Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the further consideration of H.R. 5672, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from Nevada.

Reclaiming my time, I understand the gentleman's concerns, and I am glad the Judiciary Committee has agreed to work with him on this matter. The subcommittee will keep his concerns in mind.

Mr. Chairman, the subcommittee accepts the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment, because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill. It, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part, ``an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment requires a new determination.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment to cut $598 million from the bill. As the gentleman can see from the debate, and the other amendments offered on the bill, many Members feel the funding for a whole host of programs in this bill is already inadequate. The budget resolution passed by the Congress has imposed upon us a very restrictive spending climate. This amendment constitutes attempts to reopen the decisions we have already made in the budget resolution.

The bill we are considering today stays within the budget resolution framework and represents a lot of hard work and hard decisions to match limited funds to competing national priorities. A number of accounts in the bill are funded very close to the bone. A reduction of 1 percent, many salaries and expenses would have a fairly dramatic and highly negative impact.

I would ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I just want to thank the Chair for presiding very, very fairly and for correcting me on mistakes that I made without people knowing that I made the mistakes. But I think it was always very good to look up there and see your fair face, and you were very, very fair, I think, on both sides. I personally want to thank you very, very much on this bill but on many others that I have watched, but seeing you all day yesterday. So thank you.

Also thank the staff on both sides of the aisle for the great job that they have done and the Members, and again, Congressman Hastings, I thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 5672, the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections and conforming changes to the bill.

Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. We accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. My father was a policeman in the City of Philadelphia for 20-some years, and I know how important this is.

I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) and the gentleman from New York City (Mr. Fossella). We accept the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, our subcommittee created this office in 2004 after having a hearing. We have $3 million currently in the bill for China compliance. It is a very, very important issue.

We have also required there be a position in Beijing, and so I thank the gentleman for the amendment. We accept it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. We accept the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend Mr. Gilchrest for making a very powerful point with regard to the oceans. I refer Members to the newest issue of the National Geographic, The Health of the Coast. It validates so much of what Mr. Gilchrest has said. That is not the place to take it from, so I strongly oppose the amendment.

But I want to acknowledge that Mr. Gilchrest is right with regard to the oceans, and this administration and this Congress should be doing more in this regard. I think the gentleman understands that we can't take funding from there. I want to commend him and urge Members to validate what Mr. Gilchrest said with regard to the National Geographic.

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

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, I understand your concerns, Mr. Farr. I agree there is a need to seek a long-term solution to the problems in the Klamath Basin and

appreciate your leadership on this issue. I commit, as we have spoken, to improve the levels of the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund in conference for restoration and also for recovery.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I think it is a good amendment. Hopefully, the FCC will take note of what Mr. Murphy is doing. I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 89, line 9, be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. Chairman, I support the gentlewoman's amendment. I know the Veterans Corporation is working to get itself revitalized, and I hope we can have this thing authorized. I think the more effort that can be done would help us, particularly as we move into the outyears.

Mr. Chairman, I accept the gentlewoman's amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman. She certainly has raised a very important issue. I pledge to explore this issue further.

It is my understanding that NASA anticipates, because they have a strong education program, building this program using the funding appropriated to the agency for education programs. I do recognize that the Dr. Mae C. Jemison Grant Program is a program charged to NASA, and we look forward to the launch of the program and the benefits that will result.

Thank you.

Sure.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I agree with the gentleman that the warnings provided by the Space Environment Center are important to protect their satellites and other space-based industries. And I will be happy to work with the gentleman as the bill moves forward through conference to try to find increased funding for the Space Environment Center.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say, Mr. Davis has convinced me of the merit of his argument. I would never object to him. Since it makes a lot of sense, I concede.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

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

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

I believe it is an appropriate issue to debate, but the appropriate forum for debate is with the authorizing committees and with an opportunity for both sides on the issue to present their cases.

Today's pending legislation is not a place for the debate, and I would hope that the authorizing committee would schedule hearings and bring forward a bill and let the House work its will. That is the way we do it. Authorizers hold hearings, look at the impact, come back, report out a bill, and let the committee and the House work its will.

Point of Order

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

The rule states in pertinent part, an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if it changes existing law. The amendment directly amends the existing law, and I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the gentlewoman from California that I agree that educational exchange initiatives are an important component of our hemispheric foreign policy.

The fact is, as you were speaking, I thought of my daughter Rebecca who was in an exchange program and actually taught down in Honduras, Tegucigalpa, for 2 years. The relationships, the friendships, and the opportunities she made were life changing. I think you make a very powerful point.

I appreciate the gentlewoman's intention in raising this issue, and I want to assure her that I will be mindful of this issue as this bill moves forward.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) and the other Members for a colloquy.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank both you, Mr. Bilirakis, as well as Mr. Wexler and Mrs. Maloney of New York. It really does offer an opportunity. It is kind of an historic moment, in some respects, for this reconciliation opportunity.

So I support the efforts aimed at bringing a solution to the Cyprus issue and agree that new avenues should be explored. I really commend you for doing this. I share your concerns and really will be pleased to work with my colleagues to explore what might be done to gain support for this new joint initiative to someday bring peace and reconciliation to the area.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I will accept the amendment, but I just wanted to highlight how ludicrous it is, and I think the gentleman has pointed it out, but to have those requirements on Taiwan when China is spying against us. In this bill is funding for the FBI to keep the Chinese from spying against us.

There is no persecution in Taiwan. On Monday, we had a meeting with the Cardinal Kung Foundation, and they pointed out that there are now 40, 40 Catholic bishops and priests in jail in China. There are zero in jail in Taiwan. This is serious, and I am glad the gentleman offered this.

There are 4,000 to 6,000 evangelicals, house church leaders, men and women, in prison in China today. The latest figure as of Monday. There are zero in Taiwan. There are Buddhist monks and nuns in Tibet being persecuted, and President Hu was the one who put the policy together. It is against the law to have a picture of the Dalai Lama. But there are no Tibetan monks or nuns being persecuted in Taiwan.

Maybe we should have the Taiwan regulations apply to the embassy in Beijing and reverse it.

Lastly, just so people know this, there is great persecution against the Uighers, the Muslims in China. And to show you how close this comes to home, Mr. Lantos and my office worked to have Reba Kadeer released, she was in prison for 5 years, by agreeing to meet with a congressional delegation. She went through a difficult time. Five years in solitary confinement. She got out. Now there was a staff codel to meet with her kids 3 weeks ago, and they have now arrested her three children and they are in jail. One was beaten and pummeled.

The Chinese security police sent out agents to northern Virginia to spy on her, and they took the license plates down of their cars and their public security police.

So I think the only difference I have with the gentleman's amendment is that these restrictions that are on Taiwan should have been on the American embassy in Beijing. It is just the opposite. It is like that Simon and Garfunkel song, The Boxer: Man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.

There is tremendous growing persecution in China of the Catholic church. Some of these bishops are in their 80s. One, Bishop Su, has not been seen since 8 years ago. He gave Holy Communion to Congressman Chris Smith. I repeat: 4,000 to 6,000 evangelicals, Buddhist monks and nuns, and now the Uighers.

So I am glad the gentleman offered this amendment, and I urge it to be strongly passed.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Illinois for her hard work to promote Internet safety.

Just recently, Congressman Kirk, who has been a leader on this, has raised this in our hearings a number of times.

Congressman Kirk and I urged the FTC to issue a national consumer alert to parents and children about the risk of sites like MySpace. I would say if any mother or father is listening, to have your children involved in MySpace is a mistake. So what I think you are trying to do and what Mr. Kirk is doing is very good.

I share the gentlewoman's concerns and commit to continue looking into the matter to ensure the FTC is devoting sufficient resources to fight Internet predators and protect children.

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

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

I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds).

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

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

I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.

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

I rise in strong support of the amendment. I understand the gentleman's amendment is related to the findings of the Government Accountability Office audit in August of 2005 concerning NASA mission management aircraft.

I also understand that NASA has concurred with the administrative recommendations, meaning they agree with the GAO and the gentleman trying to implement the recommendations made by GAO. NASA is now using a new methodology to justify any passenger travel on its aircraft to match OMB Circular A-126.

Further, OMB has reviewed NASA's revised policy and has no objections with respect to it.

It is a good amendment, and I think it is doubly good because for the first time we have brought a bill to the floor with absolutely no NASA earmarks. The administrator has said this is very good because when you have earmarks, it takes away.

So I strongly support the gentleman's amendment and urge that it be adopted.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer) 1 minute.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

I rise in support of the amendment. It is a good amendment. There has been a government-wide review of the waste, fraud and abuse of the government travel card program. The Government Accountability Office has reviewed the State Department policy and has concluded a similar review of the Department of Defense policy.

The State Department manages the second largest centrally billed travel card program in the Federal Government after the Department of Defense. A GAO audit of the State Department's centrally billed foreign affairs travel found that 67 percent of premium class travel by State and other foreign affairs personnel during most of fiscal years 2003 and 2004 were not properly authorized.

Although GAO found deficiencies in documentation for premium class travel, GAO did not find in any instance travel that was conducted for other than official purposes. GAO has made 18 recommendations to improve the State Department's travel card program. The committee has looked into the issue and understands that, as of June 1, the Department of State has taken action on all the recommendations outlined in the GAO's March 6th report. The Undersecretary of State for Management has made this a top priority for the Department.

