To amend title 28, United States Code, with respect to the jurisdiction of Federal courts over certain cases and controversies involving the content of speech occurring during sessions of State legislative bodies, and for other purposes.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Chairman, I accept the amendment.

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

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

The COPS Program is already $468 million over the request, $57 million over last year. The amendment proposes reductions to NASA that are devastating. If you are opposed to the space program or you do not like the space program or you do not want America to be number one, you ought to support this amendment.

But if you want America to have a strong space program, you ought to strongly defeat this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney).

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

Mr. Speaker, if I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida, then if I strike the requisite number of words, I can get 5 minutes, correct?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

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

I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me say that I strongly urge defeat of the amendment. China is using their space program for military reasons. They now have laser beams. For the members of the committee that came to the subcommittee briefing, the closed briefing, you saw where they are. It is frightening. China has 200,000 engineers working on the space program, and we have 75,000.

If the Weiner amendment passed, the nmber of U.S. engineers would drop. America, under the Weiner amendment, would no longer be number one. That would be dangerous to our country and absolutely wrong. So I strongly, strongly urge the defeat of this amendment, which I think would almost guarantee, if it passed and stayed in the law, the loss of American leadership in space.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment; and I would first like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes of my time to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, and let me read a letter from our Secretary of State, Secretary Rice.

She says, ``I write in strong support of our contribution to the U.N. Capital Master Plan.'' That is what we are talking about, CMP.

``The U.N. facilities pose a number of serious safety and security concerns for the American and foreign staffs, diplomats, and visitors.'' Many of these are American citizens. ``In particular, the U.N. facilities do not,'' do not, ``meet fire and life-safety building codes or modern security requirements. We support the renovation of the facilities to address these deficiencies.

``The Department remains strongly committed to ensuring transparency and effective oversight of the project. We have worked closely with U.N. Under Secretary General Chris Burnham,'' who is an American, ``to take steps to strengthen internal controls of the CMP. In particular, Under Secretary General Burnham, with our support, has set up a U.N. CMP Project Office as an independent office reporting to him. The U.N. CMP Project Office has allowed access to project documents and review of ongoing work. And, the CMP Project Office has used a value engineering process and third-party contractor reviews of design documents to improve cost and quality control.

``We realize this will be an ongoing effort and are committed to close U.S. Government monitoring of the project's implementation throughout its life span. I urge full funding for this important renovation project.''

What if there were a fire at the U.N.? What if something happened and we were to deny this money?

I have been as critical of the U.N. as anybody for their failure to deal with the issue of Darfur and things like this. They stood by and allowed Srebeniza to take place. They stood by and allowed Rwanda. But I am not going to stand by and allow the building to crumble and not have safety conditions in the building.

So I ask you, before you vote on this, take a minute to look at the letter of the Secretary of State. The administration is not for the Stearns amendment. It is a safety issue not only for American citizens but also the foreigners at work in the building. But also American visitors. If you go to the U.N., there are many tourists that go through the building.

So I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment; and again I urge you, if you have any doubts, come over and read the letter from Secretary Rice. It is a safety issue.

I urge defeat of the Stearns amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman. I completely agree with what he said. I appreciate his efforts to combat violent crime, and I am happy to do everything I can to work with the gentleman and the ATF to address the crime in New Jersey. Quite frankly, there ought to be an office in New Jersey.

I thank the gentleman, and will try to help.

Amendment Offered by Mrs. Jones of Ohio

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

In 2003, the National Academy of Public Administration, NAPA, completed a study recommending the creation of the EEOC National Contact Center. So NAPA, a nonpartisan, bipartisan group, has recommended that the call centers, which the gentlewoman wants to shut down, be established.

Following a 6-month startup period, the National Contact Center handled 402,383 inquiries in a 12-month period in addition to the 118,322 hits on frequently asked questions. The National Contact Center staff handled 302,622 of these inquiries, resolving 70 percent without further involvement of EEOC field staff.

Also, it has been said, if you shut these call centers down, the technology that EEOC would have to have would cost anywhere from $10 to $12 million. Currently, the volume of inquiries coming into the National Contact Center is increasing as field offices have begun to route their calls through the contact center.

By handling these inquiries, the National Contact Center has not caused any further staff reductions but rather has freed up EEOC employees to devote more time to the critical functions of mediating, investigating and litigating charges.

