Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during consideration of H.R. 3093 pursuant to House Resolution 562, the Chair may reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting under clause 6 of rule XVIII and clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that reduced-time voting in the Committee of the Whole may span the intervention of a rising of the Committee for the administration of the oath of office to a Representative-elect in the House.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and at the same time, let me compliment her for her leadership in this area and her concern for this huge problem and these extremely important programs that are focused in these organizations.

We have funded this account handsomely. The bill provides $61.4 million for missing children programs. As we move to conference, I know the gentlelady is interested in funding for particular organizations to focus on the problem. We are as well. At the same time, we want the universe to be able to access these programs, and that's the way we have structured our bill.

As we move toward conference, we look forward to working with the gentlelady with regard to her particular concerns in this area.

Well, we are and we will work toward that. I know that we are going to become more specific in these accounts as we move toward conference. We anticipate that, and we look forward to working with the gentlelady in that regard.

There have been earmarks for it, and what we are looking forward to doing is working with the Senate on this, and we anticipate and will work with the gentlelady to do just that.

I can't commit to a specific result here, but I can assure the gentlelady that we will work for funding for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, as we move through conference. All this time working with her is all that I can commit to specifically.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Yes, and that's the intent of the committee, to work with you in this regard.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Mr. Etheridge's amendment. I can tell you that the beneficiaries of the Public Safety Officers' Benefit Program and the Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefit Program are extremely lucky to have advocates like Mr. Etheridge in the United States House of Representatives. I mention him first and most often because he has been all over this issue for the last 6 months, since I have been chairman of this subcommittee.

I am extremely pleased to see Mr. Reichert on this, a person who comes from law enforcement, who understands the issues of law enforcement, and is probably personally acquainted with cases of disappointment of beneficiaries under this program. It is tremendous that this program is bipartisan.

You can tell by Mr. Kennedy's remarks and the sincerity behind them that this is an issue of vital concern to the subcommittee as well. Mr. Kennedy has been championing Mr. Etheridge's cause and Mr. Reichert's cause through the process of this bill.

I give credit to these people because they have been especially attentive to this concern. It is, indeed, something that we should be concerned about.

As we talk about homeland security, as we talk about State and local law enforcement, and as we recommend a bill with this kind of funding to the House of Representatives, we have to be mindful of those people who have made sacrifices and who have suffered greatly. That's what these programs are about. That's why the Congress authorized them, and that's why we have provided appropriations for them.

It is not acceptable that the Department of Justice has not moved these beneficiary cases, with far greater expediency than they have. It is actually a denial of the benefit that some of these cases have been processed so slowly. So that's the initiative, that's the purpose of Mr. Etheridge's amendment.

I am pleased to accept the amendment because of its merit.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to my ranking member, who has likewise been passionate about ensuring that the Department of Justice moves these beneficiary programs in the Office of Justice programs.

Mr. Chairman, we accept the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I admit to being a bit confused by the gentleman's logic here, who I have great respect and great regard for. He comes out of an exemplary academic background, and I can't imagine how we could be thinking differently on this amendment. Nevertheless, we do, and I rise in strong opposition to the amendment as I understand it.

I am particularly pleased that the bill provides $80 million for State and local grants to address violent crime and gun crime across the Nation, the two issues that the gentleman expresses concern about. I hope he agreed with the committee when we increased funding for this purpose by $35 million over 2007. I have to oppose his amendment because of the offset of $15 million for law enforcement costs of offender reentry programs.

These are the programs that go hand in glove with our other law enforcement activities. Recidivism is a terrible problem. These programs establish partnerships with correctional institutions, with community corrections, with social services, with faith-based institutions and with community policing groups. They want to help make our communities safer.

Our Nation's prisons are bursting at the seams. In the Federal prisons alone we have an inmate population that has risen six-fold since 1980; we have 195,000 inmates in Federal prison. The recidivism rate is 40 percent, and in the States it is 67 percent. If we reduce those numbers, we are dramatically not only reducing crime in the country and reducing the recidivism rate in the process, we are doing both at one time. So these statistics being deplorable, we need more resources applied to addressing recidivism. For those reasons, I must oppose the gentleman's amendment.

In light of the fact that we have increased funding significantly for the violent gang and the gun crimes across the country by $35 million and by providing $80 million in this bill, that seems to be a healthy increase for that purpose that the gentleman expressed his concern about.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

It certainly is.

I can assure the gentleman that I am fully in support of his purpose. This is the first time that I have been introduced to his concerns specifically, and I am advised our staff haven't really talked.

I don't know if there is a way that the gentleman feels we can accommodate him.

I just can't believe that we cannot do that, if the gentleman would wish to withdraw his amendment.

I thank the gentleman.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this provision is simply a provision of fairness. It provides that contracting out of Federal employees in the U.S. Bureau of Prisons cannot be done under these A-76 guidelines and puts a prohibition on that.

Now, we have accommodated in our language in our manager's amendments all of the concerns that we received from private industry. We have accommodated that. And the bill and report language were modified in the full committee's manager's amendment to clarify that the general provision does not impact the Bureau of Prisons' practice of contracting with State, local and private entities to meet needs for existing and new prison capacity.

