tribune, Cincinnati Press Courier. Here are some of the headlines: ``SBA programs looks sound.'' ``Stable funding turns banks on to SBA lending.'' In fact, lending to every segment of the population, including women and minorities is up from last year's level. [From the Chicago Tribune, Dec. 27, 2004] SBA Program Looks Sound (By Rob Kaiser) Holiday magic isn't the likely reason the U.S. Small Business Administration and its numerous critics appear in harmony for the first time in years. A more likely explanation is the $16 billion stocking stuffer for the SBA's flagship 7(a) loan program, which will likely keep it from suffering short-falls in 2005 that drew the ire of banks and small-business owners this year. ``The risk of a cap or a shutdown is basically nil,'' said Tony Wilkinson, president of the National Association of Government Guaranteed Lenders and a frequent SBA critic. Such an outlook is a vast improvement from recent years, when frequent loan limits and speculation about shutdowns sent bankers scurrying to submit loan applications and left many business owners in limbo--often with unpaid bills--when expected loans suddenly evaporated. To achieve the peace, bankers grudgingly accepted a return to paying higher fees as the Bush administration got its wish to wipe away a nearly $80 million subsidy that had been supporting the 7(a) program. In return, the bankers expect to inherit a more stable program. Such stability would have saved Julie Valenza a lot of time and money. Valenza was close to purchasing her second Jimmy John's sandwich franchise in January when the $250,000 loan she expected to secure through the 7(a) program was suddenly stalled when SBA stopped accepting new applications due to a funding short-fall. To salvage the deal to purchase an existing store in Westmont, Valenza recruited her sister as a investor. ``At least I didn't have to bring in a stranger off the street,'' she said. Still, the setback delayed the purchase by two months and means Valenza now has to split the store's profits. Paul Andreotti, an executive vice president at National City Bank in Chicago, said SBA loans exist so such situations are avoided. Without 7(a) loans, many business owners would have to finance growth on their credit cards or through other expensive means. ``If the SBA wasn't guaranteeing loans, banks couldn't be as aggressive and provide as much capital,'' said Andreotti, whose bank is putting together a 7(a) loan so Valenza can open a third Jimmy John's location in Oak Lawn. While he's not happy to see the fees climbing, Andreotti said, ``In the long run I think it will positively impact small businesses.'' Fees for the 7(a) program are now 2 percent on loans up to $150,000, up from 1 percent. Loans between $150,001 and $700,000 carry a 3 percent fee, up from 2.5 percent. Loans for more than $700,000 still carry a 3.5 percent fee. The loan applicant usually pays these fees. Banks have to pay another fee, which has also increased recently. The SBA guarantees 85 percent of 7(a) loans up to $150,000 and 75 percent of loans for more than $150,000. Previously, the highest loan guarantee was $1 million, but under the new legislation that figure was raised to $1.5 million. This means the program will now guarantee 75 percent of a $2 million loan, the largest 7(a) loan available. Still, not everyone in the SBA universe is sold that the recent compromise was the best solution. ``Clearly there were members of Congress that felt this program was worthy of receiving an appropriation,'' said James Ballentine, director of community and economic development at the American Bankers Association. Balentine said some business owners as well as leaders may be dissuaded from taking part in the program because of the fees. Early indications, though, are that participation in the 7(a) program is at record levels. From Oct. 1, the beginning of the fiscal year, through Dec. 10, the program has done more than 18,000 loans, worth nearly $2.8 billion. During the same period last year, the program did fewer than 15,000 loans, worth $2.4 billion. In all of the last fiscal year, the 7(a) program did nearly 75,000 loans, worth $12.6 billion. The program has $16 billion in loans available for the current fiscal year. ``We think that should be sufficient,'' said Jodi Polonet, senior vice president of Business Loan Express LLC in New York. ``We are satisfied.''

Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the debate on this amendment and any amendments thereto, conclude by 15 minutes, and that the time be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the opponent.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to begin consideration of H.R. 2862, making appropriations for fiscal year 2006 for Science, the Departments of State, Justice, Commerce, and related agencies. This bill provides funding for programs whose impact ranges from the safety of people in their homes and communities to the conduct of diplomacy around the world, to the farthest reaches of space exploration. The bill before the House today reflects a delicate balance of needs and requirements. We have drafted what I consider a responsible bill for fiscal year 2006 spending levels for the departments and agencies under the subcommittee's jurisdiction. We have had to carefully prioritize funding in the bill and make hard choices about how to spend scarce resources. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) for supporting us with a fair allocation and helping us to move the bill forward. I also would like to thank the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), who has been very effective and a valued partner and colleague on this bill. I appreciate his principled commitment and understanding of the programs in the bill. Also I wanted to thank all members of the subcommittee for their help and assistance: the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Alexander), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), who used to be the ranking member on the committee, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer), the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy), and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), and also the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the full committee. Mr. Chairman, I also want at the outset to thank the members of the staff who have worked incredibly hard, as I am sure all subcommittee staff on this committee do on appropriations, but particularly want to thank them publicly. Mike Ringler, the clerk of the subcommittee, who has led the subcommittee through the House appropriations process. Also I want to thank Christine Kojac, John Martens, Anne Marie Goldsmith, Joel Kaplan and Celia Aloavado for their tireless efforts. Their work is very much appreciated. They have done an outstanding job. In my personal office, I want to thank Dan Scandling, Janet Shaffron, J.T. Griffin, Samantha Stockman and Courtney Schlieter for their efforts and work with the subcommittee. From the minority staff, I want to thank David Pomerantz, Michelle Burkett, Rob Nabors, Sally Moorhead and Julie Aaronson for their insight and input on the bill. It has been a good bipartisan effort. Sometimes those things are said, but sometimes there is not a lot of reality to them. But this has been a good bipartisan effort. As in past years, we have worked in a bipartisan manner to draft this legislation, and I look forward to continuing forward in that spirit. The bill contains $57.45 billion in discretionary spending. At a time of fiscal constraint, we have developed a bill that preserves critical domestic and international programs, while living within our allocation. Program increases are focused on the most critical areas, including counterterrorism, law enforcement, security of government employees overseas, as well as science and space programs. As we know, the budget resolution upon which our allocation is based actually reduces nondefense discretionary funding from last year's level by 0.8 percent. As a result, we have had to make some difficult choices to focus limited resources on programs that are most critical to the Nation. The bill continues the progress we have made in the fight against terrorism and crime. We have tried our best to establish strong funding levels for NASA and the National Service Foundation (NSF), the agencies that are new to our jurisdiction. At the same time, the bill also reflects our commitment to responsible stewardship of public funds. For the Department of Justice, the bill includes $21.45 billion, $1.1 billion above the request, to restore needed funds for State and local crime-fighting to keep our streets safe. The bill also includes significant increases for Federal law enforcement for both terrorism prevention and traditional law enforcement and drug enforcement. The bill focuses funding on fighting the growth of gangs and reducing gang violence. We have continued and enhanced FBI and ATF antigang programs and restored funding to the gang resistance training programs. In addition, we have created a new $60 million gang program that will allow each U.S. Attorney's office, working with local officials, to fund antigang strategies in cooperation with those in State and local government. The bill also includes $5.76 billion for the FBI to provide enhanced training and information technology management, and to provide additional agents, analysts and translators to improve counterterrorism and counterintelligence capabilities, while continuing the fight on white-collar crime and gang violence. We maintained the commitment to fighting illegal drug activities with $1.7 billion for the DEA, slightly above the request, to restore proposed reductions in assistance to State and local law enforcement, Mobile Enforcement Teams and Demand Reduction, and to fully fund the effort to combat heroin production in Afghanistan. The bill also includes $2.59 billion for improving State and local law enforcement crime-fighting programs, restoring $1 billion above the request to the highest-priority programs. We