To withhold United States funding from the United Nations Human Rights Council.

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

My amendment proposes to move $1 million from Justice General Administration in order to restore funding eliminated from the budget request for the Missing Alzheimer's program. This program is critical to supporting law enforcement efforts to find missing adults suffering from the terrible disease of Alzheimer's.

This is very important because Alzheimer's is a very difficult situation for both the individual with Alzheimer's and the family members. I offer it on behalf of Mr. Mollohan, and I know Congresswoman Maxine Waters strongly, strongly supports the adoption of the amendment.

I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Well, I won't repeat myself. The amendment proposes to move $1 million from Justice General Administration in order to restore funding eliminated from the budget request for the Missing Alzheimer's program. It is a very important and very needed program.

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

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time on this side. I know my colleague has a group who want to speak.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment again, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to salute the gentleman. He made some very important points. But we have had to make some difficult decisions putting this bill together.

The bill already includes $314 million for the Legal Services Corporation. This used to be politicized. It has not been politicized. It is an increase of $3 million above the President's request. That means we cut $3 million from some other part of the bill to increase funding for the Legal Services Corporation.

There are a number of areas in the bill that we would increase funding for if we didn't have to restore $1.1 billion for State and local law enforcement.

Unlike the Legal Services, which is funded above the request, we have already cut from the request of State Department's Diplomatic and Consular Affairs operations account by $147 million. Our bill provides a modest increase of $77 million or 2.1 percent to cover pay and inflationary costs for the Department.

The only increases that the funding supports are new positions for critical posts around the world to support our national interests in emerging nations like India, China, Egypt and Indonesia.

In addition, we have supported an increase for the Office of Stabilization and Reconstruction and for new critical language training positions.

We are in a global war on terror. This amendment cuts into already reduced amounts to support the diplomatic side of this effort. North Korea has just threatened to test a nuclear weapon. Iran continues its efforts to develop a nuclear program.

Further, this amendment would cut $5 million from the Department of Justice administration account. The bill already reduces that request for general administration by $25 million or 22 percent below the request. The Acting Assistant Attorney General for Administration has written us to inform us that, at the current level of funding in the bill, 58 positions will be eliminated at the Department of Justice headquarters.

Additional cuts will hinder the Department's abilities to effectively manage more than $20 billion in appropriations, operate hundreds of DOJ facilities, manage 100,000 employees and coordinate public policy.

We have done the best we can. We have also got the Manufacturing Extension Program up. We have increased drug courts by 300 percent. So a bill that treats the diverse accounts within our jurisdiction, I think, has been done as fairly as we can. Therefore, I urge the rejection of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, there is a lot I want to say. I don't know if I can say it in that much time. The gentleman's amendment would increase Justice Assistance grants by $25 million, reduce Justice General Administration by $10 million, and NOAA by 15. I understand and I appreciate the gentleman's passion for law enforcement. These programs have helped a lot. The bill already includes a $50 million increase for JAG, and an increase of $1.1 billion for local law enforcement above the request. Sometimes it doesn't matter, but it is above the request. And the gentleman's offsets would create some difficulties at Justice and NOAA.

But the gentleman has worked. I think he has made a good point in crafting the amendment. I know he and others would actually prefer higher amendments. There were other amendments rolling around here in the 40 to $50 million range. Somehow, this Congress is going to have to deal with the issues of all of the spending that is coming on and how do we get control.

Now, there will be others to come up, some that are actually good amendments, because they really help people. But we are going to devastate other programs. And it is sort of like Dietrich Bonhoffer with Cheap Grace. You can go into some general administration area that nobody understands

or knows anything about, and then there will be no money for general administrations.

I have introduced a bill, I sent out a Dear Colleague letter asking people to cosponsor a national commission based on the base closing commission with everything on the table to deal with these issues, because it is fundamentally immoral for one generation to live on the next generation and our children and our grandchildren and the whole spending issue. I share what the gentleman from West Virginia said, on some of these amendment passes, and then there is no money for administration, no money for this, and no money for that.

But there is probably not a more sincere individual on this issue, probably because of his work. And my father was a policeman in the city of Philadelphia. I understand these issues, and we want to give our law enforcement the resources, particularly with crime growing up.

So I have no objection to the gentleman's amendment.

If the gentleman would yield, it is a good amendment. We accept the amendment. I think we took it last year too, if I recall. And I thank the gentleman for offering it. And on this side we strongly accept it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

The gentlewoman's amendment would increase funding for grants to prevent violence against women by $10 million by decreasing funds for the Justice Department's General Administration by $5 million and the Census Bureau by $5 million.

I understand and appreciate the gentlewoman's passion for her efforts to prevent violence against women. The bill already, though, includes a $9 million increase for these programs, but we recognize that an increased investment is important.

I just wanted to say, for the record, although it will be difficult for the Census Bureau, this offset will neither impact the ramp up of the 2010 decennial census nor the American Community Survey.

With that understanding, I have no objection to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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

I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The 7(a) program has been operating at record levels without subsidy appropriations since the beginning of 2005. If this amendment passes, do not ever go home and say that you are going to balance the budget. Just forget it. This is the ``forget to balance the budget and get control of the budget'' amendment. We have had record loans with no 7(a) fees, and now we want to do this.

The SBA administrator continues to assure us that the program is running strong. I have a letter from them confirming the success at redesigning the 7(a) program so it does not require a subsidy. No good deed goes unpunished. It does not require a subsidy, and we are going to spend all these millions of dollars? How would you ever explain it? How would you say we have got record

numbers, but we are going to subsidize it? Forget it. We would never, ever, ever, ever solve the deficit of this Nation.

The new model has brought down the stability of the lending community and borrowers. This is a ``bail-out the banks'' amendment. Bail out the banks. Only the bankers care about this, a small portion of the bankers, and I do not know if the bankers are writing us about the deficit either.

Demand has skyrocketed. Since lending levels are no longer tied to an appropriation, the program has been able to meet the demand. That, by not being tied, has been able to meet the demand. This is a good government success story.

There is much more that I could say. It goes on and on and on, but I just urge Members, do not pass this amendment. This is the ``how do you spend $100 million without needing to spend it,'' and I guess the question is if we really care about the future generations of our children and our grandchildren. We will never get control of it. I mean, I cannot even believe we are out here doing this. If this were the Violence Against Women or some of the programs that are here that your heart goes out to but you do not have the money, but there is no need for it and they are at record numbers.

I urge a ``no'' vote against this amendment.

U.S. Small Business

Administration,

Washington, DC, June 27, 2006.

