Frank Wolf

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I submit the following statement of comparative budget authority. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH07JY04.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH07JY04.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH07JY04.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH07JY04.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH07JY04.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH07JY04.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH07JY04.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH07JY04.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH07JY04.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH07JY04.010

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments, too; and I appreciate it very much. I rise in strong opposition. Let me just say that I think the intention of the amendment is a good intention, so I want to thank them for their comments. But the amendment really does not work, and I know it has been dramatically changed, it really does not work what it was supposed to do. If it were passed, the SBA would not be able to use the money for the 7(a) loans because it puts it into an administrative account and not into 7(a). So it just does not do what people would like it to do. The amendment would augment the administrative appropriation for the business loan account. Because subsidy and administrative loans must be separately appropriated pursuant to the Federal Credit Reform Act, the Manzullo-Velazquez funds could not be used. It would also violate OMB guidelines. We have followed the President's request for the 7(a) program. This program can provide for $12.5 billion in loans, an unprecedented level, without the appropriation. The Small Business Administration is very, very strongly opposed to this. But the programs that this would go after; this would take money out of the National Endowment for Democracy and out of the initiative with regard to the Middle East. It would scuttle that program. As my colleagues will recall, the original request for that was $80 million. That has now been reduced in this bill to $50 million. This would take that money out. The President's Greater Middle East Initiative would basically be eliminated with this amendment. I would remind the sponsors that during the President's State of the Union message, he told the Nation and the world that he would double the funding for the National Endowment for Democracy. The National Endowment for Democracy was established by Congress during the Reagan administration and probably has done more to bring about democracy and freedom in the world than almost anything else that we have done. Last year the NED budget totaled $39.6 million. The President called for doubling the NED budget; and with this bill, it calls for a $10 million increase, and we would now take that away. It would also deal with the whole issue of an administrative account at the Justice Department. The amendment proposes to reduce the Department of Justice General Administrative Account by $27 million. The bill already reduces this account by $62 million below the request. It would have an impact on counterterrorism, and some might say it could have a devastating impact on the war on terrorism. The only increase provided for above the fiscal year 2004 level for this account is $9 million for inflation to maintain current staff. We would, in essence, take that away. There are many other reasons, and in the interests of time, and I know the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) is here to speak against it and there are others, but, the amendment does not do what it says they would like to do. Because the reason it does not do that is because had it been put in that account, it would have been ruled out of order. Members from both sides came and said they wanted the Legal Services Corporation protected and we protected it. And others, Members on this side wanted a Manufacturing Extension Program, we protected an increase. When they wanted State and local law enforcement, we did that. So they are having an even more difficult time finding the cuts, so they are now going to NED. Earlier today, they were at international broadcasting, and now they are sort of scurrying around. Secondly, to wound NED, the National Endowment for Democracy and the Middle East Initiative would be horrible. And lastly, to wound the Justice Department and the effort on the war on terrorism is horrible. So I urge all Members, if you had an amendment which would have done what you would have liked to have done, that is one thing. This amendment does not do it. So I urge defeat of the amendment.

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I listened to the debate, and I just want to make a couple of closing comments. One, this does hurt NED. At this time for the Middle East to do this is just not good. Secondly, it hurts the war on terrorism. Thirty people from my district died in the attack on the Pentagon, and we heard it. Lastly, and I know this is not the intention of the sponsors, this is not, I say, the intention of the sponsors, but the reality of this amendment is that this is a subsidy to put money into the bankers' pockets. That is basically what it is. If one were helping the poor or the hungry or the people that really need it, one ought to support the amendment; but look and listen to the groups that contacted us, the American Bankers Association. This is an amendment to put money in the pockets of the bankers, not the poor, not small business, and for those reasons, in addition to the National Endowment For Democracy when we are trying to get peace in the Middle East on the war on terrorism.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I understand what the gentlewoman is doing and I admire that. I think her purpose is very, very good and I think on the microloan issue is exactly right. That is why the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) and I have an amendment to restore that and deal with this. I want to make sure the record should state that is not the gentlewoman's purpose of doing it, and so I only attribute the honorable, the most wonderful.

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, the letter from Justice says it would be ``devastating to the management of the Department, including the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review's support for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.'' It also says, ``This would further degrade OIPR's ability to process FISA applications.''

