Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, upon my return to the United States after a week in the Republic of Cape Verde, which is the ancestral home of many of my constituents, I was pleased to read that the President, in a long overdue move, is seriously thinking about significant UN involvement in our administration of Iraq. Unfortunately, both past history and the description of current efforts fail to give me confidence that the administration is ready to do this in the serious way that is required for success.

The importance of this being done appropriately was recently underlined in an extremely cogent article from one of our most experienced foreign policy experts. Jonathan Moore is a man who began his career working as a key aide to the late Eliot Richardson, himself one of the most distinguished and thoughtful practitioners of foreign policy in recent history. Jonathan Moore has broad first-hand experience in international affairs, and has also been a thoughtful scholar. He served America at the UN under President George H.W. Bush, and he is now an advisor to the UN Development Program on Post Conflict Reconstruction. On Tuesday, August 26, as I was leaving the country, I read the attached article by him in the Boston Globe and I was struck by how well he put the case. As might already be clear from his having begun his work with Eliot Richardson, Jonathan Moore's active political career was as a Republican, which is relevant only to refute any suggestion that there is even the slightest hint of partisanship in his strong critique of the administration.

Few Americans have earned a right to a hearing on this subject more than Jonathan Moore, and I know of no one who has made the case for the appropriate policy to be followed in this difficult situation more cogently. I ask that Jonathan Moore's incisive article be printed here, and I earnestly hope that the administration will heed him.

[From the Boston Globe, Aug. 26, 2003]

UN Can Pick Up Pieces in Iraq if U.S. Will Let It

In the aftermath of last Tuesday's bombing of United

Nations headquarters in Baghdad, the United States finds

itself in a terrible bind largely of its own making.

Following the successful fighting and takeover, the United

States held the initiative as it turned to the immediate

postwar challenges of occupation: establishing security,

tending to humanitarian relief, getting basic public services

functioning, and undertaking efforts to build a democratic

nation and to begin serious reconstruction. Now the momentum

may have shifted against the United States, putting it in a

perilous position.

In all the time building up to the war, the United States

insisted on its objective of regime change and its vision of

a stable, democratic Iraq exerting a salutary influence on

peace and progress in the Middle East. The problem is that

the administration did not heed sensible, professional

warnings of the inherent dangers and obstacles that would be

faced and cautions about the enormous investments that would

be required to pull it off. Instead, the administration

proceeded by itself in an arrogant and ill-prepared manner.

While the problems the United States has encountered since

the war was declared over could not have been predicted with

certainty (and who would have wanted to), some were probable,

all were possible, and none, even occurring together, should

have come as a surprise.

Two factors in the current situation are predominant:

establishing and maintaining security in Iraq and the role of

the United

Nations. The United States is in the process of botching both

of them, and they are intertwined. The administration has

failed to control security in Iraq by underestimating the

problem and by refusing to take the measures required to

achieve it.

When the Security Council refused to give the United States

carte blanche for both its war-making and its nation-

building, the administration dismissed the United Nations and

proceeded unilaterally. (The ``coalition'' is us. Our biggest

and best ally, the British, have 11,000 troops in Iraq

compared with our 150,000.)

Security is the sine qua non. Nothing else in the

administration's ambitious agenda can happen without it. Not

only does adequate security in Iraq not exist and is

diminishing but the United States, in its insistent monopoly,

is exclusively responsible for it and therefore for its

failure.

As Washington now casts about for help both in recovering

security--with peace-keeping troops from other countries--and

in reconstruction--with financing and expertise also from

international actors--other nations neither want to

participate as U.S. vassals nor are they entirely confident

the United States is up to doing a good job.

Two weeks ago the United States scrapped a possible UN

resolution designed to attract such help and provide greater

credibility for the whole enterprise because the

administration didn't want its own authority to be diluted in

either realm.

We've been there before and should know better, most

recently in Afghanistan. We try to do it on the cheap and

alone, stubbornly and churlishly. Defense Secretary Donald

Rumsfeld, who months ago brutally put down our Army chief of

staff for having suggested the need for up to 300,000 troops

to secure postwar Iraq, indicated after the bombing of the UN

headquarters and amid other security breakdowns that the

current level of U.S. troops envoy to Iraq chided the Iraqis

to exert more authority over the situation. This won't work.

Perhaps a strategy would be for the United States first to

deploy substantially more troops to Iraq and also support a

new Security Council resolution reconfirming coalition

authority for the security job but switching principal

responsibility to the UN for the reconstruction job--a dual

model somewhat similar to the one used in Afghanistan.

This would allow the United States to do what it can do

best and the UN to do what it can do best. The United States

would still exercise enormous influence in the nation-

building arena but with more international involvement in

money, experience, and political capital. There would be

greater credibility and broad acceptance for such an

arrangement, more sharing of credit and blame (the United

States would not be exclusively exposed and targeted), and

such a regime would be likely to attract more troop

contributions to the United States-led security effort.

The administration would still face huge odds. But it would

strengthen the prospect and improvement is desperately

needed. The United States can't go it alone, and it must not

go down and out in Iraq.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) who, as the gentlewoman mentioned, is literally held up. His plane is probably trying to land, and he deserves a great deal of credit for this initiative.

This a perfectly common sense piece of legislation. It corrects what must have been an oversight in the legislation. There was never any reason to restrict churches. We are taking an action that expresses our confidence in the management of these institutions. It allows them to make rational choices about how best to maximize their funds.

I think this is particularly important because as we know, the clergy, that is one of the professions in this country that is, in my judgment, that is undercompensated. People who choose to go into the clergy are generally selfless people who care a great deal about others, as well as about their theology. They work very hard. They work on days that the rest of us, by definition, think of as days of rest, and they are not sufficiently compensated. We often hear of people who gave their lives not just to the clergy but to support roles, to the secretaries, to the support people, to the youth workers, and the notion that in their retirement years they would not be fully protected and given the maximum amount is a very troubling one.

This small step today is a very important one because it does as much as we can do within this context to take some steps towards enhancing the retirement security of some very decent hardworking people who, as I said, were somewhat undercompensated. I appreciate the initiative. I was pleased that our committee unanimously reported this out.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment and for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, this budget is clearly inadequate for our housing needs. The Committee on Appropriations was given too little to work with. I would be more sympathetic to the majority on the Committee on Appropriations if they had not all voted for the budget, which is the reason they had too little to work with. But by the time they are through with the tax cuts and other things, there is simply too little left here for basic housing needs, even to keep where we now are, and that has been too low.

Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a document from the National Low Income Housing Coalition, which makes clear exactly how much of a shortfall there is.

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from New York for his amendment, which goes part of the way towards undoing the damage this bill will do to our housing programs.

Housing Appropriations Inadequate; 85,000 Families at Risk

Tens of thousands of low income families, seniors, and

people with disabilities are at risk of losing their housing

under the VA-HUD-IA Appropriations bill passed by the House

Appropriations Committee on July 21 and set to be considered

by the full House on Friday, July 25.

The most serious problem lies in the funding of the Housing

Choice Voucher program. The Appropriations Committee

appropriated $583 million less to the program than is needed

to renew every voucher currently in use by low income

families, making it almost a certainty that at least 85,000

households will lose their housing assistance sometime in the

coming year.

The Committee appropriated $13.26 billion for the voucher

program. Although the funding represents an improvement over

the Bush Administration's request, which was $1.26 billion

short and would have jeopardized the housing of more than

180,000 families, the cut represents the first time in the

history of the voucher program that Congress or an

Administration would break the federal government's

longstanding commitment to renew all existing vouchers.

``Housing is a foundation of our communities and our

families,'' said NLIHC President Sheila Crowley. ``The

reality today is that millions of families just do not earn

enough to be able to afford even modest housing. It is

outrageous that in a time of economic downturn Congress not

only is failing to address the unmet need, but is actually

taking the unprecedented step of cutting families from the

voucher program.''

In addition, the House bill does not provide funding for

existing vouchers that are not in use at the beginning of

FY04. As a result, a further 95,000 authorized vouchers that

could potentially have been used to serve additional families

from waiting lists will be de-funded, according to the most

recent data analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy

Priorities.

The cuts come while only a fraction of eligible households

receive vouchers, which typically pay the difference between

30% of the family's income and the rent on a modest rental

home. Most families seeking assistance face a several year

wait. In larger cities, waiting lists can be as long as eight

to 10 years.

``The Administration and Congress enacted reckless tax cuts

benefiting the wealthiest elites of this country, and now it

is hard-working families and seniors struggling to make ends

meet who will pay,'' Ms. Crowley added.

The Committee did rebuff the Administration by failing to

take steps to turn the voucher program into a block grant to

the states, something the Administration has been urging.

Advocates have expressed serious concern about the block

granting plan, as block grants typically decrease in value

over time and allow states to make changes to programs that

can lessen their effectiveness and original intent.

The Committee has allocated a net appropriation of $31.8

billion to HUD, not including offsets. The $31.8 billion is

an increase of $817 million from last year's budget and a $96

million increase from the President's requested budget. While

the appropriation looks as if it is a slight increase, the

amount is inadequate because housing costs have risen rapidly

in the past year, meaning that additional funding is required

to serve the same number of households.

