Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Newdow v. United States Congress is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the first amendment and should be overturned, and for other purposes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 minutes.

I am pleased to begin consideration of H.R. 2799, the Departments of Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary and related agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004. This bill provides funding for programs whose impact ranges from the safety of people in their homes and communities, to the conduct of diplomacy around the world, to predicting the weather from satellites in outer space. The bill before the House today reflects a delicate balance of needs and requirements. We have drafted what I consider a responsible bill for fiscal year 2004 spending levels for the Departments and agencies under the subcommittee's jurisdiction. We have had to carefully prioritize the funding in this bill and make hard choices about how to spend scarce resources.

The bill before the House today recommends a total of $37.9 billion in discretionary funding, which is $700 million above the enacted level for fiscal year 2003 and $237 million above the President's request. For the Department of Justice, the bill provides $20.15 billion in discretionary funding, which is $1.15 billion above the request.

The bill includes funding for Federal law enforcement agencies to perform traditional law enforcement duties and fight terrorism. The bill also provides more than $1 billion above the request to support State and local law enforcement crime-fighting efforts. It includes $4.64 billion for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, an increase of $424 million above fiscal year 2003 and the same as the President's request. This funding will support almost 2,500 new agents and analysts in the FBI to improve counterterrorism and counterintelligence efforts and to continue fighting violent crime, drugs, corporate fraud, and cybercrime.

The bill includes $80 million for high-priority FBI technology needs and funding above the request for language translation and training programs. $2.16 billion is provided for the Drug Enforcement Administration, an increase of $237 million above fiscal year 2003 and $57 million above the comparable request to fight drug crime. The amount includes a transfer of the interagency crime and drug enforcement program under the DEA to consolidate drug law enforcement efforts, $25 million to establish a drug intelligence fusion center to allow agencies to share realtime investigative data, and funding above the request to support 939 new positions, including 434 new DEA and FBI agents. $3.5 billion is provided for proven State and local law enforcement crime-fighting programs, which is $1.2 billion above the request.

When combined with funding provided in the homeland security bill, the committee is providing more than $2 billion above the request for State and local crime control and domestic preparedness funding. The bill restores funds for programs that were proposed to be eliminated, including $500 million for the Byrne formula program, $400 million for the local law enforcement block grant program, and $400 million for

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

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

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

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I absolutely am. These are provisions that have been carried before. The gentleman is the new chairman of that committee. Before we do that next year, we will sit down with the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for bringing these to our attention and for not striking.

Mr. Chairman, there was an analysis of the FCC's travel paid for by non-Federal sources. They found that agency officials took more than 2,500 industry-sponsored trips between May of 1995 and February of 2003, costing $2.8 million. Each of the current commissioners took trips. One commissioner took 44 trips during that time frame, including trips to Las Vegas, Hawaii, and London.

When the issue came out, a member of the FCC staff said that it was because the Committee on Appropriations did not fund their travel. That is not accurate. And as a result of that, we wanted to do this.

One commissioner, who has only been a commissioner since July of 2001, took 12 trips valued at over $14,000. One career employee took 104 trips valued at $150,000, including to France, Japan, Singapore, the United Kingdom, and Sweden. That means the regulatees are paying for the trips of the regulator.

So the reason we are putting this in, I would say to my friend from Michigan, was that when this study came out, the FCC said the reason they had to do this was because they were not being adequately funded, which was not accurate and, therefore, they are adequately funded to travel. I think from a public interest point of view, to allow one person to take 104 trips valued at almost $150,000 to France, Japan, Singapore, the United Kingdom,

and Sweden was why the subcommittee did that from a public policy point of view.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, we will do that, I can assure the gentleman.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) about an amendment that we are prepared, when we go to conference, to make sure it is not in the bill, which is what he desired. Since his time has passed, and in fairness to others who missed that time, rather than going back, and there may be an objection, I just want to assure the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) that what he is offering, working with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), we will accept that amendment and strike it when we go to conference, in fairness to the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

Reclaiming my time, I will do that and work with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano); and in order to protect the gentleman's interests, we will do that.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

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

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

I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

I continue to yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, other Members have been in this situation. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) missed the opportunity and could not offer an amendment. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) missed the opportunity and could not offer an amendment, as did the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus). And I think there were several over on that side. And once you have told them that they have missed their opportunity, to do this now, in essence, I would have to go back.

Also, there are a large number of other amendments that are subject to a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if I may, as the gentleman knows, under Helms-Biden, which passed in the year 2000, the contribution level was reduced from 25 percent to 22 percent.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

Reclaiming my time, I share the gentleman's concerns, particularly with regard to one of the countries mentioned, Romania, but as the gentleman knows, the President's request proposed the elimination or reduction to broadcasted nations that have either entered or are on the road to joining the European Union or have been invited into NATO.

And the International Broadcasting Bureau has additional money because the President's request prioritized money to the Middle East and the Muslim world, including Southeast Asia, to bolster the efforts of the war on terrorism.

So we do have report language to require the Broadcasting Board of Governors to closely monitor the situation in those countries and inform the committee of any changes that would alter the priorities.

But I understand what the gentleman is saying.

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

The gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) is supposed to be here, but in the interim, just to briefly discuss the issues.

The bill provides, as people know, the funding for the programs whose impact ranges from the safety of people in their homes and community diplomacy. The overall bill today recommends a total of $37.9 billion in discretionary funding, which is $700 million above the enacted level of fiscal year 2003 and $237 million above the President's request.

For the Department of Justice, the bill provides $20.15 billion in discretionary funding, which is $1.15 billion above the request. The bill includes funding for Federal law enforcement agencies to perform traditional law enforcement duties and fight terrorism. The bill also provides more than $1 billion above the request to support State and local law enforcement crime-fighting efforts. That has been an issue that a lot of people have been deeply concerned about.

