Frank Wolf

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. WOLF. I share the gentleman's concerns about NASA's high quality workforce, and I expect NASA to develop and move forward with a long- term strategy to replenish the skills of its aging workforce while also maintaining key institutional memory. I urge NASA to address and correct any imbalances through an aggressive campaign of retraining, work transfer across centers, judicious buyouts and carefully managed recruitment, all with a minimum of disruption to the workforce. The people really have to be treated fairly, fair in the sense that everyone will say it is fair. I expect that NASA will respect the moratorium on reductions in force in the 2005 NASA Reauthorization Act and will not engage in any reduction in force until they have met the workforce planning requirements in that act and provide it sufficient time for congressional oversight. So I would be happy to continue to work with the gentlemen on these issues as the gentleman moves forward in conference.

Mr. WOLF. I reserve a point of order.

Mr. WOLF. That is what I was led to believe. I still reserve the point of order.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I am inclined to accept the amendment, but before doing so, I yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we accept the amendment.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I will certainly accept it, and I think the gentleman makes a very powerful case. I had an amendment several years ago which was defeated on this floor which would have set up a national commission to really go in and look at the conditions on the reservations. I used to work for former Congressman Jon Kyl, the father of now Senator Jon Kyl, who had really a great burden for many of the Indians, particularly in that area in Arizona. And it is a disgrace. And I really believe, not to make this too controversial, but I think this whole issue of gambling on reservations has almost made people say, well, now, they can have a gambling casino, so we are not going to put any money in. Many of these reservations are in areas that are very difficult to access, very difficult to get there. Some are in very barren areas, and others are in very cold areas, so people aren't going to go there. So listening to the gentleman, at an appropriate time, I think maybe next year, I am going to offer this thing again. I think it got tied up in the whole gambling issue, which I think is corrupting this Nation, and unfortunately, this Congress and this administration have been too silent on the issue. But the gentleman makes a very powerful case. So what I think I may do when we come up next year at the appropriate time is offer an amendment to set up a commission that doesn't get involved with the gambling issues but looks at crime. I read the New York Times series about 2 or 3 months ago, back in February, about some of the reservations where organized crime was coming in and the meth problem. And I want to see if we can put together some bold new way to really help the first Americans, the Native Americans. So I accept the amendment. We will work hard to keep it in conference, too, not just to kind of get out of your hair, to accept it, but to really kind of keep it. And I think listening to you sensitizes me to next year offer this amendment to create this Blue Ribbon Panel of people who really care about the conditions on reservations and see what we can do to really make it concrete. But I do accept the amendment.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be read.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, you are hearing history tonight. A member of the House Appropriations Committee is offering an amendment to repeal, overturn, a Supreme Court decision. I think that is unbelievable. At first, when I asked what the Hinchey amendment was, then I said, the Hudson case, was that the case 2 weeks ago on June 15? And they said it is. The gentleman's amendment would overrule a Supreme Court decision through a funding limitation on an appropriations bill. If this ever passed, I think it would be just horrible. This is not an appropriate way. There is much more I can say. I will just end, the Justice Department sent a letter up here, and we will submit it for the record, that says, ``The department also believes that it is inappropriate to hamstring law enforcement efforts that are permissible under the Constitution. If the Constitution does not require the application of the exclusionary rule to knock and announce searches that are subsequently deemed by a judge to have been conducted in an unreasonable manner, then Congress ought not force Federal law enforcement agents to play by rules not constitutionally required, especially when there is no way procedurally to comply with the amendment.'' We ought not on the floor of the House at 10 minutes before 10 overrule Supreme Court decisions, no matter what you think of the decision. I don't think this is the way to go. If the gentleman wants to offer a constitutional amendment, go through the Judiciary Committee. But with 5 minutes on this side, 5 minutes on that side, 10 minutes, to overrule the Supreme Court of the United States I think would be a mistake. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, it is not appropriate, no matter what the gentleman from New York thinks, for a House Appropriations Committee to take this action tonight. I think it is wrong and therefore urge a defeat of the Hinchey amendment.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 5672, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I recognize Mr. Kirk, a member of the committee, for 2 minutes.