In addition, the appropriation does not consider the

increasing number of low income people who are unable to

afford a home. There is currently a 2 million home gap in the

number of lowest income families (those in bottom income

quintile) and the number of rental homes affordable to them,

and the committee does not address this need.

In constant dollars, the amount appropriated to housing for

low income people continues to decline. HUD's FY04 budget of

$31.8 billion would be only one-third of the FY1976 HUD

budget (in the last year of the Ford Administration, in 2002

constant dollars).

Besides the voucher program, key provisions of the bill

include:

HOPE VI. The Administration targeted the HOPE VI program

for elimination in FY04. The Appropriators instead allocated

$50 million to the program, a small fraction of the $574

million it has received in recent years. The program, which

helps communities rehabilitate and demolish distressed public

housing, has received bipartisan support by many Members of

both the subcommittee and the full House. However, it is

unlikely the full House will find funding for the program

equal to current levels.

Public Housing. The public housing capital fund would

receive $2.7 billion, level funding from FY03 and $71 million

more than the President requested. The funding for capital

needs remains wholly inadequate, given the $20 billion

estimated backlog in capital needs. The public housing

operating fund, which funds operating expenses such as

utility payments and maintenance, was appropriated a total

funding level of $3.6 billion. The appropriation represents a

$250 million shortfall, although it is $26 million more than

the President's request and $23 million above the FY03

funding level.

Two of the President's much-touted initiatives were not

fully funded: The American Dream Downpayment Initiative,

which would provide downpayment assistance to first-time

homebuyers, received only $125 million of the $200 million

the President had requested. His Samaritan Initiative, which

would provide $50 million for housing and services for people

experiencing long-term homelessness, was not funded.

In addition, the Committee tempered other of the Bush

Administration's attempts to cut funding. As it has done for

the past two years, the Administration did not request any

funds at all for the Rural Housing and Economic Development

program. Appropriators reinstated funding to $25 million,

last year's level. The Brownfield Redevelopment program,

intended to redevelop contaminated sites and provide jobs to

low income people, was appropriated $25 million despite the

Administration's attempts to eliminate the program. The

subcommittee suggested in the report that HUD work

collaboratively with the Environmental Protection Agency to

redevelop sites.

Mr. Chairman, I am struck by the number

of Members of the majority party who come up and concede, there is not enough here and not enough there. That was their decision. They voted to cut taxes on wealthy people and then voted for a budget that constrains them. So as they complain about these constraints, remember that this is self-flagellation in almost the literal sense.

Given the bad position they have put us in, we have to make choices. Nothing in the gentleman's amendment would interfere with NASA's ability to solve the problems that led to the tragedy of a few months ago. Indeed, the opposite is the case. At this point, NASA ought to be focused on preventing that kind of tragedy, rather than going into new programs that would divert resources and attention; and instead, we have the Superfund program.

The gentleman from California said, Well, you have got to take risks. If, as a society, we decide to take risks, that is one thing. But I do not think the people who live in Fairhaven, Massachusetts, ought to have to take the risk of living next to a Superfund site that has been certified by the EPA as a Superfund site; and now they tell us they have not got enough money to continue.

The gentleman from New York says this is $10 million more, a slight percentage increase than what we now have, but what we now have is a recent announcement by the EPA that existing Superfund sites will get no work. The EPA has just announced some of the hazardous sites in this country will be left in their current situation because they have not had enough money, and we are being told, well, you should be happy we are continuing the situation in which existing Superfund sites will not get the money.

I think it is important to deal with space, but not at the expense of exposing citizens of this country today to the hazards of Superfund sites, and that is what this bill does. It carries forward a situation in which EPA admits it does not have enough money, and that is intolerable.

Mr. Speaker, first I do want to comment on the irony of many of us being lectured about the value of free trade by supporters of the most anti-free trade, anti-poor people policy that the United States has, our agriculture policy. People who have voted for the American agriculture bill have less credentials to preach to the rest of us about being fair to poor people than anyone I can think of.

I am here to speak against the Chile Free Trade Agreement, as well as the Singapore Free Trade Agreement, both for the reasons that we have heard from from others, but specifically because they have unfortunately become the embodiment of a purist, right-wing ideology gone mad. Chile, in fact, as we have known, has been a successful economy. Part of what Chile did as it

was building its successful economy was to adopt some sensible controls on short-term capital flows. They did not want hot money coming in and out.

Most analysts agree that the major cause of the problems in Asia in the late 1990s had to do with hot money going in and out. Sound economies, sound budgets were undermined when short-term investments had flowed in and there was a run on the country.

Most economists today agree, including advocates of free trade, that it is wise for countries in some cases, particularly developing countries that may not have sound banking systems, to be allowed to put controls not on foreign direct investment, but on short-term hot money. This agreement, because of the right-wing ideology that governs this administration and, I must say, I believe contrary to the wishes of the Trade Representative, embodies a purist view that says no capital controls anywhere, anytime, anyplace.

Let me tell my colleagues what some free trade advocates say of this. The Economist magazine, which prides itself on its free trade credentials, says in an article entitled ``A Place for Capital Controls'':

``In negotiating new free trade agreements with Chile and with Singapore, the U.S. has recently sought assurances of complete capital account liberalization. Bitter experience suggests that such demands are a mistake. It is past time to revise economic orthodoxy.''

Joseph Stiglitz, former chief economist of the World Bank, a strong supporter of the Trade Promotion Act, a free trader, says:

``There is an emerging consensus among economists that emerging markets should be particularly wary about full capital account liberalization. It makes little sense for our trade agreements to be pushing on our trading partners' restrictions which fly in the face of sound economics.'' He is again opposed to this.

Finally, Professor Jagdish Bhagwati, a strong advocate of free trade, says:

``The inclusion of provisions in this regard, in these treaties, in these FTAs, seems to be ideological and a result of narrow lobbying interests hiding behind the assertion of social purposes or ideology.''

I urge the rejection of these treaties. Singapore and Chile were forced to agree to these over their objection. If we rejected these treaties, we could easily renegotiate without these ideological insistencies, right-wing ideology run amuck. I hope that we defeat these treaties and renegotiate them without imposing this rigid capital control prohibition on these two countries.

[Excerpted testimony from Apr. 1, 2003 House Financial Services

Committee Hearing on the U.S.-Singapore and U.S.-Chile FTAs]

The Capital Control Provisions in the Singapore and Chile FTAs

By Jadish Bhagwati, University Professor (Economics), Columbia

University)

The inclusion of capital control provisions in the Chile

and Singapore FTAs is . . . difficult to understand in terms

of economics. Even the IMF, including in its latest report

from its Chief Economist Ken Rogoff and associates, concedes

the case for prudence rather than haste in dismantling

capital controls and in occasional but cautious use of them

when necessary in otherwise capital-wise open economies. The

inclusion of provisions in this regard in these FTAs seems

therefore to be ideological and/or a result of narrow

lobbying interests hiding behind the assertion of social

purpose. I see, in particular, the following problems with

these FTAs as a template:

1. The provisions are overly ambitious in extending to all

kinds of ``investments'', including ``futures, options and

derivatives'', instead of being confined to direct foreign

investment. I see this as a potential problem with the NGO

community which has become properly sensitive to financial

flows and crises, and to the havoc they cause, especially on

the poor in the afflicted countries. It will simply play into

the hands of the many anti-globalization critics who see

trade treaties as being captive to financial and corporate

interests. At a time when trade liberalization itself has

become difficult to manage, the inclusion of such provisions

into a trade agreement is to invite gratuitous criticism.

2. The limitations put on what can be demanded by way of

compensation for use of capital controls and their effects on

the value of investments by foreign entities go some way

towards assuaging the early concerns. But they still amount

to roadblocks. I do not see how it can lead to anything but

political objections when invoked, just as the ultra-

conservative view of ``takings'' that was slipped into

Chapter 11 provisions of NAFTA has led to fierce political

objections.

3. As I read the text of the agreements, it appears that

the traditional protections built in for ``balance of

payments'' situations, which would have been invoked

automatically to suspend ``free transfers'', have been

removed and been replaced by a separate Dispute Settlement

mechanism when capital controls are invoked. This is more

restrictive for Chile and Singapore; it also constitutes a

tightening of the restrictions being imposed on these

countries' ability to use capital controls as they see fit.

None of this is good news. It also seems to me that few

other countries will be prepared to accept such a template.

Such restrictions, which are to be deplored in any event, are

best left to be handled through investment agreements, rather

than fastened on to trade agreements where they will bring

trade liberalization, a policy which is far less

controversial, into disrepute.

Mr. Chairman, as to the history, it is clear, as it has been for 31 years, that the law says that if you take Federal funds, you cannot take the money you took from all the taxpayers and then tell some of those taxpayers many of them are ineligible because of their religion.

The gentleman from Indiana is wrong. We are not having the Federal Government tell you who to hire. We are saying that the Federal Government tells you you cannot refuse to hire most of the people who pay taxes that you are now spending because they do not like your religious beliefs. And I have to say, you tell me that this drives religions away. What are we talking about, the Taliban? I mean, what is it that is so terrible?

We are saying when you run your church, you run your church. When you hire people with your own money then you hire whoever you want, but when you take Federal tax dollars for a secular purpose, remember by definition, you cannot get Federal funds for religious purposes. So you are getting Federal funds for secular purposes, nonreligious purposes. Every taxpayer contributes and you are telling people then you can hire only people of your religion as they believe. That means racial segregation de facto.

