No More Tulias: Drug Law Enforcement Evidentiary Standards Improvement Act of 2005

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment amounts to a complete rejection of the United States' engagement with the United Nations and many other nations of the world.

Last year this bill created a high-level task force to review the efforts of the United Nations. This task force was chaired by former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, and former Majority Leader Senator Mitchell, and the task force came out with its recommendations yesterday. They are fairly dramatic, which will mandate, if you will, and force the United Nations to make dramatic change. Hopefully the Bush administration will embrace the Gingrich-Mitchell recommendations that will then be adopted by the United Nations when they meet in September.

As the chairman knows, we initiated this task force because of the U.N.'s lack of involvement on the Darfur, Sudan, issue, the sexual exploitation of young girls by U.N. peacekeepers, and the oil-for-food scandal. If we were not participating at all, we would not be able to put pressure on the U.N. to do the right thing with regard to Darfur. Genocide is taking place in Darfur as we now speak. Also, the U.N. will be sending peacekeepers to the North-South Sudanese peacekeeping agreements, and, as my colleagues know, better than 2.1 million people, mainly Christian, some Muslim, died at the hands of the Khartoum government as a result of their activities for the North. Also, Sudan is involved in terrorist activities, and we need to be able to put pressure on the Sudanese.

Not speaking boldly in an effort to force the U.N. to do something on this issue, the genocide in Darfur, and also to be able to implement and monitor, not with American soldiers, but with U.N. peacekeepers in Sudan, would be a mistake.

As the gentleman knows, we already have cut the administration request for international organizations by $130 million; therefore, essentially we are already recommending holding back any growth of the U.N. Lastly, as the gentleman from Texas says, the Hyde bill will be coming up shortly after this bill, and that is where you should address these issues.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman from Colorado's (Mr. Hefley) amendment.

As the gentleman can see, and I have great respect for the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley). I know what he is trying to do, and I want to acknowledge that. As the gentleman can see from the debate and the other amendments offered on the bill, many Members feel the funding for the whole host of programs in this bill is already inadequate. In fact, all the amendments, most that we have been able to reject, have been to add money into the bill. The one that was accepted by the body was the one to add $73 million in for 7(a) loan programs which nobody in the country wants or needs. So the gentleman can see the trend that things are moving.

The budget resolution passed by the Congress has imposed upon us a very restrictive spending climate. This amendment constitutes attempts to reopen the decisions we already made in the budget resolution. The bill we are considering today stays within the budget resolution framework and represents a lot of hard work and difficult decisions to match limited funds to competing national priorities. A number of accounts in the bill are funded very close to the bone and a reduction of 1 percent in many salaries and expenses would have a dramatic effect on the FBI, DEA, ATF, Marshals Service.

And so for those reasons, respecting what the gentleman is trying to do, I would ask for a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of time to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).

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

Mr. Chairman, if the next is the amendment that I think the gentleman is offering, I was going to say I accept it. I understand the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) wants to speak on it. I have to go upstairs briefly for a brief moment. But I wanted to be on record as being for it, and so I did not want to have my absence for 5 minutes look like I was avoiding an issue. I think this is the torture amendment. If it is, I think it is a good amendment, and I urge the Congress to adopt it, and I am going to vote for it.

I will yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Amendment Offered by Mr. Markey

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment to prohibit funds for a competitive sourcing study. We had asked the gentleman to consider withdrawing the amendment. We would have a meeting with the Weather Bureau and really do everything we could. But for the Congress to interfere and do something like this, would be unprecedented.

I understand that NOAA first announced this particular cost competition in 2003. NOAA recently canceled the competition to ensure that the statement of work is comprehensive and plans to reannounce the study shortly. These competitions are conducted pursuant to the Competitive Sourcing Initiative in the President's Management Agenda, and NOAA supports the competition.

Though I understand the gentleman's concerns and have no preconceived notion as to the outcome of the study, I believe we cannot have the Congress on every A-76 proposal coming down and stopping it.

I see the gentleman from Virginia is here, the chairman of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to say again, for the Congress to be voting on each and every procurement issue like this, it would just never end. So I reluctantly oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we would be glad to work with the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis), too. The chairman of the committee has jurisdiction. We could have a meeting, the gentleman could bring the representative of the group out there, and we would try to make sure that this is done appropriately. We would do everything we possibly can.

This concern is if we did every one of these on the floor, and if we did one for the gentleman, there are probably 15 Members that would then come forward and say, Why did I not have an opportunity? I give my word, we would work in good faith.

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

Mr. Chairman, this is a different amendment than was printed in the Record. I am not even sure that it addresses the same issue. We were told we had the ability to prohibit the amendment to be offered and I did not even want to do that. We felt that whatever the outcome was, it should be. The amendment unnecessarily takes away from funds from State and local law enforcement. We just saw the amendment. I saw it 2 minutes ago, maybe it was 5 or 6 minutes ago.

We do not know the full impact of the funding prohibition. All we know is that the amendment will cut funds to fight crime. I told the gentlewoman we will continue to work with her on this issue. Just 5 minutes before, is it the same thing that the reference said it would be? Where does the language come? If my memory serves me correctly, there have been many amendments to add into that category that we have spent time here.

Because of all those reasons, not for the subject matter, but for all those reasons, I would urge a ``no'' vote on that.

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

I will close.

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

I urge a ``no'' vote on this. The gentlewoman probably would have been prohibited from offering the amendment. We said fine. The amendment was changed. In fact, the title was there and then the amendment changed. I do not think anybody truly here knows, I do not care where they went to law school, what it truly does and what it truly means.

They could have gone to UVA, Georgetown, Harvard, or Timbuktu.

Secondly, if I could have the gentlewoman's attention, I offered to her to let us sit down and talk about this. Nobody is opposing necessarily what she is trying to do. Let us sit down. Let us talk about it. Let us work it. No, we are going to go ahead and do it.

So this institution has to have some definition, or else we just take any amendment that comes along.

So all the amendments, I counted them up. The gentleman from Washington wanted to take money from the bill to put it in State and local law enforcement. This takes money from State and local law enforcement and puts it somewhere else. The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) wanted to take money from the rest of the bill and put it into State and local law enforcement. This takes it from State and local law enforcement and puts it somewhere else. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell) wanted to take money from another part of the bill, and God bless him, he had a good amendment, and put it in State and local law enforcement. This takes it from State and local law enforcement and puts it somewhere else; for what, we are not even sure. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) wanted to take money from the rest of the bill to put it where? In State and local law enforcement. This takes money from State and local law enforcement and puts it not even completely where people even know it is. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) had a great debate here. I think he wanted to take $126 million from NSF to put it in State and local law enforcement. This takes money from State and local law enforcement and puts it somewhere else. The beat goes on. The beat goes on.

