[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 148 (Wednesday, November 9, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H10065-H10072]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2862, SCIENCE, STATE, JUSTICE, COMMERCE, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006
Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 538, I call up
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2862) making appropriations for
Science, the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other
purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 538, the
conference report is considered read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
November 7, 2005, at page H9713.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and
the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I am pleased to bring to the floor today the conference report on
H.R. 2862, the fiscal year 2006 Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act.
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), for his support throughout the process.
Together, we were able to get a strong bill passed by the House with a
vote of 418 to 7. Also, I want to thank our Senate counterparts,
Chairman Shelby and Senator Mikulski, as well as Chairman McConnell and
Senator Leahy.
I also want to thank the chairman of the full committee, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) for his help and cooperation with
this, and also the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey).
Within a very tight allocation, we were able to provide funding for a
variety of critical national priorities. The conference report provides
$21.4 billion for the Department of Justice, $784 million above fiscal
year 2005 and $1.1 billion over the budget request.
The conference agreement includes $5.8 billion for the FBI, which is
$15 million above the budget request. The bill will provide for
additional agents, analysts, and support staff to address terrorism and
espionage threats. And keep in mind that last week the stories broke
about how the Chinese, that, unfortunately, this body gave the Most
Favored Nation trading status to, has been spying aggressively against
our country, and the latest spying episode dealt with the B-1 bomber.
In addition, the bill provides funding to address deficiencies
identified through external reviews, including a $20 million increase
for the FBI Academy, a $20 million increase for additional secure
space, and a $14 million increase to improve information technology
program management, $5 million for retention and recruitment, a $26
million increase for translators, and a $70 million increase for the
Terrorist Screening Center.
The conference agreement includes $12 million above the request for
the Marshals Service to enhance the protection of the Judiciary and
fugitive apprehension programs.
For DEA, Madam Speaker, the bill restores proposed cuts for Mobile
Enforcement Teams and the Demand Reduction program, and directs these
efforts to focus on meth enforcement. The conference report does not
include the Combat Meth Act that was attached to the Senate bill. While
I
[[Page H10066]]
strongly support the bill's intent to address this destructive drug,
there were some concerns raised about the Senate language.
The Judiciary Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee, who
are the committees of jurisdiction on this subject, are addressing
these concerns. In fact, today I understand the House Judiciary
Committee is marking up a meth bill. I look forward to voting for
Chairmen Sensenbrenner and Barton's bill when it comes to the House
floor.
The conference report fully funds the ATF's request and includes a
$20 million increase for Violent Crime Impact Teams to help those
communities most impacted by gangs and violent criminals. There is a
growing problem of gang and gang violence throughout the country.
The conference agreement provides $2.7 billion for State and local
law enforcement, $1.1 billion above the administration's request,
including $416.5 million for Byrne Justice Assistance grants and $405
million for State Criminal Alien Assistance. And that funding really
was due to Chairman Lewis, and also Mr. Dreier and Mr. Kolbe, when we
dealt with that issue on the floor. That was a big issue.
The bill also includes $109 million to address critical DNA backlogs,
$387 for violence against women prevention and $343 million for
juvenile justice.
There is $16.5 billion included for NASA, including funding for the
President's vision for space exploration. We have also restored funding
for aeronautics research, which the administration had proposed to
reduce.
For the National Science Foundation, Madam Speaker, the bill includes
$5.65 billion, which is $48 million above the request. This increase
for basic scientific research and science education is critical to
ensuring that we continue to lead in innovation and competitiveness,
which is necessary if we are to retain our position in the world
economy.
Many people are concerned that with the test scores in math, science,
physics, chemistry and biology, and the number of engineers we have, we
are falling behind. So even in this tight period of the budget, we were
able to dramatically increase that, and there will be a conference that
was directed by the supplemental appropriations in December, chaired by
Congressman Vern Ehlers and also Chairman Boehlert and others, with
some of the best minds to come together to attempt to deal with this
issue. Rather than just talking about it, they will constructively deal
with it and get the administration on board. So I would hope and I pray
that the President will address this issue in his State of the Union
message next year.
The conference report includes $888 million for the Securities and
Exchange Commission to provide the necessary resources to protect
investors from corporate fraud.
For the State Department, we have provided $9.6 billion, including
$1.6 billion, the full requested level for embassy security upgrades.
It also includes $1.53 billion for public diplomacy programs including
international broadcasting, focusing on expanded programs for the Arab
and Muslim world.
At the Department of Commerce, the conference report provides $6.6
billion for the Department of Commerce and other trade-related
agencies. Increases will result in more accurate economic statistics,
improved weather forecasting, and more accurate and timely census data.
The bill also includes an increase for the Nation's trade agencies.
This will help former Member Mr. Portman to negotiate, enforce and
verify free and fair trade agreements. It also has an amendment offered
by Congresswoman Northup, which is very, very important with regard to
this whole issue of negotiating treaties.
Overall, Mr. Speaker, the conference report agreement represents a
sound and fair resolution to the many issues we faced in conference,
and it does so in a fiscally responsible manner. I would urge my
colleagues to support this conference.
Before I reference some people, I want to say there is another issue
we attempted to deal with and were not able to get agreement on, and
that is to direct the Department of State in a period of 60 days to
come up with a policy to deal with how we take care of the families of
those who were lost in the bombing of the American Embassy in Beirut in
1983; the October bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks, where 241
Marines were killed; the Tanzania Embassy bombings; the Kenya Embassy
bombings, and the USAID employees that were killed.
