A bill to authorize an additional permanent judgeship in the District of Idaho, and for other purposes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to bring the fiscal year 2005 Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary and related agencies appropriations bill before the House. In this bill, we have taken an austere allocation and done our best to arrive at a bill that funds important national priorities, including counterterrorism, State and local crime- fighting and embassy security. The result is a solid bill, and I encourage the Members to support the bill today; and my understanding is that we will finish the bill today.

I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) for supporting us. I also want to thank the gentleman from New York (Ranking Member Serrano) for his help in crafting the bill. I very much appreciate the close and cooperative relationship we have established, and I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the full committee, for his assistance.

The recommendation we bring before the House today includes $39.8 billion in discretionary spending. Program increases are focused on most critical areas including counterterrorism, State and local law enforcement, assistance to American manufacturers,

and protection of the Judiciary, and the security of our personnel overseas.

As my colleagues know, Mr. Chairman, we are operating under a very restrictive budget resolution, which is $1.6 billion below the President's request overall for nondefense discretionary spending. Our subcommittee allocation is .6 percent above the President's request for our agencies.

The bill continues the major progress we have made in the fights against terrorism and crime, and builds on the important gains of the past few years on embassy security. At the same time, it also reflects our commitment to responsible stewardship of public funds.

For the Department of Justice, the recommendation includes $20.6 billion, $900 million above the request. We have restored needed funds for State and local crime-fighting to keep our streets and schools safe. The bill also includes significant increases for Federal law enforcement for both terrorism prevention and traditional law enforcement. A $38 million anti-gang initiative will provide both enforcement and prevention funding, including $20 million for State and local grants and $18 million for additional Federal law enforcement efforts.

For the FBI, the bill provides $5.2 billion, $100 million above the request, to provide 1,100 additional agents, analysts and support staff for intelligence and counterterrorism activities. We have also established a new intelligence directorate in the FBI and given the Bureau additional retention, recruitment and retirement authorities with the concurrence of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform. I thank him for that help and cooperation, and the country will be better for it.

We maintain the commitment to fighting illegal drug activities with $1.7 billion for the DEA, the full amount requested. With this increase, we will now have restored the total number of Federal agents working on drug cases to a number above the pre-9/11 levels.

The bill includes $3 billion for proven State and local law enforcement crime-fighting programs, restoring $886 million to the highest priority programs, including Juvenile Justice and the SCAAP, most of which the administration proposed to eliminate or drastically reduce.

For the Department of Commerce and related trade agencies, the recommendation includes $5.76 billion, a decrease of $186 million below 2004, which is largely a result of the reduction of lower priority spending in NOAA and elimination of the ATP program.

Full funding is included to empower our trade agencies to negotiate, verify, and enforce trade agreements that are more free and fair, and to ensure an even playing field for American businesses.

The bill includes vital assistance to the ongoing recovery of our manufacturing sector. Members on both sides have spoken to us about this. So $106 million is included for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program. It is an increase of $67 million above the current request and the current year, and this is important for creating jobs throughout the entire country. The bill also includes $4 million for the Bureau of Economic Analysis, including funding for a study on the economic impacts of offshoring on the U.S. economy.

The bill continues funding for critical core programs of NOAA. The National Weather Service and NOAA's satellite programs are funded at the full requested level; and funding is continued, as requested, for many established ocean and fisheries programs.

The bill preserves the vitality and innovation of our economy with a historic funding increase for the Patent and Trademark Office to reduce the growing backlog in patent processing. The bill provides for $1.52 billion in spending, the same amount that the PTO expects to collect this year in fees.

And finally, under Commerce we are fulfilling the Department's constitutional responsibility to conduct the census. We provide an increase of $149 million to support the ramp-up of the 2010 decennial census, including funding for the American Community Survey.

For the Judiciary, the recommendation provides $5.2 billion, an increase of $391 million above 2004, to enable the courts and probation offices to process record caseloads.

For the State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the recommendation includes $8.9 billion, an increase of $299 million over 2004, and $80 million below the request.

Within this total, we are providing $1.57 billion, the full request for worldwide security improvements and replacement of vulnerable facilities and funding to support over 100 new positions aimed at improving security and strengthening the visa process.

The bill also includes $1.84 billion, the full amount requested for international organizations and peacekeeping.

We strongly support public diplomacy and international broadcasting to continue television broadcasting to Iraq, which was initiated last year and is very critical for the effort now taking place in Iraq. As sovereignty is transferred to an Iraqi government, we need to maintain the lines of communication with the Iraqi people and assure that they are receiving accurate and balanced news and information. This bill will also ensure that the broadcasting to Iraq continues without disruption.

For Related Agencies, the recommendation provides inflationary increases to most agencies, again fully funds the FTC's Do-Not-Call program, and includes a $102 million increase for the SEC to protect American investors.

For the SBA, the recommendation provides a 6 percent increase for operations and additional funds above the request for the Small Business Development Centers. The bill adopts the President's request for the 7(a) business loan program, which provides for up to $12.5 billion in general business loans, an unprecedented level, without requiring an appropriation.

The bill provides $335 million for the Legal Services Corporation, $6 million above the request. The committee has worked over the past few years to successfully bring Legal Services away from controversy. The bill again continues our commitment to provide civil legal aid to those who cannot afford counsel and are seeking justice.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, this is a summary of the recommendations before you today. It will strengthen the operations of Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies. It provides needed assistance to ensure that our economy and our manufacturing sector continue to grow. It provides for a secure and effective diplomatic operations overseas. It enables the judicial branch to successfully manage its growing workload. It represents our best take on matching needs with resources.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would also want to close by thanking the staff. The staff has worked very, very hard, and in fact, not many people realize how hard these staff members work. And I want to thank the members of the subcommittee staff who are putting in very long hours on the 2005 CJS bill. All members and staff of the subcommittees have worked hard, and put in long hours that I believe will be helpful to the country.

I want to particularly thank Mike Ringler, the clerk of the subcommittee who has led this through the House appropriations process. I also want to thank Christine Kojac, John Martens, and Anne-Marie Goldsmith for their tireless efforts. Their work is much appreciated.

I also want to thank our detailee, Jonathan Mattiello, who has lent his support to the bill. In my personal office, Dan Scandling, Janet Shaffron, J.T. Griffin, Samantha Stockman and Neil Siefring for their efforts and work with the subcommittee. And from the minority staff, because we have had a good working relationship which I think can be a model, I want to thank David Pomerantz, Lucy Hand, whom I have known a long while, all the way back to the days where she worked for Mr. Lehman on the Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury and Independent Agencies; Linda Pagelsen, Nadine Berg and Rob Nabors, who have worked with our staff in a bipartisan manner to produce this bill.

I want to thank them, and I want the American public to know and Members of the House to know who they are.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

(Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

(Mr. TERRY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I submit the following statement of comparative budget authority.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH07JY04.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH07JY04.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH07JY04.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH07JY04.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH07JY04.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH07JY04.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH07JY04.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH07JY04.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH07JY04.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH07JY04.010

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

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments, too; and I appreciate it very much.

I rise in strong opposition. Let me just say that I think the intention of the amendment is a good intention, so I want to thank them for their comments. But the amendment really does not work, and I know it has been dramatically changed, it really does not work what it was supposed to do. If it were passed, the SBA would not be able to use the money for the 7(a) loans because it puts it into an administrative account and not into 7(a). So it just does not do what people would like it to do.

The amendment would augment the administrative appropriation for the business loan account. Because subsidy and administrative loans must be separately appropriated pursuant to the Federal Credit Reform Act, the Manzullo-Velazquez funds could not be used.

It would also violate OMB guidelines. We have followed the President's request for the 7(a) program. This program can provide for $12.5 billion in loans, an unprecedented level, without the appropriation. The Small Business Administration is very, very strongly opposed to this.

But the programs that this would go after; this would take money out of the National Endowment for Democracy and out of the initiative with regard to the Middle East. It would scuttle that program. As my colleagues will recall, the original request for that was $80 million. That has now been reduced in this bill to $50 million. This would take that money out. The President's Greater Middle East Initiative would basically be eliminated with this amendment.