It provides $4.64 billion for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, an increase of $424 million above fiscal year 2003 and the same as the President's request. This will result in more than 2,500 new agents and analysts at the FBI to improve counterterrorism and counterintelligence and continue the fight on crime, drugs, corporate fraud and cybercrime.

Also, there is $80 million for high-priority FBI technology needs and funding above the request for language translation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) for bringing this matter to our attention. We are confident that the Department of Justice will soon resolve the issue, and I will continue to work with the gentleman to make sure this happens.

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

Before I recognize the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), let me say I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) for the comment.

To the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), we have been very fair. In fact, we have been very fair to every Member in the House, on both sides of the aisle; and I think the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) points are well taken. There are other amendments that have not been made in order, and I am not going to get into a debate. If the gentleman wants me to yield, I will yield to him; but I think we have been fair, and I did just want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) for the comments.

I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to thank the gentleman for his comments on the importance of the Police Corps. I have heard from several other Members on this issue, and I know that many of our colleagues would agree with the gentleman about the role this program has had in helping to provide an exceptional level of training for our Nation's police force.

I support the program. It is a good program, and I will work with the gentleman and the Senate to ensure the program is well funded in the conference.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for his comments.

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

The bill includes $71.4 million for the United States to join UNESCO. There was a vote, I believe, in the last Congress whereby this issue was voted on. I believe it was offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). This was an initiative that President Bush announced last year. The U.S. withdrew from UNESCO in 1984 when the organization was rife with corruption and an anti-Western bias. The organization was mismanaged and was not working with regard to the national interest. Since that time, the Bush administration believes that the organization has undergone a number of reforms and the current leadership is committed to sustaining these gains and is committed to fundamental human rights and democratic principles. The Bush administration believes that participation in UNESCO will allow them to be engaged with the international partners on a host of critical issues.

Therefore, I would urge my colleagues to stand with the Bush administration on this initiative and reject the gentleman's amendment.

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

We have a position from the Justice Department, and I will read a portion for Members. It says that ``The Justice Department asked the United States Supreme Court to reaffirm the right of Americans to recite voluntarily the Pledge of Allegiance. Two decisions of the Supreme Court have said without qualification that the Pledge is constitutional.'' And I, as I am sure most Members of this body are, am opposed to what the Court ruled and agree with what the Justice Department is saying here.

Two decisions of the Supreme Court have said without qualification that the Pledge is constitutional. No Justice has expressed any other views. Schools across America and hundreds of thousands of school children have relied on the Supreme Court's repeated assurance as they have started their day with the Pledge.

And they go on to say, and I agree, ``Our religious heritage has been recognized and celebrated for hundreds of years in a National Motto, 'In God we trust,' the National Anthem, the Declaration of Independence, and Gettysburg Address. As the Court has ruled again and again, our government and people can acknowledge the important role religion has played in America's foundation, history and character.

``The Justice Department,'' they go on to say, ``will vigorously defend our Nation's heritage and our children's ability to recite the Pledge.'' And I believe that Attorney General Ashcroft will do that.

The concern of the amendment is, and I will submit the full statement of the Justice Department in the Record, they end by saying this: ``Consideration of this legislation at this point would probably be premature. Congress,'' they say, ``should consider whether the Supreme Court should be given the opportunity to review the Ninth Circuit's decision without intervening legislation complicating its analysis and the procedural posture of the case. For example, part of the government's case before the Court involves demonstrating that there is real harm to the Ninth Circuit's ruling.'' And this is the case. ``So if the Ninth Circuit's ruling is gutted legislatively, the Justice Department might find it harder to make that claim and could strengthen the hands of our opponents' efforts to diminish or eliminate the Federal Government's role in defending the Pledge of Allegiance.

``Also, if the Justice Department prevails in the Supreme Court, there is a chance that opponents might try to construe this statutory language as limiting the Federal Government's ability to spend funds in a manner consistent with the Supreme Court ruling.''

I do not agree with the Court's ruling, and I understand, and I was with my colleague here, but I certainly do not want to do anything in this bill that does, as Justice Department said, if it is gutted legislatively, the Justice Department might find it harder to make that claim and could diminish the strength of the hands of the opponents' efforts to diminish or eliminate the Federal Government's role in defending the Pledge of Allegiance.

I think to do this on a legislative appropriations bill, we really have to go with the Justice Department, and I am going to rely on Attorney General Ashcroft to fight the Ninth Circuit's case and not do something that might, even though the meaning is good, work against the other way and result in something taking place that I certainly do not want to take place, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) and frankly, I do not think this House wants to take place; and I oppose the amendment.

The Justice Department asked the United States Supreme Court to reaffirm the right of Americans to recite voluntarily the Pledge of Allegiance. Two decisions of the Supreme Court have said without qualification that the Pledge is constitutional. No Justice has expressed any other view. Schools across America, and hundreds of thousands of school children, have relied on the Supreme Court's repeated assurances as they have started their day with the Pledge.

Our religious heritage has been recognized and celebrated for hundreds of years in the National Motto (``In God we trust''), National Anthem, Declaration of Independence, and Gettysburg Address. As the Court has ruled again and again, our government and people can acknowledge the important role religion has played in America's foundation, history and character. The Justice Department will vigorously defend our Nation's heritage and our children's ability to recite the Pledge.

The Newdow case was about whether the inclusion of the phrase ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Newdow sued both the United States and the Elk Grove School District to have the Pledge declared unconstitutional. The Ninth Circuit held that the Pledge is unconstitutional when its voluntary recitation is led by teachers in public elementary schools.

On April 30, 2003, the Justice Department joined the Elk Grove School District and asked the Supreme Court to overrule the 9th Circuit (Newdow has also sought to overrule the 9th Circuit for an even broader invalidation of the Pledge). The latest filling by the Justice Department was on July 14, 2003. Some time in October, we will know whether the Supreme Court has decided whether or not to take the case.