It was a strange experience because we were operating in good faith,
trying to get this, and some lawyers who got involved in this process
really created a roadblock and a problem for this. Now, because of
those lawyers, this is not being carried. So we are going to be doing a
letter to Secretary Rice asking that the State Department come up with
a program and a policy and deal with this.
We have a moral obligation to the families, the families of those
killed and those still alive with regard to the hostages in the Iranian
Embassy. We have to deal with those issues and, hopefully, deal with
them without the lawyers being involved. I think we have to help and
work with the families.
I also want to thank, Madam Speaker, at the end here, to thank the
members of my subcommittee staff who have put in very long hours to
produce the FY 2006 Science, State, Justice, and Commerce Appropriation
bill. With the addition of Science to the subcommittee, the staff has
had to work even harder this year to produce a bill that I believe will
help the country.
I want to particularly thank Mike Ringler, clerk of the subcommittee,
who has led the subcommittee through the House appropriations process.
I would also like to thank Christine Kojac, John Martens, Anne Marie
Goldsmith, Joel Kaplan, and Clelia Alvarado for their tireless, and if
I could underline in the Congressional Record the word ``tireless,'' if
I could put a black line under it so people would see it, their
tireless efforts. Their work is much appreciated.
In my personal office I want to thank Dan Scandling, my Chief of
Staff, and Jan Shaffron, who has been with me for 25 years, and J.T.
Griffin, Samantha Stockman, and Courtney Schlieter for their efforts
and working with the subcommittee.
Also, there were many other subcommittee members' staffs who were
very much involved in all of this. From the minority, I want to thank
David Pomerantz, Michelle Burkett, and Rob Nabors for their insight and
input on the bill. And also from Congressman Mollohan's personal
office, I want to thank Sally Moorehead and Julie Aaronson. As in the
past, we have worked in a bipartisan manner to draft this legislation.
Madam Speaker, I ask for a ``yea'' vote on this bill.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the fiscal year 2006
appropriations conference report for Science, the Departments of State,
Justice, Commerce and related agencies.
Madam Speaker, right at the beginning, I would especially like to
thank Chairman Wolf and his staff: Celia Alvarado, Anne Marie
Goldsmith, Joel Kaplan, Christine Kojac, John Martens, and Mike Ringler
for their help, their outstanding work on this bill, their
professionalism, and for their help in shepherding this bill with all
its jurisdictions through the appropriations process.
I would also like to thank the minority appropriations staff,
Michelle Burkett and David Pomerantz, and my personal staff, Julie
Aaronson and Sally Moorehead, for their hard work throughout this long
process.
Madam Speaker, let me especially express my appreciation to Chairman
Wolf for his capability, for his adroit management of a complicated
bill with a lot of jurisdictions; and I cannot stress enough the
kindness and fairness that he has shown to me, to our committee staff,
and to the House minority throughout this process. While Chairman Wolf
and I may have had disagreements, we may not have agreed on every
provision in this bill, Chairman Wolf has listened to our arguments
and, where appropriate, he has looked for ways to accommodate our
requests, and we thank him for that.
Madam Speaker, this is a good bill. It provides $57.85 billion. That
is an increase of $1.6 billion above last year's
[[Page H10067]]
level for very diverse programs; programs that fund our Federal and
local law enforcement activities; programs that invest in our
government's major science activities; programs that construct and
defend our embassies abroad; programs that provide support to our small
businesses, and those which help promote our economic development.
There are many high points in this bill. The Department of Justice
and all the law enforcement programs that it manages are at $1.1
billion above the President's request and $784 million above fiscal
year 2005, while we are disappointed in the funding available for local
and State law enforcement.
Science activity is up, with the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration funded at the requested level of $16.5 billion. That is
$260 million above fiscal year 2005.
The National Science Foundation receives $5.65 billion in this bill,
an increase of $181 million above last year and $49 million above the
President's budget request.
The State Department and Broadcasting Board of Governors, while
funded below the President's request, receives $9.6 billion for
worldwide security upgrades, diplomatic and consular programs, and
international broadcasting.
{time} 1315
For our local communities, we restored the Economic Development
Administration's funding to last year's level, rejecting in the process
the President's proposal to eliminate the Economic Development
Administration.
In addition, we rejected his proposal to consolidate and shrink
proposals that provide Federal investment to strengthen our local
communities.
In this bill we also included language supporting the role of the
economic development districts and reaffirming our commitment to the
minimum 50 percent Federal match for local dollars. My constituents and
those in rural areas were very vocal on these two points, and I am
pleased that the chairman was supportive and that we could be
responsive to those requests.
Madam Speaker, I am concerned that this year, like last year, we were
not able to provide the $80 million needed to subsidize the 7(a) loan
program in the Small Business Administration. I have seen firsthand the
chilling effect that increased fees have had on small businesses in my
State, and I hope we will monitor the 7(a) program during the next year
and evaluate to what extent this lack of funding creates a problem for
our small businesses accessing needed capital.
Finally, Madam Speaker, I would like to draw special attention to
section 624 of the conference report. It reads as follows, ``None of
the funds made available in this act shall be used in any way
whatsoever to support or justify the use of torture of any official or
contract employee of the United States Government.''
Madam Speaker, this provision reflects Chairman Wolf's values and his
unwavering commitment to human rights. It is the chairman's initiative,
and it is to his credit that it is included in our bill.
Madam Speaker, again, I want to thank Chairman Wolf, and I urge
Members to support this conference report.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), a member of the Science Committee, who is also a
physicist.