I would remind the sponsors that during the President's State of the Union message, he told the Nation and the world that he would double the funding for the National Endowment for Democracy. The National Endowment for Democracy was established by Congress during the Reagan administration and probably has done more to bring about democracy and freedom in the world than almost anything else that we have done.

Last year the NED budget totaled $39.6 million. The President called for doubling the NED budget; and with this bill, it calls for a $10 million increase, and we would now take that away. It would also deal with the whole issue of an administrative account at the Justice Department. The amendment proposes to reduce the Department of Justice General Administrative Account by $27 million. The bill already reduces this account by $62 million below the request. It would have an impact on counterterrorism, and some might say it could have a devastating impact on the war on terrorism. The only increase provided for above the fiscal year 2004 level for this account is $9 million for inflation to maintain current staff. We would, in essence, take that away.

There are many other reasons, and in the interests of time, and I know the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) is here to speak against it and there are others, but, the amendment does not do what it says they would like to do. Because the reason it does not do that is because had it been put in that account, it would have been ruled out of order. Members from both sides came and said they wanted the Legal Services Corporation protected and we protected it. And others, Members on this side wanted a Manufacturing Extension Program, we protected an increase. When they wanted State and local law enforcement, we did that. So they are having an even more difficult time finding the cuts, so they are now going to NED. Earlier today, they were at international broadcasting, and now they are sort of scurrying around.

Secondly, to wound NED, the National Endowment for Democracy and the Middle East Initiative would be horrible. And lastly, to wound the Justice Department and the effort on the war on terrorism is horrible.

So I urge all Members, if you had an amendment which would have done what you would have liked to have done, that is one thing. This amendment does not do it.

So I urge defeat of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I listened to the debate, and I just want to make a couple of closing comments. One, this does hurt NED. At this time for the Middle East to do this is just not good.

Secondly, it hurts the war on terrorism. Thirty people from my district died in the attack on the Pentagon, and we heard it. Lastly, and I know this is not the intention of the sponsors, this is not, I say, the intention of the sponsors, but the reality of this amendment is that this is a subsidy to put money into the bankers' pockets. That is basically what it is. If one were helping the poor or the hungry or the people that really need it, one ought to support the amendment; but look and listen to the groups that contacted us, the American Bankers Association. This is an amendment to put money in the pockets of the bankers, not the poor, not small business, and for those reasons, in addition to the National Endowment For Democracy when we are trying to get peace in the Middle East on the war on terrorism.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman from New York for his comments. Let me try to close and put some things in perspective.

The gentleman from Illinois said that the administration did not make any requests for the legal activities office automation. The President did. So we cannot just throw things out. The President requested $80 million. We, the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) and I, only provided $50 million. This amendment cuts $33 million, leaving only $17 million.

Now, what would the impact of that be? Cutting the program any further would delay the deployment of needed information technology and improvements to the Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. Attorneys, the Marshals Service, Federal law enforcement, who continue to be criticized for not being able to connect the dots; and if we now give the Justice Department the ability to make standardized its information technology systems, we will be hindering their ability to share the information. The results could be catastrophic.

That was the whole issue at the 9/11 hearings, the lack of sharing of information. If we expect Federal law enforcement to prevent acts of terrorism, the FBI must be able to have surveillance applications approved in a timely manner.

So the amendment proposes a $33 million reduction in the Department's legal activities office, which funds the Standard Office Automation System, which 15 Department of Justice components operate, their mission and critical applications, the U.S. Attorney, Marshals Service, Bureau of Prisons, civil and criminal and many others.

So they did ask for it. What the gentleman from Illinois said was not accurate. They did ask for it, and the committee was not able to fund the entire amount. I was saying to my friends on the other side and on this side, part of the reason we were not able to do it is we wanted to put money in the manufacturing extension program, MEP. The administration's numbers were 39. We got up to 106. It is like no good deed goes unpunished.

We also wanted to protect the Legal Services Corporation for justice, justice for the poor. We actually have $6 million in here, above, to go after $60 million now with regard to the antiterrorism activity, eliminating funding for processing intelligence. I mean, I would have hoped that the gentleman from Illinois would have found another place, but in the war on terrorism that is just not the place to go.

Also, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall) made the comment about NED. Well, that amount barely would keep up with the rate of inflation. We want to bring about democracy for China. In China today, Catholic priests and bishops are being persecuted. There are 11 bishops in jail in China today.

The gentleman, and I know he has an interest, I was in Tibet where the Chinese are persecuting the Tibetans. We want to bring democracy to Tibet. They are also persecuting the Muslims up in the northwest portion. Nobody speaks out for the Muslims in China. We are trying to have the money for the National Endowment for Democracy to help bring about democracy in China.

The Evangelical Protestant Church, ripped apart; we want to help. We want to do what we did for Eastern Europe or what we did for the Soviet Union. My friends on this side, Ronald Reagan would never have supported this amendment to take all this money out of the National Endowment for Democracy. It almost makes me sick. We came here in 1980, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) said, to bring about freedom.

What about Syria? Should not we try to bring about democracy and freedom in Syria? Should not we try to do something in Egypt? Should not we try to do something in Iran and places like that? And I commend the gentleman and the gentlewoman for what they are trying to do, but it does not make sense to take it from the war on terrorism and to take it from the National Endowment for Democracy.

Strangely enough, too, and I think people have to know, this amendment would result in a RIF of 160 SBA employees. So they want to give to one area but RIF from another area. Now, I understand they had a hard time finding it. They had a hard time finding it.

We protected the Legal Services Corporation. They had a hard time finding it because we protected MEP. They had a hard time finding it, because many on their side and my side said we need COPs grants, we need State and local law enforcement grants.

They asked me, ``Can you help us out?'' And the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) will say many on that side spoke to me about this, and we said we are going to try to help, because we know it is a problem.

We also put in money for a new antigang initiative. We also put in money to study offshoring, because I believe personally it is a problem.

So you have not taken it from any of those areas. You take from terrorism, you take from the National Endowment for Democracy, you take from the administrative account and RIF SBA employees.

Administrator Baretto reiterated zero subsidy is not only good for the taxpayer, but for the stability of the program, the most crucial aspect of the program, according to borrowers and lenders.

He also wrote to me a letter the other day and said, ``I am confident the bill will continue to improve the 7(a) program by serving the capital needs of small businesses in the most efficient and effective manner.''

I understand what both sponsors have been trying to do, and I guess indirectly the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) and I should probably take it as a compliment that they had to struggle to find something. But we are in a war on terrorism.

I was the author of the National Commission on Terrorism, 1998. I had just gotten back from Algeria, where 100,000-some people had been gutted, killed. It was the year of the Nairobi bombing. It was the year of the Tanzania bombing. I introduced a bill for the National Commission on Terrorism, the Bremer Commission.

I could not get any support from either side of the aisle, so I put it in the appropriations bill and we passed it, and Bremer went on, and all the recommendations were made. On the cover of the National Commission on Terrorism report, which I authored, was a picture of the World Trade Center on fire. But it was not the World Trade Center from 9/11, because the report came out in the year 2000; it was the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993.

I just do not believe you could not have found some other place. You could have found some other place.

So, Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote ``no,'' because we ought not cut terrorism funding, we ought not cut the National Endowment for Democracy.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we will be glad to work with the gentlewoman to

see if we can help her resolve that issue.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, we would gladly share that with the gentleman, and let me also say that I appreciate his willingness to allow us to move ahead on employee changes with regard to the FBI, which I think will strengthen the country. The gentleman is a good friend, and we will certainly do that.

On these other issues next year, I think a lot of this language has really been in the appropriations bill long before I was ever, ever involved; but we will be glad to consult with the gentleman as we move forward.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much.

Mr. Chairman, we are not aware of any amendment from the gentleman, but I will be glad to talk to him. Maybe I should look at it first. We do not have anything from him.

Well, let us chat about it and see what happens.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, we will work with the gentleman to the best of our ability that we can. I think drug courts make a lot of sense.

Our problem has been just allocations from legal services to NAP and

others, but certainly we will work with the gentleman as we get to conference. My colleague has my commitment on that.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment.

The amendment proposes to reduce the Department of Justice's general administration account by $10 million. The bill already reduces the account by $90 million below the request.

Based on the passage of the Manzullo amendment, the reduction will result in massive layoffs and RIFs and hinder the Justice Department's ability to deal with the whole issue of terrorism. I mean, put this on top of Manzullo, it would be devastating.

