[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 92 (Wednesday, July 7, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H5221-H5260]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED 
                   AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 701 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4754.

                              {time}  1225


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of 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.
  The Chair designates the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) as 
chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Miller) to assume the chair temporarily.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is 
considered as having been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
  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,

[[Page H5222]]

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.

                              {time}  1230

  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.

[[Page H5223]]

  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact you are attempting 
to close general debate here. I did want to come over and compliment 
you and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) on the excellent 
legislation here. I particularly appreciate the kind of support we 
Nebraskans have received from the subcommittee in the past in dealing 
with the very real methamphetamine problem, we have, but secondly, I 
also wanted to compliment the subcommittee on providing funding above 
the administration's request for the Judiciary.
  I know the Nebraska Federal District Court was concerned that the so-
called ``hard freeze'' initially proposed would cause layoffs and 
furloughs, and the Federal court has already taken a big hit in 
Nebraska with the loss of a temporary judgeship in May of 2004, when 
one of the judges took senior status.
  So it is my opportunity today not only to compliment you but to send 
a message to the two authorizing judiciary committees that this 
judgeship and the failure to fill it is creating real hardships for the 
people of Nebraska, for the judges, for the law enforcement personnel 
and, I think, for justice. There is a saying that ``justice delayed is 
justice denied,'' and I am afraid that is just about to be the case in 
Nebraska.
  So you have done your job as an Appropriations subcommittee, and I 
thank you for the things that I have mentioned and for the other things 
that relate to the State, Commerce, and Justice departments.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Wolf) for yielding me this time.
  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. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill providing 
appropriations for the Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary and related 
agencies for fiscal year 2005.
  From the outset, I must say the 302(b) allocation given to the 
subcommittee, in our opinion, was too low. I am grateful to the 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Young), however, for providing $226 million above the request; and 
I am impressed with how much the chairman of our subcommittee, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), was able to accomplish within the 
allocation he was given. On the whole, I think the distribution of 
funds is quite fair and sensible and reflects priorities I believe most 
of us would share.
  I would be remiss if I did not say how much of a pleasure it is to 
work with Chairman Wolf on this bill. Our working relationship and our 
friendship are major factors in producing it. I must also say that I am 
very grateful for the openness and fairness with which the chairman's 
staff has treated mine. Much is said, Mr. Chairman, about the poisonous 
atmosphere in the House these days, but that is not the case on this 
subcommittee, and I credit the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for 
that. His attentiveness and that of his staff to the needs of our side 
have been terrific, even if they could not always do everything we 
would like.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Wolf and the staff, Mike and 
Christine, John, Anne-Marie, and Jonathan have served the committee 
well, as have on our side David, Linda, and Laura, and on my personal 
staff Lucy, Nadine, Diaraf, Sean and Jennifer. I wonder at times, Mr. 
Chairman, if the American people have a full understanding of the fact 
that behind the work that is seen on the House floor and in press 
conferences there is always such a large number of young, dedicated 
people who put together so much of the work that goes on in this House, 
and I think it is something we should always remember.
  Again, Chairman Wolf was able to accomplish much. To list just a few 
highlights, the bill includes full funding or better for the FBI, the 
DEA, international organizations, worldwide embassy security, and most 
of the related agencies. Also, much more than requested for MEP and 
SCAAP. Funding levels on which we can build for NOAA. Continuing 
support for the Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties Protection in 
Justice.
  I am also gratified that the bill and report direct the EEOC not to 
proceed with its workforce repositioning without complying with the 
committee's reprogramming procedures, which will give us essential 
oversight of potentially very disruptive changes proposed by that 
agency.
  I do worry that first responder funding shortfalls between the 
Homeland Security bill and this one, despite the efforts of Chairman 
Wolf and our previous chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Rogers), to improve on deeply flawed request levels, represent a one-
two punch at our public safety agencies.
  I regret the inability to give the SBA the resources it needs, 
although there will be amendments today to restore funding for the 7(a) 
business loans program and microloans, or to fund programs such as TOP 
and PTFP, where real needs will go unmet.
  I also would have liked to address a serious problem that the 
restrictions on the use of non-Federal funds pose for the Legal 
Services Corporation grantees, which face administrative and financial 
burdens probably unmatched by any other class of Federal grantees, but 
that is a discussion for another day.
  One other issue I would like to mention is the census. Halfway 
between decennials, few Members pay much attention to the Census 
Bureau. But accurate statistics about the Nation's population and 
activities collected, analyzed, and published by the Bureau are crucial 
to both government and the economy. Not only is membership in this 
House apportioned according to census data, indeed the Constitution 
requires 10-year censuses for that purpose, but many important 
decisions and many Federal grant programs are based on accurate census 
information, both from the decennial and from other periodic censuses. 
Business, too, relies on census data for final decisions on marketing, 
locating facilities, and the like. The census is of extraordinary 
importance to minority communities because it is the basis for their 
ability to establish their identity and secure their rights.
  As the chairman knows, the Census Bureau is a bureau that I always 
feel plays a special role in the South Bronx and, indeed, throughout 
our society. Whenever anyone gets up and speaks about we have such a 
number of this and a number of that, and this happened and that is 
happening, those figures are always taken from the work of the Census 
Bureau, and so we not only tip our hats to them but show them our 
support.
  Again, Chairman Wolf has shown exceptional sensitivity to what the 
Census Bureau needs to continue its activities and prepare for the 2010 
short-form-only decennial, and I thank him for that.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, I believe that this bill is a good one, and I 
will support it as it continues to move through the process. Once 
again, I thank Chairman Wolf for his support, for his kindness, for his 
friendship, and above all, for being a man of great conviction who 
sticks with issues that other people dare not bring up, as we will see 
during this debate.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  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. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, today the House is considering the spending 
levels for the U.S. Federal Court system contained in H.R. 4754. 
Unfortunately for the State of Nebraska, it is not the level of funding 
for the Judiciary that is at issue, it is the failure of this Congress 
to address the problem of the loss of a Federal judgeship in Nebraska.
  Since 1999, the judges of the Nebraska Federal District Court have 
requested Congress to either convert a temporary judgeship to a 
permanent one or at least extend the temporary judgeship. However, on 
November 22, 2003, even that last option was lost when the authority 
for the temporary position expired.
  My colleagues in the Nebraska delegation have introduced legislation 
in this House and in the Senate to restore

[[Page H5224]]

this single judgeship. The Senate Bill, S. 878, passed in the Senate in 
2003, but this House has yet to take action.
  This situation has created a major hardship for our Federal judiciary 
in Nebraska. The Nebraska district has the third highest per judge 
criminal caseload in the country. It exceeds the caseloads of the 
districts like Los Angeles, New York City, Chicago, and Miami. 
According to Nebraska Chief Judge Richard Kopf, ``The criminal caseload 
has exploded over the last 5 years. From 1998 to 2003, it has risen 97 
percent.''

                              {time}  1245

  The chief judge has indicated that criminal cases take priority over 
all civil cases because of the United States Constitution, which 
requires that defendants have a speedy trial. This need to deal with 
the criminal docket has a major impact on lawyers and their clients 
with civil matters before the Federal courts.
  Nebraska State Bar President John Grant has noted, ``Without the four 
judgeships, very few noncriminal cases will be handled. Cases 
concerning Social Security benefits, health insurance coverage, civil 
rights and personal injury are not going to be heard on a timely 
basis.''
  This is an important issue to the State of Nebraska.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr).
  (Mr. FARR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I am rising today to discuss this bill because it cuts the NOAA 
funding by 15 percent and ignores essentially the two in-depth ocean 
reports released to Congress this past year. I thank the gentleman from 
Virginia (Chairman Wolf) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), 
the ranking member, for a commitment that they made during the full 
committee markup to work to increase the funding levels for the 
``National Ocean Service'' and for the National Marine Fishery Service 
during conference. I appreciate their acknowledgment that the levels 
need to be increased.
  I also want to thank our ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey), for stating his concern on the NOAA funding cuts. I am 
deeply concerned about NOAA. With the commitments in mind, I want to 
highlight the funding levels for some of the NOAA programs. The hardest 
hit, and I would reference a bipartisan letter that was sent to the 
Committee on Appropriations by 59 Members of the House, the Coastal 
Zone Management Grants and the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Grants, both 
of which States heavily rely on. Florida, for example, loses $345,000; 
Virginia has a net loss of $620,000; California also has a net loss of 
$620,000. This may not seem like much when we are usually dealing in 
millions and billions, but to the States who rely on these funds for 
ongoing coastal zone management and nonpoint source grants, it is a 
great deal of money.
  The Cooperative Fisheries Research Programs were cut also by $20 
million. These programs bring the fishing community together with 
scientists to better understand fishery resources. This is a big issue 
that both of the ocean reports talked about, the fact that the right 
hand on science does not necessarily work well with the left hand on 
fisheries, and we need to make sure these two groups come together, and 
the fishermen understand the science, and the scientists better 
understand the economics of fishing so we can better meld these two 
groups together. We cannot do this if we are cutting the programs that 
bring people together.
  Another area, the Marine Mammal Protection area, will be severely 
hampered under the House mark which, once separate lines are combined, 
equals roughly $4 million. The National Marine Fisheries Service will 
not be able to fund top-priority studies as identified by the multi-
stakeholder take reduction teams. The National Marine Fisheries will 
not be able to design or implement fishery management plans that 
protect marine mammals. The agency will not be able to conduct research 
on population trends, health and demographics of marine mammals, and 
the National Marine Fisheries will not be able to carry out the 
education and enforcement programs.
  The other program that was affected by this was the Marine Mammal 
Health and Stranding Response Program which was cut last year and that 
has not yet been resolved. The program funds our investigations of die-
offs of large numbers of marine mammals, including the recent 
bottlenose dolphin die-off in Florida, which involved more than 100 
animals.
  If we combine the cuts in the State Coastal Zone Management Grants 
and the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Grants, both of which are, as I 
said, relied on heavily by the States, you get these additional losses. 
So without these funds, we lose the opportunity to study and to work 
with the States in implementing good programs.
  In my constituency, I have 24 national organizations which have 
signed a letter to every Member of the House, which describes deep 
concerns with the NOAA funding. They have fundamental problems with the 
cuts that NOAA received.
  I believe the commitment made by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Wolf) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) to increase funding 
levels is sincere and they will work on that in conference. The NOAA 
programs such as the ones I have highlighted will ensure that our 
future in the oceans will remain vital and components of our economy 
and our communities and our lives will be sustained.
  Lastly, because of the good work done by both the Pew Commission and 
the National Oceans Commission, we will be able to implement with these 
fundings some of the strong recommendations they made for healthy 
oceans.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit the following letters for the Record:

                                Congress of the United States,

                                    Washington, DC, April 8, 2004.
     Hon. Frank Wolf,
     Chairman, Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary 
         Subcommittee, Appropriations Committee, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Jose Serrano,
     Ranking Member, Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary 
         Subcommittee, Appropriations Committee, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Serrano: As Members 
     concerned with our nation's diverse and productive coastal 
     areas, we are requesting your support for funding the 
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Our 
     oceans and coasts support more than 2.8 million jobs, 
     generate more than $54 billion in goods and services per 
     year, and are the most popular destinations for recreation 
     and tourism in the U.S.
       Established by Congress in 2000, the Conservation Trust 
     Fund dedicates $560 million in FY05 for critical coastal 
     conservation programs within NOAA. We greatly appreciate the 
     Subcommittee's full use of this funding over the last four 
     years to provide vital support for high priority coastal 
     conservation initiatives and urge the Subcommittee to again 
     make full use of this fund in FY05.
       On the eve of the release of the U.S. Commission on Ocean 
     Policy draft report, we ask for your assistance in meeting 
     the significant challenges and threats now confronting our 
     oceans. We recognize the Committee has extraordinarily 
     difficult choices to make this year; however, the continued 
     health and prosperity of our coastal communities depend on 
     our willingness to invest today to preserve our nation's 
     coastal legacy for future generations. We respectfully 
     request the Subcommittee seriously consider the funding 
     levels for the following programs.


                        coastal zone management

       State Coastal Zone Management Grants--$80 million. These 
     funds, which are matched dollar for dollar, are critical to 
     support the efforts of 34 states and territories to reduce 
     the impacts of coastal development, expand public access, 
     reduce the damages from coastal hazards, restore and protect 
     critical habitats and support the nation's important and 
     diverse coastal communities.
       Coastal Nonpoint and Community Resource Improvement 
     Grants--$10 million. We urge the Subcommittee to reject the 
     Administration's proposed termination of this program. This 
     funding is only a fraction of what is needed by states to 
     address polluted runoff, the most significant source of 
     pollution of coastal waters.
       National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS)--$20 
     million grants, $15 million acquisition and construction. 
     This funding will enable NERRS to support the addition of a 
     new Reserve to the current system of 26 and fund the ongoing 
     coastal stewardship training, research and education programs 
     and construction needs.
       Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program--$60 
     million. Nowhere in the nation is the threat of ecosystem 
     fragmentation, sprawl and habitat loss more prevalent than

[[Page H5225]]

     in our nation's coastal zone. In the first three years of 
     this program, CELCP funds have leveraged non-federal funds 
     and protected thousands of acres of coastal lands in 25 
     states.


               marine conservation and ocean exploration

       National Marine Sanctuaries--$40 million operations, $10 
     million construction. The National Marine Sanctuary Program 
     protects our nation's most unique and nationally significant 
     marine ecosystems and resources. Level funding for operations 
     in FY05 is critical to reducing staffing shortages, 
     supporting conservation, community outreach, research, and 
     education programs, and updating sanctuary management plans 
     as required by law. We support no less than the fully 
     authorized level for operation of sanctuaries and encourage 
     the committee to recognize the pressing need for higher 
     levels. In addition, we support $10 million for construction, 
     as the backlog in facilities maintenance remains a 
     significant operations liability at many sanctuaries.
       Coral Reef Construction--$28.25 million. Coral reef 
     ecosystems are among the most diverse, biologically 
     productive, economically valuable, and threatened marine 
     habitats in the world. Increased resources are urgently 
     needed to reduce land-based pollution and address 
     overfishing, diseases, and other threats to coral reefs. 
     Funding for local action strategies will support on-the-
     ground solutions, such as critical monitoring, mapping, 
     restoration, outreach and protection activities that reduce 
     threats to coral reefs.
       Ocean Exploration--$13.9 million. Less than 5% of the ocean 
     has been explored or characterized to the same degree of 
     resolution as we have characterized Mars and Venus. Ocean 
     exploration is the vital first step in a new approach to 
     ocean resource management, improved marine science and 
     education, and a new vision for ocean stewardship. We urge 
     the Subcommittee to support last year's funding level to 
     demonstrate U.S. leadership in this important global issue.


       sustainable fisheries, marine mammals and invasive species

       Fisheries, Research and Observer Programs--$75 million. 
     Recent scientific reports conclude that too many of our 
     nation's fisheries are on the brink of collapse. Reducing the 
     backlog in research days-at-sea and increasing fishery 
     observer coverage and cooperative research efforts will give 
     managers baseline information critical to better managing our 
     fisheries. We commend the Subcommittee's efforts for increase 
     funding in these areas in FY04 and urge $25 million for 
     expanding stock assessments, $20 million for cooperative 
     research, including data collection and analysis, and $30 
     million for regional and national fishery observer programs 
     in FY05.
       Vessel Monitoring System (VMS)--President's request of $9.3 
     million. VMS is a satellite-based fishery enforcement system 
     that provides real-time catch data from participating vessels 
     in a range of fisheries. The President's request would allow 
     for the establishment and implementation of VMS systems and 
     placement of transponders onboard many of the estimated 
     10,000 boats in the U.S. commercial fishing fleet. VMS 
     programs augment existing enforcement efforts at 
     approximately 1% of the cost, enhance data collection, and 
     benefit fishermen by improving safety at sea and allowing 
     fishing right up until a quota is reached.
       Marine Mammal Protection--$9.1 million. This funding will 
     help NMFS more fully assess and take measures to recover 
     depleted and strategic marine mammal species, such as common 
     dolphins, pilot whales and bottlenose dolphins, through take 
     reduction team activities as well as other research, 
     conservation and recovery efforts.
       Endangered Species Act, Cooperative Agreements with 
     States--$4 million. This cooperative program makes funding 
     available on a competitive, matching basis to carry out 
     conservation activities at the state and local level. 
     Providing $4 million to the states in FY05 would support 
     local researchers, non-governmental organizations, and 
     volunteers to accomplish monitoring, restoration, science and 
     conservation of species at risk of extinction.
       Invasive Species Initiative--$5.5 million. This funding 
     will be used by NOAA's Invasive Species reducing the 
     potential for invasive species to be introduced in US ports 
     and coastal waters, and to promote increased collaboration 
     among the many groups working to understand invasive species, 
     including NOAA, other agencies, and the scientific community.
       Our oceans are a public trust whose stewardship is critical 
     to our economy, our environment, and our future. We greatly 
     appreciate your past support for these programs and your 
     consideration of our requests.
           Sincerely,
         James Greenwood, Wayne T. Gilchrest, Curt Weldon, E. Clay 
           Shaw, Jan Schakowsky, Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Frank 
           Pallone, Jr., Sam Farr, Tom Allen, Dennis Cardoza, 
           Michael H. Michaud, Jo Bonner, Jeb Bradley, Timothy V. 
           Johnson, John Conyers, Jr.
         Sheila Jackson-Lee, Chris Smith, Gene Green, John M. 
           McHugh, Bart Stupak, Susan A. Davis, Loretta Sanchez, 
           Anthony D. Weiner, Peter Deutsch, Jerrold Nadler, 
           Carolyn B. Maloney, Gary L. Ackerman, Eliot L. Engel, 
           Dale E. Kildee, Ed Markey.
         Robert Wexler, Tom Petri, Eni Faleomavaega, Betty 
           McCollum, Kendrick B. Meek, George Miller, Ileana Ros-
           Lehtinen, Raul M. Grijalva, Earl Blumenauer, Tom 
           Lantos, Tammy Baldwin, Alcee L. Hastings, Jim 
           McDermott, Jay Inslee, Adam B. Schiff.
         Mike McIntyre, Mike Thompson, James Langevin, Lois Capps, 
           ------, Neil Abercrombie, Jim Saxton, Frank A. 
           Lobiondo, Anna Eshoo, Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Edward Case, 
           Barbara Lee, Bob Etheridge, ------.
                                  ____

                                                     July 7, 2004.