Mr. EHLERS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I commend him for his work on this report as well as on the
original House bill.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference report of
the Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006. I want to recognize and pay
tribute to the tremendous effort of Chairman Wolf and his staff, as
well as the ranking member on the minority side and his staff, that
they have exerted to meet the challenge of fairly balancing this bill.
Madam Speaker, their hard work is commendable, and I want to thank
them for their tireless work.
I would like to speak in particular about one part of the bill, the
National Science Foundation, better known as NSF. New to the
subcommittee this year, NSF is the only Federal agency dedicated solely
to supporting fundamental scientific research. While it represents a
relatively small part of the overall budget, it is an extremely
important part. NSF funding accounts for one-fifth of all Federal
support for basic research and 40 percent of physical science research
at academic institutions.
I am delighted that Chairman Wolf shares an appreciation for the
critical role innovation has played in our economy and national
security, as well as its unique tie to education and the work supported
by the NSF.
In May of this year, 167 Members of Congress joined with me in
signing a letter to support an increase for the budget of the National
Science Foundation. Since the NSF was funded below the President's
request last year, I am very grateful that the conferees saw fit to
reverse this declining trend and return to sustaining the level of
funding for NSF. The negotiated funding level for NSF in fiscal year
2006 of $5.65 billion reflects a strong commitment to NSF's job of
developing our future skilled workforce and laying the foundation for
innovative technologies in the fields of telecommunications, medicine
and defense.
Furthermore, I want to acknowledge the committee's work to restore
cuts endured by several programs within the Education Directorate at
NSF. The Math and Science Partnership Program budget has been greatly
diminished since 2002, when it was funded at $160 million. I am
grateful that the conferees have signaled their recognition of the
importance of this program by funding this program at $64 million, $4
million above the requested level.
We know that other countries are investing and outperforming the
United States in the area of math and science education. We will not be
able to compete successfully with the rest of the world if our
workforce is not on the cutting edge of these fields, and we need to
maintain these important programs that support math and science
education.
Also within this bill, I want to briefly mention my appreciation that
the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program, MEP, at the National
Institute for Standards and Technology has been funded at $106 million.
These funds will allow MEP centers across the country to continue their
vital services for small- and medium-sized manufacturers that are not
replicated by any other private or public organization.
Balancing many pressing national priorities within this tight budget
climate is certainly a challenge. We must increase our funding of
research and development because it is the foundation for increased
innovation, economic vitality and national security. I look forward to
continuing to work with Chairman Wolf and my colleagues to improve our
support for NSF fundamental research and education programs in future
years. I certainly encourage the administration and the President to
increase their funding request for the National Science Foundation in
the next budget that we will process next year.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the
Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Madam Speaker, I want to say at the outset I have a great deal of
admiration for the gentleman from Virginia. I think he is one of the
best committee chairmen in this House, and I think he has treated the
substance of this bill absolutely down the center, and I think he has
dealt with the majority and the minority in a very even-handed fashion.
I respect that and appreciate that.
Frankly, I had thought I would be voting for this bill as I have for
the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, and as I intend to work for
the Energy and Water conference report. But I find myself unable to
support this bill in the final instance for a number of reasons which
have very little to do with the gentleman from Virginia or the
gentleman from West Virginia. I have three basic problems with this
bill.
First of all, the conferees stripped the Sanders amendment out of the
bill.
[[Page H10068]]
I think this Congress has done a miserable job of oversight with
respect to Iraq, a miserable job with respect to oversight of the
PATRIOT Act and a number of other security-related issues.
I might not be so concerned about the fact that the conferees
stripped out the amendment which precluded the administration from
snooping into people's use of libraries, I might not feel so strongly
about it if I felt that the Congress had a better record of conducting
oversight hearings on this, but I do not. So under those circumstances,
I think what the committee has done in stripping out that language is
quite dangerous.
Secondly, I would say there is a kabuki dance going on in this town
with respect to local and State law enforcement funding. This bill now
effectively funds State and local law enforcement at a level which is
$1 billion less than it was in fiscal year 2001.
What happens each year is that the President makes very large cuts in
that program. This committee then restores a significant portion of
those funds, but still leaving us below the funding level for last
year. As a result, this bill is $300 million below last year in terms
of its aid for State and local law enforcement assistance; and last
year was $226 million below the year before. I think that is headed in
the wrong direction.
Lastly, I think there is one provision in this bill which is
especially mean and that is the funding level for legal services. Legal
services is the program that we provide in order to enable indigent
people to have some access to civil courts, and yet this bill reduces
funding for legal services below last year's level.
As I said in the conference, every day we come onto this floor and we
pledge allegiance to the flag, and at the end of that pledge, we talk
about our dedication to providing ``liberty and justice for all''. I do
not think anybody can stand on this floor with a straight face and say
that anymore. I think, if you vote to cut legal services, what you are
really saying is that we stand for liberty and justice ``for those who
can pay for it''.
I do not think that is what this country is supposed to be all about.
By the time you take into account not just the nominal number in this
bill for legal service, but when you take into account the across-the-
board cut that has already been applied, and when you add to that the
additional across-the-board cut which is expected to be applied at some
point in the process before we are finished, you have substantially
weakened funding for legal services. I think that is an indefensible
thing to do.
I would point out that these reductions are being made at the same
time that NASA is being given upwards of $2 billion to deal with a
manned mission to Mars. I have nothing against going to Mars. I think
in the long term it is a wonderful expansion of the human endeavor. But
I do believe that to add that kind of funding to NASA for a Mars
mission and to make the kind of tax cuts for the most wealthy people in
this society that the Congress is going to be supporting in the coming
days, while at the same time we are cutting legal service funds for the
indigent, cutting aid for local and State law enforcement grants, I
think that represents a wrong set of priorities. I think it is taking
us in the wrong direction.