In regards to the DNA program, and I strongly support that and so does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), the gentlewoman proposed to increase this bill. We fully fund the President's $176 million DNA initiative. This is a $77 million increase, a $77 million increase over the current level. This is the largest increase provided to any State and local law enforcement program. It is an increase of 44 percent.

So I urge rejection of the gentlewoman's amendment. It proposes an unacceptable funding reduction, in addition to the Manzullo reduction, with something that we have had additional funding with a 44 percent increase. I oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, my answer is ``absolutely.''

If the gentleman will continue to yield, as the gentleman said, the bill includes $2.6 million and 25 positions.

Secondly, I want to thank the gentleman, because I went over to the Center for Missing and Exploited Children in Alexandria, and every member of the court ought to go over there and see it. Those two decisions from the court have severely hurt law enforcement with regard to child exploitation.

So, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) is absolutely right. And if the gentleman comes up with language that he thinks would be appropriate to put on this bill, I will do anything. And I thank the gentleman for what he has done.

I cannot understand, and I stipulate that all the men and women on the court are good people, but I cannot understand. The decision by Justice Kennedy is actually shocking. So I agree with the gentleman, and we will work with him and do anything we can to help.

I certainly will allow the colloquy.

If the gentlewoman will yield once more, that is correct. The Census Bureau and the Department of Commerce have informed us that the American Community Survey can be fielded successfully with the funds allocated in the bill. That is correct.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, that is my understanding. The Census Bureau has informed the committee that the survey can be fielded successfully in 2005 without including people living in group quarters.

I would also say to the gentlewoman that there is an amendment to this bill by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) coming up later on today, which will cut $106 million out of Census. With a cut of $106 million out of Census, Katie bar the door. Census will not be able to do the job.

So I appreciate the gentlewoman's raising this. Her questions are exactly right, but with the adoption of the Weiner amendment, everything we are saying would be wiped out.

Mr. Chairman, let me tell the gentleman from Delaware that if we can do it, we will do it. We will work with him as we move through the process, but stay in touch as we get ready to go to conference.

I thank the gentleman for raising it, as well as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson). I think all three gentleman are right on target, and it is a good idea.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I think the first order of business is to acknowledge the good work that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) have done on this appropriation with the deck of cards they have been given. I think this debate should stray away from the work that has been done by the appropriators. We already know the vigorous debate that has taken place between the budget people and the appropriators, trying to find dollars where they may not be.

Let me just say that as a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, I believe we have unanimity in at least recognizing that homeland security is important. We may do it differently, but we understand it is important and we want to secure the homeland.

I frankly believe there are ways to improve the resources necessary to do what is important for the American people, secure the homeland, and also do what the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), want us to do, and that is to rebuild the crumbling infrastructure of the SBA 7(a) loan program.

Let me cite, if I might, and compliment Milton Wilson, who heads my SBA agency in the Houston region, talk about the many, many hundreds of small businesses that have created jobs in Houston. When we were falling on our very knees just about 3 years ago and Enron laid off 5,000 employees in my community, the domino effect was enormous from businesses that were supported by this very large company and other energy companies who felt the brunt of the economic engine failing in this country.

Now, we just realized that we only created in the last month 112,000 jobs

when, in actuality, to be even minimally healthy economically, we needed to create 150,000. Well, Mr. Chairman, the place to create those jobs is through small businesses.

I am frankly disappointed to announce to the American public and my colleagues that 2 days before Christmas, just a year ago, the administration encouraged or announced significant changes to the 7(a) program. Two weeks later, the SBA shut the program down. What does that mean to small businesses, which are basically the infrastructure of America?

They are the job creators of America. That is what all of us say. When we go home to our districts, it is the small business owners that we encounter, with all their ups and downs. The only way they have been able to access dollars has been to use their credit cards, with their usurious interest rates. That is how they have been funding their businesses.

These are the floral shops, these are the cleaners, these are the small computer offices, these are the human resource offices. These are the small businesses of America. Frankly, they may be in Houston, they may be in Jackson, Mississippi, they may be in Charlotte, North Carolina, they may be in New York, they may be in Ohio and Illinois and California. All over America, what is happening is that we are losing the ability for these small businesses to engage in business by getting these kinds of loans.

According to the GAO, over the past 10 years, small business lenders and borrowers have paid over $1 billion in miscalculated government fees and under-the-table taxes. This was fixed by a bipartisan move 2 years ago, yet the administration wants to go back to a time when lenders and borrowers were overcharged. That does nothing but hurt our small businesses.

So this amendment that has been offered by the distinguished gentlewoman from New York and the distinguished gentleman from Illinois is, frankly, the right way to go. And I would like to be able to say to the ranking member and the chairman of this subcommittee, let us go find some dollars somewhere where they are not needed, like the enormous tax cuts that are taking away from the working men and women of America. Let us go find money that will support the 7(a) loan program that can, in effect, provide the resources that are necessary to create jobs.

Who would stand on the floor of the House today and ignore the fact that we only created 112,000 jobs? The only way we can add to those jobs, besides boosting our manufacturing, is to give small business the ability to secure loans that will help them grow their businesses. They grow them two employees, three employees, and five employees at a time.

This is not about responding to a constituency, the small business community of America, it is about responding to Americans who need jobs.

I support this amendment because I believe it is a viable amendment. This program generated more than 60,000 jobs last year across America. It is not going to create any jobs if we continue to dumb down the program and do not provide it with the resources it needs.

In closing, the ranking member and the chairman of the subcommittee have worked with what they had to work with. I also want to acknowledge that we are all supporters of the National Endowment for Democracy, but we need to find dollars to do the important business of America: securing the homeland, providing loans for small businesses, and creating jobs. If we do that, we will improve the quality of life in America. I ask Members to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to add $1 million to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, having little negative impact on this appropriations legislation.

It is clear, as we have celebrated the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, that civil rights in America is still a challenge. And the necessity of government intervention raises its head every day. In fact, as I stand on the floor today, recently over the weekend in Houston, there was a bombing of a Muslim mosque or a mosque, obviously suggesting that not only are there problems with civil rights, but there are also questions of whether hate crimes are still being perpetrated throughout the United States.

The mission of the United States Commission on Civil Rights is to investigate complaints alleging that citizens are being deprived of their right to vote by reason of their race, color, religion, sex, age, disability or national origin; or by reason of fraudulent practices, to study and collect information related to discrimination or denial of equal protection under the laws for a variety of reasons such as race, color, religion, sex, age, disability or national origin, or the administration of justice; to appraise Federal laws and policies with respect to discrimination or denials of equal protection under the law because of such differences; to serve as a national clearinghouse for information with respect to discrimination or denial of equal protection of the laws because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability or national origin; to submit such findings and recommendations to the President and Congress and to issue public service announcements.

We know, under the leadership of Dr. Mary Frances Berry, they have sought to be current and they have sought to be provocative, as well as they have sought to be, if you will, aiding in fighting against discrimination in this Nation. They were the first to go in in the election in 2004. They worked on a commission advancing environmental justice. They also worked on opposing the ban on racial data collection. They were very much part of tackling the discriminatory practice of eliminating so-called felons from their right to vote.

They have been working very hard against racial profiling, providing for corporate diversity and other areas. They worked very hard on the issues dealing with affirmative action.

There is no doubt that the Commission's work is needed, but yet there are problems; one, in the amount of staffing. We were apprised by a letter that I signed on May 5, 2004, written by both the chairmen of the Senate and House Committees on the Judiciary, a letter to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, highlighting some concerns that we need to be concerned about: An audit that has not occurred in the last 13 years to be able to determine what the needs of this particular agency are at this time and, as well, to be able to assure the proper use of Federal dollars.

Some might think than an audit might bring about a demise of this particular agency. I would offer to say that all of us want to know the facts to be able to provide the right kinds of resources for an agency that are necessary to be strengthened, that needs to have better staffing and better support services so that it can do its job.

Clearly, the work of this commission has not yet ended. The celebration of the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is only an indication that we must continue our work.

I would hope my colleagues would see the value in this amendment, particularly in its concern for ensuring that the Civil Rights Commission is both strengthened and, as well, that we have an appropriate audit that has not taken place in the last 13 years.

