Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the rapid spread of gambling in the United States, now largely through the dramatic expansion of tribal casinos, which are devastating America's communities and families.

Gambling ruins families. It ruins communities. It ruins businesses. Gamblers often neglect their families and lose their jobs, careers and marriages to the habit. Gambling preys on the weak and gambling exploits the poor. Study after study shows that when a casino opens in a community, crime and suicide and bankruptcies rise.

As if our Nation is not saturated enough with gambling operations, now comes news of plans to open a casino two miles from the historic Gettysburg battlefield. Yes, Gettysburg. Thousands of Americans from the north and the south died at Gettysburg. It is hallowed ground. Its place in our history is sacred.

Is there no place in America immune from the lure of gambling?

I recently wrote President Bush urging him to issue an Executive Order to halt the explosion of gambling with a 2-year moratorium on new tribal casinos. Why will the Bush administration not act?

Mr. Speaker, I held a news conference today to provide an update on actions taken by the Science-State-Justice-Commerce, SSJC, Appropriations subcommittee, which I chair, in assisting the FBI in its transformation efforts since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

I submit for the record my press statement as well as a white paper which outlines in detail the SSJC subcommittee's work:

Press Statement

(By Representative Frank R. Wolf)

Good morning. Thank you for coming.

As chairman of the subcommittee with oversight of the FBI,

I wanted to provide you with an update of the Science-State-

Judiciary-Commerce subcommittee's role in the transformation

of the FBI since 9/11 now that our bill has cleared the

House.

9/11 changed America forever. Terrorism is no longer just

something you read about happening somewhere else in the

world. Terrorism came to our shores on 9/11. Everyone always

will remember where they were and what they were doing on 9/

11. More than 30 people from my congressional district were

killed on 9/11; the pilot of the plane flown into the

Pentagon lived just a short distance from my house.

Sadly, several more of my constituents have made the

ultimate sacrifice fighting the war on terror. The servicemen

and women from across the country serving in harm's way in

Afghanistan and Iraq deserve our deepest gratitude. They are

doing an incredible job.

It is also important that we recognize those people

protecting us here at home. The FBI along with other federal,

state and local law enforcement agencies are doing good work

to ensure that terrorists don't strike again on American

soil. They all have tough jobs and are all making great

sacrifices.

I have the highest respect for the thousands of FBI agents

serving their country. I know many of them. They are

extremely dedicated and work incredibly long hours to protect

our country and their fellow citizens. The price they and

their families are paying is enormous.

Prior 9/11, the FBI's primary charge was solving crimes.

Now, preventing crimes--more specifically, acts of

terrorism--is priority one. This is a monumental shift, and

runs counter to everything almost every FBI agent in the past

was trained to do.

While the FBI is making progress adapting to its new role,

it also has made some missteps. Director Mueller deserves a

lot of the credit for the changes that already have been made

at the bureau. He also would be the first to admit there

is still a long way to go.

Change is never easy. We all resist it. But the changes

being asked of the FBI are critical to the safety of every

American.

Some believe an MI-5 approach would be better. But both the

9/11 Commission and the WMD Commission recommended against

implementing such a plan. The Bush Administration also is

opposed to the idea. That debate is over. It's time to move

forward.

The task at hand is not easy, and I know FBI agents are

working round-the-clock--and around the globe--to ensure our

safety. We have to remember that transforming the FBI is an

ongoing process, and is not going to happen overnight.

I take my role as chairman of the SSJC subcommittee very

seriously. I have worked hard to learn everything I can about

the FBI and the other law enforcement agencies under the

jurisdiction of the subcommittee. I am also deeply committed

to ensuring that Congress provide the proper--and necessary--

oversight of the transformation of the bureau.

I, and the subcommittee staff--both majority and minority--

have spent countless hours with Director Mueller and the

leadership of the FBI over the last 3\1/2\ years. We have

pushed the bureau, the Justice Department and the Bush

Administration to do the very best job possible--and more.

As you will recall, it was the SSJC subcommittee that asked

for the full House Appropriations Committee's Surveys and

Investigations staff to study the failure of the bureau's

Virtual Case Files program, including the FBI's contracting

procedures and management procedures related to the computer

system.

When Director Mueller began submitting his plans to

reorganize the bureau in the spring of 2002, I wanted to be

confident that the path being pursued was the correct one.

Toward that end, I put together what I call the ``FBI

Transformation Task Force'' Made up of staff from the

Government Accountability Office, the National Academy of

Public Administration, the Congressional Research Service,

the FBI, the Justice Department and majority and minority

staff of the House Appropriations Committee, the task force

regularly reviews the bureau's progress.

We also have consulted with staff from both the 9/11

Commission and WMD Commission as well as staff from the

Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General.

In June of 2002, the subcommittee held the first of what

have now become annual hearings to review the FBI's

restructuring. Director Mueller testified at that first

hearing and appeared again in 2003 and 2004. This year's

hearing is slated for September.