 Funding for America's Oceans and Coasts Slashed Nearly Half a Billion 
                      Dollars in the FY05 CJS Bill

       Dear Representative: The Fiscal Year 2005 (FY05) Commerce, 
     Justice, State Appropriations bill that you will consider 
     today guts funding for critically needed ocean and coastal 
     protection activities and abrupt climate change research. The 
     bill slashes $446 million for the National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) from FY04 enacted levels, 
     disregarding mounting scientific evidence and recommendations 
     for greater investments. We oppose these deep cuts to NOAA 
     and ask that they be rectified in the final bill.
       The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, appointed by President 
     Bush, recently released its preliminary report and confirmed 
     the health of America's oceans is in severe decline. The 
     Commission noted that our nation's current investments in 
     ocean science, management and conservation are inadequate to 
     address the major threats facing ocean ecosystems and coastal 
     communities. This bill flatly ignores the Commission's 
     warning about the state of our ocean and coastal resources, 
     taking a step backwards at a time we should be making bold 
     new efforts to protect the waters that give us life.
       In addition, a bi-partisan letter signed by 61 Members of 
     Congress in April called for providing adequate funding 
     levels in key programs, such as coastal zone management; 
     fisheries research, management, and enforcement; national 
     marine sanctuaries; coral reel conservation; and marine 
     mammal protection. Unfortunately, the bill not only fails to 
     accept many of the increases the Congressional letter sought, 
     but makes further cuts to the already inadequate 
     Administration request for many of these programs.
       Conservation Trust Fund. We are very disappointed to note 
     that the bill fails to live up to Congress' groundbreaking 
     commitment in 2000 to fully fund NOAA's part of the 
     Conservation Trust Fund. The dedicated level for FY05 should 
     be $560 million. Abandoning the historic Conservation Trust 
     Fund is a significant retreat from a bi-partisan agreement to 
     restore and sustain America's environmental legacy.
       National Marine Fisheries Service. The status of roughly 
     two-thirds of our commercially caught ocean fish populations 
     is unknown due in large part to lack of resources for basic 
     research and regular stock assessments. In addition, bycatch 
     reduction and essential fish habitat protection are critical 
     conservation priorities that do not receive appropriation 
     attention. Finally, inadequate resources hamper the agency's 
     ability to keep pace with the need for proper enforcement 
     coverage. While we appreciate the Subcommittee providing 
     additional funds for expanding fisheries stock assessments, 
     the following programs are below FY04 appropriation levels: 
     fishery observer programs, cooperative research, essential 
     fish habitat protection, and protected resources (marine 
     mammals, sea turtles).
       National Ocean Service. Activities that support managing 
     coastal zones and national marine sanctuaries, restoring 
     coral reefs, protecting sensitive coastal and estuarine lands 
     areas, and reducing coastal pollution merit increased 
     funding. However, the bill's devastating 31 percent cut--$160 
     million--to the National Ocean Service's budget will 
     jeopardize efforts to maintain and improve the quality of our 
     coasts and will abolish entire portions of programs such as 
     national marine sanctuaries, coral reef conservation, coastal 
     state nonpoint pollution grants, and other vital conservation 
     initiatives of the National Ocean Service.
       Pacific Salmon Recovery. Pacific Northwest salmon are a 
     vital part of that region's economic, cultural, and 
     environmental well-being and an important part of our 
     nation's history and commitment to the native peoples of this 
     land. Unfortunately, many salmon runs in the Pacific 
     Northwest continue to decline, and federal funding is 
     currently insufficient to meet federal salmon recovery goals 
     up and down the West Coast. The bill cuts $20 million from 
     the Administration's request for conservation and habitat 
     restoration and recovery grants for Pacific salmon 
     populations.
       Abrupt Climate Change Research. Funding for Abrupt Climate 
     Change Research ($2 million) and Paleoclimate research ($1.3 
     million) has been zeroed-out, and the overall NOAA budget for 
     climate and global change research has been reduced by an 
     additional $6 million. These NOAA research programs are vital 
     to improving our understanding of the impacts of climate 
     change. Already, scientific and anecdotal evidence shows that 
     increased temperatures from climate change are impacting 
     ecosystems around the world. The National Academy of Sciences 
     (NAS) recent report stated there is increased evidence that 
     the climate does not respond to change gradually but rather 
     in sudden, abrupt changes. The NAS called for additional

[[Page H5226]]

     research on sudden climate change, which is why these NOAA 
     programs are so important.
       While we appreciate the Committee's ongoing work to limit 
     the number of anti-environmental riders attached to this 
     bill, we oppose the woefully inadequate funding levels for 
     NOAA and urge that they be rectified in the final bill. We 
     thank you for considering our request.

       American Cetacean Society, American Rivers, Animal 
     Protection Institute, Coast Alliance, Conserve Our Ocean 
     Legacy, Defenders of Wildlife, Endangered Species Coalition, 
     Hawaii Wildlife fund, International Fund for Animal Welfare, 
     International Wildlife Coalition, League of Conservation 
     Voters, National Audubon Society, National Environmental 
     Trust, Natural Resources Defense Council, Oceana, Sierra 
     Club, The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to 
     Animals, The Fund for Animals, The Humane Society of the 
     United States, The Marine Mammal Center, The Ocean 
     Conservancy, The Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, The 
     Wilderness Society, U.S. Public Interest Research Group.

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4754, the 
CJS Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005. I commend the chairman, 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), for producing what I believe to 
be an excellent bill, and the ranking member, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Serrano) as well; and I urge my colleagues to join in 
supporting this legislation.
  There are many reasons to support this bill. I want to note one 
program in particular, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership. I thank 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for recognizing the importance 
of the MEP program to our Nation's manufacturers by funding it at $106 
million. At that level, all MEP centers will continue to provide their 
valuable service to this country's manufacturers.
  The MEP program, as has been discussed, is a Federal-State private 
network of over 60 centers with 400 locations in all 50 States. In 
fiscal year 2002 alone, MEP served approximately 18,000 small- and 
medium-sized manufacturers nationwide. These manufacturers reported an 
additional $2.8 billion in sales, $681 million more in cost savings, 
and 35,000 more jobs simply as a result of their projects in these MEP 
centers.
  In my district alone, which has over 1,500 manufacturing companies, 
92 percent of which are under 100 employees, Tru-Val Tubing Company in 
Waterford, Michigan, has seen dramatic improvements in productivity 
from the training provided by the MEP. The MEP center in Michigan, 
called the Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center, taught Tru-Val how 
to streamline the processes and reduce their inventory.
  By embracing the concept of ``lean thinking,'' Tru-Val can now 
produce more products in less space. The result is higher productivity 
and huge savings for the company. In fact, because of these 
improvements, Tru-Val has been able to increase its employees from 85 
to 120. It is truly a success story. And for these reasons, I strongly 
support the MEP program, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to follow up on the 
statements made by the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) with regard 
to the coastal and ocean levels of funding in the bill.
  First of all, let me say that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) 
and our ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), have 
over the years made major commitments to our oceans and coasts. And so 
when we say today we would like to see more funding placed in 
conference for things like NOAA, marine mammals, coastal zone 
management, it in no way takes away from what these two gentlemen and 
the subcommittee have accomplished over the years.
  I think the reason that we feel very strongly right now that there 
needs to be more of a funding commitment in these ocean- and coastal-
related activities is because of the reports that came out by the 
National Ocean Commission and Pew Ocean Commission, which both stress 
the need for a lot more funding in these programs. They basically 
pointed to the decline of the ocean environment and increasing stress 
on the ocean and coastal areas over the years; and also because of the 
lack of scientific understanding, that more money was needed for basic 
science so we understand what the problems are in oceans.
  I do not want to repeat everything that the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Farr) said, but as was mentioned, there is a 15 percent cut in 
funding for NOAA. There is about $160 million less than the fiscal year 
2004 enactment for the National Ocean Service and other programs like 
fisheries, marine mammals and coastal zone management which could use 
more funding.
  We are hoping during the conference these needs will be addressed. 
Knowing both the chairman and the ranking member, I am sure they will 
make every effort to try to accomplish that when we go to conference in 
having to deal with the other body. I thank the gentlemen for their 
support over the years, and I hope we can see increased funding for 
these vital programs given the recent reports from the National Ocean 
Commission and the Pew Ocean Commission.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to compliment the work of 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and what the subcommittee has 
done on this bill, which tends to be controversial on occasion. The 
markup in subcommittee and full committee, led by the gentleman from 
Virginia (Chairman Wolf) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) 
went extremely well, which was a little unusual because the bill does 
tend to attract some interesting debate on occasion. The gentlemen 
worked in partnership to bring a good bill.
  As the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) stated earlier, the 302(b) 
allocation was a little lean, but all of the 302(b) allocations were a 
little lean this year. They did a good job and produced a good bill 
with a lean 302(b) allocation.
  And I want to take a minute to give a status report. As of today, the 
Committee on Appropriations has marked up 10 of the 13 bills in 
subcommittee, 7 of the 13 bills in the full committee. This will be the 
fifth bill passed through the floor, and the legislative branch will be 
passed on tomorrow. That means that we are moving very quickly 
considering we got off to a very late start since we did not get the 
deeming budget resolution until May 19.
  The committee has worked very effectively and worked pretty much on a 
bipartisan basis, and all of the members have been contributors to the 
work effort. We are moving the bills with pretty good votes on the 
floor. Again, I just wanted to give this brief status report and again 
say to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Serrano) what great leaders they are and what great 
leadership they have provided the subcommittee and the full committee 
as they brought this bill to this point where we will pass this bill 
and send it to the other body today.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Serrano) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for 
their excellent efforts on this important legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few words about a limitation amendment 
that I will be offering at the end of this bill. That amendment is 
modeled after H.R. 1157, the Freedom to Read Protection Act, which I 
have offered and which has 145 bipartisan cosponsors. This legislation 
is supported by a wide range of groups across the ideological spectrum, 
from those who are very conservative to those who are very progressive.
  The amendment I will be offering later is cosponsored by the 
gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) and the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Nadler). This amendment addresses section 215 of the USA 
PATRIOT Act, and it is a section which has engendered a great deal of 
controversy.
  Mr. Chairman, there is no disagreement in this body or in the United 
States of America that our country has got to do everything that it can 
to prevent another 9/11, to prevent acts of

[[Page H5227]]

terrorism against the American people. But I think there is also 
widespread belief in this body and throughout this country that we can 
and must fight terrorism without undermining the basic constitutional 
rights that have made this a free country.
  All over this country, in hundreds of cities which have passed 
resolutions, in four States which have passed resolutions, among 
hundreds of different organizations, there is a concern that within the 
USA PATRIOT Act in section 215 it gives the right of the government, 
with virtually no probable cause, to go into our libraries, to go into 
our bookstores and to ascertain the reading habits of the American 
people. That is not, I believe, what this country is about or what this 
body believes in.
  So we are going to be offering an amendment that would disallow the 
government from gaining the reading records of people who buy books at 
bookstores or take books out of the library or use Internet service in 
the library.
  I am delighted we have so much support for this legislation.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I come to the floor today to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Wolf), chairman of the subcommittee, and, of course, the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Serrano), ranking member. But the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Wolf) just got back from the Sudan. He has a passion for human 
beings, all human beings, and he works to protect their life. And I 
just thank him for that work. In human rights there is really not a 
Member of this House that cares more, that does more, that goes into 
more dangerous places than the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). I 
thank him and I thank him for this bill.
  In the foothills of Appalachia, where I live, in east Tennessee, 
methamphetamine production has been overtaking us. But I want to thank 
the leadership of this subcommittee, going back to when the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) was the chairman of this subcommittee, this 
subcommittee began to resource what is now the East Tennessee 
Methamphetamine Task Force. It is 42 counties. We have seized over 
3,500 meth labs in the last 5 years in east Tennessee, 3,500, with the 
support of this subcommittee at $1 million a year. It sounds like a lot 
of money. In the scheme of things in this bill, it is not; but 3,500 
labs have been seized.
  I want to hail Sandy Mattice, our U.S. Attorney; Russ Dedrick, our 
assistant U.S. Attorney; and the entire task force, who are sheriffs, 
local government, the DEA, the FBI. It is a true local-State-Federal 
partnership. It is state of the art, and we are winning the battle on 
methamphetamine; but it is destroying families. In these pockets of 
pain in rural America, methamphetamine production is catastrophic; but 
this is very helpful, the money that this subcommittee is targeting, 
putting in to help organizations like the East Tennessee Meth Task 
Force. It needs to be done at the local level.
  This is really a grassroots effort, not a Federal program. But the 
Federal Government is assisting local government, fighting this 
problem. And we cannot clean the labs up without the Federal money. We 
do not have the resources at the local level, and the coordination 
needs to happen at the local and regional levels. It is happening in 
east Tennessee. And I thank the committee and the people that are in 
the field fighting methamphetamine production to save our children.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill. It makes great 
strides in protecting our Nation. First off, it fully funds the FBI, 
$5.2 billion, which is a significant increase over current year, some 
$687 million more than this year. And especially important to me is the 
language in the bill that encourages the FBI to work closely with the 
Department of Homeland Security to complete an interoperable system as 
soon as possible, to help us check people coming across our borders 
against the FBI's criminal watch list.
  That is terribly important because we have had some unfortunate 
experiences on the border of murderers making it across the border 
after having been stopped; but the inability to check against the 
criminal records of the FBI needs to be remedied forthwith, and this 
bill has language encouraging that.
  And then, as the gentleman from Tennessee just said, this bill fully 
funds the President's Prescription Drug Abuse Program. And for those of 
us in the parts of the country where prescription drug abuse, like the 
overuse and abuse of Oxycontin, it is terribly important that we tackle 
this problem head on, and that is what this bill does. In my district, 
we have started an organization called UNITE, which stands for Unlawful 
Narcotics Investigations, Treatment and Education. There are literally 
thousands of people now involved with the support of this subcommittee 
in a three-pronged attack against methamphetamine and prescription drug 
abuse: investigations and the law enforcement part of getting rid of 
the pushers; treatment for those who are addicted and need treatment; 
and, of course, education to try to encourage young people, especially, 
to stay away from the abuse of these drugs. And this bill supports that 
program, and I thank the chairman for that especially.
  The bill fully funds the DEA, $70 million above the current level. It 
has $10 million for the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program, which 
allows States to receive grants to establish a program to prevent 
people from double-filling prescription drugs and using the excess for 
sale as pushers. It includes $50 million for drug courts, which I 
believe in very strongly. We are seeing that work in my district, among 
others, where the power of the law is used for the good of people who 
are arrested and have no other crime except the use of drugs. And the 
drug courts work, and they rehabilitate people back into society in a 
good way. And then there is $60 million in the bill for methamphetamine 
hot spots, a problem that is particularly important in the rural parts 
of America.
  And then the bill reinforces the presence of the U.S. abroad. There 
is $1.5 billion for Embassy Security, Construction and Maintenance, 
which is $148 million over current levels. And, most importantly, I 
think, it continues the efforts to right-size the staffing at the 
embassies, saving us money and improving efficiency at all the places 
where Americans serve abroad in our embassies and consulates. Those are 
some of the more important features of the bill as far as I am 
concerned.
  I want to compliment the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) and 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), ranking member. I had the 
pleasure of working as chairman of this subcommittee for 6 years, 
working with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), who was ranking 
at the time; and I found him to be especially helpful in constructing a 
good bill. And certainly the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) 
has just done a great job, in my judgment, a very challenging bill this 
year because of lack of funds. So I compliment the chairman and the 
ranking member for bringing to us a very worthy bill, and I urge 100 
percent support of it.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to thank and 
congratulate the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the gentleman 
from Virginia (Chairman Wolf), and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Wamp) for bringing this issue to our attention.
  Too often in this country when we speak about drug abuse and drug 
addiction and the problems related to drugs, the image that the 
American people get is that of youngsters in the inner cities. Yet one 
of America's so misunderstood secrets is the fact that drug addiction 
and drug abuse is a problem that plagues the whole society. And I 
really think that before the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf), 
the

[[Page H5228]]

gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), and the gentleman from Tennessee 
(Mr. Wamp) started to speak about this issue, this House was not fully 
aware of that. They put it on the map. They put provisions in this bill 
to deal with it. We have worked on allocating dollars to deal with the 
issue. And I think the country will benefit and attention will be 
focused, Mr. Chairman, on the fact that this is a national problem.
  We can speak about the issues that can really hurt the society in the 
long run, and certainly right up there, in my opinion, with the 
everlasting, unfortunate, lingering racial problems in this country is 
the fact that so many members of our society abuse drugs and are caught 
up in the horrible use of drugs. Again, in the inner city it is easier 
to see. We see it on street corners. We see it in front of buildings. 
We see it in school yards where there are thousands of students 
attending one school. In some of the rural and suburban communities, it 
is not seen the same way. It does not have the same face. But it does 
have the same suffering; it does have the same pain; and it threatens 
the society we live in in the same way.
  So I want to thank the three gentlemen for that, having brought this 
to the House's attention.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is absolutely 
correct. In my rural district in Kentucky, it is an epidemic of the 
abuse of Oxycontin, particularly, but methamphetamines as well. And we 
have had dozens of young people die from the overabuse of these very 
addictive drugs, and it truly is an epidemic, and it strikes rich and 
poor, urban and rural. It does not matter. Wonderful families are 
broken up by this. People dying, families ruined, no place to go for 
treatment, no hope involved.
  And I want to compliment the gentleman for further drawing attention 
to this real epidemic that is sweeping the whole country, not just the 
cities, but I think probably especially now the rural areas. And I 
compliment him for bringing this up again, but also the chairman and 
him for including funds to help us fight it.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, another additional 
comment is the fact that the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) 
has done a lot of work especially in this bill on the issue of gang 
violence, again, one of those issues that a lot of people relate to 
certain parts of the country and certain types of communities. Yet we 
find out that gang violence is spreading throughout the country. And 
this bill begins to address it in a proper and strenuous way.
  Interestingly enough, those of us who have lived in the inner city 
know that there is a relationship between gang violence and drug abuse 
and drug addiction because those who do not use drugs but who become 
millionaires by providing the drugs make sure that people who are in 
gang-related activities and other activities in the community become 
addicted. Their line of business is to get people addicted, and this is 
the way they do it.
  So it is interesting that we are speaking today on a bill that 
addresses both issues. But the main point here is for the American 
people to fully understand that this is not a disease, this is not a 
condition, this is not a crime that is only related to certain parts of 
our community. It is related to the whole Nation; and it threatens us, 
in my opinion, as much as anything else. Years from now if we do not 
deal with this issue, if we let the full Nation go the way that some 
communities have gone, we will regret the fact that we missed an 
opportunity.
  So I am proud to be part of this effort today, and I congratulate 
again the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Chairman Rogers), and the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman 
Wolf).
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Sanders-Otter-
Conyers-Paul-Nadler Freedom to Read amendment. This amendment curtails 
one of the most invasive provisions of the Patriot Law by prohibiting 
law enforcement from making sweeping searches and seizures of library 
and bookstore patron records.
  We can all recall October 2001 when the PATRIOT Act was hastily 
passed by this body. Many of us, myself included, didn't have the 
chance to read this lengthy and complicated legislation in the few 
hours we had before the vote. I voted against the unseen legislation 
because I was concerned that its passage would amount to the blind 
abandonment of our civil liberties. As the details of the PATRIOT law 
came to light, it became all too clear that this law contained numerous 
infringements on our long-held civil liberties.
  Today, we all know what is in the PATRIOT law, and our constituents 
know too. In my district, the local governments of Pacific Grove, 
Salinas, Santa Cruz, and Watsonville, CA, have all passed resolutions 
expressing their concerns with the anti-privacy and antiliberty 
portions of the PATRIOT Act. Supporting this amendment is an 
opportunity to respond to those concerns and rollback one of the most 
invasive provisions of the PATRIOT law.
  Passing the Freedom to Read amendment would ensure that library or 
book store records relating to an American who is not the subject of an 
investigation will not end up in the government's hands without the 
benefit of the protections of the courts. I would urge my colleagues to 
stand up for the civil liberties that our country has always stood for 
and pass the Freedom to Read amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I submit the following statement of 
comparative budget authority.