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. (Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to bring the fiscal year 2005 Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary and related agencies appropriations bill before the House. In this bill, we have taken an austere allocation and done our best to arrive at a bill that funds important national priorities, including counterterrorism, State and local crime- fighting and embassy security. The result is a solid bill, and I encourage the Members to support the bill today; and my understanding is that we will finish the bill today. I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) for supporting us. I also want to thank the gentleman from New York (Ranking Member Serrano) for his help in crafting the bill. I very much appreciate the close and cooperative relationship we have established, and I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the full committee, for his assistance. The recommendation we bring before the House today includes $39.8 billion in discretionary spending. Program increases are focused on most critical areas including counterterrorism, State and local law enforcement, assistance to American manufacturers, and protection of the Judiciary, and the security of our personnel overseas. As my colleagues know, Mr. Chairman, we are operating under a very restrictive budget resolution, which is $1.6 billion below the President's request overall for nondefense discretionary spending. Our subcommittee allocation is .6 percent above the President's request for our agencies. The bill continues the major progress we have made in the fights against terrorism and crime, and builds on the important gains of the past few years on embassy security. At the same time, it also reflects our commitment to responsible stewardship of public funds. For the Department of Justice, the recommendation includes $20.6 billion, $900 million above the request. We have restored needed funds for State and local crime-fighting to keep our streets and schools safe. The bill also includes significant increases for Federal law enforcement for both terrorism prevention and traditional law enforcement. A $38 million anti-gang initiative will provide both enforcement and prevention funding, including $20 million for State and local grants and $18 million for additional Federal law enforcement efforts. For the FBI, the bill provides $5.2 billion, $100 million above the request, to provide 1,100 additional agents, analysts and support staff for intelligence and counterterrorism activities. We have also established a new intelligence directorate in the FBI and given the Bureau additional retention, recruitment and retirement authorities with the concurrence of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform. I thank him for that help and cooperation, and the country will be better for it. We maintain the commitment to fighting illegal drug activities with $1.7 billion for the DEA, the full amount requested. With this increase, we will now have restored the total number of Federal agents working on drug cases to a number above the pre-9/11 levels. The bill includes $3 billion for proven State and local law enforcement crime-fighting programs, restoring $886 million to the highest priority programs, including Juvenile Justice and the SCAAP, most of which the administration proposed to eliminate or drastically reduce. For the Department of Commerce and related trade agencies, the recommendation includes $5.76 billion, a decrease of $186 million below 2004, which is largely a result of the reduction of lower priority spending in NOAA and elimination of the ATP program. Full funding is included to empower our trade agencies to negotiate, verify, and enforce trade agreements that are more free and fair, and to ensure an even playing field for American businesses. The bill includes vital assistance to the ongoing recovery of our manufacturing sector. Members on both sides have spoken to us about this. So $106 million is included for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program. It is an increase of $67 million above the current request and the current year, and this is important for creating jobs throughout the entire country. The bill also includes $4 million for the Bureau of Economic Analysis, including funding for a study on the economic impacts of offshoring on the U.S. economy. The bill continues funding for critical core programs of NOAA. The National Weather Service and NOAA's satellite programs are funded at the full requested level; and funding is continued, as requested, for many established ocean and fisheries programs. The bill preserves the vitality and innovation of our economy with a historic funding increase for the Patent and Trademark Office to reduce the growing backlog in patent processing. The bill provides for $1.52 billion in spending, the same amount that the PTO expects to collect this year in fees. And finally, under Commerce we are fulfilling the Department's constitutional responsibility to conduct the census. We provide an increase of $149 million to support the ramp-up of the 2010 decennial census, including funding for the American Community Survey. For the Judiciary, the recommendation provides $5.2 billion, an increase of $391 million above 2004, to enable the courts and probation offices to process record caseloads. For the State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the recommendation includes $8.9 billion, an increase of $299 million over 2004, and $80 million below the request. Within this total, we are providing $1.57 billion, the full request for worldwide security improvements and replacement of vulnerable facilities and funding to support over 100 new positions aimed at improving security and strengthening the visa process. The bill also includes $1.84 billion, the full amount requested for international organizations and peacekeeping. We strongly support public diplomacy and international broadcasting to continue television broadcasting to Iraq, which was initiated last year and is very critical for the effort now taking place in Iraq. As sovereignty is transferred to an Iraqi government, we need to maintain the lines of communication with the Iraqi people and assure that they are receiving accurate and balanced news and information. This bill will also ensure that the broadcasting to Iraq continues without disruption. For Related Agencies, the recommendation provides inflationary increases to most agencies, again fully funds the FTC's Do-Not-Call program, and includes a $102 million increase for the SEC to protect American investors. For the SBA, the recommendation provides a 6 percent increase for operations and additional funds above the request for the Small Business Development Centers. The bill adopts the President's request for the 7(a) business loan program, which provides for up to $12.5 billion in general business loans, an unprecedented level, without requiring an appropriation. The bill provides $335 million for the Legal Services Corporation, $6 million above the request. The committee has worked over the past few years to successfully bring Legal Services away from controversy. The bill again continues our commitment to provide civil legal aid to those who cannot afford counsel and are seeking justice. In closing, Mr. Chairman, this is a summary of the recommendations before you today. It will strengthen the operations of Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies. It provides needed assistance to ensure that our economy and our manufacturing sector continue to grow. It provides for a secure and effective diplomatic operations overseas. It enables the judicial branch to successfully manage its growing workload. It represents our best take on matching needs with resources. With that, Mr. Chairman, I would also want to close by thanking the staff. The staff has worked very, very hard, and in fact, not many people realize how hard these staff members work. And I want to thank the members of the subcommittee staff who are putting in very long hours on the 2005 CJS bill. All members and staff of the subcommittees have worked hard, and put in long hours that I believe will be helpful to the country. I want to particularly thank Mike Ringler, the clerk of the subcommittee who has led this through the House appropriations process. I also want to thank Christine Kojac, John Martens, and Anne-Marie Goldsmith for their tireless efforts. Their work is much appreciated. I also want to thank our detailee, Jonathan Mattiello, who has lent his support to the bill. In my personal office, Dan Scandling, Janet Shaffron, J.T. Griffin, Samantha Stockman and Neil Siefring for their efforts and work with the subcommittee. And from the minority staff, because we have had a good working relationship which I think can be a model, I want to thank David Pomerantz, Lucy Hand, whom I have known a long while, all the way back to the days where she worked for Mr. Lehman on the Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury and Independent Agencies; Linda Pagelsen, Nadine Berg and Rob Nabors, who have worked with our staff in a bipartisan manner to produce this bill. I want to thank them, and I want the American public to know and Members of the House to know who they are. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment, and any amendments thereto, be limited to 30 minutes, to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the opponent, except that the chairman and ranking minority member may each offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of debate.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman from New York for his comments. Let me try to close and put some things in perspective. The gentleman from Illinois said that the administration did not make any requests for the legal activities office automation. The President did. So we cannot just throw things out. The President requested $80 million. We, the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) and I, only provided $50 million. This amendment cuts $33 million, leaving only $17 million. Now, what would the impact of that be? Cutting the program any further would delay the deployment of needed information technology and improvements to the Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. Attorneys, the Marshals Service, Federal law enforcement, who continue to be criticized for not being able to connect the dots; and if we now give the Justice Department the ability to make standardized its information technology systems, we will be hindering their ability to share the information. The results could be catastrophic. That was the whole issue at the 9/11 hearings, the lack of sharing of information. If we expect Federal law enforcement to prevent acts of terrorism, the FBI must be able to have surveillance applications approved in a timely manner. So the amendment proposes a $33 million reduction in the Department's legal activities office, which funds the Standard Office Automation System, which 15 Department of Justice components operate, their mission and critical applications, the U.S. Attorney, Marshals Service, Bureau of Prisons, civil and criminal and many others. So they did ask for it. What the gentleman from Illinois said was not accurate. They did ask for it, and the committee was not able to fund the entire amount. I was saying to my friends on the other side and on this side, part of the reason we were not able to do it is we wanted to put money in the manufacturing extension program, MEP. The administration's numbers were 39. We got up to 106. It is like no good deed goes unpunished. We also wanted to protect the Legal Services Corporation for justice, justice for the poor. We actually have $6 million in here, above, to go after $60 million now with regard to the antiterrorism activity, eliminating funding for processing intelligence. I mean, I would have hoped that the gentleman from Illinois would have found another place, but in the war on terrorism that is just not the place to go. Also, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall) made the comment about NED. Well, that amount barely would keep up with the rate of inflation. We want to bring about democracy for China. In China today, Catholic priests and bishops are being persecuted. There are 11 bishops in jail in China today. The gentleman, and I know he has an interest, I was in Tibet where the Chinese are persecuting the Tibetans. We want to bring democracy to Tibet. They are also persecuting the Muslims up in the northwest portion. Nobody speaks out for the Muslims in China. We are trying to have the money for the National Endowment for Democracy to help bring about democracy in China. The Evangelical Protestant Church, ripped apart; we want to help. We want to do what we did for Eastern Europe or what we did for the Soviet Union. My friends on this side, Ronald Reagan would never have supported this amendment to take all this money out of the National Endowment for Democracy. It almost makes me sick. We came here in 1980, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) said, to bring about freedom. What about Syria? Should not we try to bring about democracy and freedom in Syria? Should not we try to do something in Egypt? Should not we try to do something in Iran and places like that? And I commend the gentleman and the gentlewoman for what they are trying to do, but it does not make sense to take it from the war on terrorism and to take it from the National Endowment for Democracy. Strangely enough, too, and I think people have to know, this amendment would result in a RIF of 160 SBA employees. So they want to give to one area but RIF from another area. Now, I understand they had a hard time finding it. They had a hard time finding it. We protected the Legal Services Corporation. They had a hard time finding it because we protected MEP. They had a hard time finding it, because many on their side and my side said we need COPs grants, we need State and local law enforcement grants. They asked me, ``Can you help us out?'' And the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) will say many on that side spoke to me about this, and we said we are going to try to help, because we know it is a problem. We also put in money for a new antigang initiative. We also put in money to study offshoring, because I believe personally it is a problem. So you have not taken it from any of those areas. You take from terrorism, you take from the National Endowment for Democracy, you take from the administrative account and RIF SBA employees. Administrator Baretto reiterated 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. He also wrote to me a letter the other day and said, ``I am confident the bill will continue to improve the 7(a) program by serving the capital needs of small businesses in the most efficient and effective manner.'' I understand what both sponsors have been trying to do, and I guess indirectly the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) and I should probably take it as a compliment that they had to struggle to find something. But we are in a war on terrorism. I was the author of the National Commission on Terrorism, 1998. I had just gotten back from Algeria, where 100,000-some people had been gutted, killed. It was the year of the Nairobi bombing. It was the year of the Tanzania bombing. I introduced a bill for the National Commission on Terrorism, the Bremer Commission. I could not get any support from either side of the aisle, so I put it in the appropriations bill and we passed it, and Bremer went on, and all the recommendations were made. On the cover of the National Commission on Terrorism report, which I authored, was a picture of the World Trade Center on fire. But it was not the World Trade Center from 9/11, because the report came out in the year 2000; it was the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. I just do not believe you could not have found some other place. You could have found some other place. So, Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote ``no,'' because we ought not cut terrorism funding, we ought not cut the National Endowment for Democracy.