have restored $1 billion. I heard the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) talking earlier during debate on the rule, and I agree with what the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) said. Why would the administration have ever zeroed this out? But we have restored $1 billion above the request for the highest-priority programs, including SCAAP, Justice Assistance Grants and Juvenile Justice programs, all which the administration proposed to eliminate or drastically reduce. For the Department of Commerce and related trade agencies, the bill includes $5.83 billion, a decrease of $831 million below 2005. We have not adopted the President's proposal for a new consolidated community development program, which explains why we are so far below the request for Commerce. As we did last year, the overall funding levels for the trade agencies, USTR, ITA and ITC, is above the request; it is higher than the administration asked for. I just cannot understand why this administration is not bringing an intellectual property case with regard to China. We gave them all of the resources last year and are giving them all of the resources this year. If they do not move this year, I do not know what we can do. Hopefully, with Rob Portman down there, they will move. This will empower them to negotiate, verify and enforce trade agreements that are free and fair, and ensure an even playing field for American businesses. For NIST, we have provided $19 million above the current year level for the core science programs, focusing on national security standards and nanomanufacturing. To further bolster our manufacturing sector, the bill includes $106 million for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program, an increase of $59 million. Members from both sides of the aisle spoke to us on numerous occasions about that. The bill makes some cuts for the NOAA budget, eliminating lower- priority programs and projects. The critical function of the National Weather Service and NOAA's satellite programs are funded above the request, and funding is continued for critical ocean and fisheries programs. The bill includes $1.7 billion, a 10 percent increase, for the PTO, and equal to the amount they expect to collect in fees. A strong patent and trademark system is essential to protect our intellectual property and maintain innovation in the economy. Finally under Commerce, we provide an increase of $87 million to support the ramp-up to the 2010 decennial census, including full funding for the American Community Survey. For NASA, the bill ensures that the President's vision for space exploration is adequately funded at $3.1 billion, while at the same time restoring the aeronautics research program to the enacted level of $906 million, and providing $40 million over the request to partially restore NASA's science programs. The space shuttle program is funded at the request to ensure that all shuttle safety issues are being fully funded. In coordination with the Committee on Science and the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert), new legislative language is included in the bill directing the President to develop a national aeronautics policy to be submitted with the fiscal year 2007 budget. Boeing is dropped in production and share of the market. Ten years ago they had 65 percent of the market, now they are down to 48 to 49. Frankly, without an aeronautical policy, that will continue to drop. That language, working with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), is in here. For the NSF, we are providing an increase of $171 million over last year, $38 million above the request. People say we are falling behind in math, science, physics, chemistry and biology, and we are trying to do everything we can to reverse that. Also I have sent a letter to the administration asking that they triple the funding next year, taking from other areas, but triple the funding on R&D so this country does not lose its competitive edge. This includes a 3.7 percent increase for basic research funding, $44 million above the request. And for science education we have included $807 million, which is $70 million above the request. Science is the engine of our competitiveness, and I have encouraged the President to substantially increase our investment in basic research and science education in the 2007 budget. For the State Department and Broadcasting Board of Governors, the bill includes $9.53 billion, a decrease of $1.1 billion below 2005, and $273 million below the request. Within this total we are providing $1.5 billion, the full request, for worldwide security improvements and replacement of vulnerable facilities and funding to support 55 new positions to support security readiness. Look at the security that this Capitol Building has. Look at the security that many other Federal buildings have. To say that we are going to send Federal employees abroad and not protect them, we remember the bombing in Tanzania and the bombing in Kenya, so we fully make sure that is funded. We are providing 100 new positions for high-priority diplomatic requirements, including in the areas of fighting terrorist financing, nonproliferation of WMD and for new critical language needs related to the Global War on Terror. We continue to strongly support public diplomacy improvements, including significant increases for information programs, international broadcasting and international exchange programs, particularly with the Arab and Muslim world. We have included the requested funds for international peacekeeping to pay the assessed costs for missions in Sudan. I think this administration has done a good job in Sudan. More should