This language is compromise language. It protects Federal employees, professionals working in the Bureau of Prisons, who obviously have a very sensitive job and position, at the same time it accommodates the concerns of private industry with regard to appropriate contracting out by State and local and private entities.

I urge opposition to the amendment on that basis. The bill is a good, balanced approach and accommodates the Federal employees who risk their lives every day working in correctional situations, but at the same time it accommodates the legitimate concerns of the private sector.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and first of all, I want to acknowledge the compelling story of the gentleman from Indiana. That's truly moving. There's no two ways about it, and that's why we have this program, and that's why the subcommittee and the full committee strongly supported funding for VAWA and all of these grant programs, acknowledging at the same time that there are additional grant programs authorized under VAWA that have not received funding. We look forward to working on those, and this one in particular, as we move forward through conference.

But let me suggest to the body that we would love to increase funding for programs like this, the Violence Against Women Act Programs. There's more compelling argument for it, particularly as described.

Let me note, however, for the record that we have increased VAWA funding to $430 million. We rejected the President's proposal to shrink the grant program, actually to eliminate these individual grant programs, and to have a bloc grant program. We have continued to fund the various categories, and we certainly look forward to considering other authorized grant programs that are not currently funded.

We funded, at $430 million, VAWA programs, a $60 million increase over the President's request, and $47 million over the 2007 funding level. That is a sizeable increase to this very worthy program, not that there couldn't be more. So I can't argue for one second to either of my colleagues against adding funding to VAWA.

The real point is that we have significantly increased that funding because we share the concerns of the gentlemen who have spoken here, and I hope that we can all understand and agree with that.

We are again targeting offsets in a general administration account. A $14 million cut to the Department of Justice general administration account will require layoffs. And let me just put this in perspective. We've already had a $30 million cut to this account. We're down from $104 million in Department of Justice general administration to $74 million, and we're looking at another $14 million cut.

At some point, everybody has to appreciate that there has to be some money in these administrative accounts to administer these programs that we all care about, and we have to get real about this process. This is obviously a very strong and passioned expression of support for the programs we've authorized to prevent violence against women, and we're all working in that venue. The committee did it by increasing the funding by $60 million over the President's request, almost $50 million over last year. You're doing it here today by adding another $14 million. And we can't argue with the merit of that sentiment, but we can express concern and try to bring some reality to the offset suggested here.

We are cutting Department of Justice general administration accounts below the level in which they can effectively operate and administer the very programs which we are increasing.

So, reluctantly, I oppose the amendment. At the same time, I do look forward to working with the gentlemen, no matter what the outcome of the amendment, as the process moves forward.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for bringing this matter before the body again this year.

The point is being made that this particular act is not being funded and it should be. It's extremely meritorious. The sacrifice, and the dedication, the commitment of our law enforcement people throughout the country need to be recognized, and this is the reason we passed the legislation.

As we move this bill forward to conference, I hope that we can work with the gentleman and assure that there is funding on this provision, and we will commit to the gentleman to work with him in that regard.

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

I thank the gentleman from Texas for his tireless efforts on behalf of NASA. He has been working, I know, diligently in that vineyard all year long. I know, personally, because he has been contacting me and the committee in order to advance the best interests of NASA, to personally facilitate important meetings between the NASA Administrator, and I know the chairman of our full committee Mr. Obey, and several of our colleagues throughout the year.

These meetings and my talks with the gentleman from Texas have made it clear how important NASA funding is to the gentleman, significantly contributing to NASA's ability to meet all of its mission commitments.

The gentleman is to be commended for his commitment and his hard work on behalf of NASA and on behalf of NASA's employees. I will continue to work on the House floor and in conference to maintain funding levels as reported out of the subcommittee.

I sincerely appreciate the gentleman's interest and hard work.

As the gentleman knows, our bill funds NASA in excess of the President's request. We intend to work very hard between now and conference and through the signing ceremony to ensure that funding is maintained. The gentleman is a champion for NASA here in the House. I know he is working hard for that part of NASA that's back in his district, and we look forward to his support as we move forward.

I thank the gentlelady. I think this amendment is one more expression of a number one concern about the attention that education is getting in our various science accounts. We have attempted very diligently, pointedly, to address that by increasing funding in education accounts across the bill. This account, the NASA account, first of all, we broke it out as a separate account and then increased it by $66.6 million for a total of $220 million.

The fact that the gentlelady is reaching out to NASA, NASA should be listening. Universities, education, K-12, they want NASA. They realize how important, and the gentlelady realizes how important, NASA is to inspiring youth and also getting resources on programs and funding them. That's the gentlelady's purpose behind this.

I hope that the gentlelady will allow us to work with her to achieve her purposes as this bill moves forward within the funding allocations that we have received. I want her to know that I have heard her interest, and we intend to be responsive to her as we move forward. I commend her for her leadership in this area.

We will be as responsive as possible, and I appreciate the opportunity to do so.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentlelady for bringing this issue to our attention. I want her to know that the House knows she knows something about basic industry in America. She knows something about the challenges of transitioning economies, and she knows something about the importance of USTR trying to protect the very best interests of American citizens and American workers working in all sectors of the economy. From my perspective, I am particularly concerned about those workers in basic industry, in extraction-related industries in America.