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), chairman of the Science Committee. (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 11 minutes. (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to begin consideration of H.R. 5672, making appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for Science, the Departments of State, Justice, Commerce, and related agencies. This bill provides a funding for programs whose impact ranges from the safety of people in their homes and communities to the conduct of diplomacy around the world and to the farthest reaches of space exploration. The bill before the House today reflects the delicate balancing of needs and requirements. We have drafted what I consider a responsible bill for fiscal year 2007 spending levels for the Departments and agencies under the subcommittee's jurisdiction. We have carefully prioritized the funding in the bill and made hard choices about how to spend the scarce resources. We have been very fair. We, the entire Committee, have been very fair with each and every Member that has approached the subcommittee as we went through this entire process. I want to thank Chairman Lewis for supporting us with what I believe is a fair allocation and helping us to move the bill forward. I also want to thank the ranking member, Mr. Mollohan, who has been a very effective and valued partner and colleague on the bill. I appreciate his principled commitment and understanding of the programs in the bill. I also want to thank members of the subcommittee for their help and assistance: Charles Taylor, Mark Kirk, Dave Weldon, Tom DeLay, Virgil Goode, John Culberson, Rodney Alexander, Jose Serrano, Bud Cramer, Patrick Kennedy, Chaka Fattah, and also Mr. Obey, the ranking member of the full committee. I truly appreciate the professionalism and cooperation of the minority staff. In particular, I want to thank David Pomerantz, Michelle Burkett, Sally Moorhead, Julie Aaronson and Rob Nabors from the Democratic staff, who have been an enormous help during all the long hours spent putting this bill together. I also, Mr. Chairman, want to thank the members of the subcommittee staff on both sides for their long hours to produce the fiscal year 2007 Science, State, Justice, Commerce bill. I would like to particularly thank Mike Ringler, the clerk of the subcommittee, who has done an outstanding job and really spent hours and hours away from his family, as have the others, and who has led the subcommittee through the House appropriations process. I also want to thank publicly and personally Christine Kojac, John Martens, Anne Marie Goldsmith, Clelia Alvarado, and Darryl Hill for their tireless efforts. Their work is very much appreciated. Only a handful of us know how much time and effort they have put in, but I want to thank them. And the record ought to show, frankly, when history looks back, who gets credit for a lot of what has taken place. In my personal office, I would like to thank Dan Scandling, Janet Shaffron, J.T. Griffin, Samantha Stockman, and Courtney Schlieter for their efforts in working with the subcommittee; and from the minority, if I left out anybody, I mentioned, I think, Dave Pomerantz, Michelle Burkett, and Julie Aaronson, but also Rob Nabors for their efforts with regard to this. We have worked in a bipartisan manner. And that is just not rhetoric for the Congressional Record, but it has truly been a bipartisan effort in putting the bill together. And as a former staff member up here on Capitol Hill, I personally want to thank each and every one of them. They have really done an outstanding job. The bill contains $59.8 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 allocations. We have had to make some difficult choices and focus limited resources on programs that are most critical to the Nation. Program increases are focused on the most critical areas, including science and competitiveness, counterterrorism, and law enforcement. For the Department of Justice, the bill includes $22.1 billion, $1 billion above the request. The bill includes a total of $2.57 billion for proven State and local law enforcement crime-fighting programs to keep our communities safe. We have restored, and I stress the word ``restored,'' $1.1 billion above the request to the highest priority programs, including SCAAP, justice assistance grants, and juvenile justice programs, all which the Administration proposed to eliminate or dramatically reduce. That is $1.1 billion with a ``B.'' The bill also includes important new investments to fight the national epidemic of methamphetamine abuse; $367 million for justice assistance grants to support local drug task forces, a $50 million increase; $99 million in grants to combat meth, a $36 million increase; and $40 million for drug courts, a $30 million increase, which is a 300 percent increase in drug courts; and a $15 million increase for DEA to support State and local efforts to fight international trafficking. Gangs pose one of the greatest threats to the safety and security of all Americans. Today, gangs are more violent, more organized, and more widespread than ever before. This bill focuses funding on fighting gangs and gang violence. We have increased the FBI and the ATF antigang programs, and restored funding to the gang resistance training program. In addition, we have supported a $40 million gang program following the Project Safe Neighborhoods model that would allow each U.S. Attorney's Office to finance antigang strategies in cooperation with State and local law enforcement. The bill also includes $6.04 billion for the FBI to include counterterrorism and counterintelligence capabilities, while continuing to fight crimes such as child exploitation, human trafficking, and gang violence. Again, programs we have increased far over the administration level. I would also like to highlight that the bill continues funding for the eight faith-based rehabilitation programs in the Federal prison system and recognizes the success that faith-based programs have had in reducing recidivism. Before I got elected to Congress