I do agree it has to be monitored, but to that, I believe the staff and Mr. Mollohan's staff have worked together to provide oversight in this regard. The report accompanying the bill includes language to require the commission to implement the recommendations of the Inspector General. We are working to ensure a better EEOC National Contact Center, but prohibiting the funds for the center would increase the workload on the EEOC front line, detract from the people that are helping. So I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

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

Do I get to close?

I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment. But what I would like to do, this is a pilot program, and the pilot, if my memory serves me, ends in September of this year, September of 2006, so the pilot has not finished.

So to destroy the pilot before the pilot is finished, what I would like to do is, when we finish the pilot in September or maybe even we could try to expedite it a little bit to see, is to invite the gentlewoman up and ask NAPA to come up with us and sit down and have NAPA take a look at that, maybe at an appropriate time.

But I think the pilot has to go. NAPA is a very good organization. We have used the NAPA people with regard to the reorganization of the FBI and many other agencies.

What I would ask is we have a ``no'' vote. At the end of the pilot, in September, I am going to remind the staff; we will call NAPA up, also call the EEOC. I would invite the gentlewoman to come to the meeting and kind of see where we are. Fortunately, we will still have time to kind of deal with the issue, because I don't believe that we will be in conference by then.

But we are in the middle of the pilot; you don't kill it while the pilot is still operating. This is the National Academy of Public Administration, which so many individuals have used so many times.

Yes, I would yield.

I can't answer that. The staff said they are going to vote. But what I would like to do tomorrow is write the commission or ask the commission that they not vote in July to make it permanent until the pilot is finished.

Does that mean you withdraw the amendment?

Yes. I would do that. I would also ask if we can ask the National Academy of Public Administration also be part of that process.

Sure.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk read the amendment so we can understand what amendment this is.

Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California).

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlelady. I want to be on record I am absolutely, opposed to granting PNTR to Vietnam.

If you read the Human Rights Report of the State Department of Vietnam, which probably not many people read, it is a disaster. It is a disaster. I cannot understand why a bill would even come to the floor.

On the issue of intellectual property, if you look to see how they are treating the Catholic Church and the Buddhists, do you think they are going to be any better on intellectual property? No way.

President Bush is going to visit this fall. We are hoping that the President will meet with dissidents here and also dissidents over there and speak out on human rights, religious freedom and on the intellectual property issue. So anything that we could do in this bill that would be helpful with regard to beefing up intellectual property and doing as much is helpful.

But, also, as I told another Member from your side earlier today, it isn't just putting a couple dollars in. I want somebody who really believes, and, as of now, I think this whole issue of trade trumps everything.

I wish we could harken back to the days of Ronald Reagan, whereby Ronald Reagan just spoke out so boldly on the issue of human rights and religious freedom in Eastern Europe, called the Soviet Union the evil empire, was laughed at by the liberal media, and lived to see the fall of the Soviet Union.

That type of approach that Ronald Reagan took would be the right approach to take with regard to Vietnam, whereby we could see additional trade and human rights and religious freedom and, lastly, the respect for intellectual property, so they are not just stealing everything that we have.

Mr. Chairman, I understand the Ways and Means Committee has concerns with this amendment. Although, looking around, I see no one from the Ways and Means Committee.

We also are aware that the Office of the United States Trade Representative has committed to ensuring public health experts are included on this advisory committee. We have been led to believe this issue will be resolved in the near future, but with that understanding, I have no objection to the amendment personally. So I would accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be read.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part: An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. The amendment imposes additional duties.

I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

We are talking about terrorism. Every time the gentleman gets up, he paints something that really is inaccurate; and I think the gentleman from California will explain what you said. There have been changes in the PATRIOT Act.

The threat of terrorism and espionage is real. Thirty people from my district died in the attack on the World Trade Center. Two of my children live up in your congressional district. And if you read the article the other day about gas in the subways, you sort of make these statements, and you act like the Justice Department and the FBI is going to go after somebody's medical records. They are trying to stop terrorism. They are trying to stop what took place on 9/11 from taking place again.

We have a letter from the Justice Department. ``National Security Letters are extremely valuable to investigations of international terrorism.'' Not your MRIs, but international terrorism and espionage, al Qaeda.

This Congress stood by and did nothing while Osama bin Laden lived in Sudan from 1991 to 1996. I was the author of the National Commission on Terrorism, which came out in the year 2000. In 2000, Nancy Pelosi supported me in the committee when we got the funding for it. On the cover of the Bremer Commission report that came out in the year 2000, there is a picture of the World Trade Center on fire, and this body did nothing. It stood by and it watched, and the previous administration did nothing. And now there are people that have died because they have done nothing.

