Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I regret that this rule does not make in order two amendments that were offered during full committee.

First, I offered an amendment that would provide $600 million additional money to this bill to protect our communities, invest in economic development, especially in rural areas, provide critical legal assistance to low-income families and respond to concerns by Members about the Federal investment in science and education funding. All of this, Madam Speaker, would have been accomplished by just nicking by about $1,657 the tax cut received by the wealthiest people in this country, those who make over $1 million a year.

Under this amendment, those who make over $1 million a year, instead of an average tax break of $114,172, under this amendment, which would have allowed us to put $600 million more into this bill for those worthy causes, they would have received an average of $112,515. All of that could have been paid for, and certainly they would not have been hurt at all.

Well, we had a good debate in full committee, an hour and a half long, touching on the budget policy of the past few administrations, the budget resolution that resulted in this bill's tight allocation and the tax cuts that I believe are evidence that the Bush administration is not serious about balancing this budget.

This discussion was important because it was a reminder of our different priorities. My amendment is a reflection of the Democratic priorities that, with more funding, could be reflected in this bill, and I regret that that amendment was not made in order today.

I also was concerned that the rule does not make in order an amendment that I was proud to cosponsor with Representatives Hoyer and Obey that would have raised the minimum wage, which has not been increased since 1997, from $5.15 to $7.25 by January 1, 2009.

The increase would occur in three increments, 70 cents each on January 1, 2007, 2008 and 2009. Such a small amount of money would have huge meaning to working families.

There are 7 million low-wage workers that would receive an increase in their hourly wage rate and increase their standard of living if the minimum wage were increased.

While I am pleased that the rule does provide protection for an ill- advised tax on commercial explosives which was proposed by President Bush, this rule does not protect this ill-advised tax the President's fiscal year 2007 budget contained for the second year in a row, a tax on the users of explosives. My State, due to its extraction industry, would bear the largest share of the burden associated with this tax. At an appropriate point in this bill, I intend to make a point of order against the tax.

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 yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support it.

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

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

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

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

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Point of Order

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parliamentary Inquiry

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

I do, Mr. Chairman.

I am only trying to yield it to the gentlemen.

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

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

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the floor this afternoon about the needs of work in West Virginia in this particular appropriation. If there is any town in our Nation that is deserving of economic development dollars from this appropriation bill, it is Weirton, West Virginia.

Weirton is a steel town. Growing up around a nearby steel mill started in 1909, the mill and the town grew quickly, and at its peak, the mill employed about 14,000 employees. However, downturns in the steel industry in the late 1970s and early 1980s reduced the number of employees to approximately 7,000; and today, as a result of our Nation's trade policies that are very injurious to basic industry America and, in particular, our steel towns across the Nation, today the number of employees at Weirton Steel hovers around 1,250, down from that 14,000 number several years ago.

The West Virginia congressional delegation, in cooperation with the Independent Steelworkers Union, we fight every day for policies that favor Weirton's hardworking steelworkers and their families.

Well, despite our best efforts, Mr. Chairman, the loss of steel jobs has resulted in some of the highest unemployment rates in my State. Brook County and Hancock County have unemployment rates approaching 7.6 and 8.6 percent.

This grant combats those unemployment rates. As requested by the city of Weirton, these funds, coupled with other funds like CDBG dollars, generally would be used to develop a meaningful regional competitiveness plan. The language in the bill is that the funding is for planning and design, perhaps construction, perhaps renovation, we would hope; but specifically the city wants to use these dollars to evaluate regional economic and business trends and hone in on specific sectors that have the strongest growth potential within Hancock and Brook

County. They are looking for economic diversification as an alternative to the condition that they are experiencing.

For example, as an industrial town, Weirton and the surrounding area have a number of brownfield properties. These properties sit idle, but if properly redeveloped and integrated into a sound economic development effort, strategically planned, they could be home to new businesses and could generate high-paying job opportunities for those unemployed constituents.

Examples of those businesses might be a period in this area that would include clean coal technology industry, medical device manufacturing, but moving from brownfields to a thriving economic sector takes careful planning, which is what this funding provides.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a landmark day in the history of the United States Congress.

On this day, the man who leads our West Virginia delegation with such energy, integrity, and effectiveness becomes the longest-serving member in the history of the United States Senate. It is a great honor for me to join my colleagues in saluting this latest record achievement of our senior Senator, the Honorable Robert C. Byrd.

The distinguished career of Senator Byrd is well-known to those of us who are so fortunate to serve with him and to learn from him. He is a master of the legislative process, a strong defender of our Democratic institutions, a great intellect on policy issues, a constant voice of clarity and of reason.

And, most important of all, he is an unwavering champion of the people he was elected to serve: the citizens of West Virginia. He never fails to give his very best to them. It is this lifetime of faithful service that has created such an amazing bond between Senator Byrd and the people of the mountain State--a bond built on trust, respect and a deep gratitude for all that he accomplishes on our behalf.

So on this day--his 17,327th as the Senator from West Virginia--I call upon my colleagues to salute Senator Robert C. Byrd on this extraordinary milestone. We are honored, indeed, to serve alongside such a gifted and accomplished leader.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen from California, each, for yielding and for their work on this important legislation and a lifetime of work for safety for workers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2803, The Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006. The need for improvements in coal mine health and safety has been tragically reaffirmed by the mine disasters in my home State earlier this year. On January 2, 2006, an explosion in the Sago mine in Upshur County, West Virginia, followed on January 19 by a second disaster in the Aracoma Alma mine in Logan County, took the lives of our Nation's finest, our coal miners, forever changing the lives of their loved ones and shocking the State and the Nation into once again revisiting the adequacy of our coal mine health and safety laws.

