Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2863) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I yield myself 6 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by commending the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the Appropriations Committee chairman and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), Defense Subcommittee chairman, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the ranking member, for their continuing bipartisan work in drafting the annual defense appropriations bill.

I will not take time to detail the programs funded under this bill. However, I would like to express concern and my deep unease with a few aspects of this spending bill.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2863 appropriates $408.9 billion for the Department of Defense. That is $3.3 billion below what the administration requested. This total also includes $45.3 billion in unrequested funds for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Total defense spending now accounts for nearly 55 percent of the entire Federal discretionary budget for fiscal year 2006.

Now, while the Committee has trimmed somewhat the administration's budget request, overall defense spending, in real terms, is currently about 20 percent greater than the average Cold War budget.

Mr. Speaker, this is spending of historic proportions.

Since the spring of 2003, Congress has appropriated approximately $250 billion-plus for the war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, largely through three huge supplemental appropriations bills. U.S. spending in Iraq alone will be at least 75 to 80 billion this year alone. And it could approach a $400 billion total by 2006, making the Iraq war one of the costliest in U.S. history. Everyone in this House expects the President to ask for additional funds later this year, an expectation that I guess led the Committee to appropriate the $45.3 billion in as- yet-unrequested funds for operations in Iraq.

This so-called ``bridge fund'' means, Mr. Speaker, that we are, in essence, passing two appropriations bills for Iraq and Afghanistan. One is called the Iraq supplemental, which Congress takes up at the beginning of each year, and the other is this bridge fund. Remember we had one last year too, and it is attached to the annual defense appropriations bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is no longer breaking news that we are engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan. And it is critical for the economic and fiscal health of our Nation that the now-predictable spending for continued operations in Iraq and Afghanistan be included in the regular budget process so we can plan for it, make the necessary budgetary trade-offs, and most importantly, Mr. Speaker, so we can pay for it.

We should be paying for this war now, Mr. Speaker, not handing the cost off to our grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, just this week the death toll of American troops killed in Iraq exceeded 1,700. Last month was one of the deadliest months in Iraq in the 2 years since President Bush declared the end of major combat operations. In May of 2005, 67 U.S. soldiers and Marines were killed by hostile fire, the fourth highest tally since the war began.

In a June 12 Knight-Ridder article entitled ``Military Action Won't End Insurgency, Growing Number of U.S. Officers Believe,'' Lieutenant Colonel Frederick P. Wellman, who works with the task force overseeing the training of Iraqi security troops, said the insurgency doesn't seem to be running out of new recruits. ``We can't kill them all,'' Wellman said. ``When I kill one, I create three.''

Mr. Speaker, I personally believe there is no military solution in Iraq, immediate or long term. General George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, has expressed similar sentiments. He has called the U.S. military efforts ``the Pillsbury Doughboy idea,'' meaning that if you press the insurgency in one area, it only causes it to rise somewhere else.

Mr. Speaker, I very much regret that an amendment offered by the Democratic minority leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), was not made in order by the Rules Committee. This amendment is quite simple. It calls on the President to transmit to congressional leaders a report on what is our strategy for success in Iraq, one that identifies criteria to determine when it is appropriate to begin the withdrawal of our military from Iraq. The gentlewoman from California's (Ms. Pelosi) amendment is a reasonable, thoughtful approach. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Rules Committee would not make it in order.

Mr. Speaker, we need that kind of clarity in our policy. We need a change, of course, and at the end of this debate, I will ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that the Pelosi amendment may be considered.

Mr. Speaker, there are some who believe that our only responsibility in

this time of war is to automatically approve appropriations bills, no questions asked. Let me remind my colleagues that we also have a responsibility to do proper oversight, to conduct thoughtful debate, and to ensure that there is a clearly defined mission, which includes when our men and women can come home. That is what the Pelosi amendment seeks to accomplish, but for some reason the Republican leadership does not want to talk about it.

To be honest, I do not think this administration has a clue about what they are doing in Iraq, and, Mr. Speaker, that is a tragedy.

Clearly the current situation is not what the administration predicted, but instead of giving us a truthful assessment, instead of candor and clarity, we are given spin. We are told that things are going great. That is simply not credible.

Mr. Speaker, it takes no courage for a politician to stand before a microphone and say, we must stay the course. It is not our lives that are on the line. We must recognize that the Members of this House have a responsibility that has for too long been neglected.

We owe our troops, indeed we owe our country, some answers. I know that this is not a comfortable topic, but I would plead with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to start worrying less about saving face and more about doing what is right.

At the end of this debate, Mr. Speaker, I will remind my colleagues I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our Democratic leader, whose amendment was not allowed to be made in order by the Committee on Rules last night.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Appropriations.

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

Let me just respond to the gentleman briefly by saying that I do not believe that we are more secure today. We were not told the truth about this war in Iraq. We were not told the truth about WMDs or Iraq's tie to al Qaeda. The justification for this war was based on false or falsified information. Things are getting worse. And this administration does not have a clue.

I was in Iraq as well. I saw firsthand what is going on over there. What the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) is trying to do is to get some clarity, to get the administration to come out and explain to us what their strategy is, if they have one, and if they do not, to try to get them to come up with one. This is a very serious matter. Those men and women who are serving our country so bravely over there deserve more from us than they have gotten.

That is the reason why I hope people will vote ``no'' on the previous question, to give us an opportunity to force this administration to do what it should have done a long time ago and that is define what this mission is all about.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

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

I would just say to the very distinguished gentleman from Florida, whom that I have a great deal of respect for, that all these terrible terrorist acts that he has cited were committed by al Qaeda. And, unfortunately, most of those masterminds are still at large because our forces have been diverted into this war in Iraq, and they are not focused in on where they should be, on bringing to justice those members of al Qaeda who are the masterminds of these crimes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).

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

If the gentleman from Oklahoma has a strategy on Iraq or knows that the Bush administration has written down such a strategy, would he please share with us a copy because I have yet to see one?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to oppose the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule so we can consider the Pelosi amendment that was offered in the Committee on Rules Tuesday night, but rejected on a straight party-line vote.

Mr. Speaker, the Pelosi amendment would require the President to submit to Congress within 30 days a report on a strategy for success in Iraq. That is it.

Mr. Speaker, whatever one's position is on the war in Iraq, I think most of us realize that it is past time for the administration to assess the situation in Iraq and to address the matter of an eventual withdrawal from that country. I hope Members will agree to at least consider this amendment today.

The House has a responsibility to ask tough questions and to demand straight answers. I am tired of the spin, as so many other Members are. It is time for candor. The people of this country deserve that.

A ``no'' vote will not prevent us from considering the defense appropriations bill under an open rule, but a ``no'' vote will allow Members to vote on the Pelosi amendment. However, a ``yes'' vote will block the House from considering and voting on the need for a success strategy in the war in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, we need a strategy, not just slogans.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I will enter into the Record two articles cited in my opening statement. I also had a very moving meeting yesterday with members of the Gold Star Families for Peace who have lost sons and daughters in the war in Iraq. These families have experienced the tragedy of this war firsthand, and they believe we should set a very different course. I will enter into the Record the personal statements by these family members regarding the continuing U.S. presence in Iraq.

[From Knight Ridder Newspapers, June 12, 2005.]

