Frank Wolf

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill (H.R. 4754) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes, and that I may include tabular and other extraneous material.

Mr. WOLF

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we thank the gentleman for his comments. I appreciate our cooperative relationship, particularly since I have known the gentleman since he was a staffer for Mr. Pirnie and I was a staffer for Mr. Biester a long time ago. Absolutely, I can assure the gentleman we will not direct NOAA to make any changes in the structure of its science programs that the gentleman's committee would not approve.

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, my father's badge number was 3990, and we will get the gentleman an answer by Friday if we can.

Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment. My dad was a policeman in the city of Philadelphia over 28 years. We will, one, accept the amendment, and what we will do is try to do more than that. We will try to work with the gentleman and his office and call down to the Justice Department. I will personally place a call to see, I mean, why should we wait until this bill gets signed? Why should we not do something next month, do something in September, do something quickly? So, one, we will accept the amendment, so it is accepted; but, two, we will make a call and work with the gentleman's office, if he can work with our staff, and we will try to see if we can make a call by the end of this week so he will get some sense of relief.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, let me tell the gentleman from Delaware that if we can do it, we will do it. We will work with him as we move through the process, but stay in touch as we get ready to go to conference. I thank the gentleman for raising it, as well as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson). I think all three gentleman are right on target, and it is a good idea.

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, that is my understanding. The Census Bureau has informed the committee that the survey can be fielded successfully in 2005 without including people living in group quarters. I would also say to the gentlewoman that there is an amendment to this bill by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) coming up later on today, which will cut $106 million out of Census. With a cut of $106 million out of Census, Katie bar the door. Census will not be able to do the job. So I appreciate the gentlewoman's raising this. Her questions are exactly right, but with the adoption of the Weiner amendment, everything we are saying would be wiped out.

Mr. WOLF. If the gentlewoman will yield once more, that is correct. The Census Bureau and the Department of Commerce have informed us that the American Community Survey can be fielded successfully with the funds allocated in the bill. That is correct.

Mr. WOLF. I certainly will allow the colloquy.

Mr. WOLF

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. The amendment imposes additional duties.'' So I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. At this point I just want to say that my mom died of cancer, my father died of cancer, and I would have done anything to help them, and OxyContin can make a big difference. But there has been a lot of abuse. There have been a lot of doctors that have been doctor factories that are just prescribing this. There were some in my area, and I have seen families that have been devastated in southwest Virginia. I understand what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is saying, but in southwest Virginia, in the rural areas down in Lee County, there is probably not a family that has not been impacted by the abuse of prescriptions. So it is a balance. I understand the gentleman, being a doctor, how he feels, but there are cases where there is tremendous abuse. That is why I think we have to keep monitoring this.

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver). (Mr. OLVER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I am ready to yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and the Census; but the account that the gentleman cut with the decennial census does have personnel in it. So he does cut 1,000 jobs, boom, they are gone; and so whether the gentleman is not Xing the counts, he does cut personnel with the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), the chairman of the subcommittee that has jurisdiction over the census.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the reduction in the amendment would debilitate the 2010 census, and the census department said it will be the worst census ever in the history of our Nation. Once the cuts are made, there will be no opportunity to restart the program. They said the impact of the cuts, human costs in the loss of more than 1,000 Federal jobs at the U.S. Census Bureau. There is no catching up. The cut wastes the $500 million already spent and adds another $1 billion to the cost for the year 2010 for the census. It would cut the Census Bureau by $106 million, resulting in, as I said, the loss of thousands of jobs. The bill is already $55 million below the request of the administration. The census is a constitutional responsibility, collected every 10 years to apportion the seats of the House of Representatives. The census is one of America's oldest and most enduring traditions. The first census was collected in 1790. The results were delivered to George Washington during his first term. The United States is a rapidly changing and growing country. The population has grown by 10 million people since 2000, 10 million since 2000. By 2010, there will be more than 300 million Americans living in America, so we need to keep up and monitor and know about that population. This population will need more homes, stores, hospitals, roads, new schools, and the information is needed to make good decisions. Most of the data used by State and local governments and the Federal Government have come from the Census Bureau. Further, the Census Bureau collects mostly all of the Nation's economic data. Gross domestic product is delivered in part by the data of the Census Bureau. In spite of the unprecedented success of 2000, the General Accounting Office, an arm of the Congress, concluded that Census 2000 was conducted at a high cost and great risk and recommended extensive and early planning for the testing. The funding provided in this bill for the Census Bureau is already scaled back from what the Census Bureau requested to fully fund the planning and testing for the 2010 census and the American Community Survey. A current Congresswoman informed me earlier today, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), who was here today expressing concern that we were even a little bit lower than what the Census Bureau thought was appropriate. Should there be any additional cuts to the Bureau, there will be both a long- and short-form census that will cost the government upwards of $15 billion. The budget requests for the Bureau of the Census has already been reduced by $55 million. Further reduction would be irresponsible, as it would endanger our ability to carry out this critical constitutional responsibility. Regarding the proposed increase to COPS, this bill already significantly improves the President's proposals for State and local law enforcement accounts by providing $886 million above the request. This includes providing an increase of $251 million above the request for programs funded in COPS heading, such as $130 million above the request for law enforcement technologies, $40 million above the request for Meth Hot Spots. Other important State and local law enforcement programs funded above the request include the Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grants programs, funded at $125 million above the request, SCAAP funding at $325 million above the request. In fact, that was zeroed out. Juvenile Justice programs are funded at $105 million above the request. A further increase above the request is not a high priority, particularly if one were taking it from the Census Bureau, which would pretty much decimate that. So I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on the Weiner amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. No, we are not.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the debate on this amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 40 minutes to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the opponent, except that the chairman and the ranking minority member may each offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of debate.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. In conference last year, the subcommittee worked with the Senate to make NOAA appropriations a priority, with a 15.6 percent increase over fiscal year 2003 levels. The proposed fiscal year 2005 level, I believe, returns NOAA funding to historic levels and allows the subcommittee to restore necessary funding to certain Department of Justice programs, FBI, and also the MEP program that we did for Commerce that were not adequately addressed; also the COPS program, local law enforcement programs in the President's request. I understand the significance of the coming year, and I saw the ocean reports that came out. I look forward to working with the gentleman who is really a leader on these issues to ensure that every effort is made to maximize funding support for these purposes in this and coming fiscal years.

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