The entire West Virginia delegation is in support of this bill. In the Senate it passed unanimously with the backing of West Virginia's esteemed delegation, Senator Robert C. Byrd and Senator John D. Rockefeller. Here in the House, Mr. Rahall, Mrs. Capito and I recently introduced the House companion to that bill, H.R. 5432.

I urge passage of S. 2803 today so that the important work to improve mine safety can begin immediately. New approaches to safety challenges are clearly needed, particularly in light of advances in technology, and we cannot afford to waste another minute.

Among other things, the MINER Act that we consider here requires that miners have emergency air breathable for a sustained period of time and that caches providing at least 2 hours of breathable air per miner be placed at 30-minute intervals from the working area to the surface. It also requires that a redundant means of communicating with the surface be provided in each mine as well as a post-accident tracking system.

I should note that the United Mine Workers of America and the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations both, Mr. Speaker, support this legislation. While not perfect, this is the first best effort to quickly bring significant enhancements to safety in our Nation's coal mines.

Mr. Speaker, hearts are heavy in West Virginia this week as we mourn the loss of a very special woman: Mrs. Erma Byrd, the beloved wife of our distinguished senior Senator.

Robert C. Byrd and Erma Ora James met as students at Mark Twain Grade School in Raleigh county. They married in 1937, at the tender age of 19. In that simple ceremony, a lasting bond was forged, and an incredible journey was begun.

Their journey took them from the coalfields of southern West Virginia to the halls of this great Capitol. At every point along the way, Erma Byrd was a constant source of strength, support and inspiration-- whether in raising their wonderful family or anchoring the incredible career of her devoted husband.

In his words, she was a ``priceless treasure, a multifaceted woman of great insight and wisdom, of quiet humor and common sense.''

What a wonderful tribute to a wonderful woman.

On the sad occasion of her passing, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in expressing heartfelt condolences to Senator Byrd and his family. Our thoughts are with them as they say goodbye to Erma Byrd and cherish the memory of her caring kindness and love.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the fiscal year 2006 appropriations conference report for Science, the Departments of State, Justice, Commerce and related agencies.

Madam Speaker, right at the beginning, I would especially like to thank Chairman Wolf and his staff: Celia Alvarado, Anne Marie Goldsmith, Joel Kaplan, Christine Kojac, John Martens, and Mike Ringler for their help, their outstanding work on this bill, their professionalism, and for their help in shepherding this bill with all its jurisdictions through the appropriations process.

I would also like to thank the minority appropriations staff, Michelle Burkett and David Pomerantz, and my personal staff, Julie Aaronson and Sally Moorehead, for their hard work throughout this long process.

Madam Speaker, let me especially express my appreciation to Chairman Wolf for his capability, for his adroit management of a complicated bill with a lot of jurisdictions; and I cannot stress enough the kindness and fairness that he has shown to me, to our committee staff, and to the House minority throughout this process. While Chairman Wolf and I may have had disagreements, we may not have agreed on every provision in this bill, Chairman Wolf has listened to our arguments and, where appropriate, he has looked for ways to accommodate our requests, and we thank him for that.

Madam Speaker, this is a good bill. It provides $57.85 billion. That is an increase of $1.6 billion above last year's

level for very diverse programs; programs that fund our Federal and local law enforcement activities; programs that invest in our government's major science activities; programs that construct and defend our embassies abroad; programs that provide support to our small businesses, and those which help promote our economic development.

There are many high points in this bill. The Department of Justice and all the law enforcement programs that it manages are at $1.1 billion above the President's request and $784 million above fiscal year 2005, while we are disappointed in the funding available for local and State law enforcement.

Science activity is up, with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration funded at the requested level of $16.5 billion. That is $260 million above fiscal year 2005.

The National Science Foundation receives $5.65 billion in this bill, an increase of $181 million above last year and $49 million above the President's budget request.

The State Department and Broadcasting Board of Governors, while funded below the President's request, receives $9.6 billion for worldwide security upgrades, diplomatic and consular programs, and international broadcasting.

For our local communities, we restored the Economic Development Administration's funding to last year's level, rejecting in the process the President's proposal to eliminate the Economic Development Administration.

In addition, we rejected his proposal to consolidate and shrink proposals that provide Federal investment to strengthen our local communities.

In this bill we also included language supporting the role of the economic development districts and reaffirming our commitment to the minimum 50 percent Federal match for local dollars. My constituents and those in rural areas were very vocal on these two points, and I am pleased that the chairman was supportive and that we could be responsive to those requests.

Madam Speaker, I am concerned that this year, like last year, we were not able to provide the $80 million needed to subsidize the 7(a) loan program in the Small Business Administration. I have seen firsthand the chilling effect that increased fees have had on small businesses in my State, and I hope we will monitor the 7(a) program during the next year and evaluate to what extent this lack of funding creates a problem for our small businesses accessing needed capital.

Finally, Madam Speaker, I would like to draw special attention to section 624 of the conference report. It reads as follows, ``None of the funds made available in this act shall be used in any way whatsoever to support or justify the use of torture of any official or contract employee of the United States Government.''

Madam Speaker, this provision reflects Chairman Wolf's values and his unwavering commitment to human rights. It is the chairman's initiative, and it is to his credit that it is included in our bill.

Madam Speaker, again, I want to thank Chairman Wolf, and I urge Members to support this conference report.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano). There is no member of the minority of our subcommittee who has made a greater contribution to the jurisdictions, to the funding in our bill than he.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his kind comments.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), a member of the full committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

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

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

How much time remains, Mr. Chairman?

