Frank Wolf

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. WOLF. I rise in opposition to the amendment. The cross-agency support account is not free money. It's not a place that you can just--I think they ought to change the name, ``cross- agency support.'' That's like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, it's kind of cheap grace; you can just kind of go someplace and get some money there because it's just a cross-agency support account. Why don't we want to cut this cross-agency support account? Because NASA will not be able to absorb this. They will literally not be able to absorb this. This deals with safety, it deals with security, and the mission's success. Cybersecurity measures defend off relentless attacks by China and others. While NASA is a civil Agency, much of its technology has military applications. But let's get it from the cross-agency support account. What does it mean? It doesn't mean anything. Yes, it does. It is a very important function with regard to NASA. Human space flight safety oversight, it comes partly out of that. We have learned the hard way from the Challenger and the Columbia tragedies that relentless attention to safety is necessary. Cuts to this account will hamstring NASA's efforts to minimize the risk of loss of life and property. But, hey, let's go to the cross- agency support account. It doesn't mean anything because nobody cares. Yet it does; it's validation and mission critical software. Medical support services keep astronauts and ground-crew workers healthy. Many NASA employees work regularly with regard to hazardous issues. Procurement support. This account is a question of a lot of jobs. I can go on and on and on. If you wanted to kind of find it, maybe you should have gone some other place; but to take it out of NASA and to put a spear right at NASA's heart, I think, is a mistake. If you want to be for this--and my father was a Philadelphia policeman, the City of Philadelphia, 21 years--if you want to be for this, fine. I think you should have found another spot. And we would have been trying to work with you once we get to conference because the Senate, what is it, $781 million off? But I'll tell you, if you care about NASA--well, maybe they don't care about NASA. So if you don't care about NASA, I urge strong support for this. If you do care about NASA, I urge you to reject the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. My dad was a policeman in the city of Philadelphia. Actually, you know, with my dad, I couldn't say they were cops because it was a derogatory term. My dad was a policeman, and I loved my father. And when we go to conference, we will attempt to really deal with this. And I think Mr. Fattah and I agree. NASA's not the place to go. I'm very sympathetic. We're given a budget that many of these guys, some guys over on our side want to take the budget down even more. The Republican Study Committee wanted to take it down even more. I mean, will some guys who voted for the Republican Study Committee come down here and be for this? So, listen, I am committed to do everything we can when we go to conference. The allocation was different.

Mr. WOLF. Just let me say, I will do everything we can as we go to conference, depending on how the allocation is, to see what we can really do, because I want to do everything we can.

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

Mr. WOLF. I rise in opposition to the amendment. The bill already includes a $7 million increase for the EEOC, which will allow the agency to continue making progress in addressing its backlog with discrimination complaints. And in a context of a reduced total allocation in which many agencies and accounts in this bill have been level funded or even cut, that $7 million increase is a substantial show of support. Lastly--and I'm not going to go into detail--this again cuts NASA by $26 million. NASA has gradually been cut down and down, in addition to where it takes it from. I would ask for a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I 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 rise in opposition. I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake). He's a good Member and very consistent in trying to cut, but I rise in opposition to this amendment, which would reduce NSF funding by $1.2 billion from the levels provided in the bill. This amendment challenges broad, long-standing, bipartisan agreement on the needs to prioritize Federal investments in basic research, math and science and physics and chemistry and biology in order that America can be number one. This agreement is based on a strong and unambiguous link between investments in research and development and growth and employment and productivity and GDP. This link has been documented repeatedly by expert researchers, economists, and analysts working in administrations and congressional majorities in both parties, as well as private and nonprofit entities. The link is also well-known and understood internationally, where major foreign competitors, including the European Union, China, and South Korea are investing strongly, are investing much higher, at a much higher level than we are, at a much higher level than we are in research, in the hopes of producing or attracting high-value economic activity. We have already lost a good deal of competitive advantage that we previously held over those countries, and if we fail to keep pace with them in research and development, our situation will only worsen. Unfortunately, this amendment would contribute to precisely that scenario by not only eliminating any potential growth in NSF basic research next year, but actually reducing basic research expenditures by nearly $1 billion. As a father of five kids, my wife and I, we have 16 grandkids. I want the 21st century to be the American century and not the Chinese century. I urge strongly, I urge a ``no'' vote for this amendment. 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. The bill that we are considering tonight provides $328 million for legal services, which is a reduction to the fiscal year 2006 level. It is almost $100 million below the FY 2010 level, and we are $74 million below the request by the administration. LSC helps many people. Last year, 2.3 million people were provided assistance in more than 300,000 family law cases, 105,000 domestic violence cases, thousands of veterans benefit cases, 25,000 unemployment cases, and 20,000 foreclosure cases. Those cuts would result in 400,000 fewer people being served nationwide and in 160,000 fewer cases closed. This includes returning veterans who are seeking benefits, and it includes elderly victims of foreclosure. The elderly have been taken advantage of in so many cases. It also includes women who are seeking safety for themselves and for their children from domestic violence. I understand that there are some concerns about LSC-funded programs. Our committee has carried numerous restrictions on political activity by the LSC grantees, to include: lobbying, abortion litigation, class action lawsuits. These restrictions cover both LSC funds, as well as private funds. The administration proposes to eliminate several of these restrictions, but the House bill does not. The committee conducted vigorous oversight over the LSC in March. We heard testimony from a sheep herder who has concerns about the LSC grantee's violating restrictions. We have included language directing LSC to rigorously enforce the restrictions on political activity. Wherever there is any political activity, we are going to shut it down. We are facing an extremely difficult time, and I think many poor people would be hurt. As a result of that, I would ask for a ``no'' vote on the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. I rise in opposition to the amendment, too.

