Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2862) making appropriations for Science, the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, with the passage of this rule, this House will consider the Science, State, Justice, Commerce and related agencies appropriations conference report for fiscal year 2006. I want to begin by congratulating the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), the ranking member, for working together to create a bill that seems to be a fair and responsible piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that budgets are moral documents, and where and how we decide to spend the taxpayers' money says more about our values as a society than any speech or political rhetoric possibly could.

This conference report, among other things, rightfully retains language included in the House-passed bill that prohibits funds being used to support or justify the use of torture by the United States Government. Despite the rhetoric coming from the White House, this language is both necessary and appropriate.

As the most powerful democracy in the history of the world, we have a moral responsibility not only to promote the expansion of our democratic values around the world, but perhaps most importantly, to demonstrate our commitment to them through our own practices and in the legislation we pass here in the Congress.

One of the most dramatic and significant tests of that commitment is before us today in the debate over our own use of the abhorrent practice of torture. The United States of America, as the leader of the free world, cannot and must not engage in a behavior which has been condemned around the world by the international community. To engage in such a heinous practice is a betrayal of our own values as defenders of freedom and liberty.

The fact that those who would seek to take away our freedom and the freedom of others utilize such techniques is in no way a justification here.

As a matter of the highest national security, we must openly and outright reject the use of torture as a means of achieving military victory in this or any other war. Our ideals as a Nation demand nothing less. Indeed, the fact that we must even engage in this debate on the House floor is indicative of the deep crisis of conscience which has embroiled the White House.

Senator John McCain is working hard to build on the language in this conference report with regard to torture and include language in the DOD authorization bill prohibiting the use of torture and to make real and meaningful policy changes. His amendment is important. It is broadly supported and should be signed into law as soon as possible.

It is disconcerting that, as we speak here today, the White House is fighting Senator McCain and others who support his initiative every step of the way. Senator McCain certainly knows a lot more about the reality of detention and torture and the ineffectiveness of torture than the President, the Vice President, or the Secretary of Defense.

The recent revelation that the United States has secret prisons around the world and that there is no accountability or there is no oversight of what goes on in those prisons, quite frankly, is a national scandal.

This is not what America is about. This is not what America stands for, and the sad reality is that the reckless behavior of this administration when it comes to torture has put our own soldiers in more jeopardy.

Mr. Speaker, America can do better; and once we pass this conference report, I hope we will all join in a bipartisan way to support Senator McCain's effort to ban torture as a policy for this country once and for all.

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the conferees once again stripped the Sanders provision from this bill that would have prevented funds in the bill from being used to implement provisions in section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. These provisions permit searches of library circulation records, library patron lists, book sales records, or book customer lists.

This amendment passed by a vote of 238-187, yet the Republican leadership has decided to strip it out of the bill. This is wrong and these provisions, like so many others in the PATRIOT Act, quite frankly should be stripped out of the bill as well.

Mr. Speaker, the American people do not want this provision. A majority in this Congress do not want this provision, and yet somehow it managed to basically be null and voided in the conference committee.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, this conference report includes language prohibiting the White House from blocking the importation of discount prescription drugs through trade agreements. That means that the White House cannot subvert the House's authority by preventing the American people from having access to life-saving, affordable prescription drugs. I strongly believe that access to affordable medication and health care should be a right in this country and not the fodder of a political power struggle. Health care should be a right in the United States of America and not a privilege.

I applaud my colleagues in both Houses for demonstrating the rare political will to constrain the power of this White House in the interest of protecting the American people.

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, budgets are moral documents, and this budget is a statement of America's principles. The level of funding the committee had to work with is woefully small because of the fiscal ineptitude of the Republican leadership in Congress and the Bush administration. Their policy of tax cuts for the rich and a continual growing of the Federal deficit has forced important programs like legal services for the poor and COPS funding to be cut. This is irresponsible, and this does not reflect the wishes and values of the American people.

With that, Mr. Speaker, let me once again commend Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Mollohan for making the best out of a bad situation. I appreciate their help and their hard work.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, let me close as I began today by pointing out to my colleagues that this conference report prohibits funding from being used by the United States Government for torture. We need to make this the absolute policy of our country.

Friday is Veterans Day, and we need to do everything we can to honor our veterans, but we can honor our veterans in part by doing everything we can to protect the soldiers who are now on the field, and that must mean making torture something that this country will never be part of.