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

I rise in joining the chairman in opposition to this amendment, and I hope the same majority of our colleagues reject this amendment this year as did last year. I would note that this is the same or an extremely similar amendment that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) introduced last year and was defeated by a 83-to-355 vote majority.

I hope that the body takes the same position with regard to this amendment this year as it did last. At a time when the United States is involved in a war against global terrorism, at a time when the international economic community is becoming increasingly integrated and the world is becoming increasingly smaller and we are increasingly bumping up against our friends and adversaries around the world, this is no time to do away with the organization.

However imperfect it may be, that brings together all of those divergent political interests, all those divergent countries, all those divergent political philosophies that represent people around the world. We need to bring people closer to us so that we can debate them, so that we can fight them in the context of a civilized body, rather than going out and fighting them in wars. That is what the U.N., at its best represents. That is what we ought to be aspiring to, that is, perfecting the U.N., making it better, dealing with its imperfections instead of doing away with it.

We are lucky to have the U.N. in that sense. We are also fortunate to be a powerful enough country to influence the U.N. for the better because of the size of our contribution. If we were to withdraw our contribution, there is no doubt that that whole process would unravel. That would be a tragedy.

For all the above reasons, Mr. Chairman, I oppose the gentleman's amendment and urge my colleagues to oppose it as well.

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman knows that I have the greatest respect and friendship for him and for all the tremendous work that he does in this body. But I must rise and oppose this across-the- board cut. First of all, I oppose across-the-board cuts generally because they are indiscriminate, and I think anybody who supports across-the-board cuts has to admit that the cuts are bound to affect some good programs, even in their judgment, as well as adversely affect programs that the author of the amendment may not fully appreciate.

Having said that, I hope that the body judges this amendment in the same way it has in past years and on other bills and expresses its concern for the offering of across-the-board cuts generally. But having said that, I think that if the gentleman is not successful, if he does not prevail on his amendment, he should feel good for the same reasons I feel bad about this bill, and that is that it represents a huge number of cuts much greater than 1 percent on programs that I consider to be extremely worthy and that I would hope the chairmen of the sub and full committees, as well as ranking, would consider the same.

NASA is increased by 2 percent, the Justice Department by 4 percent, and the FBI by 10 percent. That is the good news. Federal law enforcement programs have increased. Almost everything else in the bill has decreased a lot more than 1 percent. State and local law enforcement experienced a 22 percent reduction. The COPS program, a 13 percent reduction. Juvenile justice programs, a 12 percent reduction. The Commerce Department, a 12 percent reduction. And the State Department is receiving 11 percent less than the current level, in addition to international organizations receiving 10 percent less.

The gentleman ought to be pleased with the reductions in most of this bill, and surely he would not oppose the increases to the FBI and the Justice Department and hopefully not NASA.

This bill has taken its fair share of cuts. It has experienced the pain that has been imposed upon domestic discretionary programs generally, by the budget resolution; and I will note an inordinate number of amendments being offered by the majority here in the last 3 days have been trying to increase the author of each amendment's particular favorite domestic discretionary program.

But you add them all up and the majority has offered a lot of amendments increasing domestic discretionary spending. For those who have done that, I suggest that you look at the budget resolution the next time around, understand the relationship, the real relationship between a vote for the budget resolution and a squeeze on domestic discretionary programs as I have just described in response to the gentleman from Colorado's (Mr. Hefley) amendment.

For all those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hefley amendment and hope that my colleagues will turn it down.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. If we look at it clearly, it is only an affirmation of current law, but I think in the environment in which we are operating, with some of the revelations that are coming out about America's policy with regard to the treatment of incarcerated persons, it is really important to affirm current law.

We are identifying and pointing out and prosecuting very low-level people in the military with regard to certain transgressions, and I think it is particularly important to affirm to the whole chain of command, right up to the very top, that our laws with regard to incarceration are to be obeyed.

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman probably does not intend his amendment and argument to be thus, but I am afraid he is burgeoning on local police force bashing here.

He makes statements like, they take the money and let the aliens go. Well, in fact, by the gentleman's own statistics that he cites, local law enforcement does turn over illegal aliens at some percentage of those that they arrest and identify, and I assume that they turn over a very large percentage of those that they identify. I have not looked closely at that question, but in any regard, it is clear they are participating in this process with the Federal Government of identifying and turning over some illegal aliens.

I would suggest to the gentleman that local law enforcement, first of all, are not trained to do this mission. We have a Federal police force. We have Federal agents that are trained to perform this mission.

Local law enforcement have a little different mission. They are in the business of trying to maintain stability in neighborhoods, and are particularly trained in identifying criminals in neighborhoods, which is a full-time job.

While this is not my constituency, I can imagine in talking to my colleagues who do represent constituencies that have sizeable numbers of newly arrived immigrants, that it is a particularly difficult job to operate in those communities effectively if the policemen are seen as reporters on or, if you will, tattle-talers on the people who live in that community.

I can see where it would dry up information about what is going on and have the opposite effect of what we are trying to achieve with the COPS program. We are trying to establish relationships with the local community so we can help the local police force maintain stability and keep down crime in those local communities.

So for that reason, I think this is an ill-advised amendment. We do not give local police forces responsibilities of the Federal Government, unless we train them to do that and they freely take on that mission and unless we give them additional resources to fulfill that mission.

So first of all, local police have to agree to do what the gentleman is suggesting, go out and perform the Federal mission; and, secondly, if we are going to ask them to take on this Federal mandate, it seems to me we ought to give it to them not on an unfunded basis, but we should give them additional resources to perform that mission, if they would voluntarily accept it.