So, because not knowing what this does, we are going to go ahead and oppose this. I just think if Members want to vote on something they do not understand, I think they ought to come down here and vote on something that they do not understand. I think that is part of their right to being here, but I do not understand it.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if we offered to work with the gentlewoman to resolve the issue, I think, from where I come from, that resolves the issue. But she has offered something that we do not even know what it does. It takes funds from an area that everyone else is saying they do not want to take it from, I am having a hard time understanding what that precisely means.

And I would say we could get both of these amendments in different versions and send them to Georgetown Law School or UVA Law School or George Mason Law School and see if they think there is any change. I understand we offered to work with her. I thought that was really the right thing to do.

With that I urge a ``no'' vote on an amendment that I am not sure what it does.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not belong in the bill. It is really an amendment that relates to the Foreign Assistance Appropriation, under the bill of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) where this comes. It is inappropriate to use the funds for the Department of State's operations, including salaries, to enforce the law, because it is the responsibility of the Secretary of State to enforce the law and would in essence mean that there could be no enforcement of Kemp-Kasten. It would make it null and void.

It was determined by the Secretary of State in 2004 that because UNFPA continues its involvement in China's coercive birth limitation program, current law precludes funding for UNFPA.

I visited China. The China policy with regard to coerced and forced abortion, the one-child policy, is barbaric. I could take a whole day to talk about the government of China with regard to the persecution of the Catholic

Church, the persecution of the Protestant Church, the persecution of Buddhists, the persecution of Muslims, the sale of kidneys with regard to execution of prisoners, the slave labor camps, and now in essence the coercive policy that this government has. In order to do anything that would send a message to that government that it is okay to do what they are doing is absolutely wrong. So you can argue this on process, this is not the place, but I think you can argue this on the merits.

China is doing fundamentally evil things, and the record should state the evilness of their policies. For that, I urge a strong ``no'' to send a message to that government that their actions are totally inappropriate.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Lancaster, Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

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

Mr. Chairman, I want my comments to be separated. One, I want to commend and thank the minority leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), for her strong support on human rights. Particularly, she has been very good in China. She was there from the Tiananmen Square times and all the time. So I just want the record, we want to separate these out, but I want the record to show that I admire her and respect very much her support for human rights in China. It has been outstanding.

The second point I want to make is to separate back to the debate that my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), was just talking about. I favor family planning. I am speaking for myself. I favor family planning. But this is a government that still has Tiananmen Square demonstrators in prison. In 1991 the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and I were in Beijing Prison Number 1, and we are the only two Members of the Congress that have been in a Chinese gulag, and we saw Tiananmen Square demonstrators making socks. Some of you may be wearing the socks, socks for export to the United States. God bless him, Senator Moynihan got the socks, when I came back, held the socks up on the Senate floor with regard to how bad China was. And I will get that, what Senator Moynihan said, and put it in the Record.

Mr. Moynihan. Mr. President, here are products of prison

labor, sold in international trade by the Chinese. You can

buy these: socks with a panda with the word ``boxing'' and a

little boxer; this fellow is playing golf, whatever.

Representative Wolf was in Beijing Prison No. 1, and not

recognizing him as a Member of the House of Representatives,

they thought he was a buyer. They started showing him the

goods for sale.

They have stopped that. We have ratified that treaty at

long last. Surely we ought to indicate that we mean it, that

we intend to help enforce this international labor standard.

This is a fundamentally evil government that you cannot trust. Many Tiananmen Square demonstrators that we lament about and talk about are still in prison. Now, they moved them out of Beijing Prison Number 1, but they are still in prison. And if you do not think there is coercion, call Harry Wu. Harry Wu lives out in Fairfax County, in the district of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran). And Harry will tell the gentleman about the forced abortions and the

policies and the abuse of this government. If you need a new kidney, they will go in the prisons, they will find somebody with your blood type, they will shoot them, maybe a Catholic priest, maybe Buddhist monk, maybe a Protestant pastor, or maybe a pickpocket. But you can get a new kidney for $50,000. This is the government that you basically want to give money to.

Now, many of you saw it. I think I did a Dear Colleague letter. Soon after the death of Pope John Paul, they arrested two elderly Catholic priests. And I say to my friend, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), talk to the Cardinal Kung Foundation and let them tell you of all the persecution. I believe they are now 11 Catholic bishops. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) took holy communion from Bishop Su.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask if I could yield to the gentleman just for two words. Where is Bishop Su now?

He is in prison. One other question. How old is he?

Mid-70s in prison for giving holy communion.

Now, the government put him in jail. Nobody else. You have a government that you fundamentally cannot trust.

Lastly, Secretary Powell, a constituent of mine, somebody that we all admire. He lives out in my congressional district. Here is what he said on July 15, 2004: ``Despite these efforts, China continues to employ coercion in its birth planning program including through severe penalties for out-of-plan births. And UNFPA's program has not been restructured to solve the problems identified in 2002.''

So Secretary Powell, who we all trust, said they are still doing it. And then he ends, ``however, as in 2002, UNFPA continues its support and involvement in China's coercive birth limitation program in counties where China's restrictive law and penalties are enforced by government officials.'' I urge you to defeat this amendment and send a message to this fundamentally bad government that is doing all these horrible things to women, doing all these things to Catholic priests, Catholic bishops, to evangelical pastors, to Buddhist monks.

I was in Tibet, went in every monastery we could. They told us what they are doing to the Buddhist Church. It is against the law to have a picture of the Dalai Lama. Vote ``no'' on this amendment.

The Secretary of State,

Washington, DC, July 15, 2004.

Hon. Henry J. Hyde,

Chairman, Committee on International Relations, House of

Representatives.

Dear Mr. Chairman: The Foreign Operations, Export Financing

and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2004 (Pub. L. 108-

199, Div. D) (``Act''), like every foreign operations

appropriations act since 1985, provides that ``none of the

funds made available in this Act . . . may be made available

to any organization or program which, as determined by the

President of the United States, supports or participates in

the management of a program of coercive abortion or

involuntary sterilization.'' Separately in Section 567, the

Act earmarks $34 million for the United Nations Population

Fund (``UNFPA'').

In July 2002, I determined that UNFPA's support of, and

involvement in, China's population-planning activities

allowed the Chinese Government to implement more effectively

its program of coercive abortion, and that, therefore, the

Kemp-Kasten Amendment precluded funding of UNFPA at that

time.