be done in Darfur, and Under Secretary Zoellick has been to Darfur now twice. But this money for peacekeeping in Sudan will have a major impact on what is taking place in Darfur; also, in Haiti, Liberia and elsewhere. We have attached to this funding new language requiring notification to the committee that prevention and prosecution measures are in place to ensure zero tolerance of sexual abuse in peacekeeping missions. If you read the report on the peacekeeping abuses, sexual abuse by U.N. peacekeepers in the Congo, it will make you sick. So this language deals with notification to the committee, and prevention and prosecution measures are in place for the zero, zero tolerance of sexual abuse in peacekeeping missions. We also include new language supporting the maintenance of a flat U.N. budget. We also require the State Department to keep the committee informed of any changes in the U.N. budget. There is a lot of interest, Mr. Chairman, in the U.N. and, as many of my colleagues know, last year in our bill, we created a United Nations Task Force to make recommendations for U.S. Government action to reform the U.N. and ensure the U.N. fulfills its charter purposes. The task force is cochaired by Senator Mitchell and Speaker Gingrich. Their recommendations are coming to the committee later this week, and we will look closely at their recommendations and do everything we can to advance them, and we would urge the administration and everyone in Congress to do everything that they can to advance their recommendations made by Speaker Gingrich and Majority Leader Mitchell. The bill again fully funds the Federal Trade Commission Do-Not-Call program, and fully funds the request for the SEC to protect American investors. For the SBA, the bill provides full requested funding for Small Business Development Centers. We restored $11 million for the Microloan program, which the President proposed to terminate. For business loan programs, the bill allows for $16.5 billion in general business loans, an unprecedented program level, while requiring no appropriation. In closing, this is a summary of the bill. It provides increases where needed to maintain and strengthen the operations of critical law enforcement and other agencies. It gives no ground in the fight against terrorism, crime, and drugs, and restores desperately needed resources for State and local law enforcement personnel. It represents our best take on matching needs with scarce resources. We have tried very hard to produce the best bill we could within the resources that we had to work with, and I urge all Members to support the bill. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN05.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN05.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN05.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN05.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN05.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN05.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN05.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN05.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN05.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN05.010 Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the Obey amendment.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank both the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) for their comments. Frankly, I have learned a lot from them on this issue, and a lot of what they have been pushing for, I now see, if you will. So I want to thank them. I understand their concerns, and I will be pleased to work with them to explore what might be done to address these concerns in conference. I support the MSP program at the NSF and look forward to working with the gentleman from Michigan and also the gentleman from New York to see if we can address the legitimate concerns they raise. Furthermore, I am committed to ensuring that our investment in future innovation does not waiver; and I look forward to working with both my colleagues and, hopefully, the President of the United States with additional resources as the budget comes up next year on improving the allocation for science in future budgets.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment, and any amendments thereto, conclude in 15 minutes, and that the remaining time be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the opponent.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments as well. Hector Barreto, the SBA Administrator, in a letter dated June 3, 2005, that he sent in opposition to the amendment says: ``Through May 20, 2005, SBA guaranteed 60,266 small business loans, a 24 percent increase over the number of loans approved at the same time in 2004.'' That is dramatic, and the cost of this amendment will be upwards of $70-plus million. I continue to read the letter, ``At this time last year, SBA had guaranteed more than $7 billion in 7(a) loans which was a record- setting figure.''

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. The first telephone call you would make if you found out a loved one was kidnapped would be to the FBI. We want to take $50 million away from that first agency you would call. Meth--why do Members want to cut the DEA when we are all concerned about meth? International broadcasting in Afghanistan and Iraq tell the story and do a good job. You do not want to take money from law enforcement to help law enforcement. There is a different way. This is not a good idea. I urge defeat of the amendment so the FBI has the necessary resources so it can do what it wants to do. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Frank Wolf

Speeches

Manage analytics