Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5672) making appropriations for Science, the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes.

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 11 minutes.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to begin consideration of H.R. 5672, making appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for Science, the Departments of State, Justice, Commerce, and related agencies. This bill provides a funding for programs whose impact ranges from the safety of people in their homes and communities to the conduct of diplomacy around the world and to the farthest reaches of space exploration.

The bill before the House today reflects the delicate balancing of needs and requirements. We have drafted what I consider a responsible bill for fiscal year 2007 spending levels for the Departments and agencies under the subcommittee's jurisdiction. We have carefully prioritized the funding in the bill and made hard choices about how to spend the scarce resources.

We have been very fair. We, the entire Committee, have been very fair with each and every Member that has approached the subcommittee as we went through this entire process.

I want to thank Chairman Lewis for supporting us with what I believe is a fair allocation and helping us to move the bill forward. I also want to thank the ranking member, Mr. Mollohan, who has been a very effective and valued partner and colleague on the bill. I appreciate his principled commitment and understanding of the programs in the bill.

I also want to thank members of the subcommittee for their help and assistance: Charles Taylor, Mark Kirk, Dave Weldon, Tom DeLay, Virgil Goode, John Culberson, Rodney Alexander, Jose Serrano, Bud Cramer, Patrick Kennedy, Chaka Fattah, and also Mr. Obey, the ranking member of the full committee.

I truly appreciate the professionalism and cooperation of the minority staff. In particular, I want to thank David Pomerantz, Michelle Burkett, Sally Moorhead, Julie Aaronson and Rob Nabors from the Democratic staff, who have been an enormous help during all the long hours spent putting this bill together.

I also, Mr. Chairman, want to thank the members of the subcommittee staff on both sides for their long hours to produce the fiscal year 2007 Science, State, Justice, Commerce bill. I would like to particularly thank Mike Ringler, the clerk of the subcommittee, who has done an outstanding job and really spent hours and hours away from his family, as have the others, and who has led the subcommittee through the House appropriations process.

I also want to thank publicly and personally Christine Kojac, John Martens, Anne Marie Goldsmith, Clelia Alvarado, and Darryl Hill for their tireless efforts. Their work is very much appreciated. Only a handful of us know how much time and effort they have put in, but I want to thank them. And the record ought to show, frankly, when history looks back, who gets credit for a lot of what has taken place.

In my personal office, I would like to thank Dan Scandling, Janet Shaffron, J.T. Griffin, Samantha Stockman, and Courtney Schlieter for their efforts in working with the subcommittee; and from the minority, if I left out anybody, I mentioned, I think, Dave Pomerantz, Michelle Burkett, and Julie Aaronson, but also Rob Nabors for their efforts with regard to this.

We have worked in a bipartisan manner. And that is just not rhetoric for the Congressional Record, but it has truly been a bipartisan effort in putting the bill together. And as a former staff member up here on Capitol Hill, I personally want to thank each and every one of them. They have really done an outstanding job.

The bill contains $59.8 billion in discretionary spending. At a time of fiscal constraint, we have developed a bill that preserves critical domestic and international programs while living within our allocations. We have had to make some difficult choices and focus limited resources on programs that are most critical to the Nation. Program increases are focused on the most critical areas, including science and competitiveness, counterterrorism, and law enforcement.

For the Department of Justice, the bill includes $22.1 billion, $1 billion above the request. The bill includes a total of $2.57 billion for proven State and local law enforcement crime-fighting programs to keep our communities safe.

We have restored, and I stress the word ``restored,'' $1.1 billion above the request to the highest priority programs, including SCAAP, justice assistance grants, and juvenile justice programs, all which the Administration proposed to eliminate or dramatically reduce. That is $1.1 billion with a ``B.''

The bill also includes important new investments to fight the national epidemic of methamphetamine abuse; $367 million for justice assistance grants to support local drug task forces, a $50 million increase; $99 million in grants to combat meth, a $36 million increase; and $40 million for drug courts, a $30 million increase, which is a 300 percent increase in drug courts; and a $15 million increase for DEA to support State

and local efforts to fight international trafficking.

Gangs pose one of the greatest threats to the safety and security of all Americans. Today, gangs are more violent, more organized, and more widespread than ever before. This bill focuses funding on fighting gangs and gang violence. We have increased the FBI and the ATF antigang programs, and restored funding to the gang resistance training program. In addition, we have supported a $40 million gang program following the Project Safe Neighborhoods model that would allow each U.S. Attorney's Office to finance antigang strategies in cooperation with State and local law enforcement.