How many whites will the black Muslims hire? How many blacks will the Orthodox Jews hire? Religion unfortunately de facto means segregation. But they also have to say what is it that is so terrible?

What we are saying to religious people is, in doing these good works with Federal money, we ask you please to associate with people of other religions, and you are telling us that asking religious people to associate with people of other religions defiles them. You ought to call your position the Antiheretic and Infidel Association Act. Unclean. Get away from me, unbeliever.

Well, if you want to say, get away from me, unbeliever, go ahead, but do not take the unbeliever's money through taxes and say, thank you for the tax money, now get out of here before you profane my day care center, before you profane my Head Start center.

How can you tell people that everybody has to pay taxes, but only those who meet a certain religious test, and it is not a broad religious test, it is a specific one, you believe in evolution, you cannot do Head Start here? You believe in all kinds of things, out you go.

So we are simply asking that the law be maintained. Our amendment maintains current law, and we ask you, please do not take the Taliban as the model for American social service.

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

I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Arizona and the gentlewoman from Illinois. I just want to reaffirm what has been said. This comes from the authorizing committee. It is a very important piece of legislation that very appropriately accompanies this bill, and it allows us to meet our commitments to multilateral institutions in a very progressive way, and I thank all concerned for the fact that I hope we are about to adopt it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I have a great deal of respect for the thoughtful consideration that the gentleman from Wisconsin gives to a wide range of issues. I have a couple of differences with him here.

One, I think he will understand if at this point I am less inclined to be credulous when the State Department tells me things than I have been from time to time in the past. Their record on accuracy with regard to the Middle East has not been so great lately, and I expect the State Department to say that I am unpersuaded.

Beyond that, I think, and I acknowledge what has been said, that this is not about the money. This is, I hope, a chance to express to the government of Saudi Arabia the profound unhappiness that this House has with virtually everything they do.

Now, I understand that they are cooperating with regard to terrorism, and it was said particularly since May 12. Yes, once they got bombed themselves they were prepared to cooperate with us. Whether it is selling us oil or fighting terrorism, let us understand they are doing us no favors. The Saudi Arabians need the United States a lot more than we need them. Think about confronting hostile forces in the world. If you are America, Saudi Arabia might be helpful. If you are Saudi Arabia, America is essential.

I do not want them to stop cooperating, but I do not think we are buying their cooperation with $100,000. I think they are cooperating now out of self-interest, and I think they will continue to do so. To the extent there is cooperation, that is fine, but I do think we should tell them how unhappy we are.

I agree with one point my friend from Arizona made. They do not belong on the same list with those other countries, and I would make a recommendation to him. If this amendment passes, as I hope it does, when you get to conference, reconfigure this. Give the Saudis a paragraph unto themselves. You will have the ability to do that. We should not be giving them money. I agree they should not be in there with Libya or Cuba. You have the compositional right to give them a separate place.

On the other hand, when you look at Saudi Arabia and that list, some things are not that different. I do not believe there is a more consistent violator of human rights in the world than the government of Saudi Arabia. This is a government that not only violates the human rights of their own people, but when American military personnel go over there, they have been subjected to sexual and religious discrimination of a sort that we would tolerate nowhere else.

The Saudis have not been terribly constructive with the Middle East peace process. I support what the President is doing with regards to the Middle East peace process. I was a supporter of the roadmap, and I will continue to be. I do not think the Saudis have been a very relevant piece of that.

And, yes, I think it is very worthwhile for us to say to the Saudis, we recognize you have an interest and you want to cooperate with us, and to the extent that we can cooperate together in finding these terrorists we will do that. But cutting off this money is a way to express to them, as I said, the profound revulsion that people here feel about the practices of that government.

And so I think the gentleman's amendment is a very thoughtful one. I do not think it will for a minute, let us think about it now, if this amendment passes, the Saudis are now going to say, okay, no more cooperation on terrorism? I do not think they are doing that as a favor to us. They are doing it out of self-interest. They need to sell the oil more than we need to buy it.

So we have one way now, I think we have apparently have agreement here in the House about how badly the Saudis have behaved in virtually every way, and the question is do we need them enough so that we have to worry about their feelings? I think the answer is that it is important for us to send them precisely this kind of very angry message, not about the money but about the message. And I believe the cooperation will not only survive but it may, if there is any rationality there, improve. Because I think it is important for them to understand how unhappy people are.

And I must say, with respect to all my friends who have, and nearly everybody here has condemned the Saudis, but I think simply condemning them while continuing the status quo will not have any impact. I think the amendment of the gentleman from New York is an essential piece of trying to change things.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to join in supporting this. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), a member of the subcommittee, worked collaboratively with the gentleman from Alabama. This has been an important cause that he has brought to our attention, and we appreciate that.

I should note that one of the ways in which we were able to cooperate on this bill was it is coming forward under the rubric of the community development block grant program, so we made sure that is, in fact, consistent with the community development block grant program. It is also additional money, so it does not take away from any existing programs, and it is entirely worthwhile.

I would just make two points about the broader implications of this bill. First of all, it is particularly for manufactured housing. Manufactured housing is a very important housing resource for low- and moderate-income homeowners and residents. And I hope that it will be a hallmark of this committee in a bipartisan way that we will find other ways to protect this important housing resource. It does not often get the respect it deserves, either in the culture or in the law.

I am determined that we will do our best.

Second, I am glad to be here joining my Republican colleagues in creating a new Federal program in which new Federal money is made available for an important societal need.

Now, it is not a huge amount of money for the whole country, $5 million. It might, as the need evidences itself, go beyond that. What it shows us is that there are important needs in this society; and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) has just eloquently sketched out the need for this kind of shelter to protect vulnerable people from these tornados.

What we are saying is, this is a need that will not be met adequately for the people of this country unless the Federal Government creates a new category of funding and provides Federal funds for that. I am glad to do that because it is an important program that we are establishing. It is an important need that we are meeting, and as I said, it underlines the importance of manufactured housing and an appropriate Federal response to social programs.

I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am always glad to be present at the annual exhibit of inconsistency on the Republican side. When we talk about this bill, first of all, they denounce us for claiming that additional funding is important in showing we support programs. They then go on to brag about how much additional funding they have provided for the programs.

I must say I sometimes do agree that simply throwing money at problems is not necessarily a good idea. I just wish I was not one of the only few Members who thought that yesterday when we did $400 billion in about 3 minutes for the Defense Department, not all of which is exquisitely well spent.

Here, as I said, they brag about how much they spend and then try to denigrate spending as a measure. Dollars are not some totem. They are a measure of resources, and the dollars we make available are the resources we are making available.

As was pointed out previously, it is the Bush administration that is disappointed in many aspects of this bill, and I am quoting them directly. I am reading the statement of administration policy. There is six disappointeds, eight underfundeds and a lot of other negative words, but here is the one that I think most impressive to those advertisers of compassion on the other side.

The committee reduced the administration's request for the Social Security Administration by $168 million. Without these resources, SSA may not be able to reverse the steady increase in the backlog of disability claims.

Understand what the Bush administration has said. Vote for this bill and we will almost certainly increase the backlog of our disabled fellow citizens who cannot get money on which to live. Yeah, I think more money would be a good thing here. I agree with the administration. Let us understand what is at stake here.

The chairman of the Committee on Rules said he congratulated the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee, who I must say many of us admire and do not want to get him in trouble by expressing how much we sympathize with the dilemma that he is in; but revealingly, the chairman of the Committee on Rules said he credited the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee for agreeing to abide by these constraints. Good for him, he agreed to abide by these constraints.

Let us technically point out, and I love the gentleman, I know what pressure he is under, but he voted for these constraints he is abiding by. They talked about the Federal budget as if it had descended from the sky, the House budget resolution; and somehow these wonderful people in the House who would really love to help not build up the backlog on disability found themselves constrained by this thing called the budget. Apparently it came in a horror movie, stepped off the screen and it constrained them. They voted for it. They imposed this restriction on themselves, and that is the game we are playing.

We have the Republican majority first say in the specifics that they are for a lot of programs. Then to pay for the tax cut, what happens is this, they go to these constituencies and tell them how much they support these programs. They then give into ideological pressure and vote for very large tax cuts while we are fighting two wars.

Now, the notion that we can finance two wars with three tax cuts has not previously been known in human history; but having done that, they are now unable to fund the programs that they told people they loved. So what do they do? They pass a tax cut. Then they pass a rule which does not allow them to consider the tax cut when they vote to underfund the programs. This is a perfect example of tying their own hands.

It is what I have called before the reverse Houdini. Unlike Houdini, who was tied in knots and had as his act getting out of the knots, my Republican colleagues, particularly those compassionate ones, tie themselves in knots and then their public act is to say, boy, would I love to help you if I was not tied up in these knots. Well, it is the tax cut that keeps you from funding Social Security so that you do not get the build-up in disability that the President talks about. It is the tax cut that you voted for.

What we are asking for is let us do priorities. Let us not have the tax cut done months ago, a budget done months ago, and now act as if those things which you voted for and you gave us are somehow acts of God that bind us. Let us reopen this and let us deal as rational human beings. Let us put on the one side Social Security disability and the other important programs, Downs Syndrome, et cetera; and let us put on this side the tax cut for the rich, and let us make rational decisions about which is more important.