This is a bad amendment. The PATRIOT Act has been authorized by the Judiciary Committee. Mr. Lungren will tell you the changes that have been made. There have been protections put in it.

My goodness, do we want to tie the FBI's hands when they are trying to catch bin Laden and people like that? This is a bad amendment. We went through it on the authorizing act.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, do I have the right to close?

How much time do I have?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I think the focus of the debate has gone awry. You are right. It is not an immigration issue. It is a citizen issue.

But I do want to tell my colleagues that many people have fled persecution, sought asylum, and then become citizens. They come as adults, they come as elderly persons, but they are now citizens. They have been fleeing the persecution of oppression, and they come here for hope, and they come for a dream of opportunity.

When they become citizens, this will simply allow them to partake of that dream, and that is to vote. This is a bad amendment because it does not respect the idea that this is a country of freedom. I ask my colleagues to oppose the Stearn Amendment and support the full implementation of the Voter Rights Act Reauthorization.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Stearns amendment to H.R. 5672, which would prohibit the Department of Justice from enforcing section 203 of the Voting Rights Act. The amendment is divisive, punitive, and will take America in exactly the wrong direction.

Section 203 removes barriers to voting faced by tax paying American citizens: Citizens who do not speak English well enough to participate in the election process. Tax-paying citizens should not be penalized for needing assistance to exercise their fundamental right to vote. Language minority citizens are required to pay taxes and serve in the military without regard to their level of English proficiency. If they can shoulder those burdens of citizenship, they should be able to share in the benefits of voting with appropriate assistance to exercise the vote.

Section 203 protects citizens, not illegal immigrants: Section 203 mandates language assistance based on a trigger formula for language minorities from four language groups: Native Americans, Native Alaskans, Asian Americans, and persons of Spanish heritage. The immigrant debate should not influence the debate on ensuring that the fundamental right to vote is exercised equally by English and non- English proficient citizens. According to the 2000 census, three- quarters of those protected by Section 203 are native-born citizens. For example, 100 percent of Native Americans and Native Alaskans were born in the United States; 98.6 percent of Puerto Ricans protected by Section 4( e) were born in the United States; and 84.2 percent of Latinos were born in the United States.

Section 203 was enacted to remedy the history of educational disparities, which have led to high illiteracy rates and low voter turn out: These disparities continue to exist. As of 2000, three fourths of the 3 to 3.5 million students who are native-born were considered to be English Language Learners (ELLs), meaning the students don't speak English well enough to understand the basic English curriculum. ELL students lag significantly behind native-English speakers and are twice as likely to fail graduation tests. California has over 1,500,000 ELLs; Texas has 570,000 ELLs; Florida has 250,000 ELLs; and New York has over 230,000.

Since 1975, there have been more than 24 education discrimination cases filed on behalf of ELLs in 15 states: Fourteen of the States in which education discrimination lawsuits have been brought are covered by language assistance provisions. Since 1992, 10 cases have been filed. Litigation and consent decrees are currently pending in Texas, Alaska, Arizona, and Florida. Discrimination cases that have been brought address issues such as inadequate funding for ELLs, inadequate curriculum to assist ELLs become proficient in English, and lack of teachers and classrooms. These disparities increase the likelihood that ELLs will achieve lower test scores and drop out of school, ultimately, leading to lower voter registration and turnout.

Adults who want to learn English must endure long waiting periods to enroll in English Second Language (ESL) literacy centers: The lack of funding to expand the number of ESL centers around the country leaves minority citizens unable to enroll in classes for several years. For example, in large cities such as Boston citizens must wait for several years to enroll. In New Mexico, citizens must wait up to a year. In the State of New York, the wait lists were so long, the State eliminated them and instituted a lottery system. Once enrolled, learning English takes citizens several years to even obtain a fundamental understanding of the English language--not enough to understand complex ballots. Citizens should not be barred from exercising their right to vote while trying to become English proficient.

Most jurisdictions covered by section 203 support its continued existence: According to a 2005 survey, an overwhelming majority of jurisdictions covered by Section 203 think that federal language assistance provisions should remain in effect for public elections. In fact, in a poll of registered voters, 57 percent believe it is difficult to navigate ballots and instructions and that assistance should be provided.