I am horrified, quite frankly, by the behavior of the White House on this issue. They attempted to try to undermine what Senator McCain has tried to do in the Senate and what some of us have tried to do here in the House. Those who believe that torture should have no place in America or American society are frustrated by what the White House is trying to do. We are a much better country.

The U.S. Army Manual bans torture, prohibits it. And one of the reasons why is because those who are in the military understand that it jeopardizes the lives of Americans, of American soldiers. How do we demand that the international laws be respected and that if one of our citizens was taken as a prisoner that they not be abused or tortured if it is not the policy of this country to prohibit torture in any shape or form? We need to do better, Mr. Speaker.

I will just conclude by saying that I urge my colleagues to support this bill. We do not have any problem with the rule. But I would also urge my colleagues, once this bill is passed, to join with those in the Senate in a bipartisan way to prohibit torture once and for all. This should not be part of America. We are much better than this. We do not stand for that. And if the White House does not get the massage, we need to force the issue and to send them a bill that in fact has this prohibition in it.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Again, my point is that if in fact we can all agree that torture is abhorrent and something that should not be part of this society, then I hope we can all in a bipartisan way support the effort of Senator McCain, who wants to make it the policy of this land.

My problem with the White House, quite frankly, is that I am puzzled why they are trying to lobby to undermine what Senator McCain is doing. I am also quite frankly shocked by the recent revelations in the Washington

Post about these secret prisons that we have all over the world where really, basically, there is no accountability.

So my point is, if we can all agree that this is wrong, let us make it the absolute law of this land and comply with what the U.S. Army Manual says and support Senator McCain in his efforts. And I hope we can do that in a bipartisan way, and I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 538, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2862) making appropriations for Science, the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I am pleased to bring to the floor today the conference report on H.R. 2862, the fiscal year 2006 Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), for his support throughout the process. Together, we were able to get a strong bill passed by the House with a vote of 418 to 7. Also, I want to thank our Senate counterparts, Chairman Shelby and Senator Mikulski, as well as Chairman McConnell and Senator Leahy.

I also want to thank the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) for his help and cooperation with this, and also the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Within a very tight allocation, we were able to provide funding for a variety of critical national priorities. The conference report provides $21.4 billion for the Department of Justice, $784 million above fiscal year 2005 and $1.1 billion over the budget request.

The conference agreement includes $5.8 billion for the FBI, which is $15 million above the budget request. The bill will provide for additional agents, analysts, and support staff to address terrorism and espionage threats. And keep in mind that last week the stories broke about how the Chinese, that, unfortunately, this body gave the Most Favored Nation trading status to, has been spying aggressively against our country, and the latest spying episode dealt with the B-1 bomber.

In addition, the bill provides funding to address deficiencies identified through external reviews, including a $20 million increase for the FBI Academy, a $20 million increase for additional secure space, and a $14 million increase to improve information technology program management, $5 million for retention and recruitment, a $26 million increase for translators, and a $70 million increase for the Terrorist Screening Center.

The conference agreement includes $12 million above the request for the Marshals Service to enhance the protection of the Judiciary and fugitive apprehension programs.

For DEA, Madam Speaker, the bill restores proposed cuts for Mobile Enforcement Teams and the Demand Reduction program, and directs these efforts to focus on meth enforcement. The conference report does not include the Combat Meth Act that was attached to the Senate bill. While

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), a member of the Science Committee, who is also a physicist.

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

I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). On the issue of legal services, we are above the administration's request, but I understand what the gentleman is saying. I am somewhat sympathetic to it, too. But for the record, we are $12.5 million above the administration's request. But the gentleman's comments are telling.

On the issue of oversight on the war, I agree with the gentleman. I have been to Iraq three times, and I have come up with a proposal asking the administration to have fresh eyes on the target, 10 people who are men and women of integrity and honesty and character to go and come back and report.

So I think the gentleman is right. I feel very strongly we should have major oversight on the operation of the war. Also, I think the administration has to do a better job, and I think oversight would tell this if it were to come back and tell the ramifications of failure. I think should we fail in Iraq, the ramifications to this country are very serious with regard to terrorism. So by having oversight, I think those ramifications would come out. But I agree with Mr. Obey. I think there should be much more aggressive oversight.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for his comments and for his friendship and for working together as we have over the years.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to Coach Osborne, a Member of Congress from Nebraska. As I was looking over, I thought of another great coach. This is a great coach. Another great coach is Joe Paterno, who, when I watched the game on Saturday, and I do not know if the gentleman from Nebraska watched the game, the announcers kept saying that he was 79 years old and wears white socks, but what they did not keep talking about is he is a man of such honesty and integrity and character. I think the two of them must have been carved out of the same thing. I am sorry the gentleman is going to be leaving here.