I was involved in a prison program. You must give these men and women hope and an opportunity. So, I think this is a very important program at all the State, local, and Federal levels. Statistically, two out of every three inmates are likely to re-offend and end up back in prison, often with only days or months in their release. Therefore, it is critical we promote programs that help break this cycle, thereby improving the safety and the security of our communities. In light of the success the values-based programs have had in this regard, I encourage the Bureau of Prisons and state departments of correction to continue alternative treatment programming that emphasizes the teaching of positive social values and reform character. It is immoral just to warehouse people and not give them any rehabilitation, faith-based programs, mental health or other programs. I have long been a supporter of these value-based types of programs and think they should be continued in Federal and State prisons. I hope that Congress will work to protect these programs. If you take these programs away, faith-based, mental health, what type of society will we have? In Science, the other focus in the bill this year is science and competitiveness. The capacity to innovate is the primary engine of our economy and our way of life. In order to sustain it, we must increase our investment in basic scientific research and strengthen science education. For this reason, the bill fully funds the President's American Competitiveness Initiative, which includes a recommitment to doubling the funding for basic science research over 10 years. We have dramatically increased the NSF and NIST. For NASA, the bill includes $16.7 billion. I want to thank NASA and NIST chairman Sherwood Boehlert and Vern Ehlers, who really played a major role in this, and Mr. Mollohan. In NASA, the bill restores $100 million of the cut proposed to the aeronautic research and responds to the lower than anticipated increases for space science programs. The space shuttle is set to launch on Saturday, and the bill before you includes full funding for the shuttle program to support the completion of the International Space Station and continuation of the shuttle safety improvements. In Commerce, we have dealt with critical functions of the National Weather Service and NOAA's weather and climate forecasting. We have also included a 5.2 percent increase for the PTO and an increase of $72 million. For the State Department, and the broadcasting Board of governors, a recommendation of $9.66 billion within this Federal, $1.7 billion to provide full funding request for worldwide security and improvements. We have included the requested funds for international peacekeeping to pay the assessed costs for missions in Sudan, Haiti and elsewhere. We have included language to require notification to the Committee that prevention and prosecution measures are taken to ensure zero tolerance in sexual abuse in peacekeeping. We also added language supporting the maintenance of a flat U.N. budget. On the Small Business Administration, we have provided $90 million for small business development grants, a $2 million increase; also allows up to $17.5 billion in general 7(a) business loans, an unprecedented level, while requiring no appropriation. In closing, a summary of the bill provides the increase necessary to maintain strength in critical law enforcement, fight terrorism, deal with drugs. I again want to thank the staff and thank the committee. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN06.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN06.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN06.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN06.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN06.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN06.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN06.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN06.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN06.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN06.010 Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to Mr. Lewis, the chairman of the full Committee.

Mr. WOLF

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The 7(a) program has been operating at record levels without subsidy appropriations since the beginning of 2005. If this amendment passes, do not ever go home and say that you are going to balance the budget. Just forget it. This is the ``forget to balance the budget and get control of the budget'' amendment. We have had record loans with no 7(a) fees, and now we want to do this. The SBA administrator continues to assure us that the program is running strong. I have a letter from them confirming the success at redesigning the 7(a) program so it does not require a subsidy. No good deed goes unpunished. It does not require a subsidy, and we are going to spend all these millions of dollars? How would you ever explain it? How would you say we have got record numbers, but we are going to subsidize it? Forget it. We would never, ever, ever, ever solve the deficit of this Nation. The new model has brought down the stability of the lending community and borrowers. This is a ``bail-out the banks'' amendment. Bail out the banks. Only the bankers care about this, a small portion of the bankers, and I do not know if the bankers are writing us about the deficit either. Demand has skyrocketed. Since lending levels are no longer tied to an appropriation, the program has been able to meet the demand. That, by not being tied, has been able to meet the demand. This is a good government success story. There is much more that I could say. It goes on and on and on, but I just urge Members, do not pass this amendment. This is the ``how do you spend $100 million without needing to spend it,'' and I guess the question is if we really care about the future generations