Mr. Speaker, an unfortunate pattern is developing with the Bush Administration--militarily, in Afghanistan and Iraq, American forces have been extremely successful. I voted for the military action in Afghanistan, and against that in Iraq, but it is obvious that in both cases the American military performed extremely well and the people of the United States can be confident of the ability of our armed forces to do whatever is necessary to protect us and to advance our legitimate security interests.

Unfortunately, this administration's record in the aftermath of these military victories has been much less reassuring. The situation in Iraq is of course a very distressing one, and is widely known. In part because of the attention that is understandably focused on Iraq, with the continuing toll on American military personnel and the chaos and political troubles in the country, Afghanistan has to some extent been, as the headline in The New York Times for July 1 says, ``Lost in the Shuffle.''

I recently met in my office here with representatives of Afghans for a Civil Society, and I was troubled by the grave defects they described in American policy there. In particular, we are clearly doing much too little to support President Karzai--who seems to be a man genuinely trying to promote democracy and economic development in a difficult situation.

Mr. Speaker, I supported America's military intervention into Afghanistan to deal with the terrorists who had unleashed mass murder on the United States. And I believe that overthrowing the brutal, bigoted Taliban regime was also a service to human rights. But having done that, we have an obligation to help put a coherent government in Afghanistan in its place, and I regret to say that I do not think this administration is showing sufficient will in this regard.

Subsequent to my meeting with people from Afghans for a Civil Society, I read last week in The New York Times a very thoughtful and disturbing article by Sarah Chayes, who had been in that meeting, in which she points to one of the central weaknesses of America's policy in Afghanistan. Because redeeming our obligation to the people of Afghanistan is so important both in moral and geopolitical terms, I ask that Sarah Chayes' important article be printed here.

[From the New York Times, July 1, 2003]

Afghanistan's Future, Lost in the Shuffle

(By Sarah Chayes)

Kandahar, Afghanistan--en miles outside this dust-blown

city, the historical capital of Afghanistan, gunmen belonging

to the local warlord guard the airport, which American forces

use as a base. The hefty fee the guards get from the United

States has allowed them to build a marble-faced barracks

nearby.

Kandaharis, baffled, keep asking me, ``Why are the

Americans helping President Harold Karzai and helping his

enemies, the warlords, too?'' To them the problem with this

practice is clear: United States policy is in danger of

failing because America won't stop hedging its bets. At stake

is not just the future of Afghanistan, but a whole region's

hopes of escaping a 30-year nightmare. And ultimately, what

happens in Afghanistan will shape relations between the

Muslim world and the West.

The hedging of bets has taken many forms since the fall of

the Taliban a year and a half ago: a dizzying succession of

officers at the United States Embassy for the first six

months; the lack of any reconstruction projects outside Kabul

until after the grand council chose Mr. Karzai as

transitional president; and later, international donors'

obsession with quick-impact projects, known as quips, that

didn't cost much and wouldn't be much of a loss if they

failed.

Afghans, meanwhile, have been waiting for major

reconstruction that would make a real difference. The Kabul-

Kandahar road, on which work has only just begun, has become

a cause celebre. What was once a six-hour trip to the capital

to deliver, say, Kandahar grapes, and the exquisitely

fragrant raisins they dry into, is now a three-day trek--and

72 hours on the road means grape mash. A good road to Kabul

would make all the difference to Kandahar's merchants, and

jump start a whole region's economy.

And what about other projects that would substantially

improve Afghan lives? There's the road to Urozgan, an

isolated town that is easy prey to Islamic extremists and is

at minimum a nine-hour drive from Kandahar along a ribbon of

iron-hard dirt. The Helmand Province irrigation system, built

by American engineers in the late 1950s, now lies crippled

after years of neglect and Soviet sabotage. Donors, however,

are loath to commit their money to big projects like these.

But the most dangerous form of bet-hedging has been

American support for local strongmen. Eager for Afghan forces

to help fight the Taliban, the United States brought these

warlords back from exile after 9/11. What began as a

relationship of convenience was cemented in a brotherhood of

arms, as United States troops fraternized with the exotic

fighters they had bivouacked with. Because they had reaped

weapons and cash in the bargain, the warlords were able to

impose themselves as provincial governors, despite being

reviled by the Afghan people, as every conversation I've had

and study I've done demonstrates.

Their positions have been reinforced by international

donors who, for convenience's sake, distribute much of their

reconstruction assistance through the warlords. The donors'

reasoning sounds plausible: ``So-and-so is the governor,''

numerous United States officials have told me. ``The day

President Karzai removes him, we will support that decision.

But until then, we have to work with him.'' It's a bit

disingenuous, since this explanation ignores the way these

men became governors.

It also begs the truth. In late May, President Karzai

summoned to Kabul the 12 governors who control Afghanistan's

strategic borders. For the previous fortnight, Afghan and

international officials say, he had been preparing to dismiss

the most egregious offenders: four or five governors who are

running their provinces like personal fiefs, who withhold

vast customs revenue from the central government, who truck

with meddlesome foreign governments, who oppress their

people, who turn a blind eye to extremist activities while

trumpeting their anti-Taliban bona fides. United States

officials, saying they were taken aback by the scope of the

Afghan government's plan, discouraged him. The plan was

scrapped, and the Afghan government made do with an agreement

in which the recalcitrant governors promised to hand over

customs revenue owed the central government.

Washington, in other words, wouldn't stop hedging its bets.

The United States backs Mr. Karzai, but it can't relinquish

its alliances with the enemies of all he stands for.

But President Karzai bears part of the blame. He, too, has

been hedging his bets. His endlessly polite interactions with

his predator governors are confusing his constituents.

Although Washington thought firing half a dozen governors was

too much, it would have supported the dismissal of one or

two, and Mr. Karzai wasted a golden opportunity by refusing

to do that.

The problem is, no matter what they say, these warlords

aren't going to behave. They are not reformable, because it

is not in their interest to reform. The warlords' livelihood

depends on extremism and lawlessness. That's how they draw

their pay; that's what allows them to rule by the gun in an

unofficial martial law, looting villages under the pretext of

mopping-up operations, extracting taxes and bribes, crushing

opponents.

The American alliance with warlords also discourages

ordinary Afghans from helping rebuild their country. And

without the people, the process is doomed. Afghans I have met

and worked with share a fierce desire to live in a normal

country. They have demonstrated that desire. In the face of

tremendous adversity, they have managed to open schools,

clean irrigation ditches, plant trees and dig sewers. But

seeing warlords regain power is making people waver. I have

found in my work that more and more Afghans are withdrawing

to the sidelines, subtracting their life force from the

battle to reconstruct Afghanistan.

They are also increasingly wary about the elections next

year. At a recent meeting here with representatives from the

commission that's drafting a new constitution, a nursing

student asked, ``How can we freely elect our representatives

with warlords controlling the countryside?''

Despite American officials' misgivings, it would not be so

difficult to remove the warlord-governors. Their lack of

popular support means no one would fly to their defense were

they dismissed. The mere display of American backing for a

plan to oust them would be enough to cow their paid liegemen.

In the interest of offering Afghanistan a chance at a future,

and opening the door to a new kind of relationship with the

Muslim world, the United States should back any future

decision to remove the warlord-governors.

For despite the rocky start to reconstructing postwar

Afghanistan, an ember of hope for the country's future is

still burning. Several high caliber diplomats are now at the

American embassy. American military commanders, who by

training focus on battle plans, have begun to realize that

their activities can have unintended political consequences

if they do not have intimate knowledge of the people they are

dealing with. These officers have grown more alert to the

ways in which local warlords may be using them. In Kandahar,

the base commander has begun meeting with tribal elders to

forge links with the population. In other words, the United

States is finally positioned to do a good job here.

When President Bush decided to invade Iraq, he promised

that Afghanistan would not be forgotten. If that promise is

to mean anything, America's accumulated experience in

Afghanistan must be acted upon, unequivocally. It's time to

stop hedging bets.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that excerpts of a recent speech by Mr. Levin of Michigan be printed.

In recent years the major industrial growth in El Salvador,

Nicaragua and Guatemala has been in the maquilas, assembling

apparel in free trade zones.

100,000 to 150,000 people work in the garment maquilas of

each nation.

75-85 percent of the workers on average are women, with an

average age of 18-25.

A majority are the sole source of income for themselves

and their children.

By law, the work week is supposed to be 44 hours, with

overtime on a voluntary basis.

The typical worker receives about 65 to 75 cents per hour.

If paid by piece the average could be around $1 per hour.

Almost every nation in the world has agreed through the

International Labor Organization (ILO) to respect five core

labor standards: prohibitions on child labor and forced

labor, non-discrimination, and the rights to associate and to

bargain collectively. In the garment maquilas, the most

salient are the rights to associate and organize and to

bargain collectively.

In Central America today, the basic labor-management

dynamic is like the United States at the turn of the last

century.

In Nicaragua and El Salvador, an employer can fire any

employee whom it believes is sympathetic to an organizing

effort simply by paying severance.

In one plant I visited in Nicaragua workers had quite

recently been working 70- to-80 hours (apparently for the

same $100 a month); in some cases they were working 24 hour

shifts. Protests finally forced new management, but the new

management acknowledged that they were still working people

longer than permitted in the law.