Military Action Won't End Insurgency, Growing Number of U.S. Officers

Believe

(By Tom Lasseter)

Baghdad, Iraq.--A growing number of senior American

military officers in Iraq have concluded that there is no

long-term military solution to an insurgency that has killed

thousands of Iraqis and more than 1,300 U.S. troops during

the past two years.

Instead, officers say, the only way to end the guerilla war

is through Iraqi politics--an arena that so far has been

crippled by divisions between Shiite Muslims, whose coalition

dominated the January elections, and Sunni Muslims, who are a

minority in Iraq but form the base of support for the

insurgency.

``I think the more accurate way to approach this right now

is to concede that . . . this insurgency is not going to be

settled, the terrorists and the terrorism in Iraq is not

going to be settled, through military options or military

operations,'' Brig. Gen. Donald Alston, the chief U.S.

military spokesman in Iraq, said last week, in a comment that

echoes what other senior officers say. ``It's going to be

settled in the political process.''

Gen. George W. Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq,

expressed similar sentiments, calling the military's efforts

``the Pillsbury Doughboy idea''--pressing the insurgency in

one area only causes it to rise elsewhere.

``Like in Baghdad,'' Casey said during an interview with

two newspaper reporters, including one from Knight Ridder,

last week. ``We push in Baghdad--they're down to about less

than a car bomb a day in Baghdad over the last week--but in

north-center (Iraq) . . . they've gone up,'' he said. ``The

political process will be the decisive element.''

The recognition that a military solution is not in the

offing has led U.S. and Iraqi officials to signal they are

willing to negotiate with insurgent groups, or their

intermediaries.

``It has evolved in the course of normal business,'' said a

senior U.S. diplomatic official in Baghdad, who spoke on the

condition of anonymity because of U.S. policy to defer to the

Iraqi government on Iraqi political matters. ``We have now

encountered people who at least claim to have some form of a

relationship with the insurgency.''

The message is markedly different from previous statements

by U.S. officials who spoke of quashing the insurgency by

rounding up or killing ``dead enders'' loyal to former

dictator Saddam Hussein. As recently as two weeks ago, in a

Memorial Day interview on CNN's ``Larry King Live,'' Vice

President Dick Cheney said he believed the insurgency was in

its ``last throes.''

But the violence has continued unabated, even though 44 of

the 55 Iraqis portrayed in the military's famous ``deck of

cards'' have been killed or captured, including Saddam.

Lt. Col. Frederick P. Wellman, who works with the task

force overseeing the training of Iraqi security troops, said

the insurgency doesn't seem to be running out of new

recruits, a dynamic fueled by tribal members seeking revenge

for relatives killed in fighting.

``We can't kill them all,'' Wellman said. ``When I kill one

I create three.''

Last month was one of the deadliest since President Bush

declared the end of major combat operations in May 2003, a

month that saw six American troops killed by hostile fire. In

May 2005, 67 U.S. soldiers and Marines were killed by hostile

fire, the fourth-highest tally since the war began, according

to Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, an Internet site that uses

official casualty reports to organize deaths by a variety of

criteria.

At least 26 troops have been killed by insurgents so far in

June, bringing to 1,311 the number of U.S. soldiers killed by

hostile action. Another 391 service members have died as a

result of accidents or illness.

The Iraqi interior minister said last week that the

insurgency has killed 12,000 Iraqis during the past two

years. He did not say how he arrived at the figure.

American officials had hoped that January's national

elections would blunt the insurgency by giving the population

hope for their political future. But so far, the political

process has not in any meaningful way included Iraq's Sunni

Muslim population.

Most of Iraq's Sunnis Muslims, motivated either by fear or

boycott, did not vote, and they hold a scant 17 seats in the

275-member parliament.

There was a post-election lull in bloodshed, a period that

saw daily attack figures dip into the 30s. But with the

seating of the interim government on April 28, attacks spiked

back to 70 a day. More than 700 Iraqis have been killed since

then.

The former Iraqi minister of electricity, Ayham al-Samarie,

has said he's consulted with U.S. diplomatic officials about

his negotiations with two major insurgent groups to form a

political front of sorts. There has been similar talk in the

past--notably by former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's

administration, which spoke of inclusion through amnesty--but

nothing has come of it.

At the heart of the problem is the continued failure of

U.S. and Iraqi officials to bring the nation's Sunni

minority, with more than

five million people, to the political table. Sunnis now find

themselves in a country ruled by the Shiite and Kurdish

political parties once brutally oppressed by Saddam, a Sunni.

With Shiites and Kurds stocking the nation's security

forces with members of their militias, Sunnis have been

marginalized and, according to some analysts in Iraq, have

become more willing to join armed groups.

Since September of last year, some 85 percent of the

violence in Iraq has taken place in just four of Iraq's 18

provinces: the Sunni heartland of al Anbar, Baghdad, Ninevah

and Salah al Din.

U.S. officials prefer not to talk about the situation along

religious lines, but they acknowledge that one of the key

obstacles to resolving Iraq's problems is the difference

between Sunni and Shiite religious institutions.

Shiites are organized around their marja'iya, a council of

clerics--led in Iraq by Grand Ayatollah Ali al Sistani--that

issues religious edicts that Shiite faithful follow as law.

Sunnis, on the other hand, have no such unifying structure.

The difference was made clear in January when one list

formed under the guidance of Sistani was the choice of almost

all Shiites voting. Those Sunnis who did go to the polls

split their votes among a myriad of organizations including

those backed by a presumptive monarch, a group of communists

and a religious group that mayor may not have been boycotting

the election.

Sunni Muslims near downtown Baghdad have only to drive down

the street to see how precarious their position in Iraqi

politics and society is these days. On roads near the party

headquarters for the Shiite Supreme Council for Islamic

Revolution in Iraq, which is in large part shaping the policy

of the nation, Kurdish militia members patrol the streets.

The troops are ostensibly part of the nation's army, but

they still wear militia uniforms and, as is the case with

some in Kurdistan, many either can't or won't speak Arabic.

One of the roads they patrol has been named Badr Street, for

the armed wing of the Supreme Council. There is a large

billboard with the looming face of Abdul Aziz al Hakim, the

Supreme Council's leader.

Unless Sunnis develop confidence that the government will

represent them, few here see the insurgency fading.

Asked about the success in suppressing the insurgency in

Baghdad recently--the result of a series of large-scale raids

that in targeted primarily Sunni neighborhoods--Brig. Gen.

Alston said that he expects the violence to return.

``We have taken down factories, major cells, we have made

good progress in (stopping) the production of (car bombs) in

Baghdad,'' Alston said. ``Now, do I think that there will be

more (bombs) in Baghdad? Yes, I do.''

[From the Washington Post, June 8, 2005.]

Pentagon Wasted Supplies, GAO Finds

(By Griff Witte)

The Defense Department spent at least $400 million in

recent years buying boots, tents, bandages and other goods at

he same time it was getting rid of identical items it had

paid for but never used, government investigators told House

members yesterday.

That finding came as part of a broader inquiry by the

Government Accountability Office that uncovered deep flaws in

the Pentagon's system for determining when it needs to buy

new supplies and how it disposes of supposedly excess

inventory.

Investigators discovered that out of $33 billion of goods

the Defense Department marked as excess from 2002 through

2004, $4 billion was in excellent condition. Only about 12

percent of that was reused by the department. The other $3.5

billion ``includes significant waste and inefficiency,'' the

GAO said, because new or good-as-new items were ``transferred

and donated outside of DOD, sold for pennies on the dollar,

or destroyed.''