[[Page H5229]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH07JY04.001



[[Page H5230]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH07JY04.002



[[Page H5231]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH07JY04.003



[[Page H5232]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH07JY04.004



[[Page H5233]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH07JY04.005



[[Page H5234]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH07JY04.006



[[Page H5235]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH07JY04.007



[[Page H5236]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH07JY04.008



[[Page H5237]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH07JY04.009



[[Page H5238]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH07JY04.010



[[Page H5239]]

  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the overall 
bill before us today. Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Serrano have 
joined together in a bipartisan fashion to present a bill that 
adequately reflects the funding priorities for our Nation in the area 
of Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary and related agencies.
  I am especially pleased that money was added to the bill to confront 
the growing problem with gang activity that jurisdictions throughout 
the country are facing. In my congressional district and in the 
northern Virginia region, we are dealing with a growing gang problem 
that if left unchecked, will expand significantly in a very short time. 
The additional resources in this bill will help enable our law 
enforcement officials to acquire the necessary tools to tackle this 
problem before it grows out of hand. Efforts to increase law 
enforcement capabilities and strengthen community prevention programs 
are required to meet the rising gang threat head on.
  While I am generally supportive of the funding levels provided in the 
bill, there are also a number of issues that should be addressed in 
this bill and others that should be deleted.
  An area in which this bill needs amending concerns the USA PATRIOT 
Act. Communities throughout the country including Arlington County and 
the city of Alexandria in my district, have recently expressed serious 
objections with a number of provisions included in the USA PATRIOT Act 
passed in October 2001.
  I share the concerns of my constituency and feel that these issues 
did not receive the appropriate public debate needed on such sensitive 
subjects as the protection of our civil liberties. In my opinion, the 
Attorney General's interpretation of definitions in the PATRIOT Act 
have eroded our basic civil rights and threaten to further damage the 
public's image of the Justice Department and Federal law enforcement in 
general. For these reasons and others, I am supporting amendments to 
the bill which would stop funding for certain Justice Department 
activities related to section 213 and section 215 of the PATRIOT Act.
  Section 213, also known as the ``sneak and peek'' provision, 
authorizes the issuance of delayed notification search warrants for 
physical evidence through a court order from the secret Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Court Act (FISA). These delayed notification 
warrants allow federal law enforcement to conduct a secret search and 
seizure of physical evidence without alerting the target until an 
unspecified time after the search is completed. The amendment 
introduced by Representative Otter seeks to impose reasonable limits on 
the government's ability to obtain sneak and peek warrants. It would 
continue to allow the authorization of a court issued delayed warrant 
if the life or physical safety of an individual were endangered, if it 
would result in a flight from prosecution or if it would result in the 
destruction or tampering of the evidence sought under the warrant. This 
amendment would also require notification of a covert search within 
seven days, rather than an undetermined ``reasonable period'' currently 
in law. Unlimited, additional seven day delays at the court's 
discretion will be available under the Otter amendment and the same 
provisions subjected to the original warrant apply for each extension.

  A second amendment that would curtail one of the more troubling 
provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act concerns section 215. Section 215 has 
the effect of requiring public libraries and booksellers to submit 
themselves to secret searches of purchase and checkout records with 
minimal justification from the FISA Court. Librarians and booksellers 
across the country fear that this is causing a ``chilling effect'' and 
making users self-censor their reading choices.
  While the Attorney General has released figures on how the PATRIOT 
Act has been used in the past 2 years which state that this provision 
has yet to be employed, the fact remains that the law raises questions 
of future federal mis-use of this provision. The Sanders-Paul-Conyers-
Nadler Freedom to Read amendment would restore and protect the privacy 
and first amendment rights of library and bookstore patrons which were 
in place before the USA PATRIOT Act. The amendment would not stop law 
enforcement from accessing these records, it would simply require them 
to do it with regular court-ordered search warrants or grand jury 
subpoenas.
  While the PATRIOT Act remains an area the underlying bill does not 
reform, another subject which was confronted in full committee and that 
passed is equally troubling. I opposed in full committee, an amendment 
offered by Representative Tiahrt which would prevent the city of New 
York from having access to federal gun tracing data in a lawsuit 
against gun manufacturers. Not only did this appropriations rider set a 
troubling precedent in that it was directed specifically to affect an 
ongoing court case, it also hampers future lawsuits that could be aided 
by this data. I am strongly opposed to the inclusion of this language 
in the bill. We need to be at a minimum maintaining our current common 
sense gun control measures, not weakening existing laws.
  Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, while not everything I would have liked 
to have seen is in this bill, it is a good balance of the priorities 
our law enforcement, small businesses and other related agencies 
require. I am supportive of this measure and look forward to a 
continued debate of the issues not addressed in the bill.
   Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on H.R. 4754, the 
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies 
Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2005.
   H.R. 4754 provides $39.8 billion in budget authority and $40.4 
billion in outlays--an increase of $878 million in BA and $1.7 billion 
in outlays from fiscal year 2004. Budget authority in the bill is $240 
million above the President's fiscal year 2005 budget request.
   H.R. 4754 contains $983 million in BA savings, including $902 
million in BA and $341 million in outlays from mandatory spending 
changes; and $81 million in rescissions of previously enacted BA.
   As chairman of the House Budget Committee, I am pleased to report 
that the bill is consistent with the conference report on the 
concurrent resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 2005 (H. Con. Res. 
95) which passed the full House but has yet to pass the Senate. The 
bill comes in at its 302(b) allocation of the Subcommittee on Commerce, 
Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies and therefore 
complies with section 302(f) of the budget resolution, which limits 
appropriations measures to the allocation of the reporting 
subcommittee. H.R. 4754 also complies in fiscal year 2005 with section 
302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act. Section 302(f) prohibits 
consideration of bills in excess of a subcommittee's 302(b) allocation.
   This bill is a clear exercise in setting priorities and responsible 
spending practices. I was encouraged to see that the Appropriations 
Committee was able to work within the budget framework that we outlined 
earlier in the year to find the available resources to increase funding 
for the Department of Justice by $275 million over the 2004 level and 
$624 million for the Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI]. It is 
certainly appropriate to shift resources from some lower-priority 
programs at the Department of Commerce toward more important and 
higher-priority public safety and crime prevention programs at the 
Department of Justice.
   Making those tough priority decisions isn't always easy but it can 
be done and needs to be done until we get our financial house back in 
order.
   Today, I applaud the members of the Appropriations Committee for 
demonstrating that they can set priorities which fit within the overall 
framework established by the budget resolution.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises to express his support 
for H.R. 4754, a bill making appropriations for the Departments of 
Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary for FY2005. In particular, 
this Member would like to thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Wolf), chairman of the Subcommittee and the distinguished 
gentlemen from New York (Mr. Serrano) for their hard work under 
difficult budget circumstances.
  As a member of the House Caucus to Fight and Control Methamphetamine, 
this Member strongly supports the inclusion of $60 million for 
methamphetamine enforcement and clean-up, otherwise known as the ``hot 
spots'' program. These funds are critical in State and local efforts to 
combat the scourge of methamphetamine that is sweeping across our 
country.
  This Member also appreciates the subcommittee's commitment to 
Nebraska's efforts to fight a growing plague in Nebraska--the 
manufacture, trafficking, and abuse of methamphetamine. The Nebraska 
State Patrol will continue the work began with the $1.8 million 
appropriated over the past 2 years, with an emphasis on funding for the 
cleanup of clandestine labs. Federal dollars are critical to the 
success of Nebraska's anti-meth efforts.
  Of additional concern is the strong link between methamphetamine 
abuse and crime. Methamphetamine manufacture, use and trafficking has 
completely changed the face of crime in Nebraska--especially 
nonmetropolitan Nebraska. Crime resulting from methamphetamine abuse is 
soaring, which places great demands on law enforcement. Certainly, 
methamphetamine use and related crime is the top law enforcement 
problem in Nebraska. In fact, a study entitled, ``The Rebirth of 
Rehabilitation: Promises and Perils of Drug Courts, 2000,'' noted that 
``an individual who has a severe addiction, to methamphetamine, commits 
nearly 63 crimes a year.''
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, this Member urges his colleagues to support 
H.R. 4754.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H5240]]

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Terry). All time for general debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered read.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4754

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes, namely:

                     TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                         General Administration

                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary for the administration of the 
     Department of Justice, $124,906,000, of which not to exceed 
     $3,317,000 is for the Facilities Program 2000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That not to exceed 45 
     permanent positions and 46 full-time equivalent workyears and 
     $11,078,000 shall be expended for the Department Leadership 
     Program exclusive of augmentation that occurred in these 
     offices in fiscal year 2004: Provided further, That not to 
     exceed 26 permanent positions, 21 full-time equivalent 
     workyears and $3,305,000 shall be expended for the Office of 
     Legislative Affairs: Provided further, That not to exceed 15 
     permanent positions, 20 full-time equivalent workyears and 
     $1,990,000 shall be expended for the Office of Public 
     Affairs: Provided further, That the latter two aforementioned 
     offices may utilize non-reimbursable details of career 
     employees within the caps described in the preceding two 
     provisos.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Manzullo

  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Manzullo:
       Page 2, line 7, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $27,000,000)''.
       Page 3, line 22, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $33,251,000)''.
       Page 77, line 17, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $10,421,000)''.
       Page 92, line 16, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $8,460,000)''.
       Page 94, line 2, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $79,132,000)''.

  Mr. MANZULLO (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I first want to congratulate the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), chairman of the Commerce, Justice, 
State, Judiciary and Related Agencies Subcommittee; and the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Serrano), ranking minority member, for crafting an 
excellent bill. Regardless of how this amendment turns out, I am going 
to vote for it and encourage the rest of the Members of Congress to 
vote for it. It is very difficult to balance all the conflicting 
interests, and I commend them for coming up with a good bill.
  With all due respect and honor to the gentlemen, I offer this 
amendment today to freeze funding for SBA 7(a) guaranteed lending 
program at last year's level.

                              {time}  1315

  The 7(a) is the flagship lending program of the Small Business 
Administration. This amendment means small businesses will be able to 
get started and grow. The 7(a) program is on track to create and retain 
half a million jobs this year. It has a proven track record by 
providing approximately 30 percent of the long-term financing needs for 
all small businesses.
  Increasing fees on small business borrowers and lenders, particularly 
as interest rates are rising again, puts another barrier in access to 
capital and crimps our national economic recovery.
  No matter how anybody states it, if this amendment fails, small 
business borrowers and lenders will face a fee or tax increase based on 
the amount of loan starting October 1 by as much as 100 percent. Some 
may characterize this as only a few dollars up front. But as the truth 
in lending disclosure form shows, he or she will pay up front at the 
time of the signing of the loan documents, hundreds if not thousands of 
extra dollars. The fee for a typical $100,000 loan would increase from 
$850 to $1,700.
  On top of the up-front fee, lenders will once again see their annual 
fee on the outstanding balance of 7(a) loans made after October 1 
increase, just after they shot up 30 percent this past April to keep 
the 7(a) program functional in fiscal year 2004. These fees cannot be 
passed on to the borrowers.
  Many lenders, particularly small community banks that serve rural 
areas, are seriously considering leaving the program. Fewer banks 
offering 7(a) loans will translate into decreased access to credit for 
small businesses, which will result in fewer jobs created.
  Mr. Chairman, my congressional district just dropped below 10 percent 
unemployment. Manufacturing jobs leveled off for 4 months. We lost 
another 11,000 this past month. We are not out of the woods yet. On top 
of it, the Fed decides to raise the interest rate. The last thing that 
we need is to have more of a crimp in capital access for the small 
businesses.
  The amendment does not increase business spending. In fact, the 
Congressional Budget Office estimates the amendment will reduce outlays 
by $7 million in fiscal year 2005 by offering cuts in other programs.
  The reductions are in other programs. The reductions will not be 
sensitive. They are in the Department of Justice General Administration 
Account. The Legal Activities Office Automation Program gets cut by $33 
million for a program that they never asked for; the National Endowment 
For Democracy gets cut by a little over $10 million, which is still $1 
million above the fiscal year 2004 level; and the salaries and expenses 
account at the SBA would make up the difference, to reach a $79,132,000 
appropriations level for 7(a). That account would be cut by $8.46 
million.
  So the purpose of this amendment in making the tough choices is to 
keep funding level, keep the 7(a) program where it is, and although I 
support the goal of eventually getting the 7(a) program to a zero 
subsidy rate, now at the time we are just starting to see the light at 
the end of the tunnel, just starting a recovery, this is not the time 
to impose additional fees and taxes, not only upon the people that 
borrow the money, but upon the lenders that make it all possible.
  Mr. Chairman, I again urge my colleagues to shift this $79 million 
from other accounts to the Small Business Account in order to help out 
the small businesses and keep the 7(a) program alive.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Commerce, Justice, State 
appropriations bill, and commend the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman 
Wolf) for crafting a fair and balanced bill, including the Justice 
Department, Commerce and State, as well as the Federal Judiciary. I 
would like particularly to comment on several issues of importance to 
me.
  First, this bill provides a 4 percent increase for the International 
Trade Administration of the Department of Commerce. The ITA serves 
several important functions that promote economic growth for U.S. 
workers and firms, including the opening of foreign markets for U.S. 
goods and the enforcement of trade laws and agreements. I join the 
chairman in strongly urging the Commerce Department to carefully 
analyze market trends in order to anticipate unfair trade practices and 
consult with foreign governments to preempt the requirement for unfair 
trade cases to be filed. This is particularly helpful to small- and 
medium-sized companies that have neither the time nor the resources to 
file lengthy and costly trade cases, but they do deserve the protection 
of our U.S. trade laws.
  Further, I would like to highlight the directive to the Commerce 
Department to contract with the National Academy of Public 
Administration to conduct a comprehensive study of the effects of 
offshoring jobs on the United States workforce and economy. Many 
manufacturing jobs have left my congressional district in recent years, 
and I believe it is critical to have accurate data of where jobs are 
going and what economic impact this job movement is having on the U.S. 
economy.

[[Page H5241]]

  I support the $10 million increase over the request for public 
diplomacy programs in this bill. It is important that we counter the 
anti-American sentiments that are being voiced in foreign public 
opinion polls and reflected in foreign media content. Public diplomacy 
is a critical tool to spread the message of who we are as Americans. 
The person-to-person exchanges that are promoted by these programs 
allow for the development of personal, long-term relationships that 
lead to mutual understanding and respect. We must continue to support 
these programs worldwide, but in particular, we must focus on programs 
with the Arab and Muslim world.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this important appropriations bill 
that funds our national and international security needs.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking member, the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Serrano) as well as the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman 
Wolf) for their work on this important legislation. The bill before us 
has attempted to do the most with a limited amount of dollars. One area 
where it falls short is the Small Business Administration.
  As the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Small Business, I 
always hear, during good economic times or bad, small business owners 
need access to affordable capital in order to be successful. That is 
why I always say access to capital is access to opportunity in this 
country.
  Small business owners have told me stories of having to max out 
credit cards, having to borrow money from relatives, and having banks 
ask them to put their homes up as collateral for a $20,000 loan, all so 
they can afford to start a new business or expand an existing business.
  The amendment I am offering today with the gentleman from Illinois 
(Chairman Manzullo) will restore funding for the 7(a) loan program to 
fiscal year 2004 levels, $79 million. This amendment offsets several 
programs, but keeps the funding consistent with their fiscal year 2004 
level. These are the real challenges facing small enterprises, and this 
is the whole reason the 7(a) loan program was created.
  The 7(a) program is a public and private partnership for banks, 
lenders and small businesses. The 7(a) program is this country's 
largest source of long-term small business lending for both the private 
and public sectors, providing 30 percent of this Nation's long-term 
loans.
  Given its tremendous success over the years, it is unbelievable to me 
that this critical loan program has been under nothing but attack from 
the Bush administration. This is the same administration that claims to 
be the champion of small business. The first thing this administration 
did 4 years ago was to eliminate funding for the 7(a) program. Then, 
earlier this year, the 7(a) program was shut down, and this happened 
because the Bush administration ignored Congress' warning and they 
ignored the industry. They simply chose to ask for less funding than 
what this loan program requires.
  Now, today, we face a new issue for the 7(a) program. This same 
administration wants to zero out the program's funding and let small 
businesses and lenders pay more. We heard small business owners say 
this was unfair, and we promised to do something about this. Well, that 
is what we are doing today, delivering that promise to our small 
businesses.
  What is so ironic is that we are talking about a successful small 
business lending program here. For every 60 cents, the 7(a) program 
provides $100 in loans. They have continually done more with less. A 
decade ago, they received $300 million in the appropriations process, 
and now we are asking for only one-third of that. Last year alone, the 
7(a) program touched over 350,000 jobs.
  The most unfortunate part is that over the past 10 years, the 7(a) 
program has managed to do more for small firms in an environment where 
they were being overcharged by the government. We fixed this problem in 
a bipartisan manner in 2001, but the Bush administration wants to go 
back to the days when small businesses were taxed.
  Well, let me tell you, it is not what our Nation's small businesses 
want and it is not what we want. President Bush travels across the 
country touting his small business agenda, but his talk proves to be 
rhetoric; his actions do not match his words.
  If you vote against this amendment today, then you are voting to 
increase the costs facing small businesses. Our hope is that this 
amendment passes, which would allow the 7(a) loan program to do record 
volumes with the same amount of money.
  It is these small business owners who use the 7(a) program that serve 
as anchors for our economy. The truth of the matter is, this is an 
outstanding loan program, and this is the right thing to do. With this 
amendment, we will be enabling our Nation's small businesses to 
continue creating the jobs that we so desperately need.
  If you support our Nation's economy, if you support job creation and 
small business, then you will vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of the Manzullo-
Velazquez amendment to the Commerce, Justice bill. But before I speak 
to that amendment, I want to commend the very distinguished chair of 
the committee and the ranking member for their leadership in bringing 
this bill to the floor.
  As one who served many years ago, in my earlier time with the 
Committee on Appropriations, on this subcommittee, I have an 
appreciation for the many difficult decisions that you have to make and 
the great opportunity there is for the American people in this 
particular appropriations bill.
  I also want to take the opportunity to acknowledge the tremendous 
leadership of the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf). He knows 
this, but I want to take a public opportunity to say that there is no 
person in this House that I admire more than I do the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Wolf). He is a champion for human rights throughout the 
world, and as one who has spoken out, as with many of our colleagues in 
the Congressional Black Caucus, on the situation in the Sudan, I want 
to recognize his exceptional leadership in that regard and say how much 
we all appreciate your visit, your trip there, and your relentless, 
persistent advocacy for the underprivileged throughout this world, in 
this case in particular, in Darfur. I know many of us are eager to hear 
a report of the gentleman's trip there.
  Once again, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for being 
the great challenge to the conscience that he has been in his service 
in Congress.
  I would like to now address the amendment that is being proposed to 
improve the small business access to 7(a) loans. As you may know, Mr. 
Chairman, the SBA 7(a) loan program is the most commonly used Small 
Business Administration loan, and backs approximately $11 billion in 
loans to small businesses each year. And yet it has faced shutdown caps 
and restrictions this year and received no funding under the latest 
Bush budget and Republican appropriations bill.
  The President's budget proposes to run the program solely through fee 
increases, substantially raising the costs for small businesses to use 
the program and taking billions of dollars out of the economy.
  Democrats, and in this case in a bipartisan way with the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), are fighting to adequately fund the 7(a) 
loan program and make more loans available to small businesses.
  We know that small businesses, Mr. Chairman, are the engine of our 
economy. They account for 95 percent of employers in our country, 
create half of our gross domestic product and create three out of four 
new jobs nationwide.
  We have a chance today to save the 7(a) program, and I hope that our 
colleagues will join the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) and 
the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Manzullo) in supporting the 
bipartisan amendment. It will provide fuel to our small businesses 
which run our economic engine.
  I would like to again recognize the leadership of the gentlewoman 
from New York (Ms. Velazquez), our ranking Democrat on the Committee on 
Small Business, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) for 
cosponsorship of this amendment.