The bill also includes $6.04 billion for the FBI to include counterterrorism and counterintelligence capabilities, while continuing to fight crimes such as child exploitation, human trafficking, and gang violence. Again, programs we have increased far over the administration level.

I would also like to highlight that the bill continues funding for the eight faith-based rehabilitation programs in the Federal prison system and recognizes the success that faith-based programs have had in reducing recidivism. Before I got elected to Congress I was involved in a prison program. You must give these men and women hope and an opportunity. So, I think this is a very important program at all the State, local, and Federal levels.

Statistically, two out of every three inmates are likely to re-offend and end up back in prison, often with only days or months in their release. Therefore, it is critical we promote programs that help break this cycle, thereby improving the safety and the security of our communities. In light of the success the values-based programs have had in this regard, I encourage the Bureau of Prisons and state departments of correction to continue alternative treatment programming that emphasizes the teaching of positive social values and reform character.

It is immoral just to warehouse people and not give them any rehabilitation, faith-based programs, mental health or other programs. I have long been a supporter of these value-based types of programs and think they should be continued in Federal and State prisons. I hope that Congress will work to protect these programs.

If you take these programs away, faith-based, mental health, what type of society will we have?

In Science, the other focus in the bill this year is science and competitiveness. The capacity to innovate is the primary engine of our economy and our way of life. In order to sustain it, we must increase our investment in basic scientific research and strengthen science education.

For this reason, the bill fully funds the President's American Competitiveness Initiative, which includes a recommitment to doubling the funding for basic science research over 10 years.

We have dramatically increased the NSF and NIST.

For NASA, the bill includes $16.7 billion.

I want to thank NASA and NIST chairman Sherwood Boehlert and Vern Ehlers, who really played a major role in this, and Mr. Mollohan.

In NASA, the bill restores $100 million of the cut proposed to the aeronautic research and responds to the lower than anticipated increases for space science programs.

The space shuttle is set to launch on Saturday, and the bill before you includes full funding for the shuttle program to support the completion of the International Space Station and continuation of the shuttle safety improvements.

In Commerce, we have dealt with critical functions of the National Weather Service and NOAA's weather and climate forecasting.

We have also included a 5.2 percent increase for the PTO and an increase of $72 million. For the State Department, and the broadcasting Board of governors, a recommendation of $9.66 billion within this Federal, $1.7 billion to provide full funding request for worldwide security and improvements.

We have included the requested funds for international peacekeeping to pay the assessed costs for missions in Sudan, Haiti and elsewhere. We have included language to require notification to the Committee that prevention and prosecution measures are taken to ensure zero tolerance in sexual abuse in peacekeeping. We also added language supporting the maintenance of a flat U.N. budget.

On the Small Business Administration, we have provided $90 million for small business development grants, a $2 million increase; also allows up to $17.5 billion in general 7(a) business loans, an unprecedented level, while requiring no appropriation.

In closing, a summary of the bill provides the increase necessary to maintain strength in critical law enforcement, fight terrorism, deal with drugs.

I again want to thank the staff and thank the committee.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN06.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN06.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN06.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN06.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN06.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN06.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN06.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN06.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN06.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN06.010

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to Mr. Lewis, the chairman of the full Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I recognize Mr. Kirk, a member of the committee, for 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), chairman of the Science Committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), who has really done a lot of work on a very important issue with Mr. Rogers.

Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Hobson. I want to thank Mr. Hobson, Mr. Rogers and Mr. Kingston for their leadership. This should be called the Hobson-Rogers-Kingston bill to help the FBI. They have done a great service.

I support the establishment of a Housing Allowance Program within the level of funds provided for the FBI in the bill and look forward to working to protect the retirement benefits of the supervisory special agents. Mr. Hobson, Mr. Rogers and Mr. Kingston, thank you very much.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Yes, that is my understanding. The Antiterrorism Reserve is a separate portion of the Crime Victims Fund, and there is a statutory authority allowing obligations to be made on top of any limitation carried in this bill.

Frankly, the administration never sent a rescission up again with regard to this.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I thank my colleague from Texas. The bill includes $10.69 million specifically for victims programs authorized by the Justice for All Act, which is $1 million above the President's request, and includes $176 million for DNA grants not earmarked, which is $68 million above the current level. As we work with the Senate in conference, we will work to ensure the highest level possible for all the programs authorized by the Justice for All Act.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island, a member of our subcommittee, for raising this very, very important issue.