Madam Speaker, I forgot my colleague is from Wisconsin. We are going to miss having Mr. Osborne here, but we look forward to working with him as Governor of Nebraska.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I see the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), and if he would not leave the floor, I just wanted to comment on what he was commenting on, so I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In the report on that Commission, and Mr. Doggett spoke to me about it, what you said did not kind of jibe completely with regard to our conversation. But the statement accompanying the conference report says, ``Within the amount for the water quality program, the conferees recommend that the Commission increase funding for the Lower Rio Grande Flood Control Project above the $2.2 million contained in the budget request.'' So we did ask for them to go above the request.

Secondly, we say ``Studies by the U.S. section of the IBWC conclude that Rio Grande Valley levees are deficient in height, geologically flawed, and structurally unsound. The conferees expect the administration in the upcoming budget cycle to request sufficient funds to address these needs. Also, the conference directs that $250,000 be made available for the Rio Grande Canal Project.'' This is an increase over the construction amount.

Secondly, we plan on doing a letter, because the country of Mexico is involved. Texas ought to be involved, but by torching something, it does not always get it done. I think it has to kind of come together.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Who did they say that to? Is that in writing somewhere?

Well, we are going to do a letter. I would urge the gentleman to get a meeting to get the commission to come up to your office. We will have a staff person come by. Also get the State of Texas, also do not forget about Mexico, to get them to come by and try to bring it to a head. I think that is a more constructive way than just saying this bill is not very good. I thought we had with this language forced them to address the issue. We will send a letter.

But if this were my congressional district, I would have them up here. I would ask the State Department to come down and walk with you. I would go to Mexico and be on the other side. I would have a letter to President Vicente Fox. I would have a letter to Secretary Rice. So there is a lot that you have to do.

What do they do? What does Mexico do?

But if it goes on one side does that not impact on the other side?

Well, I would like to challenge the gentleman to really pull together. I will try to come to the meeting or get some staff people to come. Bring in the Mexican ambassador. Do something rather than just coming down and doing that. But do something. Get the Mexican ambassador to come on in. Have somebody from the State Department. Bring them on up. Go down there. Walk it. Do everything you possibly can, because you certainly do not want something to happen whereby people die in a flood.

Well, we will try to help you. We will send a letter, and in the letter that we will send maybe Mr. Mollohan will sign it with me. We will send you a copy of it.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 538 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam 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.

House Resolution 538 waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration and provides that the conference report shall be considered as read.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 538 and the underlying conference report for H.R. 2862, the Science, State, Justice, Commerce and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2005. This conference report provides $57.85 billion, $2.5 billion less than the President requested, to fund the Departments of Justice, Commerce and State along with NASA, the National Science Foundation, the Federal Communication Commission, FCC, the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, the Legal Services Corporation, and the Small Business Administration, SBA.

In recognition of the continual requirement to reassess our security and law enforcement needs, this conference report establishes responsible priorities to enable law enforcement to meet threats abroad and at home in order to secure our communities.

Madam Speaker, this conference report provides $5.8 billion for the FBI, an increase of $547 million above fiscal year 2005 and $15 million above the President's request. It provides $1.7 billion for the Drug Enforcement Agency, the DEA, and this is a $48 million increase above fiscal 2005, and it is $8 million below the President's request.

It provides $802 million for the United States Marshals Service, and this is an increase of $42 million from fiscal year 2005 and actually $12 million above the President's request.

Additionally, included in the conference report is $924 million for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, an increase of $41 million above fiscal year 2005, and it is the same as the President's request.

Further, this conference report contains $2.7 billion for assistance to State and local law enforcement for crime-fighting initiatives, $1.1 billion above the President's request and actually $287 million below fiscal year 2005.

This amount includes $405 million to reimburse States for criminal alien detention costs, $387 million for violence against women prevention and prosecution programs, $416 million for the Edward Byrne Discretionary Grants program, $340 million for juvenile delinquency prevention and accountability programs. It includes $109 million to eliminate DNA analysis backlogs, $140 million for law enforcement technologies and interoperability, $64 million for methamphetamine hotspots, and $40 million to reduce gang violence.

Madam Speaker, this conference report appropriates $6.6 billion for the Department of Commerce, marking a decrease of $37 million from fiscal year 2005 and a $2.9 billion increase from the President's request.