I urge defeat of the Stearns Amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Steams Amendment to H.R. 5672, which would prohibit funds from being used for the design, renovation, construction, or rental of any headquarters for the United Nations in any location in the United States.

I believe the amendment is unwise, short-sighted, and harmful attack on one of the most important international institutions in the world. Withholding funds that are lawfully owed to and desperately needed by the United Nations to perform its essential functions is harmful to the U.N. and against the interests of the United States.

In this era of new global challenges, the global war on terror to the problematic war in Iraq to the threats to world peace posed by ambitions of North Korea and Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, we need the U.N. more than ever. And for the most part, the U.N. does a good job meeting these challenges. The organization conducted the first-ever national election from scratch in Afghanistan and trained 150,000 Iraqis as election staff for the elections in that country. The U.N. also was instrumental in coordinating the massive tsunami relief and reconstruction effort, involving multiple governments and hundreds of NGOs, that brought relief and healing to hundreds of thousands of people suffering in Indonesia. The U.N. helped to end violence and instability in Haiti, Sierra Leone, and Liberia.

With 191 diverse members, the U.N. is not perfect. It is unrealistic to expect perfection from an imperfect international system. The U.N. surely has many of the virtues and faults of its member countries, including our own country. But with all its faults, it is still an indispensable forum for the peaceful resolution of conflict.

Despite both managerial and systemic limitations, the U.N. has shown resourcefulness in confronting the new challenges posed by failed states, infectious diseases that transcend borders, global climate change, famine, weapons trade and terrorism.

The U.N.'s current Secretary General, Kofi Annan, is a leader determined to implement serious reforms. He recognizes that the United Nations is at a critical crossroads and that it must be modernized and rationalized if it is to survive. For over a year now, informed by the work of the high-level panel he appointed, the Secretary General has been working on a plan to overhaul the U.N. completely so that it is more professional and more capable of confronting global threats, challenges and change.

I caution my colleagues to resist the temptation to withhold the payment of our U.N. dues. As we all know, the United States just recently completed a multi-year process of paying off a massive debt to the U.N. that had accumulated over many years. During that process, we successfully reduced the percentage of the U.N. budget that U.S. taxpayers are responsible for funding.

So as we map out our nation's strategy for the next decade at the glass edifice on the East River, we must remember that operating the United Nations costs a lot of money. But not nearly as much money as international strife and chaos. The United Nations is deserving of the continuing support of the world, and of the United States of America.

I urge defeat of the Stearns amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Weiner knows that I have voted with him consistently on the COPS program and, of course, am chagrinned to stand here to argue against a program that is so vital, but Mr. Mollohan is correct.

These are tough decisions that have to be made, and the decision that has to be made is whether we want to remain competitive in science and technology, and we have to cut the science programs. It is a bad budget that we have to operate under, but frankly, in the shadow of a pending launch and the commitment to remain at the cutting edge of science that generates out of exploration and technology and science that comes under this particular funding, we are losing ground.

I would hope that we go back to the drawing board and get the money that we need for the COPS program. It is a good program, but this is not the kind of decision that draws anyone to a degree of happiness. This is splitting the baby, and we have nothing when we get through with it.

This is an important program to support, and that is the space exploration, the science programs. The minimum moneys we have and the fact that we have to take moneys for the COPS program, we need to fund it from the President's budget. He needs to fund the COPS program. This is not the way to do it.

I would ask my colleagues to oppose the Weiner amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition to my colleague's amendment, not because of the merit of the intent, but because of the harm it does in taking money away from an already under-funded NASA. This amendment would cut $476.5 million from science, aeronautics and space exploration systems. I wish the President's budget had allowed for full funding of the COPS program. The quarral is with the White House not with NASA.

I wholeheartedly support the work of NASA, and I am committed to the future of scientific and space exploration. I am deeply concerned that the amount appropriated in the FY07 budget does not meet all the needs for future space exploration as we move forward in this new century. A lack of necessary budget authority makes scientific innovation and space exploration very difficult. As I have stated before, this Administration has made many bad budgetary choices, including zeroing out the COPS program. However, it is not in the nation's best interest to compound that mistake with this one.

My greatest concern at this point is that we may not allocate enough money or resources to ensure the safety of all NASA astronauts and crew. After the Columbia disaster, safety must be our highest priority and it is worrisome that there is not a noticeable increase in funding to address all safety concerns.