[[Page H5242]]

  We are very proud of the service and leadership of the gentlewoman 
from New York (Ms. Velazquez). She is making history in her role as the 
ranking member on a full committee in the House; and in her service on 
that committee and in this body she has been a champion for small 
businesses.

                              {time}  1330

  I know she will be joined by the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) 
and others from the committee who have worked very hard.
  When we had our small business summit in June, small businessowners 
came from around the country, and access to capital was one of their 
top priorities. Passing this amendment will go a long way to addressing 
the need for capital. Capital attracts talent, talent attracts capital, 
the dynamic goes on and on. And while we want to promote the growth of 
many, many more jobs in our country, it is important that we do so by 
creating much more equity for potential businessowners and for current 
businessowners.
  With that, I urge my colleagues to support the Manzullo-Velazquez 
amendment.
  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. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, let me at the outset say that the gentleman from 
Virginia (Chairman Wolf) knows that I know how difficult it was to put 
this bill together and to deal with the issues that this bill takes 
care of. He is right, we had to move around with a smaller allocation. 
In fact, the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) was gracious 
enough to admit that the allocation, I think he said, was thin. Yet 
within that allocation, we were able to come up with a bill that I 
think we can all support.
  But in the middle of that bill, or actually at the beginning of the 
bill, there is this gaping hole, this problem with the SBA now. There 
are different views as to how much of a problem this truly represents. 
But the fact of life is that many people on both sides of the aisle 
feel that it is a problem and one that needs to be dealt with.
  Now, in committee, full committee, I proposed an amendment which 
would have provided the $79 million by declaring an emergency. What I 
basically did at that time was move emergency disaster funds and 
replace the 7(a) allocation in its place. By the way, that amendment 
was not approved; otherwise, we would not be here right now. Under our 
rules, that same amendment, then, cannot be presented on the floor 
because of the way it was presented, and so we have this one where we 
have dollars that we shift around in the bill.
  I am not going to repeat what everybody has said. But in so many 
communities throughout this country, the small business community and 
the providers of loans believe that this is an important amendment; 
that this is an amendment that should, in fact, be approved and one 
that both sides of the aisle can support.
  So with the respect and admiration that I have for my chairman, and 
knowing well that I was an architect in putting this bill together and 
our staffs were, nevertheless, I feel that this is an amendment that 
should be approved; and I will hope that on both sides it can get the 
sufficient votes to pass.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Manzullo-Velazquez amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to our colleagues, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), for 
their conscientious and cooperative efforts reflected in this bill. 
Despite the inadequate allocation the committee had to start with, they 
were able to redirect much-needed resources to a number of law 
enforcement programs, to antigang initiatives, to scientific research, 
and to business programs.
  As I said when the Homeland Security appropriations bill came to the 
floor, I am concerned about how the cuts to the COPS program and the 
Byrne grants for local law enforcement will affect our first 
responders' ability to protect us from, and to respond to, terrorist 
attacks. But I commend my colleagues for the improvements they have 
made in the President's budget request.
  Today, I rise in support of the amendment being offered by the 
chairman and the ranking member of the

[[Page H5243]]

Committee on Small Business to restore funding for the Small Business 
Administration's flagship 7(a) loan program. With all due respect to my 
friends on the Committee on Appropriations, these are the two Members 
who spend the most time dealing with small business issues and have the 
best understanding of small business programs.
  The fact that the two of them have come together to offer this 
bipartisan amendment should be all the proof that most Members need 
that 7(a) does, in fact, need Federal funds to survive. But for those 
who are not willing to take their word for it, let us look at the 
facts. Small businesses are the number one job creators in this 
economy. 7(a) loans account for nearly 30 percent of all long-term 
loans for small businesses in America. This is a program that has 
returned an estimated $12 billion to the economy with only a $120 
million investment. I cannot understand how anyone could say that 7(a) 
is not good business.
  The administration is apparently still clinging to their claim that 
7(a) can continue entirely as a fee-based program. They say we could 
simply increase fees to make up the difference in funding. We could. 
But if we did so, any company hoping to take out a $150,000 7(a) loan 
would have to ante up something like $10,000 in fees just to get the 
loan. In private real estate markets that would be like a mortgage 
broker charging seven points just to process a mortgage application. 
Such a policy would kill 7(a). That is why the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Manzullo) and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) have 
decided to offer this amendment, and I strongly encourage my colleagues 
to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill unfortunately shortchanges small business in 
yet another respect, zeroing out funding for the very successful 
microloan program.
  Microenterprises are the foundation of our economy, and although a 
microenterprise by definition has fewer than five employees, they 
account for something like 17 percent of our employment in this 
country. In the 12 years it has been in existence, the microloan 
program has resulted in 19,000 microloans responsible for the creation 
of more than 60,000 American jobs. In my district alone, this program 
has resulted in 223 loans totaling $1.26 million.
  That is a huge impact. Each of those loans represents a new business, 
a new American realizing his or her dream. The economic effects of each 
of these loans ripples and expands throughout the local, State, and 
ultimately, the national economy. The gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Serrano) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) will offer an 
amendment later to restore most of the funding for the microloan 
program, and I urge my colleagues to support their amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, America's small businesses represent the dreams, the 
innovation, the drive that have made this country great. Especially as 
we struggle to replace the 1.2 million American jobs that have been 
lost in the last 3 years, we need to ensure that the programs best 
qualified to create jobs are given the resources that they need. The 
7(a) program and the microloan program have proved themselves in 
creating jobs, building businesses, and expanding our economy. I urge 
my colleagues to give them the resources to continue.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, my respect and admiration for the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) is very large, but it does not extend to this 
amendment. I hope this amendment does not pass, and I will tell my 
colleagues my reasons.
  I am very concerned that in adding $10 million to the program that 
the gentleman wishes to nourish will result in that size of a cut from 
the National Endowment for Democracy. If ever there was a time we 
needed public diplomacy, we need the services of the National Endowment 
for Democracy to help tell the truth about America throughout the 
Middle East, as well as the rest of the world, it is now. This is not 
the time to be cutting these funds, and this Manzullo amendment would 
end up doing that.
  Small business is very important, we all agree. Small business we 
trust has been adequately compensated in this general legislation, and 
even if this method of funding the program the gentleman wishes to 
protect is removed, the program will continue, I am informed, because 
it can be funded in other manners.
  But in any event, this is a very important amendment. It is one that 
if it passes would limit our ability to tell the story that we need to 
tell throughout the Middle East and the rest of the world about 
democracy and freedom. We are on the defensive now. This is no time to 
tie us in knots.
  So with warm respect for the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), 
I respectfully hope this amendment is defeated.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking 
member, the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) and the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Serrano), for their leadership. In spite of the cuts 
in funding and the sacrifices that we are having to make in terms of 
budget shortfalls, they are showing their leadership in providing as 
much funding as possible for those critical programs that are endemic 
to working families.
  Mr. Chairman, I do rise, though, in strong support of the amendment 
offered by my colleagues on the Committee on Small Business, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Manzullo) and the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member, which would provide full 
funding for the Small Business Administration's primary lending 
program, the 7(a) loan program.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. Chairman, we on the Committee on Small Business have heard small 
business owners throughout this country, and they are all saying the 
same thing, that the one hurdle faced by America's 23 million small 
businesses is gaining access to affordable capital. I believe that the 
Manzullo-Velazquez amendment, which maintains the $79 million in 
funding provided to the agency last year, helps SBA reach its goal of 
providing small companies with the financing they need through the 
agency's access to capital lending programs. Without this funding 
provided for businesses by this amendment, many small businesses could 
be denied the loans they need to be successful.
  Funding for this program, and if it is not restored, small businesses 
will be unable to target new markets, grow or even hire new workers. 
The 7(a) loan program is the SBA's core lending program and accounts 
for roughly 30 percent of all long-term small businesses in America. In 
addition, these loans are the only source of affordable long-term 
financing for many of our Nation's small businesses, especially 
minority- and women-owned businesses.
  As the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Tax, Finance, and 
Exports, I understand the importance of small businesses to our Nation. 
They employ 97 percent of our Nation's workforce and are often called 
the engine of the Nation's economy. Without the funding provided for by 
this amendment, both lenders participating in the program and borrowers 
will be faced with higher fees; some lenders could be forced to 
withdraw from the program, leaving small businesses with fewer options 
for financing.
  Mr. Chairman, the passage of this amendment is critical to the 
capital needs of thousands of small businesses. I urge its passage.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Velazquez), the ranking member on the committee.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. A 
concern was raised by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) regarding 
the properness of where the amendment places the money within SBA. With 
all due respect, Mr. Chairman, because the SBA 7(a) program was 
eliminated, a program account does not exist. But I want to read from 
the committee's report and the gentleman says, ``The committee 
recommends a total of $128 million under this account for 
administrative expenses related to business loan programs.''
  So what we have done is to operate within the constraints that the 
committee provided us. And regarding the concern that was raised about 
the

[[Page H5244]]

money, $10 million that had been taken from the National Endowment for 
Democracy, even by taking the offset of $10 million, the program 
remains funded at last year's level. And we do support spreading 
democracy, but we also support creating jobs in our country.
  Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  In many ways, it is with somewhat of a heavy heart that I rise in 
support of the amendment, especially as the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Wolf) has been so helpful in restoring the Manufacturing Extension 
Partnership funds which will help my State of Michigan, and because of 
the enormous respect I have for the chairman of the Committee on 
International Relations on which I sit, the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Hyde).
  But being from Michigan, my small businesses have asked me to come 
and support this amendment and ask that we not raise these fees at a 
time when the Fed is raising our interest rates. As the backbone of our 
economy, our small businesses deserve no less during difficult times, 
especially while, despite a recovering economy, pockets of persistent 
downturn remain, many of them in the industrial States, one of which I 
represent.
  As for the National Endowment for Democracy, in many ways it is 
important to remember that democracy begins at home. It will be very 
difficult to continue to mobilize Americans' resolve to spread 
democracy abroad if in an economic downturn we are tempted to turn 
inward towards our own struggling economy.
  The continued support of small business, the perpetuation of their 
entrepreneurial dreams, is the seed of democracy which we are 
endeavoring to sow throughout the world. Let us not forget them and 
turn our backs today.
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my 
good friends, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) and the 
ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), of the 
House Committee on Small Business.
  I speak as a former president and chief financial officer for 20 
years of a small business firm, and I speak as a former member of the 
Committee on Small Business. I understand how difficult it can be to 
access capital when you run a small business or when you want to start 
one. Restoring $79 million for the Small Business Administration's SBA 
7(a) loan guarantee program in fiscal year 2005 is a step in the right 
direction.
  The 7(a) loan guarantee program deserves among the SBA's business 
loan program to help qualified small businesses obtain financing when 
they might not be eligible for business loans through small lending 
channels. It provides 30 percent of all long-term small business 
financing. This program is also the SBA's most flexible business loan 
program since financing under the 7(a) loan program can be guaranteed 
for a variety of general business purposes. Regardless, funding for the 
7(a) program has dwindled from approximately $330 million a decade ago 
down to only $79 million today as borrowers and lenders have absorbed 
much of the program's costs.
  Many small businesses are attempting to emerge from the current 
economic downturn and they do not have the balance sheets necessary to 
obtain conventional financing. Consequently, they need the 7(a) 
program.
  It has been my experience that start-up businesses in particular rely 
on the 7(a) loan guarantee as the last resort to access desperately 
needed capital. The SBA 7(a) loan program is vital to the funding of 
these small businesses. Without a supportive funding appropriation, 
many small businesses simply will not be financed and many jobs will 
not be created.
  My State needs this program to be funded. They have contacted me 
repeatedly, requesting my assistance, and I have responded in kind, 
cosigning letters requesting funding for the program. Today is the day 
we need to heed the call of most, if not all, of our small business 
constituents who comprise such a large percentage of all businesses in 
the United States.
  I support restoring funding for the 7(a) program. I urge my 
colleagues to support small business and the Manzullo-Velazquez 
amendment to this legislation.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Today is an important day for small business, their owners, their 
employees, those out of work and desperately searching and, indeed, the 
entire American economy.
  In June, our economy was estimated to add 112,000 new jobs. Make no 
mistake, this is a significant number, especially for those individuals 
that found these new jobs and for their families. However, there are 
still far too many individuals and families that are suffering from the 
effects of unemployment, and unfortunately, that number of new jobs 
falls drastically short of the number of new jobs needed each month 
just to keep up with the growing working population. Yet, here we are 
on a day when Oregon's unemployment is still 6.7 percent.
  There is a bill before us that seeks to cut all funding for the Small 
Business Administration's loan program, 7(a). The SBA 7(a) loan program 
is vital to America's small business, and American small businesses are 
vital to the American economy and the American worker.
  Demand for more small business loans, especially 7(a) guaranteed 
loans, have increased dramatically as America's small businesses seize 
a glimmer of hope that we are emerging from our recession. To pull the 
very rug out from under them by cutting funding to the 7(a) program 
just when they see this glimmer of hope is nothing short of cruel. 
These SBA 7(a) loans are especially important to start-up businesses 
which are so reliant on ready access to capital.
  These start-up businesses are our future. They will be where our new 
growth comes from. It makes no sense whatsoever to cut their access to 
capital when our economy needs every boost of stimulus it can get.
  A vote for the Manzullo-Velazquez amendment is a vote for America's 
small business which, in turn, is a vote for America's economy and the 
American worker. That is why I am supporting this amendment to restore 
the funding needed for the 7(a) SBA program, and that is why I am 
asking all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in 
this effort.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am reluctant to rise in opposition to this amendment, 
because of its sponsor. I know that his heart is in the right place. 
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) is an outstanding chairman 
of the Committee on Small Business. I know that he has worked very hard 
for the strength of small businesses because he understands, as most of 
us do, that without all of our small businesses in America, we would 
not have any big businesses because the big businesses rely on small 
businesses in order to get the job done. But the sponsors of the 
amendment are of the opinion that there is no money or that the 7(a) 
loan program needs more money.
  In this bill, if I remember correctly, the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Wolf) provides $12.5 billion in loan guarantees for this program. 
So we have not forgotten this program in the appropriations bill. The 
amendment does not really add money to the loan program anyway. It adds 
money to the SBA administrative account and, therefore, will not even 
be spent on the loan program as the drafters intend.
  At the same time, and this is my larger concern, the amendment cuts 
not only other SBA administrative functions, hurting the agency that 
oversees the loan programs, but it also reduces programs in the 
Department of Justice, impacting homeland security initiatives, by $60 
million. The impact of this would be devastating on the war on 
terrorism. For example, the cuts include the office that oversees 
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act applications which are vital to 
the war on terrorism and which are vital to keep track of terrorists 
who may try to enter this country. I believe that there are more 
prudent ways to address the gentleman's issue.
  Again, I would like to compliment him for his strong commitment, not 
only as a Member of the House, but as chairman of the Committee on 
Small

[[Page H5245]]

Business, and for his support of small businesses because, again I will 
repeat, that small businesses are important to this Nation and are 
important to our economy. Small businesses create many of the jobs that 
Americans hold and draw paychecks from. Without our very successful 
number of small businesses, the large businesses in America would find 
it very difficult to function because they do rely on small businesses.
  So, all in all, I do not think this money is certainly not needed for 
the loan program. But it would not be invested in the loan program 
anyway. But what it does is take money away from homeland security 
programs in the Department of Justice, and I just think that is a 
mistake.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Manzullo-
Velazquez amendment to the fiscal year 2005 Commerce, Justice, State 
Appropriations Act and mainly to support small business.
  This amendment will provide the necessary funding to maintain the 
integrity of the Small Business Administration's flagship small 
business lending mechanism, the 7(a) loan guarantee program.
  Mr. Chairman, I represent the Territory of Guam, where 90 percent of 
our businesses are small businesses.

                              {time}  1400

  I applaud the bipartisan leadership demonstrated by our dynamic duo, 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) and the gentlewoman from New 
York (Ms. Velazquez), in constructing this amendment; and I am proud to 
have worked with my colleagues on the committee, whether participating 
in hearings or writing letters or meeting with small business owners, 
so that we can today arrive at a consensus that reflects the needs of 
the small business community and the role of the Federal Government to 
help foster growth, innovation and jobs in this important economic 
sector.
  The 7(a) loan guarantee program is a principal source of funding for 
small businesses, representing 30 percent of all long-term small 
business borrowing in the United States. Oftentimes, the 7(a) program 
is the only source for long-term financing on reasonable terms for 
small businesses, particularly those in poor, rural, and underserved 
areas. These small firms represent the future of our economy, as they 
account for 75 percent of all new jobs created in the United States.
  Consider these statistics: the current Federal burden for supporting 
every $100 of a 7(a) loan is 60 cents. Statistics also show that a new 
job is created in the small business sector for every $33,000 of loans.
  Mr. Chairman, that means that it costs the Federal Government only 
$198 to create an additional job for the economy through the 7(a) 
program. A Federal program that demonstrates this level of success 
should never, ever be cut back, but, rather, expanded.
  Suspending Federal funding of the 7(a) program will result in an 
increased cost to small businesses, as banks will pass new costs on to 
their 7(a) customers in the form of higher fees.
  There is also fear that some banks, particularly in poor, rural and 
underserved areas, will no longer see the incentive of offering 7(a) 
loans and will suspend this financing mechanism altogether. This will 
have the effect of halting both economic and job growth at a time, Mr. 
Chairman, when we are just beginning to recover from the recent 
economic downturn.
  Recognizing the budget challenges this year, the Manzullo-Velazquez 
amendment modestly proposes to fund the Federal subsidy of the 7(a) 
program at fiscal year 2004 levels. It is also budget-neutral. This 
amendment is supported by Democrats and Republicans, by small business 
owners throughout the country and by banks that offer federally backed 
financing mechanisms.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the right thing to do, and I hope my colleagues 
will vote in favor of the Manzullo-Velazquez amendment.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Manzullo-Velazquez 
amendment to H.R. 4754, the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations 
bill. I strongly support the Small Business Administration's (SBA), 
7(a) business loan program and have joined some of my colleagues from 
Connecticut in advocating improvements and increases in the program.
  I understand the serious issues facing small businesses today and 
believe that, as the backbone of our community, it is vital we do what 
we can to help them thrive and I appreciate the spirit of the 
amendment.
  But this is not what the amendment does in its entirety. It cuts $60 
million out of the Department of Justice and $10 million out of the 
National Endowment For Democracy. And so, therefore, the amendment is 
fatally flawed.
  If my colleagues believe that the cold war still exists, they could 
probably make an argument for this amendment. They could probably say 
we do not need the National Endowment For Democracy as much as we do 
today, and they could probably say that the Department of Justice does 
not need the initiatives that it needs; but the Cold War is over, and 
the world is a far more dangerous place. We have to deal with the 
issues that confront us.
  The idea that we would contain and react to threats and have mutually 
assured destruction in the days of the Cold War has been replaced by 
the need for detection and prevention. Our actions may have to be maybe 
preemptive and maybe sometimes even unilateral, but the key part is 
prevention and detection; and there is no way we are going to be able 
to detect and prevent, in my judgment, if we are not doing more to give 
our intelligence community the skills to detect and to prevent.
  We have a letter from the Department of Justice that makes clear 
that, to accommodate an additional $10 million cut in the OIPR budget 
for intelligence, they would need to forego requested adjustments to 
base, including the funding needed to support the annualization of 
second-year costs for 16 OIPR positions. This would further degrade 
OIPR's ability to process FISA's applications for intelligence searches 
and surveillances before the foreign intelligence surveillance court of 
review, when the number of applications has increased significantly 
since September 11, 2001. The letter goes on.
  This is crazy at this time to act like somehow this is pre-September 
11.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  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.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding; but 
with all due respect, I sit on the Committee on Financial Services.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. McHugh). The time of the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. SHAYS was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. For members of the subcommittee of Congress to be