As you mentioned, dealing with the issues of substance abuse and prisoners is a critical component of ensuring that they do not repeat their crimes. Reducing recidivism of prisoners is a goal that those of us on both sides of the aisle can support.

I appreciate the gentleman's commitment. We will see what we can do with regard to coordination. The gentleman has been very faithful in raising this over and over. We will try to help in every way possible.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman. Just look at the weather we have been having here in the Washington, D.C., area the last several days.

I would like to thank the gentleman from North Carolina for his leadership on the issue. We look forward to working with him on the issue as the bill moves forward.

The gentleman from California is correct.

The committee is aware of the circumstances surrounding the Mendota facility and will work with the gentleman from California.

I thank the gentleman from Texas, who is very, very, very persistent. I agree with his description of the intent of the language and acknowledge that the report should reflect what was passed by the committee last week as described by gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Wisconsin for her very, very hard work and leadership on this issue.

The committee shares her concern of providing sources of capital for small businesses and makes a very compelling point. The committee supports this small business investment company, SBIC, program, another SBA program that provides equity investments to small businesses. The committee also understands that the NMVC program is still operational and that the SBA is still monitoring the work of the existing NMVC companies.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman would yield, the committee notes your concern; and we will do everything we can to help.

Mr. Chairman, I most certainly will work with the gentlewoman from Ohio on this project. This is very, very important.

You had lobbyists downtown lobbying for the Khartoum government on the issue of Darfur, where this House has voted, saying that what is taking place in Darfur is genocide, and yet you actually had a high- level official who had worked at the State Department and National Security Council out there representing the Khartoum government.

You also have a number of law firms in this city that are now representing China, and I do not know how you live with yourself if you represent China and you are an American citizen. We had a meeting yesterday and we found out there are now 40 Catholic bishops and priests in jail in China today, 40. There are 4 to 6,000 evangelical house church people in jail today in China, and yet some of the big law firms downtown are representing China.

And then the beat goes on. You have them representing China with regard to what is taking place in the Uighurs, what is taking place with the Dalai Lama and in Tibet.

So I think the gentlewoman's amendment and position is exactly right. We will do everything we can to make sure that it is on line so we can find out who has the audacity to represent Sudan and the Khartoum government during the days of genocide and the same thing with regard to China.

So we will look forward to working with the gentlewoman.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Washington for raising this issue. He has talked to me so many times, and I appreciate his persistence.

I want to thank him for his leadership on issues important to law enforcement and the fight against meth and the spread of gangs in our communities. I understand your perspective on this concern as a former law enforcement officer, and I am glad I was able to work with you to provide increased funding under the COPS program; and, frankly, if we could do more when we get to conference, we will be glad to do that.

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

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 890 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only.

Madam Speaker, H. Res. 890 is an open rule, and it provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. This resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and provides that under the rules of the House, the bill shall be read for amendment by paragraph. This resolution waives points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI, prohibiting unauthorized appropriations or legislative provisions in an appropriations bill, except as specified in the resolution.

It authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record and provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. This resolution provides that it shall be in order, any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, to consider concurrent resolutions providing for adjournment of the House and Senate during the month of July and provides also that H. Res. 878 is laid on the table.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 890 and the underlying appropriations bill.

H.R. 5672 will fund many of the priorities of this Nation, combating terrorism and crime, strengthening our economy, fostering diplomatic relations and, finally, advancing scientific growth and innovation throughout this country. Each of these priorities is essential to ensure a stronger and a more secure America, and this bill increases funding over last year for almost each and every one of these priorities.

I should also add, to the credit of the committee, under the leadership of Chairman Wolf, that this bill also contains almost $200 million in savings for our taxpayers. I want to thank Chairman Wolf for his stewardship of this bill.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 5672 provides $22.1 billion for the Department of Justice. That is almost $724 million above last year, and it is $1 billion above the President's request.

This $22 billion includes $6 billion for the FBI, as they develop and execute better ways to combat terrorism and fight various forms of crime, from child exploitation to gang violence. This increased funding means improved information technology, better counterintelligence capabilities, and a greater number of highly trained human assets on the ground.

