Frank Wolf

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. I reserved the point of order.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), a member of the committee.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman).

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. I rise in opposition to the amendment. There has been a lot of talk about the Fraternal Order of Police and how we support our police. Here is a letter from the Grand Lodge Fraternal Order of Police, Chuck Canterbury, National President, saying, referring to the Hinchey amendment: Such an amendment threatens to cause a significant disruptive effect on the combined efforts of State and local law enforcement to reduce drug crime in every region of the country. On behalf of the more than 324,000 members of the Fraternal Order of Police, we urge its defeat. We talked a lot about the police and how we want to do this to support them. I think we should support the police here. I urge a strong ``no'' vote on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very, very, very, very strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. The COPS Program is already $468 million over the request, $57 million over last year. The amendment proposes reductions to NASA that are devastating. If you are opposed to the space program or you do not like the space program or you do not want America to be number one, you ought to support this amendment. But if you want America to have a strong space program, you ought to strongly defeat this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney).

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, if I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida, then if I strike the requisite number of words, I can get 5 minutes, correct?

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, let me say that I strongly urge defeat of the amendment. China is using their space program for military reasons. They now have laser beams. For the members of the committee that came to the subcommittee briefing, the closed briefing, you saw where they are. It is frightening. China has 200,000 engineers working on the space program, and we have 75,000. If the Weiner amendment passed, the nmber of U.S. engineers would drop. America, under the Weiner amendment, would no longer be number one. That would be dangerous to our country and absolutely wrong. So I strongly, strongly urge the defeat of this amendment, which I think would almost guarantee, if it passed and stayed in the law, the loss of American leadership in space.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, and let me read a letter from our Secretary of State, Secretary Rice. She says, ``I write in strong support of our contribution to the U.N. Capital Master Plan.'' That is what we are talking about, CMP. ``The U.N. facilities pose a number of serious safety and security concerns for the American and foreign staffs, diplomats, and visitors.'' Many of these are American citizens. ``In particular, the U.N. facilities do not,'' do not, ``meet fire and life-safety building codes or modern security requirements. We support the renovation of the facilities to address these deficiencies. ``The Department remains strongly committed to ensuring transparency and effective oversight of the project. We have worked closely with U.N. Under Secretary General Chris Burnham,'' who is an American, ``to take steps to strengthen internal controls of the CMP. In particular, Under Secretary General Burnham, with our support, has set up a U.N. CMP Project Office as an independent office reporting to him. The U.N. CMP Project Office has allowed access to project documents and review of ongoing work. And, the CMP Project Office has used a value engineering process and third-party contractor reviews of design documents to improve cost and quality control. ``We realize this will be an ongoing effort and are committed to close U.S. Government monitoring of the project's implementation throughout its life span. I urge full funding for this important renovation project.'' What if there were a fire at the U.N.? What if something happened and we were to deny this money? I have been as critical of the U.N. as anybody for their failure to deal with the issue of Darfur and things like this. They stood by and allowed Srebeniza to take place. They stood by and allowed Rwanda. But I am not going to stand by and allow the building to crumble and not have safety conditions in the building. So I ask you, before you vote on this, take a minute to look at the letter of the Secretary of State. The administration is not for the Stearns amendment. It is a safety issue not only for American citizens but also the foreigners at work in the building. But also American visitors. If you go to the U.N., there are many tourists that go through the building. So I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment; and again I urge you, if you have any doubts, come over and read the letter from Secretary Rice. It is a safety issue. I urge defeat of the Stearns amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman. I completely agree with what he said. I appreciate his efforts to combat violent crime, and I am happy to do everything I can to work with the gentleman and the ATF to address the crime in New Jersey. Quite frankly, there ought to be an office in New Jersey. I thank the gentleman, and will try to help. Amendment Offered by Mrs. Jones of Ohio

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

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

Mr. WOLF. Does that mean you withdraw the amendment?

Mr. WOLF. In 2003, the National Academy of Public Administration, NAPA, completed a study recommending the creation of the EEOC National Contact Center. So NAPA, a nonpartisan, bipartisan group, has recommended that the call centers, which the gentlewoman wants to shut down, be established. Following a 6-month startup period, the National Contact Center handled 402,383 inquiries in a 12-month period in addition to the 118,322 hits on frequently asked questions. The National Contact Center staff handled 302,622 of these inquiries, resolving 70 percent without further involvement of EEOC field staff. Also, it has been said, if you shut these call centers down, the technology that EEOC would have to have would cost anywhere from $10 to $12 million. Currently, the volume of inquiries coming into the National Contact Center is increasing as field offices have begun to route their calls through the contact center. By handling these inquiries, the National Contact Center has not caused any further staff reductions but rather has freed up EEOC employees to devote more time to the critical functions of mediating, investigating and litigating charges. I do agree it has to be monitored, but to that, I believe the staff and Mr. Mollohan's staff have worked together to provide oversight in this regard. The report accompanying the bill includes language to require the commission to implement the recommendations of the Inspector General. We are working to ensure a better EEOC National Contact Center, but prohibiting the funds for the center would increase the workload on the EEOC front line, detract from the people that are helping. So I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.