I wonder how they even got to this point. I agree with the gentleman, and I want to thank him for that. We must ensure that U.S. taxpayer money is not subject to waste, fraud and abuse, and I strongly, strongly support the gentleman's amendment.

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

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

I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

Mr. Chairman, look what China is doing. I think you are right on doing this. I wish you had actually been successful, from my own perspective. But look at what China is doing. Windows 95 was available on the streets of Beijing before it was available on the streets of Washington, D.C. So be careful. And I am not sure the administration is going to look out for your best interest on this either.

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

I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlewoman; and I will work with her to provide additional resources for the State Department's Economic Bureau to enhance their ability to pursue better enforcement of intellectual property protections in non-OECD countries.

But where is the amendment to put the will, the commitment, the passion? And frankly, we will be glad to do this. But some big law firm down on K Street is going to be retained by some of these people, and they will be coming up here and working the administration and working others. Funding is good, but give me somebody who really cares, really believes, really is committed.

When you have people out there representing the Khartoum Government in Sudan, when Darfur and China has all these big law firms on retention, just funding this, so unless there is the commitment, the determination, but, yes, we will work with you every way we possibly can.

Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the amendment.

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

I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. Chairman, I understand that the gentleman is going to withdraw the amendment. On page 65 of the report, the subcommittee says the committee expects the Department of Justice to work swiftly toward full implementation of the Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefit Act.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I accept the gentleman's amendment. I was waiting to hear his speech. I was listening and settling in. I do accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

I reserved the point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

I rise in opposition to the amendment. There has been a lot of talk about the Fraternal Order of Police and how we support our police. Here is a letter from the Grand Lodge Fraternal Order of Police, Chuck Canterbury, National President, saying, referring to the Hinchey amendment:

Such an amendment threatens to cause a significant

disruptive effect on the combined efforts of State and local

law enforcement to reduce drug crime in every region of the

country. On behalf of the more than 324,000 members of the

Fraternal Order of Police, we urge its defeat.

We talked a lot about the police and how we want to do this to support them. I think we should support the police here. I urge a strong ``no'' vote on this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I accept the amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I thank the gentleman, and will try to help.

Amendment Offered by Mrs. Jones of Ohio

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do I get to close?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, I would yield.

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

Does that mean you withdraw the amendment?

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

Sure.

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

Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

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

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

I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

How much time do I have?

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

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

I agree with the gentleman from Rhode Island on the medical records' safety and privacy. I think the gentleman makes a valid point, but that is really not what we are talking about tonight. We are dealing with the FBI dealing with terrorism.

As I mentioned, a newly released book by a Pulitzer Prize winning author states that al Qaeda came within 45 days of attacking the New York subway system with lethal gas. We never completely know why they didn't move ahead, but within 45 days. If a National Security Letter would stop something like this, and they are still out there. Al Qaeda is still out there. They are still committed.

There is a book by Mary Habeck, Knowing the Enemy. They are still out there and committed to coming. So if a National Security Letter could stop what took place on 9/11 at the World Trade Center or at the Pentagon over in that area or in the bombing of the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole or the Marine barracks or places like that, we certainly would want to stop that.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

If the gentleman would yield.

I appreciate what the gentleman said. Members should know in our bill our committee established

in the Justice Department an Office of Privacy and Civil Liberty for the very reason that Mr. Serrano used to raise, and rightly, to protect to make sure something did not happen.

Mr. Chairman, I submit the letter that I referenced earlier.

U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Legislative Affairs,

Washington, DC, June 28, 2006.

Hon. Frank R. Wolf,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Science, the Departments of State,

Justice, and Commerce and Related Agencies, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: We have been advised that Congressman

Nadler may offer an amendment to the pending Justice

Appropriations bill that would restrict the use of National

Security Letters (``NSLs'') relating to medical records.

Congressman Nadler offered a very similar amendment last

year. That amendment was defeated. We remain opposed to any

such amendment.

NSLs are similar to subpoenas and may be used by the

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to obtain from

specified companies information relevant to authorized

investigations of international terrorism and espionage. It

is unwise to create carveouts from the scope of these

important investigative tools, particularly since there has

been no allegation of abuse regarding medical information,

the subject of the proposed carveout. NSLs are generally used

to obtain: (1) billing and transactional records maintained

by telephone companies and Internet service providers; (2)

credit reports and other consumer information maintained by

consumer reporting agencies; and (3) financial information

maintained by financial institutions. It would be an

exceedingly rare circumstance in which an NSL issued to one

of these institutions would capture medical records.

Moreover, the Congress addressed in a full and considered

manner the concerns of critics of the use of NSLs when it

passed the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act

earlier this year. That bill included numerous changes to all

the NSL statutes to clarify and improve the laws' privacy

protections. Congress also mandated a comprehensive audit by

the Department's Inspector General on the use and

effectiveness of NSLs. The findings of that review are

expected to be available early next year.

It is also interesting to note that Congress has already

provided the FBI the authority to obtain health insurance

records through the use of administrative subpoenas (without

the approval of a judge) when investigating criminal health

care fraud. NSLs and administrative subpoenas are very

similar except for some of the additional civil liberty

protections added to the NSL statutes during the debate to

reauthorize the USA PATRIOT Act. It would be odd if the

Congress were to make a different policy determination when,

rather than a health care fraud matter, the investigation

involved international terrorism.

NSLs are extremely valuable to investigations of

international terrorism and espionage. Information obtained

through NSLs has significantly advanced numerous sensitive

terrorism and espionage investigations and has assisted the

FBI in discovering links to previously unknown terrorist

operatives. We see no justification for artificially

restricting the reach of those investigative tools.

Thank you for this opportunity to express our concerns. The

Office of Management and Budget has advised us that from the

perspective of the Administration's program, there is no

objection to this letter.

Sincerely,

William E. Moschella,

Assistant Attorney General.

We accept the amendment.

Would the gentleman yield?

I share the gentleman's concerns about NASA's high quality workforce, and I expect NASA to develop and move forward with a long- term strategy to replenish the skills of its aging workforce while also maintaining key institutional memory. I urge NASA to address and correct any imbalances through an aggressive campaign of retraining, work transfer across centers, judicious buyouts and carefully managed recruitment, all with a minimum of disruption to the workforce. The people really have to be treated fairly, fair in the sense that everyone will say it is fair.

I expect that NASA will respect the moratorium on reductions in force in the 2005 NASA Reauthorization Act and will not engage in any reduction in force until they have met the workforce planning requirements in that act and provide it sufficient time for congressional oversight. So I would be happy to continue to work with the gentlemen on these issues as the gentleman moves forward in conference.

I reserve a point of order.

That is what I was led to believe. I still reserve the point of order.

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

I am inclined to accept the amendment, but before doing so, I yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

I will certainly accept it, and I think the gentleman makes a very powerful case. I had an amendment several years ago which was defeated on this floor which would have set up a national commission to really go in and look at the conditions on the reservations. I used to work for former Congressman Jon Kyl, the father of now Senator Jon Kyl, who had really a great burden for many of the Indians, particularly in that area in Arizona. And it is a disgrace. And I really believe, not to make this too controversial, but I think this whole issue of gambling on reservations has almost made people say, well, now, they can have a gambling casino, so we are not going to put any money in.

Many of these reservations are in areas that are very difficult to access, very difficult to get there. Some are in very barren areas, and others are in very cold areas, so people aren't going to go there. So listening to the gentleman, at an appropriate time, I think maybe next year, I am going to offer this thing again. I think it got tied up in the whole gambling issue, which I think is corrupting this Nation, and unfortunately, this Congress and this administration have been too silent on the issue.

But the gentleman makes a very powerful case. So what I think I may do when we come up next year at the appropriate time is offer an amendment to set up a commission that doesn't get involved with the gambling issues but looks at crime. I read the New York Times series about 2 or 3 months ago, back in February, about some of the reservations where organized crime was coming in and the meth problem. And I want to see if we can put together some bold new way to really help the first Americans, the Native Americans.

So I accept the amendment. We will work hard to keep it in conference, too, not just to kind of get out of your hair, to accept it, but to really kind of keep it. And I think listening to you sensitizes me to next year offer this amendment to create this Blue Ribbon Panel of people who really care about the conditions on reservations and see what we can do to really make it concrete.

But I do accept the amendment.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, you are hearing history tonight. A member of the House Appropriations Committee is offering an amendment to repeal, overturn, a Supreme Court decision. I think that is unbelievable. At first, when I asked what the Hinchey amendment was, then I said, the Hudson case, was that the case 2 weeks ago on June 15? And they said it is.

The gentleman's amendment would overrule a Supreme Court decision through a funding limitation on an appropriations bill. If this ever passed, I think it would be just horrible.

This is not an appropriate way. There is much more I can say. I will just end, the Justice Department sent a letter up here, and we will submit it for the record, that says, ``The department also believes that it is inappropriate to hamstring law enforcement efforts that are permissible under the Constitution. If the Constitution does not require the application of the exclusionary rule to knock and announce searches that are subsequently deemed by a judge to have been conducted in an unreasonable manner, then Congress ought not force Federal law enforcement agents to play by rules not constitutionally required, especially when there is no way procedurally to comply with the amendment.''