One of the things that I hope my colleagues recognize is that we should not condemn the messenger for the message. The U.S. Civil Rights Commission reinforces the fact that civil rights in America is still a work in progress. It needs more resources, more staff, and certainly it needs more competency as it relates to providing the resources to give it the utensils, if you will, the tools to do its job.

I would hope my colleagues would find in this legislation the ability to support this amendment or at least begin to look at working with the U.S. Civil Rights Commission and Dr. Berry and her efforts to make it the very best agency that it can possibly be.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 4754, the CJS Appropriations Act. I offer this amendment to increase funding to the Civil Rights Commission by $1 million. In order to achieve the goals of my proposal, the Salaries and Expenses account under Title I, General Administration would be reduced by $1,000,000 and the account designated for the Commission on Civil Rights in Title V, Related Agencies would be increased by $1,000,000.

Too many times, I have made requests to the Department of Justice to investigate civil rights matters, which have resulted in a stack of more unresolved investigations. The Department of Justice should not be the only vehicle to which requests are made considering the existence of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights should help to ameliorate the stain placed on the Department of Justice, but it cannot do so without adequate funding.

The mission of the Commission on Civil Rights is:

To investigate complaints alleging that citizens are being deprived of their right to vote by reason of their race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or by reason of fraudulent practices;

To study and collect information relating to discrimination or a denial of equal protection of the laws under the Constitution because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or in the administration of justice;

To appraise federal laws and policies with respect to discrimination or denial of equal protection of the laws because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or in the administration of justice;

To serve as a national clearinghouse for information in respect to discrimination or denial of equal protection of the laws because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin;

To submit reports, findings, and recommendations to the President and Congress; and

To issue public service announcements to discourage discrimination or denial of equal protection of the laws.

I have requested investigations to be conducted by the Department of Justice regarding such cases as the death of Eli Eloy Escobar II. This incident involved the shooting death of a 14-year-old boy whose civil rights were likely violated. The possible misuse of Houston Police Department law enforcement positions was questioned. These types of occurrences are becoming more like the norm instead of an anomaly. Tragically, in the same month of the shooting death of Eli Eloy Escobar II, a Houston police officer shot and killed Jose Vargas, 15, because the youth and his friends ``looked suspicious'' in a movie theater parking lot. Given that, in the current situation, I requested that the Department of Justice analyze these facts to ensure that there is not a pattern of civil rights violations by government officials under ``color of law.''

Just a couple of months ago, a Harris County Deputy Sheriff shot 25- year old Hiji Eugene Harrison to death in the course of making a traffic stop. In this case, I requested an investigation by the Department of Justice regarding three alleged circumstances of this incident that may involve a violation of civil rights. I have requested an investigation of Josiah Sutton's case, a young man wrongly convicted of rape, who will be released from prison with a tarnished record because of the reservations of the district attorney in this case. Yet another example of civil rights abuse. Most recently, I requested an investigation to be conducted by the Department of Justice because of the possible civil rights violation of Houston Community activist Quanell X, who was arrested by the Houston Police Department after he attempted to deliver a wanted suspect.

While my inquiries of the Department of Justice are, indeed, necessary, their outcomes have been unresolved or ongoing. These floating investigations would be resolved more expeditiously if more funding were provided to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which is currently known to be deprived of resources. Increased funding would enable the Commission to aid in the resolution of Department of Justice investigations, many of which remain unresolved.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to urge my colleagues to pass the Jackson-Lee amendment not only because of the necessary efficiency of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, but also because of this opportunity to protect the civil rights of all Americans.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Chairman, if I might, and I appreciate the offer to work with me on this, I would hope that in the work that we would be looking at, we would be considering the lack of resources and staffing that they have in order to complete their task.

I know this is a challenging commission because their work is always not the most pleasant. It does not make people the most happy, if you will, but it is vital work because the work of civil rights, as I know you and the ranking member know, is very vital work.

So I am hoping that we could work along the line of providing the adequate resources, along with studying the needs of the commission through an audit that has not taken place in 13 years.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman.

As I mentioned, yes, I was mentioning the issues that needed to be addressed for the commission and was hoping that we could specifically work along those lines

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is an amendment that we have had the challenge of discussing for the last couple of sessions of Congress, and that is, dealing with the viability of the Nation's DNA lab.

Since it has come to our attention in the criminal justice system of the value of DNA lab work as relates to the promotion of individuals' innocence or guilt, many of whom have sat on death row, some of whom have been convicted of rape while the actual rapists have gone free, I believe it is imperative that we continue on the President's commitment to eliminate the backlog of DNA analysis and as well the backlog of cases that permeate around the Nation. This $10 million added to the $175 million would make good on our promise to believe in justice.

I am citing, if you will, the troubles that we have experienced in one particular area with a gentleman by the name of Josiah, I will simply use his first name, who sat in jail starting at the age of 17 when he was sentenced to 25 years in prison in 1999 until he was released last year at the age of 21 on the basis of a conviction that proved to be false.

The question there, of course, was a faulty DNA lab. To add insult to injury, our own district attorney, Chuck Rosenthal, refused to join in a request for a full pardon. It was only after the advocacy of many in our community, including elected officials, my office and led by the ministerial community in Houston, that this particular individual was set free.

Josiah, however, is an example of the results of faulty DNA testing around the Nation. It was through this case and many others that the House Committee on the Judiciary considered themselves a viable part of fixing the problem. That problem was fixed by legislation that argued for and worked toward decreasing the backlog of cases of those who are sitting on death row for many of those who likewise are involved in cases that a DNA correction could improve.

I supported H.R. 3214, the Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act. As I expressed at that time, this technological tool must be improved because it plays such a key role in streamlining and expediting our criminal justice system. Our law enforcement agencies are becoming increasingly more reliant upon the analysis of the DNA tool to verify or rule out the identity of a suspect or charge an individual in processing criminal justice cases. We will not be able to reach the level of decreasing the backlog unless we invest and put our money where our intent is.

This simple request of $10 million takes it out of the salaries and expenses of the Department of Justice to be able to focus on increasing and improving the DNA lab. It also allows for laboratories around the country to apply for grants to improve the training, to improve the staffing, to improve the analysis, and to expedite the analysis which expedites justice.

I cannot imagine a more important aspect of our work here in this Congress than to promote justice; and adequate, secure, safe and skilled DNA staffing and adequate DNA labs will be part of improving justice.

I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 2754, the Commerce, Justice, and State Department Appropriations bill. It would call for the reduction of the Salaries and Expenses account in Title I, General Administration (page 2, line 7) by $10 million, the increase of the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) account in Title I by $10 million (page 26, line 20), and the specific increase of the provision in that account that deals with DNA analysis (page 28, line 4) by $10 million, amounting to an overall reduction in outlays by $7 million for fiscal year 2005.

In November 2003, I supported H.R. 3214, the ``Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act,'' of which I was a co-sponsor. As I expressed at that time, this technological tool must be improved because it plays such a key role in streamlining and expediting our criminal justice system. Our law enforcement agencies are becoming increasingly more reliant upon the analysis of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) to verify or rule out the identity of a suspect or a charged individual in processing criminal cases. The more reliant we become, the more our individual rights are at stake. We must, however, significantly raise the bar of our technology and the standards of review for DNA and ballistics crime lab accreditation to minimize mistakes that cost people years of their lives. The Jackson-Lee amendment seeks to so minimize the margin of error that threatens individual liberties and rights.

crime lab accreditation

The certification of our crime labs for conformance to our accepted standards is done by groups such as the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors (ASCLD). The accreditation process is part of a laboratory's quality assurance program that should also include proficiency testing, continuing education and other programs to help the laboratory give better overall service to the criminal justice system. Certification and accreditation are done via a process of self- evaluation led by individual crime laboratory directors.

Our labs are not functioning at optimum levels, and this sub-par performance translates to the miscarriage of justice and prosecution of innocent people. Improvement of lab performance begins with tighter employment policies for the lab staff. For example, the ASCLD's Credential Review Committee has a DNA Advisory Board and codified standards for its technical staff. The following was taken from its website:

DNA Advisory Board Standard 5.2.1.1 provides a mechanism

for waiving the educational requirements for current

technical leader/technical managers who do not meet the

degree requirements of section 5.2.1 but who otherwise

qualify based on knowledge and experience. Consequently ASCLD

has established this procedure for obtaining a waiver.