Since that time, we have had numerous discussions with the

Government of China to urge an end to China's program of

coercive abortion. We have also urged UNFPA and China to

restructure the UNFPA program so that UNFPA does not support

or participate in the management of China's coercive program.

Despite these efforts, China continues to employ coercion in

its birth planning program, including through severe

penalties for ``out of plan births'' and UNFPA's program has

not been restructured to solve the problems identified in

2002. However, as in 2002, UNFPA continues its support and

involvement in China's coercive birth limitation program in

counties where China's restrictive law and penalties are

enforced by government officials. More information on the

nature of China's birth-limitation regime and UNFPA's

involvement therein is contained in the enclosed report on

China's Birth-Limitation Policy.

The Administration is preparing to take the steps,

including consulting with Congress, that would be necessary

to apply the amount that had been reserved for UNFPA in the

``International Organizations and Programs'' account to the

ESF account, for use in support of the President's initiative

to aid victims of trafficking.

We will continue to remain engaged with China and UNFPA on

this issue. As I stated in 2002, if Chinese laws and

practices were changed so that UNFPA's activities did not

support a program of coercive abortion, or if UNFPA were to

change the program implementation for its funding so that it

did not support a program of coercive abortions, I would be

prepared to consider funding UNFPA in the future.

Sincerely,

Colin L. Powell.

Enclosures: As stated.

Report to Congress on China's Birth Limitation Policy

The Conference Report accompanying H.R. 2673, H. Report

108-401, in the Statement of Managers, requests the

Department of State [hereinafter ``the Department''] to

report ``not later than July 15, 2004, on the steps it and

UNFPA have taken to urge the Government of China to end its

birth limitation policy, including the social compensation

fee, and the results of those efforts, nationally, and

particularly in the counties in which UNFPA operates.'' This

report responds to that request.

U.S. Engagement

Since the Secretary's determination of July 21, 2002, that

funding for UNFPA was precluded by the Kemp-Kasten Amendment

of the FY 2002 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, the

United States has actively engaged with China to end coercive

practices in its birth-limitation program and with UNFPA to

end its support for that program. We have urged China to

implement fully the principle recognized in the Programme of

Action of the International Conference on Population and

Development (ICPD) that all couples should have the right

``to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and

timing of their children and to have the information and

means to do so, and . . . to make decisions concerning

reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence. .

. .'' In order to implement this principle the Chinese family

planning program should be fully voluntary and free of all

forms of coercion.

Immediately following the Secretary's determination, the

Department commenced a round of five negotiating sessions

with China with the objective of eliminating coercive

provisions in law and ending coercive practices in the

counties in which UNFPA is involved. We also encouraged China

and UNFPA to restructure their proposal for the new fifth

country program (CP5) agreement in a way that would allow the

United States to fund UNFPA. Discussions were held with

senior UNFPA and Chinese officials in New York,

Washington, Beijing, and during international meetings on

population matters. Department personnel visited UNFPA

project counties in China on two occasions, in November

2002 and August 2003. Embassy and Consulate personnel

based in China made numerous field visits, both to

counties in which UNFPA operates and counties in which

there is no UNFPA assistance. These field visits were

designed to learn about the implementation of China's

birth limitation laws and policies/practices, and about

UNFPA's activities in China. Despite several rounds of

discussions with U.S. representatives, UNFPA and China

decided not to make substantive changes to the proposed

UNFPA fifth country program. For example, UNFPA did not

condition the start of the program on the elimination of

social compensation fees (SCF). When CP5 was adopted at

the first regular session of the UNFPA Executive Board in

January 2003, the United States could not support the

program because of coercive measures in the enforcement of

China's birth limitation laws. The U.S. delegate stated

that the United States believes that UNFPA should not be

associated in any way with coercion.

In the summer of 2003, the Administration considered that

circumstances surrounding UNFPA's continued involvement in

China's birth limitation program had not changed sufficiently

to warrant U.S. funding.

As described below, many of those circumstances continue to

persist, despite claims by Chinese officials that they are

working to eliminate coercive measures. These, along with

others described in State's annual human rights reports,

information supplied by UNFPA, the results of U.S. efforts to

engage both UNFPA and China on numerous occasions from 2002

through 2004, and the fact that China's coercive policies

have, since the Secretary's July 2002 determination, now been

codified and enforced as a matter of national law, all

contribute to the finding that the Kemp-Kasten amendment

continues to preclude funding for FY 2004.

China's Birth-Limitation Regime--Now Law

A new national Law on Population and Birth-Planning went

into effect on September 1, 2002. This law codifies on a

national basis, for the first time, China's longstanding

``one child policy'' and specifies a number of government

birth-limitation measures that amount to coercion.

(As mentioned in the 2002 determination, county laws had

previously been in place and were used to enforce the

birth limitation policy.) The national law provides, inter

alia, ``. . . practicing birth planning is a basic

national policy of the State. The State (shall) employ

comprehensive measures to control population quantity and

improve population

quality.'' (Article 2.) ``Citizens have a right to have a

child and also have a duty to practice birth planning

according to the law. . . . (Article 17.) ``The State

shall stabilize currently implemented birth policies. . .

.

Those who meet the conditions in laws and regulations can

request the arrangement of the birth of a second child.

Specific methods (shall be) stipulated by the people's

congresses of provinces. . . .'' (Article 18.) ``Citizens

who give birth to a child in violation of Article 18 of

this law should pay a social compensation fee. . . .''

(Article 41.) ``Among (government) personnel who pay a

social compensation fee in accordance with Article 41 of

this law, those who are State staff should also be given

administrative punishment according to law.'' ``Other

personnel (who are not state staff) should also (in

addition to the social compensation fee) be given

disciplinary punishment by their own unit or

organization.'' (Article 42.)

Since the promulgation of the national law, all provinces

and equivalent governmental units except the Tibetan

Autonomous Region have issued implementing regulations that

set out birth planning requirements. These regulations

generally allow only one child, with specific exceptions that

allow qualified couples to have a second, or in rare cases, a

third child. They also set ranges for assessment of the

social compensation fees (SCF) by local authorities. Fees

range from the equivalent of one half the local average

annual household income to as much as 10 times that level.

One county where UNFPA has activities, Liuyang in Hunan

Province, assesses a fee of two times the average annual

household income. Liuyang County has waived the fee for pre-

marriage births, but not for inadequate birth spacing (when

an additional child is allowed), or for ``out-of-plan''

births. (An example of province implementing regulations is

provided as annex two.)