We ought not on the floor of the House at 10 minutes before 10 overrule Supreme Court decisions, no matter what you think of the decision. I don't think this is the way to go.

If the gentleman wants to offer a constitutional amendment, go through the Judiciary Committee. But with 5 minutes on this side, 5 minutes on that side, 10 minutes, to overrule the Supreme Court of the United States I think would be a mistake.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, it is not appropriate, no matter what the gentleman from New York thinks, for a House Appropriations Committee to take this action tonight. I think it is wrong and therefore urge a defeat of the Hinchey amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief.

I am offering this amendment to add $2 million for prisoner reentry programs. I think that reentry programs help offenders to move back into their communities and be productive citizens.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) for bringing this to my attention. I think the more we can help people, and there is a record number of people that are being released from prisons at this time, the more that we can do and help them as they reenter and become good citizens is good.

Mr. Chairman, so I offer that amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 5672, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 11 minutes.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to begin consideration of H.R. 5672, making appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for Science, the Departments of State, Justice, Commerce, and related agencies. This bill provides a funding for programs whose impact ranges from the safety of people in their homes and communities to the conduct of diplomacy around the world and to the farthest reaches of space exploration.

The bill before the House today reflects the delicate balancing of needs and requirements. We have drafted what I consider a responsible bill for fiscal year 2007 spending levels for the Departments and agencies under the subcommittee's jurisdiction. We have carefully prioritized the funding in the bill and made hard choices about how to spend the scarce resources.

We have been very fair. We, the entire Committee, have been very fair with each and every Member that has approached the subcommittee as we went through this entire process.

I want to thank Chairman Lewis for supporting us with what I believe is a fair allocation and helping us to move the bill forward. I also want to thank the ranking member, Mr. Mollohan, who has been a very effective and valued partner and colleague on the bill. I appreciate his principled commitment and understanding of the programs in the bill.

I also want to thank members of the subcommittee for their help and assistance: Charles Taylor, Mark Kirk, Dave Weldon, Tom DeLay, Virgil Goode, John Culberson, Rodney Alexander, Jose Serrano, Bud Cramer, Patrick Kennedy, Chaka Fattah, and also Mr. Obey, the ranking member of the full committee.

I truly appreciate the professionalism and cooperation of the minority staff. In particular, I want to thank David Pomerantz, Michelle Burkett, Sally Moorhead, Julie Aaronson and Rob Nabors from the Democratic staff, who have been an enormous help during all the long hours spent putting this bill together.

I also, Mr. Chairman, want to thank the members of the subcommittee staff on both sides for their long hours to produce the fiscal year 2007 Science, State, Justice, Commerce bill. I would like to particularly thank Mike Ringler, the clerk of the subcommittee, who has done an outstanding job and really spent hours and hours away from his family, as have the others, and who has led the subcommittee through the House appropriations process.

I also want to thank publicly and personally Christine Kojac, John Martens, Anne Marie Goldsmith, Clelia Alvarado, and Darryl Hill for their tireless efforts. Their work is very much appreciated. Only a handful of us know how much time and effort they have put in, but I want to thank them. And the record ought to show, frankly, when history looks back, who gets credit for a lot of what has taken place.

In my personal office, I would like to thank Dan Scandling, Janet Shaffron, J.T. Griffin, Samantha Stockman, and Courtney Schlieter for their efforts in working with the subcommittee; and from the minority, if I left out anybody, I mentioned, I think, Dave Pomerantz, Michelle Burkett, and Julie Aaronson, but also Rob Nabors for their efforts with regard to this.

We have worked in a bipartisan manner. And that is just not rhetoric for the Congressional Record, but it has truly been a bipartisan effort in putting the bill together. And as a former staff member up here on Capitol Hill, I personally want to thank each and every one of them. They have really done an outstanding job.

The bill contains $59.8 billion in discretionary spending. At a time of fiscal constraint, we have developed a bill that preserves critical domestic and international programs while living within our allocations. We have had to make some difficult choices and focus limited resources on programs that are most critical to the Nation. Program increases are focused on the most critical areas, including science and competitiveness, counterterrorism, and law enforcement.

For the Department of Justice, the bill includes $22.1 billion, $1 billion above the request. The bill includes a total of $2.57 billion for proven State and local law enforcement crime-fighting programs to keep our communities safe.

We have restored, and I stress the word ``restored,'' $1.1 billion above the request to the highest priority programs, including SCAAP, justice assistance grants, and juvenile justice programs, all which the Administration proposed to eliminate or dramatically reduce. That is $1.1 billion with a ``B.''

The bill also includes important new investments to fight the national epidemic of methamphetamine abuse; $367 million for justice assistance grants to support local drug task forces, a $50 million increase; $99 million in grants to combat meth, a $36 million increase; and $40 million for drug courts, a $30 million increase, which is a 300 percent increase in drug courts; and a $15 million increase for DEA to support State

and local efforts to fight international trafficking.

Gangs pose one of the greatest threats to the safety and security of all Americans. Today, gangs are more violent, more organized, and more widespread than ever before. This bill focuses funding on fighting gangs and gang violence. We have increased the FBI and the ATF antigang programs, and restored funding to the gang resistance training program. In addition, we have supported a $40 million gang program following the Project Safe Neighborhoods model that would allow each U.S. Attorney's Office to finance antigang strategies in cooperation with State and local law enforcement.

The bill also includes $6.04 billion for the FBI to include counterterrorism and counterintelligence capabilities, while continuing to fight crimes such as child exploitation, human trafficking, and gang violence. Again, programs we have increased far over the administration level.

I would also like to highlight that the bill continues funding for the eight faith-based rehabilitation programs in the Federal prison system and recognizes the success that faith-based programs have had in reducing recidivism. Before I got elected to Congress I was involved in a prison program. You must give these men and women hope and an opportunity. So, I think this is a very important program at all the State, local, and Federal levels.

Statistically, two out of every three inmates are likely to re-offend and end up back in prison, often with only days or months in their release. Therefore, it is critical we promote programs that help break this cycle, thereby improving the safety and the security of our communities. In light of the success the values-based programs have had in this regard, I encourage the Bureau of Prisons and state departments of correction to continue alternative treatment programming that emphasizes the teaching of positive social values and reform character.

It is immoral just to warehouse people and not give them any rehabilitation, faith-based programs, mental health or other programs. I have long been a supporter of these value-based types of programs and think they should be continued in Federal and State prisons. I hope that Congress will work to protect these programs.

If you take these programs away, faith-based, mental health, what type of society will we have?

In Science, the other focus in the bill this year is science and competitiveness. The capacity to innovate is the primary engine of our economy and our way of life. In order to sustain it, we must increase our investment in basic scientific research and strengthen science education.

For this reason, the bill fully funds the President's American Competitiveness Initiative, which includes a recommitment to doubling the funding for basic science research over 10 years.

We have dramatically increased the NSF and NIST.

For NASA, the bill includes $16.7 billion.

I want to thank NASA and NIST chairman Sherwood Boehlert and Vern Ehlers, who really played a major role in this, and Mr. Mollohan.

In NASA, the bill restores $100 million of the cut proposed to the aeronautic research and responds to the lower than anticipated increases for space science programs.

The space shuttle is set to launch on Saturday, and the bill before you includes full funding for the shuttle program to support the completion of the International Space Station and continuation of the shuttle safety improvements.

In Commerce, we have dealt with critical functions of the National Weather Service and NOAA's weather and climate forecasting.

We have also included a 5.2 percent increase for the PTO and an increase of $72 million. For the State Department, and the broadcasting Board of governors, a recommendation of $9.66 billion within this Federal, $1.7 billion to provide full funding request for worldwide security and improvements.

We have included the requested funds for international peacekeeping to pay the assessed costs for missions in Sudan, Haiti and elsewhere. We have included language to require notification to the Committee that prevention and prosecution measures are taken to ensure zero tolerance in sexual abuse in peacekeeping. We also added language supporting the maintenance of a flat U.N. budget.

On the Small Business Administration, we have provided $90 million for small business development grants, a $2 million increase; also allows up to $17.5 billion in general 7(a) business loans, an unprecedented level, while requiring no appropriation.

In closing, a summary of the bill provides the increase necessary to maintain strength in critical law enforcement, fight terrorism, deal with drugs.

I again want to thank the staff and thank the committee.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN06.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN06.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN06.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN06.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN06.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN06.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN06.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN06.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN06.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN06.010

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to Mr. Lewis, the chairman of the full Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I recognize Mr. Kirk, a member of the committee, for 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), chairman of the Science Committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), who has really done a lot of work on a very important issue with Mr. Rogers.

Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Hobson. I want to thank Mr. Hobson, Mr. Rogers and Mr. Kingston for their leadership. This should be called the Hobson-Rogers-Kingston bill to help the FBI. They have done a great service.

I support the establishment of a Housing Allowance Program within the level of funds provided for the FBI in the bill and look forward to working to protect the retirement benefits of the supervisory special agents. Mr. Hobson, Mr. Rogers and Mr. Kingston, thank you very much.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Yes, that is my understanding. The Antiterrorism Reserve is a separate portion of the Crime Victims Fund, and there is a statutory authority allowing obligations to be made on top of any limitation carried in this bill.