Mr. Chairman, as I have outlined, I am strongly opposed to the Tancredo amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment; and I certainly understand the reasons for the opposition of the chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) as well. If every one of these studies were challenged in this way, then it would be a lot of activity on these A-76 privatization reviews in the United States Congress.

But not every one is, and those that are particularly egregious, I think,

need to be brought to the floor. The gentleman from Missouri has done that today, and I compliment him for that. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver) makes the case that is being made by his constituents in Missouri, in addition to the Members from the other side of the Capitol, who are also supportive of his position.

Just understand that the National Logistics Support Center is a particularly fine organization, and this review is being undertaken for only one reason. It is because management has been ordered to hit a particular numerical privatization number. That is it. That is how arbitrary it is. It has nothing to do with the organization itself. This organization has won tremendous awards. It does not merit privatization, and I think it would be inefficient to do so.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for allowing me to rise in support of his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Tancredo amendment. Let me first say that I take a back seat to no one in being concerned about the effects of the internationalization of our economy. I represent the steel industry and other basic industries that have been disadvantaged in this whole process terribly, and we have been concerned about the inadequacy of trade agreements as they do not protect these industries during the short term.

The first thing I want to say about the Tancredo amendment, is that this is a particularly bad vehicle to make the kind of decisions that this amendment is trying to make. This is an appropriations bill. This is for the Committee on Ways and Means, to do, and not to try to slip into an appropriations bill.

Second, this amendment addresses legal immigration. If there is anything we need to do, it is to be able to debate and discuss and compromise on how we deal with legal immigration, not to limit it on an appropriation bill.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, there are skills that we need in this country, and we have to be very careful about how we might impact our ability to access those skills through this kind of a process.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I would just point out that this amendment by the gentlewoman simply asks the Attorney General, the State authorizing agencies, to do what they are supposed to do under the law and to do it accurately and faithfully and that, among other things, it refers to requiring complete criminal histories, to include final disposition of arrests, the full automation of criminal justice histories and fingerprint records, the frequency and quality of the criminal history reports and the improvement of State records systems. I think it is very benign in that sense and requires States and governments to report as they are supposed to report under our laws.

For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I express my support for it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a separate vote on amendment No. 28 offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) says before we get into this argument between COPS and NSF and NOAA and all of the other good programs in this bill, we are into the argument of balancing. He says we are trying to balance two ideals.

I want to assure the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) that the chairman, the ranking member, and all of the subcommittees, in addition to the full Committee on Appropriations, have gone through an extensive exercise of balancing these ideals, more than two ideals. There are many competing domestic programs in this bill. They are all worthy purposes and projects, and they all serve our country in different ways; and given our allocation, we spent a lot of time balancing these ideals.

I suggest that this amendment puts these ideals in imbalance, particularly with regard to NSF. The whole stated purpose of moving the science programs from VA-HUD and independent agencies last year as we went through what I considered to be an unnecessary exercise of eliminating that committee, the stated purpose was to reemphasize science.

In a small way this committee has been able to do that in the sense that the chairman restored to the National Science Foundation moneys that we were not able to give it last year. In other words, in 2005 we cut NSF. That was a terrible thing to do, and it was for reasons I will speak to in just a moment. However, we have restored that money in this bill. We have done the best for the COPS program, for the law enforcement programs that we could. Although State and local law enforcement, as we have seen by the Obey amendments and the debate with regard to them, are certainly underfunded, so is the National Science Foundation which is such a critical area for the Nation's future economy.

I think everybody agrees that science research is the cutting edge, is the precursor, if you will, for a modern economy. If we are going to stay ahead of the economic conditions, of the economic realities, of the economic phenomenon that we all find ourselves in with economic globalization, we need to be at the forefront of research. We need to be at the forefront of development. That requires a Federal role in facilitating, in sponsoring, in sending the signal that the country needs to invest in research in collaboration with our great university institutions and our great corporations and small businesses and the nonprofit sector that are so active with the National Science Foundation funding.

I would point out these are competitive grants. They are particularly important as they facilitate the research that gives us that economic edge in the world.

I strongly support maintaining our funding for the National Science Foundation. It would be disastrous and it would be extremely shortsighted for all of the reasons I stated to do otherwise.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment and would strongly encourage all of our colleagues on a bipartisan basis to oppose this amendment, not because we oppose COPS; we support the COPS program, and we will do everything we can for that program. At the same time, the other ideal that the sponsor of the amendment talked about, the NSF, cannot experience this kind of a cut and do the job that it needs to do.

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

There is no question that Coastal Zone Management grants are important, and the committee addressed it as best they could. This is not a good place to take money from. The mission of the bureau is to advance U.S. national security, U.S. foreign policy and economic interests. It regulates the export of sensitive goods and technologies, enforces export control, anti-boycott and public safety laws. This may not be a high visibility public organization, but they do extremely important work, and they have received accolades from the commission on intelligence capabilities of the United States regarding weapons of mass destruction report.

The point is that this agency does a lot of very good work, and I agree with the chairman. As we move forward, if there are any opportunities to put money into Coastal Zone Management grants or some of these other worthy accounts, we should take every opportunity to do that. However, again, this is a balancing act, and I think that the bill reflects the right balance with regard to this account.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise not in opposition, I am going to agree to the amendment, but I would like to have some comment before I do.

Mr. Chairman, I think this is a regrettable amendment for a number of reasons.

First of all, it involves an awfully little bit of money. Secondly, I think it sends a really bad signal. Indeed, one of NASA's missions is to inspire; and it has had an arts program, a very small arts program since 1962. Such luminaries as Norman Rockwell have participated in it over the years.