Consideration of this legislation at this point would probably be premature. Congress should consider whether the Supreme Court should be given the opportunity to review the 9th Circuit's decision without intervening legislation complicating its analysis and the procedural posture of the case. For example, part of the government's case before the Court involves demonstrating that there is a real harm to the 9th Circuit's ruling. So, if the 9th Circuit's ruling is gutted legislatively, the Justice Department might find it harder to make that claim and could strengthen the hands of our opponents' efforts to diminish or eliminate the Federal government's role in defending the Pledge of Allegiance.

Also, if the Justice Department prevails in the Supreme Court, there is a chance that opponents might try to construe this statutory language as limiting the Federal government's ability to spend funds in a manner consistent with the Supreme Court ruling.

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

Mr. Chairman, I completely agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), completely; and I would ask Members to vote against the Hinchey amendment. The Hinchey amendment would weaken the bill and we would end up with exactly what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said.

This is an issue of values. This is an issue of values that Members on both sides of the aisle have to deal with. I know that there have been powerful lobbyists and interests that have been hired in this town to work against what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is doing, and in essence they would come down here and ask you to probably support the Hinchey amendment. But it is an issue of values.

Many times there is such garbage on these TV shows that a locality cannot preempt them, ``The Millionaire,'' ``The Bachelor,'' ``The Bachelorette.'' They do not cover the issues with regard to the famine in Africa or issues like that. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is right.

I would ask Members on my side of the aisle, this is an issue of values. If you look at those concerned with the expansion in allowing one network, one network that may not very well repeat and have our values, be able to do this, what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said is exactly right. So I just second it. He said it better than anyone could.

I urge Members to defeat the Hinchey amendment, because it would do exactly what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to start off where the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) left off, and that is thanking both staffs for the work they have done. This is a difficult bill. It is a bill that at times is loved by many and at times either disliked or feared by some.

So the staff, as we all know, day after day and night after night, put together the work that they do. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has mentioned some names, and I want to just reinforce those names and thank both the majority staff and the minority staff for the work they do.

On my staff I would like to pay special tribute to Rob and David for the fact that they just, as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) said, in a relentless way never give up in making sure that things are done properly; and on my staff, Lucy, Nadine, Pete, and everyone else who is back in the office and works towards making this the product that it is to date.

I would also like to join my chairman in thanking the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) for his leadership and his understanding and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), my ranking member, for the support he gives us in allowing us to go forward with this particular bill.

But this could not be done, none of this, if we did not have the kind of support that we have from the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), who is such a shy guy that he actually left the floor so he would not hear me praise him, but he is back.

When we look at the way that we handle politics in this country, when we look at the way we legislate in this country, it is assumed by many people, especially in the media, that if we come from different parts of the country and if we have different political

philosophies that we will never get along and never work together. The gentleman from Virginia and I may be living proof that if we believe in fairness and honesty in dealing with each other, we can in fact work together; and I am here to thank him publicly for taking a very difficult, I believe and our side believes, allocation and meeting to a large extent the needs that our side had and the concerns that we had. He was able to reallocate dollars, to move dollars around, and to do it understanding that in order to have a bill that has bipartisan support, as I am sure this one will be at the end of the day, we do that by understanding the needs that he has and the needs that I have, which are representative of both sides of the aisle.

So I want to thank the gentleman for understanding that and for working with us on this.

The process, as I say, was fair and a fair distribution of very limited resources. I have to compliment the chairman especially for some of the work that we did such as the fully funded Federal Bureau of Investigations, FBI, which has been involved in a great part of our war against terrorism and has needed our support and has received our support.

On the other hand, because the FBI is engaged in the war on terrorism, it has unfortunately, unfortunately and I hope only temporarily, turned away from some of its other duties in the past, such as the fight on drugs. It is not fighting the drug war the way it used to in the past. And for that reason, I am also happy with the fact that we were able to fully fund and go $43 million above the President's request for the Drug Enforcement Administration, the DEA, to make up for the FBI's deemphasizing on illegal drugs.

The Office of Justice Programs, OJP, this bill restores $1.2 billion for key State and local law enforcement grant programs including Byrne grants, $650 million dollars; the local law enforcement block grant, $400 million; State Criminal Alien Assistance program, $400 million. In addition, those cultural and science and education organizations such as UNESCO and others that we deal with in the international community have been fully funded; and we, in fact, in some of these can once again join these organizations to play our role in the international community.

The international organizations, also, that handle peacekeeping and that are involved in peacekeeping efforts throughout the world, that has been fully funded at the request of $1 billion and $550 million respectively. Worldwide security programs, full funding of the request at $1.5 billion.

The Legal Services Corporation, I want once again to thank the chairman for caring for some of the issues that so many Members care for, and the Legal Services Corporation, LSC, is one of them. In the past, we were forced to come to the House to try to amend the bill to bring it back to last year's funding. The chairman has chosen in his tenure as chairman of the committee to make sure that we do not do that, that the bill is dealt with in committee, the agency is dealt with in committee, and in fact, this year with $10 million above the President's request; and I thank him for that.

Obviously, as we have said before, it has been a difficult allocation, and therefore there are some issues that are still pending and that are difficult. The most important one is the Community Oriented Policing Service, the COPS hiring program, which is underfunded this year. It has been funded properly in the past. It continues to be an important program, and part, Mr. Chairman, of what we are doing here today is hoping that with our support of this bill and our continuing working together with the chairman in a bipartisan fashion that as this bill goes to conference, some of the issues that are still not properly addressed will be addressed. I am confident that the COPS program enjoys a bipartisan constituency both here and in the Senate that will allow it to get the kind of dollars that it needs.

There are, and I can go on, some other issues that still need to be addressed, but on the whole, this bill, I believe, merits our support and this approach merits our support.

I am also happy at the fact that a key amendment that was important to all of us is in the bill, is protected by the rule and, I think, makes a serious statement about the bipartisan effort in our committee.