Frankly, the administration never sent a rescission up again with regard to this.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I thank my colleague from Texas. The bill includes $10.69 million specifically for victims programs authorized by the Justice for All Act, which is $1 million above the President's request, and includes $176 million for DNA grants not earmarked, which is $68 million above the current level. As we work with the Senate in conference, we will work to ensure the highest level possible for all the programs authorized by the Justice for All Act.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island, a member of our subcommittee, for raising this very, very important issue.

As you mentioned, dealing with the issues of substance abuse and prisoners is a critical component of ensuring that they do not repeat their crimes. Reducing recidivism of prisoners is a goal that those of us on both sides of the aisle can support.

I appreciate the gentleman's commitment. We will see what we can do with regard to coordination. The gentleman has been very faithful in raising this over and over. We will try to help in every way possible.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman. Just look at the weather we have been having here in the Washington, D.C., area the last several days.

I would like to thank the gentleman from North Carolina for his leadership on the issue. We look forward to working with him on the issue as the bill moves forward.

The gentleman from California is correct.

The committee is aware of the circumstances surrounding the Mendota facility and will work with the gentleman from California.

I thank the gentleman from Texas, who is very, very, very persistent. I agree with his description of the intent of the language and acknowledge that the report should reflect what was passed by the committee last week as described by gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Wisconsin for her very, very hard work and leadership on this issue.

The committee shares her concern of providing sources of capital for small businesses and makes a very compelling point. The committee supports this small business investment company, SBIC, program, another SBA program that provides equity investments to small businesses. The committee also understands that the NMVC program is still operational and that the SBA is still monitoring the work of the existing NMVC companies.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman would yield, the committee notes your concern; and we will do everything we can to help.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I most certainly will work with the gentlewoman from Ohio on this project. This is very, very important.

You had lobbyists downtown lobbying for the Khartoum government on the issue of Darfur, where this House has voted, saying that what is taking place in Darfur is genocide, and yet you actually had a high- level official who had worked at the State Department and National Security Council out there representing the Khartoum government.

You also have a number of law firms in this city that are now representing China, and I do not know how you live with yourself if you represent China and you are an American citizen. We had a meeting yesterday and we found out there are now 40 Catholic bishops and priests in jail in China today, 40. There are 4 to 6,000 evangelical house church people in jail today in China, and yet some of the big law firms downtown are representing China.

And then the beat goes on. You have them representing China with regard to what is taking place in the Uighurs, what is taking place with the Dalai Lama and in Tibet.

So I think the gentlewoman's amendment and position is exactly right. We will do everything we can to make sure that it is on line so we can find out who has the audacity to represent Sudan and the Khartoum government during the days of genocide and the same thing with regard to China.

So we will look forward to working with the gentlewoman.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Washington for raising this issue. He has talked to me so many times, and I appreciate his persistence.

I want to thank him for his leadership on issues important to law enforcement and the fight against meth and the spread of gangs in our communities. I understand your perspective on this concern as a former law enforcement officer, and I am glad I was able to work with you to provide increased funding under the COPS program; and, frankly, if we could do more when we get to conference, we will be glad to do that.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of H.R. 5672 in the Committee of the Whole, pursuant to House Resolution 890, notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no further amendment to the bill may be offered except: pro forma amendments offered at any point in the reading by the chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees for the purpose of debate; amendments printed in the Record and numbered 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25; an amendment by each of the following specified Members:

Mr. Reichert, regarding funding for the Justice Assistance grant program, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes;

Ms. Brown-Waite, regarding funding for VAWA program;

Ms. Velazquez, regarding funding for the SBA, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes;

Mr. Hinchey, regarding funding limitation on implementation of medical marijuana laws, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes;

Mr. Wolf or Mr. Mollohan, regarding funding for State and local law enforcement assistance;

Mr. Obey, regarding funding for Legal Services Corporation;

Mr. Boswell, regarding funding for criminal records upgrades;

Mr. Wynn, regarding funding for drug courts;

Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut, regarding funding for FBI salaries and expenses;

Mr. Mollohan, regarding funding for various programs and tax law changes;

Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota, regarding funding for Justice Assistance grant program;

Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota, regarding funding for Justice Assistance grant program;

Mr. Barrow, regarding funding for SCAAP;

Ms. Millender-McDonald, regarding funding for drug courts;

Mr. Garrett of New Jersey, regarding funding for Justice Assistance grant programs;

Mr. Reyes, regarding funding for the Southwest Border Initiative;

Mr. Fossella, regarding funding for COPS bulletproof vest program;

Mr. Lynch, regarding funding for COPS bulletproof vest program;

Mr. Renzi, regarding funding for tribal law enforcement;

Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, regarding funding limitation on targeting segments of the Muslim and Arab communities for national security investigations;

Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, regarding funding limitation on State and local anti-drug task forces that do not collect data on the racial distribution of convictions;

Mr. Brown of Ohio, regarding USTR funding for China enforcement;

Mr. Brown of Ohio, regarding ITA funding for the Office of China compliance;

Mr. Rogers of Michigan, regarding funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program;

Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, regarding funding for NOAA;

Mr. Gilchrest, regarding funding for certain NOAA programs;

Mr. Thompson of California, regarding funding for Pacific Coastal salmon recovery;

Mr. Brown of Ohio, regarding funding for NASA aeronautics research;

Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, regarding funding for NASA education programs;

Ms. Watson, regarding funding for the Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs;

Mr. Murphy, regarding funding reduction for FCC unless certain rulemaking occurs;

Mrs. Davis of California, regarding funding for the National Veterans Business Development Corporation;

Mr. Obey, amending FLSA with respect to the minimum wage;

Mr. Andrews, regarding funding limitation on revisions to OMB circular A-76;

Mr. Baird, regarding funding limitation on motions filed under section 3730 of title 31;

Mr. Capuano, regarding funding for young witness assistance grants;

Mr. Cardoza, regarding funding for drug endangered children grant program;

Mr. Culberson, regarding funding limitation on activities in contravention of section 1373 of title 8;

Ms. DeGette, regarding funding for Internet Crimes Against Children task forces;

Ms. DeLauro, regarding funding for sexual assault services grants;

Mr. Engel, regarding funding limitation on energy efficiency standards;

Mr. Etheridge, regarding the Hometown Heroes Act;

a funding limitation by Mr. Flake on each of the following: Rochester, New York Tooling and Machining Association for a workforce development program;

Bronx Council for marketing of local business arts initiatives;

Arthur Avenue Retail Market for local business requirements and improvements;

Wisconsin Procurement Initiative;

JARI for a regional business incubator;

Fairmont State University for a small business development initiative;

Fairplex Trade and Conference Center;

Southern and Eastern Kentucky Tourism Development Association;

JARI Workforce Development Program and Small Business Technology Center;

Oil Region Alliance of Business, Industry and Tourism;

Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, regarding funding limitation on manned space mission to Mars;

Mr. Garrett of New Jersey, requiring annual report on U.S. contributions to the U.N. and affiliated entities;

Mr. Gingrey, regarding funding limitation on participation under the Visa Waiver program;

Mr. Hinchey, regarding funding limitation on ``Knock and Announce'' policies;

Mr. Hinchey, regarding medical marijuana and transfers of funds for certain State and local programs;

Mr. Hinchey, regarding funding limitation for FCC licenses based on ownership;

Mr. Hinchey, regarding funding limitation on private phone records from data and credit brokers;

Mr. Inslee, regarding funding for children and youth programs and the national tribal sexual offender registry;

Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, regarding funding for juvenile justice programs;

Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, regarding funding for the juvenile delinquency prevention block grant program;

Mrs. Jones of Ohio, regarding funding limitation on the EEOC National Contact Center;

Mr. King of Iowa, regarding funding for enforcement of section 642 of the IIRIRA;

Mr. Kucinich, regarding funding limitation on NASA involuntary separations;

Mr. Lipinski, regarding funding for Law Enforcement Tribute Act;

Mr. McCaul of Texas, regarding funding limitation on U.N. peacekeeping missions in which U.N. employees under investigation have not been removed;

Mr. McCaul of Texas, regarding funding limitation on the U.N. Human Rights Council unless certain members are removed;

Mr. McCotter, regarding funding limitation on filing under FARA unless certain conditions are met;

Mr. Nadler, regarding funding for the Jessica Gonzalez Victims Assistance Program;

Mr. Nadler, regarding funding for FBI salaries and expenses;

Mr. Nadler, regarding funding limitation on issuance of NSA letters to health insurance companies;

Mr. Sherman, regarding funding limitation on detention of enemy combatants;

Mr. Sodrel, regarding funding limitation on enforcement of the final judgment issued in Hinrichs v. Bosman;

Mr. Tiahrt, regarding competitiveness;

Ms. Watson or Mr. Issa, regarding funding limitation on accession of the Russian Federation into the WTO unless USTR makes certain certifications;

Mr. Waxman, regarding funding limitation on Industry Trade Advisory Committee on Chemicals unless certain membership requirements are met;

Mr. Weiner, regarding funding for COPS hiring program; and

an amendment or amendments by Mr. Wolf.

Each such amendment may be offered only by the Member named in this request or a designee, or by the Member who caused it to be printed in the Record or a designee, shall be considered as read, shall not be subject to amendment except that the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations and the Subcommittee on Science, the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, and Related Agencies each may offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of debate; and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.