It is in furtherance of part of NASA's mission. NASA's mission is to inspire, to educate. Indeed, in the education theme of NASA's FY 2006 budget, it states: ``To develop the next generation of explorers, NASA must do its part to inspire and motivate students to pursue careers in science and technology and engineering and in mathematics.''

A part of it is connectivity. One of the ways NASA has done that, if anyone has visited its facilities, is through beautiful murals and other art initiatives. This particular initiative that the gentleman is speaking to is the appointment of Laurie Anderson as an

artist-in-residence, which is another phase, if you will, in NASA's arts program. It is a worthy program. It has developed over those years since 1962 an awful lot of memorable artworks. There is no reason to believe that this initiative, which is so modest in nature, would do anything but further enhance the arts program at NASA. Again, it is so small that it is just minuscule. I am afraid the amendment really represents more art bashing than it does good fiscal policy.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to the amendment. It is my understanding that the gentleman will withdraw his amendment upon an understanding that the chairman, who I would support, would encourage a GAO study?

Then I agree to proceed in that manner.

With that representation, I will not oppose the gentleman.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, the chairman has put together a good bill for us this year in the face of some really large reductions and legislative proposals that were contained in the President's budget request. He has crafted a bipartisan bill, and, during the process, the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) took into consideration all concerns that the minority expressed. He has been as accommodating in that process as he could be within the allocation that this committee was given, and the minority, Mr. Chairman, are really appreciative of that. He has done an excellent job, and his staff, likewise, has worked cooperatively with the minority genuinely to craft this bill.

Our allocation for the Science, State, Justice and Commerce bill, as the chairman indicated, is $57.45 billion, an increase of 2.1 percent from the fiscal year 2005 enacted level, but a decrease from the President's fiscal year 2005 request. It certainly sounds like a lot of money, but this year's increase does not keep pace with inflation, and it is not adequate to meet the varied needs of the important Federal agencies contained in this bill.

I am concerned that when we look at funding trends for these crucial programs over time, we are systematically reducing the Federal investments in our communities. For example, the chairman has restored about $1 billion over the President's cuts to the State and local law enforcement, but the bill is still about $400 million below last year's level. Now, that is a crucial fact. As we face terrorism, as we continue to fight crime, as we have been successful with it over the last 10 years in large part because of the Federal contribution to State and local levels, this is no time to back off of this support; but this bill is $400 million below last year's level for support to State and local law enforcement.

Mr. Chairman, the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), went before the Committee on Rules. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) asked to be made in order an amendment to restore some of this funding and to have an offset, that would have been particularly appropriate, to offset just a small part of the tax cut that the most wealthy 1 percent in this country have received over the last 4 and 5 years, to support State and local law enforcement. I cannot think of a worthier program to support, a more important program to support in this time of national emergency and terrorist threats, and I cannot think of a more fair offset from a percentage of our population, the most wealthy, who have enjoyed the benefit of the tax cuts greater than anyone else in our country. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is going to offer an amendment on the floor to address this issue, and I would hope that there would not be an objection against it.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) has also restored $200 million to the Economic Development Administration's grant program. This was eliminated in the President's proposal. However, that restoration of $200 million is approximately two-thirds of last year's enacted amount for an extremely important program, the Economic Development Administration grants. They help the most needy communities in our Nation, and that is an area that did not need to be cut in the President's request, and we appreciate the chairman restoring it partially.

Smaller programs that are important to our States and our local communities were also zeroed out in the President's budget and could not be restored. The Public Telecommunications Facilities and Planning Account, the Advanced Technology program, and the SBA Prime program were not funded.

The President has also proposed zeroing out the Steel Loan Guarantee program. And I very much appreciate the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) restoring $15 million to the Steel Loan Guarantee program so that we can argue in conference for this valuable program, which has been so important to significant steel producers in the past.

For some agencies, this bill is a mix of good news and bad news. In the Department of Commerce, the President's so-called Strengthening America's Communities proposal was rejected, and some funding was restored to EDA, but we were not able to include requested funding for the National Institute of Standards and Technology for construction of new facilities. In the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, funding was increased for the National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service, but the National Marine Fisheries and the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery program are both reduced.

The National Science Foundation overall fares well. The cuts this agency faced last year have been restored, and this bill provides $170 million more than last year's enacted level. But within the Education and Human Resources Directorate, many of the education programs are flat-funded, including EPSCOR, Informal Science, Advanced Technology Education, and Historically Black Colleges and Universities.

NASA, Mr. Chairman, is funded slightly above the President's request. The Space Shuttle's Return to Flight is fully funded, and the chairman has restored aeronautics funding to last year's level, and has increased the Science Accounts to $40 million. However, I am concerned that crucial science and aeronautics programs are being reduced, deferred, and ultimately will wither. The Science Account, including programs such as Solar System Exploration, Universe Exploration, and the Earth Sun System would receive less than a 1 percent increase over this budget proposal; yet the most recent successes have come from this program.

The clear winner in this bill is Federal law enforcement. The FBI received $50 million above the President's request, including funding for drug agents that the President proposed to transfer into organized crime and drug enforcement task forces. DEA and the Marshal Service are both funded above the President's request.

The bill rejects the President's proposal to tax the explosives industry by adding new fees, and rejects the proposal to transfer the High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, the HIDTA program, into the Department of Justice from ONDCP. We certainly can have a discussion on the merits of locating a program in one agency versus another, but, in this instance, when the HIDTA coordination efforts are going well, I think we can all agree that the program should be fully funded wherever it is located. I hope the Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, HUD, The Judiciary, District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies is looking at this issue as they prepare their bill.