Additionally, I am concerned that pressure to retire the Shuttle by a fixed date to free up resources for other activities, coupled with the need to fly up to 28 Shuttle flights to assemble the Space Station, could--if not handled properly--lead to the types of schedule and budgetary pressures that were cited by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, CAIB, as contributing to the Columbia accident. I know that this concern is paramount at NASA as we move forward in the future.

NASA has the ability to inspire the generations toward untold discoveries. As always I look forward to working with the good men and women of NASA as we push the boundaries of our world once again.

Thus, because this amendment cuts funding so desperately needed by the researchers, engineers, and innovators at NASA, I cannot support it, and I urge my colleagues to follow my lead.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Since 1975, the Bilingual Election Assistance Provisions of the Voting Rights Act have forced States and political subdivisions to accommodate multiple languages at the polls. The provisions prohibit States from providing voting material only in the English language.

While all of us enjoy hearing a wide variety of languages spoken here in the United States, I think that official government functions of the government ought to be conducted in English. Let me repeat that. I think the official government functions of this government ought to be conducted in English.

Let me state that my amendment is not about immigration, intimidation or discrimination. It is about assimilation. This is also an amendment about States' rights. States or political subdivisions can provide voting assistance in other languages if they want to, but I do not believe this is good for the United States to mandate.

The United States of America is a Nation of immigrants. We are the original melting pot. Importantly, though, the first motto of the United States of America was E pluribus unum: ``Out of many, one.'' This motto symbolizes the integration of the 13 independent colonies into one united country. The motto assumed even further meaning as Americans welcomed ever more immigrants from many lands to our shores. And one of the most unifying elements of one Nation is a common language.

Since our Nation's founding, there have been people who would literally suffer life and limb to be an American citizen. And I think that if you have the good fortune to be able to vote in the United States, then it is not too much to ask that this be accomplished in English. You can bring your own assistance to the polls if you need it, but I do not think the United States Government should be forced to pay for such assistance.

So, in my opinion, section 203 of the Voting Rights Act would exacerbate isolation and segregation. If individuals are not nudged, not pushed by the circumstances of daily living, including voting, to get out and master the basics of the English language, then they are denied all the rich opportunities that life in this great Nation offers. Further, depending upon how you got here, it is generally expected that you have a command of the English language. If you are born here and you obtain voting age and are limited for some reason in English proficiency, then I consider this quite a failing of the schools. And for most naturalized proceedings, you must pass a limited English proficiency requirement. Of course, democracy does not end at the polling place, so if one faces a language barrier to voting, then I suspect that he or she is secluded from enjoying all the full rights and privileges of democracy in the United States.

And, finally, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is about applying our scarce resources wisely in this country. The Bilingual Election Assistance Provisions come at no small cost to our States, our counties and our small towns.

For example, does a language with several dialects, such as Chinese, trigger the assistance requirement? Then the statute says that the jurisdiction's obligation is to ascertain the dialects that are commonly used by members of the applicable language minority group in the jurisdiction and to provide oral assistance in such dialects. Does a language that is unwritten trigger the requirement? Then oral assistance and publicity are required. We simply cannot, Mr. Chairman, afford to translate government documents and transactions into every possible conceivable language.

Now, if my amendment passes and becomes the law of the land, what would happen? Here is what: Voters not confident of their command of the English language would do what all of us would do, bring in their friends and neighbors and ask for help and assistance. Until 1975, there was no government duty to provide ballot translation, but a voter could certainly bring an interpreter of his choice to the voting booth.

I think that all eligible voters should knowledgeably, vigorously seeking knowledge, exercise their franchise. But let us just be a Nation that votes united, not divisively.

And I would say in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, States should not have to print ballots in all these various languages. Let us just have the ballots printed in English.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

My amendment would prohibit funds from the United States being used for the design, renovation, construction or rental of any headquarters for the United Nations in any location in the United States.

I offered this type of amendment 1 year ago, and then I agreed to withdraw it. My honorable colleague, Chairman Wolf joined me in requesting a GAO investigation of the United Nations headquarters renovation. That ongoing investigation has done little to advance our understanding of what the U.N. is doing besides how good the U.N. is at spending our taxpayers' money.

One of the lead experts in the GAO's ongoing investigation, Thomas Malito, testified in the Senate just last week. ``The U.N. is vulnerable to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement due to a range of weaknesses in existing oversight practices.'' That is why I have returned to ask that we withhold funding until the United Nations makes public and transparent its contracting and disbursement information relative to the renovations.