As I said before, I fully support this bill, and I would hope that at the end of the day, both sides of the aisle see it as the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) and I do and give it their full support.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member, the gentleman that I said gives us the kind of support that we need on our side to function.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we would agree with the chairman and be committed to doing that.

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

For my part, I would like to comment on what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said. We take our responsibilities seriously. We have a chairman, we have a ranking member of a subcommittee, and we have a chairman and a ranking member of the full committee. Our intent at all times is to look out for our side, for our needs for the American people, and for the committee package and product in general.

We run into situations like we had today where the schedule was changed, where time ran against us, and we try to do the best possible work that we can do. But I think it would be unfair and perhaps improper to suggest that everyone somehow was involved in trying to keep one amendment or one change or one person from speaking, because that is not true and that is not the case.

What we have here today is the fact that we have a bill that deals with a lot of issues that we need to get out of the House. We have a bill that has a time in terms of making sure that these issues are spoken about prior to the August recess, so we can send the proper message to the State Department and the Justice Department and the embassy security people and the FBI and DEA and all the other people that we deal with. We are trying to accommodate everyone.

Members have to understand that there is one request that I make, and, listen, I get as angry as everybody else about things that happen around here, but one request, and that is, as the ranking member of a subcommittee, and my colleagues know that I am working on a bill for the last 6, 7, 8, 9 months, and this is from the beginning of the session, it is not too much to ask that 2 or 3 days before today to let me know what is going on so I can play my role in being protective, not giving me a general idea, but give me some specifics as to where we are going.

We have a unanimous consent statement and we have to live by it. But, please, let us do one thing, and this is where I join the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) strongly today. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) is a fair man, and nothing he does is done improperly, and I want to make that clear.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me just add to the statement of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), this staff that we see around us, and this is not buttering anybody up, works 24-7, especially during the appropriations period, which for us starts in January with over 20-odd hearings. All I am asking as a ranking member, for both sides, is to give us the specifics a few days before. That is what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) asked for and that is all that we need so that we can be supportive to Members' needs.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman. We have an agreement on the floor, and we should live with that agreement.

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

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to make one technical request, and that is at certain times when the chairman speaks, someone should turn up the mike so we can hear ourselves.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), my brother, his comments. We understand his frustration,

but his last comments were correct. As this bill goes along and continues to go into conference, it is the intention of both the chairman and I to continue to work on those areas that are deficient in the hope that they could grow as they should.

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

I just want to say to my friend and gentleman from Vermont that I do not think anyone here is discussing the merits of the issue. At the risk of using an old phrase since September 11, perhaps since September 12, everybody on the Committee on Appropriations knows that I have made a career, if you will, of denouncing the abuses on civil liberties in this country. I think the gentleman knows that. I think all Members who have come in contact with me know that. I have become a broken record on the issue of what is happening to us as a Nation in terms of our civil liberties.

We are not discussing that at this very moment. We have a problem. We are charged with the responsibility of getting a bill through the House that, in addition to dealing with this particular issue that the gentleman speaks to, also deals with the security of our embassies overseas; that pays the salaries of the men and women who do the fighting against drugs in this country; and that goes across the way in putting together the kind of legislation that we call the Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary and related agencies bill.

If nothing else is accomplished today, and it does look, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member, has said, like we are heading towards a very difficult rule coming out of the committee, if nothing else happens today, I think it is important for the gentleman from Vermont to know that nothing on this side, and I do not believe anything in the gentleman from Virginia's (Mr. Wolf) behavior had anything to do with the desire to shut down the discussion of civil liberties. I will never be part of that. On the contrary, I would fight for time to be involved in that fight.

This is about a process, a process that some people, somehow, did not become part of, did not alert us about, did not ask us to be involved in, to be of assistance; and now we have come to this point. I understand that.

In the past, I have engaged in behavior that says we have to get things done; but just for the record, this ranking member, this Member from New York, would never participate in an action to shut down a discussion on civil liberties because that, to me, is the strongest issue as ranking member of this committee; and I will not rest till I undo the harm that has been done to the people in this country. This was about a process, not about a shutting down of discussion.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I just want to clarify something that the gentleman, my brother from New York, said. It was not that a majority wanted something and a small group stopped it. It was that we had a unanimous consent. And by virtue of its being unanimous consent, one could argue that it was the majority that made that decision, fair or unfair as it was.

And it was not the attempt of anyone here, not the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), not I, to shut anyone down.

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

I rise in opposition to the amendment. I think it is one of those issues where, instead of removing ourselves from involvement, we should be doing just the opposite and, that is, involving ourselves even more. UNESCO aims to promote peace and security through facilitating collaboration among member states in the areas of education, science, and culture. The following is a list of UNESCO's areas of activity and an example of its work in each area:

In the area of education, for instance. UNESCO promotes literacy and in post-Taliban Afghanistan by providing schooling materials and assisting with the reconstruction of institutions. In communication and information, it promotes press freedom and independent media in Afghanistan and Bosnia-Herzegovina. In the area of culture, it has encouraged countries to sign the World Heritage Convention to protect sites of cultural significance within their borders. In natural sciences, it provides assessment of ocean conditions and resources for preservation. In social and human sciences, it promotes research and developing educational materials on HIV/AIDS. So many different organizations throughout the world, from the arts, to scholars, to religious organizations support our involvement in UNESCO again.

The President has made a crucial first step toward U.S. reentry to

UNESCO by including $71 million for U.S. dues in his 2004 budget request. The State Department authorization bill currently authorizes this request and ``such sums as may be necessary'' to pay U.S. dues to UNESCO. Not only will this allow us this involvement but my understanding is that by doing it now, we get a seat on the board which then would allow us to move programs and behavior in UNESCO to our liking and to our needs. I rise in support of the gentleman from Virginia's comments of the President's request and desire to reenter UNESCO and in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to do something that I have not done in 29\1/2\ years. And I know that got everybody's attention. What could I possibly have not done in 29\1/2\ years?