Additionally, because State and local law enforcement play a fundamental and a critical role in fighting crime, this bill includes $2.6 billion for their efforts. And that is an increase of $1.1 billion over the President's request.

H.R. 5672 also includes $558 million for the Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grants program. That is $147 million over last year, fiscal year 2006.

And to fight this scourge of methamphetamines which sadly pervades so many of our communities, including those of my own, Georgia's 11th, this bill provides $1.75 billion for the Drug Enforcement Administration, the DEA.

Unquestionably, this bill demonstrates the commitment of this Congress, working with the President, to continually reassess and strengthen our security and our law enforcement priorities, ensuring that threats at home and abroad are identified and neutralized.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 5672 also provides $22.7 billion to fund our Nation's scientific priorities, with $16.7 billion for NASA as well as $6 billion for the National Science Foundation. Having practiced as an OB-GYN for almost 30 years, I cannot emphasize enough the importance of encouraging scientific advancement in saving lives and improving our quality of life. Scientific innovation also captivates the minds of our children and other generations to come as they dream to develop technologies that will change the world of tomorrow.

Madam Speaker, this bill also includes funding to further improve the world of today by providing $9.7 billion for the State Department. Of that, $1.7 billion goes to secure and replace our vulnerable embassies throughout the world.

H.R. 5672 includes $5.95 billion for the Department of Commerce, $900 million for the Securities and Exchange Commission, $294 million for the Federal Communications Commission, and $213 million for the Federal Trade Commission.

Madam Speaker, these dollars are essential to not only building a stronger economy but also ensuring a fair and a level playing field for everyone who participates in this economy.

Madam Speaker, last but not least, this bill also includes $643 million for the SBA, the Small Business Administration, which will support business loans to help entrepreneurs across our great Nation access critical start-up capital for new businesses. Without question, our economy is driven by small businesses and the entrepreneurs who are willing to take a chance and turn a dream into a reality.

In conclusion, this bill also makes provisions for three very important programs in the 11th Congressional District of Georgia. I want to mention these because they are so important.

The Inner Harbor EXCEL Program in Rockmart, Georgia, in Polk County, provides quality services for at-risk youth and offers a viable alternative to incarceration. It funds the Douglas County Zero to Three Program which helps the county's juvenile courts to better address the needs of neglected and maltreated infants and toddlers.

And, lastly, the National Association of Court Management, which aims to improve our courts and develop related educational programs.

I want to again thank Chairman Wolf for his support of these programs which are so very important to the people of northwest Georgia.

Madam Speaker, as we move forward with this debate, I want to encourage my colleagues to please support this rule and support the underlying bill as we stand together in support of funding our Nation's priorities.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I want to yield as much time as he might consume to the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, in regard to some of the minimum-wage arguments the gentleman from Wisconsin is making, I want to point out, and these are not my statistics, but these are accurate statistics, that one-third of minimum-wage workers are children of the head of a household. Over half, 52 percent, actually of minimum-wage workers are under 25 years old. Less than 1 percent of minimum-wage workers are in households with a total income of $20,000 or less.

The big concern, of course, Madam Speaker, in regard to minimum wage, and I am certainly not suggesting that that issue might not be considered by this Congress in a more appropriate setting than this appropriations bill, indeed it might, and indeed we may need to raise that minimum wage somewhat, but we have to be very, very careful that in the process we don't destroy some of these jobs.

The gentleman talked about a situation with his own mom, and there are plenty of people in those situations. But if we raise the minimum wage to too high a level, then they won't have any job at all to come home from.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), a hardworking member of the Appropriations Committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

The gentleman is talking about how he would pay for his amendment that would cost $600 million. Madam Speaker, I think it is important that we point out that they always say how much of a tax break people making more than a million dollars, and they talk about a $114,000 tax break, and we are going to cut that down to $112,000, but they never say, the gentleman from West Virginia certainly did not say, how much these people with an adjusted gross income of over $1 million are actually paying in taxes every year. It is a huge number, and they do not want to share that with the fellow Members.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time I have no additional requests for time, so I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, in response to some of the comments the gentlewoman from Connecticut was making, and the gentleman from Wisconsin earlier said in his remarks that they wanted an opportunity, and was taking an opportunity on this bill, to discuss the minimum wage issue even though it was not the appropriate format, and I agree with that, I think that the discussion of this issue certainly would be more appropriate for the next appropriations bill that we will be considering, Labor-HHS. Or maybe it will come up even as a stand-alone measure. I do not know.