Hon. Frank Wolf,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, the

Judiciary, and Related Agencies, Committee on

Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I want to thank you again for your

support of America's small businesses. I would also like to

take this opportunity to reiterate the Administration's

strong support for a zero subsidy rate for the U.S. Small

Business Administration's (SBA) 7(a) loan program. In what

will certainly be another tight appropriations cycle, a zero

subsidy rate for 7(a) will save the taxpayers approximately

$170 million, while at the same time providing unprecedented

stability to the program.

In the past, some have expressed unrealized concerns that

zero subsidy would stifle the 7(a) loan program because of a

very slight fee increase required. As you can see from the

enclosed explanation and charts, 7(a) lending has increased

significantly while taxpayer dollars have been saved.

Further, current 7(a) fees--previously a source of

significant industry concern--are in line with historical

rates. Like other costs in business, these fees fluctuate

based on market conditions. In fiscal year (FY) 2007 there

will need to be a slight fee change of .5 basis points. This

equates to approximately $2.80 per month on an average loan

size of $160,000.

It is also important to note that 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. (Zero subsidy began in FY 2001.). As you know,

in January 2004 the SBA was forced to temporarily close the

7(a) program because it had exhausted its funding under the

Continuing Resolution. Once the program was restarted, and

after Congress passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act for

FY 2004, the SBA was forced to manage the program through

restrictive loan caps because demand continued to outpace the

program's funding level. Regardless of the amount Congress

appropriates for 7(a) in any given fiscal year, there will be

the chance that demand could exceed that level, forcing

either another shutdown or caps on loan amounts. By

eliminating the need for an appropriation, potential program

``shortfalls'' may be avoided. Program levels in the form of

authorization limits would still apply, of course.

It should also be noted that SBA's other major loan

programs, Section 504 Guarantee Program and Small Business

Investment Company (SBIC) Guarantee Program., have functioned

at zero subsidy for several years. This provides our lending

partners with what they want most from our loan programs--

consistency and continuity.

Mr. Chairman, zero subsidy for the 7(a) program is a

simple, common-sense approach that has brought the program in

line with our other major financial programs. Zero subsidy is

still the best policy for the long-term stability and growth

of the 7(a) loan program. We have been able to maintain

record lending during the past few years under zero subsidy.

Lending has not been hampered by appropriations shortfalls,

such as those that occurred in 2003 and 2004. For these

reasons the Administration urges you to continue the

successful zero subsidy policy in the FY 2007 Appropriations

bill.

Sincerely,

Hector V. Barreto,

Administrator.

Zero Subsidy--The Best Policy

Zero subsidy is still the best policy for the long term

stability and growth of the Small Business Administration's

various loan programs. The SBA has been able to maintain

record lending during the past few years under the zero

subsidy policy. The benefits of zero subsidy also results in

a funding structure that adds stability and independence

while ensuring that the lending process is not hampered by

appropriations shortfalls such as those which occurred in

2003 and 2004.

In FY 2005, the SBA served more small businesses than ever

before. In SBA's two major loan programs, they increased the

numbers of loans funded by 22% in one year. These record

level lending numbers are possible because of the zero

subsidy policy that was adopted at the beginning of FY 2005.

The SBA guaranteed a record number of loans last year, with

double digit increases in the percentage of loans to women,

Hispanics, African Americans and Asian Americans. Maintaining

zero subsidy wi1l allow the SBA to build on the success

they've had in these important loan programs, and will

provide more businesses with the capital needed to start up

and expand.

Moving to zero subsidy allowed the Agency to continue to

meet the financing demands of small businesses without the

need for taxpayer subsidy. In today's tough budget

environment, SBA has proven their ability to provide more

loans to small businesses and entrepreneurs while reducing

the burden on taxpayers.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), chairman of the Small Business Committee, who has convinced me of the merits of this.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, where do they get this money from? $5.9 million would be provided to cover the cost for blast mitigation in windows at the Department of Commerce. So you are basically saying to the Department of Commerce, we don't care if there is a blast here; you can't get your blast windows. You can't get your windows, so you can give a subsidy to the banks that will give no additional loans.

Also, this will result in RIFs at the Small Business Administration. So if you don't want loans to go to the small businesses, support this amendment, because there will be RIFs and they won't be able to make the loans. Zero subsidy means more loans. Loans are up almost 20 percent from 2005 over 2004.

I think the people at the Department of Commerce have every right to have the same protection that the people in this building have. They are not second-class citizens. They are covered by this bill. They need blast protection windows. Also it is not right to RIF the employees at the SBA to give a subsidy to bankers who don't need the subsidy.

Lastly, don't ever give another deficit reduction speech if you vote for this amendment. Don't ever, ever give

it, because the loans are up with it; and actually the adoption of this may very well reduce the loans.

So I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, our Members should know that this cuts the Justice Department litigating division by $40 million. The bill already cuts this account by $16 million below the level requested. This account that they are cutting funds critical justice litigating activities such as the criminal division. Wow, this is good news for the criminals, because they will not be litigated; we are going to cut the funding.

To combat gangs. Gangs are spreading. MS-13 are spreading around the Nation. But we cut it. Prosecute intellectual property rights crimes. Wow. Are you going to cut Katrina fraud cases. No way. The civil rights division prosecution of human traffickers. Women and children are being trafficked. Justice prosecutes, but we are going to cut the money so they cannot do it.

For all of you who care about the environment, the environmental and natural resources division prosecution of organizations that violate our environmental laws go away. The tax division prosecution of tax fraud, impacted. This account also funds the U.S. dues for Interpol. We are in a global war on terror. We need to work with Interpol. So we cut them.

The Name Checks that the gentleman is concerned about are funded through a fee. There is a backlog in the Name Checks Program because the fees the FBI charges are not sufficient to adequately cover the cost of the program.

In the fiscal year 2006 report, we directed the FBI to review this fee structure and submit a report to the Committee. The fee review is ongoing and a report is estimated to be submitted in August. In addition to this year's bill, we also include additional report language in this bill directing the FBI to work with the agencies that request these background checks to ensure that sufficient resources are made available to eliminate the backlog.

The gentleman is on the authorizing committee that oversees the FBI and immigration issues. If he wants to address the issue, he would go to the Judiciary Committee that he serves on, introduce a bill, try to convince Mr. Sensenbrenner to deal with it.

This amendment also would cut 200 employees; we just added Justice Assistance grants here not too long ago, because we are concerned about crime. This would cut more than 200 employees working to combat crime such as organized crime, gangs, human traffickers, Katrina fraud, and environmental crimes in order to fund the FBI Name Checks that are fee- funded.