Well, 29\1/2\ years is how long I have known the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey). We were elected to the State assembly as so-called ``Watergate Babies'' in 1974. And I can still recall that that December when we first went up to Albany, nearly froze to death in typical Albany weather, I think I just lost a few Albany votes, and began a friendship that has lasted all this time.

Of that 29\1/2\ years I have never either privately nor in a public forum spoken in disagreement with anything he has said or proposed. And technically, at the expense of sounding like a politician, technically I do not disagree with him.

I do not disagree with the intent of his amendment. If it was up to me, the Obey amendment would have been far-reaching. But I disagree with his amendment today for the reasons that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and others have expressed. Because it is my understanding now, as I understand this issue and the politics of this issue, that his desire to do the right thing would jeopardize that which is in the bill already and that which we have accomplished.

Now, I told you a couple of seconds ago that it is the first time I have disagreed with him. So I hope that he, as my brother, that he understands that this is not the easiest statement for me to make. But I know how much he believes in this issue. I know how much the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) believes in this issue. I know how much I believe in this issue. And I know how much we have accomplished.

I have to tell you that I was in shock at the bipartisan vote in committee for the Obey amendment. I was pleased. I was joyous. But I was shocked.

I know that people who oppose this language, people out there in the industry who are opposed to what we are about to do in this bill, are trying to figure out how to undo it. And I am convinced, as so many have said today, that the Hinchey amendment will allow many to get off supporting what we have done and, in fact, find a reason or an excuse to back off.

And so it is for that reason that I risk his slight wrath momentarily as I look over those 29\1/2\ years and promise the gentleman that I probably will never disagree with him again, but I have to rise in opposition to this amendment at this time; and I would hope that Members see it that way and vote against it.

Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that I will be supporting this bill, and I appreciate the approach taken by the subcommittee chairman in putting the bill together. He has, I think, been most fair and balanced in dealing with all of the pressures that were on him, and he has certainly been fair with us.

Let me say, however, having said that, that I think the allocation provided to this subcommittee was totally inadequate. And as the House by now has come to understand, I have had a series of amendments trying to limit the size of the tax cut which will be going to people who make more than $1 million a year in order to free up some additional investments in programs such as education, health care and the like.

We tried to do the same thing on this bill, but again, the Committee on Rules refused to make that amendment in order. And so we will not be able to offer and have considered by the House the amendment that would have used a tiny portion of those revenue resources to folks who make over $1 million a year in order to fund a number of law enforcement activities that we thought were very important.

I do want to mention one provision which is in this bill, which was adopted on a bipartisan basis in the committee, which I am very pleased about. As I think most Members know, there is considerable controversy about just how much of the Nation's airwaves ought to be owned by the media giants of this country.

The existing regulations had provided that no single corporation could own television stations that reached more than 35 percent of the national audience. The FCC, the Federal Communications Commission, in my view ill-advisedly, changed that to increase the percentage of national viewership that could be reached by a single corporate entity in the broadcasting business to 45 percent.

There is a great deal of consternation about that across the country, and I think that consternation is rooted in the fact that the public is beginning to understand that five media conglomerates, Viacom, Disney, AOL Time Warner, Newscorp and General Electric now control a 70 percent share of homes that are watching during prime time.

There are 91 major cable networks, 80 percent of which are owned by the same media conglomerates. Cable news networks are all owned by AOL Time Warner (CNN), Newscorp (Fox News), and General Electric, which is MSNBC and CNBC. The top 20 Internet news sites are also largely owned by the same media giants.

So, in my view, that is a severe threat to democracy. I am pleased that the committee adopted on a 40 to 25 vote the amendment that would assure that we would return to the initial 35 percent limit, rather than expanding it to the 45 percent limit that the FCC tried to foist on the country.

I want to make clear, this amendment does not go beyond television ownership. It does not get into issues such as cross-ownership between newspapers and television. I personally wish it did, because I do not like any of it. But the fact is that we have to be disciplined in deciding how much we can choose to take on at the same time without losing the whole argument.

So we have chosen to confine ourselves to this, the most egregious portion of the FCC rules, in an effort to protect local values, in an effort to protect local diversity of media voices.

I am very pleased that the committee has taken this position, and I would hope very much that the House would

stand behind it as we move to conference with the Senate.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Anybody who knows me knows that I am not interested in promoting the Republican agenda. I think that is a safe assumption on both sides of the aisle. But I want to say that I want to defend the subcommittee chairman in this instance.

What happened today is that the schedule for these bills was changed suddenly, with the support of both sides of the aisle, and I appreciate the fact that the change was made. I think it was helpful. So this bill was brought up instead of the Foreign Operations bill. That meant that for us to proceed, we needed to have a unanimous consent agreement on the scope of amendments that would be considered by the House so that Members would have some idea of what the schedule would be.

So what happened is that our staff, understanding what we were trying to do, put together their understandings of what the amendments were, and that was included in the UC agreement.

The gentleman indicated that he had an amendment which is not in order under the rules and needed to be changed somewhat. My understanding is that he asked the gentleman from Virginia to agree to a unanimous consent request. The gentleman from Virginia, in essence, said I cannot do that for you without doing it for other people because then we unravel the whole UC agreement. I think the gentleman from Virginia, under the circumstances, was correct.

Now, I happen to support the content of the Sanders amendment, but I have stood on this floor and I have stood in the whip's meeting, and I have stood in the Democratic Caucus, and I have said to people time and time again, if you want us to protect your amendments, please at least give us adequate notice so that we can try to find ways to do that.

We cannot anticipate, Mr. Chairman. We cannot anticipate all of the amendments that Members want to offer if we have not been given enough lead time ourselves so we can work with those Members.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman continue to yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

Even when we do get notice, sometimes we screw up, and we may have screwed up in a couple of instances today. But all I can say to each and every Member is, we try to cooperate

on both sides of the aisle in protecting Members.