The United Nations estimates that the planned renovation of its headquarters building in New York City would cost $1.7 billion, billion, for a work site that is over 2\1/2\ million square feet.

The most expensive building sold in Manhattan, the General Motors building, recently sold for $1.4 billion. The entire U.N. building could be built again for under $2 billion. Still, repair and refurbishing are activities that involve greater financial opportunities, one would suppose.

Now, even if the U.N. cost estimates remain constant, a big if, the U.S. share of renovation would be about $480 million. That would be in addition to our regular annual dues of $423 million, plus all other contributions of nearly $2.4 billion.

The General Assembly has yet to approve a plan amongst the four being considered, but the U.N. has already spent almost $40 million on preferred renovation plans, $20 million in the last month alone, according to the GAO.

The GAO also found that the $1.7 billion cost estimate only scratches the surface of the expected costs. The estimate does not include any of the following: new furniture, at least $100 million per year for an unknown number of years; new security costs, as well as temporary security costs during construction; new phones and information technology systems; and new office equipment.

Moreover, according to the GAO, ``While the U.N. has yet to finalize a specific procurement strategy for the renovation project, to the extent that it relies on current U.N. processes, implementation of the planned renovation is vulnerable to the procurement weaknesses we have identified previously.'' And the GAO continues: ``For example, it has not,'' the U.N. now, ``has not established an independent process to consider vendor protests that could alert senior U.N. officials of failure by procurement staff.'' And the U.N. has yet to establish an independent bid process, something that the U.S. Government has in place and we all take for granted.

In addition, although the U.N.'s Office of Internal Oversight Service, OIOS, has a mandate establishing it as an independent oversight entity and to conduct oversight of the renovation, it lacks the budgetary independence it requires to carry out its responsibilities. The OIOS is dependent on the whims of the very department and program heads it is auditing. The problems with this setup were made plain in the Oil-for-Food program when OIOS was prevented from examining high-risk areas where billions of dollars were subsequently found to have been misused.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the patience of my good friend from Virginia, Chairman Wolf, on this amendment, and his approach to the very difficult work of crafting and passing the appropriation bill for this subcommittee. In this case, dealing with the United Nations, we have 61 years of patience, and this patience has to be very frustrating for all of us. But, Mr. Chairman, do we simply continue to grant the United Nations the possibility of continued corruption and possibly graft with this project? I don't think so.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment with Mr. Ramstad and other Members of this body. It is very simple. It takes perhaps the single most important anticrime program of the 1990s and the early part of this decade, the COPS program, and restores the hiring component, which is the portion of the program that puts cops on the beat.

It has been zeroed out in this budget. We are not going to restore it completely to its authorized level, but we at least are trying to put a little more funding in that would allow us to hire about 6,500 additional cops.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the COPS program, this is perhaps the most democratic, with a small ``D,'' program, anticrime program Congress ever envisioned, from coast to coast, State by State. West Virginia got 692 officers, Virginia got 2,400 officers, Texas got 600, big towns, small cities, all across the country.

This bill zeroes out the COPS program. What we seek to do is to authorize an additional 6,000 or so police officers. The offset that we seek is in the space exploration, the Mars program. We do not zero it out by any stretch of the imagination. We still ensure a large increase in it, about a 10 percent increase.

But this would be a way to take this single crime fighting program, and, frankly, an antiterrorism program, and breathe some life into it. We have already said in this body that we believe the COPS program should live. We reauthorized it. Now this is an effort to put some funds in.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, first of all, with all of the discussion about China, I am curious, is the crime rate high in China? Is the crime rate high on Mars? No one is saying to zero out the program. I am saying give it a 10 percent increase.

It is completed.

Apparently, the gentleman from Florida is unfamiliar with the rhetorical question which is so commonly used in New York and frequently in Washington.

Florida got 7,400 police officers under the COPS program. The COPS program was reauthorized in this body for additional hiring. We reauthorized it.

Now I am saying, put a few dollars in there. And I am not saying, do not go to Mars; I am not saying, do not go to the Moon. How about this? Let's make a deal. Let's have a 10 percent increase in that program that is so important. That is a pretty healthy increase. And if we do that, then we do not go from 7,400 cops in Florida to what the bill proposes, which is zero cops in Florida. That is what voting against the Weiner-Ramstad amendment would propose.

We are saying that this is a successful program. When Tom Ridge said that homeland security starts in our home towns, when John Ashcroft said this has been a remarkable program, you know, frankly, it has been a bipartisan, across-the-board success. We have reauthorized it in this body. All I am saying is, breathe new life in it.