[[Page H5246]]

here doing the job for a financial institution is completely wrong.
  This amendment will address a Hispanic woman who goes shopping around 
to make a loan and is being denied a loan by commercial banks. Unless 
we have a loan guarantee, and my colleagues know that we hear time and 
time again about minority businesses, women-owned businesses who are 
denied loans through traditional financial institutions, this amendment 
helps those people who are trying to set up their businesses or expand 
their businesses.
  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.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would further yield, we 
can mix oranges and apples. Microloan and 7(a) are two completely 
different programs.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, let me begin by recognizing the hard work of the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Serrano). I know this is a difficult bill, and I know there is not a 
lot of money available.
  Let me more importantly, however, recognize the bipartisan spirit and 
hard work of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), the Chair of 
the Committee on Small Business, and also the gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member.
  This is an absolutely critical bill. This is not a bill for the 
banks. This is a bill for the small businesses in America that are 
struggling. This is a bill for the companies in this country that are 
trying to create jobs. We have a sluggish, sputtering economy. We have 
just raised interest rates on these same small businesses.
  We hear a lot of rhetoric on this floor about the engine of our 
democracy, creating jobs, we love Main Street, we want to support small 
businesses; but when it comes time to make a policy decision, which is 
where we are today, so many people have all kinds of reasons why we 
should not put creating jobs and helping small businesses at the front 
of the line.
  Yes, there is a need for democracy funds; and, yes, there is a need 
for 16 additional personnel to process visas. And we can get that 
money. We wasted more money on Halliburton than this bill involves. 
That money can be obtained. The fact of the matter is this is an 
absolutely critical bill.
  Now, it is amazing to me to hear people dismiss cavalierly the needs 
of the small business community. Why? Because unlike many big 
businesses and unlike the Halliburtons, these small businesses are 
creating jobs here in the United States. These are not jobs that are 
going to be exported or offshored. These are jobs here in our local 
communities.
  The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) cited the example of 
minority businesses who go around shopping for loans and that cannot 
get those loans without this program. This program created 300,000 jobs 
in America last year. This program used $79 million and leveraged that 
into loans totaling over $12 billion. Those loans, those jobs are the 
things that make America work.
  So it seems to me that for the relatively modest sum of $79 million 
we ought to give small businesses and job creation in America a greater 
priority and fund other worthy causes that have been discussed on this 
floor through other means.
  We have given great tax cuts to very wealthy people. I mentioned 
Halliburton. We have given them loads of money; and they have misused 
it, overcharged the United States. The money can be found to address my 
colleagues' concerns, and they are worthy concerns; but today, we have 
to ask ourselves a very fundamental question. Are we serious about 
helping the small businesses in our community? If we are, we should 
support the Manzullo-Velazquez amendment and restore the funding for 
the 7(a) loan program.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I thought I would recite the names of 
some of the organizations that are in favor of the Manzullo-Velazquez 
amendment. Sure, we have the American Bankers Association that is in 
favor of it, but just listen to the names of these groups that 
represent small businesses.
  The Asian American and Hotel Owners Association; Women Impacting 
Public Policy, that is over 2.5 million women-owned small businesses. 
The Air Conditioning Contractors of America, those are all small 
businesses. American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers, 
those are small business people. American Society of Appraisers, those 
are small business people. America's Community Bankers, those are many 
small community banks in rural areas. Financial Services Roundtable, 
banks of all sizes, including large banks. Independent Community 
Bankers of America, those are mostly small banks, many in rural areas.
  International Franchise Association, thousands and thousands of small 
business owners across America. National Association of Government 
Guaranteed Leaders, NAGGL, that represents people that get small 
business loans. National Association for the Self-Employed, I think the 
average membership of their group is less than five employees.
  National Association of Women Business Owners, small business people. 
The National Bankers Association, National Black Chamber of Commerce, 
the National Small Business Association, the Small Business Legislative 
Council, the Appraisal Institute. The Tire Industry Association, these 
are guys that have tire shops across the country. The United Motorcoach 
Association, these are guys that buy buses for tourism, et cetera; and 
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which represents the large and small 
businesses.
  The reason all these groups are behind the Manzullo-Velazquez 
amendment is that the core purpose of the Small Business Administration 
is to make capital available to small businesses, and why the SBA is 
fighting small businesses is beyond the recognition of the chairman of 
the Committee on Small Business. I cannot understand it, why the SBA is 
fighting this bill, which is the core program of the entire SBA.

                              {time}  1415

  It does not make sense. $79 million in the huge $3 trillion budget 
that we have is not a lot of money. But what it does amount to is the 
doubling of the fee of the little guys that get loans of under 
$150,000. The little ones get hit, the very ones that are trying to 
make this Nation recover.
  In my district, we just dropped below 10 percent unemployment and the 
Fed raised the interest rate. I stand here in the gap as the chairman 
of the Committee on Small Business to say the Small Business 
Administration is wrong on this issue, and they ought to be ashamed of 
themselves for fighting this Congress to defund the very program that 
has made the SBA the organization that it is.
  Sure, I could get very impassioned over little people. I come from a 
small business. My dad had a grocery store and then a restaurant, and 
the family restaurant continues today. And if my brother wants to get a 
loan from the SBA, why should his fees be doubled?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, although I 
support the intention of the chairman of the Committee on Small 
Business, my concern would be where the money comes from. So, in the 
MEP program, it is already sacrificing, and this also takes funds out 
of that. So I do not know how to rebalance.
  Mr. MANZULLO. If the gentleman will continue to yield, this does not 
take funds of the MEP.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Well, Mr. Chairman, this takes funds out of 
the Justice Department, and that is part of the sourcing of funds that 
I understand the money would come from. And I will be happy to yield 
for a final word from the chairman.

[[Page H5247]]

  Mr. MANZULLO. Well, I commend the chairman for funding the MEP 
program, but out of Justice this comes out of the administration 
account. It has nothing to do with FBI agents or the DEA or people 
involved in those positions.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time once again, 
let me ask a question of the chairman. Where is this $60 million of the 
funds coming from in Justice?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  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.''
  Ms. MAJETTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise today in support of this bipartisan amendment offered 
by my colleagues on the Committee on Small Business, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), the chairman, and the ranking member, the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
  This amendment would restore funding for the Small Business 
Administration's signature 7(a) loan program to the fiscal year 2004 
levels of $79 million. The underlying bill would eliminate funding for 
this critical program, potentially crippling many small businesses that 
rely on the 7(a) program as their only source of capital.
  The number one problem cited by America's small businesses is gaining 
access to affordable capital. As you know, the 7(a) loan program 
provides loans on favorable terms to small businesses and allows funds 
to be used for operating capital. The SBA offers the program through 
private lenders and the SBA guarantees 50 to 80 percent of the loan's 
amount. The 7(a) loan program accounts for 30 percent of all long-term 
small business lending, and it is a proven catalyst for job creation 
and economic development.
  This loan program has proven itself productive and successful. Last 
year, in Georgia, 1,498 loans were issued for a total of $367 million 
under the 7(a) program. And in my district, Georgia's Fourth 
Congressional District, 184 loans were issued, totaling $47 million. 
Those loans kept and produced jobs in our community. Those loans 
supported the very businesses that managed to weather a weak economy, 
and now some wish to take those loans away.
  Small businesses cite access to capital as their main barrier to 
growth. By not fully funding the 7(a) program, we will be denying vital 
funds to small businesses across the country. This means fewer small 
businesses, less growth in those that survive, and fewer jobs created.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to restore funding 
for a program vital to our small businesses, our families and our 
economy.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. MAJETTE. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me, 
because it will not take me 5 minutes to do what I want to do. I am 
with my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), on this. 
I do not understand the priorities that the Small Business 
Administration are using when they talk about not supporting a loan 
program that has generated 360,000 jobs in the last year.
  How could this administration, that has lost as many jobs as it has 
through the almost 4 years of being in office, now be talking about 
doing away with a program that is a job creation mechanism? I, for the 
life of me, do not understand that. And the only thing I can say is, 
this is just not rational decision-making being made.
  This argument that somehow we are going to restore these funds by 
increasing fees on small business people who apply for the loans just 
makes even less sense to me. Because those are the very people who need 
the money without additional fees being generated and charged and 
assessed to them.
  So the priority setting here in an appropriations process tells a lot 
about the values of an administration and the values of an SBA. And, 
apparently, this SBA and this administration simply do not care about 
small businesses or about job creation, even though it is giving lip 
service to it throughout the country.
  I think we should support this amendment, and I appreciate the 
gentlewoman yielding to me. It does not take a long time to say this 
administration's priorities are out of whack on this issue, and we 
should support the amendment that has been offered by the gentlewoman 
from New York (Ms. Velazquez) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Manzullo), who cannot understand the priorities that this Republican 
administration is putting forward any more than we can on this side.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. MAJETTE. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, in reference to the fact that this 
amendment takes money from homeland security, I will say that there is 
nothing in this amendment that will take money from homeland security. 
The offsets are from DOJ automation projects.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the virtues of the small businesses have 
already been outlined time, time, and time again. The only question is 
what is the biggest problem that small businesses have in this country? 
The biggest problem that small businesses have is access to capital. 
How do they get the money that they need to really start up? How do 
they get the money to expand? How do they get the money to operate? 
Without capital, there can really be no small businesses.
  So it seems to me that, notwithstanding all of the difficulties that 
have been cited about where the money is or what we have to do with it, 
if we do not generate it, if we do not produce it, then we do not have 
the businesses that we need.
  I would simply urge support for the Manzullo-Velazquez amendment, and 
also indicate support for the microloan program. I come into contact 
with hundreds of small business people every week, every month, who, 
with just a little bit of money, would really help them over what they 
call the ``hump.'' It would keep them in business, keep them employed, 
and keep the economy thriving.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the first order of business is to acknowledge 
the good work that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the 
ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) have done on 
this appropriation with the deck of cards they have been given. I think 
this debate should stray away from the work that has been done by the 
appropriators. We already know the vigorous debate that has taken place 
between the budget people and the appropriators, trying to find dollars 
where they may not be.
  Let me just say that as a member of the Select Committee on Homeland 
Security, I believe we have unanimity in at least recognizing that 
homeland security is important. We may do it differently, but we 
understand it is important and we want to secure the homeland.
  I frankly believe there are ways to improve the resources necessary 
to do what is important for the American people, secure the homeland, 
and also do what the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) and the 
ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), want us 
to do, and that is to rebuild the crumbling infrastructure of the SBA 
7(a) loan program.
  Let me cite, if I might, and compliment Milton Wilson, who heads my 
SBA agency in the Houston region, talk about the many, many hundreds of 
small businesses that have created jobs in Houston. When we were 
falling on our very knees just about 3 years ago and Enron laid off 
5,000 employees in my community, the domino effect was enormous from 
businesses that were supported by this very large company and other 
energy companies who felt the brunt of the economic engine failing in 
this country.
  Now, we just realized that we only created in the last month 112,000 
jobs

[[Page H5248]]

when, in actuality, to be even minimally healthy economically, we 
needed to create 150,000. Well, Mr. Chairman, the place to create those 
jobs is through small businesses.
  I am frankly disappointed to announce to the American public and my 
colleagues that 2 days before Christmas, just a year ago, the 
administration encouraged or announced significant changes to the 7(a) 
program. Two weeks later, the SBA shut the program down. What does that 
mean to small businesses, which are basically the infrastructure of 
America?
  They are the job creators of America. That is what all of us say. 
When we go home to our districts, it is the small business owners that 
we encounter, with all their ups and downs. The only way they have been 
able to access dollars has been to use their credit cards, with their 
usurious interest rates. That is how they have been funding their 
businesses.
  These are the floral shops, these are the cleaners, these are the 
small computer offices, these are the human resource offices. These are 
the small businesses of America. Frankly, they may be in Houston, they 
may be in Jackson, Mississippi, they may be in Charlotte, North 
Carolina, they may be in New York, they may be in Ohio and Illinois and 
California. All over America, what is happening is that we are losing 
the ability for these small businesses to engage in business by getting 
these kinds of loans.
  According to the GAO, over the past 10 years, small business lenders 
and borrowers have paid over $1 billion in miscalculated government 
fees and under-the-table taxes. This was fixed by a bipartisan move 2 
years ago, yet the administration wants to go back to a time when 
lenders and borrowers were overcharged. That does nothing but hurt our 
small businesses.
  So this amendment that has been offered by the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York and the distinguished gentleman from Illinois 
is, frankly, the right way to go. And I would like to be able to say to 
the ranking member and the chairman of this subcommittee, let us go 
find some dollars somewhere where they are not needed, like the 
enormous tax cuts that are taking away from the working men and women 
of America. Let us go find money that will support the 7(a) loan 
program that can, in effect, provide the resources that are necessary 
to create jobs.
  Who would stand on the floor of the House today and ignore the fact 
that we only created 112,000 jobs? The only way we can add to those 
jobs, besides boosting our manufacturing, is to give small business the 
ability to secure loans that will help them grow their businesses. They 
grow them two employees, three employees, and five employees at a time.
  This is not about responding to a constituency, the small business 
community of America, it is about responding to Americans who need 
jobs.

                              {time}  1430

  I support this amendment because I believe it is a viable amendment. 
This program generated more than 60,000 jobs last year across America. 
It is not going to create any jobs if we continue to dumb down the 
program and do not provide it with the resources it needs.
  In closing, the ranking member and the chairman of the subcommittee 
have worked with what they had to work with. I also want to acknowledge 
that we are all supporters of the National Endowment for Democracy, but 
we need to find dollars to do the important business of America: 
securing the homeland, providing loans for small businesses, and 
creating jobs. If we do that, we will improve the quality of life in 
America. I ask Members to support this amendment.
  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.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. McHugh). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield half of 
my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) and that he be 
permitted to control that time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair would advise Members that under 
the unanimous consent request, the 15 minutes for the proponent is 
controlled by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), so he would 
have any prerogative to yield such time to other Members.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield half of 
my allotted 15 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) 
and that she may control that time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Manzullo-Velazquez amendment to restore funding to the SBA 7(a) 
program.
  In its fiscal year 2005 budget, the administration dealt a near-
mortal blow to our Nation's small businesses by taking the funding from 
that program to zero. This amendment breathes new life into it by 
restoring that funding. It is critical to at least maintain funding for 
SBA's 7(a) loan program to last year's level of $79 million. Providing 
just level funding will leverage more than $13 billion in lending 
opportunities under the 7(a) program. But if this bill passes without 
the Manzullo-Velazquez amendment, small businesses will be required to 
pay nearly $80 million currently subsidized by the Federal Government, 
the equivalent of a new tax on small business.
  Today, with double-digit rising health care costs, expanding energy 
costs, and pressure from overseas competitors, this increase is more 
than our small businesses can bear.
  The 7(a) loans spur economic development in underserved areas like my 
district in the Virgin Islands, especially the island of St. Croix. The 
7(a) loans are used to purchase land or buildings to expand existing 
facilities. These loans are used to buy new equipment, machinery, or 
even furniture.
  In sum, the 7(a) loan program is SBA's core lending program, as 
Members have heard, and accounts for roughly 30 percent of all long-
term small business borrowing in America. I want to thank the gentleman 
from Illinois (Chairman Manzullo) and the gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member, for their leadership and their 
strong passionate bipartisan effort to salvage this program which is so 
critical to the small business sector and thus to the economic health 
of our Nation.
  I urge my colleagues to walk the talk and support America's small 
businesses by supporting this amendment. Without this amendment, the 
7(a) lending program and many of our small businesses will not survive.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gonzalez).
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I think in any debate, whether it is this 
amendment or any other amendment, I do not think we should ever 
question any Member's commitment or dedication to the war on terror. 
The funding that is sought in this particular amendment will not 
jeopardize our effort on the war on terrorism, and I think we need to 
start off with that understanding so we remain focused on the true 
intent of this particular amendment, and that is the very lifeline or 
lifeblood to small businesses in securing loans.
  Small businesses already operate at great disadvantage. They do not 
get the same deductions as big corporations. They cannot go and 
establish their headquarters offshore and abroad to avoid paying taxes. 
This is all about the American dream. This is all about sweat and toil 
and commitment to this great capitalist system that makes this great 
democracy the great democracy that we have today.
  We will never support democracy without a strong economy. I look at 
this as the greatest investment we can possibly make. We have to remain 
focused on the true intent of this particular amendment. These will be 
loans

[[Page H5249]]