We protected three amendments from this side of the aisle today, with which I fundamentally disagree, and there are a number of other amendments that I do not think should be here either; but we put them all in because that is what we thought the universe was.

With respect to the Sanders amendment, all I can say to the gentleman is, if the gentleman had come to the committee and given us enough time to work with him, we probably could have worked this out. But I fully understand why the gentleman from Virginia thinks that he had to object. He is trying to be fair to both sides, and I think the gentleman owes us notice if he expects us to try to protect his amendments.

Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that the gentleman from Vermont indicated that he turned on the television set and discovered the schedule had been changed. I discovered that the schedule had been changed in the middle of the rule vote just minutes before the change was made. The clock runs as fast for managers of the bill on both sides of the aisle as it runs for any other Member.

So what we tried to do was to take the specific amendments that we knew of and tried to protect them. I know of several other instances in which general amendments had been described to me, but about which I knew nothing in terms of specific content.

We cannot protect concepts; we have to know what the specific amendments are. And that is why I repeat, if Members want us to protect their rights, and we have an obligation to protect their rights, they owe us the consideration of talking to us enough ahead of time so that when the schedule changes, nobody gets trapped. We cannot help if we do not know in time to help.

There are concurrent responsibilities. I think the Committee on Appropriations on both sides of the aisle meets those responsibilities pretty doggone well. I think we try to protect the interests of Members pretty doggone well. We need more of your help than we are getting sometimes if we are going to do that. That is all I want to ask.

If you want an amendment protected, you cannot come up to us 5 minutes before the bill is going to come up on the floor and say, ``I have an amendment, how about it?'' It has to be checked out, it has to be staffed out, and it has to be checked with the Parliamentarian.

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

Mr. Chairman, I understand that shortly the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) will be offering yet another motion to have the committee rise. Before that happens, I just want to make one point.

I recall last week when the gentleman from Vermont was sitting here on the floor, and I was kidding him about how it is that the only Socialist in the House has been able to pass more amendments to appropriations bills the past 2 years than any other Member. And he told me if I wanted to have a similar success rate, I should listen more to him. And perhaps I should.

And I want to point out that last week I worked with him and the committee worked with him and we were able to restructure an amendment that he had on weatherization so that the committee wound up accepting the amendments adding, I believe, $15 million to that appropriation. That happened because there were no procedural surprises, and we had the time to work out that amendment.

The schedule that we worked on today has been sort of a surprise to everybody. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) did not know that his bill was going to come up before the Foreign Operations bill. I did not. Those decisions were made in a rather disorderly fashion because we are trying to accommodate each other in the last week of the session.

I regret the fact that the amendment that the gentleman wants to offer is out of order, but I would simply point out that I have a personal track record of trying to work with the gentleman in trying to facilitate his amendments.

I think the committee has tried, in general, to help Members, whether they agree with their amendments or not, to see that they have an opportunity to have them discussed before the House. But in this instance we have now had two votes and shortly, apparently, are going to have a third because the gentleman is upset because somehow either the House or the committee is seen as being to blame for the fact that the gentleman filed last night an amendment which he knew was out of order.

And I, for the life of me, do not understand why the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) or I or the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) or anyone else on the committee should be held responsible for the fact that the gentleman filed an amendment which he knew to be out of order when he filed it.

I would like to accommodate the gentleman as often as we can, but I do not think the House ought to be held at bay because the gentleman made a mistake in drafting his amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.

Mr. Chairman, if I can take back my time to correct that, on two occasions in the past 3 or 4 years, I myself have tried to correct amendments; and I have been denied that opportunity.

I would, but I want to make sure it is a correct point. Go ahead. I yield.

Mr. Chairman, I would simply say, with all due respect to the

gentleman, the content of his amendment is not in question. I support the amendment. I would like to see the House vote on it, but the gentleman from Virginia is in a position where if he makes an exception to a unanimous consent agreement entered into for one Member, then he has to do it for everyone else; and the fact is that the gentleman himself, if he wanted the amendment considered, had some obligation to the House to have the amendment printed in a form that he knew was in order. He knew that the amendment was not in order when he filed the amendment.

I am sorry, but everyone else knew it. I assume he knew it, too.

So, Mr. Chairman, we are obviously going to grind to a halt; and I am afraid that as a result of that, we will wind up going up to the Committee on Rules and adopting a far more limiting amendment which I do not believe we ought to do because I do not believe in shutting down the minority like that. But I do think you have to have some sense of responsibility on the part of all parties, including those who belong to no political party in this House, if we are going to make our way through this week; and with all due respect to the gentleman, who I regard as a friend and have a great deal of affection for, I do not believe that it is fair to hold the House hostage because the gentleman drew an amendment that was not in order.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

I think I heard the gentleman say this, but I want it repeated again so it is clear. Is the gentleman saying that this amendment would not interfere in any way with any existing patents with respect to stem cells?

I appreciate the gentleman's clarification.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to explain to the House what is at stake this afternoon. The Federal Communications Commission has recommended a number of changes in ownership patterns for media across the country. One of the changes was to raise from 35 percent to 45 percent the percentage of the national TV audience that could be reached by any one media conglomerate. Another part of the FCC ruling would have expanded opportunities for cross-ownership of media outlets all around the country, so that newspapers could own even more television stations than is the case today.

I oppose everything the FCC did, but the problem is that you have to make an intelligent judgment about how much you can bite off and win. The fact is that the Committee on Appropriations adopted my amendment in committee by a 40 to 25 bipartisan vote, and that amendment essentially rolled back the Federal Communication Commission's decision with respect to the national cap on ownership.

It did not go the next step, and I hope we do not try to go the next step today in the form of the Hinchey amendment. I favor the substance of it very much, I am totally opposed to cross-ownership. I do not think a newspaper ought to be able to own a single TV station in the country, and vice versa. I believe in the widest possible diversity of opinion.