One waiver is available per laboratory if the current

technical leaders/technical manager does not meet the degree

requirements of DAB Standard 5.2.1. Waivers are available

only to current technical leaders/technical managers. Waivers

are permanent and portable for the recipient individual. A

laboratory may request a second waiver if the first recipient

leaves the employ of the laboratory.

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

texas law and crime lab accreditation

In 2001, Texas passed a law formalizing a process for post-conviction access to DNA testing. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, however, has not applied the law as it was designed to work and has denied access to testing in a number of cases.

The Texas House passed a bill in April of this year requiring crime laboratories that test DNA to meet accreditation standards, a law designed to prevent future scandals like the one that recently plagued the Houston Police Department.

The Houston Judicial System convicted Josiah Sutton in 1998 for the rape of a woman

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

One of the biggest problems of . . . [crime labs] is that

they [are] much more concerned with being a servant to the

police and prosecutors than they [are] to science . . . [a]nd

if people want to pursue a career in science, the word

science has to come before law enforcement.

The objectivity that is required to make forensic science effective must be divorced from the latitude exercised by some of our law enforcement personnel. Therefore, we must include adequate technology and resources to prevent injustice and the ruination of young lives like the young Houston man, Josiah Sutton.

Furthermore, other problems with DNA testing in criminal cases affect the inmate directly. The discretion with which the decision whether to use DNA testing leaves room for inconsistent adjudication and differential treatment of convicted persons. Statutory guidelines regarding when to order the test would exclude some cases that might not meet the standards but still might deserve testing. Moreover, some inmates who seek exoneration may request executive clemency. In addition to requiring very difficult measures to achieve justice, some argue that the tests administered are inadequate because they do not provide specific, clear, and fair procedures for inmates to bring claims of innocence.

In addition to negligent handling or unskilled analysis of DNA evidence, the backlog of cases causes our criminal justice system to crumble despite the level of sophistication of our technology. Houston police have turned over about 525 case files involving DNA testing to the Harris County district attorney's office, which has said that at least 25 cases warrant re-testing, including those of seven people on Death Row. The numbers will grow significantly as more files are collected and analyzed, according to the assistant district attorney supervising the project.

The Fort Worth police crime lab's serology/DNA unit has been criticized recently for a backlog that was slowing down court cases. The unit's performance suffers from understaffing and overworking.

My concern as to the practice of using these DNA tests is that the inmates' civil liberties and rights to due process are continually placed into jeopardy because of a lack of resources. Furthermore, our staffing and personnel problems threaten to undermine the benefits of technology.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Jackson-Lee amendment to increase funding for DNA analysis and crime laboratories so that individual liberties may be better preserved and protected.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman, and I do respect his opposition. It comes down to simply the question of whether or not we have enough money, so I respect his responsibility for this particular appropriation.

I would just say to the gentleman that we are both supporters and advocates of a better justice system, and enhanced funding to help with DNA labs across the country, I believe, is an effective way to utilize this money.

To the distinguished gentleman from New York and to the chairman I must say that it is tragic that we have had to take money and spend it on a 7(a) program that should have been funded for small businesses, which I supported, I understand that, but let it be known, as a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, and the work we do as authorizers, that every day we are finding DNA labs across the country that contribute to the backlog. We are backlogged in Washington. These dollars were simply to add that provision.

I accept the responsibility that my colleague has. He has to tighten the belt and to worry about where the money is coming from. I hope that as we look forward to working in conference that we will find a way to be able to address squarely this backlog problem, making sure that DNA labs will be able to function as they should.

With that, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I am rising today to discuss this bill because it cuts the NOAA funding by 15 percent and ignores essentially the two in-depth ocean reports released to Congress this past year. I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), the ranking member, for a commitment that they made during the full committee markup to work to increase the funding levels for the ``National Ocean Service'' and for the National Marine Fishery Service during conference. I appreciate their acknowledgment that the levels need to be increased.

I also want to thank our ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for stating his concern on the NOAA funding cuts. I am deeply concerned about NOAA. With the commitments in mind, I want to highlight the funding levels for some of the NOAA programs. The hardest hit, and I would reference a bipartisan letter that was sent to the Committee on Appropriations by 59 Members of the House, the Coastal Zone Management Grants and the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Grants, both of which States heavily rely on. Florida, for example, loses $345,000; Virginia has a net loss of $620,000; California also has a net loss of $620,000. This may not seem like much when we are usually dealing in millions and billions, but to the States who rely on these funds for ongoing coastal zone management and nonpoint source grants, it is a great deal of money.

The Cooperative Fisheries Research Programs were cut also by $20 million. These programs bring the fishing community together with scientists to better understand fishery resources. This is a big issue that both of the ocean reports talked about, the fact that the right hand on science does not necessarily work well with the left hand on fisheries, and we need to make sure these two groups come together, and the fishermen understand the science, and the scientists better understand the economics of fishing so we can better meld these two groups together. We cannot do this if we are cutting the programs that bring people together.

Another area, the Marine Mammal Protection area, will be severely hampered under the House mark which, once separate lines are combined, equals roughly $4 million. The National Marine Fisheries Service will not be able to fund top-priority studies as identified by the multi- stakeholder take reduction teams. The National Marine Fisheries will not be able to design or implement fishery management plans that protect marine mammals. The agency will not be able to conduct research on population trends, health and demographics of marine mammals, and the National Marine Fisheries will not be able to carry out the education and enforcement programs.

The other program that was affected by this was the Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program which was cut last year and that has not yet been resolved. The program funds our investigations of die- offs of large numbers of marine mammals, including the recent bottlenose dolphin die-off in Florida, which involved more than 100 animals.

If we combine the cuts in the State Coastal Zone Management Grants and the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Grants, both of which are, as I said, relied on heavily by the States, you get these additional losses. So without these funds, we lose the opportunity to study and to work with the States in implementing good programs.

In my constituency, I have 24 national organizations which have signed a letter to every Member of the House, which describes deep concerns with the NOAA funding. They have fundamental problems with the cuts that NOAA received.

I believe the commitment made by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) to increase funding levels is sincere and they will work on that in conference. The NOAA programs such as the ones I have highlighted will ensure that our future in the oceans will remain vital and components of our economy and our communities and our lives will be sustained.

Lastly, because of the good work done by both the Pew Commission and the National Oceans Commission, we will be able to implement with these fundings some of the strong recommendations they made for healthy oceans.

Mr. Chairman, I submit the following letters for the Record:

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, April 8, 2004.

Hon. Frank Wolf,

Chairman, Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary

Subcommittee, Appropriations Committee, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Jose Serrano,

Ranking Member, Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary

Subcommittee, Appropriations Committee, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Serrano: As Members

concerned with our nation's diverse and productive coastal

areas, we are requesting your support for funding the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Our

oceans and coasts support more than 2.8 million jobs,

generate more than $54 billion in goods and services per

year, and are the most popular destinations for recreation

and tourism in the U.S.

Established by Congress in 2000, the Conservation Trust

Fund dedicates $560 million in FY05 for critical coastal

conservation programs within NOAA. We greatly appreciate the

Subcommittee's full use of this funding over the last four

years to provide vital support for high priority coastal

conservation initiatives and urge the Subcommittee to again

make full use of this fund in FY05.

On the eve of the release of the U.S. Commission on Ocean

Policy draft report, we ask for your assistance in meeting

the significant challenges and threats now confronting our

oceans. We recognize the Committee has extraordinarily

difficult choices to make this year; however, the continued

health and prosperity of our coastal communities depend on

our willingness to invest today to preserve our nation's

coastal legacy for future generations. We respectfully

request the Subcommittee seriously consider the funding

levels for the following programs.

coastal zone management

State Coastal Zone Management Grants--$80 million. These

funds, which are matched dollar for dollar, are critical to

support the efforts of 34 states and territories to reduce

the impacts of coastal development, expand public access,

reduce the damages from coastal hazards, restore and protect

critical habitats and support the nation's important and

diverse coastal communities.