Investigators brought some of that equipment with them to

the hearing of a House Government Reform Committee

subcommittee yesterday. Among the items on display were

unused military uniforms and medals that GAO had purchased

off of a publicly available Web site intended for disposing

of unwanted government property. The GAO also obtained the

power-supply system for a component of a nuclear submarine

that was on the Pentagon's ``critical shortage'' list at the

time.

``We're not sure why DOD would be letting GAO have that. We

don't have any nuclear submarines at GAO,'' said Gregory D.

Kutz, the GAO's managing director for special investigations.

Subcommittee members reacted angrily to the findings.

``Waste on this scale affects our ability to meet the

immediate needs of men and women in uniform,'' said Rep.

Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), who chaired the hearing. ``The

$400 million spent on unneeded equipment could have bought

body armor, medical supplies or more than 1,700 fully armed

Humvees to protect coalition forces against deadly improvised

explosive devices.''

Rep. Henry A Waxman (D-Calif.) said the only beneficiaries

of the Pentagon's mismanagement are the companies that sell

equipment to the government. ``Federal contractors are

reaping a bonanza while taxpayers are being gouged,'' Waxman

said.

Rep. John J. Duncan Jr. (R-Tenn.) said the GAO's findings

involved the waste of ``an unbelievably staggering amount of

money.''

``Anybody who's not horrified by this does not deserve to

be called a conservative,'' he said.

Pentagon officials testified that they generally agreed

with the GAO's findings, saying new items had been

accidentally labeled in some cases as excess inventory. The

officials said they have made improvements, however, and plan

to have a computer system up and running by January that

would prevent Pentagon officials from buying new equipment

that is already available internally.

``We do have a fix on the horizon,'' said Maj. Gen. Daniel

G. Mongeon, director of logistics operations at the Defense

Logistics Agency.

Yesterday's report followed GAO inquiries that uncovered

evidence the Defense Department was selling unused

biological- and chemical-weapons-resistant suits for $3 each.

At the same time it was buying hundreds of thousands more for

$200 apiece.

Investigators found that example typified a broader

problem. For instance, they paid $2,898 for $79,649 worth of

tires, badges, circuit cards and medical supplies. In some

cases, the goods had been marked as junk but were delivered

in their original packaging. At the same time, the Pentagon

continued to order more of the same items from its suppliers.

The GAO concluded that the Pentagon could have saved $400

million in fiscal 2002 and 2003 had it used what it already

owned, rather than buying more.

GAO investigators also found that at contractor-operated

facilities where excess equipment was supposed to be

liquidated, items were left exposed to rain and wind. Much of

it ended up damaged beyond repair.

In addition, the Defense Department said that between 2002

and 2004, $466 million of equipment marked as excess--

including sensitive equipment such as missile warheads--had

been lost, stolen or damaged. Kutz, who said he believes the

total of unaccounted-for equipment could be far higher, said

the GAO will continue to investigate where those items ended

up.

Statements From Members of Gold Star Families for Peace

Iraq has been the tragic Lie of Historic Proportions of

Washington, DC since before the first gulf war. For years,

Saddam was one of our government's propped up and militarily

supported puppets. Many people have seen the famous footage

of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam. I suppose the

two are smiling so big for the cameras because they are

kindred spirits. After all of the hand-shaking and weapon

brokering, when did Saddam become such a bad guy to Bush,

Cheney, Halliburton and Co.? (Insert your favorite reason

here). During the Clinton regime the US-UN led sanctions

against Iraq and the weekly bombing raids killed tens of

thousands of innocent people in Iraq. Many of them were

children, but since one of her children didn't have to be

sacrificed to the homicidal war machine, Madeline Albright,

thinks the slaughter during the ``halcyon'' Clinton years was

``worth it.'' More lies.

Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of current

events understands that this invasion/occupation of Iraq was

not about Saddam being a ``bad guy.'' If that logic is used,

then how many innocent Iraqi people have to die before the

citizens of America wake up and know that our government is a

``bad guy?'' We also know that Iraq was not about WMD's. They

weren't there and they weren't going to be there for at least

a decade, by all reports. Another reason, so wispy and more

difficult to disprove, is that America invaded Iraq to bring

freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people. When one tries to

dispute this particular deception, one is accused of being

unpatriotic or hating freedom. Even though correct, the

statement ``Freedom isn't Free'' is very insulting to me.

False freedom is very expensive. Fake freedom costs over one

billion of our tax dollars a week; phony freedom has cost the

Iraqi people tens of thousands of innocent lives; fanciful

freedom has meant the destruction of a country and its

infrastructure. Tragically, this fabricated notion of freedom

and democracy cost me far more than I was willing to pay: the

life of my son, Casey. The Lie of Historic Proportions also

cost me my peace of mind, I do not feel free and I do not

feel like I live in a democracy.

One of the other great deceits that is being perpetuated on

the American public and the world is that this occupation is

to fight terrorism: If we don't fight terrorism in Iraq then

we will have to fight it ``on our streets.'' In fact,

terrorist attacks have skyrocketed in Iraq and all over the

world. So much so, that the State Department has stopped

compiling the statistics and quit issuing the yearly

terrorism report. I guess if one doesn't write a report, then

terrorism doesn't exist? All of Casey's commendations say

that he was killed in the ``GWOT'' the Global War on

Terrorism. I agree with most of GWOT, except that Casey was

killed in the Global War Of Terrorism waged on the world and

its own citizens by the biggest terrorist outfit in the

world: George and his destructive Neo-con cabal.

The evidence is overwhelming, compelling, and alarming that

George and his indecent bandits traitorously had intelligence

fabricated to fit their goal of invading Iraq. The criminals

foisted a Lie of Historic Proportions on the world. It was

clear to many of us more aware people that George, Condi,

Rummy, the two Dicks: Cheney and Perle,

Wolfie, and most effectively and treacherously, Colin Powell,

lied their brains out before the invasion. The world was even

shown where the WMD'S were on the map. We were told that the

``smoking gun'' could come at any time in the form of a

``mushroom cloud'' or a cloud of toxic biological or chemical

weapons. Does anyone remember duct tape and plastic sheeting?

Finally, the side of peace, truth and justice has our own

smoking gun and it is burning our hands. It is the so-called

Downing Street Memo dated 23, July 2002, (almost 8 months

before the invasion) that states that military action

(against Iraq) is now seen as ``inevitable.'' The memo

further states that: ``Bush wanted to remove Saddam through

military action'', justified by the conjunction of

``terrorism and WMD's.'' The most damning thing to George in

the memo is where the British intelligence officer who wrote

the memo claims that the intelligence to base Great Britain

and the U.S. staging a devastating invasion on Iraq was being

``fixed around the policy.'' Now, after over three years of

relentless propaganda, it is difficult to distinguish the

proven lies from the new ``truth:'' that this occupation is

bringing freedom and democracy to the people of Iraq.

Casey took an oath to protect the U.S. from all enemies

``foreign and domestic.'' He was sent to occupy and die in a

foreign country that was no threat to the USA. However, the

biggest threat to our safety, humanity, and our way of life

in America are George and his cronies. Congress made a

Mistake of Historic Proportions and waived its Constitutional

responsibility to declare war. It is time for the House to

make up for that mistake and introduce Articles of

Impeachment against the murderous thugs who have caused so

much mindless mayhem. It is time for Congress to revalidate

itself by holding a hearing about the Downing Street Memo.