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we will be glad to work with the gentlewoman to see if we can help her resolve that issue.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we will be glad to work with the gentlewoman to see if we can work on this problem for a resolution of it. It is my understanding the gentlewoman was withdrawing the amendment. The gentlewoman wanted a commitment that we would work with her; is that correct?

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman would further yield, we will work with her, yes.

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

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the contributions of Tom Farley to transportation efforts in northern Virginia. For the past 11 years, Tom has served as district administrator for the Virginia Department of Transportation's (VDOT) northern Virginia district which is the most populated and congested area of the Commonwealth. District administrator for northern Virginia is a difficult job which often bears the brunt of public scrutiny. He is often on the front line when someone has a complaint about roads, snow, or potholes. Nevertheless, Tom has excelled because he is adept at bringing people together to find transportation solutions. In the course of his career, Tom has worked with hundreds of citizens, homeowners, community groups, and elected officials. Tom has personally been a friend to me and helped with many projects that have benefitted the l0th District. He has also been involved in almost every major transportation issue in northern Virginia in the past 11 years including the Springfield Interchange, the new Woodrow Wilson Bridge, Route 50 traffic calming, the Fairfax County Parkway, and the Capital Beltway Safety Study. I want to thank Tom for his contributions to northern Virginia and wish him the best as he retires from VDOT knowing that he has been a true public servant to the people of Virginia.