In Guatemala, we talked with a worker who had personally

witnessed other employees who had been trying to organize

being beaten with bats at work.

In Nicaragua and Guatemala, we heard numerous reports of

employers using the criminal process in order to break up

unions in maquilas and other sectors.

In El Salvador, we visited a free trade zone in which a

plant was shut down to avoid its workers being able to

organize. We heard highly credible evidence that the leaders

of the organizing effort were subsequently blacklisted as

they sought other employment.

In Guatemala, it is not legally possible for a union to

attempt to organize within an entire industry, like the

garment industry, without having in advance 50 percent plus

one of the workers signed up and registering with the

government.

Nicaraguan and Guatemalan employees cannot strike without

government approval.

The State Department Human Rights Report, and numerous other reports from groups like Human Rights Watch, confirm that the facts and incidents are the constant reality.

In El Salvador, Beatrice Alamanni de Carillo, a veteran judge and professor, serves as Prosecutor for the Defense of Human Rights. She was appointed by the National Assembly, with a majority from the conservative Arena Party. Her comments:

``In the private sector an anti-union culture persists in great measure and for many years, employers have generated a climate that does not contribute to the promotion of worker organization in their workplace. . . . The Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare has not demonstrated a real will to guarantee in practice the rights of workers, either individually or collectively. There is a very loud clamor that the authorities of that Ministry do not make their best efforts to adequately check working conditions in businesses, and, in addition, they tolerate and promote an anti-union culture in the country.''

In each country, the rights to associate and organize and to bargain collectively are not realities. The laws themselves are inadequate. Even where there are laws on the books, they are not well enforced and are often used against workers trying to organize.

As far as I could determine, there is not a single effective collective bargaining agreement in any of the garment maquilas of the three countries, though there are almost 400,000 workers.

In Guatemala, a leader of the union connected with the Christian Democrats put it this way: the problem is that employers have ``impunity;'' ``they make up their own laws.''

You may jump to the conclusion that I came back discouraged. That is not accurate.

If the issue of core labor standards is addressed in CAFTA by including a fully enforceable obligation to adopt these standards, it will have an important impact on socio-economic dynamics in these countries by helping develop a middle class.

In the last decade the apparel/textile maquilas have been the major source of economic growth and new employment in each of the three nations I visited, and in Honduras.

The realities within the maquilas today are built on a total imbalance in relationships between employer and employee. The vast majority of workers, young women, are particularly vulnerable, with overriding fear that for them losing a job means an end to their income.

It is essential in order to provide opportunities to the CAFTA countries to expand trade and strengthen commercial ties with the region. It is equally essential that the rules of trade and investment be shaped in a way that maximizes the benefits to those countries and the U.S.

For workers to be able to break the cycle of poverty, they need to have the ability to join together, to participate, to improve their economic status. This is an antecedent to helping those workers use the potential of globalization to create, join, or expand the middle class.

Hernando de Soto recently authored The Mystery Of Capital: Why Capitalism Succeeds In The West And Fails Everywhere Else, which posits that economies develop where property rights are formalized, are clearly and efficiently defined, are enforceable, and may be exercised by all; in this way all property can become capital. Labor market standards help workers maximize a key property right--property in one's own labor.

A key reason to seek a minimum floor of respect for the five core, internationally-recognized labor standards is to ensure that the CAFTA countries will not compete in a race to the bottom in their efforts to promote trade and attract investment. Some argue that the race to the bottom is a myth, that income levels will rise when trade and investment flows increase, and all domestic standards will rise as income levels increase. These arguments ignore the fact that, as with all other economic factors, investment dollars are scarce and there is fierce competition to attract those dollars. When the competition is over labor-intensive industries, one of the key points of competition is the labor market pool.

A New York Times article from about two years ago quoted the President of El Salvador regarding intra-regional competition, who stated, ``The difficulty in this region is that there is labor that is more competitively priced than El Salvador.''

Another article from about one year ago in the Washington Post described the interesting changes in patterns in banana trade, with Ecuador attracting an increasing share. The explanation, according to one major fruit company executive, is that ``the costs in Ecuador are so much lower. There are no unions, no labor standards, and the pay is as low as two dollars a day.''

If the promise of expanded trade--increased incomes and lower levels of income inequality--is to be realized, it is important that the CAFTA countries not compete with each other based upon abuse of core labor standards. The best way to do that is to establish over a reasonable period of time a floor--adopting the five core labor standards as rules of competition in this critical economic area in the FTA itself--just as we establish floors through rules of competition in other areas like intellectual property, investor rights, and tariff levels.

The Central American nations do not need to suppress their workers in order to compete. There is an opportunity to build an economic structure based on implementation of core labor standards so that garments from those nations could bear a label reading ``made under internationally recognized labor standards,'' which many competing goods will not possess.

The alternative is an increasing effort by consumer groups in the U.S. to boycott companies that make garments under conditions that violate these standards.

Efforts by American retailer-purchasers to promulgate and implement private business codes will not make up for a lack of a basic governmental and societal structure. In the New York Times article quoted above, an official from a major American retailer said ``We can't be the whole solution. The solution has to be labor laws that are adequate, respected, and enforced.''

By addressing core internationally recognized labor standards in the CAFTA negotiations, it is more likely that the domestic coalition necessary to tackle the tough market access issues with the United States can be assembled.

Total two-way trade between the United States and the CAFTA countries is about $20 billion. Combined, the CAFTA countries constitute the 18th largest export market for the U.S. and about half of all foreign direct investment in these countries comes from the U.S.

Beyond the current relationship, the United States is seeking better market access for goods and service providers, protection for investors, and improved intellectual property protection from the CAFTA countries. These countries are seeking more investment and more U.S. market access, primarily in the textiles and apparel and agriculture sectors. Otherwise, CAFTA will provide no significant benefits to Central America beyond those provided by the Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI).

I joined with several others in helping to shape the enhanced market access in textiles and apparel when we expanded the CBI a few years ago. The result has been a move toward a more integrated Caribbean-area textile and apparel market. I believe that further integration is necessary. If not, once quotas are removed in 2005 much more of this market will be lost to goods from other areas.

One of the keys to increased market access will be squarely facing up to the core labor standards issue. When we considered the expansion of CBI, the core labor standards issue was directly addressed by heightening the labor standards criterion in the CBI program. Under that criterion, the United States may unilaterally judge whether a nation is implementing the core labor standards. With the negotiation of CAFTA, and the consequent elimination of the CBI labor standards criteria, including a fully enforceable obligation to enforce the five core labor standards, is even more important.

The further integration in apparel and textile, as well as agriculture, means some further displacement in the United States. Comparative advantage is sound economics, but the distortion of the labor market by suppression of workers to create this advantage is unsound as an economic and policy matter, is unnecessary, and will only deepen opposition from competing workers and businesses in the United States.

Facing the issues surrounding core labor standards is not a vehicle for ``protectionism.'' Indeed, it is an opportunity for expanded trade.

Only a coalition that is far broader and solidly bipartisan, much more so than the narrow votes in the U.S. House achieved by last minute concessions, can be the basis for working out decisions on the tough issues of apparel and textiles and agriculture in CAFTA, and beyond.

More broadly, CAFTA can and should be a building block towards effective negotiation of an FTAA.

The CAFTA negotiations present the opportunity for the United States to negotiate fully enforceable core labor standards, combined with a phased-in compliance period, a significant and ongoing commitment of U.S. technical assistance to the countries to help them achieve compliance before and in the initial years of the agreement, and positive market access incentives for countries that improve their laws and enforcement record (for instance, by accelerating implementation of market access phase-ins or by providing improved access than required by the terms of the FTA). The goal of those of us who seek to establish rules in this area is to expand trade, not shut it off.

There are many similarities between Central American nations and those in the rest of Latin America. Where there are, what is negotiated in CAFTA will matter. That will be true, for example in investment, intellectual property, customs obligations, and labor standards.

Where there are differences, it is a serious mistake to use an agreement for one country as a model for another, turning a building block into a stumbling block.

This is what seems to be evolving as to use of the Chile and Singapore agreements for negotiations in CAFTA. Last week USTR tabled in the CAFTA negotiations a proposal on core labor standards using the Chile and Singapore provisions as a model. Use of a standard of enforcing one's own laws is viable where a nation's laws embody the five ILO core labor standards and there is a record of enforcement of those laws. The laws of Chile and Singapore do embody the five core labor standards and these are enforced in practice. The opposite is true in the Central American nations I visited; the standard of ``enforce your own laws'' would be a backward step in the CAFTA and benefit those with the worst laws.

This sparked the letter last week to Ambassador Zoellick from the Democratic leadership of the House and Mr. Rangel, Mr. Matsui and myself. We said ``We write as supporters of negotiations for a U.S.- Central American free trade agreement. . . That said, we are not supportive of the proposed U.S. draft text for the FTA's labor chapter. . . The current version of this text does not adequately address the economic and individual impact of the egregious conditions for workers in the region, and should not be the starting point for consideration of these issues.''

Inclusion of a core labor standards provision in the CAFTA, and in future trade agreements, will help answer arguments of those who complain that globalization is harmful to the poor and anti- the ``little guy.''