The Department has urged Chinese government officials to

eliminate the SCF, as well as other coercive birth limitation

measures. UNFPA has urged experimentation with the fee in

UNFPA program counties with a view towards elimination by the

end of the current program. The Chinese government has

suggested that because the SCF is specifically prescribed in

national law, local governments do not have authority to

completely waive collection of the fee. Other coercive

measures in place in China include cutting off state-funded

education or health care benefits for ``out of plan''

children, loss of employment, and imposition of a system

of severe fines and penalties. National and Provincial

Chinese government officials have declined or been unable

to assure us that penalties such as demotion or loss of

job are not also imposed in countries where UNFPA

operates.

The 2004 State Department Country Report on Human Rights

Practices confirms China continues enforcement of its birth

limitation policies and law. (Annex One.)

UNFPA's Engagement with China

Last month, at the Department's request, UNFPA furnished in

a very timely fashion information regarding its China

program. The Director of UNFPA's Asia and Pacific Division,

Sultan Aziz, wrote to the Department on June 14, 2004,

highlighting the concerns UNFPA shares with the United States

``over aspects of China's family planning strategy that could

lead to coercion.'' In particular, he made the following

points about UNFPA's view of it approach and progress in

China:

``UNFPA, like all UN organizations, is guided by

international human rights standards and principles in all

our programs. Using the ICPD principles as our platform,

UNFPA Country Programmes focus on voluntary, client-oriented

family planning services with a range of choices and

options.''

``UNFPA has made a significant contribution in improving

reproductive health knowledge, reducing (the) proportion of

sterilization and abortions, reducing maternal mortality and

increasing the proportion of births with skilled

attendants.''

``UNFPA does not support China's one-child policy, and has

proactively engaged in serious dialogue with the Chinese

government on this issue. There is growing realization in the

government, if not directly stated, about the problems

arising from the one-child policy--sex ratio imbalances,

ageing and population structure.''

``China is committed to the ICPD and its steadily,

incrementally and firmly moving beyond demographic targets

towards a voluntary and client-oriented FP [family planning]

approach. UNFPA, has been catalytic in fostering, supporting

and guiding the transition.''

UNFPA's Fifth Country Programme for China

Much of UNFPA ``input,'' i.e., its programs, goals, and

activities, in China is designed to assist China in ``forming

new management and service approaches of its population and

family planning program.'' The goals of its current program

(CP5), building on those of its previous program (CP4),

continue to strive toward moving the Chinese government from

an ``administrative'' approach to a ``client-centered,

quality of care'' approach, closer to the standards of the

Programme of Action--and thus toward achieving through

individual counseling desirable population goals without

coercion. But these efforts miss the mark; they are narrowly

tailored to expand access to reproductive health information

and to allow couples and individuals to select their

contraceptive methods in compliance with the national and

provincial regulations. Their end result is not that couples

and individuals may freely make decisions as to the number

and spacing of their children. Rather, in counties where the

UNFPA operates, China continues to implement its coercive

laws and practices.

The UNFPA-China agreement sets as a hortatory objective the

elimination of the SCF by 2010, but it provides for no

specific actions to further that end. UNFPA noted that it

required CP5 participating counties to lower fees and

encouraged further experimentation, but the agreement does

not provide for elimination. Further, the agreement requires

that counties participating in CP5 eliminate targets and

quotas, but does not require them to eliminate coercive

``administrative'' or ``disciplinary'' punishments--thus

continuing to reflect UNFPA's support for China's coercive

program.

The UNFPA budget for CP5 amounts to almost $8 million over

3 years. The funding allocation for CP5 is similar to that in

CP4 funding. It includes cost for personnel (including

consultants), monitoring and evaluation, research,

publications, international meetings and exchange visits, and

vehicles. UNFPA also continues to fund equipment for China,

including for management information systems and data

management software which are capable of tracking births,

although UNFPA claims in its June 14, 2004 letter that the

Management Information System [MIS] is ``categorically not

intended for tracking out of plan pregnancies, or to help

enforce the social compensation fees.'' UNFPA is also

financing improvements in the administration of the local

family planning offices.

These resources are provided directly or indirectly to the

State Family Planning Commission in counties where it

enforces the fines and administrative penalties such as job

loss, demotion, and expulsion from the Communist Party. The

UNFPA activities include training of reproductive health

service providers in, among other things, awareness of the

law in order that they may provide reproductive health

counseling. This, as well as UNFPA's supplying equipment and

supplies to the very agencies that employ coercive practices,

amounts to support for not only in China's broader

population-planning activities, but also specifically for the

Chinese government's more effective implementation of its

program of coercive abortion.

conclusion

Both China and UNFPA have been willing to engage with the

United States on approaches to eliminating coercion in

China's birth planning law and policy. We welcome this

dialogue and efforts by China to move forward in this

important area and we will continue our engagement. We

congratulate China and UNFPA on the elimination of targets

and quotas in UNFPA counties and reduction of the incidence

of maternal mortality. Unfortunately, coercive birth

limitation measures in law and policy continue in counties in

which UNFPA assists China.

Excerpts From Country Reports on Human Rights Practices China, 2003

Authorities continued to reduce the use of targets and

quotas, although over 1,900 of the country's 2,800 counties

continued to use such measures. Authorities using the target

and quota system require each eligible married couple to

obtain government permission before the woman becomes

pregnant. In many counties, only a limited number of such

permits were made available each year, so couples who did not

receive a permit were required to wait at least a year before

obtaining permission. Counties that did not employ targets

and quotas allowed married women of legal child-bearing age

to have a first child without prior permission.

The country's population control policy relied on

education, propaganda, and economic incentives, as well as on

more coercive measures such as the threat of job loss or

demotion and social compensation fees. Psychological and

economic pressure were very common; during unauthorized

pregnancies, women sometimes were visited by birth planning

workers who used the threat of social compensation fees to

pressure women to terminate their pregnancies. The fees were

assessed at widely varying levels and were generally

extremely high. Reliable sources reported that the fees

ranged from one-half to eight times the average worker's

annual disposable income. Local officials have authority to

adjust the fees downward and did so in many cases. Additional

disciplinary measures against those who violated the limited

child policy by having an unapproved child or helping another

to do so included the withholding of social services, higher

tuition costs when the child goes to school, job loss or

demotion, loss of promotion opportunity, expulsion from the

Party (membership in which was an unofficial requirement for

certain jobs), and other administrative punishments,

including in some cases the destruction of property. These

penalties sometimes left women little practical choice but to

undergo abortion or sterilization. Rewards for couples who

adhered to birth limitation laws and policies included

monthly stipends and preferential medical and educational

benefits. In the cases of families that already had two

children, one of the parents was usually pressured to

undergo sterilization.