The reader can help by going onto www.AfterDowningStreet.org

and signing a petition to Rep. John Conyers so he will know

that the American people are behind him to convene an

investigation in the House Judiciary Committee. You can also

write your Congressional Representative to help push the

inquiry.

It is time to put partisan politics behind us to do what is

correct for once and reclaim America's humanity. It is time

for Congress and the American people to work together in

peace and justice to rid our country of the stench of greed,

hypocrisy, and unnecessary suffering that permeates our White

House and our halls of Congress. It is time to hold someone

accountable for the carnage and devastation that has been

caused. As a matter of fact, it is past time, but it is not

too late--Cindy Sheehan, mother of Casey Sheehan, KIA Apr. 4,

2004.

My son Sherwood Baker, only 30 years old, a fine man,

father, husband, social worker, musician, entertainer,

friend, protector, patriot, national guard soldier lost his

precious life on April 26, 2004 in Baghdad.

He had been in Iraq for six weeks. He was assigned to

protect the Iraq Survey Group the very people looking for the

weapons of mass destruction. He was guarding that group as

they entered a munitions factory, it exploded, something hit

my son in his head as he raised himself from his humvee. He

died two hours later, half a World away from all of us who

love him so much.

Two years before this happened, people in the

Administration of George Bush had decided they wanted a war

with Iraq. They were determined to have one, though the facts

about any real dangers were ``thin'', though so many

disagreed, though the American people rejected a capricious

war. So these people who took their oath before God to be

honorable leaders, betrayed the public trust and committed

themselves and our Country to finding a way to have a war.

Some of us suspected all this then, many of us know it now,

the Downing Street memo and other revealing documents bring

the light of truth everyday to these horrendous betrayals.

Now it is the duty of congress to stand up and face these

truths, investigate the documents, follow them where ever

they lead. Hold those accountable who betrayed my son, my

family and this Country I love.

If we are ever to reach Peace in Iraq we must confront the

lies and deceptions that got us there, just as we could not

wage a war successfully on lies, there can be no Peace based

on lies.

It is very simple in some ways, 1706 Americans have given

up their lives, they stand just beyond us now, tied forever

by grief and longing to those who loved them. Tied to the

history of this Country, tied to its honor, now they wait on

us to honor the fallen and honor the truth.

I pray YOU will support the Downing Street memo hearings--

and stand with honor for the truth--Celeste Zappala, mother

of Sgt Sherwood Baker, KIA Apr. 26, 2004.

Silence in the Face of Truth: The Downing Street Memo

(By Dante Zappala)

For the first 30 years of my brother Sherwood Baker's life,

his mission was to be a responsible citizen. He made oaths

and he honored those oaths. This made him a loving father and

husband. This also made him a noble and committed soldier. He

courageously deployed with his National Guard unit to Iraq in

2004.

For the last six weeks of his life, Sherwood's mission was

to provide convoy security for the Iraq Survey Group. He was

killed in action, providing site security for the group that

was looking for weapons of mass destruction. Mounting

evidence indicates that the weapons' non-existence wasn't a

mistake. It was a ruse.

The clouds surrounding Sherwood's death became even darker

recently when I read the contents of a memo from the upper

echelons of the British government. The memo reiterates the

fact that our administration had every intention of invading

Iraq in the summer of 2002. The White House needed only to

sell the idea to the American people.

Prior to Congressional approval, prior to saying, ``War is

the last resort,'' the decision had been made to go to war

regardless of legal justification or the problems associated

with the aftermath of an invasion. The most telling quote in

this memo reads, ``The intelligence and facts were being

fixed around the policy.'' Read the memo: http:// www.downingstreetmemo.com/memo.html.

My brother died scouring the Iraqi countryside not to

protect his country, but to satisfy the Bush administration's

public relations agenda.

The leaders of our country politicized intelligence to

satisfy an ideology. My brother and more than 1,650 other

soldiers have been killed as a result. Yet I have to sift

through the papers and the news channels to find even a pulse

of concern. In the wake of such disturbing revelations, a

majority of our press and populace resoundingly choose to be

silent.

Overwhelmingly, Americans have ceased to care about how and

why we went war. Apathy, in the face of our soldiers'

sacrifice, seems more convenient.

We cannot allow our government to simply replace the

motivations for war midstream and expect an entire nation and

all its allies to succumb to selective memory. Yet that is

exactly what has happened.

The poet Archibald MacLish, who also lost a brother in war,

wrote:

They say

We leave you our deaths

Give them their meaning.

If we are to give meaning to the deaths in Iraq, we must be

willing to engage in truthful dialogue about the pretenses of

war. Acquiescing to the lure of silence and ignorance is an

affront to the families and memories of all who have fallen.

It is a prescription for unending violence and suffering.

Are we so ashamed of what our soldiers have and continue to

do in Iraq that we can't even talk about how they got there?

Or, are we simply ashamed of ourselves for letting it happen?

We must each confront ourselves over the failures in Iraq.

For that failure is not simply the fault of our leaders

misusing suspect intelligence. Our course as a country,

ultimately, stems from the individual conclusion of all of us

to be either complicit or resistant to war.

The government's failure in Iraq becomes our own failure

when we substitute political rhetoric or blanket ideology for

reason. It becomes our fault when we are recklessly arrogant

and willfully deaf.

Our responsibility as citizens is to acknowledge and

embrace the whole truth about the Iraq War. We must look past

partisanship and hold ourselves and our leaders to the high

standards of integrity that citizenship demands. When we fail

to honor that responsibility, we fail to honor the sacrifices

of our soldiers.

The world as I knew it ended when Neil was killed. Many

years ago someone gave us a beautiful vase and somehow I

knocked it over and it broke into two pieces. I glued it

together, it still holds water, but it lost its beauty. We

are like that vase. For a while I lost my ability to pray.

That has come back, thank God and all those who prayed for

us. Many people go to work with coffee or tea in their

cupholder. I go with tissues in my cupholder, because I cry

to and from work. I am able to function at work because I

work with children. Daily activities are no longer the same.

I can speak to a large group of people, yet I have trouble

going into stores. I cannot be in crowded stores. One of my

dearest friends just retired and I did not go to her

retirement party, because I was worried that I would start

sobbing. I love the theater, but do not go. My son was an

honorable man killed by the actions of dishonorable men--

Dianne Santoriello, mother of 1st Lt. Neil Anthony

Santoriello, KIA Aug. 13, 2004.

My son, Sgt. Mike Mitchell, was killed in Sadr City on

April 4, 2004, the first day of the Shiite uprising. He had

been in Iraq for 11 months, had turned in all of his

equipment on April 3, as he was headed to Kuwait the next

week then back to Germany and his fiancee and wedding--Bill

Mitchell, father of Sgt. Mike Mitchell, KIA Apr. 4, 2004.