The bill before us overcomes many deficits in the President's budget, but, over the long term, Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that the constraints placed on the Committee on Appropriations through the budget resolution are continuing the systemic reduction of domestic discretionary programs that are crucial to our State and local communities.

I would, as the chairman did, like to recognize and thank our staffs for doing such an outstanding job. They are dedicated, and they have been very dedicated to efforts on this bill. To Mike Ringler, Christine Kojac, John Martens, Anne Marie Goldsmith, Joel Kaplan, and Clelia Alvarado with the majority, I express thanks; and to David Pomerantz and Michelle Burkett, Dana Polk with the minority staff, and Sally Moorehead and Julie Aaronson on my personal staff, have put in a great deal of time, a great deal of hard work into the bill, and I know that the chairman and I share his deep sense of appreciation for their efforts.

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

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

The distinguished majority leader must know that the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), went to the Rules Committee to ask for a rule to allow him to offer an amendment to increase the funding for State and local law enforcement, which was dramatically reduced in this bill. It only exists in the bill because the chairman has restored several hundred million dollars to States and locals which the President asked to cut.

So the distinguished majority leader must know that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) went to the Rules Committee and that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is trying to get at the inadequacy of the funding for State and local law enforcement levels from the Federal Government, and the gentleman is not at all interested in cutting NASA.

But the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is left in a position now that his amendment, which proposes to offset the high income tax cut in order to fund additional State and local law enforcement, was denied. The gentleman was not able to offer that amendment, so he is getting at the issue of the inadequacy of the funding of State and local law enforcement by having, in a tight bill where we do not have many offsets, offsets against NASA. That is difficult. That is tough. But it does get at the issue of the inadequacy of State and local law enforcement, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) really has no choice if he wants to raise the issue, but to take a route like this.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished minority ranking member on the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer), a distinguished member of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, HUD, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), for purposes of a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel) for purposes of a colloquy.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar) for the purposes of a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire as to the time remaining for our side.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) for the purposes of a colloquy.

I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, it is a shame that we are debating this Obey amendment. I just want to reemphasize that we should be debating the Obey amendment that was denied by the Rules Committee, because that would be the amendment with the appropriate offset. Everybody understands, I think, and I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle agree that this cut that we are experiencing to State and local law enforcement, the cuts that we are experiencing in the COPS program, and the cuts that we are experiencing in juvenile justice programs, are lamentable. They are cuts from last year, and they are serious.

State and local law enforcement is funded at 22 percent less than the current level. At a time when State and local law enforcement need resources, we are cutting resources. The COPS program, a tremendous program, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) pointed out, is provided 13 percent less than the current level funding in this bill. Juvenile justice programs, those programs that are in the forefront of helping our youth, and addressing at-risk youth issues experience a 12 percent cut from the current level.

There is no question that the restoration side of the gentleman from Wisconsin's amendment needs to be addressed. He went to the Rules Committee and tried to get it addressed in an appropriate way by having the perfect offset. The offset is a small cut to those who have earned income of over $1 million, who currently enjoy a tax cut of approximately $140,000. The Obey amendment just reduces that tax cut a little bit, by $2,000. That would have been the appropriate offset. The offset that the ranking member is using in this second amendment, which he is forced to do because the Rules Committee did not give him a rule for the high-income offset, is a lamentable offset.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Nebraska and the other supporters of this amendment should be appreciative of the chairman's efforts with regard to law enforcement. They have a focus on methamphetamine and the plague that it represents across our country. They should know that there is hardly a hearing that goes by that the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) does not bemoan the condition that the country and the challenge that the Nation faces with regard to methamphetamine and illegal drug use. He is totally supportive of their efforts in principle.

The problem is we have a tough bill, and when they go to an across- the-board cut, that is an expression of extreme desperation with regard to the appropriation process. When they offer an across-the-board cut as an offset, what they are really saying is that this bill is so incredibly tight that we cannot find offsets anywhere else. It is absolutely the wrong place to go.

I would suggest to the gentlemen that are down to offering across- the-board cuts to reassess their vote on the budget resolution. We need more money in these bills for law enforcement, to provide funds to State and localities which are being cut from last year.

I oppose the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment not because I oppose the COPS program, because I know the chairman does not oppose the Community-Oriented Policing Services program. As he indicated, his family understands how important community policing is. But I rise in opposition to this amendment because of the offsets. As Chairman Wolf has pointed out, the gentleman makes unacceptable offsets here.

I would ask, does the gentleman from Washington really think that a $50 million cut from the FBI, including funding for counterterrorism and counterintelligence programs, is something that the FBI can do without?

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time because I only have 2 minutes, I need a little more efficient answer. Does the gentleman think that the FBI's counterterrorism program can stand a $50 million cut from what we have appropriated and recommend in this bill?

Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman think that his amendment, which cuts DE mobile enforcement teams, which go out and help State and local fight methamphetamine, does the gentleman think we can afford to cut those programs?

Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time. My point is, Mr. Chairman, the cuts are simply unacceptable. The purpose is laudable. The offsets are unacceptable.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, much for the same reason I rose in opposition to the previous amendment. It is not that the additional funding is not needed in the program, it is that the money that is the funded to the Census Bureau is needed in the Census Bureau.

The chairman and I have worked very hard in trying to balance these accounts. They are delicately balanced because of the bad allocation that we received. The Census Bureau in order to do its job has to prepare early. It looks like a lot of money. It is a big job. It is extremely important that it is done right. While I am totally supportive in increasing these local and State law enforcement assistance programs, the offsets are just untenable, this one included. I rise to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, if I may inquire, what was the unanimous consent request stated by the gentleman from Virginia?