I came home from my trip with a positive view of the opportunities that can be achieved, but only if we address the significant challenges. A key challenge is to place core labor standards in a broader perspective, and to understand that it is vital to the future of each Central American nation, the Central American region, the integration of the hemispheric market and the future of U.S. trade policy.

Madam Speaker, the disrespect that the majority has for the democratic process is evident today.

The majority brings this to the floor, does not deign to discuss it. Perhaps they are going to wait until they have the very last word, which they are entitled to under the rule; but I do not understand why they should think it is not worth their time and energy to discuss the issues we are trying to solve.

I will yield to the gentleman from Georgia on his time.

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield.

Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for confirming my point. He said the Clerk has read it twice. Okay, America. You have heard specifically the language read twice. You should be grateful for that.

There are philosophical implications here. We have been meeting only on an average of 2\1/2\ days a week. You are now going to make 3 out of 2\1/2\ days eligible for suspensions.

The chairman of the Committee on Rules said previously, 25 years ago the Democrats went from 1 day to 2. That was 2 days out of 4 days. You have shrunk the time we are in session and increased the amount for suspensions.

The refusal to discuss this announcement, arrogantly, Hey, I read the rule, what more do you want, is what we are getting at.

What we have here is what political philosophers have called authoritarian democracy. It is a view that as long as ultimately a majority ratifies a result, that is all that counts. Well, that is a very unfortunate view of democracy. It is not the view of democracy of the U.S. Constitution, of the Rules of the House of Representatives, or any self-respecting parliamentary democracy.

What we want to have is debate. What we want to have is to air for the public. We are here as the representative body for a great democracy. What is important is not simply the result, not simply your ability, which I envy, to get your Members to vote in a majority for things that they do not like. You are going to produce a majority today for a prescription drug bill for which most of your Members are going to go home and take a prescription drug to cure the headache and the stomach ache and the backache and the twisted arms that they are going to get either from voting for it or after voting for it. But you can get them to do it.

Well, here is what happens. In fact, the chairman of the Committee on Rules said as we debated this in the Committee on Rules, it is partly because there is such a narrow majority that you have to go to these tactics. That is backwards. The narrower the majority in the House, the more respect there ought to be for the procedural forums that allow things not to be forced.

Here is what we have: an ideologically driven majority on the Republican side, very much controlled on key issues by their most extreme ideological cohort, and they are determined to put legislation through that many of their Members do not like. And the key, by the way, is not yes or no on the final bill. This is where you go on suspension. It is a terrible abuse of the democratic process to take a complex issue like we had on Israel yesterday, and I voted for it, but I would have liked to have voted for some amendments. I would like to be able to affirm that Israel has a right of self-defense, but ought to consider as a matter of prudence and as a matter of their own self- interests whether or not they should use it as often as they are entitled to. But it comes up on suspension.

And the important questions are often not ``yes'' or ``no,'' but ``yes, but,'' and ``no, except.'' You do not allow that. You bring them up under suspension because this is your view, only the end result counts. If you can get a majority for the end result, the debate process gets collapsed; and whether or not there are amendments, whether or not there is any modification, that is not allowed.

Here is why: there are people on the Republican side who campaign in their own districts on one set of principles and then come here and enable exactly the opposite to become the law of the land. And here is how they do it. They say to people, oh, I would not vote on that. We are going to vote next week on whether or not, or 2 weeks, whether or not you should be allowed to receive Federal money for secular purposes, and then deny employment to people because you do not like their religion. That is what is going to be up. And we are not going to get to vote on this if past practice is any guide, because we have twice asked to vote on that specific issue; and the Republicans said, no, no, we do not want you to vote on that.

The reason is that if their Members had to vote individually on that, many of them would have to vote not to allow that discrimination because that is what they told people they stand for. So what the Republicans will do will be to bring forward what we call a rule. It is a procedure which will prevent people from voting on the very issue that they claim to support. And then having voted to prevent themselves from voting, they will go to their own constituents and say, you know, I agree; but I was not given a chance to vote. That is what we are dealing with.

That is what happens when you have more suspensions, and this is very relevant to this rule. You take things like the Israel resolution and resolutions on the war and on the troops and on genetically modified foods, all of those were resolutions which I supported, but with which I had some subordinate cause differences. I would have liked to have been able to participate in a democratic process to try to amend them, I think, to strengthen them.

You were afraid, you in the majority, Madam Speaker, to allow that to happen. You wanted to make some political points, so you bring these forward in an unamendable form and you say to people, you are going to have to vote for it. Even if you only agree with 90 percent, we are not going to let you try and change or modify the 10 percent, because then we will say, oh, you are not patriotic, you are not a supporter of the State of Israel, you are not a supporter of the American economy.

That is an abuse of the process, because democracy does not simply means the end result. It means an open process of debate. It means letting people try to change each other's minds. It means letting the American people through the media understand what is going on. What we have is a systemic process here not to allow that.

Madam Speaker, it is not a matter of time. We are told we do not have enough time.

By the way, when I came here and was told by the majority, well, that is the way it used to be. No, it was not. By the way, to the extent that there were abuses in the past, I objected. When I was in the majority, I helped lead a change in the rules because too often, both sides in a conference report took the same position. And I fought for the rights of minorities to take 20 minutes on the conference report.

Madam Speaker, when I came here, we had something called the 5-minute rule. We debated. We yielded to each other. We debated defense bills for 3, 4, and 5 days.

The majority, in the interests of making sure that it gets its Members to do whatever they are told to do without being embarrassed on subordinate issues, has beaten down democracy. They have collapsed democracy into meaning simply the end product. And debates on amendments and public discussion, as evidenced by this today, hey, I read the rule; what do you need? Well, democracy needs debate, discussion. It needs a joinder of the issues, and we do not get that. And we do not get it, as I said, primarily to protect; and we have Members who are not as conservative as the center of gravity on the Republican Party, and I apologize to some in the Republican Party for saying ``center of gravity,'' because I know to many of them ``center'' is a dirty word.

So there are moderate Republicans, so-called, who do not agree with their party's positions. What they are now doing is voting with their party on a series of procedures that disallow democracy, disallow debate, disallow amendments, and that allows them then to appear to be for certain positions when they have voted to collapse them. That is why this rule is a great disservice to democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), the ranking member of the subcommittee, who is the cosponsor of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

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

I am genuinely moved by the breadth of spirit of my colleagues in the great praise they are heaping on this man of the left who presides proudly over a socialized health system and does so much else to show that government has an important positive role in our life, and I appreciate this kind of bipartisanship. Perhaps it will develop a certain trans-Atlantic quality and some of what they so vigorously praise in England might creep into their views about maybe doing something for the American people along the lines of what Mr. Blair does domestically for the British people.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), who has been a leader in trying to formulate an appropriate American approach to some important questions.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I very much agree with many of the specifics, but the gentleman misstates British politics when he says he has moved them from left to the right. Blair would himself repudiate that. What he has done is to move them from a position that he thought was too far to the left to a more mainstream position, but still very much on the left, still very much socialized medicine. So, yes, I think that the direction that the Labor Party has moved in, which is very much a reasonable and responsible position on the left, is a good one; but to characterize that as having moved to the right, I think Mr. Blair would give back his gold medal if the price of accepting it was to become a rightist in the gentleman's mind.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman once again misstates British politics because two of his sharpest critics were people who were in his government supporting his moves on domestic policy, supporting his repositioning towards New Labor. Two, Robin Cook and Claire Short, they resigned from the government specifically over Iraq. So the notion that criticism of his position on Iraq is also criticism of his movement towards the New Labor position is simply factually incorrect.

What about Robin Cook? Who was the foreign minister and who resigned only over misuse of intelligence and not over anything domestic.

Would that also be true of the British public, which was opposed to his going to the war?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for one question?

Can we anticipate a gold medal for Vice President Gore too? Are you going to give a gold medal to Al Gore too, anybody who helps you out?

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

Tony Blair is an embattled politician, as many people are. He will be facing an election within some period of years from his right wing, and he will be defending the positions that he holds. He is a strong defender of a continuation of socialized medicine. He believes that global warming should be addressed by international treaty. I support the British position on allowing gay and lesbian people to serve in the military. So there is a great deal about Tony Blair's record which seems admirable, and I am glad to see my Republican colleagues setting aside what might be some minor differences to them to intervene in a British election by basically giving him this big boost. I am not sure that their fellow conservatives in England are quite so happy.

I do want to say, though, that I differ with those who suggested that somehow we should not have used this to debate the question of whether or not Americans ought to know whether intelligence was misused or how it was misused. I agree there would be better places to debate it. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership has consistently done everything possible to keep that debate off the floor. The intelligence authorization will be coming up, and that would have been a good time to debate it. Our colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher), had an amendment that would have allowed a debate on whether or not to have a select committee. We cannot have that debate today at the regular ordered time because the Republican leadership ordered the Committee on Rules to kill it.

So yes, I will agree; I saw this and said, let us use this as a chance to at least have some debate on this issue, since the Republican leadership will not allow it. In fact, what I most admire about Tony Blair right now is that as the Prime Minister and the head of the House of Commons, he has not even tried to use his control to shut off a debate. Unlike the Republican administration and the Republican leadership here, Tony Blair is allowing the British people and the British political system to have a thorough debate about the extent to which there was misuse of evidence on weapons of mass destruction, and I envy the British. I do not just envy them the Gold Medal, I envy them the fact that democracy is functioning in England today on this critical question of whether and to what extent intelligence was misused in a way that is not being allowed to happen in America.