that are being made because of the funding in the guarantee. These are 
loans that would not be made otherwise. This is not a subsidy to banks. 
It is about risk, and there is nothing wrong with taking risk into 
consideration. We make that accommodation which makes money and capital 
available to the small businesses, the very strength of our economy, 
which lends credence, which lends viability to this great democracy. 
This is what it is all about, and I would hope everyone in this Chamber 
when we vote today will support small businesses throughout this 
country.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Hawaii (Mr. Case).
  (Mr. CASE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CASE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Manzullo-
Velazquez amendment. I came to this Congress and asked to serve on the 
Small Business Committee. Coming from a State that has 96 percent of 
its businesses as small businesses, 60 percent of its businesses as 
minority-owned businesses, I came here ready to roll up my sleeves 
believing that Washington, D.C. cared about small businesses.
  Let us put this amendment into perspective and ask ourselves is that 
true. As we look at the actions of this administration, and many times 
this Congress, Members have to say that small business has not been 
treated well. I have sat on the Committee on Small Business, as 
bipartisan a committee as there is in this Congress, where we are all 
trying to help small business, and I have watched as the discussion has 
turned to small businesses being squeezed out of the Federal 
procurement process. I have watched as we have had hearings on all of 
those measures to help small businesses, from reducing paperwork, the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, and instead we see this administration 
presiding over increases in paperwork. Regulatory relief, this 
administration presiding over huge increases in regulation, and the 
Small Business Administration coming in to us and trying to defend the 
actions of the Office of Management and Budget telling them to cut, and 
we see the pain in their eyes when they have to carry that policy down 
here.
  Now we find ourselves facing an amendment that should never have had 
to have been brought to the floor of this House to preserve a program 
which has been the flagship program of small business, and we are being 
put in a box where we have to elect between two different things that 
we both support. Of course we support it.
  But I have to ask, why do we not take a look at the billion dollar 
sole source contracts for huge businesses that are out there? This is a 
blip on the radar screen when we compare it to that. This is not about 
banks. Banks are consolidating. Big banks are getting bigger. Small 
banks are getting wiped out. Small banks serve small businesses; small 
businesses are not cared for by the big banks. They are being squeezed 
out. Take it to a rural community in my district, Na'alehu, a small mom 
and pop operation, trying to get just a little capital to get going; 
and if they are going to the big banks, they are not going to get that 
capital.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong, unqualified support of the bipartisan 
Manzullo/Velazquez amendment to save the Small Business 
Administration's section 7(a) small business loan program.
  Mr. Chairman, the Small Business Administration (SBA) was created 51 
years ago by President Dwight D. Eisenhower to meet a critical 
nationwide capital shortage. SBA's top priority was to provide small 
companies with access to capital through its lending programs. The 7(a) 
loan program is the signature program within the SBA. Over the last 
decade, the SBA has approved more than 424,000 loans for over $90 
billion, assisting countless small businesses across the country with 
their basic capital requirements.
  Tragically, funding of the 7(a) program is in grave danger of being 
eliminated. Should the administration prevail in its attempt to 
dismantle this proven program and Congress proceed on its current path, 
our Nation's small businesses would have to bear an additional $80 
million in SBA expenses, and the fees per loan would increase by over 
$1,000. These loans are the only source of affordable, long-term 
financing for many of our Nation's small businesses, as 7(a) loans spur 
economic development in underserved areas, are used to purchase land or 
buildings or expand existing facilities or buy new equipment, machines, 
or even furniture, and provide long-term working capital including 
accounts payable--allowing small businesses to start and continue in 
business where otherwise if may not be possible.
  In my own state of Hawai`i, for example, the viability of small 
business is the linchpin to economic vitality. In 2002, the most recent 
year for which numbers are available, the SBA Office of Advocacy 
estimates that there were 28,800 small businesses in my state, 
representing 96.7 percent of all business in Hawai`i.
  Hawai`i is also home to one of the largest percentages of minority-
owned businesses. Minority-owned businesses represented 57.8 percent of 
the state's businesses and they generated $14.8 billion in revenues in 
the most recent year for which this data is available.
  The SBA and its programs are critical to the sustainability of our 
economic base. In Hawai`i, FY03, the SBA made 269 loans worth nearly 
$29 million. Of that number, 132 of those loans, worth nearly $15 
million--nearly half of all loans--were made to companies operating in 
the rural communities of the Second District that I represent.
  The situation is even more promising for my state in this fiscal 
year. Through May 31, 2004, the SBA had approved 260 loans, worth about 
$18.5 million to Hawai`i small businesses. Rural small business have 
received 61 of those loans--representing over $6 million.
  The 7(a) program is also crucial to small businesses because of 
recent consolidation of banks and other financial institutions 
throughout the country. My state is no exception. According to the 
Federal Reserve Board, there were 13 small-business-friendly banks in 
Hawai`i in 1998. In 2002, that number had shrunk to 7. Of those seven 
in 2002, four had assets between $1 billion and $10 billion. Because 
small business traditionally depend on local banks services and use 
commercial bank lenders, this recent consolidation has not had a 
positive effect upon lending to small businesses.
  During my time in Congress, as a member of the House Committee on 
Small Business as well as the Blue Dog and New Democrat Coalitions, I 
have argued for fiscal responsibility during our budget and 
appropriations process. The SBA's 7(a) program is a perfect example of 
a federal effort that is entirely consistent with this needed approach, 
for it both increases revenue-generating economic activity and pays for 
itself. By supporting, nurturing and growing small businesses, we are 
allowing these companies to increase in size, revenue, employment and 
purchasing power, ultimately benefiting the community where that 
company is located as well as the country as a whole. And these are 
repayable loans, not outright grants.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a crucial amendment for all concerned, not 
least the small businesses of my Second District of Hawai`i. According 
to a survey published by the National Federation of Independent 
Business in May of this year, the top three ``severe problems'' for 
small-business owners is cost of health insurance, liability insurance 
and workers' compensation. Let's not give these small businesses one 
more reason to fail in these trying times. Let's pass this important 
amendment. It is the right thing to do, and I implore my colleagues to 
support the Manzullo/Velazquez amendment and support the underlying 
bill.
  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. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I have the utmost respect for the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Velazquez); but since I said that, Members know what position I am 
taking on their amendment. I am adamantly opposed to it.
  I appreciate their hard work, their commitment to the small business 
sector of our economy; but this amendment is wrong. Every single Member 
in a bipartisan way should oppose it for several reasons.
  First, I want to talk about the fact that the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Wolf) and I came here 24 years ago, elected to serve in Congress 
the same day Ronald Reagan was elected President of the United States. 
One of the great visions put forth in 1985 in a speech delivered by 
President Reagan at Westminster College at Fulton, Missouri, was 
establishing the National Endowment For Democracy.
  The notion behind this was the goal of ensuring that, rather than 
simply pursuing bullets, we would pursue ballots. What are we trying to 
do in the

[[Page H5250]]

Middle East, in Iraq, and in other parts of the world? We are trying to 
do everything we possibly can to encourage self-determination, the rule 
of law, respect for democratic institutions, political pluralism. Why 
are we doing that? We are doing that in an attempt to help these people 
and to try and diminish the threat of engaging militarily.
  So this amendment, as well intentioned as it is, is bringing about a 
cut in the funding for that institution, the National Endowment for 
Democracy, which has done a phenomenal job all over the globe helping 
people who have been trying to claw their way to self-determination to 
have the kind of success that is so important.
  In the State of the Union message delivered by the President 
delivered right here, he called for a doubling of the funding for the 
National Endowment for Democracy. While the subcommittee of the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has not quite gone to the level the 
President has requested, the $50 million level is a very good and 
important start because we know that we have been working to build 
these democratic institutions as part and parcel of the global war on 
terror, and we are having success and so we should not in any way 
jeopardize that.
  Passage of this amendment undermines the effort that we are leading 
in moving towards democratization around the world.
  Number two, the global war on terror, we are looking at a $60 million 
cut if we were to pass this amendment for the Department of Justice, 
which would tragically undermine the ability to deal with the very 
important threat that we live with every single day and have lived with 
every single day since September 11 of 2001, and that is the threat of 
global terrorism. We have seen activities take place just within the 
last few days, actions taken to keep ships that potentially posed a 
threat to our security offshore, and a wide range of other things which 
the Department of Justice has been involved in to try and help us turn 
the corner on the global war on terror.
  As we look at these issues, as well intentioned as this amendment may 
be, I think we should look at the people who join us in opposition. 
Hector Barreto, the director of the Small Business Administration, a 
fellow Californian who has provided great leadership at the SBA, he is 
opposed to this amendment. They oppose this amendment at the Small 
Business Administration.
  And as we look at the overall impact of this amendment, it is not 
even going to go towards its intended goal. This goes toward 
administrative expenses and will not provide assistance within the 7(a) 
program. It is well intentioned, but the amendment does not do anything 
like it is designed to do; and with what it does do, it undermines our 
quest towards encouraging democratization around the world, helping the 
people of Iraq in their quest to build those democratic institutions 
which are so important, and it threatens our overall goal of trying to 
deal with the global war on terror.
  For every single reason, I believe it is important for us to do 
everything we can to in a bipartisan way vote ``no'' on this amendment.

                              {time}  1445

  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Mexico (Mr. Udall).
  (Mr. UDALL of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me this time.
  The issue has been raised here by the gentleman from California as to 
the National Endowment for Democracy. The fact is the National 
Endowment for Democracy is funded $1 million above last year's level. 
So that is not the issue before us today. The issue before us is 
whether we are going to take care of our small businesses, our small 
businesses which provide us with growth, which provide us with 
strength, which provide us with an economic base in this country. That 
is why this amendment is so important.
  One of the biggest obstacles to entrepreneurs is establishing and 
growing a small business. And if entrepreneurs cannot get access to 
capital, they often have to turn to more costly alternatives. Without 
access to financing, companies are unable to target new markets, 
growth, and even hire new workers. That is why the 7(a) program is so 
important. The 7(a) loan program is the SBA's core lending program. 
Over the last decade, the SBA has approved more than 424,000 loans for 
over $90 billion. Think about it, $90 billion pumped into our economy 
to support small business growth.
  Unfortunately, despite the immense popularity of this program, the 
Bush administration has continued its efforts to systematically 
dismantle this important program. The recent budget request by this 
administration for the 7(a) program has steadily declined while demand 
for 7(a) loans has continued to increase. As a result, the SBA was 
recently forced to shut down the loan program, injuring thousands of 
small businesses and lenders that had submitted applications for loans. 
After the outcry from the business community, the SBA reopened the 
program; but they capped all 7(a) loans, thus limiting the ability of 
American small businesses to get financing.
  One of the key ways to help stabilize the 7(a) program is by 
providing more funding, and that is what this amendment does today. A 
bipartisan amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman 
Manzullo), our chairman on the Committee on Small Business, and the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), our ranking member. They 
have come together. This is the most bipartisan committee in the United 
States Congress, and they reached an agreement on an amendment. I 
applaud that effort to reach bipartisan support, and I urge my 
colleagues to support the Manzullo-Velazquez amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I simply want to respond to the comments of my good friend from New 
Mexico and say at the outset that this notion of a $1 million increase 
in funding for the National Endowment for Democracy does not even 
maintain a level at the inflation rate that it is; and this is a 
program which, remember, the President of the United States asked us to 
double, he asked us to double the funding for the National Endowment 
for Democracy. Why? Because when we think about the kind of success 
that it has had since we saw the demise of the Soviet Union and the 
Berlin Wall come down, what we have witnessed in the emergence of 
tremendous democracies of Eastern and Central Europe, the kind of 
effort that has been put into place, bringing about leaders who have 
addressed us in joint sessions of Congress like the former President of 
Poland, Lech Walesa, like the man who went from prisoner to President 
in 6 months in Czechoslovakia, Vaclav Havel. These people were able to 
enjoy success in large part due to the work of the National Endowment 
for Democracy.
  What is it we want? We want throughout the world for people to enjoy 
the same kind of liberties that are now taken for granted in Eastern 
and Central Europe, and this program needs to have a dramatic increase. 
And I believe it is very important for us to do everything we possibly 
can to ensure the further success of the National Endowment for 
Democracy.
  I also think it is important to note that this administration is 
strongly committed to the small business sector of our economy. There 
is no doubt about the fact that keeping the tax rates low for small 
businessmen and -women, encouraging economic growth, keeping interest 
rates low for small businesses, they are the backbone of our economy. 
But dramatically expanding a program when we have the director of the 
Small Business Administration opposed to this kind of a program, when, 
again, this amendment, this amendment does not allow the funding to get 
to that program. There already is a $12.5 billion level, as the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has just informed me. It seems to me 
that it is the right thing for us to do to oppose this amendment.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I would just like to respond to the fact that the gentleman was 
talking about the National Endowment for Democracy. The numbers do not 
lie. They

[[Page H5251]]

are right here. The National Endowment for Democracy was funded $39.5 
million. The full committee provided $51 million. It is on page 77 of 
the bill. If we take $10 million, they still have more than $1 million 
from last year.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I think that is what my friend from New 
Mexico was arguing. And my point is that if that would take place, it 
would not even allow us to maintain the inflation rate that we have. 
That is why that it needs to be substantially higher than that.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
the State of California (Mrs. Napolitano).
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I have heard all the rhetoric; and sitting 6 years on the Committee 
on Small Business, I cannot help but wonder. We talk about funding 
small business and the engine of our economy, which is the small 
business, and yet we do not put money behind it to make it work. We 
talk like we want to help small business; yet we put billions, billions 
with a ``b,'' into loans, into grants, into whatever for the airline 
industry. We cannot put in 79 lousy million into small 7(a) loan 
programs, that for every $33,000 loaned, they would create one new job. 
Talk about $79 million versus $12.5 billion that we can be able to have 
our economy move forward; yet we are scrabbling around and arguing 
about why we should not take this money and invest it in the source of 
job development that this country so dearly needs.
  Let me ask the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) and the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), do they really think that it 
is the time to cut small business when we most need it?
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I will not be using that full amount, but I 
did want to rise once again to commend the gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Velazquez) and the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Manzullo) for 
their excellent leadership in bringing this amendment to the floor. I 
again want to commend the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Wolf), chairman of the full committee, for his great leadership in 
bringing a very important appropriations bill to the floor; and I thank 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) also for moving this section 
7(a) provision in full committee. Although he was not successful, his 
leadership was important to the momentum that we have today. I thank 
him for his leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to close by saying this one thing: I always 
say that the only thing more optimistic than starting a new business is 
getting married. In order to take on the responsibilities of a marriage 
or a business, a person has to be very entrepreneurial, very 
optimistic, very confident. There are so many risks involved in 
starting a small business. At the very least, we should have access to 
capital so that we can increase the equity, the ownership that the 
American people have in businesses that do create jobs, that do create 
capital in our country, which in turn attracts the talent that we need 
to be internationally competitive.
  This is a very important amendment today. It is not to say that the 
decisions that have to be made to fund it are not difficult; and as I 
said earlier, I commend the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) and 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), ranking member, for the 
difficult decisions they had to make to bring this Departments of 
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act to the floor.
  But we have to choose in favor of small businesses in our country if 
we are going to grow the economy. Small businesses are the engine of 
the economy. We cannot just talk about supporting small business. We 
have to put our resources there and give them access to the capital 
they need to succeed to accompany the great optimistic spirit and 
entrepreneurial spirit that they bring to the endeavor of starting a 
new business.
  So with that, Mr. Chairman, I urge our colleagues to support this 
bipartisan Manzullo-Velazquez amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. McHugh). The gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Wolf) has 8 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Manzullo) has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let me first address the issue of offsets. We take $33.251 million 
out of a program that the President did not even request, this Legal 
Activities Office Automation Program at the Department of Justice, $33 
million out of a program they never even requested.
  I voted and continue to support the war on terrorism, but we reach a 
certain point when we have to ask ourselves, when do we take care of 
our own? When do we take care of the little people? This is not an 
outrageous request to ask that we have level funding this year that we 
had last year; $79 million is a lot of money, but compared to how far 
it goes to continue the program is something else.
  The problem here is this: we all want to get away from this subsidy. 
I am in favor of a zero subsidy rate and have continued to work towards 
that each year that I have been chairman of the Committee on Small 
Business. To do it all at once at a time when the Fed has just 
increased the interest rate, when the unemployment in the district that 
I represent has just fallen below 10 percent, and at a time when small 
entrepreneurs continue to scramble for capital is simply unwise. To 
have a complete recovery, we need to make sure that the resources, the 
loans, are there for the little people, the ones that get up early in 
the morning and work 18 hours a day, sometimes 7 days a week, just for 
the opportunity to make a lot less money than they could working 
somewhere else, but who choose to do that because the spirit of 
entrepreneurship rings within their heart, because they know that 
eventually they will create more jobs and add to the economy.
  That is what this bill does. It restores the same amount that they 
would have had last year, and I ask my colleagues to vote in favor of 
the Manzullo-Velazquez amendment.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. Chairman, a lot has been said about this amendment today, and I 
want to reiterate my respect and admiration for the chairman, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), and the fact that I cannot run away 
from the issue that we both participated in putting this bill together. 
But as I said in my original comments, and I will say again, even when 
we approved and supported this bill, as I do now and I would ask all my 
colleagues to do so for final passage, I still knew that there was a 
problem that had to be dealt with, and the most glaring of those 
problems was the 7(a) issue.
  It is for that reason that I stood up today and continue to stand in 
support of the amendment. I think the amendment speaks to an issue of a 
constituency throughout this country that is not only based in the 
lending institutions, heaven forbid I should ever be accused of 
supporting the lending institutions at that level, but people who feel 
that this is a good program and should continue to exist.
  Because of my support for the bill, I am very leery when we put forth 
any cuts, but I must say that I am not totally upset about cutting the 
National Endowment for Democracy, because every so often what they 
partake in is improperly trying to overthrow governments that they 
should not be involved in. So I am not going to cry tonight if we 
indeed take some money from them.
  However, I understand the concern of many members of the 
subcommittees. I would just hope that we see this for the greater good, 
which is the need to have this program restored, to have this hope 
fulfilled. And if we do that, if we do that, I think that we would have 
gone a step ahead of where we were a couple hours ago in saying that 
this was a good bill. The bill then would be a great bill, and that is 
my support.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H5252]]

  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. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the CJS 
appropriations committee recommendation to eliminate funding for the 
SBA 7(a) program and in support of the Manzullo-Velazquez Amendment. 
The challenges for small businesses in this stagnant economic climate 
are formidable--rising health insurance costs, increasing energy 
expenses and dramatic outsourcing competition. The SBA 7(a) program is 
the only source of affordable, long-term financing for many of our 
nation's small businesses. It offers assistance to established small 
businesses and acts as a catalyst to energize and foment the 
entrepreneurial spirit that, as Americans, we must celebrate and 
nurture.
  The 7(a) program not only serves as a lifeline to entrepreneurs, it 
also creates American jobs. Small businesses account for approximately 
75 percent of the net new jobs in America. The SBA 7(a) program 
annually generates 360,000 jobs. If the Bush administration is truly 
serious about growing the economy and creating jobs on Main Street 
instead of offering tax cuts for Wall Street, they should not have 
zeroed out this program in their budget.
  We must continue to fund this important program that is instrumental 
to fostering the entrepreneurial spirit. How can we deny our 
constituents the chance to realize the American dream and create their 
own business and be their own boss? Every job counts in this economy 
and the U.S. government has the obligation to foster free enterprise 
and small businesses by funding the SBA 7(a) program.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Manzullo-
Velazquez amendment to the Commerce Justice State Appropriations bill. 
This amendment will provide critical funding for a program that is 
fundamentally important to our small businesses: the Small Business 
Administration's (SBA) 7(a) loan program.

[[Page H5253]]

  American small businesses' number one problem is gaining access to 
affordable capital. Many small businesses face substantial barriers in 
accessing capital, and are often forced to turn to more costly lending 
alternatives. As a result, small businesses are often financially 
strapped with insurmountable debt before their companies have even had 
a chance to get off the ground. Without access to financing, like that 
embodied by the 7(a) loan program, companies are unable to target new 
markets, hire new workers and ultimately succeed.
  The 7(a) loan program is the SBA's core lending program and accounts 
for roughly 30 percent of all long-term small business borrowing in 
America. 7(a) loans spur economic development in underserved areas. 
7(a) loans are used to purchase land or buildings, or to expand 
existing facilities. 7(a) loans are used to buy new equipment and 
machinery as well.
  Most importantly, the 7(a) program creates jobs. Small businesses are 
the number one job creator in America, accounting for 3 of every 4 new 
jobs added to the economy. For every $33,000 in 7(a) loans, a new job 
is created. Just last year, the 7(a) loan program generated 360,000 
jobs across America. However, if funding of the 7(a) program is not 
maintained at its current level our economy and our people will lose 
many of those jobs, as well as any new jobs and new small businesses 
that would be created with the help of the 7(a) program.
  The CJS bill that we consider today provides no funding for the 7(a) 
program. As the federal deficit will hit a record $477 billion this 
year, fiscal restraint is important, but this program has already 
sacrificed significantly over the last few years. According to the 
General Accounting Office, over the past ten years small business 
lenders and borrowers have overpaid a billion dollars in miscalculated 
government fees. Instead the Bush administration and the SBA argue that 
simply maintaining fees at these ``historic'' levels will be good 
enough to support a robust 7(a) program.
  This is just plain wrong. If the CJS bill is approved without this 
amendment, small businesses will be required to pay the nearly $80 
million currently subsidized by the federal government. Based on FY 
2003 loan volume and distribution, fees on small businesses will 
increase by over $40 million. Fees per loan will increase by over 
$1,000.
  The Manzullo-Velazquez amendment will ensure that small businesses 
can still benefit from the program by restoring funding for the 7(a) 
program to the FY04 level of $79,132,000. This amendment will foster 
further economic recovery, and stronger job creation. For the good of 
the economy, for the good of our workforce and for our future, I 
encourage my colleagues to support the Manzullo-Velazquez amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired on this amendment.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 281, 
noes 137, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 328]

                               AYES--281

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bartlett (MD)
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeMint
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gerlach
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hayes
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Kleczka
     Kline
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--137

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Biggert
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chocola
     Cole
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Foley
     Fossella
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hyde
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     McCrery
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (VA)
     Myrick
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Pearce
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Portman
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Saxton
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sweeney
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Collins
     Deutsch
     Gephardt
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Honda
     Istook
     John
     Jones (OH)
     LaHood
     McInnis
     Tauzin


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that 2 minutes 
remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1538

  Messrs. MORAN of Virginia, BURTON of Indiana, QUINN, COX, GARY G. 
MILLER of California, TURNER of Ohio, BEREUTER, PETERSON of 
Pennsylvania, FOSSELLA and GINGREY changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Messrs. HOLDEN, COBLE, TIAHRT, NEY, BURGESS, BOOZMAN, FORBES, SCHROCK 
and Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


          Amendment No. 14 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 14 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       Page 2, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(decreased by $1,000,000)''.