Coastal Nonpoint and Community Resource Improvement

Grants--$10 million. We urge the Subcommittee to reject the

Administration's proposed termination of this program. This

funding is only a fraction of what is needed by states to

address polluted runoff, the most significant source of

pollution of coastal waters.

National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS)--$20

million grants, $15 million acquisition and construction.

This funding will enable NERRS to support the addition of a

new Reserve to the current system of 26 and fund the ongoing

coastal stewardship training, research and education programs

and construction needs.

Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program--$60

million. Nowhere in the nation is the threat of ecosystem

fragmentation, sprawl and habitat loss more prevalent than

in our nation's coastal zone. In the first three years of

this program, CELCP funds have leveraged non-federal funds

and protected thousands of acres of coastal lands in 25

states.

marine conservation and ocean exploration

National Marine Sanctuaries--$40 million operations, $10

million construction. The National Marine Sanctuary Program

protects our nation's most unique and nationally significant

marine ecosystems and resources. Level funding for operations

in FY05 is critical to reducing staffing shortages,

supporting conservation, community outreach, research, and

education programs, and updating sanctuary management plans

as required by law. We support no less than the fully

authorized level for operation of sanctuaries and encourage

the committee to recognize the pressing need for higher

levels. In addition, we support $10 million for construction,

as the backlog in facilities maintenance remains a

significant operations liability at many sanctuaries.

Coral Reef Construction--$28.25 million. Coral reef

ecosystems are among the most diverse, biologically

productive, economically valuable, and threatened marine

habitats in the world. Increased resources are urgently

needed to reduce land-based pollution and address

overfishing, diseases, and other threats to coral reefs.

Funding for local action strategies will support on-the-

ground solutions, such as critical monitoring, mapping,

restoration, outreach and protection activities that reduce

threats to coral reefs.

Ocean Exploration--$13.9 million. Less than 5% of the ocean

has been explored or characterized to the same degree of

resolution as we have characterized Mars and Venus. Ocean

exploration is the vital first step in a new approach to

ocean resource management, improved marine science and

education, and a new vision for ocean stewardship. We urge

the Subcommittee to support last year's funding level to

demonstrate U.S. leadership in this important global issue.

sustainable fisheries, marine mammals and invasive species

Fisheries, Research and Observer Programs--$75 million.

Recent scientific reports conclude that too many of our

nation's fisheries are on the brink of collapse. Reducing the

backlog in research days-at-sea and increasing fishery

observer coverage and cooperative research efforts will give

managers baseline information critical to better managing our

fisheries. We commend the Subcommittee's efforts for increase

funding in these areas in FY04 and urge $25 million for

expanding stock assessments, $20 million for cooperative

research, including data collection and analysis, and $30

million for regional and national fishery observer programs

in FY05.

Vessel Monitoring System (VMS)--President's request of $9.3

million. VMS is a satellite-based fishery enforcement system

that provides real-time catch data from participating vessels

in a range of fisheries. The President's request would allow

for the establishment and implementation of VMS systems and

placement of transponders onboard many of the estimated

10,000 boats in the U.S. commercial fishing fleet. VMS

programs augment existing enforcement efforts at

approximately 1% of the cost, enhance data collection, and

benefit fishermen by improving safety at sea and allowing

fishing right up until a quota is reached.

Marine Mammal Protection--$9.1 million. This funding will

help NMFS more fully assess and take measures to recover

depleted and strategic marine mammal species, such as common

dolphins, pilot whales and bottlenose dolphins, through take

reduction team activities as well as other research,

conservation and recovery efforts.

Endangered Species Act, Cooperative Agreements with

States--$4 million. This cooperative program makes funding

available on a competitive, matching basis to carry out

conservation activities at the state and local level.

Providing $4 million to the states in FY05 would support

local researchers, non-governmental organizations, and

volunteers to accomplish monitoring, restoration, science and

conservation of species at risk of extinction.

Invasive Species Initiative--$5.5 million. This funding

will be used by NOAA's Invasive Species reducing the

potential for invasive species to be introduced in US ports

and coastal waters, and to promote increased collaboration

among the many groups working to understand invasive species,

including NOAA, other agencies, and the scientific community.

Our oceans are a public trust whose stewardship is critical

to our economy, our environment, and our future. We greatly

appreciate your past support for these programs and your

consideration of our requests.

Sincerely,

James Greenwood, Wayne T. Gilchrest, Curt Weldon, E. Clay

Shaw, Jan Schakowsky, Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Frank

Pallone, Jr., Sam Farr, Tom Allen, Dennis Cardoza,

Michael H. Michaud, Jo Bonner, Jeb Bradley, Timothy V.

Johnson, John Conyers, Jr.

Sheila Jackson-Lee, Chris Smith, Gene Green, John M.

McHugh, Bart Stupak, Susan A. Davis, Loretta Sanchez,

Anthony D. Weiner, Peter Deutsch, Jerrold Nadler,

Carolyn B. Maloney, Gary L. Ackerman, Eliot L. Engel,

Dale E. Kildee, Ed Markey.

Robert Wexler, Tom Petri, Eni Faleomavaega, Betty

McCollum, Kendrick B. Meek, George Miller, Ileana Ros-

Lehtinen, Raul M. Grijalva, Earl Blumenauer, Tom

Lantos, Tammy Baldwin, Alcee L. Hastings, Jim

McDermott, Jay Inslee, Adam B. Schiff.

Mike McIntyre, Mike Thompson, James Langevin, Lois Capps,

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Sanders-Otter- Conyers-Paul-Nadler Freedom to Read amendment. This amendment curtails one of the most invasive provisions of the Patriot Law by prohibiting law enforcement from making sweeping searches and seizures of library and bookstore patron records.

We can all recall October 2001 when the PATRIOT Act was hastily passed by this body. Many of us, myself included, didn't have the chance to read this lengthy and complicated legislation in the few hours we had before the vote. I voted against the unseen legislation because I was concerned that its passage would amount to the blind abandonment of our civil liberties. As the details of the PATRIOT law came to light, it became all too clear that this law contained numerous infringements on our long-held civil liberties.

Today, we all know what is in the PATRIOT law, and our constituents know too. In my district, the local governments of Pacific Grove, Salinas, Santa Cruz, and Watsonville, CA, have all passed resolutions expressing their concerns with the anti-privacy and antiliberty portions of the PATRIOT Act. Supporting this amendment is an opportunity to respond to those concerns and rollback one of the most invasive provisions of the PATRIOT law.

Passing the Freedom to Read amendment would ensure that library or book store records relating to an American who is not the subject of an investigation will not end up in the government's hands without the benefit of the protections of the courts. I would urge my colleagues to stand up for the civil liberties that our country has always stood for and pass the Freedom to Read amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the CJS appropriations committee recommendation to eliminate funding for the SBA 7(a) program and in support of the Manzullo-Velazquez Amendment. The challenges for small businesses in this stagnant economic climate are formidable--rising health insurance costs, increasing energy expenses and dramatic outsourcing competition. The SBA 7(a) program is the only source of affordable, long-term financing for many of our nation's small businesses. It offers assistance to established small businesses and acts as a catalyst to energize and foment the entrepreneurial spirit that, as Americans, we must celebrate and nurture.

The 7(a) program not only serves as a lifeline to entrepreneurs, it also creates American jobs. Small businesses account for approximately 75 percent of the net new jobs in America. The SBA 7(a) program annually generates 360,000 jobs. If the Bush administration is truly serious about growing the economy and creating jobs on Main Street instead of offering tax cuts for Wall Street, they should not have zeroed out this program in their budget.

We must continue to fund this important program that is instrumental to fostering the entrepreneurial spirit. How can we deny our constituents the chance to realize the American dream and create their own business and be their own boss? Every job counts in this economy and the U.S. government has the obligation to foster free enterprise and small businesses by funding the SBA 7(a) program.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill providing appropriations for the Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary and related agencies for fiscal year 2005.

From the outset, I must say the 302(b) allocation given to the subcommittee, in our opinion, was too low. I am grateful to the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), however, for providing $226 million above the request; and I am impressed with how much the chairman of our subcommittee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), was able to accomplish within the allocation he was given. On the whole, I think the distribution of funds is quite fair and sensible and reflects priorities I believe most of us would share.