In March, the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) concluded a 4-

year pilot project in 32 counties. Under this program, local

birth

planning officials emphasized education, improved

reproductive health services, and economic development, and

they eliminated the target and quota systems for limiting

births. However, these counties retained the birth limitation

policy, including the requirement that couples employ

effective birth control methods, and enforced it through

other means, such as social compensation fees. Subsequently,

800 other counties also removed the target and quota system

and tried to replicate the UNFPA project by emphasizing

quality of care and informed choice of birth control methods.

In April, a new UNFPA program began in 30 counties. Under

this program, officials defined a list of ``legitimate rights

of reproduction according to law,'' including the rights to

choose contraception and right to legal remedies, among

others.

Jiangsu Province Birth Limitation Regulations Excerpts

chapter 1 general principles

Article 5

Local people's governments at all levels within the

province shall take integrated measures to control the size

of the population and to improve its quality, and shall

implement population and family planning programs. . . .

Article 7

Citizens have the right to reproduce and the obligation to

practice family planning in accordance with the law. . . .

chapter 3 fertility regulation

Article 21

A man and a woman who have been legally registered as

married may have one child, provided that neither has had a

child previously.

Article 22

Married couples meeting any of the following conditions may

apply to give birth to one additional child:

The couple has only one child, and that child is certified

by a pediatric illness and disability authentication

institution to have a disability, other than a serious

genetic disability, that cannot at present be treated, or

that despite systematic treatment will prevent that child

from developing into a normal worker or seriously affect that

child's future marriageability.

Either spouse is a member of the armed forces, armed

police, or public security police or is a `Good Samaritan'

and that spouse has sustained a Class 2, Grade 2 or higher

disability in the exercise of duty; or either spouse is the

only child of a [revolutionary] martyr and [the couple] has

only one child.

One spouse has been widowed and the other spouse has never

had a child.

One spouse is divorced and has either had only one child or

has legally had two children and the other spouse has never

had a child.

Neither spouse has had a child and, after having legally

adopted a child, the wife becomes pregnant.

One spouse is a second-generation only child, or both

spouses are only children, and [the couple] has only one

child.

One spouse has been occupied in downhole operations for a

continuous period of five years or longer, is currently

occupied in downhole operations, and [the couple] has only

one child which is a daughter.

Article 23

Apart from the provisions of Article 22 of these

regulations, married couples may apply to give birth to one

additional child if the wife is a rural resident and any of

the following conditions is met:

One spouse is an only child, and [the couple] has only one

child.

Only one child has been had, and the brother(s) of the

husband is/are unable to have a child.

The husband has moved his residence to the place of

residence of the wife and is supporting the parents of the

wife, who has no brothers, and [the couple] has only one

child which is a daughter. This rule shall apply to only one

sister on the wife's side.

The man has no brothers and only one sister, and [the

couple] has only one child which is a daughter.

The couple permanently resides in a coastal reclamation

area with population density not greater than one person per

five mu of land (calculated on a per village basis), and has

only one child which is a daughter.

One spouse has been continuously occupied in ocean fishing

for five years or more, is currently employed in ocean

fishing, and the couple has only one child which is a

daughter.

chapter vi legal liability

Article 44

A couple that gives birth to a child not in accordance with

these regulations shall pay the social compensation fee. . .

.

For urban residents, social compensation fees shall be

calculated by taking as the basic standard the per capita

annual disposable income of urban residents in the

municipality with districts or in the country (city) in the

year prior to the child's birth. For rural residents, social

compensation fees shall be calculated by taking as the basic

standard the per capita annual net income of rural residents

in the township (town in the year prior to the child's birth.

. . .

The specific standards for the social compensation fees to

be paid in accordance with paragraph one of this article are:

Those who have had one additional child not in accordance

with the provisions of these regulations shall pay social

compensation fees in the amount of four multiples of the

basic standard.

Those who have had two or more additional children not in

accordance with the provisions of these regulations shall pay

social compensation fees in the amount of five to eight

multiples of the basic standard.

Those who have had one child outside of marriage shall pay

social compensation fees in the amount of 0.5 to 2 multiples

of the basic standard.

Those who have had two or more children outside of marriage

shall pay social compensation fees in the amount of five to

eight multiples of the basic standard.

Those who have had a child in a bigamous marriage shall pay

social compensation fees in the amount of 6 to 9 multiples of

the basic standard.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back all of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that does not violate current law, does not in any way violate any concerns that the majority would have, and I thank both the chairman and the ranking member for over the past couple of days working with me on some of the concerns I have expressed. But I particularly offer to them this amendment because it is an amendment of fairness in Federal funding that, by the way, the President of the United States extinguished, if you will, in his budget but we added back in a bipartisan way the antidrug task forces. But what we did not support in the supporting of the funding was the discriminatory treatment of the prosecutions and arrests.

I rise today in the name of the victims of Tulia and Hearne, two cities in the State of Texas symbolic of cities around the Nation with antidrug task forces who in the past have had arrest and conviction on the single testimony of one individual. The case in Tulia showed premeditated perjury, no other evidence but the word of one task force member against 15 to 30 African Americans who were ultimately destroyed, taken away from their families, prosecuted, convicted, and jailed.

This amendment speaks to the need of ensuring that there is corroborated evidence either showing the drugs, either showing video or another witness that would corroborate that this particular individual was engaged in drug usage or drug possession or drug selling. The Jackson-Lee amendment seeks to restore justice into the justice system by making the operation of federally funded State and local antidrug task forces more transparent in order to prevent nightmares such as those that occurred in Tulia, Texas. Grants to fund State and local antidrug task forces come from the Edward Byrne grants.

As a member of the House Law Enforcement Caucus, I am an ardent proponent of initiatives that strengthen and support our law enforcement, but we also need to ensure that we have the right kind of training and funding and better facilities, the same thing that I argued for as a member of the Committee on Homeland Security in supporting first responders. But we have a grant process that does not protect against the racial imbalance of the prosecutions of African Americans and other minorities.

Racial imbalance requirement restrictions: notwithstanding any other provision of law, nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to authorize the National Institute of Justice, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, or the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration to ensure that there is fairness. We have worked on this matter with my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, particularly the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

I offer this amendment to my colleagues to say it does not violate current law; it only requires State agencies to share the ability to improve their criminal justice records to show that they are not discriminating.