Now, the gentleman from New York managing this bill referred to the article by Kenneth Pollack. I will submit Mr. Pollack's article for the Record, because he said I am sure there were weapons of mass destruction, and he goes on in that article to be very critical of this administration's misuse of the evidence. It is a very interesting article, and I appreciate once again the gentleman citing it, because he talks about very important questions about the misuse of intelligence, the exaggeration, the manipulation. This is an administration that argued, in part, that the weapons of mass destruction were a major reason to go to war, and that a Rosanna Danna Banana ``nevermind'' is not an appropriate response in a democracy.

That is what we are getting. We are getting from them bait and switch: Let us go to war because of weapons of mass destruction, and now it is because, well, he was a terrible man. Yes, he was a terrible man. Terrible people are killing people in the Congo. Terrible people run Liberia. Terrible people run Burma. If, in fact, we are going to become the ones that go to the rescue of people misused and abused by their government, there are a lot more that we can go to.

Weapons of mass destruction was the critical argument used to justify a war, and it now appears that they were grossly exaggerated. The very article by Kenneth Pollack that the gentleman from New York cited is in fact harshly critical of this administration for its misuse of that.

So thanking Tony Blair because he came to the President's defense at a tough time is a reasonable thing to do. Going to Tony Blair's defense in a tough time for him, that is a reasonable thing to do. Certainly politicians are not unused to helping each other out in tough times and reciprocating.

But let us look at the contrast. I wish, in addition to the Gold Medal for Tony Blair, we were doing something for the American people. I would just propose to my friends on the other side, given your admiration for Tony Blair, a simple proposition: Let us duplicate here in the United States the procedures that are now being undertaken in the British Parliament, let us give the American people the same exposure to an open debate and investigation that the British people are giving. Let us do something for the American people while we give Tony Blair the Gold Medal, and thus show respect for democracy in our own country.

(By Kenneth M. Pollack)

Washington.--Where are Iraq's weapons of mass destructions?

It's a good question, and unfortunately we don't yet have a

good answer. There is hope that the capture of Abid Hamid

Mahmoud al-Tikriti, Saddam Hussein's closet aide, will

provide the first solid

clues. In any event, the mystery will be solved in good time;

the search for Iraq's nonconvential weapons program has only

just begun.

In the meantime, accusations are mounting that the Bush

administration made up the whole Iraqi weapons threat to

justify an invasion. That is just not the case--America and

its allies had plenty of evidence before the war, and before

President Bush took office, indicating that Iraq was

retaining its illegal weapons programs.

As for allegations that some in the administration may have

used slanted intelligence claims in making their case against

Saddam Hussein, they seem to have merit and demand further

investigation. But if the truth was stretched, it seems to

have been done primarily to justify the timing of an

invasion, not the merits of one.

The fact that the sites we suspected of containing hidden

weapons before the war turned out to have nothing in them is

not very significant. American intelligence agencies never

claimed to know exactly where or how the Iraqis were hiding

what they had--not in 1995, not in 1999 and not six months

ago. It is very possible that the ``missing'' facilities,

weaponized agents, precursor materials and even stored

munitions all could still be hidden in places we never would

have thought to look. This is exactly why, before the war, so

few former weapons inspectors had confidence that a new round

of United Nations inspections would find the items they were

convinced Iraq was hiding.

At the heart of the mystery lies the fact that the Iraqis

do not seem to have deployed any stocks of munitions filled

with nonconventional weapons. Why did Saddam Hussein not hit

coalition troops with a barrage of chemical and biological

weapons rather than allow his regime to fall? Why did we not

find them in ammunition dumps, ready to be fired?

Actually, there are many possible explanations. Saddam

Hussein may have underestimated the likelihood of war and not

filled any chemical weapons before the invasion. He may have

been killed or gravely wounded in the ``decapitation'' strike

on the eve of the invasion and unable to give the orders. Or

he may have just been surprised by the extremely rapid pace

of the coalition's ground advance and the sudden collapse of

the Republican Guard divisions surrounding Baghdad. It is

also possible that Iraq did not have the capacity to make

the weapons, but given the prewar evidence, this is still

the least likely explanation.

The one potentially important discovery made so far by

American troops--two tractor-trailers found in April and May

that fit the descriptions of mobile germ-warfare labs given

by Iraqi defectors over the years--might well point to a

likely explanation for at least part of the mystery: Iraq may

have decided to keep only a chemical and biological warfare

production capability rather than large stockpiles of the

munitions themselves. This would square with the fact that

several dozen chemical warfare factories were rebuilt after

the first gulf war to produce civilian pharmaceuticals, but

were widely believed to be dual-use plants capable of quickly

being converted back to chemical warfare production.

In truth, this was always the most likely scenario.

Chemical and biological warfare munitions, especially the

crude varieties that Iraq developed during the Iran-Iraq War,

are dangerous to store and handle and they deteriorate

quickly. But they can be manufactured and put in warheads

relatively rapidly--meaning that there is little reason to

have thousands of filled rounds sitting around where they

might be found by international inspectors. It would have

been logical for Iraq to retain only some means of

production, which could be hidden with relative ease and then

used to churn out the munitions whenever Saddam Hussein gave

the word.

Still, no matter what the trailers turn out to be, the

failure so far to find weapons of mass destruction in no ways

invalidates the prewar intelligence data indicating that Iraq

had the clandestine capacity to build them. There has long

been an extremely strong case--based on evidence that largely

predates the Bush administration--that Iraq maintained

programs in weapons of mass destruction. It was this

evidence, along with reports showing the clear failure of

United Nations efforts to impede Iraq's progress, that led

the Clinton administration to declare a policy of ``regime

change'' for Iraq in 1998.

In 1995, for example, United Nations inspectors found

Russian-made ballistic-missile gyroscopes at the bottom of

the Tigris River; Jordanian officials intercepted others

being smuggled into Iraq that same year. In July 1998,

international inspectors discovered an Iraqi document that

showed Baghdad had lied about the number of chemical bombs it

had dropped during the Iran-Iraq War, leaving some 6,000 such

weapons unaccounted for. Iraq simply refused to concede that

the document even existed.

These episodes, and others like them, explain why many

former Clinton administration officials, including myself (I

was on the staff of the National Security Council in the

90's), agreed with the Bush administration that a war would

likely be necessary to prevent Iraq from acquiring nuclear

and other weapons. We may not have agreed with the Bush

team's timing or tactics, but none of us doubted the

fundamental intelligence basis of its concerns about the

Iraqi threat.

As for the estimates the Bush administration presented

regarding Iraq's holdings of weapons-related materials, they

came from unchallenged evidence gathered by United Nations

inspectors (in many cases, from records of the companies that

sold the materials to Iraq in the first place). For instance,

Iraq admitted importing 200 to 250 tons of precursor agents

for VX nerve gas; it claimed to have destroyed these

chemicals but never proved that it had done so. Even Hans

Blix, the last head weapons inspector and a leading skeptic

of the need for an invasion, admitted that the Iraqis refused

to provide a credible accounting for these materials.

And it wasn't just the United States that was concerned

about Iraq's efforts. By 2002, British, Israeli and German

intelligence services had also concluded that Iraq was

probably far enough along in its nuclear weapons program that

it would be able to put together one or more bombs at some

point in the second half of this decade. The Germans were

actually the most fearful of all--in 2001 they leaked their

estimate that Iraq might be able to develop its first

workable nuclear device in 2004.

Nor was it just government agencies that were alarmed. In

the summer of 2002 I attended a meeting with more than a

dozen former weapons inspectors from half a dozen countries,

along with another dozen experts on Iraq's weapons programs.

Those present were asked whether they believed Iraq had a

clandestine centrifuge lab operating somewhere; everyone did.

Several even said they believed the Iraqis had a covert

calutron program going as well. (Centrifuge and calutron

operations allow a country to enrich uranium and produce the

fissile material for a nuclear bomb.)

At no point before the war did the French, the Russians,

the Chinese or any other country with an intelligence

operation capable of collecting information in Iraq say it

doubted that Baghdad was maintaining a clandestine weapons

capability. All that these countries ever disagreed with the

United States on was what to do about it.

Which raises the real crux of the slanted-intelligence

debate: the timing of the war. Why was it necessary to put

aside all of our other foreign policy priorities to go to war

with Iraq in the spring of 2003? It was always the hardest

part of the Bush administration's argument to square with the

evidence. And, distressingly, there seems to be more than a

little truth to claims that some members of the

administration skewed, exaggerated and even distorted raw

intelligence to coax the American people and reluctant

allies into going to war against Iraq this year.

Before the war, some administration officials clearly

tended to emphasize in public only the most dire aspects of

the intelligence agencies' predictions. For example, of

greatest importance were the estimates of how close Iraq was

to obtaining a nuclear weapon. The major Western intelligence

services essentially agreed that Iraq could acquire one or

more nuclear bombs within about four to six years. However,

all also indicated that it was possible Baghdad might be able

to do so in as few as one or two years if, and only if, it

were able to acquire fissile materials on the black market.