Jeff was sent to Kuwait on a 6 month rotation tour with his

Battery, C/1-39 FA (MLRS) in August 2002. He was due back to

the states in February 2003, until orders to returned were

halted in December 2002 because of the build-up. He was

caught in this melee of horror with no other recourse to be a

true soldier and fight for the cause. You can imagine my

horror listening to the propaganda and lies our government

leaderships so vehemently declared to the nation as the

truth. It was out of my control to tell my baby he was in the

wrong place at the wrong time. I felt absolutely helpless. He

died 4 weeks into the invasion. He was just commissioned as a

second lieutenant, he married the love of his life, he

acquired his mustang muscle car, and he was living on his own

in Ft. Stewart, Georgia. He had the world ahead of him and

eager to be part of life. He didn't expect to lose his life.

He died from a shrapnel metal that pierced his right eye and

traveled through his brain knocking out all the vital parts

to sustain life. He was a victim to an explosion a football

field away. Back then, his unit (FA) was not equipped with

protective gear nor properly trained to handle infantry,

engineers, and explosive specialist jobs. Jeff was 24 yrs old

when he died and my only son. He was the love of my life and

such a cuddly baby to raise. He always had kisses for me even

into his adult life. I miss him so! This war shouldn't happen

and I want the truth. I want someone to gather all the

casualty families and tell them the truth--why it was

necessary to fabricate intelligence information to make a

case for war. We have the right to know even if its

classified--Roxanne Kaylor, mother of LT. Jeff Kaylor, KIA

Apr. 7, 2003.

The Department of Defense announced today the death of two

soldiers who were supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom. They

died April 19 in Baghdad, Iraq, when a vehicle-borne

improvised explosive device detonated near their dismounted

patrol. Both Soldiers were assigned 3rd Battalion, 7th

Infantry Regiment, 3rd Infantry Division, and Fort Stewart,

Ga. The soldiers are: Spc. Jacob M. Pfister, 27, of Buffalo,

N.Y., Spc. Kevin S.K. Wessel, 20, of Newport, Ore--Lori

Wessel, mother of Spc Kevin S.K. Wessel, KIA Apr. 19, 2005.

Let me tell you why I think, no demand that Congress

investigate Bush's Iraq War lies. It starts with a

conversation that I remember as if it were yesterday. It was

a conversation between my son and me. He had called me from

Ft. Lewis, Wa.; his duty station. He was assuring me that

there was no way that we were going to invade Iraq. I replied

that I wasn't so sure; after all I kept hearing those war

drums. He told me with all confidence that there were two

reasons. First Saddam was not a threat to the U.S., that we

had him contained. Second, even though Saddam was a bad guy

he was OUR bad guy and if we removed him we would be creating

a political vacuum in Iraq that we would not be able to

control. How very confident he was. Needless to say, that

when we did invade he was more than a little disillusioned.

Of course his two reasons have both proved to be true.

Unfortunately, his Commander and Chief had decided on this

war possibly even before 9/11. In my son's name I demand that

Congress investigate. I demand it in my son's name because he

is unable to demand it himself. Cpl. Jonathan Castro, my only

child, was killed December 21, 2004, when a suicide bomber

was allowed into a military base mess tent in Mosul. I also

demand the investigation in the name of all those still

serving. Many of them would demand it themselves if they

didn't fear military retribution--Vickie Castro, mother of

Spc. Jonathan Castro, KIA Dec. 21, 2004.

As you meet today and discuss the additional evidence of

the lies that were used to launch this illegal, immoral

invasion and occupation of a recognized, sovereign nation, I

would humbly like to put before you yet a few more numbers,

reasons to stay the course and continue to reveal these

crimes and bring the perpetrators to justice.

That number is 538. My nephew, PFC William Ramirez, was

American soldier number 538 to die in this horrific travesty

committed on the people of Iraq in the name of the Congress

of the United States, our citizens and our allies. Think then

of the 537 who came before and the 1100+ who have died since.

Think also of the 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians whose

lives have been lost and blown to rubble by American

munitions and their aftermath.

Here's another number--19. That is how many years William

spent on this earth. Two of those in the U.S. Army. He was

anxious to serve and defend. He was promised a chance to

learn architecture or engineering, to create and build.

Instead, he was sent to destroy, kill and die. And for what?

How many of you, knowing what you know about this war, would

willingly allow a child, a grandchild, a nephew or niece or

even your dog to be sacrificed for it? Can you wrap your

minds around the suffering, pain and grief that lies behind

each number in the newspaper, in your briefings, on the TV?

Multiply those numbers 10 times or so and envision the lives

shattered by injury, physical and mental, and the military

families who must support those victims.

It is horrible and wrong for a life to be cut off violently

and short. The greater horror is the senselessness of it, in

knowing that William's death was in vain. There is no comfort

in thinking the world is a better place because of it. His

heroism was squandered by liars, cheats and profiteers. His

courage was used to attack a nation that was not a threat.

His youth and inexperience was stolen by conniving draft

dodgers waving flags of patriotism and fear who never

answered the call to serve. His life was manipulated to

achieve the ends chosen by a handful of people and his death

means nothing to them.

Congress was lied to, but Congress is still culpable. Our

entire country will continue to pay for this. It is your job

and duty now to investigate without stopping until truth and

justice are rooted out. Number 538 is just one in a sea of

numbers that don't look like much on a piece of paper. It

really isn't that large of a number relative to so many

others in the news. To our family, however it is a fatal

number. It is the difference between a hope-filled future for

a loving, intelligent boy and a silent headstone in a

military cemetery. How many more families will receive a

number like that? How many more?

William may have wanted to defend our country and its

democracy, but the truth is that battle must be waged on

these shores, in these very buildings. And you are the

soldiers. Yes, you have position, influence, money and power

at stake and you might feel that you have much to lose on the

front lines of this conflict. The United States has much to

lose if you do not fight. Please be inspired by our heroic

and selfless troops and by the memory of our fallen. Take up

their cause and restore our nation to one they would be proud

of, to the one they thought they suffered and died for. You

can give meaning to their deaths if only you will--Annette

Pritchard, aunt of PFC William Ramirez, KIA Feb. 11, 2004.

My son, Spc. Joseph Blickenstaff, lost his life in the line

of duty for our country. Yes, we were and are proud of him as

a man and thrilled at his accomplishments. Today is the l8-

month anniversary of his death. One day, at the age of 20,

Joe came to see me and was very excited. He had enlisted in

the Army. I was not happy. He convinced me it was something

he really wanted to do and thought he would be good at it. I

finally agreed it might be good for him.

He left for Basic Training May 1, 2001. He arrived home

from Basic on September 6, 2001. The party to celebrate this

achievement was September 9, 2001. You know what happened

next. All the rules changed. He married his Sweetheart,

Angela, shortly after Basic Training. They moved to

Washington near the Base. Joe continued to prepare in the

Stryker Brigade at Fort Lewis, Washington for the next 25

months. He achieved the Expert Infantryman designation, which

few managed to do. He told me he wanted to be the ``one'' to

bring down Osama Bin Laden. He was full of the righteous

anger that flowed through most Americans after 9-11. He did

not, however, believe we had the right to invade Iraq. He

decided he wanted to go to Iraq to protect his comrades. He

was a gunner. He wanted to take good care of them. He also

wanted to see what he could do to help the Iraqi people. He

hated bullies and spent his life looking out for the

underdogs. He literally would walk down the street and give

his money and his clothes away. As parents, we thought that

maybe the experience of mastering the many skills and

participating in helping other people would turn out to be

Joe's reward for all the hard work he put in as we watched

him become a proud and capable soldier. So, we met him for

dinner and kissed him goodbye in the parking lot of the

restaurant on November 13, 2003. He assured us he would be

home in a few months in order to be discharged on time. The

last words I heard him speak were on my answering machine

about 2 weeks later; ``Mom, they're keeping me for the year,

they're not letting me out.'' My heart broke for him. He had

signed a contract with the United States Government that said

he would serve 3 years. This was to be his last

disillusionment with the Army.