A lot of us have concerns about the USTR and the Trade Representative's actual commitment to representing the very best interests of those sectors of our economy. As we transition into an increasingly international economic community, we have to be cognizant of the impacts of a trade policy that is precipitous to the point of creating real chaos and tremendous hardship, particularly in those sectors of the economy that I represent and that I know the gentlelady is particularly sensitive to.

So we need to provide oversight of the USTR as we encourage them to enforce our trade laws and to be aggressive advocates, advocates for our best interests as they approach our trading partners and trade negotiations. They should be looking at issues to balance and level the playing field, such as insisting that trade agreements include environmental laws that we have correctly imposed upon our industry and our manufacturing processes.

Incorporating those regulations into the manufacturing process is expensive. Our competitors around the world, many of them, particularly in the developing countries, don't have those costs. Where we have incorporated health and safety regulations in the workplace, statutorily imposed, that has cost money.

The USTR needs to be sensitive to that. The administration needs to be sensitive to that. It needs to incorporate those kinds of public interest concerns as they negotiate trade agreements.

Why? Why? Because we have done it, and we are their competitors. We are a country with a higher standard of living, and if we can't level the playing field with regard to regulatory activity, then we will never be able to begin to be competitive with our competitors from developing nations.

Let me again compliment the gentlelady for being focused on this very early in her career, being a champion for the working people, and for the best interests of our trade policy generally in all sectors of the economy, and for bringing this to our attention in this bill.

I can assure her that we will be sensitive in large part because of the concerns that she expresses here today. Thank you very much, Ms. Sutton, for bringing that to our attention.

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

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

I appreciate the gentlelady yielding.

The gentlelady is really at the forefront of this issue. She is co- chair of the 131 Member strong Congressional Missing and Exploited Children Caucus. She is to be commended for that. She has worked with me, she has worked with Mr. Frelinghuysen, she has worked with the committee. To some extent she can declare success because she is tenacious in getting additional funding for Missing Children's programs. She has been successful in increasing funding 100 percent, you could argue, since the President asked for no funding here.

But we would like to point out that in response to her and the caucus's expressions of concern to the committee, we have funded the Missing Children's program account to the tune of $61.4 million, which is $14 million above the 2007 enacted funding level. That is in large part because of her efforts, and we do appreciate it. She should declare success, and she should be proud of that. She is, as I say, tenacious. And speaking for myself, and Mr. Frelinghuysen who I know shares this interest, we look forward to working with her as we move forward. She is representing this caucus here today, and we look forward to trying to even increase this amount of money as we go to conference.

I want to thank her for her efforts and for helping the committee as we have marked up our bill and funded this account.

The gentlelady makes her point. And out of the Office of Justice programs, we funded the Missing Children account higher than any other programs. So she can take credit for a great success, and we appreciate her help.

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

Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment, again, not because of the intended purpose of the gentleman trying to do good here and getting additional resources into the crime victims fund. That's worthy.

It's being authorized at $625 million, this amendment would raise it to $635 million. And you might ask, if there are additional resources, why don't we disperse all of them?

Well, that's because that fund has to be managed to ensure that there's a source of funds that will remain available for the program despite the inconsistent levels of the criminal fees that are deposited there annually. So part of that is trying to manage the account to assure stability year in and year out so that funds will be available for victims to be paid out according to the authority.

I would like to point out that the gentleman's offset draws from an account that has been drawn from in the past, and it is the offset is in Commerce. We started out at $58.6 million at the beginning of the day. We've had a $25 million cut, a $10 million cut. This cut would take us down to $23 million, if my math is right. But if my math is not precisely right, my point should be taken that we've gone from $58.6 million down to approximately $23 million in this S&E account. That's a 60 percent reduction. There is going to be nobody left to administer these programs. And that's why we have to think very carefully.

And actually, folks coming here and offering amendments go through the same difficult exercise that the subcommittee and the full committee have gone through. How do you apportion funds when I would argue, the allocation is not adequate to fund all the worthy projects and to fund all of the people who need to administer the worthy projects in this bill?

A 60 percent cut the gentleman's amendment would effect in this S&E account, it simply cannot stand. So for that reason, I must oppose the gentleman's amendment.

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

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

I withdraw my point of order.

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

If I might, for the Department of Commerce here, the S&E account is now down to $18 million if the last two amendments are adopted and you add it to the offsets that were affected by the amendments that have already passed. The Department of Commerce S&E account, they are just going to have to shut down their office again. I would just encourage Members, when they offer these amendments, to get serious about the offsets. And, my goodness, I don't know what would have happened to President Bush's budget if we had not increased it, because his S&E account would have been really decimated in increasing the Violence Against Women account. We increased VAWA by $60 million over the President's request, $47 million over 2007.

I understand that our colleagues who are offering these amendments are absolutely in the forefront of protecting women. As we oppose these amendments, at the same time we embrace your cause and that that is why we have worked so hard in effecting these funding increases above the President's request. If we had a larger allocation, we would put more money on these accounts.

Having said all that, and because the offset is so draconian to the Department of Commerce, I will continue to oppose amendments with these negative offsets. If we aren't able to restore

the salaries and administrative accounts to the extent these amendments are successful, the Department of Commerce would have to shut down. That is how, as I have used the word before, cavalier we are being about these offsets.