This latter prospect was not very likely. The Iraqis has

been trying to buy fissile material since the 1970's and had

never been able to do so. Nevertheless, some Bush

administration officials chose to stress that one-to-two-year

possibility rather than the more likely four-to-six year

scenario. Needless to say, if the public felt Iraq was still

several years away from acquiring a nuclear weapon rather

than just a matter of months, there probably would have been

much less support for war this spring.

Moreover, before the war I heard many complaints from

friends still in government that some Bush officials were

mounting a ruthless campaign over intelligence estimates. I

was told that when government analysts wrote cautious

assessments of Iraq's capabilities, they were grilled and

forced to go to unusual lengths to defend their judgments and

some were chastised for failing to come to more alarming

conclusions. None of this is illegal, but it was perceived as

an attempt to browbeat analysts into either changing their

estimates for shutting up and ceding the field to their more

hawkish colleagues.

More damning than the claims of my former colleagues has

been some of the investigative reporting done since the war.

Particularly troubling are reports that the administration

knew its contention that Iraq tried to purchase uranium from

Niger was based on forged documents. If true, it would be a

serious indictment of the administration's handling of the

war.

As important as this debate is, what may ultimately turn

out to be the biggest concern over the Iraqi weapons program

is the question of whose hands it is now in. If we do confirm

that those two trailers are mobile biological warfare labs,

we are faced with a tremendous problem. If the defectors'

reports about the rates at which such mobile labs were

supposedly constructed are correct, there are probably 22

more trailers still out there. Where are they? Syria? Iran?

Jordan? Still somewhere in Iraq? Or have they found their way

into the hands of those most covetous--Osama bin Laden and

his confederates?

Nor can we allow our consideration of weapons of mass

destruction and politicized intelligence to be a distraction

from the most important task at hand: rebuilding Iraq.

History may forgive the United States if we don't find the

arsenal we thought we

would. No one will forgive us if we botch the reconstruction

and leave Iraq a worse mess than we found it.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I would be willing to stand with the Senate on this if we could stand with them on the child tax credit. Can we make some kind of deal here on standing with the Senate?

Mr. Speaker, in terms that we do not usually use on this floor but in terms that may be familiar to our friends in Europe, in the American context, I am a man of the left. I voted against the war in Iraq. I will vote for the resolution later about Israel's right to respond to terrorism, but I will put into the Congressional Record Tom Friedman's article urging them to think about prudence and restraint. I think the settlements are by and large a mistake. And I speak today in defense of this resolution, specifically to others on the left in Europe, many of whom have in my judgment been morally deficient in the obligation we have to speak out against prejudice and injustice across the board. Those who hold to liberal values have no moral right to put an ideological screen between victims and those values, and those on the left who use an excuse of a disagreement with the policy of the Sharon government or the Bush government or anybody else as a reason to be soft on anti-Semitism betray liberalism and betray its values.

By the way, with regard to the government of Israel, let me speak to the people on the left. I disagree with some aspects of its policy, but I staunchly defend its right to exist. But even more important, by every value that I as a liberal hold dear, the government and society of Israel is quite morally superior to any of its neighbors, and to focus only on those aspects of disagreement and to ignore its longstanding commitment to civil rights and civil liberties, in fact I think our society, the United States, has a good deal to learn from the society of Israel about how you deal with external threats and still show a respect for civil liberties.

I thank the gentleman from California and the gentleman from New Jersey for bringing this forward and the gentleman from Illinois for his support. I want to reiterate as a man on the left who shares a great deal of both general values and specific policy prescriptions with many on the left in Europe, I am appalled at those who fail to carry out our liberal principles fully and across the board. A vigorous and ongoing condemnation of anti-Semitism is a requisite part of that commitment.

Mr. Speaker, we often congratulate and thank each other when we take these microphones, but I have to say that I do so here with the greatest sincerity of which I am capable. The gentleman from California, who has drawn on his own life experience to become an unabashed, unceasing opponent of oppression everywhere, is an inspiration to us.

I appreciate very much the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Illinois, for agreeing to bring this forward with great speed and allowing us to deal with it on a timetable that we hope will give it the maximum impact in freeing this brave man from a wholly unjustified imprisonment.

To the gentleman from New Jersey, who chairs the subcommittee, he has been staunch in his advocacy; and I express my great appreciation as well to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), whose own expertise in dealing with the People's Republic of China has been built up over the years. He and my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano), have been indispensable allies and partners in this fight.

And, Mr. Speaker, it is a very simple fight. We are saying to the government of the People's Republic of China, we understand your aspiration to be treated with all the respect due a great power. We ask you to act like one. We ask you to understand that even though there are many among us who differ with your form of government, are critical of some aspects of your society, we are prepared to recognize the fact of not just your existence but of your strength, of your power, and of your economy as it grows.

We and the Chinese Government occupy the same Earth, and that requires us to cooperate even where there are areas of disagreement. But there are limits to the extent to which this Nation, with our commitment to our basic principles, can look the other way. There are limits to the extent to which we can say economic self-interest and geopolitical self-interest preempt concern for principle. And here we have an example.

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Yang's crime is that he loved too much both liberty and China. Born in China, he worked as a Chinese citizen to bring to his fellow citizens the freedom that he understands is so important. He was expelled not because he hurt anyone, not because he stole anything, not because he mistreated anyone, but because he would not bridle his love of liberty; and so he was sent away. But he could not stay away.

He has, of course, a great love for his wife and his children, and they for him. And their commitment to his cause and the dignity with which they bear the pain of their separation inspires all of us who have worked with him. Dr. Yang risked a great deal to go back to China, not to steal, not to undermine, not to cause problems, not to engage in terrorism; but to try to help people live their lives in some freedom. And he, unfortunately, had to enter illegally. We acknowledge that. Because he would not have been allowed in that society to do what he wanted to do legally.

Having apprehended him, though I wish the Chinese had a different set of rules and did not feel threatened by a man who loved liberty and wanted to preach it, they had a right to apprehend him and send him back. And maybe they would not send him back right away; they would hold him for a week, two, three, to try to discourage him. But there is no justification for having held this wholly decent man so long without allowing him to be in touch with his family, without even any formal charges, and in a way that violated the most basic human norms. As my friend from California said, even the government of Iran, not to be confused with anybody's civil liberties union, joined in the condemnation of this mistreatment.

Mr. Speaker, we say to the government of China that many of us are prepared to go forward in a cooperative set of arrangements dictated by the interests of the peoples of the world, despite profound differences. We can talk about them. But when you impose with all the might of this great government of China, when you impose this incredibly harsh punishment on this solitary man, take him and keep him from his family, punish him so harshly for nothing that is a crime by any civilized standard, you drive a wedge between us. And I urge the government of China in its own interest to remove this wedge; to show that in fact the pessimists are wrong and that as you grow economically you can evolve socially, you can outgrow the total lack of self- confidence that makes you appear to quake before one lone individual committed to freedom.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the People's Republic of China to listen to this House of Representatives, to the President of the United States and the State Department, to the people of America and discontinue insisting on mistreating this brave man, not simply because it is the wrong thing to do on principle but because it is a very wrong thing to do practically. I urge the government of China to reconsider whether the enormous damage you are doing to relationships that you believe are important is worth the continued persecution of Dr. Yang. And I believe that rational people will come to the conclusion that the answer is ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I again thank my colleagues for giving us a chance as a Nation to make this important statement of principle.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word in an effort to understand the first few words.

The gentleman from Colorado said to the gentleman from Minnesota that the only funds involved were funds under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, but that is not what it says. The amendment says ``none of the funds made available in this act.'' The reference to the Immigration Responsibility jaw-breaker does not come until the bottom. What it says is that if you violate the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, then you get no funds under this act.

I know we debated what ``is'' is, but I thought we were pretty clear on what ``this'' is. This is this. This is the act. It says ``none of the funds made available in this act.''

So the question is, in line 2 of the gentleman's amendment, when it says ``none of the funds made available in this act,'' what act is he talking about? And it would appear to be the act that we are now about to enact.

I wanted to ask the question precisely. I would ask the gentleman when it says in line 1, none of the funds made available, and in line 2, this act, in line 2, what do the words ``this act'' refer to?

I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, no, it does not. The gentleman has not read his own amendment, much less written it.

What this says is, you do not get any funds under this act if you violate the Illegal Immigration Act. It does not say that the funds come under the act; it is a 2-part amendment. It says, first, you do not get any funds under this act. It does not define this act later on; it defines what forfeits money under this act. What causes you to forfeit money under this act is a violation of the Immigration Act. It does not say in here that you lose money under the Immigration Act; it says you lose money under this appropriation if you violate that act.

I will yield again.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would say to the gentleman, I understand his concern with making clear, and I have heard him say this in other contexts, that English is the official language, and I would urge him to work on that, because English is what it states here, and it says, in English, this is in English now, the only language I speak being a typical American; it says in English, ``none of the funds made available in this act may be used to provide assistance to any State that violates the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Act.''

So it is very clear. It is this act to which the funds refer. The act that was passed in 1996 triggers the loss of funds under this act. And it seems to me it is a far harsher penalty for the violation and the very fact that the gentleman offers the amendment in one form and then explains it in another is, I think, an indication of its weakness.