Except as otherwise specified, each amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. An amendment shall be considered to fit the description stated in this request if it addresses in whole or in part the object described.

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

My amendment proposes to move $1 million from Justice General Administration in order to restore funding eliminated from the budget request for the Missing Alzheimer's program. This program is critical to supporting law enforcement efforts to find missing adults suffering from the terrible disease of Alzheimer's.

This is very important because Alzheimer's is a very difficult situation for both the individual with Alzheimer's and the family members. I offer it on behalf of Mr. Mollohan, and I know Congresswoman Maxine Waters strongly, strongly supports the adoption of the amendment.

I do, Mr. Chairman.

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

Well, I won't repeat myself. The amendment proposes to move $1 million from Justice General Administration in order to restore funding eliminated from the budget request for the Missing Alzheimer's program. It is a very important and very needed program.

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

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time on this side. I know my colleague has a group who want to speak.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment again, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to salute the gentleman. He made some very important points. But we have had to make some difficult decisions putting this bill together.

The bill already includes $314 million for the Legal Services Corporation. This used to be politicized. It has not been politicized. It is an increase of $3 million above the President's request. That means we cut $3 million from some other part of the bill to increase funding for the Legal Services Corporation.

There are a number of areas in the bill that we would increase funding for if we didn't have to restore $1.1 billion for State and local law enforcement.

Unlike the Legal Services, which is funded above the request, we have already cut from the request of State Department's Diplomatic and Consular Affairs operations account by $147 million. Our bill provides a modest increase of $77 million or 2.1 percent to cover pay and inflationary costs for the Department.

The only increases that the funding supports are new positions for critical posts around the world to support our national interests in emerging nations like India, China, Egypt and Indonesia.

In addition, we have supported an increase for the Office of Stabilization and Reconstruction and for new critical language training positions.

We are in a global war on terror. This amendment cuts into already reduced amounts to support the diplomatic side of this effort. North Korea has just threatened to test a nuclear weapon. Iran continues its efforts to develop a nuclear program.

Further, this amendment would cut $5 million from the Department of Justice administration account. The bill already reduces that request for general administration by $25 million or 22 percent below the request. The Acting Assistant Attorney General for Administration has written us to inform us that, at the current level of funding in the bill, 58 positions will be eliminated at the Department of Justice headquarters.

Additional cuts will hinder the Department's abilities to effectively manage more than $20 billion in appropriations, operate hundreds of DOJ facilities, manage 100,000 employees and coordinate public policy.

We have done the best we can. We have also got the Manufacturing Extension Program up. We have increased drug courts by 300 percent. So a bill that treats the diverse accounts within our jurisdiction, I think, has been done as fairly as we can. Therefore, I urge the rejection of the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, there is a lot I want to say. I don't know if I can say it in that much time. The gentleman's amendment would increase Justice Assistance grants by $25 million, reduce Justice General Administration by $10 million, and NOAA by 15. I understand and I appreciate the gentleman's passion for law enforcement. These programs have helped a lot. The bill already includes a $50 million increase for JAG, and an increase of $1.1 billion for local law enforcement above the request. Sometimes it doesn't matter, but it is above the request. And the gentleman's offsets would create some difficulties at Justice and NOAA.

But the gentleman has worked. I think he has made a good point in crafting the amendment. I know he and others would actually prefer higher amendments. There were other amendments rolling around here in the 40 to $50 million range. Somehow, this Congress is going to have to deal with the issues of all of the spending that is coming on and how do we get control.

Now, there will be others to come up, some that are actually good amendments, because they really help people. But we are going to devastate other programs. And it is sort of like Dietrich Bonhoffer with Cheap Grace. You can go into some general administration area that nobody understands

or knows anything about, and then there will be no money for general administrations.

I have introduced a bill, I sent out a Dear Colleague letter asking people to cosponsor a national commission based on the base closing commission with everything on the table to deal with these issues, because it is fundamentally immoral for one generation to live on the next generation and our children and our grandchildren and the whole spending issue. I share what the gentleman from West Virginia said, on some of these amendment passes, and then there is no money for administration, no money for this, and no money for that.

But there is probably not a more sincere individual on this issue, probably because of his work. And my father was a policeman in the city of Philadelphia. I understand these issues, and we want to give our law enforcement the resources, particularly with crime growing up.

So I have no objection to the gentleman's amendment.

If the gentleman would yield, it is a good amendment. We accept the amendment. I think we took it last year too, if I recall. And I thank the gentleman for offering it. And on this side we strongly accept it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

The gentlewoman's amendment would increase funding for grants to prevent violence against women by $10 million by decreasing funds for the Justice Department's General Administration by $5 million and the Census Bureau by $5 million.

I understand and appreciate the gentlewoman's passion for her efforts to prevent violence against women. The bill already, though, includes a $9 million increase for these programs, but we recognize that an increased investment is important.

I just wanted to say, for the record, although it will be difficult for the Census Bureau, this offset will neither impact the ramp up of the 2010 decennial census nor the American Community Survey.

With that understanding, I have no objection to the amendment.

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

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

I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The 7(a) program has been operating at record levels without subsidy appropriations since the beginning of 2005. If this amendment passes, do not ever go home and say that you are going to balance the budget. Just forget it. This is the ``forget to balance the budget and get control of the budget'' amendment. We have had record loans with no 7(a) fees, and now we want to do this.

The SBA administrator continues to assure us that the program is running strong. I have a letter from them confirming the success at redesigning the 7(a) program so it does not require a subsidy. No good deed goes unpunished. It does not require a subsidy, and we are going to spend all these millions of dollars? How would you ever explain it? How would you say we have got record

numbers, but we are going to subsidize it? Forget it. We would never, ever, ever, ever solve the deficit of this Nation.

The new model has brought down the stability of the lending community and borrowers. This is a ``bail-out the banks'' amendment. Bail out the banks. Only the bankers care about this, a small portion of the bankers, and I do not know if the bankers are writing us about the deficit either.

Demand has skyrocketed. Since lending levels are no longer tied to an appropriation, the program has been able to meet the demand. That, by not being tied, has been able to meet the demand. This is a good government success story.

There is much more that I could say. It goes on and on and on, but I just urge Members, do not pass this amendment. This is the ``how do you spend $100 million without needing to spend it,'' and I guess the question is if we really care about the future generations of our children and our grandchildren. We will never get control of it. I mean, I cannot even believe we are out here doing this. If this were the Violence Against Women or some of the programs that are here that your heart goes out to but you do not have the money, but there is no need for it and they are at record numbers.

I urge a ``no'' vote against this amendment.

U.S. Small Business

Administration,

Washington, DC, June 27, 2006.

Hon. Frank Wolf,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, the

Judiciary, and Related Agencies, Committee on

Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I want to thank you again for your

support of America's small businesses. I would also like to

take this opportunity to reiterate the Administration's

strong support for a zero subsidy rate for the U.S. Small

Business Administration's (SBA) 7(a) loan program. In what

will certainly be another tight appropriations cycle, a zero

subsidy rate for 7(a) will save the taxpayers approximately

$170 million, while at the same time providing unprecedented

stability to the program.

In the past, some have expressed unrealized concerns that

zero subsidy would stifle the 7(a) loan program because of a

very slight fee increase required. As you can see from the

enclosed explanation and charts, 7(a) lending has increased

significantly while taxpayer dollars have been saved.

Further, current 7(a) fees--previously a source of

significant industry concern--are in line with historical

rates. Like other costs in business, these fees fluctuate

based on market conditions. In fiscal year (FY) 2007 there

will need to be a slight fee change of .5 basis points. This

equates to approximately $2.80 per month on an average loan

size of $160,000.

It is also important to note that zero subsidy is not only

good for the taxpayer but for the stability of the program,

the most crucial aspect of the program according to borrowers

and lenders. (Zero subsidy began in FY 2001.). As you know,

in January 2004 the SBA was forced to temporarily close the

7(a) program because it had exhausted its funding under the

Continuing Resolution. Once the program was restarted, and

after Congress passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act for

FY 2004, the SBA was forced to manage the program through

restrictive loan caps because demand continued to outpace the

program's funding level. Regardless of the amount Congress

appropriates for 7(a) in any given fiscal year, there will be

the chance that demand could exceed that level, forcing

either another shutdown or caps on loan amounts. By

eliminating the need for an appropriation, potential program

``shortfalls'' may be avoided. Program levels in the form of

authorization limits would still apply, of course.

It should also be noted that SBA's other major loan

programs, Section 504 Guarantee Program and Small Business

Investment Company (SBIC) Guarantee Program., have functioned

at zero subsidy for several years. This provides our lending

partners with what they want most from our loan programs--

consistency and continuity.

Mr. Chairman, zero subsidy for the 7(a) program is a

simple, common-sense approach that has brought the program in

line with our other major financial programs. Zero subsidy is

still the best policy for the long-term stability and growth

of the 7(a) loan program. We have been able to maintain

record lending during the past few years under zero subsidy.

Lending has not been hampered by appropriations shortfalls,

such as those that occurred in 2003 and 2004. For these

reasons the Administration urges you to continue the

successful zero subsidy policy in the FY 2007 Appropriations

bill.

Sincerely,

Hector V. Barreto,

Administrator.