Recognizing the importance of space exploration that has fascinated minds for generations and provided many breakthrough technologies, this conference report matches the President's request of $16.5 billion to NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space Agency, and this is $260 million above fiscal year 2005. The bill provides funding for space exploration and the space shuttle program, restoring the aeronautics research program. Additionally, the National Science Foundation would receive $5.65 million of much-needed funding to drive American research and education, thereby keeping this country on the cutting edge of advanced technology and research.

This conference report also provides $9.6 billion for the State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors, including $1.6 billion to continue worldwide security improvements and replacement of vulnerable embassies; $4.4 billion for diplomatic and consular programs; and $652 million for international broadcasting, including expanding broadcasting to the broader Middle East.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, this conference report includes $456 billion for the Small Business Administration, $290 million for the Federal Communications Commission, $888 million for the Securities and Exchange Commission, and $331 million for the Legal Services Corporation.

While this conference report is not perfect, all in all it adds up to better protection for our communities, stronger law enforcement at home, more vigorous diplomacy abroad, and improved scientific research and technology. This is the kind of fundamental

support that Americans expect from this Congress. These are true national priorities, balanced with our budgetary restrictions and with fiscal responsibility in mind.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleagues' support of the rule and the underlying conference report.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts, regarding some of the statements he made about torture. Certainly the provision in this bill concerning that prohibits funds, as he pointed out, from being used in any way whatsoever to support or justify the use of torture by any official or contract employee of the United States Government. I know the gentleman was not suggesting that this President or any Member of this Congress condones torture.

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity, not once but twice, to visit the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, and on each occasion I was accompanied by a Member from the other side of the aisle, a respected Democratic member on the Armed Services Committee. This was long before, Mr. Speaker, the occurrence at Abu Ghraib in Baghdad. Again, I say I went on two different occasions and at no time did I see any evidence whatsoever of torture.

What I did see was the International Committee of the Red Cross there interviewing the detainees in privacy, without any detention officers or any member of our military present. So these detainees had every opportunity to complain, and certainly complain they did.

I know as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, that a number of our troops were reprimanded because they overreacted on occasion when they were cursed and spat upon and had human excrement, feces, and urine tossed in their face. But this is not cruel and inhumane punishment.

I know the gentleman from Massachusetts is a great advocate of human rights, and I think he is right on what he is standing up for. And, again, the unfortunate occurrence at Abu Ghraib at Cellblock 1 on the night shift by a few miscreant Reservists is deplorable and intolerable, and it will not be tolerated. I know that our military responded and responded in the correct way. So, certainly, I just want to say I agree with the gentleman on his comment that we cannot tolerate that.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I will simply close by recognizing the hard work and the incredible effort of Subcommittee Chairman Wolf and all of the House and Senate conferees. Reconciling differences between the two Chambers is rarely a simple task, but I believe they have once again risen to the occasion and they have produced a conference report that may not please everybody with everything, but it gets the job done by appropriately balancing our spending needs with our budget.

Mr. Speaker, the American people demand and they expect responsible spending to support law enforcement, strengthened diplomacy which builds upon our competitive edge. Today, it is my hope that we have delivered. So I ask my colleagues for their full support of the rule and this underlying bill.

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

The previous question was ordered.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference report on H.R. 2862, the Science, State, Justice, Commerce and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. I think the conferees did an incredibly good job, considering the tight allocations they had. And I want to thank the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), and the gentleman from West Virginia (Ranking Member Mollohan) and their highly competent staff.

Despite the good job, I would be remiss if I did not stand here and remind Congress of our need to deal with the recommendations that have been made to us by very important organizations, our U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy that studies the oceans, and the Pew Oceans Commission, a charitable trust which also studies the oceans, and ask our administration to propose an adequate budget for our ocean programs in the future.

It is so critical, as Americans depend on the oceans, when we think of all of the tourism from the beaches and the watchable wildlife. We make livings on sometimes turbulent surfaces, we put food on America's tables, we play on its beaches and so on. These are often critical and overlooked in our economic engine, yet the U.S. economy in 2000 was almost 2\1/2\ times larger, the ocean economy, than the agriculture economy in terms of the output, and employed 1.5 times the number of people. It encompasses huge activities. NOAA activities touch almost a third of our Nation's gross domestic product, and our oceans and coasts contribute more than $117 billion to American prosperity each year.