In the early hours of December 9, 2003, we got that most-

dreaded knock on our door. When four uniformed Army officers

face you at 1:30 a.m., there is little to ask except ``How

did it happen?''

As everyone will acknowledge, there are no words to

describe the pain of losing a child. In our case, we held

each other and assured one another that he died doing what he

believed was right. We proudly displayed his Casket Flag and

Bronze Star. We went through the motions of living, though we

felt detached from ourselves.

We did not even know who would answer all the questions we

had. The ticking clock seemed like a relentless tyrant as it

clicked away all the time he would be gone from us.

We had an invitation to meet President Bush at Fort Lewis.

We went to that meeting. I wanted and needed for our

Commander-In-Chief to look into my eyes and tell me he was

sorry for this terrible loss. I was sure I would know if he

was sincere. We had pictures taken with President Bush

looking at the picture of me pinning on Joe's boutonniere at

his wedding. The President asked me if he could keep the

words to the last song Joe wrote while in Iraq. The song

``Worthy'', expressed Joe's deep conviction that he was loved

by his Lord.

In the year since that meeting I have been very disturbed

to learn how many things were wrong with our decision to

declare war on Iraq. I say ``our decision'' because I

supported it in the beginning. I tried to rationalize that

mistakes happen and that ``Freedom Isn't Free'' and on and

on. Nothing really helped us except to keep saying to each

other that Joe died doing something he believed in. Joe died

knowing we all loved him and that he was a precious child of

his Creator. Joe died among friends who had watched him

overcome so many obstacles as the unsure boy, Joe, became the

capable and assured man and soldier, Joe.

But now, to learn how many ways the American people were

deceived into believing our leaders had our best interest at

heart, after believing we had the kind of responsible

leadership that would only put our bravest young people in

danger if absolutely necessary, after believing that we could

trust them with our very lives--it's just a horror beyond the

thinkable. Surely this misuse and loss of our precious young

people constitutes murder.

My Sweet Joe, my brave and independent Joe, my kind and

loving and giving Joe was taken from us through a series of

lies and deception. My heart is breaking--for us, for this

country, for this world. I know there are hundreds of

thousands of people who have

paid the ultimate price and each one of those people leaves a

family as stricken and changed as my own.

I think the only thing this Nation can do now to save any

honor we might have had in the eyes of the World would be to

lay bare the lies and do whatever we need in order to restore

the things we took from the Iraqi people when we decided to

``shock and awe'' them over 2 years ago. America has not lost

nearly as many people as the Iraqis over this insane approach

to ``helping'' these people, but we have had tens of

thousands of families changed, crippled, and denied their

rights as we are told over and over that our loved ones

offered themselves up to a higher cause.

My son would never have offered himself for the kind of

abuse of power that now exists because of this evilly-

conceived war. And the abuses aren't just happening in Iraq,

as we read daily now. Besides all of the prisoner abuse, the

American people have been abused, our society has been

abused, our financial future has been abused. Every man,

woman and child without food and medical care right here in

America has been abused.

It took an incredible amount of ``fixing'' to make sure

this war happened as planned.

We will never regain our own dignity until we stop this

insanity and become responsible members of our Global

Community. We can do it! Let's start now--Georgia Shilz,

proud mother of Spc. Joseph Michael Blickenstaff, KIA, Dec.

8, 2003.

They just drove away. Your new world is black and white;

it's upside down and inside out. You scream and do not

recognize the pain coming from a place you never knew

existed. You scream again and the sound is your soul leaving

your body.

You might not have even heard the words, ``I regret to

inform you'', because all you needed was to see who was at

your door and you knew. Every nightmare you had about your

loved one being killed in Iraq has just come true. Every

prayer for their safety on this earth will never be answered.

Every deal you made was off.

You cannot possibly know, but you are not alone. 1699 other

hearts broke again as we saw the number tick one more to 1700

and then 1701 and 1702. We know your pain, we know the

hellish journey that you have just begun and there is nothing

to say except ``I'm sorry''. We have hugs to offer and maybe

some advice, but as the moon rises, you will be alone,

knowing that your son or daughter, your husband or wife, your

nephew or niece, your best friend is never coming home.

The sun will come up in the morning and you may be grateful

that you survived another night of your new life, not knowing

how. You may be angry that you survived another night without

your loved one and wonder why you live and they don't. If

only you could trade places.

Some sleep easily, some with medication, some not at all.

You want to sleep to fend off exhaustion, but know if you do

the nightmares might enter the quiet place that once meant

solace. The exhaustion just finds a deeper place inside you,

another place unfamiliar to you.

If you cry, and some cannot or will not, you will wonder if

the crying will ever stop. You don't ever want to stop

crying--how will you ever, ever, ever get your arms around

this new life? You will never want to cry again; it's just so

excruciating. You will wonder how one body can cry so many

tears and for so many hours, days and months.

There will be phone calls, cards, flowers and food. But all

you want is your old life back, knowing that your loved one

will be coming home alive and well.

There will be prayers and religious services. Prayers for

you, prayers for your loved one, prayers for peace, prayers

for strength. Some will seek comfort in their faith, some

will be interminably angry at God.

You never imagined signing a document called ``Disposition

of Remains'' but there it is, your loved one's name, in black

and white. That name doesn't belong there. It belongs on a

letter with love from Iraq, it belongs on an email, but it

doesn't belong there. You will see their name again in

headlines, on TV, on letters of condolence and on other legal

documents and it never feels right. His or her name doesn't

belong there!

There will be questions, there will be details. You want to

know all the details; you want to know none--at the same

time. You have questions--so many questions and so do they.

How could this be happening? What kind of funeral service,

cremation or burial? Who will speak? When is the body coming

home? Why is the body coming home? My son or daughter is

supposed to be coming home--not their body!

The flags will fly at half staff, an indication that one

young friend described as ``someone is sad''. The flag will

cover the coffin, soon to be handed to you, with the words

``On behalf of a grateful nation . . .'' Flags will arrive in

the mail having flown over the state capitol or the nation's

capitol. They all mean the same thing--your loved one is

never coming home and someone is very, very sad.

Maybe you never heard the phrase ``Pain shared is

divided''. We share your pain; we live and breathe your pain

every single day. While you may have never imagined you would

be a part of this group, please know that you are not alone--

Karen Meredith, mother of 1LT Kenneth Ballard, KIA May 30,

2004.

Mr. Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment immediately prior to the vote.

Mr. Speaker, again, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can have an opportunity to vote on the Pelosi amendment. It is our responsibility as Members of Congress to ask tough questions, to demand answers, to do the oversight, to make sure that we are getting this right. We have not been doing that. This is an opportunity for us to demand that the administration give us answers.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 315 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 315.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of the House Report for H.R. 2863, the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2006.