But it just seems to me that on this appropriation bill, Science, State, Justice and Commerce Appropriations Act, that this is not the right format to bring up the issue.

I do not question the gentleman's right or any of the Members on the other side of the aisle who have spoken during this rule time about the minimum wage issue. But this is not something that this is the last opportunity to get this done.

I want to say, Madam Speaker, too, in regard to this issue, listen to this, minimum wage hikes pit low-skilled adults against teenagers from higher income families. This was an article in a newspaper May 13, 2004.

Employers react to minimum wage hikes by replacing low-skilled adults with teenagers from high-income families who are drawn into the job market by better pay. Decades of research confirmed what President Roosevelt's Department of Labor found just 1 year after the minimum wage made its debut in 1938.

In a number of instances there have been reports that workers who have been receiving less than the minimum wage have been laid off and replaced by more efficient workers. Minimum wage hikes can destroy jobs and destroy them permanently. When jobs are destroyed by minimum wage hikes, those jobs often never come back.

Again, this is a newspaper article from May 13, 2004. Following minimum wage increases, employers often replace less skilled employees with machines or simply reduce the level of service to customers. Businesses automate their telephone reception. Fast food diners bus their own tables. Gas stations go self-service. Shoppers scan and bag their own groceries.

The point I am making, Madam Speaker, is that you have to be, and I know the gentleman from Wisconsin certainly understands these issues as well as anybody, but the concern is that you do not want to destroy jobs by raising the minimum wage to a level, that this in fact happens, as I quoted from some of these articles in past statistics.

I do not think that this side of the aisle is opposed to looking at this issue, and, again, whether it is on the Labor-HHS bill or whether it is on a stand-alone situation, but I do not think this is the appropriate time to have this debate.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I just want to make sure that the gentleman from Wisconsin knows that this Member voted against giving himself a COLA and has consistently done

that in the two terms that I have served.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, in regard to minimum wage increases and the hope, the fact is that as minimum wage increases, hope for job seekers decrease. A Duke University economist found recently that for every 10 percent increase in mandated wages, the probability of job seekers finding a job decreased by nearly 3 percent, according to the Employment Policies Institute.

Other top researchers found similar results. This one, a Boston University study, noted that low-skilled adults in States that raise their minimum wage are often crowded out of the job market by teens and students.

Research from Michigan State University echoed this conclusion, finding that high-skilled teens are those who are perceived as desirable employees often displace low-skilled employees in a minimum wage job after a mandated wage hike.

Madam Speaker, I rise again in support of this rule and in recognition of the importance of this underlying bill.

H.R. 5672 funds the critical operations of our government from the diplomatic affairs of the State Department to the law enforcement activities of the Justice Department.

Additionally, it provides funds for the various watchdog agencies that ensure a free and fair economic playing field for businesses and consumers alike.

This bill has substantial funding for sciences, to make sure that America stays on the forefront of medical and technological innovation as we continue to reach for the stars, both literally and figuratively.

While some critics may call for more funding of this program or that program, they not only fail to realize the limited funds available in this Federal budget but also fail to fully appreciate the hard work of the subcommittee in balancing our funding needs with the need to respect the taxpayer dollar.

Madam Speaker, while this bill may not be perfect, no bill is, it is a good bill that sets priorities and it sets a solid vision for the future on multiple fronts.

So, in conclusion, I again want to thank subcommittee Chairman Wolf, Ranking Member Mollohan, full committee Chairman Lewis and for all of the hard work and the time that went into this bill before us today.

I want to encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this rule and the underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

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

Mr. Chairman, I first want to compliment Chairman Wolf on his efforts with regard to this bill. He has had a really tough job balancing the subcommittee's portfolio, which is considerable, with diverse important programs. He has managed in a very tough budgetary climate. I truly admire his passion, and his conviction, which are all evident in this bill.

Chairman Wolf characteristically does an excellent job, and certainly his experience working for a number of years on this bill has served him well in a very difficult situation. He is to be complimented here today.

There are very definitely some great things, Mr. Chairman, that can be said about this bill. Federal law enforcement is fully funded. Many of those accounts, such as the U.S. Attorney's account, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Bureau of Prisons, are all funded above the President's requested level. Some are funded at the requested level, such as the U.S. Marshal's service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

This funding is a priority. It is important, and I support the Chairman's efforts to provide it.