This would be a blow to the Justice Department litigating capacity. If you wanted to say do not prosecute organized crime, do not worry about the environmental convictions you have to go after, do not worry about the tax frauds, how will you do it then? You cannot say you are going to go after them and take their money away.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge a ``no'' vote for this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I accept the amendment. The committee, working with Mr. Mollohan, has tried to increase this as much as possible. I would urge any Member that has not been out to the Center for Missing and Exploited Children in Alexandria, that they ought to go. As a father of 11 grandchildren, I commend both of you and thank you very much and think we should accept the amendment.

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

The gentleman stated that this bill was below the Administration's request. We are above the Administration's request for prisons. We are not below.

Secondly, our Subcommittee last year put together what they called a Gingrich-Mitchell Commission, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and former Minority Leader Mitchell, to look at the U.N. reform, and they have come up with a good package, and they are working on this issue.

The State Department opposes this amendment. John Bolten up at the State Department says, and I quote, ``We must determine whether the U.N. Human Rights Council will be a body that the world will respect and take seriously.'' Its status is no longer characteristic of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights.

That said, the United States will work cooperatively with other member states to make the Council as strong and effective as it can be. We will be supportive of efforts to strengthen the Council and look forward to a serious review of the Council structure and work.

I have been as critical as anybody else, and I will stipulate perhaps more than anybody else, on the whole issue of the Human Rights Commission with regard to China, with regard to Sudan and with regard to these others, but this would complicate the Administration's efforts.

The Secretary of State, Secretary Rice, is opposed to this. The State Department is opposed to this. The Administration is opposed to this.

Change it by dealing with it through the Gingrich-Mitchell Task Force and put pressure on them, but do not complicate the life of John Bolten and Secretary Rice up there.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).

Mr. Chairman, I close by saying let us do what we did in the Gingrich-Mitchell thing. The U.N. has made a lot of mistakes. John Bolten is no wallflower. I support what John Bolten is trying to do up there, and I don't think we should complicate the administration's life by doing this.

I yield to the gentleman if he would like to say something.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I do. I make a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment, that it is in violation of section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

The Committee on Appropriations filed a suballocation of the budget for fiscal year 2007 on June 6, 2006, House Report 109-488. The adoption of this amendment would cause the subcommittee's suballocation for budget authority made under section 302(b) to be exceeded and is not permitted under section 302(f) of the act.

I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I accept the amendment on this side.

Mr. Chairman, if you were to listen to this debate, you would assume that this bill has zero in it for meth. I urge Members to turn to page 11. I know nobody reads the reports here, and it is pretty obvious, but in order to help Federal, State and local law enforcement address the meth epidemic, the recommendation provides $367 million for the Justice Assistance Grants which the administration proposed to eliminate, $99 million for meth specific grants, which is the authorized level, and $58 million above the budget request, $40,000 for drug core programs, an increase of $30 million with regard to that.

You act as if we haven't done anything on meth. This amendment will devastate the census. I mean, no good deed goes unpunished in this institution sometimes. The administration zeros all this out. We met with every Member. Every Member that approached the committee, we tried to sit down and work it out with them to the best of it, to no avail.

Then we just accepted the Reichert amendment. God bless Mr. Reichert for his efforts. He has probably forgotten more about this than most other Members, $25 million more that has just been accepted. Now we come out with another 50, 50, 50.

Then, where does he get the money from? I think in the Constitution they talk about the census. It is my sense that that is in the census in the Constitution. At this stage, a reduction of this magnitude to the 2010 decennial census programs will impact fundamental missions of the Census Bureau, reapportionment, the funding that goes out to different localities. A complete and accurate count in 2010 will not be able to be achieved, particularly when they look for the dress rehearsal.

The immediate ramifications are a disproportionate impact on vulnerable populations, irretrievable loss of testing opportunities to identify the problems. What can you say? Forget the census, blow it off, and put this in, even though the committee has increased it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).

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

Mr. Chairman, I tried, the committee tried. Every Member who spoke to me on either side, we really made a really sincere effort to address it.

I went to Nebraska. I went out to Nebraska. The gentleman from Nebraska is right: they have a real, real problem.

But if you would just kind of listen to this debate, you would automatically, if you were just tuning in in Dubuque or Des Moines, you would assume that there was nothing in here, that we had just been stone deaf, that we had not even listened. We added also, to keep in mind, we just added, under the Reichert amendment, $25 million.

But in the committee report, on page 11, after really searching, I was very moved when I went out to Nebraska. I thought we want to do everything. And I have talked to Mr. Souder. And every time, I thought I have tried to do everything I could.

Now, as Mr. Obey said, the budget resolutions come down, and the deficits are important and we talk. But here is what the conference report says:

``In order to help the Federal, State and local law enforcement address the meth epidemic, the recommendation provides $367 million for the Justice Assistance Grants program,'' they were wiped out, ``which the administration proposed to eliminate; $99 million for meth-specific grants, which is the authorized level, and $58 million plus above the budget request; $40,000 for Drug Court programs, which is $30 million above the current year, $5 million for State Prison Drug Treatment programs, which the administration proposed to eliminate, and also $15 million above the request for DEA.''

But if I had just listened to this debate, I would assume that this guy, Wolf, he was AWOL. He had no interest in meth. He was insensitive.

Of course, my father was a policeman. I have five kids. I have 11 grandkids. I think the deficit is a problem. I sit in Republican conferences, and I even hear people talk about it.

The Constitution requires that we do the census. It requires it. It isn't optional. We will use it to reapportion. And so I think what is taken here, you go to the weakest and the most vulnerable. There is not a lobby downtown for the Census Bureau. It just is not.

It is an easy vote. I am going to call for a roll call vote. We will have a roll call vote. But there is no support for the census, except in the Constitution. This guy named Jefferson and Washington and Madison and Monroe, they thought it was important.

But now we are going to take $50 million. I am sort of baffled. I guess it would have been almost easier to sometimes just not kind of go up anytime and try to listen, and then come down and take amendments on the floor that you were almost going to take.

I think I am going to lose this amendment. But I believe that I am right. And I believe for us to take this money out of the Census Bureau, I think they could have probably found another spot. But one spot has a strong lobby downtown; probably a lot of registered lobbyists are working on that area. Another, are there any registered lobbyists for the Census Bureau? Zero. Zip.

I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.