Mr. Speaker, when the Rules Committee met, it granted an open rule, providing 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations. This rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. For the purposes of amendment, the bill shall be read by paragraph. Additionally, this rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill which fail to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI, and it authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members who have pre-printed their amendments in the Record. It provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, the committee believes this rule will provide ample opportunity for Members to fully debate the funding of our national defense.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule for H.R. 2863 and the underlying bill. This important legislation takes dramatic steps to further prosecute the global war on terror, enhance our security, and improve the lives of our servicemen and women. It is a bill that fundamentally addresses many of the transformative challenges faced by our military in the future and implements many measures needed to meet those challenges.

Mr. Speaker, the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and the full Appropriations Committee have presented us with an excellent bill. This bill provides us with a way to meet many of the current challenges that we face by addressing the immediate requirements of our forces as well as the ongoing need to transform our military through the adoption of new technology, advanced methods of warfare, and innovative changes in military doctrine.

To fully appreciate the significance of H.R. 2863, one must understand the four long-term challenges that we seek to address in this legislation.

The first long-term challenge is a direct result of the procurement holiday that was taken by our country in the 1990s. To understand the consequences of shortchanging our military during this era, one need only to recall the ammunition accounts as they were funded, or perhaps better described as not funded, during this period. The failure to maintain adequate stocks of ammunition is a shortcoming we are only now beginning to overcome. Additionally, one can see the adverse effects that a constant surge in deployments in the 1990s had upon the maintenance levels of our hardware. This bill takes important steps to rectify that problem associated with the procurement holiday.

Mr. Speaker, the second long-term challenge we must address on a continual basis is related to the transformation of our military forces. The

famous Goldwater-Nichols legislation of 1986 altered the manner in which we organize to fight wars and committed us to transforming the nature of our forces, transformation demands an ongoing strategic, operational, and tactical review of our needs in relation to technology, procurement and the development of joint warfighting capabilities.

Each service, all our units and all our equipment must complement one another and contribute to the increased effectiveness of our forces. Transformation is not a goal in and of itself. It is a process of continuous change and adaptation that makes our forces more effective. This is an issue we must address on an ongoing basis. H.R. 2863 does just that.

Mr. Speaker, the third long-term challenge we face is related to our force structure and manpower requirements. This legislation, while meeting the request of the President's budget, also continues to fund additional forces required to prosecute the global war on terror. This is a good start. In future years, we will need to closely examine and, I believe, increase the size of our forces. There is no short-term easy solution to recruiting and maintaining the larger forces I personally believe we will need in the dangerous world in which we live. Still, H.R. 2863 is a good interim step and one which we should take and support and build on in the coming years.

The fourth long-term challenge faced by the military results from the global war on terror. This is not a conventional war. We are not fighting a nation state. We are fighting the adherents of a fanatical ideology that transcends national borders and takes root whenever and wherever it can. We are involved in a generational war against these fanatics that will last for decades. It will require a wide range of diplomatic, developmental, intelligence, communications, and civil affairs tools and activities to win.

The military component of this effort will be expensive and ever- changing. Hence, I believe we took a wise and important step when we added $45.3 billion in bridge funding in ``Emergency Wartime Appropriations'' to this defense bill. It is something that indicates our understanding of the long-term nature of the challenge we face and our determination to commit the resources needed to be successful.

Today, some Members may wish to have a broad discussion on the situation in Iraq. I welcome that debate, and the open rule attached to this legislation will allow that discussion. However, in the end, this bill is not about Iraq. It is about providing the men and women who defend our country with the tools they need to prevail against those who would do harm to the United States. After the collapse of the old Soviet Union, we took our security for granted and we underfunded the military for a decade. September 11, 2001, taught us the folly of our assumptions in this regard.

Since that time, the administration and the Congress have made the tough decisions needed to rebuild our military and expand its capabilities while waging a war on terror. This bill is another step in that process. It is well crafted, essentially bipartisan, and moves us in the proper direction. Once passed, this legislation will enhance our security, enable us to fight the war on terror, and improve the quality of life for our servicemen and women.

Mr. Speaker, to that end, I urge support for the rule and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My main purpose here, obviously, was to focus on the bill and the rule for the bill, but I want to discuss some of the concerns that my good friends on the other side of the aisle have.

Frankly, I do not doubt their patriotism for a minute, and I welcome the discussion and debate. I think it is a very good one and a very important one for the national purpose. But I think we ought to go back and recall a little bit the situation in Iraq. We ought to remember who and what Saddam Hussein was. This was brought home to me very dramatically on my first visit to Iraq in October 2003. I have since gone back on three additional occasions, plus to Afghanistan.

I was talking with a young American soldier. At that point we, like every other intelligence service in the world and most people in the world, thought there were WMDs in significant quantities in Iraq, although I do hasten to point out the capacity to acquire and to develop those was still very much there and Mr. Hussein was still working himself out of U.N. sanctions and placing himself in a position to do that.

So I still think we were right to have acted early. But this young soldier that I was visiting with, I asked him: We've been here a considerable amount of time. We've not found the quantities of WMDs we expected. Do you think it was a wise decision to come?

He was quiet for a moment and looked at me and he said: Yes, sir, I will tell you regardless, and I still think they had the capacity, but regardless I think it was a good decision to come.

I said: Why?

And he answered my question with a question of his own. He said: Sir, have you ever been to a mass grave site?

I said: No, I haven't.

He said: I have. He said, Until you've seen hundreds of wailing women as bodies are coming out, one after another, trying to identify, is that a father, is that a son, is that a husband, is that a brother, you don't know what terror really is. He said: My question is why the whole world wasn't here 10 years ago.

That is a very interesting question to ask. Because we of all people had the ability 10 years previously to have done that. We had just won a war with Saddam Hussein, we stopped at the border, and we actually urged people on the other side to rise up, and they did. And 50,000 of them were killed by Saddam Hussein and neither we nor our coalition allies did anything to help.

So I think looking at what was going on in Iraq, looking at the 400,000 deaths, looking at the 263 identified mass grave sites and looking, frankly, at our responsibility to have done something when, indeed, for a decade we did nothing is something that we ought to think about and, frankly, something that the whole world ought to think about.

Just 2 weeks ago, or last week, actually, the New York Times ran an article on another mass grave site that had been located, was being frankly explored, if that is even the appropriate term, in preparation for Saddam Hussein's trial, and in that there were 2,500 people, almost all of them women or children, some of them as young as 3 or 4 years of age. That is the type of thing that American intervention in Iraq stopped. My friends on the other side say, Well, are there any signposts? Any hope?

I think that is a very legitimate question to raise, too, because there is no doubt this has been a rough road that we have walked down and no doubt, and I think my friends are appropriate when they raise this, that it has not gone as predicted and as planned and it has been a very, very difficult process.

But I think we ought to stop and look at the Iraqis on the ground and see what they are doing, the fact that a constitutional government has been established or is being established, the fact that 8 million people came out to vote under the most difficult of circumstances, the fact that we have elections scheduled for October and again for December of this year, an extraordinary achievement by very brave Iraqis under very difficult circumstances to set up what we most need in that part of the world, which is a functioning democracy.

That would not be possible without the sacrifice and the service of the brave men and women of the United States military. That is one of the things they are accomplishing. Their first accomplishment, of course, is to make us more secure. I think it is always legitimate to ask, are we more secure or less secure as a result of the war in Iraq? I would argue we are more secure. I would argue that anybody that believes somebody like Zakawi would not be busy trying to kill Americans someplace in the region or in the world probably is missing the point. Our troops are engaged there and are engaging an enemy that, left otherwise free to operate, would be busy trying to kill other Americans as they demonstrated pretty dramatically on 9/11.