The bill also fully funds the American Competitiveness Initiative, which in this bill will double over 10 years the research and development lines for physical science and engineering at NIST and the National Science Foundation.

Two significant funding improvements were made during full committee. The chairman accepted an amendment to increase funding for the Survey of Income and Program Participation by $10 million and accepted an amendment providing partial funding for the SBA Microloan program. These are two programs that many Members expressed concern about, and I am pleased the amendments were adopted after being accepted by the chairman.

Mr. Chairman, a number, around 80 to 90 at last count, of well- meaning Members will offer amendments today. We ought to be offering amendments to increase law enforcement funding. We ought to be offering amendments to restore science funding at NASA and to help NASA with the expensive and numerous tasks on its plate. We ought to be offering amendments to increase funding for the Economic Development Administration.

The list of programs needing more funding in this bill goes on and on. But the funding just isn't there. The offsets just aren't there. These well-intentioned amendments will come at the cost of important programs when they are offered up as offsets, important programs such as the census, U.N. peacekeeping efforts, salaries and expenses at the Department of State, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Commerce, which have already been cut back.

I just want to take a moment, Mr. Chairman, to remind Members about why many of these amendments will need to be opposed. It is because the insufficient budget resolution that was passed on this floor has resulted in a narrow allocation for this bill that will not allow us to fund all of the priorities that Members will advocate for on the floor.

As a matter of fact, the number of amendments that are being offered today is the greatest number that I can ever remember being offered on this bill. But they have been increasing every year as that budget allocation has become smaller and smaller because of the budget resolutions that we passed at the beginning of this process.

The number of amendments offered here today is in and of itself, I think, one of the best indicators that we are not providing enough money for domestic discretionary programs. Members are recognizing that program by program by program. Members are offering amendments, trying to increase funding for those programs, those worthy programs that I just mentioned.

It is beginning to really hurt. It is beginning to really hurt law enforcement, beginning to really hurt NASA and other science programs. It is beginning to really hurt economic development programs.

For example, I know the chairman is committed to providing adequate funding for our Nation's law enforcement, the men and women who put their lives on the line every day in the name of public safety back in our communities. The President's budget cut $1.3 billion out of State and local law enforcement, about half of the funding provided in fiscal year 2006.

Now, let me repeat that. The request that the President of the United States sent to the United States Congress cut $1.3 billion out of State and local law enforcement, about half the funding that we provided last year. These funds are important resources to the men and women who are keeping our districts safe, our communities safe.

Chairman Wolf restored $1.1 billion of this funding, for a total of $2.3 billion for Federal assistance to State and local law enforcement. That is what is in this bill, $2.3 billion for Federal assistance to State and local law enforcement.

Last year, Mr. Chairman, the Congress provided $2.5 billion for State and local law enforcement. That was $1 billion above the President's request then, but $300 million below the 2005 level. The 2005 level that we passed here was $1.2 billion above the request, but $200 million below the 2004 level. The 2004 level was $500 million below the 2003 level, and the 2003 level was $500 million below the 2002 level. The 2002 level was $400 million below the high water mark for Federal assistance to State and local law enforcement of $4.4 billion in 2001.

While we see what is happening here, the bottom line is that we have cut about $2 billion in funding for State and local law enforcement since 2001. Well, do we care about that? Does that have an effect? Well these cuts, Mr. Chairman, are not without consequences.

Preliminary data from the FBI's uniform crime report for 2005 indicate that violent crime rates have increased 2.5 percent from 2004 to 2005. This is the largest increase since 1992. Is anyone surprised? Certainly not.

Violent crime rates fell steadily from 1993 to 2002, and this nearly coincides with the establishment of the community policing program known as the COPS program under the Clinton administration. The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, COPS, was created in 1994; 100,000 police officers were put on the beat by funds provided under the COPS program.

Consider these facts. COPS funded its 100,000th community policing professional in May of 1999, and violent crime rates continued to fall. Congress funded State and local assistance programs at $4.4 billion, their highest level in 2001. Violent crime rates dropped between 2001 and 2002. Congress decreased State and local law enforcement funding in 2002 by $400 million, as I mentioned before, and violent crime rates increased in 2003 and rose again in 2004 and rose again dramatically in 2005, coinciding with the lack of assistance coming from the Federal Government to help our State and local law enforcement.

Well, Mr. Chairman, there is a correlation between the funding we provide here in this committee for State and local law enforcement and incidents of violent crime. There is a relationship.