Zero Subsidy--The Best Policy

Zero subsidy is still the best policy for the long term

stability and growth of the Small Business Administration's

various loan programs. The SBA has been able to maintain

record lending during the past few years under the zero

subsidy policy. The benefits of zero subsidy also results in

a funding structure that adds stability and independence

while ensuring that the lending process is not hampered by

appropriations shortfalls such as those which occurred in

2003 and 2004.

In FY 2005, the SBA served more small businesses than ever

before. In SBA's two major loan programs, they increased the

numbers of loans funded by 22% in one year. These record

level lending numbers are possible because of the zero

subsidy policy that was adopted at the beginning of FY 2005.

The SBA guaranteed a record number of loans last year, with

double digit increases in the percentage of loans to women,

Hispanics, African Americans and Asian Americans. Maintaining

zero subsidy wi1l allow the SBA to build on the success

they've had in these important loan programs, and will

provide more businesses with the capital needed to start up

and expand.

Moving to zero subsidy allowed the Agency to continue to

meet the financing demands of small businesses without the

need for taxpayer subsidy. In today's tough budget

environment, SBA has proven their ability to provide more

loans to small businesses and entrepreneurs while reducing

the burden on taxpayers.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), chairman of the Small Business Committee, who has convinced me of the merits of this.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

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

Mr. Chairman, where do they get this money from? $5.9 million would be provided to cover the cost for blast mitigation in windows at the Department of Commerce. So you are basically saying to the Department of Commerce, we don't care if there is a blast here; you can't get your blast windows. You can't get your windows, so you can give a subsidy to the banks that will give no additional loans.

Also, this will result in RIFs at the Small Business Administration. So if you don't want loans to go to the small businesses, support this amendment, because there will be RIFs and they won't be able to make the loans. Zero subsidy means more loans. Loans are up almost 20 percent from 2005 over 2004.

I think the people at the Department of Commerce have every right to have the same protection that the people in this building have. They are not second-class citizens. They are covered by this bill. They need blast protection windows. Also it is not right to RIF the employees at the SBA to give a subsidy to bankers who don't need the subsidy.

Lastly, don't ever give another deficit reduction speech if you vote for this amendment. Don't ever, ever give

it, because the loans are up with it; and actually the adoption of this may very well reduce the loans.

So I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, our Members should know that this cuts the Justice Department litigating division by $40 million. The bill already cuts this account by $16 million below the level requested. This account that they are cutting funds critical justice litigating activities such as the criminal division. Wow, this is good news for the criminals, because they will not be litigated; we are going to cut the funding.

To combat gangs. Gangs are spreading. MS-13 are spreading around the Nation. But we cut it. Prosecute intellectual property rights crimes. Wow. Are you going to cut Katrina fraud cases. No way. The civil rights division prosecution of human traffickers. Women and children are being trafficked. Justice prosecutes, but we are going to cut the money so they cannot do it.

For all of you who care about the environment, the environmental and natural resources division prosecution of organizations that violate our environmental laws go away. The tax division prosecution of tax fraud, impacted. This account also funds the U.S. dues for Interpol. We are in a global war on terror. We need to work with Interpol. So we cut them.

The Name Checks that the gentleman is concerned about are funded through a fee. There is a backlog in the Name Checks Program because the fees the FBI charges are not sufficient to adequately cover the cost of the program.

In the fiscal year 2006 report, we directed the FBI to review this fee structure and submit a report to the Committee. The fee review is ongoing and a report is estimated to be submitted in August. In addition to this year's bill, we also include additional report language in this bill directing the FBI to work with the agencies that request these background checks to ensure that sufficient resources are made available to eliminate the backlog.

The gentleman is on the authorizing committee that oversees the FBI and immigration issues. If he wants to address the issue, he would go to the Judiciary Committee that he serves on, introduce a bill, try to convince Mr. Sensenbrenner to deal with it.

This amendment also would cut 200 employees; we just added Justice Assistance grants here not too long ago, because we are concerned about crime. This would cut more than 200 employees working to combat crime such as organized crime, gangs, human traffickers, Katrina fraud, and environmental crimes in order to fund the FBI Name Checks that are fee- funded.

This would be a blow to the Justice Department litigating capacity. If you wanted to say do not prosecute organized crime, do not worry about the environmental convictions you have to go after, do not worry about the tax frauds, how will you do it then? You cannot say you are going to go after them and take their money away.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge a ``no'' vote for this amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I accept the amendment. The committee, working with Mr. Mollohan, has tried to increase this as much as possible. I would urge any Member that has not been out to the Center for Missing and Exploited Children in Alexandria, that they ought to go. As a father of 11 grandchildren, I commend both of you and thank you very much and think we should accept the amendment.

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

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

The gentleman stated that this bill was below the Administration's request. We are above the Administration's request for prisons. We are not below.

Secondly, our Subcommittee last year put together what they called a Gingrich-Mitchell Commission, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and former Minority Leader Mitchell, to look at the U.N. reform, and they have come up with a good package, and they are working on this issue.

The State Department opposes this amendment. John Bolten up at the State Department says, and I quote, ``We must determine whether the U.N. Human Rights Council will be a body that the world will respect and take seriously.'' Its status is no longer characteristic of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights.

That said, the United States will work cooperatively with other member states to make the Council as strong and effective as it can be. We will be supportive of efforts to strengthen the Council and look forward to a serious review of the Council structure and work.

I have been as critical as anybody else, and I will stipulate perhaps more than anybody else, on the whole issue of the Human Rights Commission with regard to China, with regard to Sudan and with regard to these others, but this would complicate the Administration's efforts.

The Secretary of State, Secretary Rice, is opposed to this. The State Department is opposed to this. The Administration is opposed to this.

Change it by dealing with it through the Gingrich-Mitchell Task Force and put pressure on them, but do not complicate the life of John Bolten and Secretary Rice up there.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).

Mr. Chairman, I close by saying let us do what we did in the Gingrich-Mitchell thing. The U.N. has made a lot of mistakes. John Bolten is no wallflower. I support what John Bolten is trying to do up there, and I don't think we should complicate the administration's life by doing this.

I yield to the gentleman if he would like to say something.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I do. I make a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment, that it is in violation of section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

The Committee on Appropriations filed a suballocation of the budget for fiscal year 2007 on June 6, 2006, House Report 109-488. The adoption of this amendment would cause the subcommittee's suballocation for budget authority made under section 302(b) to be exceeded and is not permitted under section 302(f) of the act.

I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I accept the amendment on this side.

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

Mr. Chairman, if you were to listen to this debate, you would assume that this bill has zero in it for meth. I urge Members to turn to page 11. I know nobody reads the reports here, and it is pretty obvious, but in order to help Federal, State and local law enforcement address the meth epidemic, the recommendation provides $367 million for the Justice Assistance Grants which the administration proposed to eliminate, $99 million for meth specific grants, which is the authorized level, and $58 million above the budget request, $40,000 for drug core programs, an increase of $30 million with regard to that.

You act as if we haven't done anything on meth. This amendment will devastate the census. I mean, no good deed goes unpunished in this institution sometimes. The administration zeros all this out. We met with every Member. Every Member that approached the committee, we tried to sit down and work it out with them to the best of it, to no avail.

Then we just accepted the Reichert amendment. God bless Mr. Reichert for his efforts. He has probably forgotten more about this than most other Members, $25 million more that has just been accepted. Now we come out with another 50, 50, 50.

Then, where does he get the money from? I think in the Constitution they talk about the census. It is my sense that that is in the census in the Constitution. At this stage, a reduction of this magnitude to the 2010 decennial census programs will impact fundamental missions of the Census Bureau, reapportionment, the funding that goes out to different localities. A complete and accurate count in 2010 will not be able to be achieved, particularly when they look for the dress rehearsal.

The immediate ramifications are a disproportionate impact on vulnerable populations, irretrievable loss of testing opportunities to identify the problems. What can you say? Forget the census, blow it off, and put this in, even though the committee has increased it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).

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

Mr. Chairman, I tried, the committee tried. Every Member who spoke to me on either side, we really made a really sincere effort to address it.

I went to Nebraska. I went out to Nebraska. The gentleman from Nebraska is right: they have a real, real problem.

But if you would just kind of listen to this debate, you would automatically, if you were just tuning in in Dubuque or Des Moines, you would assume that there was nothing in here, that we had just been stone deaf, that we had not even listened. We added also, to keep in mind, we just added, under the Reichert amendment, $25 million.

But in the committee report, on page 11, after really searching, I was very moved when I went out to Nebraska. I thought we want to do everything. And I have talked to Mr. Souder. And every time, I thought I have tried to do everything I could.

Now, as Mr. Obey said, the budget resolutions come down, and the deficits are important and we talk. But here is what the conference report says:

``In order to help the Federal, State and local law enforcement address the meth epidemic, the recommendation provides $367 million for the Justice Assistance Grants program,'' they were wiped out, ``which the administration proposed to eliminate; $99 million for meth-specific grants, which is the authorized level, and $58 million plus above the budget request; $40,000 for Drug Court programs, which is $30 million above the current year, $5 million for State Prison Drug Treatment programs, which the administration proposed to eliminate, and also $15 million above the request for DEA.''

But if I had just listened to this debate, I would assume that this guy, Wolf, he was AWOL. He had no interest in meth. He was insensitive.