I would also argue that over time the best way to transform the region is exactly the one that the President suggests, that is, to establish a functioning democracy. I have a lot of faith in the Iraqi people. I have met the political leaders there. I saw the courage of people going out. I talked to a young soldier on the way back just after the elections actually in March of this year who had been wounded at Mosul.

I asked him: Were you there for the elections?

He said: Yes, sir, I was. It was the proudest moment in my 15 years of service to my country. I was never so proud of my unit, my Army or my country for what we accomplished. And, frankly, I was enormously proud and impressed with the Iraqi people who came out and demonstrated their determination with our help to establish a free society.

So I think we should have this discussion. I think it is a good discussion for us to have. But I think we should remember the horror that was there before the Americans intervened, the process that is under way that will not only improve the lives of the people in Iraq but is essentially the manner in which we hope someday to be able to leave a self-governing and free country.

It is not going to be an easy task. It is not going to be a simple task, but it is a noble task and it is one I think that the men and women engaged in it that wear the uniform of the United States can be extraordinarily proud of and, frankly, something that all of us can be grateful to them for accomplishing and running such great risks to achieve.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).

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

I have great respect, Mr. Speaker, for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for their passion and their commitment, but I think they are make a fundamental mistake in their argument about Iraq. I think what they want is a timetable, not a strategy.

We have a strategy. It is called getting an elected government up and operational that can defend itself. We have made important steps along the way in succeeding in that strategy. We have turned over power to the Iraqis. The Iraqis have had an election. They have an elected government that, as we debate here, is debating there about the constitution that they want to have, that they want to live under, that they want to put in front of their people to approve of in October, followed by scheduled elections in December for a government.

I remind my friends that while they call for an exit strategy and a date certain, our friends in Iraq want exactly the opposite of a date certain. Repeatedly, the elected leaders, the elected leaders in Iraq, the people who have the voice, the mandate of the people behind them, have said, Our biggest fear about the United States is that they will not stay the course, that they will quit and run.

I tell the Members that some of the most surprised people that I met when I was in Iraq came in two categories when I was there in March after the elections. First, I met with a group of the newly formed United Iraqi Alliance, basically a group of Shia and other people who are now the majority. And we were visiting about the political process there, and one of the individuals I was visiting with, now a leader in the government, made the point that, We were not sure that you would actually allow free elections to occur, and you did, and we are astonished and pleased and committed to staying the course. So our next question is, will you stay here and help us against the people that want to take us back to the era of Saddam Hussein, back to that regime, because we are going to need your help in this transition process?

That is a very legitimate question. Do we have the political will to stay while the people that are elected put together the government that they need to succeed? So we are going to see that in the course of the coming time. But I think we should be more understanding that there is a strategy and that there is a process under way that is producing good results for the Iraqi people, that is giving them actually a government for the first time that they choose.

I also met with a group of Sunnis who were dissidents, who were not particularly supportive of the process, and in the course of our discussion, a number of them made the point, We made a big mistake. We should have participated in the last elections. The situation in the country would be different. We would be at the political table. We would be in a position to affect what is happening. But we also did not have faith that the United States was serious about democracy. But we look at the outcome of the election, and we understand that indeed you were, and we intend to participate as we move forward.

I think the gentleman from Florida made a very good point. We need to recognize that most people in Iraq are on the same side we are. Most people in Iraq want a democracy, and most people believe that our presence there is important in ensuring that that process take root and actually succeed. I think if we stay the course, frankly, in time we will be very pleased with the result, but, more importantly, we will have restored faith.

My friends on the other side of the aisle say people question our intention about staying long term. I can tell them from my personal experience it is exactly the opposite. They doubt our willingness to stay. I would suggest that setting dates certain would sound more like a surrender strategy than an exit strategy, more like we can count on at this particular point that the Americans will not be here anymore. That is a nice thing to know if one happens to be in the insurgency. It is also a pretty worrisome thing if one happens to be part of the forces of democracy. At that point whether we have succeeded or not, whether or not the government is able to deal with the insurgency on its own, the Americans are saying, sayonara, we are out of here, good- bye. That is a catastrophic mistake. That, in my opinion, would undermine the sacrifice, the effort, and the service so far.

So, again, I welcome the debate. And I hope at some point in the discussion on the rule we can get back to this excellent piece of legislation, which I think really is important, and where, frankly, there is bipartisan unity in terms of the things we need to do to move our military forward.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to differ with an underlying assumption that has been made by a number of my friends on the other side of the aisle, which is that we are somehow paying an extraordinary amount of our national wealth for defense. I would actually argue quite the opposite.

In 1959 and 1960, at the height of the Cold War, this country spent 50 percent, 50 percent, of the entire Federal budget on defense, almost 9 percent of the gross national product, an enormous sum of money.

1980, fast forward, Ronald Reagan, we are spending about 6 percent of the Gross National Product and about one-third of the Federal budget on defense.

1990, 4.8 percent of the gross national product and a significantly lower percentage of the Federal budget.

Today, about 3.7 percent of the national wealth and about 18 to 19 percent of the total Federal budget.

I could make a pretty good argument that either, one, we are very efficient because we are actually defending the country for considerably less of its national wealth than we have done at any period in the postwar period; or we need to be doing more. I would argue toward the latter, actually. I think we should be doing more, and I think this bill is a step in that direction.

The second assumption that I want to disagree with is that we are somehow less safe today because of the Iraqi war. That is asserted, never demonstrated.

The reality is, I think, if you asked most Americans on September 12, 2001, did they expect other incidents inside the domestic confines of the United States, they would have said yes, and they would have expected them in rather short order. It is a little short of miraculous that we have not had that horrific incident occur again. It could occur at any moment. As the President has said repeatedly in recent months, America is safer; America is certainly not safe.

But I would argue, again, the engagement of the enemy a far distance away from the United States and in a method that keeps them tied down has actually contributed to the security of our country. This excellent piece of legislation will enable our military to continue to do the outstanding job it is doing. Again, on that piece of legislation, at least, I am delighted there is bipartisan unity.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.

We have had an excellent and interesting discussion here this morning on the issue of Iraq, and we will continue to have those discussions undoubtedly as we move forward.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to again draw the attention of Members to the strength of this piece of legislation. Unfortunately, it was not discussed very much during the course of our exchange.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2863 takes many important steps forward in reforming the procurement and acquisition systems of the United States military, and increasing its end strength, and providing $45.3 billion in supplemental ``bridge funding'' for the war on terror.

Mr. Speaker, it must also be noted that this legislation would not have been possible without much hard work on the part of the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), and the members of the Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations and the members of the full committee. As evidenced by their hard work, this is a bipartisan bill that the vast majority of the House will undoubtedly agree is a good product.

Mr. Speaker, no legislation is perfect, and, as I said in my opening statement, the defense appropriation bill takes important steps in an ongoing process that does not end; that is, the defense of our country. However frustrated some may be with particular aspects of H.R. 2863, it undoubtedly moves our military in the direction it needs to evolve and enhances the security of our country and the well-being of our men and women in uniform.

Therefore, I, once again, urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying concurrent resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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).