Mr. Chairman, while I certainly support the cause and the purposes of the programs these amendments are increasing funding for, I have to oppose them because of the offsets and because we don't have enough resources to go around, a point which is demonstrated by the offsets that these amendments are having to resort to.

I oppose the amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the amendment.

I yield to the ranking member.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

The committee has heard the gentleman. In years past the gentleman has been very concerned. He has asked for increases to the Criminal Records Upgrade Program grants, and the committee has been very receptive to that. Indeed, the committee this year has increased funding for this program by $2.1 million over 2007, which in part was an effort to be responsive to the gentleman's consistently expressed concerns about this, and genuine concerns, about this account.

If the gentleman has looked at this carefully, we respect his expertise in this area, and we would be interested in visiting with him as we move this to conference and understanding more clearly the justification for an additional increase.

And because of who the gentleman is, I have no doubt that his reasons are valid. And so we look forward to working with him to find a better offset and to be responsive to his needs, if at all possible, as we move to and through conference.

Well, I just want to emphasize that in response to your efforts, we've increased it this year above last year, so we've already been successful.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

We would, at that point, talk about the point of order a little more.

We want to be responsive to the gentleman. I have not gotten deeply into his concerns, so I'm not sure exactly where he's coming from on this. But I can commit to him that we're willing to talk about it, we're willing to understand more clearly what his concerns are and in good faith work with him. And if there is an accommodation, we certainly want to make it in good faith. But I certainly cannot telegraph or represent to the gentleman an outcome; I can only promise him the process to work with him in good faith on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.

The gentleman raises an interesting concern. We have just been handed this amendment. We would be pleased to work with the gentleman as we move forward.

In response to his withdrawing the amendment, we are going to have to insist on our point of order if we don't proceed in that fashion. I hope the gentleman will allow us to work with him.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New York have 3 additional minutes.

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

Well, with Mr. Culberson speaking on this issue with such knowledge, he's a member of our subcommittee and I respect his knowledge of border issues so much that I approach this debate with fear and trembling. I know that he is passionate about this issue as he has talked with me about it before, in addition with the other border issues that I'm totally serious he is nigh an expert on.

Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, I have to rise in opposition to this amendment for a number of reasons, but principally, let's get our jobs straight here. We're article I. We're the legislature. We pass the laws. We appropriate the dollars, and then the executive branch, of course they administer, and it goes on and on.

But the executive branch is article III, and the executive branch takes

these criminal cases and they process them. I heard some really excellent defense summary arguments here before juries in support of this amendment. I cannot imagine a body less capable, less appropriate to adjudicate the issues surrounding the incarceration, conviction, prosecuting of the cases against these two gentlemen than the United States House of Representatives.

First of all, it is a very serious issue, and if we were to act as a jury, we ought to be sitting here. And look around and we're not, not very many of us.

But secondly, it's not at all the appropriate forum. So we really shouldn't even be taking this up. This is a limitation amendment on an expenditure of funds to incarcerate two individuals who have been processed, due process arguably, and have had a very unfavorable result so far as they are concerned. This issue ought to be resolved in the courts surely, or if the President of the United States wanted to take it up, he has the power that we don't have, to my knowledge. He has a pardoning power. We don't have that here, but in effect, we are attempting to act as if we did here with these two amendments.

So I don't even begin to speak to the merits of the cases, and some folks have spoken to the merits of the cases here. I don't have the facts to argue the case, but I do know this is a particularly inappropriate forum and a particularly inappropriate and imperfect process by which to address these gentlemen's grievances.

So I rise in opposition to the amendment. I trust the body will recognize the merit of the arguments that I'm making, because I think they're sound, and will likewise oppose these amendments.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, my only point is that we have the power to define jurisdictions for the courts. It's in the Constitution. We don't have power to adjudicate the guilt or innocence of two individuals.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I commend the sentiments of the gentleman who's bringing forth this amendment. I don't for a second do anything but think that that's laudable, and I make no judgment about the merits of this case. As the gentleman describes the merits in the favor of these gentlemen, they're powerful. I mean, it sounds like the equities are running all in their favor. I make no comment on that at all because I don't know the facts. And I have read about it, and it does make one sympathetic based upon the facts as you cited.

But I don't make any judgments about that. I just oppose it because I don't think this is the right forum. The President, of course, would be an appropriate forum, but that's the only basis of my concern about the amendment. So I commend the gentleman for bringing the issue to the House.

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

Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to this amendment. We're going to accept this amendment.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, we are willing to accept the gentlelady's amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, in a way, I hardly know where to start here, but I might start with the gentleman's question that he poses time and time again, not only today but in previous days: Is it the Federal Government's role to fund these projects?

He has several different arguments against projects. When projects of a very significant nature are pointed out that are going on in his district, he says, oh, well, in the past they were authorized, appropriated, and he says they have oversight. To what extent, we don't know.

But the point is, they went through a process here in Congress. Article I, section 7 doesn't say what process it should go through. It says that it's the Congress' job to do that. Every Member of this body is looking at their congressional district and thinking about economic developments and what are the needs.

If you are in a transition economy, transitioning from a basic industry, manufacturing economy to a new economy, tourism is a very important part of that new economy, of that vision into the future.

We have seen a lot of projects from industrial areas that fall into that category, whether they are museums, whether they are trails, whether they are any of those kinds of appurtenances, if you will, that contribute to the economic development in the tourism realm.