I just want the gentlewoman to understand it. I do not think she did understand it.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman's reasoning, and I agree to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

This is awful. Can we not find a more vulnerable group in the country to take money away from? At a time when the country is rewarding wealth by huge high-income tax cuts, surely we can find money for worthy purposes someplace other than Legal Services. The fact is the poor people, if they are going to participate in the American dream, if they are going to participate in the American legal system that we all are so proud of, then they have to be able to have support in that effort. That is recognized. The whole premise of the Legal Services Corporation recognizes that, and its services are totally inadequate.

Fifty percent of the potential clients were turned away from Legal Services and not served at all last year. In West Virginia we are turning away 90 percent of the people requesting services. Legal Services requested more money than we were able to appropriate to them. This is not a place to cut for anything, for law enforcement.

And the other irony here is where the gentleman finds money to support law enforcement, he finds money from folks who are living in the communities that need this additional law enforcement. I would suggest to him that he go to the high income tax people who have received inordinate benefits from the tax cuts we have given them in the last 5 years to find his offsets to support the policing that is needed most in the communities from where the people who are seeking legal services aid in the Legal Services Corporation come from.

This is a bad amendment. It cuts a program that is desperately needed if we expect everybody in the country to participate in the American legal system, and we should expect and want and make sure that everybody participates in the American legal system that we are all so proud of and bragging about.

Mr. Chairman, the way the time was divided up, the minority got no time in opposition to this amendment. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent for 8 additional minutes, to be divided equally between the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and myself.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment is not a benign amendment. It is an anti-ocean amendment. Understand, it is really not an amendment fighting immigration on the border; it is a reimbursement amendment. I will be corrected if I am wrong in my interpretation, but it is a reimbursement amendment to States who have expended money on incarceration of illegal aliens. My point is that as it is a reimbursement to States, it is not for fighting on-the-line illegal immigration.

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, it is not benign in a very important way: the House mark already cuts the NOAA budget by over $486 million from the 2005 enacted levels and $153 million from the President's request. So NOAA in this bill is already feeling the pain, along with a lot of the other accounts, because of our inadequate allocation.

This amendment is extremely difficult to NOAA for a lot of reasons.

First and foremost, just looking at it overall, this amendment would result in RIFs to NOAA. Over 100 employees, NOAA employees, government employees, would be affected, would be RIF'd by this amendment, and over 200 nongovernmental researchers and staff. This comes from operations, a lot of this money, Mr. Chairman; and it would have a real employee impact.

These are some of the operations it would cut, and they include research: $5 million from the NOAA core and program support; $12 million from the National Marine Fisheries Service. It is certainly a very anti-ocean amendment: $8 million from the National Oceans Service; $3 million from the National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service; $7 million from the Oceanic, Atmospheric and Research Activities; and, extremely important, and we ought to understand as we deal with this amendment, it would involve a $14.9 million, almost a $15 million, reduction out of operations for the National Weather Service Hurricane and Other Severe Weather Warnings.

As I said in the beginning, Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. It is not benign. It has a lot of very harmful effects on NOAA, an organization that has already experienced its fair share of pain as we moved this bill to the floor.

Again, this bill has been well balanced. For those agencies, the pain has been spread evenly. For us to go in and start having these kinds of severe cuts in agencies like NOAA is very harmful.

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

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

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

Mr. Chairman, as I yield to another gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) to close, I note that the minuscule amount results in 100 RIFs out of NOAA.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I just want to associate myself with the ranking member's comments and express appreciation for the majority side in working hard on this. The number of amendments we have agreed to reflects the interest in the bill. It is an important bill, and we are certainly going to thoroughly consider it. I just want to express my appreciation for working out this unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of this resolution which will repeal the unfortunate ethics rules changes that the majority included in the House rules package that was adopted on January 4 of this year.

For those of us who have opposed these rules changes from the outset, it has been a long, difficult effort and it is gratifying to see it finally succeed.

I have maintained from the outset, Mr. Speaker, that what is at issue in

these rules changes is in fact the fundamental question of whether the House is going to continue to have a credible ethics process, a credible ethics process that will command the respect and confidence of both the Members of the House and the public. And I firmly believe that nothing less than this is at stake here tonight.

Back in 1967, the House of Representatives in its wisdom also thought that it was important for the House to have a credible ethics process. The premise to ensuring credibility of that ethics process was bipartisanship. It was the standard by which the Ethics Committee's organization was measured; and the original committee established back in 1967 was, in fact, bipartisan. An equal number of Democrats and an equal number of Republicans. A unique situation in the House of Representatives where partisanship is the way we are organized, and rightly so. But it is not right with regard to the Ethics Committee.

Those founding Members, if you will, recognized that the Ethics Committee that was going to be able to do its job, if it is going to be able to have the confidence of the body, if it was going to be able to maintain the standards that reflect favorably upon the House of Representatives and enforce those standards in the face of the American people, then its decisions had to come from bipartisanship.

Mr. Speaker, that bipartisanship has been reflected each and every time the House of Representatives has reconsidered major rules changes. So far as I know, in each time that the House of Representatives has undertaken to change the rules with regard to the Ethics Committee, it has abided by that principle of bipartisanship by establishing a committee that was equally represented of Democrats and equally represented from Republicans.

These bipartisan task forces, one established in 1988 when the Democrats were in charge of the House, in the majority, one established in 1997 when the Republicans were in charge of the House of Representatives, each maintained this principle of bipartisanship. These bipartisan ethics rules task forces were charged with going off, sitting around a table and coming up with rules that they could recommend; and they were charged with recommending back to the House of Representatives.