Reclaiming my time, constitutional requirement, article I, section 2, we are required to take the decennial census. We ramp up to it. There has been controversy on this legislation. I say, God bless the Members that offered this. If you really feel so strong, vote for it. And I hope the money goes for the good. But I think when I look at this, I kind of feel, looking at this, as we work this bill through, I just don't understand. And I don't see how we can just take it from there. Patton, Boggs and Blow doesn't represent the census. Aiken Gump doesn't represent the census. They represent the Chinese, but not the census.

So we are going to go to the weakest, most vulnerable. Article I, section 2 of the Constitution.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman and his party have 5 additional minutes to make their case.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that both sides give the opposition the same time so that the gentleman from Indiana and the gentleman from Minnesota and others have equal time.

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, though I am not in opposition since the gentlewoman has withdrawn the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I pledge to do everything we can in conference, and I know Mr. Mollohan feels the same way and we have had the conversation with other members, to keep the figure at this number. It is a 300 percent increase. Drug courts are very, very important. So I will do everything I can, and I know Mr. Mollohan will also agree, to keep this in. And I thank the gentlewoman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee do now rise.

Mr. Chairman, how is the time controlled on this amendment; and how much time is on the amendment?

We have no opposition, Mr. Chairman, but I will claim the 5 minutes.

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in strong support of the amendment.

There are 4.5 million Americans suffering from this terrible disease, Alzheimer's, and by 2050 we are looking at over 16 million potential victims of this dementia disease.

Wandering is a terrible condition and of great concern to the loved ones of individuals with Alzheimer's. This program addresses that and addresses it very effectively. I compliment the chairman for the amendment and compliment our colleague from California, Ms. Waters, who has been a champion in this field.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. The gentleman's amendment would increase the Legal Services Corporation by $25 million. That is up to the recent high water mark of $338 million that was enacted in fiscal 2003.

Since that high water mark, the funding trend for the Legal Services Corporation has been disappointing. It has decreased incrementally until this year, like a lot of other domestic discretionary programs in this bill, but none more important than Legal Services Corporation.

If we are to fulfill the promise of this great Nation that everybody in our society has equal access to the law, obviously having the resources to have access to the law is extremely important. That is what this program does for those who are the least able to pay for legal services, to afford legal representation in time of need. It is often this group of people who have a lot of legal problems. They need a lot of assistance.

This year, we see a precipitous drop in the funding as it plummets by $13 million below last year's level.

Forgive me for citing West Virginia's example, but I think it is a good one which reflects this downward trend and what its disastrous effect is. Since 2003, due to the census adjustment and decreased funding, the program has laid off 13 to 18 staff members in my State. The program currently has 92 staff members, including 37 lawyers. The layoffs are about 16 percent of the workforce. The program has lost $400,000 in funding, had to close four or five services in small counties in southern West Virginia.

In 2002, Legal Aid of West Virginia closed 6,145 cases. In 2005, that number decreased to 5,257 cases. The West Virginia program has estimated that it is unable to serve approximately 15,000 people a year due to lack of resources. That is a lot of people, Mr. Chairman, who are unable to access the legal system for want of resources. All of us can appreciate the hardship that that entails.

I rise in strong support of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, not because it doesn't increase funding for a worthy program. I am extremely supportive of the Justice Assistance Grants Program. But understand that it increases the Justice Assistance Formula Grants Program from $367.8 million to $392.8 million, by $25 million, if my math is correct there. And that is all well and good.

The difficulty is that this amendment increases a general grant program for which this money could go for anything. It could go for meth; it could go for any law enforcement purpose. And again, I repeat, it is all good and well. The problem is the offset. And that is the problem with so many of these amendments that will come forward. It is $10 million from the Department of Justice General Administration Salaries and Expenses account. Well, the Department of Justice does have to run these programs. It has to operate these programs and it has general administration and salaries and expenses costs. This subcommittee has very carefully looked at the needs of the General Administration and Salaries and Expenses Account and determined that it needs the amount of money that is appropriated. This is already a tight budget; so funding in that account is tight.

And to then offset $15 million from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's operations, research and facilities really hurts an agency that is already $514 million below fiscal year 2006- enacted level. So we are $514 million below and we are taking another $15 million off that. At the current mark level, NOAA will be required to RIF over 700 employees; at the current mark level, program cuts are estimated to cost the U.S. economy $1 billion to $2 billion per year.

The proposed reduction will only further compound these impacts to NOAA's critical public safety and stewardship mission. Great amendment, terrible offset. I would just suggest that the gentleman think about these tough budget decisions when this budget resolution next comes to the floor. We just don't have enough money in this bill. And his amendment is for a worthy cause. But his offsets are too damaging to the agencies that they hurt.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I rise in support of her amendment. I know from my own experience in my congressional district, which is a rural district and in need of loans, by small entrepreneurs, there is a disappointment in the way the 7(a) program is being administered.

These fee increases particularly are causing lending to drop. Recent lending figures from SBA show that entrepreneurs received $160 million less through the 7(a) program for the first half of fiscal year 2006 when compared to the same period the previous year. I don't know what you do with that statistic. They are receiving less. We are providing less funding, and certainly the need is not less. I can tell you in rural areas it is not.

Over this same span, entrepreneurs received 1,000 fewer loans, demonstrating that fewer small businesses are able to benefit from the 7(a) program. Fees increase. Businesses are responsive as consumers are responsive; and, of course, businesses are consumers of this program. When fees go up, when costs go up, people stop participating in the program. That is marketplace economics at work here in a government program.

The damage to our economy is even more severe when you consider that the 7(a) program is $500 million below where it was before the fee hikes were imposed, another indication that the current program of charging fees and increasingly charging fees and continuing to charge fees and having increased four times in the last 2 years is resulting in the program not being able to be accessed the way it was in the past.

The gentlewoman's amendment addresses some of these concerns, and, while we are in a tight budget, this is an important program.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I think that the committee has looked very carefully at this. And the committee has, in its report language, if the gentleman who is offering the amendment would look, stated that the committee expects the FBI to set the Name Check fee at a level to adequately cover the cost to conduct the requested background checks.

So the provision that allows them to move forward and to be funded is contained in our report, number one. Number two, the gentleman sits on the committee that could address this issue in an authorization, and obviously he is not in the majority so he would have to go to the majority to have this issue addressed. But I would suggest that that might be a good way to approach it if he wants to change the way that the appropriations committee has dealt with the issue.

Secondly, the offsets coming from the criminal division, the civil rights division, and the office of immigration litigation are difficult offsets. And again I go back to comments in the opening statements before this committee, before general debate, when we considered general debate on this bill. There are going to be a lot of good amendments. I wish there were more money. We have tried to provide for how this function would be funded by directing the FBI to set a reasonable fee.