I would just remind the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, that large increase that you described still is zeroing out, I would say to the gentleman from Virginia, the hiring component.

What the Department of Justice has done is put a whole lot of programs in this one line. The hiring component is zero, none, kaput, despite the fact that we reauthorized.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me just acknowledge that I agree with much of what the gentleman says, except the part about us gutting anything.

What we did is we took the space exploration program and limited the increase to 10 percent. We by no means cut it to last year's level. We by no means slashed it to the bone. What we did is we took a program that grew the most and said, we are going go allow it to grow only 10 percent in the alternative.

I want to point out the program that did get slashed to the bone, which was the COPS hiring component. You know, if you have a COPS program which put 117,000 police officers on the street and you say, we are going to reauthorize it but we are not going to provide any funding to do the hiring component, then we are going to start seeing what we are seeing now, which is, nationwide the seven index crimes are starting to creep up again.

We saw the single best Federal program against crime perhaps in history was the COPS program, and despite the protestations of some of the folks who were here at the time, it was distributed throughout the country. Now the COPS department at Justice in the hands of the Republican party fervently says, you know what, having a COPS program without having hiring in it is like having no COPS program at all.

Also, in the reauthorization, we acknowledged in a bipartisan way some of the weaknesses of the program. Some departments said, you know what, the way it was structured was too limited. They wanted flexibility. We acknowledged that. The chairman, to his credit, and this House, to its credit, overwhelmingly reauthorized that program, but it is a hollow victory if we have the COPS program and no money.

So the offset admittedly is not ideal. I think you and the gentleman from Virginia do yeoman's duty each year trying to squeeze more and more into a smaller bag.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Let me conclude by saying that I have been listening to what has been said, and I think I have got a compromise we can all accept.

What if we pass an amendment that increases the number of COPS by 6,500? There are none in the bill now. We make it 6,500, and we still give a $300 million plus up, an increase of 10 percent in the President's moon and Mars initiative, give an increase in space exploration and COPS program? Sound like a deal?

Well, this is the amendment. That is what the Weiner-Ramstad amendment does. It gives an increase to both. This notion that we are eviscerating a program is just not true. We are taking a program and giving it a 10 percent increase and funding another program that has done this much good around the country. This is the number of police officers around the country.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me say that I disagree with very little of what has been said on both sides. I think the chairman and ranking member have done a remarkable job balancing the equities, but it is simply not fair that the COPS program gets zero.

To keep saying that State and local enforcement has got additional funds, let us not forget that we authorized the COPS program at $1 billion. This amendment doesn't seek to fund it at that level, but it seeks to put some money in.

And if you think we are going to lose the edge in space exploration because

we have the audacity to give it a 10 percent increase this year, I just disagree. It is a matter of trying to find a way that we can do both.

We do not gut the space program. We give it a 10 percent increase with the Weiner amendment. But what we do is we make sure that we don't have this. This is what the bill presently has in the number of new cops under the COPS program. None. Zip. Zero.

Crime rates around the country are creeping back up. I heard at least one gentleman over there say, at least he is being honest, he believes that cops deserve no credit for the reduction in crime. It is an unusual position to take. The Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of Police Associations, and every law enforcement group nationwide supports the Weiner amendment.

What we are seeking to do here is to say, you know what, we can't in the Federal Government be at the sidelines in the fight against crime. We need to be in the game. We need to participate.

The COPS program was a success. Congressman Sensenbrenner said it. Attorney General Ashcroft said, and I quote, ``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 if you put additional people, feet on the street, that crime would be affected and people would be safer.''

He is right. I am sure if he were here today he would say support the Weiner amendment. I ask for an ``aye'' vote.

On that I request a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding the time; and I commend your efforts in this regard to limit the funding to this council and limit the funding, in essence, to the U.N. as well.

This council and even the process by which members are selected to it are basically symptomatic of the problems that we see within the U.N. not just today but over its entire 60-year history.

When we step back for a moment and say this is good and the next forward step because these members are selected to it by the entire body, we must remember what the entire body is made up of. This is the same body that is made up of the G-77 that is basically thwarting all efforts to reform the U.N., efforts that this House and this gentleman has also worked for to make sure we would have going forward in the

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

I come to the floor this evening with an amendment that, quite frankly, I have offered and has been accepted on various other appropriation bills throughout this process, and I think it is time to, once again, thank the various chairmen of those respective committees for accepting some of those similar amendments.