Well, if the gentleman's question is, is it the government's role, the Federal Government's role, to fund these projects, which he asks over and over again, as the alternative argument against these projects, then it has been answered over and over and over again. It is the Federal Government's role to do it through this body. Constitutionally, it is our responsibility. Article I makes that very clear.

So I just want to point that out and then speak and thank the gentleman for the opportunity to stand up to speak for Friends of Cheat, because they are doing just that. They are laying the kind of infrastructure that is necessary and crucial to that new economy, and that aspect of our economy in the future of West Virginia is going to be tourism. He has allowed me to speak to that.

Before I speak to it, I would like to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his leadership and review of this project. I know his staff has spent hours on it, because my staff has spent hours on the projects that we have approved. But this funding will be used, as the gentleman said, to acquire land and develop a trail in order to create those kinds of infrastructure that are attractive and make usable the bounty that is West Virginia.

I thank the gentleman for allowing me the opportunity to speak in favor of this project. I want to compliment him for the tremendous assets that are going into Arizona. I am extremely impressed; it's an affluent area. His predecessors have worked very hard, as has been pointed out here today.

There is nothing the matter with that, and there is nothing the matter with the process that those projects went through. Nor is there anything the matter with the projects that we are talking about here today have gone through.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for the opportunity to highlight a unique economic development opportunity in my district.

This funding would be used to renovate, as he suggested, a historic glass factory in Star City, West Virginia, just outside Morgantown. This location will serve as a business incubator for start-up artist businesses and will house the West Virginia University ceramics program and the West Virginia University Creative Arts Community Center.

To understand the importance of the project, you have to understand West Virginia. For decades, our economy has been focused on coal, timber and basic manufacturing, and those industries have suffered under unreasonable regulation, free trade agreements and unfair foreign competition.

I've worked hard and will continue to do so to keep those industries strong. But along the way, West Virginians have realized that we also need to diversify our economy to ensure a viable economic future.

Mr. Chairman, that diversification can occur in part by focusing on another sector of our rich history, our cultural history. This earmark provides that opportunity by nurturing new artists and businesses in cooperation with distinguished university programs and will develop Star City and the greater Morgantown area into a destination.

Star City has identified the arts project as an economic development model for the community. And this request responds to the importance the community has placed on redevelopment. I should also note that this Federal investment will be used to leverage funds from the State's Commission on the Arts.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased the committee selected this project. I appreciate their consideration, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the floor about it.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity the gentleman offering the amendment gives me to speak in favor of the funding for the Wetzel County Courthouse.

This amendment, Mr. Chairman, would strike funding needed to repair the Wetzel County Courthouse, a very valuable historic structure in that community. It was built, Mr. Chairman, in the first decade of the 20th century. This courthouse is listed on the National Historic Register, and this courthouse serves as the centerpiece for New Martinsville's efforts to preserve its legacy and expand new tourism opportunities.

Wetzel County, Mr. Chairman, is one of the smallest counties in my district, and the county has very limited funds available for capital improvements and repairs to its structures. They need this grant to help protect this important historic property.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, it's important to note that the Wetzel County Courthouse is not just a historic building, however historic and what a grand legacy it has in the county; it still

functions as a courthouse and a county office complex.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

I will yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you and Mr. Tiahrt both for your careful review of this project and the opportunity to input it in the process.

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd stood in the Senate chamber to do his duty. It was not to deliver a persuasive and enlightening speech featuring laser-focused common sense on the issue at hand. It was not to educate his colleagues on tradition and precedent as the Senate's most prolific historian. And, it was not to politely and eloquently offer an opposing opinion to another Senator's statement. It was to perform what he considers one of his most sacred duties--to cast his vote as a representative of the people.

It was not just any vote, Speaker. It was the 18,000th time that Senator Byrd responded to his duty and it was a monumental moment in the history of the Senate. No other Senator has performed that honored duty as often as the gentleman from West Virginia. He has voted nearly 3,000 more times than the next individual on the list of distinguished public servants who have cast votes in the Senate. He is, truly, the iron man of the United States Senate.

West Virginians love Senator Byrd for many reasons. He has been an avid and effective defender of and advocate for his state; an articulate representative of their views on pressing national issues; and a champion facilitator of federal assistance for thousands of important projects that make peoples' lives better. But, they also love him because of what his never-to-be-matched Senate voting record really represents--an unflinching devotion to the responsibility they have entrusted him to perform.

I have had the honor of watching Senator Byrd for most of my life. He and my father came to Washington together as freshmen members of the House in 1952. Seldom have I ever seen a public servant work so hard to honor the responsibility entrusted to him by his people and the obligation imposed upon him by the United States Constitution.

The range of topics covered by those 18,000 votes must be staggering from the critical to the mundane. But they all received equal attention from Senator Byrd as a sacred duty.

He once wrote that Senators have an obligation to this great Nation to see that the powers of democracy are used effectively to settle important issues. Democracy, he has reasoned, requires us to work together.

He wrote: ``Neither presidents nor Congress can act by fiat, but must work together, each keeping a firm eye on the other branch, and each jealously guarding its own prerogatives. At the same time, we are all judged by the American people who elect us. I have frequently said that I have full faith in the restorative powers of our democracy. What is unchecked will be balanced. What is wrong will be righted in time by our open and democratic system of government. So it has been for the first 200 years in the history of the United States Senate, and so it will be in the future.''