of our children and our grandchildren. We will never get control of it. I mean, I cannot even believe we are out here doing this. If this were the Violence Against Women or some of the programs that are here that your heart goes out to but you do not have the money, but there is no need for it and they are at record numbers. I urge a ``no'' vote against this amendment. U.S. Small Business Administration, Washington, DC, June 27, 2006. Hon. Frank Wolf, Chairman, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I want to thank you again for your support of America's small businesses. I would also like to take this opportunity to reiterate the Administration's strong support for a zero subsidy rate for the U.S. Small Business Administration's (SBA) 7(a) loan program. In what will certainly be another tight appropriations cycle, a zero subsidy rate for 7(a) will save the taxpayers approximately $170 million, while at the same time providing unprecedented stability to the program. In the past, some have expressed unrealized concerns that zero subsidy would stifle the 7(a) loan program because of a very slight fee increase required. As you can see from the enclosed explanation and charts, 7(a) lending has increased significantly while taxpayer dollars have been saved. Further, current 7(a) fees--previously a source of significant industry concern--are in line with historical rates. Like other costs in business, these fees fluctuate based on market conditions. In fiscal year (FY) 2007 there will need to be a slight fee change of .5 basis points. This equates to approximately $2.80 per month on an average loan size of $160,000. It is also important to note that zero subsidy is not only good for the taxpayer but for the stability of the program, the most crucial aspect of the program according to borrowers and lenders. (Zero subsidy began in FY 2001.). As you know, in January 2004 the SBA was forced to temporarily close the 7(a) program because it had exhausted its funding under the Continuing Resolution. Once the program was restarted, and after Congress passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY 2004, the SBA was forced to manage the program through restrictive loan caps because demand continued to outpace the program's funding level. Regardless of the amount Congress appropriates for 7(a) in any given fiscal year, there will be the chance that demand could exceed that level, forcing either another shutdown or caps on loan amounts. By eliminating the need for an appropriation, potential program ``shortfalls'' may be avoided. Program levels in the form of authorization limits would still apply, of course. It should also be noted that SBA's other major loan programs, Section 504 Guarantee Program and Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) Guarantee Program., have functioned at zero subsidy for several years. This provides our lending partners with what they want most from our loan programs-- consistency and continuity. Mr. Chairman, zero subsidy for the 7(a) program is a simple, common-sense approach that has brought the program in line with our other major financial programs. Zero subsidy is still the best policy for the long-term stability and growth of the 7(a) loan program. We have been able to maintain record lending during the past few years under zero subsidy. Lending has not been hampered by appropriations shortfalls, such as those that occurred in 2003 and 2004. For these reasons the Administration urges you to continue the successful zero subsidy policy in the FY 2007 Appropriations bill. Sincerely, Hector V. Barreto, Administrator. Zero Subsidy--The Best Policy Zero subsidy is still the best policy for the long term stability and growth of the Small Business Administration's various loan programs. The SBA has been able to maintain record lending during the past few years under the zero subsidy policy. The benefits of zero subsidy also results in a funding structure that adds stability and independence while ensuring that the lending process is not hampered by appropriations shortfalls such as those which occurred in 2003 and 2004. In FY 2005, the SBA served more small businesses than ever before. In SBA's two major loan programs, they increased the numbers of loans funded by 22% in one year. These record level lending numbers are possible because of the zero subsidy policy that was adopted at the beginning of FY 2005. The SBA guaranteed a record number of loans last year, with double digit increases in the percentage of loans to women, Hispanics, African Americans and Asian Americans. Maintaining zero subsidy wi1l allow the SBA to build on the success they've had in these important loan programs, and will provide more businesses with the capital needed to start up and expand. Moving to zero subsidy allowed the Agency to continue to meet the financing demands of small businesses without the need for taxpayer subsidy. In today's tough budget environment, SBA has proven their ability to provide more loans to small businesses and entrepreneurs while reducing the burden on taxpayers.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), chairman of the Small Business Committee, who has convinced me of the merits of this.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I accept the amendment. The committee, working with Mr. Mollohan, has tried to increase this as much as possible. I would urge any Member that has not been out to the Center for Missing and Exploited Children in Alexandria, that they ought to go. As a father of 11 grandchildren, I commend both of you and thank you very much and think we should accept the amendment.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that both sides give the opposition the same time so that the gentleman from Indiana and the gentleman from Minnesota and others have equal time.

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