Frank Wolf

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. I do, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. WOLF. Well, I won't repeat myself. The amendment proposes to move $1 million from Justice General Administration in order to restore funding eliminated from the budget request for the Missing Alzheimer's program. It is a very important and very needed program. Mr. Chairman, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time on this side. I know my colleague has a group who want to speak.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment again, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I want to salute the gentleman. He made some very important points. But we have had to make some difficult decisions putting this bill together. The bill already includes $314 million for the Legal Services Corporation. This used to be politicized. It has not been politicized. It is an increase of $3 million above the President's request. That means we cut $3 million from some other part of the bill to increase funding for the Legal Services Corporation. There are a number of areas in the bill that we would increase funding for if we didn't have to restore $1.1 billion for State and local law enforcement. Unlike the Legal Services, which is funded above the request, we have already cut from the request of State Department's Diplomatic and Consular Affairs operations account by $147 million. Our bill provides a modest increase of $77 million or 2.1 percent to cover pay and inflationary costs for the Department. The only increases that the funding supports are new positions for critical posts around the world to support our national interests in emerging nations like India, China, Egypt and Indonesia. In addition, we have supported an increase for the Office of Stabilization and Reconstruction and for new critical language training positions. We are in a global war on terror. This amendment cuts into already reduced amounts to support the diplomatic side of this effort. North Korea has just threatened to test a nuclear weapon. Iran continues its efforts to develop a nuclear program. Further, this amendment would cut $5 million from the Department of Justice administration account. The bill already reduces that request for general administration by $25 million or 22 percent below the request. The Acting Assistant Attorney General for Administration has written us to inform us that, at the current level of funding in the bill, 58 positions will be eliminated at the Department of Justice headquarters. Additional cuts will hinder the Department's abilities to effectively manage more than $20 billion in appropriations, operate hundreds of DOJ facilities, manage 100,000 employees and coordinate public policy. We have done the best we can. We have also got the Manufacturing Extension Program up. We have increased drug courts by 300 percent. So a bill that treats the diverse accounts within our jurisdiction, I think, has been done as fairly as we can. Therefore, I urge the rejection of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, there is a lot I want to say. I don't know if I can say it in that much time. The gentleman's amendment would increase Justice Assistance grants by $25 million, reduce Justice General Administration by $10 million, and NOAA by 15. I understand and I appreciate the gentleman's passion for law enforcement. These programs have helped a lot. The bill already includes a $50 million increase for JAG, and an increase of $1.1 billion for local law enforcement above the request. Sometimes it doesn't matter, but it is above the request. And the gentleman's offsets would create some difficulties at Justice and NOAA. But the gentleman has worked. I think he has made a good point in crafting the amendment. I know he and others would actually prefer higher amendments. There were other amendments rolling around here in the 40 to $50 million range. Somehow, this Congress is going to have to deal with the issues of all of the spending that is coming on and how do we get control. Now, there will be others to come up, some that are actually good amendments, because they really help people. But we are going to devastate other programs. And it is sort of like Dietrich Bonhoffer with Cheap Grace. You can go into some general administration area that nobody understands or knows anything about, and then there will be no money for general administrations. I have introduced a bill, I sent out a Dear Colleague letter asking people to cosponsor a national commission based on the base closing commission with everything on the table to deal with these issues, because it is fundamentally immoral for one generation to live on the next generation and our children and our grandchildren and the whole spending issue. I share what the gentleman from West Virginia said, on some of these amendment passes, and then there is no money for administration, no money for this, and no money for that. But there is probably not a more sincere individual on this issue, probably because of his work. And my father was a policeman in the city of Philadelphia. I understand these issues, and we want to give our law enforcement the resources, particularly with crime growing up. So I have no objection to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. WOLF. If the gentleman would yield, it is a good amendment. We accept the amendment. I think we took it last year too, if I recall. And I thank the gentleman for offering it. And on this side we strongly accept it.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. The gentlewoman's amendment would increase funding for grants to prevent violence against women by $10 million by decreasing funds for the Justice Department's General Administration by $5 million and the Census Bureau by $5 million. I understand and appreciate the gentlewoman's passion for her efforts to prevent violence against women. The bill already, though, includes a $9 million increase for these programs, but we recognize that an increased investment is important. I just wanted to say, for the record, although it will be difficult for the Census Bureau, this offset will neither impact the ramp up of the 2010 decennial census nor the American Community Survey. With that understanding, I have no objection to the amendment.