So the issue here is really that we have to put more effort into this, because if we do not, we are just stabbing ourselves in the foot. The oxygen that we breathe comes from the oceans, the future, the unexplored. It is frankly more important that we explore the oceans on this planet than we explore Mars, yet we are putting more and more money into that effort than we do into our own planet.

So I am thanking the committee for job well done and hoping that next year we can get a better mark on this.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference report on H.R. 2862, the Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act 2006, but I also strongly encourage both the administration and the House to invest more in the programs that protect, maintain, and restore the health of our oceans in subsequent years. The conferees did a good job with this bill given the allocation, and I especially appreciate the hard work of Subcommittee Chairman Wolf, Ranking Member Mollohan, and their highly competent and helpful staff.

The Pew Oceans Commission and the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy both released landmark reports within the past 2\1/2\ years reviewing the state of our oceans and the policies we use to govern them. This was the first comprehensive review in over 30 years. Both reports came to the same conclusion: Our oceans and coasts are in a state of crises and we are loosing important goods and services that they provide. At the top of the list of problems causing this crisis is an under investment in the programs we use to manage the oceans and coasts.

From our oceans, Americans draw inspiration from the animals in its waters, make a living on its sometimes turbulent surface, put food on their tables, play on its beaches, and benefit from the microscopic plants that provide the majority of oxygen we breathe. For many of these reasons and others, our oceans are a critical, albeit often overlooked, economic engine. The U.S. ocean economy in 2000 was almost 2\1/2\ times larger than the agricultural economy in terms of output and employed 1\1/2\ times as many people. Ocean sector employment is larger than every manufacturing industry. NOAA activities touch almost a third of the Nation's gross domestic product, and oceans and coasts contribute more than $117 billion to American prosperity each year.

If we are going to continue to obtain these important benefits from our coasts and oceans, we will need to implement the recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy to invest more in our oceans. I call on the administration to propose a more robust budget next year so that Americans will continue to benefit from the goods and services our oceans provide. I also ask my colleagues here in the House to push for a budget resolution next year that authorizes adequate money to the Science, State, Justice, and Commerce accounts so that Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Mollohan will be able to put together a bill that adequately supports programs that protect, maintain and restore the health of our oceans.

Unfortunately because of the tight allocation, conferees were forced to cut many important ocean programs, such as the National Marine Sanctuary Program, which is receiving a 30-percent cut from fiscal year 2005 funding levels. In 1972, exactly 100 years after the first national park was created, the Nation made a similar commitment to preserving its marine treasures by establishing the National Marine Sanctuary Program. The Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary plays a critical role protecting the ecologically and culturally important areas off my district in California while promoting sustainable use and educating the public about the marine environment.

The National Sea Grant College Program is being cut by 10 percent from fiscal year 2005 funding levels to $55.5 million, a cut of $5 million from the House bill and $11.2 million from the Senate bill. From this cut, the U.S. will loose major projects that assist coastal communities, including promoting coastal economic growth, improving the quality of marine environments, educating students in marine sciences, and solving critical marine and Great Lakes resource programs. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy called for increasing the National Sea Grant College Program by $20 million, and the President's Ocean Action Plan called for expanding the program.

The National Marine Protected Areas Center is being cut by 50 percent from fiscal year 2005 funding levels after the House bill called for nearly level funding and the Senate bill called for a slight increase. This center helps protect the significant natural and cultural resources within the marine environment for the benefit of present and future generations by strengthening and expanding the Nation's system of marine protected areas. An expanded and strengthened comprehensive system of marine protected areas throughout the marine environment would enhance the conservation of our Nation's natural and cultural marine heritage and the ecologically and economically sustainable use of the marine environment for future generations.

The programs I highlighted today as well as several other ocean programs are being cut when they need to be expanded. This is putting the well-being of many Americans at risk by jeopardizing the goods and services provided by healthy oceans that drive our vast ocean economic engine.

Madam Speaker, I thank the Gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank him and the Chairman of the Committee for their long labors on what is a $57.8 billion bill.

My concern is with what many might view as a mere footnote to this bill, the budget of a tiny federal agency that gets not billions, but only $5.3 million, with an ``m,'' out of this huge budget. But the budget of that tiny federal agency and a whim of nature are all that stand between tens of thousands of Texans along the southern tip of our country and disaster.

These are hard-working people along the Lower Rio Grande River Valley in one of the economically poorest parts of this country. But the threat of disaster to them is every bit as real as what we saw played out on our screens in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.