We may differ on each side of the aisle as to how we exactly got to the point that we are today, but one thing that we do agree on, as I have said on this floor in the past, one thing we do agree on is that we spend too much and our deficit is way too high.

So my amendment that I come to the floor with tonight is basically a commonsense approach to see, how do we rein in that spending? How do we deal with the angst of our constituents at home that say we are spending too much of their hard earned dollars?

What does that amendment do? It places a limit, a number, a ceiling, if you will, on the number of staffers that can travel on international conferences. The number that we place on here, the limit that we place, is 50 staff members. I am not saying that staff are not important. All we have to do is look around us and recognize the significance that staff plays in the role of the House of Representatives and right here on the floor as well, but we are just saying that, when it comes to going over to other international conferences, there should be some reasonable limit to numbers that go there.

In the other House, the Senate has held hearings on this, and Senator Coburn from Oklahoma has actually pointed out egregious examples of over 100 or more staffers attending various conferences and literally close to millions of dollars for those respective conferences. If I wanted to take the time, I could go through a litany of such egregious examples.

But I will be brief and just simply say that, to rein in the spending, to put some appropriate, reasonable standards on this, we are going to try to do the same on this legislation as we have in the past and say that all agencies of the Federal Government should be responsible in the number of staff they send.

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

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

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

I come to the floor tonight to address the issue of funding for the U.N. We have heard some discussion about it already, whether we are spending too little, not enough; whether we should not be making cutbacks in the various funding for the U.N.

The real question is, how can we make any of those decisions if we do not know the total amount of money that we are spending for the U.N. and its programs and its services?

Each year, the United States spends literally billions of dollars to fund the United Nations and its work. We fund the U.N.'s work year after year, regardless of how it is used or misused, and certainly, with the countless instances of waste, fraud and abuse, scandals and corruption over the last several years that we have talked about on this floor in the past, we can at the very least question the body's ability to police itself, at the very most call for that money as being misused.

At this time, the United States Government does not have a method for knowing the total amount of money we send to the U.N. While we can tally what is paid in dues, what we can contribute to various peacekeeping operations, additional funding is spent on voluntary programs and other support; there is no collective number for it. There is no comprehensive and public report of all the different ways that we fund U.N. operations with U.S. tax dollars.

So the amendment that I bring to the floor today calls for such a comprehensive accounting of all those dollars. Not for a cutting, not for increasing, just an accounting so we know what is being spent.

A similar amendment was made on various legislation on the Senate side.

Reform at the United Nations, that is that this Congress has encouraged in the past, has been complicated, as I have indicated earlier this evening, by the fact that the majority of the nations in the U.N. General Assembly oppose even the most modest forms of reform put forth by this House or even by the General Secretary. For instance, almost 5 years after the events of September 11, the U.N. has not yet even today agreed on a definition of terrorism. As I spoke earlier, they have also not agreed on a definition of genocide, even though that continues to go on to this day.

How can the U.N. expect to contribute to the fight against genocide or continue to fight against terrorism, one of the greatest threats to peace in the world today, if it can't even decide how to define it? Yet while the majority of the nations at the U.N. stand in the way of progress, they only fund 10 percent of the U.N.'s budget.

So it is up to the United States to lead for the U.N. That has worked in the past. In 1979, the Camp-Moynihan amendment successfully limited the U.N.'s support of terrorist organizations simply by the threat of withholding funds. And when the U.N. budget was ballooning in the 1980s, our use of financial leverage helped to bring about a compromise in 1986. And in 1992, Congress again had to withhold funds in order to see that an inspector general would be appointed to expose and fix mismanagement.

You see, Mr. Chairman, reform is possible at the U.N., but only if the United States is willing to lead. And for us to be able to lead, we must be fully aware of just how big a stick we carry; that is, how much we are funding. We must be fully aware of how much U.S. tax dollars goes from this House to the U.N.

So on behalf of the citizens that we represent at home who demand that we call for accountability in the U.S. Government, we should be doing the same from the U.N. We must have an accounting for those dollars spent.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman's citing the point of order; and I am in agreement that the point of order appropriately falls within this amendment that I bring before the House tonight.

It is, of course, a frustration for us when we are dealing with spending of dollars that we do not know exactly how much of the total dollars we are spending for a particular purpose, especially when that purpose is the U.N. and especially with their dismal record of the past.

With that said, Mr. Chairman, at this point I seek unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.