Madam Speaker, Senator Byrd has expressed his faith in our democracy 18,000 times. Today I humbly honor Senator Byrd not just for casting those 18,000 votes as an avid practitioner of democracy. I honor him for his faith in America, in people and in the form of government crafted by the framers of our Constitution.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution opposing the President's decision to escalate this war. My position on the Iraq war is uncomplicated. I voted against the initial war resolution back in 2002, mostly because I never believed the President made a compelling argument that Iraq posed the sort of substantive threat to the United States that would justify war, and the considerable human, political, and financial costs that it would bring.

I thought it was a bad decision at the time, and I think it is a bad decision today.

In my limited time this afternoon, I would like to comment on a couple of refrains that we keep hearing. The first is the President's repeated criticism that those who support this resolution are prejudging a plan that hasn't even been ``given a chance to work.'' He makes that charge with a tone of wonderment, as though somehow it weren't our duty to anticipate the consequences of different courses of action and to avoid the bad ones before embracing them. If more of us had prejudged his 2002 decision, taking us to war before it was ``given a chance to work,'' we wouldn't be having this debate today.

The difference between today and 2002 is that a majority of this House and this Congress are no longer willing to give the President the benefit of the doubt he enjoyed 5 years ago. We are no longer willing to suspend judgment and trust the decider. That should surprise precisely no one.

For 4 years we have been asked to trust this administration, to trust, as the Vice President emphatically declared, that they knew where the weapons of mass destruction are; to trust that the Iraqis would welcome us as liberators; to trust that we had a large enough invasion force to stabilize the country; to trust that the Shi'a would find common cause with the Sunni and the Kurd in a united Iraq; to trust that Iraq's oil reserves would pay for its reconstruction; to trust that Iraq would serve as a beacon of democratic ideals throughout the Middle East; to trust that those early signs of a growing insurgency were nothing more than the ``last throes of a few dead- enders.''

And now the President asks us not to prejudge his plan to put another 21,000 Americans in harm's way. He asks us to trust him yet again. With respect and humility, Madam Speaker, I ask him, how can we? And how can he even ask it of us? Paraphrasing the President, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me five times, shame on me.

And another criticism of this measure that we have heard repeated over and over this week is that, as a nonbinding resolution, its passage and this debate is meaningless.

Madam Speaker, this resolution is far from meaningless. If need be, Congress will end this war with binding legislation. As even the President acknowledged, we retain the power of the purse, and we have ample opportunity to exercise that power.

But just as wars should be started with a united government, so, too, should wars be ended with a united government. And that is the meaningfulness of this resolution. It is the last chance to draw this government back together on Iraq. It is the last call for us to work together, Democratic and Republican, legislative and executive, on ending this war. It is the last call for the President to come back to the people.

He may ignore that call. He may dismiss this resolution and this debate as meaningless. He may dismiss the voice of the people expressed through 439 newly elected Representatives as meaningless. But if he does, Madam Speaker, he forces us to move forward without him. I hope that doesn't happen.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution, and I urge the President to listen to this debate and to join with us.

Madam Speaker, the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee and the Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Subcommittee will soon bid farewell to our Congressional Fellow, Christopher Martin, as he begins his next assignment with the U.S. Coast Guard. Lieutenant Commander Martin has proven himself to be a tremendous asset to the work of both of these subcommittees.

As he assisted subcommittee staff members, Chris brought a unique perspective to bear on many of the lively debates and sometimes convoluted issues we face as we craft appropriations bills, and in overseeing the agencies and programs in our jurisdiction. Throughout his service here, Chris's unqualified professionalism, perceptiveness, willingness to pitch in, and cool head have helped these subcommittees and the Congress move forward on a wide range of policy and budgetary issues. His assistance in planning for and coordinating a complicated trip to review all of the border and immigration issues on the southern border was of particular benefit to us.

Lieutenant Commander Martin has served these subcommittees, and the House well. Each of us on the Homeland Security and Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Subcommittees wish Chris all the best as he resumes his Coast Guard career, and expect to see great things there.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5013, the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006. I was pleased to vote in favor of this bill, which passed the House by a vote of 322-99.

During Hurricane Katrina, hundreds of citizens had their guns confiscated, depriving them of their Second Amendment right to bear arms when they needed it most. H.R. 5013 ensures that this type of confiscation can never happen again. The legislation prohibits the confiscation of legally owned weapons during national emergencies or presidential declared disasters, unless other Federal or State law permits the confiscation. This law applies to Federal officers and employees, including uniformed services, who receive Federal funds, are under the control of the Federal Government, or provide services to such personnel in support of relief efforts.

Additionally, the bill prevents the temporary or permanent seizures of firearms, or the authorization of such seizures; prevents requiring the registration of firearms, if registration is not required by Federal or State law; prevents prohibiting the possession of a firearm, or issuing regulations or orders prohibiting the possession of a firearm if the possession is permitted under law; and prevents prohibiting the carrying of firearms by a person who is otherwise authorized to do so under State or Federal laws solely because that person is operating under the direction, control, or supervision of a Federal agency.