Mr. WOLF. I think the arguments have already been made to the gentleman from Georgia, and the same argument would also hold true here. And let me say one other thing. If any Member has any information with regard to lobbying or any violation of the law, I hope they'll call, because we have made clear that the committee carries numerous restrictions on political activity from LSC grantees, including lobbying abortion litigation and class action lawsuits. And they cover both the LSC funds as well as the private funds. So if anybody has any information on either side, we will hold a public hearing and deal with the issue. But based on this, this zeros it out. So I rise in opposition to the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WOLF. I support the amendment. I urge adoption, and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman for his support for Federal science Agencies and his advocacy for programs like this one, which ensure that taxpayer investment in research and development provides returns to the economy in the forms of jobs, revenue, and export opportunities. I'll be happy to work with the gentleman as the bill continues through the appropriations process to ensure that I-Corps and related efforts receive the appropriate amount of support.

Mr. WOLF. Maybe I don't completely understand the amendment, and it pains me to oppose the amendment from my good friend, but this is basically, from the way that we read it, a notification requirement exists so that the Congress can track significant changes in an Agency's activities over the course of the entire fiscal year. There isn't any reason to believe, unless I misunderstand this--and if I do, I apologize--removing the requirement would result in the administration choosing to contract out government function with any greater frequency or scope. It does, though, guarantee that they will execute any existing plan without any congressional oversight. So, really, regardless of how you feel about the merits of contracting out, we should be able to agree that it's in the best institutional interest for the Congress to know. Basically, it would be like, and I may be wrong, we are giving this authority. We are saying, Eric Holder, you take this and you can do whatever you want to do and do not tell us. And believe me, he would take this and he would not tell us. I write Eric Holder seven letters, and I get back one letter thanking me and he quotes each and every date and never answers the question. Basically, I think you have to have the requirement of a 15-day notification to allow the committee to sort of look at it and see what they were doing. But basically, I think it could be viewed, and perhaps I misunderstand the amendment, turning over much more congressional authority to the executive branch; and since we are on the bill dealing with the Justice Department and I've had some really difficult times with Eric Holder--you think Fast and Furious, we try to get information on so many things--if they didn't have to come up before the committee, I think they would have unfettered rights to do whatever. So based on my understanding of it, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman.

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we have $125 million. We are at the administration's request of $125 million for DNA, $117 million for the DNA backlog. The gentlelady is accurate, it is a very important program. The Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant program provides grants to States and units of local law enforcement and local governments to conduct DNA analysis and backlog. But we're at the administration's request. And what this will do is cut from ATF $34 million. It would require the RIFing of a number of ATF employees; it would impact on the Violent Crime Impact Teams in dozens of cities. The foundation of the Violent Crime Impact Team program is the identification and targeting, disruption, arrests, and prosecution of the worst of the worst criminals possible. We have met the administration's request. We are at $125 million. It is an important program. There will be $117 million for the DNA backlog. So we've met the request. It would devastate the ATF is what it would do.

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

Mr. WOLF. Reclaiming my time, we have fully funded this. This would require a reduction of ATF salaries and expense accounts. A cut of this magnitude would result in the loss of 268 ATF personnel, including 111 agents. That's more than 4 percent of ATF's onboard agent staffing. It would require that each ATF remaining staff be furloughed for 5 days. We're at the amount. It's very important. You have my commitment. We'll fight to make sure that we save the amount. I don't know where the Senate is on this. It's very important. But to go above what the administration asked and to devastate the ATF, I think, would not be a good idea. So I'm committed to the program, but we're at the level; and I don't think we should go higher and devastate the ATF and bring about the number of RIFs and furloughs and reductions, particularly in so many important roles the ATF does.