[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.

                          ____________________