I would be remiss if I did not say how much of a pleasure it is to work with Chairman Wolf on this bill. Our working relationship and our friendship are major factors in producing it. I must also say that I am very grateful for the openness and fairness with which the chairman's staff has treated mine. Much is said, Mr. Chairman, about the poisonous atmosphere in the House these days, but that is not the case on this subcommittee, and I credit the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for that. His attentiveness and that of his staff to the needs of our side have been terrific, even if they could not always do everything we would like.

Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Wolf and the staff, Mike and Christine, John, Anne-Marie, and Jonathan have served the committee well, as have on our side David, Linda, and Laura, and on my personal staff Lucy, Nadine, Diaraf, Sean and Jennifer. I wonder at times, Mr. Chairman, if the American people have a full understanding of the fact that behind the work that is seen on the House floor and in press conferences there is always such a large number of young, dedicated people who put together so much of the work that goes on in this House, and I think it is something we should always remember.

Again, Chairman Wolf was able to accomplish much. To list just a few highlights, the bill includes full funding or better for the FBI, the DEA, international organizations, worldwide embassy security, and most of the related agencies. Also, much more than requested for MEP and SCAAP. Funding levels on which we can build for NOAA. Continuing support for the Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties Protection in Justice.

I am also gratified that the bill and report direct the EEOC not to proceed with its workforce repositioning without complying with the committee's reprogramming procedures, which will give us essential oversight of potentially very disruptive changes proposed by that agency.

I do worry that first responder funding shortfalls between the Homeland Security bill and this one, despite the efforts of Chairman Wolf and our previous chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), to improve on deeply flawed request levels, represent a one- two punch at our public safety agencies.

I regret the inability to give the SBA the resources it needs, although there will be amendments today to restore funding for the 7(a) business loans program and microloans, or to fund programs such as TOP and PTFP, where real needs will go unmet.

I also would have liked to address a serious problem that the restrictions on the use of non-Federal funds pose for the Legal Services Corporation grantees, which face administrative and financial burdens probably unmatched by any other class of Federal grantees, but that is a discussion for another day.

One other issue I would like to mention is the census. Halfway between decennials, few Members pay much attention to the Census Bureau. But accurate statistics about the Nation's population and activities collected, analyzed, and published by the Bureau are crucial to both government and the economy. Not only is membership in this House apportioned according to census data, indeed the Constitution requires 10-year censuses for that purpose, but many important decisions and many Federal grant programs are based on accurate census information, both from the decennial and from other periodic censuses. Business, too, relies on census data for final decisions on marketing, locating facilities, and the like. The census is of extraordinary importance to minority communities because it is the basis for their ability to establish their identity and secure their rights.

As the chairman knows, the Census Bureau is a bureau that I always feel plays a special role in the South Bronx and, indeed, throughout our society. Whenever anyone gets up and speaks about we have such a number of this and a number of that, and this happened and that is happening, those figures are always taken from the work of the Census Bureau, and so we not only tip our hats to them but show them our support.

Again, Chairman Wolf has shown exceptional sensitivity to what the Census Bureau needs to continue its activities and prepare for the 2010 short-form-only decennial, and I thank him for that.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I believe that this bill is a good one, and I will support it as it continues to move through the process. Once again, I thank Chairman Wolf for his support, for his kindness, for his friendship, and above all, for being a man of great conviction who sticks with issues that other people dare not bring up, as we will see during this debate.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

(Mr. FARR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to thank and congratulate the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf), and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) for bringing this issue to our attention.

Too often in this country when we speak about drug abuse and drug addiction and the problems related to drugs, the image that the American people get is that of youngsters in the inner cities. Yet one of America's so misunderstood secrets is the fact that drug addiction and drug abuse is a problem that plagues the whole society. And I really think that before the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf), the

gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) started to speak about this issue, this House was not fully aware of that. They put it on the map. They put provisions in this bill to deal with it. We have worked on allocating dollars to deal with the issue. And I think the country will benefit and attention will be focused, Mr. Chairman, on the fact that this is a national problem.

We can speak about the issues that can really hurt the society in the long run, and certainly right up there, in my opinion, with the everlasting, unfortunate, lingering racial problems in this country is the fact that so many members of our society abuse drugs and are caught up in the horrible use of drugs. Again, in the inner city it is easier to see. We see it on street corners. We see it in front of buildings. We see it in school yards where there are thousands of students attending one school. In some of the rural and suburban communities, it is not seen the same way. It does not have the same face. But it does have the same suffering; it does have the same pain; and it threatens the society we live in in the same way.

So I want to thank the three gentlemen for that, having brought this to the House's attention.

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, another additional comment is the fact that the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) has done a lot of work especially in this bill on the issue of gang violence, again, one of those issues that a lot of people relate to certain parts of the country and certain types of communities. Yet we find out that gang violence is spreading throughout the country. And this bill begins to address it in a proper and strenuous way.

Interestingly enough, those of us who have lived in the inner city know that there is a relationship between gang violence and drug abuse and drug addiction because those who do not use drugs but who become millionaires by providing the drugs make sure that people who are in gang-related activities and other activities in the community become addicted. Their line of business is to get people addicted, and this is the way they do it.

So it is interesting that we are speaking today on a bill that addresses both issues. But the main point here is for the American people to fully understand that this is not a disease, this is not a condition, this is not a crime that is only related to certain parts of our community. It is related to the whole Nation; and it threatens us, in my opinion, as much as anything else. Years from now if we do not deal with this issue, if we let the full Nation go the way that some communities have gone, we will regret the fact that we missed an opportunity.

So I am proud to be part of this effort today, and I congratulate again the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers), and the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf).

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

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, let me at the outset say that the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) knows that I know how difficult it was to put this bill together and to deal with the issues that this bill takes care of. He is right, we had to move around with a smaller allocation. In fact, the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) was gracious enough to admit that the allocation, I think he said, was thin. Yet within that allocation, we were able to come up with a bill that I think we can all support.

But in the middle of that bill, or actually at the beginning of the bill, there is this gaping hole, this problem with the SBA now. There are different views as to how much of a problem this truly represents. But the fact of life is that many people on both sides of the aisle feel that it is a problem and one that needs to be dealt with.

Now, in committee, full committee, I proposed an amendment which would have provided the $79 million by declaring an emergency. What I basically did at that time was move emergency disaster funds and replace the 7(a) allocation in its place. By the way, that amendment was not approved; otherwise, we would not be here right now. Under our rules, that same amendment, then, cannot be presented on the floor because of the way it was presented, and so we have this one where we have dollars that we shift around in the bill.

I am not going to repeat what everybody has said. But in so many communities throughout this country, the small business community and the providers of loans believe that this is an important amendment; that this is an amendment that should, in fact, be approved and one that both sides of the aisle can support.

So with the respect and admiration that I have for my chairman, and knowing well that I was an architect in putting this bill together and our staffs were, nevertheless, I feel that this is an amendment that should be approved; and I will hope that on both sides it can get the sufficient votes to pass.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, a lot has been said about this amendment today, and I want to reiterate my respect and admiration for the chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), and the fact that I cannot run away from the issue that we both participated in putting this bill together. But as I said in my original comments, and I will say again, even when we approved and supported this bill, as I do now and I would ask all my colleagues to do so for final passage, I still knew that there was a problem that had to be dealt with, and the most glaring of those problems was the 7(a) issue.

It is for that reason that I stood up today and continue to stand in support of the amendment. I think the amendment speaks to an issue of a constituency throughout this country that is not only based in the lending institutions, heaven forbid I should ever be accused of supporting the lending institutions at that level, but people who feel that this is a good program and should continue to exist.

Because of my support for the bill, I am very leery when we put forth any cuts, but I must say that I am not totally upset about cutting the National Endowment for Democracy, because every so often what they partake in is improperly trying to overthrow governments that they should not be involved in. So I am not going to cry tonight if we indeed take some money from them.