But the offsets here are difficult offsets. And they cut programs that are important programs. So regrettably, I rise in opposition to the amendment on that basis.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think that is an interesting question. I think that is a question that the authorizing committee in the first instance has the responsibility to explore with the FBI.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the two provisions on page 15, line 18, through page 16, line 4. The provisions constitute legislation on an appropriations bill in violation of clause 2, rule XXI.

Mr. Chairman, this is a provision that the chairman and I understand the dilemma which he is in.

For the last 2 years, the President, when he has submitted his budget request, has proffered this tax increase on the commercial explosives industry, which is particularly oppressive.

Mr. Chairman, in West Virginia, as a matter of fact, of course we use explosives in mining and extraction and for road building purposes, and this would have a very injurious effect on the customers of explosives in my State, costing a tremendous amount of money.

As I say, the President has requested this for the last 2 years in order to fund BATF functions. It constitutes a tax, and the committee appropriately disapproved this request from the President last year.

This year, the chairman, in an effort to make the point I think, and certainly from my standpoint to make the point, that this is an inappropriate way to try to fund the functions of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and making the request and not knowing that it probably would not be approved by the Congress, makes a huge hole in our bill.

The chairman is putting it into the bill at a much lower level, and I do not know whether he anticipated this particular action, and I am not going to speak for him on that, but this I think demonstrates to the administration that this kind of a tactic, knowing that the administration, relying on the fund and the Congress not approving it, and then have to take the money out of some other account, we are just not going to continue do that.

So, by striking it, I hope that what results is that there is a hole in BATF's budget at the end of the year, and making the point that this is probably not a good idea for the administration to do if they, in fact, want all of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearm programs to be funded into the future.

So I hope after this is struck that this hole remains and that the point is made in a telling way.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I am not sure exactly what the gentleman is attempting to achieve here, but I really find myself in disagreement at both ends.

I find myself in disagreement with the offset, certainly. However imperfect the U.S. Human Rights Council and its memberships may or may not be, I am not sure that taking this money from that organization for that purpose, even if it were to come from that account, would address the problem.

I might point out that Chairman Wolf is extremely sensitive to human rights, and has been for a long time; and when he addresses human rights issues in this bill, he is very conscious about them. I really feel confident in the way that he has treated the overall State Department accounts, particularly as any of that account might be contributing to the U.N. Human Rights Council budget, if that is the focus of this offset, even though it comes from the international organizations, account which is a much broader account.

On the other side of it, to increase funding for the Bureau of Prisons by $500,000, I am really pleased that the gentleman recognizes that we do need additional dollars within the Bureau of Prisons, and I agree that to a large extent the Bureau of Prisons is underfunded. It is underfunded in a lot of areas. If we are concerned about assaults on guards, if we are concerned about those kinds of issues, then maybe we ought to be looking for those types of programs that could be funded, but it would cost a lot more than $500,000 in the Bureau of Prisons, to would address education, training, and those kinds of programs that would be remedial with regard to prisoners; and we could reduce the concerns that he is trying to address with this offset.

So on both ends, Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in support of my amendment. But before I describe the amendment, let me first note that Chairman Wolf has done a tremendous job with the narrow allocation he had.

However, the reductions and the eliminations proposed by the administration are really undermining our ability to protect our communities, to assist the neediest in our country, and to invest in cutting-edge innovations. All of those programs, addressing those concerns and those community needs are under the jurisdiction of this bill. This amendment takes a step to correcting those underfundings and those deficiencies.

First, Mr. Chairman, my amendment would provide an increase of $341 million to State and local law enforcement grants, restoring these grants to the full authorization level of $900 million. Federal assistance to State and local law enforcement has been cut by about $2 billion since 2001, and violent crime rates are up 2.5 percent, the largest percentage increase since 1992.

Now, Mr. Chairman, let me emphasize this. This is State and local law enforcement. This is the program the Federal Government has that assists State and local law enforcement in performing the protective function that

they have on a daily basis, dangerous job; and they don't have the resources. The Federal Government has recognized that State and local law enforcement does not have the resources to do its job. We have recognized that for a number of years, and we have programs to supplement their resources to ensure that they are able to do that.

But this bill, and the President's request over the last number of years, has by attrition cut by nearly $2 billion since 2001 Federal assistance to State and local law enforcement. Those are real cuts, and they have had real impacts. And the impact is best measured by the increase in violent crime by 2.5 percent since 1992.

Mr. Chairman, second, this amendment would provide an increase of $67 million to the Economic Development Administration, bringing the funding level up to the $327 million request. This would provide EDA with a $44 million increase above last year's enacted level to better provide for economically distressed regions with high unemployment and low incomes.

Third, this amendment provides an increase of $81 million to the Legal Services Corporation, bringing the amount near the fiscal year 1995 high water mark of $415 million. The bill currently provides $313 million to Legal Services Corporation, an increase of $3 million above the President's request, but a dramatic $12.7 million reduction from last year's enacted level.

Legal Services Corporation's budget has suffered cuts in each of the last three fiscal years, despite a steadily rising poverty rate. Need going up, funding going down for this program.

Fourth, this amendment provides $10 million to the Small Business Administration for microloans, which were zeroed out in the President's budget. However, during full committee, the chairman accepted an amendment to partially restore the funding. An additional $10 million is needed to fully fund the microloan program, which is the single largest source of funding for microenterprise development in the Nation, and helps high-risk business owners who seek grants of $35,000 or less, helping the neediest of our small business entrepreneurs.

Fifth, Mr. Chairman, this amendment provides an increase of $100 million for NASA science and education. Of this amount, $25 million would be for NASA education to reverse the trend of damaging cuts that we have seen in the past few years, restoring the funding to the fiscal year 2005 funding level of $178.9 million. The remaining $75 million is available to increase important science programs that have been cut seriously or eliminated.

In the NASA budget, as the President emphasizes space exploration, deemphasizes science and research, this amendment would change that, providing that additional funding, the amount cut, from science programs.

All this would be accomplished by an offset that would nick the average tax break for those with incomes of more than $1 million by 1.45 percent, or $1,657. Now, to a lot of taxpayers, and to the average American, $1,657 is a lot of money. But the average tax break before this amendment, for those with incomes more than $1 million, is $114,172. Voting for this amendment, if the amendment were made in order, would have invested $600 million back into law enforcement, low income, and millionaires would still receive a $112,000 tax break, just suffering $1,600 to do all that good, Mr. Chairman.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, I join Chairman Wolf in opposing this amendment.