I note that this subcommittee has been reorganized at the demand of
the ex-majority leader on the other side of the aisle, Mr. DeLay, who
last year, representing Houston, wanted to see to it that NASA had a
clear track to funding increases. So he did a very effective job of
representing his district by moving NASA into this subcommittee where
it has to compete against programs such as I have just mentioned. And
as a result, NASA is at the front of the train and some of these other
priorities are at the back of the train. I regret that.
I do appreciate very much the dedication that the gentleman has shown
to the science budget. I think the National Science Foundation is one
of the keys to our future economic growth. I congratulate him for that.
But in the end, for the reasons I have cited, I am going to feel
constrained to cast a ``no'' vote on the passage of the conference
report.
Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
On the issue of legal services, we are above the administration's
request, but I understand what the gentleman is saying. I am somewhat
sympathetic to it, too. But for the record, we are $12.5 million above
the administration's request. But the gentleman's comments are telling.
On the issue of oversight on the war, I agree with the gentleman. I
have been to Iraq three times, and I have come up with a proposal
asking the administration to have fresh eyes on the target, 10 people
who are men and women of integrity and honesty and character to go and
come back and report.
{time} 1330
So I think the gentleman is right. I feel very strongly we should
have major oversight on the operation of the war. Also, I think the
administration has to do a better job, and I think oversight would tell
this if it were to come back and tell the ramifications of failure. I
think should we fail in Iraq, the ramifications to this country are
very serious with regard to terrorism. So by having oversight, I think
those ramifications would come out. But I agree with Mr. Obey. I think
there should be much more aggressive oversight.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
Wamp).
Mr. WAMP. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report
with deep gratitude to the ranking member and the chairman and
excellent staff work. I believe that Chairman Wolf, while he does not
like for people to talk about him, is a man of conscience, and I
believe that the God who created us speaks to us and through us through
our conscience, and I am grateful that he is so sensitive to the needs
of humanity.
We talk a lot about terror. There is terror in a lot of homes in this
country because methamphetamine production has crept into our
communities, particularly in rural America. It hit Tennessee really
hard. And in this bill, the staff and the chairman and the ranking
member have responded very well, and I am grateful for that because we
have got to attack this problem. At a time of need to tighten our belts
and get back towards a balanced budget, we have to do some things, or
it is going to cost us a whole lot more later.
In Tennessee we started with a U.S. Attorney-led partnership of
local, State, and Federal governments and a task force that has now
grown to the whole State, and it is a model for the Nation on
cooperation between local, State, and Federal governments so that they
can interdict, they can actually get a conviction, not just an
indictment but a conviction; and we now are second in the Nation in
attacking this problem and busting these labs and running these people
back into the woods.
We have got to change State laws and Federal laws, but it takes
support; and this committee has been very responsive, and I am grateful
for that; and I think the House should support this continued effort to
fight methamphetamine production in this country.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano). There is no member of the
minority of our subcommittee who has made a greater contribution to the
jurisdictions, to the funding in our bill than he.
(Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SERRANO. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time and for the very kind words.
I rise in support of the conference report, and I congratulate the
gentleman from Virginia and the gentleman from West Virginia for not
only the way in which they continue to work together but the way in
which they work with all members of the subcommittee and, indeed, all
Members of the House.
I am especially pleased that we were able to fund the Census Bureau
at the higher House level. This will allow for the continuation of the
important American Community Survey which provides accurate and up-to-
date information on housing, demographic and socioeconomic conditions
in our country. As we know, there was a period of
[[Page H10069]]
time there during conference negotiations where this program was in
danger.
I am also glad that NOAA was funded at a higher level than that
included in the House bill. In the aftermath of the recent hurricanes,
we all recognize the important role of our National Weather Service.
This is the first year, Madam Speaker, that the Science portfolio was
added to this subcommittee's jurisdiction, and I am satisfied that both
NASA and the National Science Foundation received more funding than was
appropriated in 2005. NASA has a vital role in maintaining our Nation's
leadership in science and technology through its educational programs,
in particular, and in its broad portfolio of university-based research.
I am happy that the National Science Foundation's funding will allow
for the continuation of their education programs, which benefit so many
of our students.
I am also pleased that the State Department funding was provided so
that there would be worldwide security improvements. We must always be
vigilant in guarding the safety of those who so ably represent us both
here and abroad.
The FBI is the biggest winner in this bill, receiving an increase of
$547 million; and as the chairman knows and the ranking member knows, I
have always felt that the FBI should get whatever resources it needs.
But I would be remiss, Madam Speaker, if I did not briefly mention that
I have been troubled by many of the bureau's practices of late,
including its handling of the Filiberto Ojeda-Rios incident in Puerto
Rico, which should not have resulted in his killing. I am also
concerned about the FBI's ever-increasing use of national security
letters. As the FBI continues to adjust to its new powers and
responsibilities, I hope that we in this country will continue to
scrutinize the FBI's activities to ensure that we do not witness
repeats of the abuses that have tainted the organization in the past.
Before closing, let me just say that I have often said in
subcommittee, Madam Speaker, that if in the process of getting the bad
guys, we throw away the Constitution and take away the civil liberties
of the good guys, then the terrorists would have won and we as a Nation
would have lost. With that in mind, I support the conference report,
and I ask for its passage.
Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for his
comments and for his friendship and for working together as we have
over the years.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to Coach Osborne, a Member of
Congress from Nebraska. As I was looking over, I thought of another
great coach. This is a great coach. Another great coach is Joe Paterno,
who, when I watched the game on Saturday, and I do not know if the
gentleman from Nebraska watched the game, the announcers kept saying
that he was 79 years old and wears white socks, but what they did not
keep talking about is he is a man of such honesty and integrity and
character. I think the two of them must have been carved out of the
same thing. I am sorry the gentleman is going to be leaving here.
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I object to the gentleman's words. He is
reminding me of a painful loss to Penn State.
Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I forgot my colleague is from Wisconsin. We
are going to miss having Mr. Osborne here, but we look forward to
working with him as Governor of Nebraska.
Mr. OSBORNE. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for those kind
words. I guess I would like to reciprocate by saying that I have worked
with a great many people in the House and no one has been more
responsive and more interested in matters dealing with law enforcement
and children than the chairman. So we really appreciate it.
I am sorry that Wisconsin got beat, but everybody has got to lose
sometime. Of course, Barry Alvarez is a good friend of mine, too.
I rise in support of the conference report, and I would like to
particularly thank Chairman Wolf for restoring some of the Byrne grant
funds. As many people know, Byrne grant funds were zeroed out in the
President's budget. It was a tremendous effort to get any money back in
there for Byrne grants. And for those who do not know, Byrne grants
basically support local law enforcement as we attack the
methamphetamine problem.
The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) talked about meth a little
bit earlier, and I would like to just take a second to show people
graphically what has happened in regard to this problem.
In 1990 there were two States, California and Texas, that each had
more than 20 methamphetamine labs. The rest of the country was
relatively free of this problem. Then we look at what is present in
2004, and we see the spread of methamphetamine from west to east, just
a few States in the northeast that are preserved to some degree from
meth, and that will soon change, I am certain.
In most of these counties in most of these States in the western and
the central part of the United States, more than half of the jail cells
are now occupied by meth addicts or people who have had meth-related
crimes. I would say more than half of the child deaths, child assaults,
foster care cases in these regions are due to methamphetamine abuse.
So we really appreciate the restoration of these funds. It is not
what everybody would like, but it is certainly going to keep these law
enforcement people going for a period of time.
Also, this conference report provides funds to clean up toxic
material from meth labs, which is much needed. Above all, it encourages
the Drug Enforcement Agency to establish a methamphetamine task force.
Currently, we do not feel that the DEA has a comprehensive plan to
attack the problem of methamphetamine, which is really covering the
whole country and is certainly becoming more and more of a problem on
the east coast. So this part of the bill is excellent. I appreciate the
chairman's work. I would like to thank him one more time for his
efforts.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
I want to begin by saying that I think that our ranking member, David
Obey, has stated well the concerns that many of us have with respect to
some provisions of the bill that would, in this case, cut legal
services to the poor; and the stripping of the Sanders amendment was
certainly a problem because that amendment would have prevented the
search of library reading records by PATRIOT Act law enforcement. So I
understand the concerns that have been expressed.
On balance, though, I rise in support of the bill, and I am going to
tell the Members why: because I think that there is an element in this
bill that is so important for this country because it affirms the
notion that the first ``A'' in NASA, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, ``aeronautics,'' is critical to the agency's success.
And in that connection I want to thank Chairman Wolf and I want to
thank Ranking Member Mollohan for their hard work and their support to
that end.
We have been working for the better part of this year to make certain
that aeronautics was recognized as being critical; and without the help
of the entire Ohio delegation on both sides of the aisle, without the
help of Chairman Wolf, without the help of Ranking Member Mollohan, we
would not be here at this exact moment pointing out that this bill
represents a victory for aeronautics.
Aeronautics research and development has drastically improved our
national security, our air safety, our economy, and our environment.
NASA's field centers, such as the Glenn Research Center in Cleveland,
are where the actual basic research is done. There we will find unique
research facilities, some of the best scientists and engineers of our
time, and a track record of discovery for the public good that is the
envy of the world.
One of the secrets to NASA's success has been its dual emphasis on
both space and aeronautics. A successful space program is heavily
dependent on a strong aeronautics program. Indeed, we cannot get to
space without first navigating the atmosphere, and yet the budget for
fiscal year 2006 attempted to drastically cut funding for aeronautics
research. Recovery from that devastating loss would have taken decades
and billions of dollars.
[[Page H10070]]
That is why I am so grateful to the chairman and to the ranking
member and all of my colleagues for the work that they have put into
the bill and showing that the members of the subcommittee share the
deep affinity that I have and that others have in appreciation for a
healthy, balanced National Aeronautics and Space Administration. This
recognizes that a healthy NASA requires strong field research centers
like NASA Glenn. Strong field centers, in turn, are dependent on their
physical facilities and, more importantly, their talented workforce.
The bill protects the jobs and facilities from cuts that are driven
by what accountants want instead of scientific need and instead of
engineering know-how. This bill stands in defense of aeronautics, and
it is a nod to the crucial role that aeronautics plays in so many
facets of our daily life.
Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Boehlert).
Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman and the ranking
member of the subcommittee for their outstanding work in very
difficult, challenging times. But this measure deserves our support,
and I say that as chairman of the Science Committee. So I have a
special interest, because it will bolster America's science and
technology enterprise, it will foster innovation, and boost U.S.
competitiveness.