Mr. WOLF. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, our Members should know that this cuts the Justice Department litigating division by $40 million. The bill already cuts this account by $16 million below the level requested. This account that they are cutting funds critical justice litigating activities such as the criminal division. Wow, this is good news for the criminals, because they will not be litigated; we are going to cut the funding. To combat gangs. Gangs are spreading. MS-13 are spreading around the Nation. But we cut it. Prosecute intellectual property rights crimes. Wow. Are you going to cut Katrina fraud cases. No way. The civil rights division prosecution of human traffickers. Women and children are being trafficked. Justice prosecutes, but we are going to cut the money so they cannot do it. For all of you who care about the environment, the environmental and natural resources division prosecution of organizations that violate our environmental laws go away. The tax division prosecution of tax fraud, impacted. This account also funds the U.S. dues for Interpol. We are in a global war on terror. We need to work with Interpol. So we cut them. The Name Checks that the gentleman is concerned about are funded through a fee. There is a backlog in the Name Checks Program because the fees the FBI charges are not sufficient to adequately cover the cost of the program. In the fiscal year 2006 report, we directed the FBI to review this fee structure and submit a report to the Committee. The fee review is ongoing and a report is estimated to be submitted in August. In addition to this year's bill, we also include additional report language in this bill directing the FBI to work with the agencies that request these background checks to ensure that sufficient resources are made available to eliminate the backlog. The gentleman is on the authorizing committee that oversees the FBI and immigration issues. If he wants to address the issue, he would go to the Judiciary Committee that he serves on, introduce a bill, try to convince Mr. Sensenbrenner to deal with it. This amendment also would cut 200 employees; we just added Justice Assistance grants here not too long ago, because we are concerned about crime. This would cut more than 200 employees working to combat crime such as organized crime, gangs, human traffickers, Katrina fraud, and environmental crimes in order to fund the FBI Name Checks that are fee- funded. This would be a blow to the Justice Department litigating capacity. If you wanted to say do not prosecute organized crime, do not worry about the environmental convictions you have to go after, do not worry about the tax frauds, how will you do it then? You cannot say you are going to go after them and take their money away. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge a ``no'' vote for this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, where do they get this money from? $5.9 million would be provided to cover the cost for blast mitigation in windows at the Department of Commerce. So you are basically saying to the Department of Commerce, we don't care if there is a blast here; you can't get your blast windows. You can't get your windows, so you can give a subsidy to the banks that will give no additional loans. Also, this will result in RIFs at the Small Business Administration. So if you don't want loans to go to the small businesses, support this amendment, because there will be RIFs and they won't be able to make the loans. Zero subsidy means more loans. Loans are up almost 20 percent from 2005 over 2004. I think the people at the Department of Commerce have every right to have the same protection that the people in this building have. They are not second-class citizens. They are covered by this bill. They need blast protection windows. Also it is not right to RIF the employees at the SBA to give a subsidy to bankers who don't need the subsidy. Lastly, don't ever give another deficit reduction speech if you vote for this amendment. Don't ever, ever give it, because the loans are up with it; and actually the adoption of this may very well reduce the loans. So I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I close by saying let us do what we did in the Gingrich-Mitchell thing. The U.N. has made a lot of mistakes. John Bolten is no wallflower. I support what John Bolten is trying to do up there, and I don't think we should complicate the administration's life by doing this. I yield to the gentleman if he would like to say something.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman stated that this bill was below the Administration's request. We are above the Administration's request for prisons. We are not below. Secondly, our Subcommittee last year put together what they called a Gingrich-Mitchell Commission, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and former Minority Leader Mitchell, to look at the U.N. reform, and they have come up with a good package, and they are working on this issue. The State Department opposes this amendment. John Bolten up at the State Department says, and I quote, ``We must determine whether the U.N. Human Rights Council will be a body that the world will respect and take seriously.'' Its status is no longer characteristic of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. That said, the United States will work cooperatively with other member states to make the Council as strong and effective as it can be. We will be supportive of efforts to strengthen the Council and look forward to a serious review of the Council structure and work. I have been as critical as anybody else, and I will stipulate perhaps more than anybody else, on the whole issue of the Human Rights Commission with regard to China, with regard to Sudan and with regard to these others, but this would complicate the Administration's efforts. The Secretary of State, Secretary Rice, is opposed to this. The State Department is opposed to this. The Administration is opposed to this. Change it by dealing with it through the Gingrich-Mitchell Task Force and put pressure on them, but do not complicate the life of John Bolten and Secretary Rice up there. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).

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

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I do. I make a point of order.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment, that it is in violation of section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The Committee on Appropriations filed a suballocation of the budget for fiscal year 2007 on June 6, 2006, House Report 109-488. The adoption of this amendment would cause the subcommittee's suballocation for budget authority made under section 302(b) to be exceeded and is not permitted under section 302(f) of the act. I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I accept the amendment on this side.

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