The amendment would increase Byrne grants by $50 million. That is the good news. No question about it. We would like to have more money for law enforcement. The offset would be a corresponding reduction to the 2010 decennial census by $50 million.

It is totally unacceptable, Mr. Chairman. I go back to my original statement where I say that we are going to oppose a lot of amendments today that are good amendments except for the offset.

This is really the wrong place for this offset, which I might add is still totally inadequate to Census Bureau funding to meet the needs of our communities, not to mention that the law enforcement uses census data to determine how to allocate manpower and equipment.

An article by the Brookings Institute fellow Andrew Reamer speaks to this point, and I quote, crime mapping has emerged as a critical tool in ensuring that these scarce resources are used to the best effect. Crime mapping applications at the State and local level rely heavily on the Census Bureau's demographic and housing data.

For State and local crime mappers, the Census Bureau has the single most important population and housing data at the neighborhood level. This bill has been carefully crafted. Fifty million dollars out of the Census Bureau is a lot of money, which we cannot afford.

Remember, folks, we are moving to 2010 when we are going to do a new decennial census. Taking money out of the census today means that we are not able to do a good job with that tomorrow. I can remember when we had to do an emergency funding for the Census Bureau in the last census. I oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would rise to strike the last word and I don't intend to take 5 minutes. But I do want to make this point. You know, this is chickens coming home to roost.

If you voted for these budget resolutions that increasingly cut the allocation to the Appropriations Committee, and in turn the full appropriations committee gives smaller and smaller allocations to the subcommittees, this is where we get. We get to this point. I mean, there is a real relationship between voting for a budget resolution. The whole budget process, the hearings and making a budget, coming forth with a budget resolution, the whole process, in my opinion, is not real except that it does set the cap on domestic discretionary and defense spending. And that has gone down and down and down.

So now we are at the point that we have 100-about amendments offered here today, a lot of them from the majority side, a lot of them from the minority side, looking at the consequences of budget resolutions that don't provide adequate allocation. Everybody's looking at programs saying, oh, my goodness, you mean we are cutting law enforcement programs like this? You mean the President comes forward and zeroes out State and local law enforcement; the chairman comes back and tries to restore it but, boy, it is not enough. And Byrne grant programs. Golly, the allocation is not enough. Well, surprise. Budget resolutions mean something at the allocation level. The whole process gets down to how much money do we have for domestic discretionary.

Some folks are very concerned about NASA. Some folks are very concerned about science spending. Some folks are very concerned about law enforcement. Some people are concerned about the Bureau of Prisons.

Well, if you voted for the budget resolution, this is what you get, chickens coming home to roost. There is not enough money for these programs.

And I just want to make the point that when you get down to a really small pie, then you start cannibalizing good programs.

Are you suggesting that really that we don't need this $50 million for census programs? I mean, do we not need that?

The subcommittee went through a rigorous process of hearings. We went through a rigorous process with the majority staff, the chairman of the committee, coming forward with this bill. It is the best bill that can come forward given our allocation. We cut these census programs and the Justice Department isn't going to have the information it needs in order to spend its dollars wisely. You cut the census program, come 2010, we are not going to be able to conduct a proper census, decennial census. That is the consequences of it. You can cut it now. You can cut census program, you can try to cut some of these other programs, these unacceptable offsets. But there is a consequence for it. And what you are really acknowledging here tonight is that you shouldn't have voted for that budget resolution. You shouldn't have voted for a budget resolution that does not provide for an adequate allocation for us to do our job for law enforcement.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Chairman, I yielded back my time, but I would ask unanimous consent to claim any time I had remaining and to yield it to the gentlemen.

I do, Mr. Chairman.

I am only trying to yield it to the gentlemen.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Washington for introducing this modest amendment to help families across the Nation that are dealing with meth issues, and not only the families that have to deal with them but the law enforcement community, the people on the front line.

I want to thank you for your leadership, Mr. Reichert. Your experience and background as a law enforcement officer, somebody on the front line, has been instrumental to us in the United States Congress in this fight to empower our local police officers.

But I also want to thank the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee in charge, because Chairman Wolf knows what drugs has done to our families. The budget that was sent over to us zeroed these out, eliminated them. The chairman fought to get as much put back as he could, but we still need more. So I appreciate your efforts.

In Omaha, we have a real meth problem. It is affecting suburban housewives, teenagers, all segments and demographics of our community. I have personally seen how it ravages these families. I think it is important that we step up our efforts to rid this nasty drug from our communities. The only way to rid it from our communities is to empower the local law enforcement agencies.

Now, we have passed a meth law in this House that allows for pseudoephedrine to be put behind the counter. That makes it hard to do the labs now. Frankly, in States like Nebraska, Iowa, Oklahoma and Missouri that have done that, they have seen the number of labs go down. But now we have got gangs running meth from super labs in Mexico.

So as we take labs down, we still get inundated in our communities from these drugs from gangs now. And so it is extremely important that those people that know the gang members, know what they are doing can run the task forces. And here is a chart up here that shows just with meth, from the task

forces funded by this 5.54 kilos of meth taken off.

The National Association of Counties reports that 58 percent of counties ranked methamphetamine as their No. 1 drug problem in 2005, and CDC estimates at least 20,000 Americans die each year from drug abuse/overdose.

Byrne-JAG grants incentivize multi-jurisdictional drug enforcement and cooperation between local, state and federal law enforcement agents. These grants are the primary federal funds to discourage domestic production of methamphetamine.

The White House's 2007 budget request to Congress again eliminates funding for Byrne. In 2004, Congress provided $634 million to law enforcement agencies nationwide. Last year, the Senate voted to provide $900 million--closer to the original funding level for this program-- but the proposed bill provides just $367 million.

Since FY01, funding has been cut from over $1 billion to less than $367 million in the H.R. 5672. The effect of these cuts has been clear: many States have been forced to cut or completely eliminate their gang and drug task forces.

The $558 million reported as the funding level of Byrne-JAG includes $115 million in discretionary earmarks, and $75 million for Boys and Girls Clubs--leaving $367 million for state formula grants supporting drug and violent crime task forces.

The proposed $367 million funding level would cripple the effectiveness of drug task forces nationwide, and jeopardize the gains made in reducing nationwide violent crime to a 30-year low. The collaborative task forces built over the past 15 years to combat drugs cannot be easily rebuilt.

State and local agencies will take the brunt of meth investigations without federal assistance. More than 90 percent of drug arrests nationwide are made by state and local law enforcement.