Of course, my father was a policeman. I have five kids. I have 11 grandkids. I think the deficit is a problem. I sit in Republican conferences, and I even hear people talk about it.

The Constitution requires that we do the census. It requires it. It isn't optional. We will use it to reapportion. And so I think what is taken here, you go to the weakest and the most vulnerable. There is not a lobby downtown for the Census Bureau. It just is not.

It is an easy vote. I am going to call for a roll call vote. We will have a roll call vote. But there is no support for the census, except in the Constitution. This guy named Jefferson and Washington and Madison and Monroe, they thought it was important.

But now we are going to take $50 million. I am sort of baffled. I guess it would have been almost easier to sometimes just not kind of go up anytime and try to listen, and then come down and take amendments on the floor that you were almost going to take.

I think I am going to lose this amendment. But I believe that I am right. And I believe for us to take this money out of the Census Bureau, I think they could have probably found another spot. But one spot has a strong lobby downtown; probably a lot of registered lobbyists are working on that area. Another, are there any registered lobbyists for the Census Bureau? Zero. Zip.

I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.

Reclaiming my time, constitutional requirement, article I, section 2, we are required to take the decennial census. We ramp up to it. There has been controversy on this legislation. I say, God bless the Members that offered this. If you really feel so strong, vote for it. And I hope the money goes for the good. But I think when I look at this, I kind of feel, looking at this, as we work this bill through, I just don't understand. And I don't see how we can just take it from there. Patton, Boggs and Blow doesn't represent the census. Aiken Gump doesn't represent the census. They represent the Chinese, but not the census.

So we are going to go to the weakest, most vulnerable. Article I, section 2 of the Constitution.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman and his party have 5 additional minutes to make their case.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that both sides give the opposition the same time so that the gentleman from Indiana and the gentleman from Minnesota and others have equal time.

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, though I am not in opposition since the gentlewoman has withdrawn the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I pledge to do everything we can in conference, and I know Mr. Mollohan feels the same way and we have had the conversation with other members, to keep the figure at this number. It is a 300 percent increase. Drug courts are very, very important. So I will do everything I can, and I know Mr. Mollohan will also agree, to keep this in. And I thank the gentlewoman.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring the attention of the House to an article I recently read about Tiger Woods in The Stuttering Foundation's summer newsletter. I stuttered as a child and I think it's important for

kids to know that they can overcome this complex disorder. Tiger Woods is an excellent example of the many people who have led successful productive lives despite struggling with stuttering as a child.

Tiger Wins at Golf--and Stuttering

Top-ranked golfer Tiger Woods tells CBS's 60 Minutes that

it takes hard work and a competitive spirit to overcome

childhood stuttering.

``The words got lost, you know, somewhere between the brain

and the mouth. And it was very difficult, but I fought

through it. I went to a school to try and get over that, and

I just would work my tail off,'' Woods told the news program

in April.

``The parallels between speech performance and sports

performance are striking,'' said Jane Fraser, president of

the Stuttering Foundation, ``and Tiger Woods is the latest

example of how the many hours of practice and hard work to

win in sports are no different from those long hours spent in

therapy for stuttering.''

NBA Hall of Famer and sports commentator Bill Walton dealt

with stuttering just like he did basketball. ``I thought

about the fundamentals of the game and how to start with the

basics like the ability to mechanically duplicate moves on a

basketball court. And then I just applied that to speaking.''

Chicago Bulls' legend Bob Love notes that ``countless hours

of work taught me to manage moments of difficult speech.''

In a recent interview, Denver Nuggets' star Kenyon Martin

said of his stuttering, ``How I got through it was just by

working hard at it.''

U.S. Open golf champion Ken Venturi adds, ``I have had to

work through the years to overcome stuttering and to speak

more easily and fluently.'' Venturi compares moving smoothly

through speech to moving gracefully through a golf stroke.

``Tiger Woods is the perfect role model for all school-age

children who struggle with this complex disorder,'' said

Fraser. The Foundation offers free resources at

www.stutteringhelp.org where Tiger joins a long list of

celebrities who stutter.

The war on terror and this whole thing began really in 1980 when our embassy was taken over in Iran and the bombing of the Marine barracks in 1983, Lebanon, embassy in 1983, USS Cole, Khobar Towers, Nairobi, Tanzania.

I have so much that I want to say. I will just say this. If we were to set a date, the Mujahedin would say we defeated the Russians in Afghanistan, we defeated America in Iraq and the jihad would take place all over this world. This would be a very, very dangerous thing to say.

So I rise in strong, strong support of this resolution and say we can and will win this war. I remember when I read the book by Whittaker Chambers. He was a witness. He said when I left the Communist Party, I believed I was leaving the winning side and joining the losing side. Whittaker Chambers was wrong because of people like Ronald Reagan. We must be resolute. I rise in support of the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 861 and to show my support for our troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan who are on the front lines in the global war on terrorism. I commend our forces for the recent actions in targeting Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the insurgent leader killed in an airstrike June 7. I also commend President Bush for his visit earlier this week to Iraq to meet with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and encourage the work of the new Iraqi government.

I share the deep concerns about the continuing violence in post-war Iraq, which is taking the lives of U.S. military personnel and civilians. I continue to pray for the protection of the men and women who are putting their lives on the line every day to help the Iraqi people as they build their own government, and also for their families here at home who continue to make tremendous sacrifices.

I recognize there were good and reasonable people on both sides of the decision to send U.S. armed forces to Iraq. But whether or not you agreed with that decision, we are there now and cannot just walk away. Too much is at stake. The success of our efforts in Iraq and the success of the Iraqi people in establishing their own government are critical to the overall war against terror and to the security of our country and the world.

Our efforts in Iraq, many believe, are an important campaign in the global war on terrorism. Our world is a dangerous place, and as we learned on September 11, 2001, terrorism is not something in a far away land. We did not seek this war. We were attacked on our own soil, and this war is a different kind than any our Nation has ever fought. But it is one we are fighting to make our own nation and the world more secure. It is critical that we remain resolute in this fight.

I believe a case can be made that the war on terrorism really began more than 20 years ago with the attacks against America at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon. The bombing there in the spring of 1983 killed 63 and wounded 120. Later that year, 241 U.S. servicemen--220 Marines, 18 Navy members and three Army members--were killed when a truck bomb exploded at their barracks in Beirut. Those attacks were followed in 1993 by the first World Trade Center bombing in New York City, in 1996 by the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, in 1998 by the U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, and in 2000 in the attack in Yemen on the USS Cole.

After the attacks on the two embassies in Africa in 1998, I became very concerned about the U.S. response to terrorism and authored the legislation creating the National Commission on Terrorism. On the cover of that report is a photo of the twin towers in New York on fire after the 1993 attack. The foreboding nature of that photo is now all too real as we relive the destruction of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

Late last summer I returned to Iraq for a third time. I have now visited all but the Kurdish areas in northern Iraq. With each successive trip, I have seen improvements--renovated schools, cleaner water systems, new Iraqi army constituted. I also have seen the continuing and serious security problems and other challenges facing a liberated Iraq, and I

have heard caution from varied sources about the potentially cataclysmic consequences of America withdrawing before our mission is complete. I had the opportunity to speak with our troops who are performing their duties with professionalism and dedication. They are positive about their mission and are doing an outstanding job in fulfilling it.

One interesting comment I heard on that trip is that we can't expect to rebuild Iraq on our timetable, but rather it must be on Iraq's timetable. Life--and timetables--in Iraq are not the same as in the United States. This is a very key point, and one the Bush administration needs to do a better job of explaining.

It also is important to remember that the United States had its share of growing pains. While our revolution was in 1776 it was 11 years before our forefathers began to draft a constitution and it wasn't ratified until 1789. Few remember that our constitution was debated in complete secrecy. Delegates knew that they would generate heated differences and did not want to advertise their own dissensions or put crippling arguments into the mouths of the opposition. We also had leaders like George Washington, Ben Franklin, George Mason and James Madison who had the benefit of understanding British history in addition to being exposed to the workings of the House of Commons. Democracy and an elected government is truly a foreign concept to the Iraqi people.

The Bush administration also needs to do a better job of explaining what the consequences of ``failing'' in Iraq would mean to the average person in Chantilly, VA, Topeka, KS, or Portland, OR. I repeatedly asked people I met during the trip--from generals, to State Department officials, to members of the Iraqi government--what they thought ``failure'' would mean. The responses were frightening.

I heard references to Somalia--think of the movie ``Black Hawk Down''--and the former Yugoslavia with all its ethnic cleansing. The images that flashed in my mind when I heard these countries were disturbing. I was in Somalia during the crisis in 1993. I traveled to Sarajevo and the Yugoslavia region several times in the early to mid- 1990s where so many were killed. In fact, all the people I met with in Vukovar, Croatia, in 1991 were killed several months later and are now buried in mass graves.

Many speculated that civil war would break out in Iraq and even more foreign fighters from across the region would pour into Iraq in hopes of influencing the outcome. I was told almost all of the insurgents carrying out the suicide attacks are foreigners, most coming across the Syrian border from places like Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan and Afghanistan. I was told militias continue to fight each other on a regular basis in some parts of the country.