Why do I support this bill? Let me count the ways, and this is by no
means inclusive, but let me focus on the matters that I am most
familiar with. It increases funding for the National Science Foundation
to support more fundamental science and engineering research. That is
the fuel that drives the knowledge economy, and that is what drives the
American economy. It preserves the science and math partnership program
at NSF, designed to improve the performance of local school systems in
math and science education at a time we have been challenged as never
before in our history.
{time} 1345
It increases funding for the laboratory programs for the National
Institute of Standards and Technology.
And what does NIST do in addition to performing advanced science and
engineering research? It develops the technical standards that advance
measurement tools to help to keep American industry competitive. It
preserves the very important Manufacturing Extension Partnership, which
helps keep America's small manufacturers globally competitive,
improving U.S. manufacturing productivity and saving American jobs. It
supports a balanced program at NASA, including increased funding for
aeronautics, as the previous speaker mentioned; and it increases
funding for the National Weather Service, which provides lifesaving
forecasting of hurricanes and other extreme events. I need provide no
further example than Katrina.
At a time when government agencies at all levels were less than
adequate with their response, the shining star in our crown was the
National Hurricane Center and the National Weather Service. The
Hurricane Center is under the Weather Service. They provided us with
timely information well in advance of the hurricane hitting the coast
of the gulf. It is what was done with that information that created the
problems, not the information itself. That was provided completely and
in a timely manner.
My congratulations go to the gentleman from Virginia and the
gentleman from West Virginia. Under very difficult circumstances, they
have recognized that we have to establish some priorities, and one of
the high priorities that they have both given and this House should be
giving is to invest in the science enterprise.
What is that all about? It is about our future. It is about
opportunity. It is about jobs.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his kind
comments.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), a member of the full committee.
(Mr. FARR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FARR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference report on
H.R. 2862, the Science, State, Justice, Commerce and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act. I think the conferees did an incredibly good job,
considering the tight allocations they had. And I want to thank the
subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), and the
gentleman from West Virginia (Ranking Member Mollohan) and their highly
competent staff.
Despite the good job, I would be remiss if I did not stand here and
remind Congress of our need to deal with the recommendations that have
been made to us by very important organizations, our U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy that studies the oceans, and the Pew Oceans Commission, a
charitable trust which also studies the oceans, and ask our
administration to propose an adequate budget for our ocean programs in
the future.
It is so critical, as Americans depend on the oceans, when we think
of all of the tourism from the beaches and the watchable wildlife. We
make livings on sometimes turbulent surfaces, we put food on America's
tables, we play on its beaches and so on. These are often critical and
overlooked in our economic engine, yet the U.S. economy in 2000 was
almost 2\1/2\ times larger, the ocean economy, than the agriculture
economy in terms of the output, and employed 1.5 times the number of
people. It encompasses huge activities. NOAA activities touch almost a
third of our Nation's gross domestic product, and our oceans and coasts
contribute more than $117 billion to American prosperity each year.
So the issue here is really that we have to put more effort into
this, because if we do not, we are just stabbing ourselves in the foot.
The oxygen that we breathe comes from the oceans, the future, the
unexplored. It is frankly more important that we explore the oceans on
this planet than we explore Mars, yet we are putting more and more
money into that effort than we do into our own planet.
So I am thanking the committee for job well done and hoping that next
year we can get a better mark on this.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference report on
H.R. 2862, the Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act 2006, but I also strongly encourage both the
administration and the House to invest more in the programs that
protect, maintain, and restore the health of our oceans in subsequent
years. The conferees did a good job with this bill given the
allocation, and I especially appreciate the hard work of Subcommittee
Chairman Wolf, Ranking Member Mollohan, and their highly competent and
helpful staff.
The Pew Oceans Commission and the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy
both released landmark reports within the past 2\1/2\ years reviewing
the state of our oceans and the policies we use to govern them. This
was the first comprehensive review in over 30 years. Both reports came
to the same conclusion: Our oceans and coasts are in a state of crises
and we are loosing important goods and services that they provide. At
the top of the list of problems causing this crisis is an under
investment in the programs we use to manage the oceans and coasts.
From our oceans, Americans draw inspiration from the animals in its
waters, make a living on its sometimes turbulent surface, put food on
their tables, play on its beaches, and benefit from the microscopic
plants that provide the majority of oxygen we breathe. For many of
these reasons and others, our oceans are a critical, albeit often
overlooked, economic engine. The U.S. ocean economy in 2000 was almost
2\1/2\ times larger than the agricultural economy in terms of output
and employed 1\1/2\ times as many people. Ocean sector employment is
larger than every manufacturing industry. NOAA activities touch almost
a third of the Nation's gross domestic product, and oceans and coasts
contribute more than $117 billion to American prosperity each year.
If we are going to continue to obtain these important benefits from
our coasts and oceans, we will need to implement the recommendations of
the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy to invest more in our oceans. I
call on the administration to propose a more robust budget next year so
that Americans will continue to benefit from the goods and services our
oceans provide. I also ask my colleagues here in the House to push for
a budget resolution next year that authorizes adequate money to the
Science, State, Justice, and Commerce accounts so that Chairman Wolf
and Ranking Member Mollohan will be able to put together a bill that
adequately supports programs that protect, maintain and restore the
health of our oceans.
[[Page H10071]]
Unfortunately because of the tight allocation, conferees were forced
to cut many important ocean programs, such as the National Marine
Sanctuary Program, which is receiving a 30-percent cut from fiscal year
2005 funding levels. In 1972, exactly 100 years after the first
national park was created, the Nation made a similar commitment to
preserving its marine treasures by establishing the National Marine
Sanctuary Program. The Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary plays a
critical role protecting the ecologically and culturally important
areas off my district in California while promoting sustainable use and
educating the public about the marine environment.