Tom Constantine, former head of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) testified that the majority of DEA cases begin as referrals from local and multi-jurisdictional drug investigations. He was unaware of any major DEA case during his tenure that did not originate from information gathered at the state and local level.

Last year, Byrne task forces nationwide seized 5,600 meth labs, 55,000 weapons, and massive quantities of narcotics, including 2.7 million grams of meth. These results demonstrate the power of using federal dollars to leverage state and local partnerships.

Nebraska will be forced to eliminate 9 of 11 task forces unless Byrne-JAG funding is increased; Texas has already eliminated its task forces due to lack of funding, and New Jersey is considering the same course of action. Minnesota may be forced to discontinue its rural drug task forces, and only three of Missouri's 28 Byrne task forces would survive on state funding alone.

The fight against meth is the frontline of the Nation's war on drugs. The fastest-growing drug in the Nation, meth has produced a wider and more expensive array of problems than any other narcotic we have ever faced. And midwestern states such as Nebraska bear much of the brunt.

According to Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning, 60 percent of inmates in Nebraska jails have problems with meth. The number of people in Nebraska jails for possessing, selling or manufacturing meth has more than doubled since 1999.

Jails are overcrowded with meth addicts, many of whom require special medical care. Meth labs quickly become toxic waste dumps that can only be cleaned up with large amounts of manpower and financial resources. Worst of all, children in homes where meth is used or made are more often violently abused and neglected, and exposed to highly toxic chemicals.

Nationwide, law enforcement officers have dismantled more than 50,000 clandestine meth labs since 2001. Nearly half of those incidents occurred in just nine Midwestern and Plains states, including Nebraska.

The number of meth labs in Nebraska rose from 37 in 1999 to almost 300 in 2004. Fortunately, my State joined a growing coalition of States fighting against meth by enacting a new law in September to restrict the sale of pseudoephedrine. Since that time, the number of meth labs has fallen by a phenomenal 70 percent.

However, the problem is far from being solved since 80 percent of the meth in Nebraska is being trafficked from Mexico. This meth is far more addictive than what can be cooked in a typical ``Mom and Pop'' meth lab.

Thanks to Nebraska's new law, instead of using 80 percent of their resources to fight the home labs that comprised only 20 percent of the State's meth problem, Nebraska narcotic officers can now use more of their time to stop the inflow of Mexican meth.

Congress has played a role in combating the Nation's growing meth problem through Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grants for State and local law enforcement agencies. Unfortunately, these grants are endangered by the failure at the White House to recognize the significance of Byrne grants in combating meth and other illegal drugs nationwide.

Byrne task forces are the underpinning of our Nation's successful drug control strategy that brought us the lowest violent crime rates in 30 years. We must not turn back the clock in the war on drugs.

Mr. Chairman, I will be introducing, at the appropriate time, a letter from the national Legal Aid & Defender Association that says, in part, that the LSC-funded program simply cannot keep up with the demand for services. Documenting the Justice gap, a year-long study released by the LSC in October of 2005 revealed that at least 50 percent of eligible clients were turned away from LSC- funded programs due to a lack of resources.

In other words, for every client served, at least one eligible client was turned away. This statistic reflects the vast unmet need and is, nonetheless, an underestimate and does not take into account the countless people, eligible people, who did not seek assistance because they were not aware that the LSC programs could help them.

This letter says that we are extremely concerned that cuts to LSC- funded programs will have a harmful effect on our judicial system, our economy and businesses, and our society in general.

Mr. Chairman, it is significant that this letter is signed by approximately 60 general counsels of our Nation's leading corporations who are asking for this kind of amendment. Actually, they are asking for more resources, but at least this modest amendment ought to be adopted in response to this letter.

National Legal Aid & Defender

Association,

Washington, DC, June 26, 2006.

Hon. Robert C. Scott,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Scott: As the general counsel of some

of our nation's leading corporations, we are asking for your

help. The Legal Services Corporation (LSC), the primary legal

lifeline to millions of Americans in times of need, is in

jeopardy of having its already inadequate funding further

eroded. Today, LSC's funding is less than one-half of the

inflation-adjusted dollars that Congress appropriated in FY

1980, and ten million dollars less than the FY 2003

appropriation. In his FY 2007 budget request, President Bush

has proposed an additional 4.6 percent decrease from the

current $326.6 million appropriation to $310.9 million. We

are asking you to reverse this diminution of critical funds

by supporting the Corporation's FY 2007 budget request of

$411.8 million.

Due to recent cuts to the LSC appropriation and rising

inflation rates, LSC-funded programs have struggled to help

the growing number of our country's impoverished. Poverty

statistics show that between 2002 and 2004, the number of

people eligible for LSC services increased from 47 million to

49.7 million, which is about one in every six Americans.

Sadly, of these nearly 50 million people, more than one third

of them are children. To put clients' need in perspective: a

family of four must earn a meager $25,000 or less to qualify.

LSC-funded programs simply cannot keep up with the demand

for services. Documenting the Justice Gap, a year-long study

released by LSC in October 2005, revealed that at least 50

percent of eligible clients were turned away from LSC-funded

programs due to a lack of resources. In other words, for

every client served, at least one eligible client is turned

away. While this statistic reflects the vast unmet need, it

is, nonetheless, an underestimate and does not take into

account the countless eligible people who did not seek

assistance because they were not aware that LSC-funded

programs could help them.

We are extremely concerned that cuts to LSC funding will

have a harmful affect on our judicial system, our economy and

businesses, and our society in general. While we

are mindful of the severe fiscal constraints under which the

Congress finds itself, we ask you to act now to ensure that

essential civil legal services continue to make differences

in the lives of those in need. Please support a FY 2007 LSC

appropriation of $411.8 million and join us in upholding the

American promise of ``justice for all.''

Sincerely,

Kenneth C. Frazier, Merck & Co., Inc., Chair, NLADA

Corporate Advisory, Committee; Peter Arakas, LEGO

Systems, Inc.; Richard N. Baer, Qwest Communications

Corporation; Theodore N. Bobby, H.J. Heinz Company;

Paula Boggs, Starbucks Corporation; Charles Burson,

Esq., Monsanto Company; Carl J. Busch, Northrop Grumman

Corporation; Jim Carter, Nike Inc.; Robert J. Cindrich,

UPMC, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center; Mike

Cockrell, Sanderson Farms, Inc.; Bert Cornelison,

Halliburton Company; Julie A. Davis, Retail Ventures

Inc.; Morris Davis, Temple-Inland, Inc.; Dodds M.