I have been a proud defender of our second amendment right throughout my tenure in Congress. This vote preserves and protects this Constitutional right during times of extreme disasters and emergencies, when the need for law-abiding citizens to exercise their basic right to defend themselves and their families is the greatest. I am pleased to have stood up for those rights by casting my vote in favor of H.R. 5013, the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act.

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

Mr. Chairman, this is a simple solution to a complicated problem that is being worked on at a number of different levels. I know that the authorizers, which you just heard from in the authorizing committee, they are very supportive of the implementation of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative and they are working hard on that. Because it is a complicated problem, we have experts not only in the House of Representatives and the United States Senate in the legislative branch but also in the executive branch; and they are working to accommodate this problem to all of the real needs out there.

The U.S. military, Federal agencies, travelling, they are working on identification processes. This amendment, for example, would preclude the use of secure identification issued by the U.S. military and Federal agencies that would not be accepted under this amendment.

It would be extremely unfortunate as all this work has been done in order to ensure that we can have quick access across the border and perfectly adequate, secure identification and do it in a way that accommodates all of the needs.

Finally, I would like to say, this is an authorizing issue and really not an issue appropriately considered here on this appropriation bill. It is complicated, as the gentleman has mentioned. It is too simple a solution and not appropriately considered in this forum.

Will the gentleman yield?

The gentleman really answers the question why should we even consider it here. You say, why should we not use this?

That is exactly why this ought to be considered by the authorizing committee. We ought to have testimony taken by the authorizing committee to explore the questions why we should not jump to this simple solution to a very complicated problem. The gentleman's question, I think, is proof in and of itself of why we shouldn't be considering this question here on the floor today.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding time. I rise in opposition to the amendment as well. Obviously, cuts of this kind in the science accounts anywhere in order to transfer money over to other science accounts is just robbing Peter to pay Paul. I think that illustrates where we are with the allocation that we have in this bill.

One of the real purposes of consolidating the science accounts into this subcommittee was to be able to look at science across the board and be able to fund it adequately. Well, it hasn't turned out to be that way, and this amendment is a great example of why. Here we are trying to take money from one science account and move it over to another science account.

I support the funding of the gentleman's amendment. I have to oppose the offset of the gentleman's amendment. In all of NASA's accounts, it was science that was hurt most.

Program after program after program, I don't have it at the moment to recite it, but the President has either eliminated or cut seriously science programs, one right after the other in the NASA account.

Well, we are very proud of increases to the National Science Foundation. Although we haven't met the authorization targets, we are very proud about increasing funding to the National Institutes of Health, and that has been funded very robustly over the last number of years.

But there are those science accounts and, particularly, NASA, a great science agency, that is not getting adequate funding now. That is about $500 million, I believe, short of where it should be.

I yield to the gentleman.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California for a colloquy with the chairman.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for a colloquy with the chairman.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean) for a colloquy with the chairman.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Chairman, I would simply point out that this organization operates in a part of the country that has suffered probably the most from government policies, particularly our trade policies, but also our environmental laws; and whatever arguments you could make for our, our free trade policies, they are in large part insensitive to the disproportionate negative impact they have on certain segments of our economy and certain geographical areas of our country.

The basic industry areas of the country where this organization operates

have suffered. It is one of those areas that has suffered disproportionately. The steel industry was a thriving industry there 20, 30 years ago. The Mon Valley, which is close to our area, is devastated and was practically the first steel industry to suffer. There is no steel industry in that area now.

In addition, environmental laws had negative impacts on the burning of fossil fuels. This general region was very prosperous producing the Nation's energy and has suffered greatly because of the impacts of environmental laws. I am not arguing the environmental law issue at all but just simply talking about the economic impact.

Well, these earmarks are contained in the Small Business Administration account, and that is the purpose of the Small Business Administration account, is to help small business. So the purpose of this funding is to look at workforce development, where there is tremendous unemployment as a result of trade laws, environmental laws, and government policy that have had a negative impact

This is self-help. This organization looks at workforce development, assisting in training needs for displaced workers, pursuing funding for mechanisms for training, assisting displaced workers, and working with the training facilities and the colleges and the universities to address those very difficult, midlife retraining challenges that the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program speaks to and that an organization like this can be very helpful in implementing.

The Incubator Project, is the other side of the coin. That is the development and diversification of small business. It is really pay me now or pay me later. As the previous gentleman from Pennsylvania said, you are either going to address the unemployment condition and try to retrain and try to get people back into the community, into the workforce through retraining, and at the same time promoting new industries, new small businesses for those people to work in, or you are going to be paying unemployment and you are going to be dealing with the issues of a deteriorating community.

This funding, which goes to all of those purposes, certainly is in keeping of the mission of the Small Business Administration.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I appreciate the opportunity to speak in opposition to this amendment.

You know, it should be understood that a lot of those earmarks go to help those who are in the greatest need of help.

I am struck by the good fortune of the gentleman and his congressional district and his State, as recounted by the ranking member just a few moments ago. You are indeed very fortunate to have these large defense contractors, Raytheon and General Dynamics, and these large Federal installations like Fort Wachuka in your State. That is a real blessing.

It is particularly a blessing in an economy that marginalizes and that is not nurturing to certain sectors. But certainly I think the gentleman can understand that in the last 20, 25, 30 years, our economy, because of the increased internationalization of it, has been extremely harsh on certain segments and certain geographical areas, as I mentioned earlier.