The National Sea Grant College Program is being cut by 10 percent
from fiscal year 2005 funding levels to $55.5 million, a cut of $5
million from the House bill and $11.2 million from the Senate bill.
From this cut, the U.S. will loose major projects that assist coastal
communities, including promoting coastal economic growth, improving the
quality of marine environments, educating students in marine sciences,
and solving critical marine and Great Lakes resource programs. The U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy called for increasing the National Sea Grant
College Program by $20 million, and the President's Ocean Action Plan
called for expanding the program.
The National Marine Protected Areas Center is being cut by 50 percent
from fiscal year 2005 funding levels after the House bill called for
nearly level funding and the Senate bill called for a slight increase.
This center helps protect the significant natural and cultural
resources within the marine environment for the benefit of present and
future generations by strengthening and expanding the Nation's system
of marine protected areas. An expanded and strengthened comprehensive
system of marine protected areas throughout the marine environment
would enhance the conservation of our Nation's natural and cultural
marine heritage and the ecologically and economically sustainable use
of the marine environment for future generations.
The programs I highlighted today as well as several other ocean
programs are being cut when they need to be expanded. This is putting
the well-being of many Americans at risk by jeopardizing the goods and
services provided by healthy oceans that drive our vast ocean economic
engine.
Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, I thank the Gentleman for yielding me
this time, and I thank him and the Chairman of the Committee for their
long labors on what is a $57.8 billion bill.
My concern is with what many might view as a mere footnote to this
bill, the budget of a tiny federal agency that gets not billions, but
only $5.3 million, with an ``m,'' out of this huge budget. But the
budget of that tiny federal agency and a whim of nature are all that
stand between tens of thousands of Texans along the southern tip of our
country and disaster.
These are hard-working people along the Lower Rio Grande River Valley
in one of the economically poorest parts of this country. But the
threat of disaster to them is every bit as real as what we saw played
out on our screens in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in New
Orleans.
This bill fails to deal adequately with that problem. I believe that
the Committee recognized the Valley's need in the language that it
added to the report that accompanies this bill. I cannot fault the
Committee, though I do not agree with the result. This report includes
the same dollar amount that the House had already approved and the
Senate had already approved, which is 100 cents on the dollar of what
President Bush requested. But the amount of money requested is not an
adequate amount to protect people from a very real danger.
As the conferees noted in the report, and I quote: ``The conferees
recommend that the Commission increase funding for the Lower Rio Grande
Valley Flood Control Project above the $2,200,000 contained in the
President's budget request. Studies by the U.S. Section of the IBWC
conclude that the Rio Grande Valley levees are deficient in height,
geologically flawed, and structurally unsound. The conferees expect the
administration in the upcoming budget cycle to request sufficient funds
to address these needs.''
And while that language is important, it does not provide the dollars
necessary to fix this problem. It is language similar to that adopted
by the Lower Rio Grande Valley Development Council, composed of all the
governments in the three counties at the very tip of the United States
where it borders Mexico.
In asking for $10 million in construction moneys every year, they
said, ``Without necessary improvements, the levee system could be
overtopped or fail structurally at various locations, leaving thousands
homeless and creating extensive property and environmental damage to
the region.''
After a period of cronyism at the IBWC, well-documented by the
General Accountability Office, President Bush replaced his first failed
appointee with an acting appointee. We had the USIBWC's Acting
Commissioner down in the Rio Grande Valley last month. He said in a
meeting there that he needed $10 million a year, not for the agency,
but for construction, and a total of $125 million over 10 or 11 years
in order to solve this problem. Madam Speaker, $2.2 million is about a
fifth of what is needed in construction every year for the next 10
years if we are going to resolve this problem.
Earlier this year, we had Hurricane Emily. It hit about 35, 50 miles
south of the area that I am talking about. It was a mere Category 1,
yet it caused extensive flooding along some of these levees. As all of
America knows, we have had so many hurricanes this year, we have run
out of names, and it is forecast to only get worse this year and the
year after that as we go through this cycle in the Gulf of one
hurricane after another.
If we have even a category 3 hurricane, we will overtop these levees
along 38 miles. If we have a Hurricane 5 like Katrina, it will be 102
miles that are overwhelmed. This is just one small section along the
Rio Grande.
But I just want it clear that this administration and this Congress
has in living color the recommendations of their own agency showing
where the levees will be topped up to 9 feet over the existing levees;
6, 5, 4, 3 feet, whatever it is, it is an amount of water pouring over
these levees. While we can talk about categories of hurricanes and
whether it is a 5 or a 4 or a 3 and follow the tracking on television,
what we have had from this Administration since Katrina for the poor
people of the Rio Grande Valley is a ``Category 0'' effort, and it is
that effort that has to be changed either in the supplemental
appropriation they currently have under consideration, or in next
year's appropriations bill, because every day we wait, exposes tens of
thousands of people to considerable danger.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).
Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member and the
chairman. I offer my gratitude to both of them for the hard work they
have done in, once again, trying to fit many programs into a very small
package.
There is a mystery buried deep in this bill. This bill marks the end,
the official end, of the COPS program. We know that the chairman and
ranking member were not the ones that led to its demise. In fact, over
the last several years, there has been an effort to, despite the fact
that it has not been reauthorized, keep it going.
Now, we know that the COPS program ends in this bill, but the
question is why. Let us try to figure out what the motive is.