Dehmer, W.G. Yates & Sons Construction Company;

Catherine A. Lamboley, Shell Oil Company, Immediate

Past Chair, NLADA, Corporate Advisory Committee; Nancy

C. Loftin, Pinnacle West Capital Corp. and APS; Louis

M. Lupin, QUALCOMM Incorporated; Charles W. Matthews,

Jr., ExxonMobil Corporation; Ron McCray, Kimberly-Clark

Corporation; Kevin M. McDonald, Anadarko Petroleum

Corporation; John H. McGuckin Jr., Union Bank of

California; Lee R. Mitau, U.S. Bancorp; O. Kendall

Moore, U-Save Auto Rental of America, Inc.; Richard

Olin, Costco Wholesale Corporation; Patrick T. Ortiz,

PNM Resources, Inc.; Joy Lambert Phillips, Hancock

Bank; Thomas E. Richardson, Town Pump, Inc.; Scott E.

Rozzell, CenterPoint Energy, Inc.;

Deborah Dorman-Rodriguez, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of

New Mexico; Paul Ehrlich, adidas International, Inc.;

Glenn M. Engelmann, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP;

Stephen F. Gates, ConocoPhillips; Craig B. Glidden,

Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP; Storrow Gordon,

Electronic Data Systems Corporation; Thomas A.

Gottschalk, General Motors Corporation; Andrew D.

Hendry, Colgate-Palmolive Company; Jim Hornstein,

Moldex Metric, Inc.; Michael Jines, Reliant Energy,

Inc.; James J. Johnson, The Procter & Gamble Company;

Murray L. Johnston Jr., Zachry Construction

Corporation; Guy Kerr, Belo Corp.; Ky Lewis, Sharp

HealthCare System; Mark I. Litow, Esq., Enterprise

Rent-A-Car Company; Dan D. Sandman, United States Steel

Corporation; David A. Savner, General Dynamics

Corporation; John Schulman, Warner Bros.; William F.

Schwind, Jr., Marathon Oil Corporation; Karen E. Shaff,

The Principal Financial Group; Lauri M. Shanahan, Gap

Inc.; Laura Stein, The Clorox Company; Ronald Taylor,

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas; Vivian Tseng,

Welch Foods Inc., A Cooperative; John E. Tucker, First

Tower Corp.; Rita Tuzon, Fox Cable Networks; Jack

VanWoerkom, Staples, Inc.; Jennifer L. Vogel,

Continental Airlines, Inc.; Michael T. Williams, Sony

Electronics Inc.; Wayne Withers, Esq., Emerson Electric

Company; Christopher J. Littlefield, AmerUs Group.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, when we talk about targeted policies that are aimed at improving the economic environment for small businesses, we are talking about this amendment. This is a bipartisan measure that has passed the House for the past 2 years.

Lowering the cost of the Small Business Administration's 7(a) loan program is a fiscally responsible, commonsense solution that will result in job growth and increased revenue.

The truth is that the program is simply too costly for this Nation's small businesses. The cost for start-up loans has increased by nearly $1,500 to $3,000, and for more established small businesses, the total cost can be as high as $50,000. This is money our Nation's small businesses are paying directly to the Federal Government.

As a result, entrepreneurs today are getting a more expensive loan that is almost 50 percent smaller than what it was just a few years ago, limiting their ability to start and expand their ventures. In fact, recent SBA figures show that the program is doing $160 million less than it was during the same time the previous year, showing how these rising costs are having an impact on lending.

This amendment would reverse this effect and would lower the cost of the 7(a) loan program.

To compound the problem further, entrepreneurs are also finding that they have fewer places to go to access this financing. In fact, the number of lenders willing to offer 7(a) loans has dropped in half over the past several years, leaving small firms scrambling to find vital sources of capital.

Today is an opportunity for us to take action to help relieve our small businesses of these burdens.

Fees have been raised four times over the past 2 years and are already at their maximum level. If we were to see a significant increase in interest rates, experience an economic downturn, or a regional crisis like what we saw in the gulf coast, this program would not be able to support itself. The result would be caps, limits on loan sizes, and even the shutdown of the program altogether. The adoption of this measure will enable us to avoid this type of lending crisis in the future.

This amendment is fiscally responsible and uses offsets from four different salaries and expense accounts so that no one agency is disproportionately harmed. In fact, it only takes $10 million from each agency, which amounts to less than 1 percent of the four S&E accounts.

Nearly 20 prominent small business groups are in support of this amendment, up from 14 last year, illustrating the demand from our Nation's small businesses for this type of action.

This is a program that is now doing nearly a half billion dollars less since the fees were raised. It is clearly not doing better, and it is certainly not benefiting this Nation's small businesses.

A ``yes'' vote is a vote to help this Nation's small businesses move forward as the drivers of our economy. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the Small Business Committee is saying that it will cost small businesses only 10 bucks a month. Well, these are the facts coming from the Small Business Administration: Costs have gone up $1,500 to $3,000, and now many small businesses are paying as much as $50,000 to the Federal Government.

Lending is down $160 million from this time last year and $400 million below before the fee increases were adopted. Fees are at the statutory limit, which means that any more costs will result in program caps or a shutdown.

Today, there are only half as many lenders making 7(a) loans. The 7(a) loans are 40 percent smaller than they were a few years ago. Lending last year was $2 billion below what the agency claimed they would do.

Those are the facts. And the chairman keeps talking about the banks and how taxpayers' money is paying $50,000 to the government, benefiting the banks. The only greedy one here is the Federal Government, which has increased four times their fees in the past years.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).

Mr. Chairman, at the beginning of the debate, the chairman said that only 10 bucks a month small businesses were paying. Now he admitted it is $3,500, at least, and the smaller small business loans are down.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a point of clarification that the $10 million is not taken from the blast mitigation, but from salary and expenses.

Mr. Chairman, today's amendment is about improving the economic environment for this Nation's small businesses. 7(a) loans cost twice as much today for small businesses, are nearly 50 percent smaller and the program is doing nearly a half a billion dollars less than before the fee increase was implemented. Women and veteran business owners receive $100 million less in lending this year, and rural business owners receive $300 million less. Just look at the numbers here. Enough is said.

This amendment will change this and allow small businesses to invest back into the firms, and, in turn, the U.S. economy. If you believe that small businesses, which make up the majority of our taxpayers, should be able to keep their money, then you need to vote ``yes'' on this amendment. However, if you prefer to see our government grow, rather than the U.S. economy, then you should vote against this measure today.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this measure.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.