This bill fails to deal adequately with that problem. I believe that the Committee recognized the Valley's need in the language that it added to the report that accompanies this bill. I cannot fault the Committee, though I do not agree with the result. This report includes the same dollar amount that the House had already approved and the Senate had already approved, which is 100 cents on the dollar of what President Bush requested. But the amount of money requested is not an adequate amount to protect people from a very real danger.

As the conferees noted in the report, and I quote: ``The conferees recommend that the Commission increase funding for the Lower Rio Grande Valley Flood Control Project above the $2,200,000 contained in the President's budget request. Studies by the U.S. Section of the IBWC conclude that the Rio Grande Valley levees are deficient in height, geologically flawed, and structurally unsound. The conferees expect the administration in the upcoming budget cycle to request sufficient funds to address these needs.''

And while that language is important, it does not provide the dollars necessary to fix this problem. It is language similar to that adopted by the Lower Rio Grande Valley Development Council, composed of all the governments in the three counties at the very tip of the United States where it borders Mexico.

In asking for $10 million in construction moneys every year, they said, ``Without necessary improvements, the levee system could be overtopped or fail structurally at various locations, leaving thousands homeless and creating extensive property and environmental damage to the region.''

After a period of cronyism at the IBWC, well-documented by the General Accountability Office, President Bush replaced his first failed appointee with an acting appointee. We had the USIBWC's Acting Commissioner down in the Rio Grande Valley last month. He said in a meeting there that he needed $10 million a year, not for the agency, but for construction, and a total of $125 million over 10 or 11 years in order to solve this problem. Madam Speaker, $2.2 million is about a fifth of what is needed in construction every year for the next 10 years if we are going to resolve this problem.

Earlier this year, we had Hurricane Emily. It hit about 35, 50 miles south of the area that I am talking about. It was a mere Category 1, yet it caused extensive flooding along some of these levees. As all of America knows, we have had so many hurricanes this year, we have run out of names, and it is forecast to only get worse this year and the year after that as we go through this cycle in the Gulf of one hurricane after another.

If we have even a category 3 hurricane, we will overtop these levees along 38 miles. If we have a Hurricane 5 like Katrina, it will be 102 miles that are overwhelmed. This is just one small section along the Rio Grande.

But I just want it clear that this administration and this Congress has in living color the recommendations of their own agency showing where the levees will be topped up to 9 feet over the existing levees; 6, 5, 4, 3 feet, whatever it is, it is an amount of water pouring over these levees. While we can talk about categories of hurricanes and whether it is a 5 or a 4 or a 3 and follow the tracking on television, what we have had from this Administration since Katrina for the poor people of the Rio Grande Valley is a ``Category 0'' effort, and it is that effort that has to be changed either in the supplemental appropriation they currently have under consideration, or in next year's appropriations bill, because every day we wait, exposes tens of thousands of people to considerable danger.

Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Speaker, the language the gentleman quotes is the same language that I quote. I applaud the committee for adding that in there.

The problem is that the total amount of money for the agency was not changed, and to get any more than $2.2 million, they will be taking it out of existing projects that they have on the Colorado River. And the head of the agency is saying they need five times as much as the President asked for.

Yes, I think it is in writing. It is in the cost estimates or in the reports that have already been forwarded up to the State Department. But I do not think they were ever forwarded to the committee.

I applaud the committee concerns about this and the language that they added, and I am glad the gentleman will be submitting further letters and the like, because this is a small part of this budget, but a big problem for our folks. And they get out of this, even if they go from $2.2 to $3 million, only about a third of what the agency itself says is needed, not just this year, but each year for the next 10 years.

If the gentleman will yield, let me just assure him I have done all those things short of walking in Mexico because this only covers the cost of repairing the U.S. side of the levees. It does not concern any repairs to the Mexican side.

Well, Mexico, I think if they see that we are moving to raise the levees on the American side, they will be caused to take action on the Mexican side. This is simply, the cost that I have talked about is only the U.S. side of the levees. It is not the Mexican side of the levees. That is their responsibility to act on that.

That is why I say, naturally, the kind of budget challenges they face in Mexico, if they say we are raising our side to meet this flood problem, we believe that they will act to raise it on their side also.

I accept that challenge already having done most of that. It has not just been my request, but the request of three of us, four of us, actually, from the Rio Grande Valley to the President and to the State Department, and we have been unable to get any movement from them. And I understand we need their cooperation in order for your committee to move forward. Thank you for your interest.