But the fact is that today, even in the committee approach, we are taking on the media giants of this country; and when you do that, you had doggone well better win, and we will not win if the Hinchey amendment is passed. The Hinchey amendment is not intended to be so, but it is a killer amendment. It will load up the camel, and it will break the camel's back.

What I think we ought to do is stick to the judgment the committee made and win that one and tie that one down first. We are in a terrible situation today, where five media conglomerates control a 70 percent share of homes that watch during prime time; 80 percent of the major cable owners are owned by the same media conglomerates; and we need to see to it that we do not allow that situation to get any worse.

The problem with this amendment is that if it passes, we will not be able to get enough votes on this bill to demonstrate to the White House that they should not veto the bill because of this provision; and I do not think the House wants to do that if it is interested in protecting local news values.

The reason I want to protect local news values is because I think that local owners are the only ones who are likely on occasion to preempt national network programming. And believe you me, if you want to see some examples of the kind of programming that I do not think we want in some of our communities, all you have to do is take a look at what happened in radio. In radio, the Congress totally deregulated a few years ago, and what do we have? We have total lack of the ability of local people to have control over news or to have any real say in their programming. No nationally owned television station has ever preempted a network TV program; only locally owned stations have sometimes done so.

I do not have anything against networks but I think we need diversity I think we need diversity of decision making, and that is why I sponsored the amendment that the committee adopted, with the support of the gentleman from Virginia and others.

If we adopt the Hinchey amendment, we will in essence ruin our ability to win what we have won so far, and I do not think that is a wise thing to do. I am not interested in symbolic statements here today. I want to win. I want to see to it that we roll back the FCC provision on national ownership. If the Hinchey amendment is adopted, we will not be in a position to do it, because this bill will get many fewer votes than it otherwise would have gotten, it will send the wrong message to the White House, and the net result will be that we will be crippled in conference in terms of trying to hold the provision in the committee bill. So I urge defeat of the Hinchey amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk will designate the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple and clear. It is to strike the funds for UNESCO. We have been out of UNESCO since 1984, since President Reagan took us out of UNESCO, and the proposal now is that we rejoin. And this strikes the funding, which I think is a good idea.

UNESCO was started with a bad idea. It became very corrupted, and it was almost unanimous that we get out of UNESCO in 1984, and actually I see no reason for us to rejoin.

Let me just mention a few things that UNESCO is involved in. They came across, when we were in there, as being very anti-American, certainly anti-freedom, and certainly anti-first amendment. UNESCO's main function is to mettle in the education affairs of individual neighborhoods, nations, by proposing global school curriculums; something that we hardly need.

In one of the publications put out from UNESCO it describes rather well what their intentions are. The publication is called Toward World Understanding. Let me just quote from that.

``One of the chief aims of education today should be to prepare boys and girls to take an active part in the creation of a world society. As long as the child breathes the poisoned air of nationalism, education and world mindedness can produce only rather precarious results. As we have pointed out, it is frequently the family,'' the family, it says, ``that infects the child with extreme nationalism. The schools should, therefore, use the means described earlier to combat family attitudes.''

Now, that is coming from a publication put out by UNESCO and states one of their goals. And I might just remind my colleagues of who the founding director general was, and that happened to have been Sir Julian Huxley. Huxley helped to write some of the goals set in the UNESCO, and he happens to be a believer in eugenics, but let me just quote from him what he thought this organization should do.

He says, ``The general philosophy of UNESCO should be a scientific world humanism.'' And those words have not been changed; they still exist in these documents. They have not repealed that concept.

He goes on to say, ``In its education program, it can stress the ultimate need for world political unity and familiarize all people with the implications of the transfer of full sovereignty from separate nations to a world organization.'' They are rather explicit in what the goal of UNESCO is through the educational process.

``It is also to help the emergence of a single world culture, even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy could not be passed now,'' they say, ``in time, the world will become ready for it.''

So I warn my colleagues about rejoining UNESCO, believing very sincerely that it is not in our interest. It costs us a lot of money. It does not represent the goals and the culture and the beliefs of Americans. We did get out because it represented us badly, and here we are about to get back into UNESCO. I urge support for my amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me mention once again that the amendment strikes all the funding for UNESCO. We have been out of UNESCO since 1984. President Reagan took us out of UNESCO, and that was a very popular move. The argument now is that UNESCO has made some reforms and therefore we should get back in. But their goals have not changed. I have already mentioned some of the goals of UNESCO, and they are not beneficial to us and they do not represent American ideals; it is an attack on American sovereignty. But during these 18 years since we have been out of UNESCO, it has only been the last year or two where they have talked about reforms. So over all these years, nothing has been done.

But more importantly, it is the goals of UNESCO. For instance, UNESCO's position on international taxation is that they would like to impose an international tax. If that is what the people want, if that is what the Congress wants, then you vote against my amendment. But if you think it is a bad idea for the U.N. and UNESCO to be leveling a worldwide tax, then you vote for my amendment.

I do not think the American people want that. I think the American people do not want to sacrifice their sovereignty and they would like not to have the United Nations and UNESCO interfering in our curricula. We have enough problems ourselves here to allow our States and our local communities to manage their schools with the interference of the Federal Government. And now here we are talking about an international organization designing a curriculum for our schools. Their goals are not American. Their goals are internationalist. I quoted just a little while ago from one of their pamphlets that says they do not even believe in nationalism, that it was a bad thing, that it was a result of families teaching children bad things, to believe in nationalism.

I do not believe that. I have not come around to that belief. Being a member in a world community does not mean that you have to sacrifice your sovereignty. Being a member of a world community means that we should get along with people, that we should not be fighting with people, we should be trading with people; but that does not imply the necessity of having an international government. This is what is implied here. In this day and age we go to war under U.N. resolutions; but here our children are going to war with the education system by the United Nations dictating to us educational standards.