[[Page H5254]]

       Page 84, line 11, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to add 
$1 million to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, having little negative 
impact on this appropriations legislation.
  It is clear, as we have celebrated the 40th anniversary of the 1964 
Civil Rights Act, that civil rights in America is still a challenge. 
And the necessity of government intervention raises its head every day. 
In fact, as I stand on the floor today, recently over the weekend in 
Houston, there was a bombing of a Muslim mosque or a mosque, obviously 
suggesting that not only are there problems with civil rights, but 
there are also questions of whether hate crimes are still being 
perpetrated throughout the United States.
  The mission of the United States Commission on Civil Rights is to 
investigate complaints alleging that citizens are being deprived of 
their right to vote by reason of their race, color, religion, sex, age, 
disability or national origin; or by reason of fraudulent practices, to 
study and collect information related to discrimination or denial of 
equal protection under the laws for a variety of reasons such as race, 
color, religion, sex, age, disability or national origin, or the 
administration of justice; to appraise Federal laws and policies with 
respect to discrimination or denials of equal protection under the law 
because of such differences; to serve as a national clearinghouse for 
information with respect to discrimination or denial of equal 
protection of the laws because of race, color, religion, sex, age, 
disability or national origin; to submit such findings and 
recommendations to the President and Congress and to issue public 
service announcements.
  We know, under the leadership of Dr. Mary Frances Berry, they have 
sought to be current and they have sought to be provocative, as well as 
they have sought to be, if you will, aiding in fighting against 
discrimination in this Nation. They were the first to go in in the 
election in 2004. They worked on a commission advancing environmental 
justice. They also worked on opposing the ban on racial data 
collection. They were very much part of tackling the discriminatory 
practice of eliminating so-called felons from their right to vote.
  They have been working very hard against racial profiling, providing 
for corporate diversity and other areas. They worked very hard on the 
issues dealing with affirmative action.
  There is no doubt that the Commission's work is needed, but yet there 
are problems; one, in the amount of staffing. We were apprised by a 
letter that I signed on May 5, 2004, written by both the chairmen of 
the Senate and House Committees on the Judiciary, a letter to the U.S. 
Commission on Civil Rights, highlighting some concerns that we need to 
be concerned about: An audit that has not occurred in the last 13 years 
to be able to determine what the needs of this particular agency are at 
this time and, as well, to be able to assure the proper use of Federal 
dollars.
  Some might think than an audit might bring about a demise of this 
particular agency. I would offer to say that all of us want to know the 
facts to be able to provide the right kinds of resources for an agency 
that are necessary to be strengthened, that needs to have better 
staffing and better support services so that it can do its job.
  Clearly, the work of this commission has not yet ended. The 
celebration of the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is 
only an indication that we must continue our work.
  I would hope my colleagues would see the value in this amendment, 
particularly in its concern for ensuring that the Civil Rights 
Commission is both strengthened and, as well, that we have an 
appropriate audit that has not taken place in the last 13 years.
  One of the things that I hope my colleagues recognize is that we 
should not condemn the messenger for the message. The U.S. Civil Rights 
Commission reinforces the fact that civil rights in America is still a 
work in progress. It needs more resources, more staff, and certainly it 
needs more competency as it relates to providing the resources to give 
it the utensils, if you will, the tools to do its job.
  I would hope my colleagues would find in this legislation the ability 
to support this amendment or at least begin to look at working with the 
U.S. Civil Rights Commission and Dr. Berry and her efforts to make it 
the very best agency that it can possibly be.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 4754, the 
CJS Appropriations Act. I offer this amendment to increase funding to 
the Civil Rights Commission by $1 million. In order to achieve the 
goals of my proposal, the Salaries and Expenses account under Title I, 
General Administration would be reduced by $1,000,000 and the account 
designated for the Commission on Civil Rights in Title V, Related 
Agencies would be increased by $1,000,000.
  Too many times, I have made requests to the Department of Justice to 
investigate civil rights matters, which have resulted in a stack of 
more unresolved investigations. The Department of Justice should not be 
the only vehicle to which requests are made considering the existence 
of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. The U.S. Commission on Civil 
Rights should help to ameliorate the stain placed on the Department of 
Justice, but it cannot do so without adequate funding.
  The mission of the Commission on Civil Rights is:
  To investigate complaints alleging that citizens are being deprived 
of their right to vote by reason of their race, color, religion, sex, 
age, disability, or national origin, or by reason of fraudulent 
practices;
  To study and collect information relating to discrimination or a 
denial of equal protection of the laws under the Constitution because 
of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or 
in the administration of justice;
  To appraise federal laws and policies with respect to discrimination 
or denial of equal protection of the laws because of race, color, 
religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or in the 
administration of justice;
  To serve as a national clearinghouse for information in respect to 
discrimination or denial of equal protection of the laws because of 
race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin;
  To submit reports, findings, and recommendations to the President and 
Congress; and
  To issue public service announcements to discourage discrimination or 
denial of equal protection of the laws.
  I have requested investigations to be conducted by the Department of 
Justice regarding such cases as the death of Eli Eloy Escobar II. This 
incident involved the shooting death of a 14-year-old boy whose civil 
rights were likely violated. The possible misuse of Houston Police 
Department law enforcement positions was questioned. These types of 
occurrences are becoming more like the norm instead of an anomaly. 
Tragically, in the same month of the shooting death of Eli Eloy Escobar 
II, a Houston police officer shot and killed Jose Vargas, 15, because 
the youth and his friends ``looked suspicious'' in a movie theater 
parking lot. Given that, in the current situation, I requested that the 
Department of Justice analyze these facts to ensure that there is not a 
pattern of civil rights violations by government officials under 
``color of law.''
  Just a couple of months ago, a Harris County Deputy Sheriff shot 25-
year old Hiji Eugene Harrison to death in the course of making a 
traffic stop. In this case, I requested an investigation by the 
Department of Justice regarding three alleged circumstances of this 
incident that may involve a violation of civil rights. I have requested 
an investigation of Josiah Sutton's case, a young man wrongly convicted 
of rape, who will be released from prison with a tarnished record 
because of the reservations of the district attorney in this case. Yet 
another example of civil rights abuse. Most recently, I requested an 
investigation to be conducted by the Department of Justice because of 
the possible civil rights violation of Houston Community activist 
Quanell X, who was arrested by the Houston Police Department after he 
attempted to deliver a wanted suspect.
  While my inquiries of the Department of Justice are, indeed, 
necessary, their outcomes have been unresolved or ongoing. These 
floating investigations would be resolved more expeditiously if more 
funding were provided to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which is 
currently known to be deprived of resources. Increased funding would 
enable the Commission to aid in the resolution of Department of Justice 
investigations, many of which remain unresolved.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to urge my colleagues to pass 
the Jackson-Lee amendment not only because of the necessary efficiency 
of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, but also because of this 
opportunity to protect the civil rights of all Americans.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we will be glad to work with the gentlewoman 
to

[[Page H5255]]

see if we can help her resolve that issue.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, if I might, and I appreciate 
the offer to work with me on this, I would hope that in the work that 
we would be looking at, we would be considering the lack of resources 
and staffing that they have in order to complete their task.
  I know this is a challenging commission because their work is always 
not the most pleasant. It does not make people the most happy, if you 
will, but it is vital work because the work of civil rights, as I know 
you and the ranking member know, is very vital work.

                              {time}  1545

  So I am hoping that we could work along the line of providing the 
adequate resources, along with studying the needs of the commission 
through an audit that has not taken place in 13 years.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas was allowed to 
proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman.
  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?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. As I mentioned, yes, I was mentioning the 
issues that needed to be addressed for the commission and was hoping 
that we could specifically work along those lines
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman would further yield, we 
will work with her, yes.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, there were several parts of this legislation on which 
the Committee on Government Reform could raise points of order. I have 
had discussions with the chairman on these issues, and I just want to 
go through them and through the agreements that I think the chairman 
and I have on these items.
  In section 108, the Personnel Management Demonstration Project 
through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. It permits bonus 
and incentive pay for more than 200 ATF forensic experts. We think this 
has merit. We wish that they had gone through the committee of 
jurisdiction on this instead of just writing this into the law, but we 
will not raise a point of order on that section.
  The section pertaining to the National Technology and Information 
Administration, Spectrum Management, this provision allows the NTIA to 
collect fees from Federal agencies for providing spectrum allocation 
services for those agencies. These fees provide approximately 80 
percent of NTIA's budget. As was true last year, the Parliamentarians 
ruled those are within our committee's jurisdiction. We ask that in the 
future, as the appropriators look at these areas, they consult with us; 
but we will not raise a point of order on this issue.
  Section 201 permits the Department of Commerce to make advance 
payments on contracts without regard to the general prohibition on such 
advance payments and the narrow exceptions to provisions set out under 
title 31. Again, this is within the purview of the Committee on 
Government Reform. I understand this has been in the legislation in 
previous years. We ask in the future they work with us in crafting 
language so it is consistent with what we are seeing in other Federal 
agencies.
  Section 603 requires contracts for consulting services to be a matter 
of public record. We believe they already are and is redundant. We will 
not raise a point of order on that section.
  Finally, section 605 under the bill before us requires a 15-day 
notification to the Committee on Appropriations before any of the CJS 
agencies can engage in certain acts that would require their 
reprogramming of appropriated funds, including contracting out or 
privatizing. We believe this is within the purview of the Committee on 
Government Reform and would ask the chairman that as this goes to 
conference, if this provision remains in and we do not raise our point 
of order, if we include notification to the Committee on Government 
Reform as well. We think it is important we work in tandem and in 
partnership with the appropriators, both the authorizers and 
appropriators together. The chairman, I think, wants to do this. We 
have had some miscommunication at the staff level. I just want to 
clarify that as this moves forward they can include us in this language 
should we, as I intend, not raise a point of order on that.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we would gladly share that with the 
gentleman, and let me also say that I appreciate his willingness to 
allow us to move ahead on employee changes with regard to the FBI, 
which I think will strengthen the country. The gentleman is a good 
friend, and we will certainly do that.
  On these other issues next year, I think a lot of this language has 
really been in the appropriations bill long before I was ever, ever 
involved; but we will be glad to consult with the gentleman as we move 
forward.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I thank the chairman.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, we did work closely with the gentleman, as he 
noted, on a number of other improvements to civil service which I think 
will make the FBI and some other agencies more effective in recruiting 
and retaining the best and brightest.
  Just for the chairman's notice, we do intend to raise a point of 
order on section 607 regarding the Buy America Act, as we have on every 
other appropriations bill.
  I thank the chairman for his courtesies and compliment him on what I 
think is otherwise an excellent bill.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would further like to engage the chairman and the 
ranking member in a brief colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, I had an amendment which I believe the chairman is 
aware of.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WYNN. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we are not aware of any amendment from the 
gentleman, but I will be glad to talk to him. Maybe I should look at it 
first. We do not have anything from him.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, my intention would be not to introduce it.
  Mr. WOLF. Well, let us chat about it and see what happens.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman. Basically, it was an 
amendment dealing with the issue of drug courts, which, as the 
gentleman knows, is a very important diversionary program designed to 
provide drug users with a program of intense scrutiny, rehabilitation, 
drug testing, counseling and the like which has proven to be very 
successful in reducing drug crimes. It has an outstandingly low 
recidivism rate.
  Studies from the American University, the Columbia University, as 
well as the National Institute of Justice, have all indicated that 
where we have a criminal placed in a drug court program there is a very 
low rate of recidivism.
  For this reason, we believe this program ought to be funded robustly. 
The program was authorized at $60 million. The committee reported a 
funding level of $50 million, and I would like to ask the chairman if 
he would work with the ranking member and myself in conference to see 
if we could boost that funding level from $50 to the authorized $60 
million.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, we will work 
with the gentleman to the best of our ability that we can. I think drug 
courts make a lot of sense.
  Our problem has been just allocations from legal services to NAP and

[[Page H5256]]

others, but certainly we will work with the gentleman as we get to 
conference. My colleague has my commitment on that.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WYNN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, as I told the gentleman from Maryland, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has been very much aware and 
supportive of these kinds of issues, and as this bill moves to 
conference, sometimes there is a window of opportunity to do some 
things. While we cannot promise what the end result will be, we 
certainly promise the gentleman from Maryland that we will work 
together with him to see that this moves along in a better way.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, well, I would like to first thank the 
chairman for his willingness to work with me on this issue, as well as 
the ranking member. I would like to thank him. I know this is a tough 
bill, and there is not a lot of money to work with. So I appreciate any 
cooperation and support my colleagues can give me.


          Amendment No. 15 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 15 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       Page 2, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 26, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 28, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is an amendment 
that we have had the challenge of discussing for the last couple of 
sessions of Congress, and that is, dealing with the viability of the 
Nation's DNA lab.
  Since it has come to our attention in the criminal justice system of 
the value of DNA lab work as relates to the promotion of individuals' 
innocence or guilt, many of whom have sat on death row, some of whom 
have been convicted of rape while the actual rapists have gone free, I 
believe it is imperative that we continue on the President's commitment 
to eliminate the backlog of DNA analysis and as well the backlog of 
cases that permeate around the Nation. This $10 million added to the 
$175 million would make good on our promise to believe in justice.
  I am citing, if you will, the troubles that we have experienced in 
one particular area with a gentleman by the name of Josiah, I will 
simply use his first name, who sat in jail starting at the age of 17 
when he was sentenced to 25 years in prison in 1999 until he was 
released last year at the age of 21 on the basis of a conviction that 
proved to be false.
  The question there, of course, was a faulty DNA lab. To add insult to 
injury, our own district attorney, Chuck Rosenthal, refused to join in 
a request for a full pardon. It was only after the advocacy of many in 
our community, including elected officials, my office and led by the 
ministerial community in Houston, that this particular individual was 
set free.
  Josiah, however, is an example of the results of faulty DNA testing 
around the Nation. It was through this case and many others that the 
House Committee on the Judiciary considered themselves a viable part of 
fixing the problem. That problem was fixed by legislation that argued 
for and worked toward decreasing the backlog of cases of those who are 
sitting on death row for many of those who likewise are involved in 
cases that a DNA correction could improve.
  I supported H.R. 3214, the Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology 
Act. As I expressed at that time, this technological tool must be 
improved because it plays such a key role in streamlining and 
expediting our criminal justice system. Our law enforcement agencies 
are becoming increasingly more reliant upon the analysis of the DNA 
tool to verify or rule out the identity of a suspect or charge an 
individual in processing criminal justice cases. We will not be able to 
reach the level of decreasing the backlog unless we invest and put our 
money where our intent is.
  This simple request of $10 million takes it out of the salaries and 
expenses of the Department of Justice to be able to focus on increasing 
and improving the DNA lab. It also allows for laboratories around the 
country to apply for grants to improve the training, to improve the 
staffing, to improve the analysis, and to expedite the analysis which 
expedites justice.
  I cannot imagine a more important aspect of our work here in this 
Congress than to promote justice; and adequate, secure, safe and 
skilled DNA staffing and adequate DNA labs will be part of improving 
justice.
  I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
   Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 2754, the 
Commerce, Justice, and State Department Appropriations bill. It would 
call for the reduction of the Salaries and Expenses account in Title I, 
General Administration (page 2, line 7) by $10 million, the increase of 
the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) account in Title I by 
$10 million (page 26, line 20), and the specific increase of the 
provision in that account that deals with DNA analysis (page 28, line 
4) by $10 million, amounting to an overall reduction in outlays by $7 
million for fiscal year 2005.
   In November 2003, I supported H.R. 3214, the ``Advancing Justice 
Through DNA Technology Act,'' of which I was a co-sponsor. As I 
expressed at that time, this technological tool must be improved 
because it plays such a key role in streamlining and expediting our 
criminal justice system. Our law enforcement agencies are becoming 
increasingly more reliant upon the analysis of deoxyribonucleic acid 
(DNA) to verify or rule out the identity of a suspect or a charged 
individual in processing criminal cases. The more reliant we become, 
the more our individual rights are at stake. We must, however, 
significantly raise the bar of our technology and the standards of 
review for DNA and ballistics crime lab accreditation to minimize 
mistakes that cost people years of their lives. The Jackson-Lee 
amendment seeks to so minimize the margin of error that threatens 
individual liberties and rights.


                         crime lab accreditation

   The certification of our crime labs for conformance to our accepted 
standards is done by groups such as the American Society of Crime 
Laboratory Directors (ASCLD). The accreditation process is part of a 
laboratory's quality assurance program that should also include 
proficiency testing, continuing education and other programs to help 
the laboratory give better overall service to the criminal justice 
system. Certification and accreditation are done via a process of self-
evaluation led by individual crime laboratory directors.
   Our labs are not functioning at optimum levels, and this sub-par 
performance translates to the miscarriage of justice and prosecution of 
innocent people. Improvement of lab performance begins with tighter 
employment policies for the lab staff. For example, the ASCLD's 
Credential Review Committee has a DNA Advisory Board and codified 
standards for its technical staff. The following was taken from its 
website:

        DNA Advisory Board Standard 5.2.1.1 provides a mechanism 
     for waiving the educational requirements for current 
     technical leader/technical managers who do not meet the 
     degree requirements of section 5.2.1 but who otherwise 
     qualify based on knowledge and experience. Consequently ASCLD 
     has established this procedure for obtaining a waiver.
        One waiver is available per laboratory if the current 
     technical leaders/technical manager does not meet the degree 
     requirements of DAB Standard 5.2.1. Waivers are available 
     only to current technical leaders/technical managers. Waivers 
     are permanent and portable for the recipient individual. A 
     laboratory may request a second waiver if the first recipient 
     leaves the employ of the laboratory.

   Although experience is quite important in selecting staff, formal 
education and increased resources are vital when it comes to technical 
performance and the legal implications of that performance. We are in 
desperate need of dollars and appropriate legislation to set forth and 
maintain the standards of DNA/ballistics lab accreditation.


                 texas law and crime lab accreditation

  In 2001, Texas passed a law formalizing a process for post-conviction 
access to DNA testing. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, however, 
has not applied the law as it was designed to work and has denied 
access to testing in a number of cases.
  The Texas House passed a bill in April of this year requiring crime 
laboratories that test DNA to meet accreditation standards, a law 
designed to prevent future scandals like the one that recently plagued 
the Houston Police Department.
  The Houston Judicial System convicted Josiah Sutton in 1998 for the 
rape of a woman

[[Page H5257]]

whose body was dumped in a Fort Bend County field. But the Court 
eventually granted him bail in March after an independent lab 
determined that he was sentenced to 25 years in prison for a rape he 
didn't commit. An audit and an ongoing series of retesting of DNA 
samples by the Texas Department of Public Safety and a crime lab 
professional from Tarrant County revealed potential contamination 
problems at the subject lab as well as poor working conditions and 
inadequate training. Attorney Neufeld remarked that ``[t]he most 
important question for the people of Houston and the people of Texas 
is, `What went wrong that allowed this young man to be convicted for a 
crime he didn't commit?' `And it is absolutely clear that what you have 
going on is a system of malpractice by the Houston crime laboratory 
that allows its criminalists to distort and conceal evidence.' '' What 
I fear about the dangers of poor training and placement of checks may 
be summed up by what Neufeld added,

       One of the biggest problems of . . . [crime labs] is that 
     they [are] much more concerned with being a servant to the 
     police and prosecutors than they [are] to science . . . [a]nd 
     if people want to pursue a career in science, the word 
     science has to come before law enforcement.

