[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.
____________________