Mr. Chairman. I thank the Chairman from Virginia as well as the Ranking Member, from West Virginia for their bipartisan work to produce a Unanimous Consent Agreement that made this very important amendment in order. The Jackson Lee amendment seeks to restore ``justice'' into the Justice system by making the operation of federally-funded state and local anti-drug task forces more transparent in order to prevent nightmares such as those that occurred in Tulia, Texas and more recently in Hearne, Texas.

Grants to fund state and local anti-drug task forces come from the ``Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Programs (Byrne Program), '' In Title 42 U.S.C. Subchapter V. As a member of the House Law Enforcement Caucus, I am an ardent proponent of initiatives that strengthen and support our law enforcement agencies. Furthermore, as a member of the Committee on Homeland Security, I make it a goal whenever possible to advocate for increased funding, better facilities, training, and equipment, and for improved interoperable communications for these first responders. However, with this amendment, I seek to restore the integrity, honesty, evenhandedness, and judiciousness of our law enforcement agencies.

42 U.S.C. Sec. 3789d section (b) of the ``Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968,'' reads

(b) Racial imbalance requirement restriction

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, nothing

contained in this chapter shall be construed to authorize the

National Institute of Justice, the Bureau of Justice

Statistics, or the Law Enforcement Assistance

Administration--

(1) to require, or condition the availability or amount of

a grant upon the adoption by an applicant or grantee under

this chapter of a percentage ratio, quota system, or other

program to achieve racial balance in any criminal justice

agency; or

(2) to deny or discontinue a grant because of the refusal

of an applicant or grantee under this chapter to adopt such a

ratio, system, or other program.

The Jackson Lee amendment does not seek to contravene this provision of the law. Rather, the amendment does seek to hold the State and local grant recipients accountable for the manner in which they conduct their anti-drug programs.

Mr. Chairman, the type of reporting that is prescribed under my amendment is authorized in law as found in 42 U.S.C. 3782, 42 U.S.C. 3759, and 42 U.S.C. 3789e, the Byrne Program as well as 42 U.S.C. 3751 and 3753.

Section 3782 lays out the parameters of the establishment of rules, regulations, and ``procedures that are necessary to the exercise'' of

agency function in carrying out the provisions of Byrne. Specifically, it authorizes the promulgation of rules and regulations that ensure that the entire program has a ``high probability of improving the criminal justice system'' and is ``likely to contribute to the improvement of the criminal justice system and the reduction and prevention of crime.'' More importantly, however, the rules and regulations promulgated must help the reporting agencies determine the program's ``impact on communities and participants.'' The very negative results of the program that we saw in Tulia and Hearne, Texas clearly and unequivocally contravene these provisions, and the Jackson Lee amendment seeks to correct this problem.

Section 3789e contains a report to the President and to Congress that relates to the nature of the activities conducted under this program. The Jackson Lee amendment seeks to ensure that unethical and dishonest application of anti-drug task forces funded under this program do not slip through the cracks. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is vital to protecting the integrity and the evenhandedness of the activities funded under this program. Many years of Civil Rights jurisprudence and law have been ignored and thrown out the window when America permitted situations such as that in Tulia and Hearne to take place with impunity!

Improper and illegal operation of anti-drug task forces was the impetus for my introduction of H.R. 2620, The Law Enforcement Evidentiary Standards Improvement Act of 2005. This bill will provide much-needed oversight and accountability for the millions of federal dollars distributed to state and local law enforcement agencies to fight the drug war. Its provisions propose to minimize the injustice of erroneous arrests and convictions by (1) enhancing the evidentiary standard required to convict a person for a drug offense and (2) improving the criteria under which states hire law enforcement officers to participate in drug task forces.

In recent years, it has become clear that programs funded by the Edward Bryne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program have borne opportunities for the abuse of the penal system, racially disparate treatment, corruption and tainting of law enforcement agencies, and the commission of civil rights abuses across the country. This is especially the case when it comes to the program's funding of hundreds of regional narcotics task forces. Operation of anti-drug task forces around the country, which has lacked state or federal oversight, has been riddled with corruption and is the root of some of America's most horrific law enforcement-related scandals.

One of the better known federally-funded anti-drug task force scandals occurred in Tulia, Texas several years ago. Fifteen percent (15%) of the African American population was arrested, prosecuted, and sentenced to decades in prison based on the uncorroborated testimony of a federally-funded undercover officer who had a record of racial impropriety in the course of enforcing the law. The Tulia defendants have since been pardoned, but these kinds of scandals continue to plague the Byrne grant program.

In fact, just a month ago, on May 11, 2005, the defendant, the District Attorney of Robertson County, in Hearne, Texas and the South Central Texas Narcotics Task Force, in a case filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of 28 African Americans, offered to settle the case after five years of litigation. This case arose from the arrest of these 28 individuals--out of 4,500 other residents of Hearne in November 2000 on charges of possession or distribution of crack cocaine. During litigation, the presiding judge was asked to dismiss the charges because they were based on evidence from an unreliable informant, as reported to the Houston Chronicle. Furthermore, reportedly, Task Force officers in the case suggested that the informant had added baking soda to narcotics recovered as evidence in one of the cases.

These scandals are not the result of a few `'bad apples'' in law enforcement; they are the result of a fundamentally flawed bureaucracy that is prone to corruption by its very structure. Byrne-funded regional anti-drug task forces are federally-funded, state managed, and locally staffed, which means they do not really have to answer to anyone. In fact, their ability to perpetuate themselves through asset forfeiture and federal funding makes them unaccountable to local taxpayers and governing bodies.

To date, fifty (52) organizations at the national, state, and local levels have signed on their support for this legislation and would support this important amendment that is consistent with its goals. Mr. Chairman, I ask that my colleagues on this very distinguished Subcommittee work with me to accept this important amendment.

I would like to thank my staff member Dana Thompson for his detailed work on this important amendment. Thank you, Dana.

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

Mr. Chairman, how much time is left?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 20 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the chairman if he has any additional speakers.

Let me thank the distinguished ranking member for his review of the amendment and clarifying and making it a very direct and very simple proposition. Many years of civil rights jurisprudence law have been ignored and thrown out the window when America permitted situations such as that in Tulia and Hearne to take place with impunity.

Mr. Chairman, I am a former judge and a trained lawyer, and I have consistently worked with law enforcement across America and in my hometown and in my State. I am not here to impugn the hard work of good law enforcement officers. I just want there to be a balance between the rights of Americans and the law enforcement system and the judicial system. We cannot have a system of Federal funding that will fund antidrug task forces or other efforts that are not complying with the law, submitting cases that, in fact, have evidence, corroborating evidence, have video, have another witness, have the drugs that person is alleged to have actually had in their possession.