  The objectivity that is required to make forensic science effective 
must be divorced from the latitude exercised by some of our law 
enforcement personnel. Therefore, we must include adequate technology 
and resources to prevent injustice and the ruination of young lives 
like the young Houston man, Josiah Sutton.
  Furthermore, other problems with DNA testing in criminal cases affect 
the inmate directly. The discretion with which the decision whether to 
use DNA testing leaves room for inconsistent adjudication and 
differential treatment of convicted persons. Statutory guidelines 
regarding when to order the test would exclude some cases that might 
not meet the standards but still might deserve testing. Moreover, some 
inmates who seek exoneration may request executive clemency. In 
addition to requiring very difficult measures to achieve justice, some 
argue that the tests administered are inadequate because they do not 
provide specific, clear, and fair procedures for inmates to bring 
claims of innocence.
  In addition to negligent handling or unskilled analysis of DNA 
evidence, the backlog of cases causes our criminal justice system to 
crumble despite the level of sophistication of our technology. Houston 
police have turned over about 525 case files involving DNA testing to 
the Harris County district attorney's office, which has said that at 
least 25 cases warrant re-testing, including those of seven people on 
Death Row. The numbers will grow significantly as more files are 
collected and analyzed, according to the assistant district attorney 
supervising the project.
  The Fort Worth police crime lab's serology/DNA unit has been 
criticized recently for a backlog that was slowing down court cases. 
The unit's performance suffers from understaffing and overworking.
  My concern as to the practice of using these DNA tests is that the 
inmates' civil liberties and rights to due process are continually 
placed into jeopardy because of a lack of resources. Furthermore, our 
staffing and personnel problems threaten to undermine the benefits of 
technology.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Jackson-Lee 
amendment to increase funding for DNA analysis and crime laboratories 
so that individual liberties may be better preserved and protected.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's 
amendment.
  The amendment proposes to reduce the Department of Justice's general 
administration account by $10 million. The bill already reduces the 
account by $90 million below the request.
  Based on the passage of the Manzullo amendment, the reduction will 
result in massive layoffs and RIFs and hinder the Justice Department's 
ability to deal with the whole issue of terrorism. I mean, put this on 
top of Manzullo, it would be devastating.
  In regards to the DNA program, and I strongly support that and so 
does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), the gentlewoman 
proposed to increase this bill. We fully fund the President's $176 
million DNA initiative. This is a $77 million increase, a $77 million 
increase over the current level. This is the largest increase provided 
to any State and local law enforcement program. It is an increase of 44 
percent.
  So I urge rejection of the gentlewoman's amendment. It proposes an 
unacceptable funding reduction, in addition to the Manzullo reduction, 
with something that we have had additional funding with a 44 percent 
increase. I oppose the amendment.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise 
in opposition to the amendment.
  Let me first continue to do what I have always done and that is to 
show my respect for the gentlewoman from Texas who always speaks to 
these issues with great compassion and with great concern; and under 
normal circumstances, one could agree with her, but these are not 
normal circumstances: one, because this budget is so tight; two, as I 
keep repeating, because I believe the chairman has been very fair in 
providing dollars; and, lastly, we just had an amendment where we were 
looking for $79 million for SBA. Well, if I add this correctly, this 
program went up from last year's just about that amount, $79 million. 
So this program has done very well.
  To now strike at legal activities account for another $10 million, I 
really do not think it is necessary, and so I would oppose it and hope 
everyone else would; but in anticipation of a good decision by the 
gentlewoman from Texas, I will now yield to her.

                              {time}  1600

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman, and I do respect his opposition. It comes down to simply the 
question of whether or not we have enough money, so I respect his 
responsibility for this particular appropriation.
  I would just say to the gentleman that we are both supporters and 
advocates of a better justice system, and enhanced funding to help with 
DNA labs across the country, I believe, is an effective way to utilize 
this money.
  To the distinguished gentleman from New York and to the chairman I 
must say that it is tragic that we have had to take money and spend it 
on a 7(a) program that should have been funded for small businesses, 
which I supported, I understand that, but let it be known, as a member 
of the Committee on the Judiciary, and the work we do as authorizers, 
that every day we are finding DNA labs across the country that 
contribute to the backlog. We are backlogged in Washington. These 
dollars were simply to add that provision.
  I accept the responsibility that my colleague has. He has to tighten 
the belt and to worry about where the money is coming from. I hope that 
as we look forward to working in conference that we will find a way to 
be able to address squarely this backlog problem, making sure that DNA 
labs will be able to function as they should.
  With that, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The amendment was rejected.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, as many of us know, the Child On-line 
Protection Act, or legislation better known as COPA, was signed into 
law on October 21, 1998. I was the author of that legislation, which 
was designed to shield minors from Internet pornography. And despite my 
attempt to craft a narrowly tailored requirement involving only 
commercial, on-line pornographers to screen out minors before they 
distribute or sell pornographic materials on the Internet, by verifying 
their clients' adult status through the use of credit cards, adult 
access codes, or other reasonable technologies, last week the Supreme 
Court, on a 5-to-4 vote, voted to uphold a preliminary injunction that 
would block COPA from being implemented. This is now 6 years into this 
issue.
  After COPA was enacted, the Supreme Court ruled that mechanisms 
designed to filter minors away from graphic and obscene images on the 
Web may not be the least restrictive alternative available to 
accomplish our goal of protecting minors from porn on the Internet.
  I echo the opinion expressed by Justice Stephen Breyer, who wrote in 
dissent, ``My conclusion is that the Act, as properly interpreted, 
risks imposition of minor burdens on some protected material, burdens 
that adults wishing to view the material may overcome at modest cost.'' 
In other words, Justice Breyer felt that the burden ought to be on the 
pornographer, not on the parents to provide this kind of protection for 
their children.

[[Page H5258]]

  The popularity and growth of the Internet presents opportunities for 
minors to access information that can frustrate parental supervision 
and control. Seventy million individuals visit pornographic Web sites 
each week, of which about 11 million are minors. This is not a Playboy 
magazine type of situation. These are very, very graphic and very, very 
much other than the usual centerfold one might expect. Once posted on 
the Internet, sexually explicit material has entered all communities 
and virtually any home that has access to the Internet.
  Minors often stumble upon sexually explicit material on the Internet 
by mistake. To use one example, they use copycat URLs to take advantage 
of innocent mistakes. A child searching the Internet for the official 
Web site of the White House can be confronted by hard core pornography 
by mistyping www.whitehouse.com, rather than www.whitehouse.gov. In my 
mind, COPA's requirement that purveyors of pornographic material on the 
Web utilize technological safeguards was the practically available and 
least restrictive way to limit minors' access.
  In light of last week's disappointing decision, I was pleased to see 
the report language for H.R. 4754, which includes $2.605 million for 25 
new positions to investigate and prosecute adult obscenity and child 
exploitation crimes. This level of funding is in addition to the $5.2 
million which is included in this bill for the investigation and 
prosecution of these crimes by the existing staff at the Department of 
Justice. My thanks go out to the chairman, the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Wolf), for his leadership in this regard.
  Because of the magnitude of the problem of adult obscenity and child 
exploitation, I believe these 25 new positions at the Department of 
Justice are a good start. However, I believe it is not proportionate to 
the volume of obscenity being disseminated by the Web sites of 
commercial American pornographers. Type the word ``sex'' into a 
Internet search engine like Google, and you will get 180 million hits.
  Today, pornography accounts for more than one-tenth of all on-line 
consumer purchases. According to one study, purveyors of pornographic 
material on the Web earned $12 billion in revenue last year. In the 
space of a generation, a product that was once available in the back 
alleys of big cities is now delivered directly into homes by some of 
the biggest companies in the United States. I have serious concerns 
that the Congress' $7.8 million is simply not enough to handle the 
problem.
  If the distinguished chairman would join me in a colloquy, I would 
ask him if he supports the prosecution of adult obscenity and child 
exploitation crimes.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OXLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, my answer is ``absolutely.''
  Mr. OXLEY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to 
working with the chairman to ensure these crimes are investigated and 
prosecuted by the Department of Justice.
  Mr. WOLF. If the gentleman will continue to yield, as the gentleman 
said, the bill includes $2.6 million and 25 positions.
  Secondly, I want to thank the gentleman, because I went over to the 
Center for Missing and Exploited Children in Alexandria, and every 
member of the court ought to go over there and see it. Those two 
decisions from the court have severely hurt law enforcement with regard 
to child exploitation.
  So, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) is absolutely right. And if 
the gentleman comes up with language that he thinks would be 
appropriate to put on this bill, I will do anything. And I thank the 
gentleman for what he has done.
  I cannot understand, and I stipulate that all the men and women on 
the court are good people, but I cannot understand. The decision by 
Justice Kennedy is actually shocking. So I agree with the gentleman, 
and we will work with him and do anything we can to help.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, in order to enter into a colloquy with the chairman and 
the ranking member, would the chairman allow me to ask a question about 
the funding for the American Community Survey?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MALONEY. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. I certainly will allow the colloquy.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I understand the committee has reduced 
the funding for the American Community Survey by $19 million. I was 
concerned about that cut, but I have been told that the Census Bureau 
has assured the committee that these cuts will have no effect on the 
quality of the survey; is that correct?
  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.
  Mrs. MALONEY. I thank the Chairman.
  Currently, this bill does not include group quarters in the American 
Community Survey for fiscal year 2005. My understanding is that the 
Census Bureau agrees that students in dorms, inmates in prisons, 
seniors in nursing homes, some assisted living facilities, and those on 
military bases in the United States do not need to be included in the 
survey this fiscal year, and this will not impact accuracy for 2010. Is 
that also correct?
  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.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I agree, and I feel 
that we need to fund the census. We have to get ready for the census 
that is to come, and if we do not fund it now, then the census will not 
be accurate when the time comes to go forward and get an accurate 
accounting of Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, if the ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Serrano), would allow me to ask a question about the funding for 
research on migration into and out of the United States, I understand 
the committee did not fund a new initiative proposed by the Census 
Bureau. The Census Bureau was going to spend $1.23 million in fiscal 
year 2005 to improve the migration estimates and demographic analysis.
  As my colleague from New York will remember, the Census Bureau 
estimates failed to capture the dramatic increase in the migration of 
Hispanics during the 1990s, and as a result, those estimates were 
seriously flawed. Is it correct that the committee has eliminated 
funding to improve those estimates?
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MALONEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman is correct, and I share 
her concern.
  During the last 2 decades of the 20th century, the Census Bureau did 
not provide sufficient investment in these programs to keep up with the 
changing social and demographic character of the country. Eventually, 
the system failed, due to lack of attention.
  I was encouraged when the President's budget requested funds to 
reverse that trend. I am going to work with the chairman to see if 
there is some way we can rectify this situation in conference.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
and I appreciate his efforts to assure funding not only for the 2010 
census, but for the many other important programs at the Census Bureau. 
I believe this small amount of research funding now will pay great 
dividends

[[Page H5259]]

down the road, and that the failure to fund this research will have 
serious consequences for the accuracy of a great many census programs 
besides the 2010 census.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield once again, 
I want to thank her for her tireless work on the census. I share her 
enthusiasm in this area, and I assure her that we will continue to try 
to make their work easier and better.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the ranking 
member.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise 
to enter into a colloquy with the chairman, the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Wolf).
  I rise today on behalf of myself, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Greenwood), and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) to 
request that as the gentleman moves forward with this appropriation 
bill, he will work to include language in conference with the Senate 
that will instruct the Secretary of Commerce, in cooperation with the 
Secretaries of Energy and Labor, to study the economic impacts of 
rising natural gas prices on energy-intensive industries in the United 
States and potential market adjustments, including energy-intensive 
industries shifting operations overseas.
  We are concerned about the growing imbalance between natural gas 
supplies and the ever-increasing demands of this fuel source. The goal 
of this study would be to better understand what effects the volatile 
rise in natural gas prices and decreases in domestic supply have had on 
U.S. energy-intensive industries, including how they operate their 
facilities in the U.S., reducing United States production, postponing 
plant expansions, and shifting work to parts of the world where energy 
prices are lower.
  The U.S. today has the highest natural gas prices in the 
industrialized world, forcing companies to shift jobs overseas to 
countries with greater supply and lower energy costs. U.S. chemical 
companies have lost an estimated 78,000 jobs since the natural gas 
shortage began in 2000.
  Mr. Chairman, these economic numbers are alarming, and we need to 
take a closer look at how these energy costs are affecting our 
country's economic recovery. We hope Chairman Wolf will support this 
request as he undergoes the difficult task of guiding the fiscal year 
2005 Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary appropriations bill through 
this process. We thank the gentleman for his leadership on these 
important economic issues.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  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. CASTLE. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Chairman.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Crowley

  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment Offered by Mr. Crowley:
       Page 2, line 7, after the dollar figure insert ``(reduced 
     by $50,000)''.
       Page 2, line 11, after the dollar figure insert ``(reduce 
     by $50,000)''.
       Page 33, line 21, before the semicolon, insert ``(increased 
     by $50,000)''.

  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, it is with no great joy that I rise to 
offer this amendment. My amendment seeks to transfer $50,000 from the 
Department leadership account funds at the Office of the Attorney 
General and shift those funds to the Public Safety Officers Benefits 
Program under the Office of Justice Program. These funds should be used 
by the Office of Justice Programs to provide the resources to issue the 
Public Safety Officer's Medal of Valor posthumously to the 414 public 
safety officers who lost their lives on September 11, 2001.
  After those awful events of September 11, our whole Nation unified 
together as one people.

                              {time}  1615

  We looked with long-deserved respect at our police and fire fighters 
and emergency medical technicians, as well as court officers, for their 
heroism and their bravery.
  Remember, Mr. Chairman, these are the people who were running into 
the buildings when everyone else was attempting to escape those 
buildings. As a posthumous honor for these fallen heroes, I worked with 
Republicans and Democrats to pass a resolution 2\1/2\ years ago, 
expressing the sense of Congress that the Public Safety Officers Medal 
of Valor be presented to the public safety officers who had perished 
for outstanding valor above and beyond the call of duty during the 
terrorist attacks in the United States on September 11.
  That resolution unanimously passed by a vote of 409 to 0. Then under 
Senator Leahy's leadership in the Senate, he secured passage of a 
resolution in that body which was identical to the one that passed here 
with the unanimous vote just a short while later. While nonbinding, 
these resolutions put the Congress on record as urging special 
recognition through the issuance of the Medal of Valor for those 
individuals. In fact, the authorizing legislation of the Public Safety 
Officers Medal of Valor allows the special recognition and permits the 
Attorney General to issue, ``and in extraordinary cases,'' an increase 
in the number of recipients in a given year for this award.
  September 11 was an extraordinary case, and the heroism we saw that 
day was more than extraordinary. Unfortunately, after a number of 
meetings with the Attorney General's office and several calls to the 
White House, still after 2\1/2\ years, no action has been taken, nor is 
it apparent that any action on this issue is forthcoming.
  Last year, thank you to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and to 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), at my request, they 
graciously included language in their bill urging the Attorney General 
to posthumously award the Public Safety Officers Medal of Valor to the 
414 public safety officers who perished on September 11 of 2001. I do 
not understand the holdup of the issuance of this medal.
  While I do not begrudge those brave officers who have already 
received these honors in 2002 and 2003, I believe that the Attorney 
General should immediately issue these same awards to our heroes of 9/
11.
  When this amendment passed, and I understand through a negotiation 
with the majority, they are willing to accept this amendment, it would 
have been the third time that this House has acted to instruct the 
Attorney General's Office and the administration to issue the Medal of 
Valor to those men and women, public safety officers, who fell on 9/11.
  We have a medal in place already. We do not need to create a new 
medal to give to those who paid the ultimate sacrifice and demonstrated 
the highest acts of bravery on that day. If those who fell on 9/11 do 
not deserve this medal, I do not know who would. It would be an honor 
for those who have received it already and an honor for those who will 
one day receive this medal to know that they are among the 414 men and 
women who gave the ultimate sacrifice in bravery on 9/11.
  Now, it is my understanding in conversations with the administration 
that there is a hold on issuing this, after 2\1/2\ years of foot-
dragging on issuing this medal, that there may be an attempt to create 
a new medal to give at maybe another time. I do not want to specify. I 
do not know when that time may be, but I would hate to see that this be 
done for political purposes.
  Two and a half years have gone by. Enough time has happened and 
dragged by. These men and women and their families have been through so 
much already. They have been anticipating the receipt of this medal, 
and yet the administration has failed to cooperate and issue this medal 
to these 414 families who so deservedly are expecting this medal.
  I think it is time to put politics aside and stop dragging feet and 
have this medal that is already in existence. We do not have to create 
another one. We do not have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars 
to create a new medal.

[[Page H5260]]

One exists today, already, to give to those families and the men and 
women who paid the ultimate sacrifice in such a brave way on 9/11.
  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. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman's demonstration 
of desire to make this a reality by what he has just said on the floor, 
and I too am the son and the grandson of a police officer. And I think 
most people know that my first cousin was killed on 9/11, John Moran, 
as well as numerous friends of mine who were police officers and fire 
fighters. So there is a personal element to this issue as well.
  I do appreciate the gentleman's offer to verbally contact the 
administration and the Attorney General's Office, and I hope, again, 
that something can be done after 2\1/2\ years of really, if nothing 
else that I can describe, just dragging feet. I wish I had a better 
answer as to why this has not taken place already. It is not the 
Senate. It certainly is not you, Mr. Chairman, or anyone in this House.
  We have spoken unanimously in the past, and as I said before, this is 
the third time on the floor that we will have spoken. So I appreciate 
the gentleman's advice and his counsel on what he will do on his side 
to make this a reality before this goes any further.
  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. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to commend the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Crowley), my friend and colleague, for this effort. Our eyes 
do not deceive us. It is not $50 million. It is not $50 billion. It is 
$50,000. But in so many ways it is trillions, because it affects people 
who have been hurt. And while the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) 
is not to wear this on his sleeve, I happen to know that, as we all do, 
his family was touched by this tragedy. And so the support that he 
continues to give the victims and the families is one that makes a lot 
of sense to all of us.
  Again, we have done so much to honor those folks who have served and 
who gave their lives and the families that were touched; and yet this 
little symbol, and it is little in the sense of what it costs and yet 
gigantic in what it means to people, is something that should move 
ahead.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) and 
commend the chairman for doing this. There is nothing that can bring 
back those brave heroes from September 11, but clearly for so many who 
lost their lives from Staten Island, Brooklyn, and throughout the city 
and region, this is one way that our country continues to honor them. I 
think it is fitting, appropriate and overdue.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) that 
the report accompanying this bill calls for an external review of the 
NOAA laboratories and of the management of NOAA's research activities. 
As the gentleman knows, these issues have been of great interest to the 
Committee on Science, and indeed are addressed in an NOAA Organic Act 
that I recently introduced.
  Our committees have worked together on these issues of research 
management, and I would like some assurance from the chairman that our 
committees will continue to work together on this matter. I would not 
want to see any directive coming from the Committee on Appropriations 
in this or any other bill regarding the management and structuring of 
science at NOAA that did not reflect agreement between our respective 
committees.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  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. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that 
cooperation and assurance.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
King of Iowa) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hastings of Washington, 
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration 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, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________