Frank Wolf

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WOLF. I accept the amendment. I think it's a good amendment. The committee continues to support the International Trade Administration, particularly with regard to China. And I won't go on. But I thank the gentleman for the amendment, and I completely agree with it. I urge all Members to support it.

Mr. WOLF. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WOLF. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. WOLF. It would zero out EDA. Last year the House voted 305 127 to, strangely enough, increase funding for EDA by $80 million. This year, we are funding the EDA at $219.5 million, which is $38 million less than the base appropriation provided to EDA last year. Last year and this year, we in the subcommittee directed the EDA to designate a portion of its grant funding to work with companies to bring back their outsourced manufacturing activities to economically distressed communities in the United States. So we have asked them to change their whole thrust of the grants, to not do what the gentleman says--and I think he makes some valid points here--but to now have it whereby a community can work to incentivize to bring a company back from China or back from Mexico. Last year, the House voted 305 127 to increase the funding to EDA by $80 million. This year, we were at $219.5 million, $38 million less, so I urge a ``no'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. WOLF. I rise in opposition to the gentlelady's increase. The bill already funds the Minority Business Development Agency at the level requested by the administration of nearly $29 million. The administration has not asked for more money. Also, the offset would not be good. It would cut the scientific research activities at NIST that are vital to increasing our competitiveness, giving the edge to American manufacturing and also doing a lot of work in the area of cyber. Funding the sciences and research programs has been a top priority of both political parties, so I urge my colleagues to reject this increase and to vote down the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WOLF. I have no objection to the amendment. I think it's a good amendment. The committee has also been very supportive. Also based on the recommendation of Mr. Meehan, they have broadened it now with regard to veterans, too. But I thank the gentleman, and we accept the amendment.

Mr. WOLF. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. WOLF. The amendment would cut $21 million we provided for NIST to establish an Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortia, or AmTech. Revitalizing the manufacturing sector is important to a strong economy. Is America going to be making anything? Aren't we all tired of going into Wal-Mart and seeing ``made in China''? We have to begin to make things in this country. AmTech would be a competitive-grants program designed to leverage existing or establish new industry-led consortia to develop roadmaps for key long-term industrial research needs and support research at universities and government labs. AmTech will address multiple components of the innovation cycle from discovery to commercialization to accelerate the pace of innovation through the various industrial sectors. These are precisely the types of programs that we need now to support American manufacturing and innovation, and NIST has a strong track record of proven success in supporting American manufacturing. Manufacturing should be the cornerstone of the economy, and this amendment would help stop it. I'm going to digress for just a second. When this Congress on two different occasions was asked by the administration to do away with the so-called ``payroll tax,'' that cost this Congress $125 billion. By doing that, both sides of this Congress and the administration gave Jimmy Buffett a break and Warren Buffett a break, and they created no new jobs. We took $250 billion and literally threw it away and jeopardized the Social Security program. They said they were going to pay for it by borrowing from the general fund. The general fund is broke. This is manufacturing, and we need a manufacturer. We need to create jobs in this country. I know the gentleman has got a great record on the cutting, but this is not the place we want to do it. And I urge a ``no'' vote and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. If the gentleman will yield, I think it's a good amendment, and I accept the amendment.

