Alan B. Mollohan: “I oppose the amendment, again, not because of the intended purpose of the gentleman trying to do good here and getting…”

“I oppose the amendment, again, not because of the intended purpose of the gentleman trying to do good here and getting additional resources into the crime victims fund. That's worthy. It's being authorized at $625 million, this amendment would raise it to $635 million. And you might ask, if there are additional resources, why don't we disperse all of them? Well, that's because that fund has to be managed to ensure that there's a source of funds that will remain available for the program despite the inconsistent levels of the criminal fees that are deposited there annually. So part of that is trying to manage the account to assure stability year in and year out so that funds will be available for victims to be paid out according to the authority. I would like to point out that the gentleman's offset draws from an account that has been drawn from in the past, and it is the offset is in Commerce. We started out at $58.6 million at the beginning of the day. We've had a $25 million cut, a $10 million cut. This cut would take us down to $23 million, if my math is right. But if my math is not precisely right, my point should be taken that we've gone from $58.6 million down to approximately $23 million in this S&E account. That's a 60 percent reduction. There is going to be nobody left to administer these programs. And that's why we have to think very carefully.…”