This simply requires agencies receiving Federal funds in law enforcement instances to improve their criminal justice record and to acknowledge that it is unfair to discriminate and prosecute one race, one community, one city, one rural area. I know we can do this in a bipartisan way, and I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, first of all, the gentleman is correct that he has worked with many Members, including myself, and he is correct on that. I respectfully say that he is incorrect, and we thank him for allowing the amendment to go forward, but we worked not to not have a point of order, and the amendment is not changed from what it was previously. It just clarifies it so it would not be subject to a point of order, and all it does is ask for a reporting of these records to ensure fairness.

And I would love to work with the distinguished gentleman. I hope we can work together because he has been fair, and I want the Record to show that. But this is hurting the hearts and minds of constituents across America. And I know we have good law enforcement, and I know the States would not be offended, nor would they be burdened by simply reporting this information. I ask the gentleman to understand that there was no offense intended, and I thank him for the kindness he has shown, but this is an important issue.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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 offer an amendment.

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

Dozens of American cities, major cities, have policies that tie the hands of police officers to cooperate with immigration enforcement agents. The cities include Houston, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, Denver, Boston, Portland and Seattle.

Cities that have such policies extend to their jails as well. Often jails do not identify or report illegal aliens to ICE, these illegal aliens that have been incarcerated, so they are released back into the community after serving a sentence for a minor crime. These policies, I have pointed out in the past, violate Federal law.

It is especially galling, however, that local governments who have these illegal policies and practices do not hesitate then to seek and receive Federal reimbursement for the costs of incarcerating illegal aliens, aliens they refuse to turn over to ICE for deportation. They take the money and then turn the folks loose.

In 2004, the Federal State Criminal Alien Assistance program, or SCAAP, gave awards totaling $300 million to States and counties in reimbursements for housing illegal aliens. Yesterday, or the day before, we added another $50 million to the amount that was being appropriated for that purpose, and I voted for the amendment.

In Los Angeles in 2003, over 30,000 criminal aliens were released from the county jail and not deported.

In Denver in 2004, the city-county jail asked for reimbursement for over 1,900 illegal aliens, but only turned over the names of 175 to Immigration Customs Enforcement.

It is amazing that Denver alone sent the Federal Government a bill for over 1,900 people they have incarcerated for committing other kinds of crimes, besides the fact they are here illegally; yet, when it came to turning those names over to ICE, they refused to do so, or turned over only 175, again as a result, I think, to a large extent, of these things we call sanctuary policy.

Why should Denver or Los Angeles be asking for Federal taxpayer dollars to reimburse their costs of housing illegal aliens but then refuse to turn those names over to ICE for deportation?

There are real human consequences to these ``don't ask, don't tell'' policies. From 1995 to 1999, the INS released over 35,000 criminals who were not deported. Over 11,000 of them, almost 30 percent, went on to commit other crimes, and 2,000 committed violent crimes.

In Denver last month, on Mother's Day, a police officer was shot and killed and a second officer critically wounded by an illegal alien who has now been arrested in Mexico. He had been stopped twice by the Denver police for driving without a license and had appeared in municipal court twice. In April, less than 1 month before the shooting, this man was in court with a Mexican driver's license; yet no one asked him about his immigration status because of Denver's sanctuary policy.

In July of 2004, a young man was riding his motorcycle in north Denver. He was struck and killed by a hit-and-run driver. The driver has been arrested. He has been arrested and is in jail awaiting trial. He is an illegal alien. He had six prior arrests, but was released every time because the offenses were ``minor.'' Never, of course, was he reported to the Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. So they are free to commit other crimes.

This policy is insane, responsible for thousands of major crimes that could have been prevented.

One ICE agent told me recently that when he was doing routine checks in jail bookings in a major city, routine checks that are no longer done, by the way, 25 percent of all the files he looked at were of illegal aliens eligible for deportation. That means we could possibly reduce crime rates significantly by detaining and deporting illegal alien criminals who are already in local jails, but instead, the revolving-door sanctuary policies allow them to go free over and over again.

Today, over 1 year and several meetings with these agencies later, the answer appears to be that nothing will happen. The chairman of the committee graciously allowed for us to meet with several of the agencies involved with Justice and Homeland Security. We were to have heard from them as to exactly how they were going to enforce the law that is already on the books, but their answer is, of course, silence, and it is deafening.

Mr. Chairman, we as a Nation need to get serious about deporting criminal aliens, and we as a Congress need to get serious about requiring the agencies to comply with the law.

My amendment does not make any new laws or create any new penalty or change any laws on the books. It merely requires the Federal administration to comply with the Federal law, and I hope my colleagues will support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, as a result of a peculiar event arising out of the inclusion of immigration provisions in the Singapore and Chile fast track trade bills of last year, I have decided to offer this amendment that would restrict the use of funds in the bill to include in any provision in any bilateral or multilateral trade agreements that would increase the number of aliens authorized to enter the United States as an immigrant or nonimmigrant.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Of course, this amendment was printed in the Congressional Record 4 days ago. I assume that was an indication of our intent to offer it. I am pleased also to hear, as the chairman has indicated, that arrangements have been discussed about this, and there have been promises made that none of this kind of thing will come forward. Of course, if that is the case, this amendment should not provide a problem for anyone. We should simply make sure that we put in place the rule that Congress determines our immigration policy. We did not give that up with TPA.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman mentions the need to debate. I absolutely believe in the need to debate these issues, especially immigration issues. But when they get wrapped up into trade agreements, we cannot. That is the purpose of my amendment, to ensure that debate stays in this Congress where it belongs, not in the negotiations between trading partners.

It is the unique responsibility of the Congress of the United States to establish immigration procedures. It is not something that we should cede over to our trade negotiators.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, the fact is if there is an agreement made, and Members feel secure in the fact that there are never going to be any immigration provisions in a trade agreement, then no Member should be concerned about my amendment. We should allow it to pass in order to establish that as the will of Congress.

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

If it would have significant effect, then I am even more sure we need to pass it, because, of course, we have to make sure that this is something that the Congress deals with, not trade representatives.

It happened last year when the trade agreements with Chile and Singapore came to the floor. A number of Democrats joined with me in expressing their concern about that. I remember particularly the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) who came down and was furious about the fact that these trade agreements included immigration provisions.

Well, I would respectfully request, just remember your words because they are true. It is an example of the fact that we do have something to fear that this amendment is being opposed to the extent it is by the chairman and others. The fact is if they are fearful of what this amendment might do, then we have to pass it.