If our mission fails and civil war comes, the country would almost certainly break into three parts: the Kurds in the north, the Sunnis in central Iraq, and the Shias in the south. It is believed the Kurds would most likely be able to keep from being drawn into the fighting and govern themselves. In the central region of the Sunni Triangle, warring factions would fight for control and most agree that there would be sheer chaos. Iran's presence was felt in the south as it tried to influence the recent elections and if civil war were to break out, elements in Iran may well involve themselves in the south.

With civil war, almost everyone I asked said that Iraq would become a haven from which terrorist groups could launch attacks against the United States and other countries. No one has to be reminded of what happened on 9/11. Thirty people from my congressional district died that day among the 3,000 who perished.

Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups would like nothing more than to have a new ``base'' from which to operate, much like Afghanistan in the 1990s after the Soviets were defeated. There is no denying that the terrorists have designs on the United States and, as one officer told me, ``We must win the war so we don't fight the next war in America.''

Terrorists are doing everything in their power to prevent the United States and its coalition partners from being successful in Iraq. They believe time is on their side and that they can ``wait out'' the United States. They will do anything--including blowing themselves up in busy marketplaces--to disrupt our progress and turn the Iraqi people against us. They believe that the war being fought in Iraq is not a ``military'' war but rather a ``political'' war and American public opinion will dictate when the United States leaves, not military success.

There is a general belief among terrorism experts that the top priority of terrorists is to seek chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons. The video of two commercial airliners being flown into the World Trade Center is ingrained in every American's mind. I shudder to think what terrorists would do if they obtained a biological or chemical weapon.

Many I spoke with also said failure in Iraq could destabilize the entire Gulf region and possibly lead to the downfall of the governments of Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

Failure also could have serious impact on the world's economy. Japan gets more than 75 percent of its oil from the region, Western Europe, 30 percent, and the United States, 22 percent. We saw what happened in the wake of Hurricane Katrina as consumers feared gas shortages. Failure in Iraq would make oil costs even higher and have a major negative impact throughout our entire economy.

Others said they believe the United States has a moral obligation to the people of Iraq to successfully complete what it started. They asked how the American public would feel if civil war were to break out and thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqis were slaughtered in the subsequent fighting?

Finally, many believe the United States's credibility is at stake. In a piece in the Washington Post's Outlook section last September, Victor Davis Hanson, a military historian at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and the author of ``A War Like No Other,'' wrote:

. . . If we fled precipitously, moderates in the Middle

East could never again believe American assurances of support

for reform and would have to retreat into the shadows--or

find themselves at the mercy of fascist killers. Jihadists

would swell their ranks as they hyped their defeat of the

American infidels. Our forward strategy of hitting terrorists

hard abroad would be discredited and replaced by a return to

the pre-9/11 tactics of a few cruise missiles and writs. And

loyal allies in Eastern Europe, the United Kingdom, Australia

and Japan, along with new friends in India and the former

Soviet republics, would find themselves leaderless in the

global struggle against Islamic radicalism.

Failure cannot be an option in Iraq nor can creating an arbitrary deadline for pulling out U.S. troops. The ramifications on our country and other countries in the West would be huge. Our withdrawal must be event driven and not artificially tied to a calendar. Many I talked to said we must set conditions for victory, not dates for withdrawal.

The Bush administration needs to do a better job articulating just what is at stake and the potentially catastrophic consequences. No one believes we will lose the war on the ground in Iraq; it's here at home that there is a concern. I had one general officer say point blank that the ``center of gravity'' for our success in Iraq is the American public.

That said, I strongly believe that it would be of great value to have an independent review of ongoing operations in Iraq. I call this effort ``fresh eyes on the target'' and offered this suggestion following my latest trip to Iraq. On March 15, I was pleased to attend the announcement of the formation of the 10-member bipartisan Iraq Study Group, being led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton, who co-chaired the 9/11 Commission. The members, as are their co-leaders, are among America's most honorable and venerable citizens: former CIA Director Robert Gates, former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese, former Clinton adviser Vernon Jordan, former Clinton Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, former Defense Secretary William Perry, former Virginia Senator Chuck Robb, former Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson, and former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

The study group was launched in partnership with the United States Institute of Peace, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Center for the Study of the Presidency, and the Baker Institute for Public Policy at Rice University. Its mission is to undertake a bipartisan, forward-looking assessment of the current and prospective situation on the ground in Iraq, its impact on the surrounding region, and its consequences on U.S. interests and it will focus on political, military, security and reconstruction in Iraq. The group will travel to Iraq and report to the American people. I understand they will meet with President Bush this week.

It will assess what is working and what changes should be made in helping the Iraqi people to establish their own government and stop the terrorist insurgency which is continuing to foment the violence of the Saddam Hussein regime. One of the most critical jobs of this panel is to determine the ramifications of failure to accomplish our country's mission in Iraq and to explain that to the American people.

In the 1930s, the world failed to stand up to fascism. When we--with our allies--did stand up and fight, we defeated fascism. It also took some time for the world to stand up to communism. But when we did, we defeated communism. Now we face al Qaeda and its leader Osama bin Laden, who in his own words has said he will use chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons against us. We must continue the determined effort now that we have had in the wars over the years as we fight terrorism. Standing together, I believe we can defeat this threat to the freedoms and liberties and way of life we have fought to maintain for well over two centuries.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. I heard Mr. English speaking and wanted to come over to add my support for this resolution.

Frankly, this whole place ought to be packed with people speaking on behalf of this resolution. Today in China, the Catholic Church is being severely persecuted. Why has the administration been silent, and other than this resolution, why has the Congress been relatively silent?

There are a number of Catholic bishops that are in jail today, as stated in the New York Times piece the other day. There is also the issue of what they have done to the Vatican with regard to the Chinese Communist Government. Evangelical church leaders are being persecuted. I just wanted to put my two cents in with regard to support of this.

For Members who just think this is another political thing, this is a moral issue.

Isaiah says, ``Learn to do right, seek justice, encourage the oppressed.'' By passing this resolution, we encourage the oppressed.

Isaiah goes on to say in Isaiah 59, ``The Lord looked and was displeased there was no justice.'' When the Lord looks at China, he has got to be displeased that there is no justice.

Isaiah goes on to say, ``He saw that there was no one, he was appalled that there was no one to intervene.'' Fortunately, Mr. English, Mr. Smith and Mr. Lantos are intervening.

But this Congress has to do more, and this administration's silence is becoming deafening on this issue. The condition in China with regard to the Catholic Church, the Protestant Church, the Uighurs, the Buddhists is worse today after President Hu left than before President Hu came.

I want to thank the gentlemen for cosponsoring this. We ought to have a roll call vote. Frankly, everybody ought to vote on this issue because this would send a message to the Chinese Communist Government that this Congress will become again like the Congress was during the 1980s during the Reagan administration and will not stand for it.

Madam Speaker, I want to just, before I talk on this resolution, mention the one on Tiananmen. I want to be here and have the world know that I stood with the tank man and stood with those who are in prison in Tiananmen.

Chris Smith and I were in Beijing Prison Number 1. I am sure he talked about it. But some of those young men and women are still in prison today, and some of you listening to this are wearing socks or underwear that have been made by them. So I want the world to know, Tiananmen Square demonstrators are still in prison, still in prison.

Now, on this resolution, I want to express grave disappointment with the Bush administration. I wrote every member of the Bush administration after meeting with dissidents in China and over here, who said, please have the Bush administration come to our church services, the way that they did in the Reagan administration with regard to the Soviet Union. They said, please, we will stand with them. We want someone, someone from the Bush administration to come into a house church. We are tired of seeing the Bush administration going into the churches that are recognized by the Chinese government.

So I wrote every high appointee in the Bush administration and I asked them would they call the individuals and stand with them, go to their apartments, as we used to do in the 1980s in Moscow with the Sakharovs and the Scharanksys, and in 3 months, not one Bush administration person has taken the time to pick up the telephone and to call the name and the telephone numbers of the individuals.

What do you get out of the Bush administration? Silence. Silence. We should remember the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, who said, and I quote, ``In the end we will remember not the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends.'' And Dr. King's statement is so poignant. ``In times of trouble, the silence of an enemy is expected, but the silence of a friend is devastating.'' I ask the Bush administration to break the silence. Speak out for Riba Qadiri, speak out for the Catholic Church. Speak out for the Evangelical Church. Speak out for those in Tibet who are being persecuted. The young Buddhist nun who came to my office 2 weeks ago had been in the Drapchi prison for 15 years for doing nothing.

This is a test. I am writing the Bush administration officials again, and I am giving the telephone number to call. I say now, with this opportunity, and I am going to give them the words of Dr. Martin Luther King. Silence should be over. It is now time for the Bush administration to adopt the policies of the Reagan administration, of Ronald Reagan, to stand with the dissidents because by standing next, it is like in government or politics. If somebody says they are really for you, but they don't want to be identified with you, how much are they really for you?

How much is the Bush administration really for the Catholic Church in China? How much is the Bush administration really for the Evangelical house church who are putting their lives on the line? How much are they for those who are being persecuted in Tibet? How much are they for the Uighurs? How much for the Falun Gong? And keep in mind, this government is spying against our government much more aggressively than they did in the Soviet Union.

I close again with the words of Dr. Martin Luther King. ``In the end we will remember not the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends.'' If the Bush administration wants to be the friends of the dissidents, the silence should be broken. And Clark Randt, our Ambassador in China, should be the first one to begin to break the silence.