Mr. WOLF. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. WOLF. I wish we could have worked something out. I visited the RISS center up in Bucks County. My dad was a Philadelphia policeman. I take a back seat to no one on the issue of crime. But it doesn't cut the climate. We don't go down to that. What we're cutting, basically, is weather. What we're cutting is a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration research and facilities issue. The account the gentleman is proposing would cut funds for the National Weather Service and the satellite office that process all the data with regard to weather--hurricanes, tornados. As we go on, no matter what the outcome of this amendment, it doesn't cut climate service. Also, this is the same level fiscal year as it was in the 2012 level and the request. Some Members come down and want more cuts; others want an increase. This bill is below the President's numbers. It is below last year. It is a good program, but it's balancing out. So I would urge people to vote ``no,'' and as we go to conference, I'll tell the gentleman, we'll work on it. As of now, I urge a ``no'' vote. If you vote ``yes,'' then the money is coming out of the weather. If there's a hurricane, a tornado, a snowstorm, a problem, then you make your own judgment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. I have had a difficult time getting answers out of the Justice Department. Many times before the Attorney General comes up, we have six or seven letters there, and the night before the hearing we get one letter that says, in answer to your letter of October 1, October 15, and October 28--and so I completely support the amendment, and I urge Members to support this to send a message. I think it is important for the Justice Department to respond. Particularly, they are the Justice Department. So I thank the gentleman for the amendment and urge its support. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. WOLF. I rise in opposition to the amendment. We share the gentlewoman's concern for the importance of investigating and prosecuting financial crime; however, the bill already includes a program increase of $6.6 million to the FBI for this purpose, one of the very few increases included under the Justice Department. The bill also includes the requested resources for the FBI to continue the additional positions provided in fiscal year 2009 to enhance the investigation of white collar and financial crimes. Further, the amendment's proposed offsets are a problem. The aviation industry is one of the few bright spots in our domestic manufacturing sector. It is a large source of high quality and one of the only American industrial sectors to report consistent trade surpluses. $14.44 million will be taken out of that. This success has been built on the back of NASA's aeronautics program, which develops new, cutting-edge technology for transfer to the industry. This technology makes American airplanes and airspace safer and more efficient, reliable, and sustainable. Pulling back from our aeronautics program today only ensures that we will fail to produce the innovation needed to fuel our exports in the next decade, which will, in turn, imperil America's leadership in industry, with major economic and national security implications. I'm also concerned about the amendment's proposed reductions to NASA's Space Operations account, which would affect our ability to effectively manage and utilize the $100 billion international space station. We have spent $100 billion on the space station, and I think to take this cut out of that would be a mistake. So, for all of those reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. WOLF. The FBI was one of the few agencies in this bill to receive funding above its requested level, and I've always been a strong proponent of providing the necessary resources for law enforcement personnel to protect the American people. As you noted, the bill includes a program increase of $6.6 million above the current level for agents and support personnel to combat financial fraud. The Senate has reported their CJS total a higher allocation. I think they were $781 million above us. As we go to conference with the Senate, the gentlelady can rest assured that we will work to ensure that the FBI has the resources that they need.

Mr. WOLF. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for bringing the issue of funding for veterans treatment courts to the attention of the CJS Subcommittee for its assistance. At the behest of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, we had the honor of welcoming the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Seamus McCaffery to the subcommittee, where he testified about the importance of supporting veterans treatment courts. I also want to thank Mr. Fattah for being very supportive. Also, Mr. Yoder was very supportive. I'm not sure he is here, but he spoke out very much for it and the entire committee. So I want to thank the gentlemen again. I appreciate it very much.

Mr. WOLF. Before I make a statement, I want to congratulate Congressman Davis for his work, and I see Congressman Bobby Scott there, too. I think this is very important. I support it completely. And I want to kind of put it in the framework of where we are. I rise in opposition to the amendment. The bill represents the best efforts to thoughtfully and effectively fund the important programs under its jurisdiction. I am an ardent supporter of efforts to improve outcomes for people returning to communities from prisons and jails. The Second Chance Act grants help with employment assistance, substance abuse, and does a lot of good work, as Congressman Davis said. That is why this bill, our bill here, provides $70 million for Second Chance Act programs, $70 million, which is an increase of $7 million above 2012. And interestingly enough, it's $45 million above the amount provided in the bill reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee. The Senate Appropriations Committee had 780 or $781 million greater allocation than we had, and yet we are $45 million above the amount provided. In addition to providing the necessary funds for Second Chance, the committee was also committed to recommending significant funding for the SCAAP program. This bill includes $165 million for SCAAP, which is still $75 million below the FY 2012 levels. So SCAAP was below it, and now we're taking more from it. So I oppose this $10 million reduction in SCAAP funding because SCAAP is an important program that assists State and local governments with the cost of incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens. The cost is a direct result of the Federal failure to control illegal immigration. So for that reason, we have an increase. We are at $70 million. We have an increase of $7 million over 2012. There are not many programs that are higher. But also, when you compare this with the Senate, which had a very high allocation, we are $45 million above the amount required. And I know the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) is a strong supporter of this program too. So we can go to conference. But to take $10 million out of SCAAP now would not be a good idea. So for that reason, I urge a ``no'' vote and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WOLF. I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. WOLF. I support the amendment. We accept the amendment. The Internet Crimes Against Children program is one of several programs funded under the Missing and Exploited Children activities account. This program helps State and local law enforcement agencies develop an effective response to cyber-enticement and child pornography cases. So I commend the gentlelady and accept it and yield back the balance of my time.