I supported fast track authority for the President when it passed the House and have supported a number of trade agreements that have come before this body. It is not the issue of trade that we are debating here. It is also not the issue of whether or not service agreements should be dealt with, because service agreements, that is just a euphemism for immigration provisions that are identified mostly by certain categories that mean essentially guest worker provisions. We have that. It is in the law. Congress establishes the number of people that will be allowed into this country for the purpose of providing services. That should be

something we decide. It should not be a part of these agreements.

They come to us after the discussions. Even in committees, they come to the floor, and Members know what happens; it is either we take it or leave it. We cannot amend it. That is the concern that we have.

Whether or not we agree with immigration caps, issues that should be debated openly and talked about openly are immigration, who has the responsibility for establishing immigration law? As I say, it is the Congress of the United States. It has nothing to do with people who are negotiating our trade arrangements. That is something that is important for us to understand. It is a peculiar aspect of these trade arrangements that, as I say, has only happened in the last few years. But I fear that the past is prologue, and that is exactly where we are going with these things. They will attempt to obfuscate, and it will not be all that clear that they are in there, but they will be in there. They will be in there as service agreements, as the chairman has indicated.

Does that even raise a red flag with regard to immigration policy? But it most certainly is immigration policy.

It is imperative, therefore, that we simply establish our control over immigration policy. Enough authority has been handed over to our trade negotiators already. When we enter into bilateral and multilateral trade policies, we also, then, of course, enter into jurisdictional issues with regard to the WTO. I am not willing to turn over my responsibility as a Congressman to the WTO for trade or for immigration issues.

I ask for an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend for yielding me time, and I rise in strong support of this amendment. I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) for accepting it in advance because it is a very important amendment.

Let me make two very brief points. The Convention against Torture could not be more clear in proscribing any kind of torture. It is never acceptable. The United States is a signatory and has ratified that convention, and that includes, as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) pointed out, the outsourcing of torture, and I think his amendment is very, very important. It comes at a very important time.

Let me also make the point, too, that next Thursday I will be holding a hearing on the victims of torture. I have written three laws on torture, The Torture Victims Relief Act, as it is called, and two reauthorizations over the last several years, and during the course of hearings that we have held, and we have one set for next Thursday in my subcommittee, we heard from people who actually suffered, the psychological scars that they bear, the post-traumatic stress, the sleepless nights that they endure because they have had to endure severe torture.

We want absolutely no part of torture in any manifestation. This amendment makes it very clear. This is already law. This makes it very clear that there is an absolute bright line of demarcation between interrogation methods that are real, that are listed, that are ethical and those that cross that line.

So I want to thank the gentleman for offering his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. For 25 years, the United Nations Population Fund has been an aggressive and shameful accessory to gross crimes against women and babies in the People's Republic of China. Despite being admonished to do otherwise on countless occasions, the U.N. Population Fund continues to be the chief apologist and enabler for both past and ongoing crimes against humanity.

Now the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) is offering an amendment that would suspend all U.S. laws, including all of our human rights laws, in order to compel U.S. taxpayer funding for the U.N. Population Fund. The Maloney amendment is written in such a way to immunize UNFPA from having to obey any U.S. law or funding restrictions, including the Kemp-Kasten anti-coercion amendments. I strongly urge its defeat.

Mr. Chairman, let us not forget that the UNFPA has whitewashed, sanitized, and facilitated--it has been an accomplice--in China's barbaric one-child-per-couple coercive population program that has victimized hundreds of millions of women and murdered hundreds of millions of children.

As a direct result, there is this exceedingly dangerous statistical demographic anomaly known as the ``missing girls.'' There may be as many as 100 million missing girls in China today, a tragedy beyond words. As a result, there are also on any given day, according to the Country Reports For Human Rights Practices, the human rights report by the State Department, 500 women in China who commit suicide every day. Five hundred. This coercion has a terrible, deleterious effect on Chinese women.

As violations of human rights go, coercive population control in China is among the worst and most degrading systematic abuse in human history.

Let us not forget or be naive, I say to my colleagues, about the fact that in China today, brothers and sisters are illegal and children can only be born if permission is granted by the state.

We all know that in the United States, families get State and Federal tax credits and deductions for their children so they can better cope with economic pressures.

In China, on the other hand, there is no welcome mat for children, and Chinese parents have huge fines imposed upon them if they try to bring their children into the world. Unwed mothers are also severely punished in China, and are compelled to abort, even if it is their only one child, the one that they are supposedly permitted to have. China's eugenics policy, which compels the murder of disabled babies, is clearly reminiscent of the Nazis.

Those who violate these cruel, inhumane, antichild policies are fined up to 10 times the annual salary of both husband and wife, a draconian penalty that usually ensures that the child, at the end of the day, is aborted.

This is China's national policy, Mr. Chairman. In all counties, including UNFPA-supported counties, severe fines are imposed on women who have babies out of plan. Some women do resist. Some women have their children on the run, as they say. Some resist or pay bribes or endure the harsh penalty, the so-called ``social compensation fee.'' Others are forcibly aborted, trussed, and brought into the so-called family planning clinics to have their babies aborted, and some are even tortured, and some are jailed.

Last December I chaired yet another hearing on forced abortion in China. I have had about 18 or more hearings over the last several years, and we heard from a woman by the name of Mrs. Mao Hen Feng, a Chinese woman who had been imprisoned and tortured because of her resistance to coercive population control.

I would point out to my colleagues, I met with Peng Peiyun, the woman who runs this program, and, during the course of that several-hour conversation, she kept coming back to the fact that, oh, the UNFPA is here. They do not see any coercion. The UNFPA clearly enables the PRC to practice this draconian program, and then they resort to the whitewash and say, but the UNFPA is here, and, again, they do not find any of this.

Amazingly, Mr. Chairman, the UNFPA calls China's massive violence against women like Mrs. Mao voluntary family planning, as if cheap sophistry makes it all okay. Just call it voluntary family planning, and it is all okay. It makes the definition of ``voluntary'' a joke.

To make matters worse, Mr. Chairman, UNFPA spokesmen gleefully encourage other countries to follow China's disgraceful lead.

I hope the majority of our colleagues will have no part in enabling either China or its best friend, the UNFPA, in these horrible abuses. Instead of funding the UNFPA, both they and China should be on trial at the International Criminal Court for crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity.

Talk to these women who have suffered. Look at the terrible loss of life, millions upon millions of babies killed, often right at the ninth month as women try to conceal their pregnancy, and the UNFPA is there on the ground enabling this terrible abuse. They provide cover, respectability, tangible support, and technical capabilities that predictably results in massive acts of cruelty and murder in China.

Defeat the Maloney amendment.

He is in prison.

He is in his mid-70s. Twenty-seven years in prison.