But they do other things as well. UNESCO, for instance, has been fully supportive of the United Nations Population Fund in its assistance to China's brutal, coercive population control program. That is part of UNESCO. I do not believe the majority of the Members of Congress really believe that is a good expenditure. And you cannot control the money once it gets to UNESCO, believe me. We send the money, we send a larger amount of money than anybody else, we lose control of it and they do these things that I think are illegitimate as far as our Constitution is concerned.

UNESCO has designated already 47 U.N. biosphere reserves in the United States covering more than 70 million acres without congressional consultation. This project has led to the confiscation of private lands and restrictions. Because we do go along with the restrictions, it is somewhat like following WTO mandates. They come back with regulations and mandates, and we accommodate them by rewriting our tax laws. In the same way, they are moving in, with radical environmentism that originates from UNESCO and it filters into our grade schools as well as our kindergartens. UNESCO effectively bypasses congressional authority to manage Federal lands, including places like the Everglades, and it is done without congressional approval.

UNESCO's World Heritage Convention has taken treasured American public monuments to be designated world heritage sites. This is a movement away from the concept of national sovereignty. This means that there will not be control by the American people through their Representative. That makes every single one of us less significant, not only in the issue of war but now in the issue of schools and taxation. Yes, it moves slowly, it is not overwhelming; we still have a lot of control, but we are losing it gradually. And we do know that even those who objected to the war in Iraq would have been quite happy if only the United Nations would have passed a resolution that permitted us to go to war. I do not like that kind of a world. The only oath of office I take is the oath to the U.S. Constitution and UNESCO does not conform to that oath.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I do not ascribe venal intent on the part of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) or the chairman. This was switched at the last moment.

But given the idea that a UC is supposed to be something that is done by a consensus, and it is clear there were Members on that side that were shut out, Members on this side, including myself, and the gentleman from Vermont wants to make a technical correction, if the true intent was to create a consensus decision on limiting time, something that I support, perhaps the best way to do this is to do this: Now that everyone is on notice, have the committee rise, in the Committee of the Whole, and simply do a new UC.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee and the full committee for the work they have done on this bill. We stand ready to pass this appropriation bill that contains an egregious error that not only runs counter to a majority in this Congress, but it runs counter to the views of the Attorney General.

The Attorney General, when asked about the COPS program during his confirmation hearing, said, ``Let me say that I think the COPS program has been successful. The purpose of the COPS program was to demonstrate to local police departments that if you put additional people, feet on the street, that crime will be affected and that people will be safer and more secure. We believe that the COPS program demonstrated that conclusively.'' That was June 5, 2003, not at his confirmation hearing.

Well, in addition to Mr. Ashcroft, 224 Members of this body have signed on to legislation that I and others are cosponsoring to reauthorize the COPS program. The COPS program, quite literally, gets the Federal Government off the sidelines in the war against crime, the war against terrorism, and hires police officers in all our communities. This bill that we are about to pass contains zero money, zero dollars and zero cents, for the most important component, which is the hiring component.

There are a few dollars to keep the COPS office up and running to administer the last remaining contracts that are out there, but let us keep in mind what it is that the program has already accomplished: 110,000 cops are on the beat in more than 12,000 communities.

And this is the most democratic, with a small ``d'', of programs in that it is spread almost equally throughout the country. More than 82 percent of the grants under the COPS program have gone to departments serving populations of 50,000 persons or less. Three hundred communities around this country now have police departments that did not even have them until the COPS program was put into place.

Well, not only do those of us in Congress believe in this program, at least those 224 of us who have cosponsored the reauthorization of the COPS program, but the Fraternal Order of Police, the International Association of Police Chiefs, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the National Association of Police Organizations, the National Sheriffs Association and on and on.

This is our opportunity to fund that program. This is our chance to say that in addition to supporting it and cosponsoring the legislation, we also want to provide the funding for it.

Mr. Chairman, I have the strange suspicion that despite the great success of this program, despite the fact that every day our leaders are standing up and saying that homeland security begins in our hometowns, despite the fact that every day we have a red, a yellow, a fuchsia, a teal alert telling our officers at home they better be on alert, we are eliminating perhaps the most successful anticrime program in the history of the Federal Government. And, today, in this bill, we do precious little to breathe life into it.

I had intended to offer an amendment to move a few dollars, not a lot, but a few dollars into the spending program for the hiring of additional COPS police officers. It had the support of some of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who were going to offer the amendment with me.

Let me say there is more that we should do than just reinstitute the hiring program. We should respond to some of my colleagues, particularly on the Republican side of the aisle, who

have had criticism of the program. They said that it provided hiring funding, and then it gradually faded away and some departments did not want to hire any more officers. That is why my reauthorization bill would allow them to use the funds under the COPS program to backfill existing officers.

Secondly, my amendment and the reauthorization bill, would it be passed, would allow them to invest in technology, in police scanners, surveillance devices, and the like.

This is one of those instances that, unfortunately, are not too uncommon in this body, where a majority, a strong majority of Members feel that something should be done and a small minority of Members prevent it from being done. This was our opportunity to do it, and I would have liked the opportunity to offer it.

I should point out that my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), is a cosponsor of the bill to reauthorize it; my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), a cosponsor of the bill to reauthorize the COPS program. And were we to have the opportunity to have a hearing, a debate, and a vote on it in the Committee on the Judiciary, I am quite certain it would pass.

Our colleagues on the other side of this building, in the other body, they too have demonstrated their support for it. They have more than 50 cosponsors there as well.

Let this bill be heard. Let the COPS program live to see another day. This is neither a Republican nor a Democratic initiative. Police officers, I would point out, tend to in many, many cases be Republican voters. But that is not what this is about. This is about a program that worked, that had the misfortune of having President Clinton's name in front of it.