Well, could it be that it is not distributed evenly, the police
officers, the over 120,000 police officers hired in the bill? This is
an example of just some of the cities that have had officers hired
under the COPS program. This is perhaps the most democratic, with a
small ``d'', bill you can imagine, COPS in small police departments in
rural areas and large big cities.
Perhaps it was that the COPS program was eliminated because it was
not working. Well, that certainly was not the case. Crime has been
reduced every year since the COPS program was put into place. The GAO
did a study looking at the correlation between COPS hiring and the
reduction in crimes and concluded that over a quarter of a million
indexed crimes were not committed because of the COPS program.
Maybe it is because the program is no longer needed. Well, the former
head of the Department of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge, once famously
said that homeland security starts in our hometown. Everyone is saying
we
[[Page H10072]]
need more and more first responders, not fewer.
So the COPS program in this bill meets its demise, a successful
program. We do not quite know why it is ending. We are grateful to the
chairman and ranking member for having it go on this long.
But we do have a chance to resuscitate it. The House has passed the
reauthorization of the Justice Department bill. We are awaiting action
in the Senate. In that bill we authorized the COPS program to live to
see another day. We have bipartisan support from Chairman
Sensenbrenner, Democrats and Republicans joining together to try to
make the COPS program come back to life.
I would urge my colleagues to think about whether or not at this time
of heightened national security concern, we want the COPS program to
end.
Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I see the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Doggett), and if he would not leave the floor, I just wanted to comment
on what he was commenting on, so I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
In the report on that Commission, and Mr. Doggett spoke to me about
it, what you said did not kind of jibe completely with regard to our
conversation. But the statement accompanying the conference report
says, ``Within the amount for the water quality program, the conferees
recommend that the Commission increase funding for the Lower Rio Grande
Flood Control Project above the $2.2 million contained in the budget
request.'' So we did ask for them to go above the request.
Secondly, we say ``Studies by the U.S. section of the IBWC conclude
that Rio Grande Valley levees are deficient in height, geologically
flawed, and structurally unsound. The conferees expect the
administration in the upcoming budget cycle to request sufficient funds
to address these needs. Also, the conference directs that $250,000 be
made available for the Rio Grande Canal Project.'' This is an increase
over the construction amount.
Secondly, we plan on doing a letter, because the country of Mexico is
involved. Texas ought to be involved, but by torching something, it
does not always get it done. I think it has to kind of come together.
Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, the language the gentleman quotes is the
same language that I quote. I applaud the committee for adding that in
there.
The problem is that the total amount of money for the agency was not
changed, and to get any more than $2.2 million, they will be taking it
out of existing projects that they have on the Colorado River. And the
head of the agency is saying they need five times as much as the
President asked for.
Mr. WOLF. Who did they say that to? Is that in writing somewhere?
Mr. DOGGETT. Yes, I think it is in writing. It is in the cost
estimates or in the reports that have already been forwarded up to the
State Department. But I do not think they were ever forwarded to the
committee.
I applaud the committee concerns about this and the language that
they added, and I am glad the gentleman will be submitting further
letters and the like, because this is a small part of this budget, but
a big problem for our folks. And they get out of this, even if they go
from $2.2 to $3 million, only about a third of what the agency itself
says is needed, not just this year, but each year for the next 10
years.
{time} 1400
Mr. WOLF. Well, we are going to do a letter. I would urge the
gentleman to get a meeting to get the commission to come up to your
office. We will have a staff person come by. Also get the State of
Texas, also do not forget about Mexico, to get them to come by and try
to bring it to a head. I think that is a more constructive way than
just saying this bill is not very good. I thought we had with this
language forced them to address the issue. We will send a letter.
But if this were my congressional district, I would have them up
here. I would ask the State Department to come down and walk with you.
I would go to Mexico and be on the other side. I would have a letter to
President Vicente Fox. I would have a letter to Secretary Rice. So
there is a lot that you have to do.
Mr. DOGGETT. If the gentleman will yield, let me just assure him I
have done all those things short of walking in Mexico because this only
covers the cost of repairing the U.S. side of the levees. It does not
concern any repairs to the Mexican side.
Mr. WOLF. What do they do? What does Mexico do?
Mr. DOGGETT. Well, Mexico, I think if they see that we are moving to
raise the levees on the American side, they will be caused to take
action on the Mexican side. This is simply, the cost that I have talked
about is only the U.S. side of the levees. It is not the Mexican side
of the levees. That is their responsibility to act on that.
Mr. WOLF. But if it goes on one side does that not impact on the
other side?
Mr. DOGGETT. That is why I say, naturally, the kind of budget
challenges they face in Mexico, if they say we are raising our side to
meet this flood problem, we believe that they will act to raise it on
their side also.
Mr. WOLF. Well, I would like to challenge the gentleman to really
pull together. I will try to come to the meeting or get some staff
people to come. Bring in the Mexican ambassador. Do something rather
than just coming down and doing that. But do something. Get the Mexican
ambassador to come on in. Have somebody from the State Department.
Bring them on up. Go down there. Walk it. Do everything you possibly
can, because you certainly do not want something to happen whereby
people die in a flood.
Mr. DOGGETT. I accept that challenge already having done most of
that. It has not just been my request, but the request of three of us,
four of us, actually, from the Rio Grande Valley to the President and
to the State Department, and we have been unable to get any movement
from them. And I understand we need their cooperation in order for your
committee to move forward. Thank you for your interest.
Mr. WOLF. Well, we will try to help you. We will send a letter, and
in the letter that we will send maybe Mr. Mollohan will sign it with
me. We will send you a copy of it.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
____________________