Those areas that were steel manufacturing areas, those areas that were coal producing areas, those areas that were basically manufacturing, microcosms if you will, for rust belt America were particularly hard hit during this period; and the need in these areas is for economic diversification. And the gentleman may not have been engaged in that much, but this is a very difficult, hard thing to do.

Federal Government assistance, this appropriation, these earmarks, if you will, in the Small Business Administration go directly to help rejuvenate economies, creating a broader, a more flexible, a more dynamic economy through diversification.

It is not an easy process; and if you have not been involved with it, the gentleman probably is not sensitive to that as he might be. But current economic trends in these areas, in these kinds of areas indicate that the sectors that do have potential growth are the heritage, tourism, regional travel; and this program works with the West Virginia Department of Education Travel and Tourism to promote what is the fastest-growing segment of the economic base.

So that is the purpose of the earmark, and I strenuously oppose the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Just the fact that the gentleman from Massachusetts has spent so much time explaining what his amendment means I think is the best proof that it is so vague that we don't really know what we are not funding with this amendment.

There is $3.9 billion in the Constellation Systems account. Conceivably, the amendment could prevent any of that spending. All of it, it could be argued, relates to a manned space mission to Mars.

The amendment is so vague that I think that is why everybody is really concerned about it.

It is absolutely true that NASA is having problems. There is no question about it. The President has proposed a space exploration initiative. He calls it a vision, in some ways of course it would be if, if, it were genuinely funded. My concern is that it is not genuinely funded.

There are a lot of problems with NASA funding, but it all has to do with not enough funding to do everything that we want to do. That is evidenced by the myriad of science programs that are either cancelled or cut in the President's budget. It is terrible.

Every scientist that is at all concerned about operating in the NASA camp has expressed how opposed they are to the NASA funding. But this, to me, is not the way to get at that.

What we do need is more money in NASA, and NASA, I think, frankly needs to come forward with a budget that is more specific, one that we can deal with, instead of coming up with these operating plans. That really is a very imperfect way to fund an agency.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Reclaiming my time.

Not in 5 minutes, unfortunately.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon).

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

I yield to the gentleman.

Yes, I would be pleased to work with the chairman and the gentlewoman; pledge to work to increase resources for the State Department's economic bureau to enhance their ability to improve enforcement of intellectual property protection.

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

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

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I was just going to compliment the gentleman from North Carolina for bringing this issue up. I remember when he first brought it to the Congress, and I want to compliment him for bringing this amendment to the floor.

I also want to compliment the chairman for recognizing this has been a problem. It is contained in our report that the Justice Department move quickly. I just want to point out this isn't a hard thing for the Justice Department to do. Rulemaking as simple as this ought to be done in 30 days. Publish the proposed rule, get a few comments and get it out there. It is inexcusable that this program, which is so meritorious, hasn't been implemented for 3 years.

I support the gentleman's effort.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment not because I not recognize that we need lots of additional dollars in law enforcement and particularly to support our State and local law enforcement, as we have talked about a number of times on the floor today and throughout this session.

This administration made a point of cutting local law enforcement, and it is a travesty because the demand is out there, and there is this real correlation between the reduction in Federal support to State and local law enforcement and an increase in violent crime rates. It is there. We can see it. That is why the gentleman is offering his amendment.

But the bottom line is, we do not have the allocation, and this offset is terrible. I mean, we are trying to keep these programs alive throughout the bill.

The President came forward with a budget that devastated what in the NASA budget? Science. What else? Aeronautics. Well, this amendment would cut an additional, as I understand it, $100 million from NASA. Science, aeronautics would be further cut. These programs cannot survive in NASA with these kinds of cuts. We cannot do it.

We need to restore additional money to law enforcement. There is no question about that. That is a debate that maybe will go beyond this Congress; maybe it will go beyond this appropriation bill, and perhaps that debate should be had across the land. But right now, given the money that we have in the bill, we cannot afford the offset for funding the COPS program or any other State and local law enforcement, and is that not a sad comment?

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas to speak in opposition to the amendment.

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I thank the chairman for yielding; and I want to join him in opposing this amendment.

Really, to support this amendment you have to oppose the U.N., because this goes to the very ability of the United Nations to perform its responsibilities. It has to have a home. It has to have a house. It has to have space to operate in.

The U.N. is old. It is a fire hazard. There is a number of safety concerns associated with it. There is a request in this bill from the administration for $22 million to address these concerns, or our share of these concerns, and I think that a limitation amendment is exactly the wrong thing to do here.

We have had a lot of cuts in this bill, and this kind of a limitation really is a statement that the United States of America does not want to participate in the U.N. into the future. It is just that serious. It has to have a home. It is, in my judgment, not only ill-advised but really silly if you believe we should have a United Nations to begin with.

I oppose the amendment and encourage very strongly that everyone oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.

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

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio for a colloquy with the chairman.

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

Just to compliment the gentleman on his argument, I am very supportive of his amendment. I support the chairman's comments. And I invite the gentleman to testify before our subcommittee next year. He is obviously well versed on the issue, and the committee and the Congress need to be more sensitive to the concerns that the gentleman raises.

I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.