However, I understand the concern of many members of the subcommittees. I would just hope that we see this for the greater good, which is the need to have this program restored, to have this hope fulfilled. And if we do that, if we do that, I think that we would have gone a step ahead of where we were a couple hours ago in saying that this was a good bill. The bill then would be a great bill, and that is my support.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, as I told the gentleman from Maryland, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has been very much aware and supportive of these kinds of issues, and as this bill moves to conference, sometimes there is a window of opportunity to do some things. While we cannot promise what the end result will be, we certainly promise the gentleman from Maryland that we will work together with him to see that this moves along in a better way.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Let me first continue to do what I have always done and that is to show my respect for the gentlewoman from Texas who always speaks to these issues with great compassion and with great concern; and under normal circumstances, one could agree with her, but these are not normal circumstances: one, because this budget is so tight; two, as I keep repeating, because I believe the chairman has been very fair in providing dollars; and, lastly, we just had an amendment where we were looking for $79 million for SBA. Well, if I add this correctly, this program went up from last year's just about that amount, $79 million. So this program has done very well.

To now strike at legal activities account for another $10 million, I really do not think it is necessary, and so I would oppose it and hope everyone else would; but in anticipation of a good decision by the gentlewoman from Texas, I will now yield to her.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman is correct, and I share her concern.

During the last 2 decades of the 20th century, the Census Bureau did not provide sufficient investment in these programs to keep up with the changing social and demographic character of the country. Eventually, the system failed, due to lack of attention.

I was encouraged when the President's budget requested funds to reverse that trend. I am going to work with the chairman to see if there is some way we can rectify this situation in conference.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield once again, I want to thank her for her tireless work on the census. I share her enthusiasm in this area, and I assure her that we will continue to try to make their work easier and better.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I first want to congratulate the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), chairman of the Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary and Related Agencies Subcommittee; and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), ranking minority member, for crafting an excellent bill. Regardless of how this amendment turns out, I am going to vote for it and encourage the rest of the Members of Congress to vote for it. It is very difficult to balance all the conflicting interests, and I commend them for coming up with a good bill.

With all due respect and honor to the gentlemen, I offer this amendment today to freeze funding for SBA 7(a) guaranteed lending program at last year's level.

The 7(a) is the flagship lending program of the Small Business Administration. This amendment means small businesses will be able to get started and grow. The 7(a) program is on track to create and retain half a million jobs this year. It has a proven track record by providing approximately 30 percent of the long-term financing needs for all small businesses.

Increasing fees on small business borrowers and lenders, particularly as interest rates are rising again, puts another barrier in access to capital and crimps our national economic recovery.

No matter how anybody states it, if this amendment fails, small business borrowers and lenders will face a fee or tax increase based on the amount of loan starting October 1 by as much as 100 percent. Some may characterize this as only a few dollars up front. But as the truth in lending disclosure form shows, he or she will pay up front at the time of the signing of the loan documents, hundreds if not thousands of extra dollars. The fee for a typical $100,000 loan would increase from $850 to $1,700.

On top of the up-front fee, lenders will once again see their annual fee on the outstanding balance of 7(a) loans made after October 1 increase, just after they shot up 30 percent this past April to keep the 7(a) program functional in fiscal year 2004. These fees cannot be passed on to the borrowers.

Many lenders, particularly small community banks that serve rural areas, are seriously considering leaving the program. Fewer banks offering 7(a) loans will translate into decreased access to credit for small businesses, which will result in fewer jobs created.

Mr. Chairman, my congressional district just dropped below 10 percent unemployment. Manufacturing jobs leveled off for 4 months. We lost another 11,000 this past month. We are not out of the woods yet. On top of it, the Fed decides to raise the interest rate. The last thing that we need is to have more of a crimp in capital access for the small businesses.

The amendment does not increase business spending. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the amendment will reduce outlays by $7 million in fiscal year 2005 by offering cuts in other programs.

The reductions are in other programs. The reductions will not be sensitive. They are in the Department of Justice General Administration Account. The Legal Activities Office Automation Program gets cut by $33 million for a program that they never asked for; the National Endowment For Democracy gets cut by a little over $10 million, which is still $1 million above the fiscal year 2004 level; and the salaries and expenses account at the SBA would make up the difference, to reach a $79,132,000 appropriations level for 7(a). That account would be cut by $8.46 million.

So the purpose of this amendment in making the tough choices is to keep funding level, keep the 7(a) program where it is, and although I support the goal of eventually getting the 7(a) program to a zero subsidy rate, now at the time we are just starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel, just starting a recovery, this is not the time to impose additional fees and taxes, not only upon the people that borrow the money, but upon the lenders that make it all possible.

Mr. Chairman, I again urge my colleagues to shift this $79 million from other accounts to the Small Business Account in order to help out the small businesses and keep the 7(a) program alive.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thought I would recite the names of some of the organizations that are in favor of the Manzullo-Velazquez amendment. Sure, we have the American Bankers Association that is in favor of it, but just listen to the names of these groups that represent small businesses.

The Asian American and Hotel Owners Association; Women Impacting Public Policy, that is over 2.5 million women-owned small businesses. The Air Conditioning Contractors of America, those are all small businesses. American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers, those are small business people. American Society of Appraisers, those are small business people. America's Community Bankers, those are many small community banks in rural areas. Financial Services Roundtable, banks of all sizes, including large banks. Independent Community Bankers of America, those are mostly small banks, many in rural areas.

International Franchise Association, thousands and thousands of small business owners across America. National Association of Government Guaranteed Leaders, NAGGL, that represents people that get small business loans. National Association for the Self-Employed, I think the average membership of their group is less than five employees.

National Association of Women Business Owners, small business people. The National Bankers Association, National Black Chamber of Commerce, the National Small Business Association, the Small Business Legislative Council, the Appraisal Institute. The Tire Industry Association, these are guys that have tire shops across the country. The United Motorcoach Association, these are guys that buy buses for tourism, et cetera; and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which represents the large and small businesses.

The reason all these groups are behind the Manzullo-Velazquez amendment is that the core purpose of the Small Business Administration is to make capital available to small businesses, and why the SBA is fighting small businesses is beyond the recognition of the chairman of the Committee on Small Business. I cannot understand it, why the SBA is fighting this bill, which is the core program of the entire SBA.

It does not make sense. $79 million in the huge $3 trillion budget that we have is not a lot of money. But what it does amount to is the doubling of the fee of the little guys that get loans of under $150,000. The little ones get hit, the very ones that are trying to make this Nation recover.

In my district, we just dropped below 10 percent unemployment and the Fed raised the interest rate. I stand here in the gap as the chairman of the Committee on Small Business to say the Small Business Administration is wrong on this issue, and they ought to be ashamed of themselves for fighting this Congress to defund the very program that has made the SBA the organization that it is.

Sure, I could get very impassioned over little people. I come from a small business. My dad had a grocery store and then a restaurant, and the family restaurant continues today. And if my brother wants to get a loan from the SBA, why should his fees be doubled?

If the gentleman will continue to yield, this does not take funds of the MEP.

Well, I commend the chairman for funding the MEP program, but out of Justice this comes out of the administration account. It has nothing to do with FBI agents or the DEA or people involved in those positions.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield half of my allotted 15 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) and that she may control that time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case).

(Mr. CASE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the State of California (Mrs. Napolitano).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me first address the issue of offsets. We take $33.251 million out of a program that the President did not even request, this Legal Activities Office Automation Program at the Department of Justice, $33 million out of a program they never even requested.

I voted and continue to support the war on terrorism, but we reach a certain point when we have to ask ourselves, when do we take care of our own? When do we take care of the little people? This is not an outrageous request to ask that we have level funding this year that we had last year; $79 million is a lot of money, but compared to how far it goes to continue the program is something else.

The problem here is this: we all want to get away from this subsidy. I am in favor of a zero subsidy rate and have continued to work towards that each year that I have been chairman of the Committee on Small Business. To do it all at once at a time when the Fed has just increased the interest rate, when the unemployment in the district that I represent has just fallen below 10 percent, and at a time when small entrepreneurs continue to scramble for capital is simply unwise. To have a complete recovery, we need to make sure that the resources, the loans, are there for the little people, the ones that get up early in the morning and work 18 hours a day, sometimes 7 days a week, just for the opportunity to make a lot less money than they could working somewhere else, but who choose to do that because the spirit of entrepreneurship rings within their heart, because they know that eventually they will create more jobs and add to the economy.

That is what this bill does. It restores the same amount that they would have had last year, and I ask my colleagues to vote in favor of the Manzullo-Velazquez amendment.