With respect to this bill, Mr. Chairman, the President's fiscal 2007 budget, for the second year in a row, contained a .02 cents per pound tax on the users of explosives. My State, due to its extraction industry, would bear the largest share of the burden with this tax. The repeated proposal of this tax by the President, coupled with the inadequate allocation provided our subcommittee, has resulted in an insufficient budget resolution; and this placed the chairman, Chairman Wolf, in a very difficult position. So he used part of that tax, understanding that in the process this would be challenged, and at the appropriate point, Mr. Chairman, during consideration of this bill, I intend to make a point of order against this tax. We appreciate the Rules Committee not protecting this provision.

Well, anyone on this subcommittee knows of the chairman's passion for helping the weakest and most vulnerable in our society. To that end, Chairman Wolf restored $367 million to the Justice Assistance Formula Grant Program funds that helps our youngest and our most troubled citizens. These funds were zeroed out by the President, and I applaud Chairman Wolf for restoring them.

Further, in continuance of his commitment to assisting law enforcement with the ever-increasing gang epidemic in this country, Chairman Wolf has restored $25 million cut from the President's budget from the anti-gang initiative in the COPS program.

In the Department of Commerce, the funding provided for the American Competitiveness Initiative came at a price. One of the programs that couldn't be fully restored is the Manufacturing Extension Partnership. This program is very important to basic industry areas across this country. Mr. Chairman, the President slashed the funding for this program but the chairman doubled it, bringing it to $92 million, about $17 million below last year's enacted program.

Another program that suffers is the Advanced Technology Program, which was eliminated by the President. We are able to fully fund the decennial census and the American Community Survey. I well remember the problems that arose during the last census and the fight for emergency funding for census on the floor, and full funding this year keeps us on track for the future.

In NASA, the President's budget request again made dramatic reductions to science and aeronautics funding, as NASA tries to fit in these programs and the return to flight, the International Space Station and the Moon-Mars proposal at the same time it fails to deliver on promised funding. The chairman again is forward-looking in his restoration of $75 million to the science programs and $100 million to aeronautics, which is a huge contributor to the American economy. Despite these increases, however, funding levels will still generate cause for alarm from our science community.

The bottom line is, for all of these programs and numerous others that I have not mentioned, $59.8 billion is simply not enough. The chairman has been extremely responsive to Members and to the needs of the people who benefit from these programs, restoring and increasing where he was able to do so in this tight allocation. But, despite these noble efforts, we have seen for the past several years and will see again this year programs being whittled away through attrition by the administration that is reducing necessary discretionary spending in the name of balancing a budget which, in truth, these actions would demonstrate the administration has no intention of balancing.

One could easily make the argument that this bill needs several billion dollar in additional funding, increased funding for the Economic Development Administration, for the Small Business Administration Microloans, for Legal Services Corporation, for funding above the restoration that the Chairman provided for State and local justice programs, funding for OSHA and for fisheries programs in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a program supported by so many Members here. More funding is needed for life sciences funding at NASA and biology funding at the National Science Foundation and the perceived need to accelerate the Crew Exploration Vehicle at NASA to maintain the United States' access to space after shuttle retirement. These all add up quickly.

Each of these is a need for which I have heard support, either from constituents or from the community at large or from other Members.

And each of these needs has meritorious arguments for funding. I would hope all Members would view favorably any opportunity to seek an increased allocation to support these critical programs.

I would like to again note how fortunate we are to have had such a principled chairman for the past 6 years. It has been an honor to work with you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to working with you again next year, regardless of whether you remain on this subcommittee or move to another one.

And, Mr. Chairman, I would like to note that every member of the minority on this subcommittee has equally high regard for the chairman, as he has worked with more than one of us as his ranking member.

I also would like to thank the majority staff, Mike Ringler, Christine Kojac, John Martens, Anne Marie Goldsmith, Clelia Alvarado and Darryl Hill, as well as J.T. Griffin from the chairman's personal staff, for the fair and open way in which they have worked with the minority in crafting this bill. Our input and the chairman's output was accepted at every turn.

I also want to thank the minority appropriations staff, David Pomerantz, Michelle Burkett, and Chris Martin for their tireless efforts. And I want to thank Sally Moorhead and Julie Aaronson, of my personal staff, for their valuable work on this bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Obey.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), who served as the ranking member on this subcommittee in the last several years.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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.