On each occasion, those bipartisan task forces fulfilled that mission admirably. They negotiated in that proper environment ethics rules, each side saying why they objected to the other side's proposals and working out the compromises.

The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), our colleague who is here tonight, performed distinguished service, along with his Democrat and Republican counterparts in that 1997 bipartisan task force, and it is under those rules which the committee was operating last year in the 108th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, whatever the motivation for the Speaker and the Republican leadership directing the Committee on Rules to change the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct rules, the process which they undertook was flawed from the beginning. Why? Because they violated that tradition and the principle that is embedded in that tradition to change Committee on Standards of Official Conduct rules through bipartisan task forces.

That is our first objection to the majority's rule changes of January 4 of this year, that because they could, because they were in the majority, come up with rules changes, direct the Committee on Rules to embed them in the House rules package, pass them in that omnibus package by the most partisan vote the House casts, all Republicans voting for, all Democrats voting against, and in that process, imposing in a partisan manner the rules changes.

It is no wonder that these three rules changes, the automatic complaint dismissal rule, the rule that allows the attorney of accused to represent all the witnesses, and the rule that allows anybody mentioned unfavorably to immediately opt for a trial rather than investigation, it is no wonder that in that partisan process those rules were flawed, and they were.

It is imperative that we change these rules. The gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) is doing the right thing here tonight by reversing his decision earlier this year and directing that this resolution be brought to the floor.

The committee, Mr. Speaker, can now organize. It can now get on with its business. It can now consider some of the very tough issues like staffing issues that have been referenced here; and if there is a concern about rules in the House, we can all move on a bipartisan basis in the right direction, through the right format, by forming a bipartisan task force to come up with bipartisan rules changes to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and, in the process, assure the Chamber and the American people that the credibility of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is going to be maintained.

I look forward to working with the gentleman from Washington (Chairman Hastings), my distinguished chairman, in moving forward with the business of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.

Mr. Speaker, on March 1 of this year I introduced a resolution, House Resolution 131, that would repeal the ill-conceived amendment to the House ethics rules that were included in the rules package adopted at the beginning of this Congress.

Although this resolution has now gained 208 co-sponsors, the Committee on Rules to which it has been referred has not yet taken any action on it. Accordingly, it now becomes necessary to begin to invoke the procedures provided by House Rule 15, to discharge a measure from the committee.

To that end, today I am introducing a resolution that provides terms for the consideration of House Resolution 131 by the full House. Under House Rule 15, a discharge petition may be filed

with regard to this resolution after 7 legislative days.

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that what is at issue with House Resolution 131 is, in fact, whether the House of Representatives is going to continue to have a credible ethics process that can be effective in protecting the reputation and the integrity of this great institution. And for at least two reasons, the House will not and cannot have a credible ethics process unless the Republican-inspired rules changes made earlier this year are repealed.

First, there cannot be a credible ethics process in the House unless it is genuinely bipartisan. By definition, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct was created as a bipartisan organization within a very partisan body, and its rules have always been fashioned through a bipartisan task force.

Until this year, the House clearly and repeatedly recognized that bipartisanship must extend to the creating of the rules under which the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct conducts its business; and in the past, changes in those rules were made in an open, in a thoughtful, and in a genuinely bipartisan manner.

But this year, Mr. Speaker, in contrast to past tradition, the rules changes were drafted solely on the recommendation of the majority, in a partisan, in a closed, in a secret process in which no one on the Democrat side of the aisle was even consulted. So the rules were adopted on a strict party line vote: all the Republicans voting for; all the Democrats voting against.

Mr. Speaker, this is the most partisan vote we cast in the House of Representatives. Never in the history of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has there been an attempt to impose rules in this manner on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.

Mr. Speaker, the second concern about these rules changes is there has been an attempt to impose them on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct in a very partisan way, but the rules in and of themselves are extremely damaging. The fact is that, at a minimum, these rules changes will seriously undermine the ability of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to perform its key responsibilities of investigating and making decisions on allegations of wrongdoing.

These rules changes fall into three categories.

First, there is the so-called automatic dismissal rule under which a complaint against a Member that is filed with the committee can be dismissed solely with the passage of time, no consideration of its merits. Under this automatic dismissal rule, that period of time can be as brief as 45 days from the date that the complaint is deemed to satisfy the procedural requirements of the rules. Previously, a complaint could be dismissed only by majority vote of the committee.

The effect of this automatic dismissal rule will be to give the committee members a means by which they can avoid their responsibility to give thoughtful, reasoned consideration to every complaint and to all of the charges in every complaint. Its ultimate effect will be to provoke partisanship and deadlock among committee members as they wait for the clock to run out. Does the majority really want this result?

Another of the rules changes is that it grants certain so-called due process rights to Members. One of those rights is the right to demand that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct conduct a trial on a matter on which it has not even conducted a formal investigation. This so-called right would place the committee in the position of having to hold a trial on a matter in which it has not issued a single subpoena. Does the majority really want this result?

The third rule change, Mr. Speaker, is the so-called right to counsel provision which might be better characterized as the right to orchestrate testimony provision or the right to allow collusion among the accused and the witnesses. It would provide that one lawyer can represent the accused and all of the witnesses. Does the majority really want this result?

Mr. Speaker, I continue to urge my colleagues to look closely at the rules changes and the partisan manner in which they were adopted. By adoption of House Resolution 131, the House can begin to undo the damage that has been done to the ethics process, and we will be able to have once again an ethics process that commands the confidence and respect of both the Members of this body, and Mr. Speaker, most importantly, the American people, who, I believe, on a bipartisan basis want a bipartisan Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.