These hearings are different from the annual budget

hearings held each spring where agency heads come up to the

Hill and layout their spending priorities. These hearings

have focused solely on the transformation of the bureau. The

assessments of task force members such as GAO's David Walker

and NAPA's Dick Thornburgh--the attorney general under

President George H. W. Bush--have been candid and often

times pointed.

Not only has the task force served as a ``review'' board

for the FBI, it has developed a number of proposals that

ultimately have been incorporated into the annual spending

bills that fund the bureau. I should note that the

subcommittee has provided the bureau with a significant

increase in funding, from $3.2 billion in FY 2001 to $5.2

billion in FY 2005, to help meet the new challenges it faces.

That is an increase of 61 percent.

Attached to the copy of my remarks you have is a white

paper that breakdown the FBI changes by categories--such as

``Organizational Change,'' ``Training,'' and ``Interagency

Counterterrorism Task Forces''--to help you better grasp the

scope and breadth of these reforms. I won't go through every

one of the reforms listed on the white paper, but I do want

to highlight some, such as:

Creating a Directorate of Intelligence (Service-within-a-

Service) to specifically focus on intelligence analysis;

Funding a portion of the National Counterterrorism Center

to bring agencies from throughout the government to work

together to combat terrorism;

Creating the Science and Technology Advisory Board made up

of former senior-level intelligence and DOD staff to provide

independent advice to the director on emerging issues;

Among the members of the advisory board:

Arthur Money, former assistant secretary of defense for

command, control, communications and intelligence and DOD's

former chief information officer.

Craig Fields, former chairman of the Defense Science Board.

John Hamre, president of CSIS and former deputy secretary

of defense.

Providing new personnel authorities and increased funding

to attract and retain agents, analysts and support staff;

Mandating joint training between agents and analysts and

with other members of the intelligence community;

Transferring more than 500 agents from working drug cases

to terrorism;

Creating the College of Analytical Studies to train

intelligence analysts;

Enhancing the FBI's capability to communicate classified

information with the intelligence community and state and

local law enforcement;

Increasing the number of translators by 79 percent,

including a 269 percent increase in Arabic translators from

the levels funded in fiscal year 2001;

Creating the University Education Program, the Sabbatical

Program, and the Fellows Program to enhance opportunities for

employees to receive advanced degrees, and

Changing the FBI's budget structure to match its new

mission.

There are more reforms proposed in the FY 2006 bill, which

the House approved on June 16.

Among them:

The creation of an associate deputy director for national

security to oversee and coordinate the activities of the

executive assistant director for counterterrorism and

counterintelligence and the national security activities of

the Directorate of Intelligence, as recommended by the WMD

Commission and accepted by President Bush yesterday.

The FY 2006 bill also requires the U.S. attorney general to

submit a report to the subcommittee on its actions to

implement the recommendations of the WMD Commission.

I should note that in a recent speech before the First

Circuit Judicial Conference, Judge Silberman, the co-chair of

the WMD Commission, clearly advocated the need for the

attorney general to exercise more authority over the FBI.

As former deputy attorney general himself, Judge Silberman

told the conference ``attorneys general in my view have

exercised far too little management supervision over the

bureau. I actually think the DNI's (Director of National

Intelligence) influence will enable the attorney general to

have greater visibility into the bureau's operations.'' I

agree that the attorney general has to be seriously engaged

in the transformation of the FBI.

In addition, the bill provides the FBI with additional

resources to improve information technology oversight and

program management and requires the DOJ inspector general to

provide regular reports to the subcommittee on the FBI's

progress in replacing its case management system.

I wanted to take this opportunity to point out what is

happening at the FBI because sometimes the `good' things are

not considered news and are often overlooked. I think that

once you look at the attached white paper you will agree that

a great number of positive, forward-leaning steps are being

taken at the FBI.

Yet, more still needs to be accomplished. Some other ideas

that should be considered:

Creating a DARPA-like organization for the FBI.

Creating a Chief Operating Officer who would be responsible

for overseeing the day-to-day management of the FBI, thereby

freeing up the director and deputy director to focus on

investigations and long-term strategic management issues.

This is one of the recommendations of the Science and

Technology Advisory Board.

Pushing to expand the FBI's ``bench'' when it comes to

information technology.

The Science and Technology Advisory Board believes the FBI

is making progress but can go even further if it has the

ability to go after the best and the brightest and provide

them the same career opportunities as other branches in the

bureau.

The FY 2006 House-passed bill provides a $17 million

increase for this, which is $10 million above the request.

Change is not going to happen overnight nor will it be

totally embraced by every agent in the field. It is going to

take time. Unfortunately, time is not completely on our side.

That is why the subcommittee pushes so hard and is why we

continue to have these annual `review' hearings.

I am committed to working to make the FBI better. This is

all part of a process. It's long and it's involved. Strides

have been made, but more still needs to be done. With the

action of the subcommittee, the 9/11 Commission, the WMD

Commission and the White House's recent decision to embrace

nearly all of the recommendations of the WMD Commission, the

key will be having the commitment to carry this out.

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of our colleagues a two-part series that ran in the Washington Times this week, which gives an eye-opening account of the growing military and intelligence threat posed by China. As this series makes clear, we are naive to view China as simply a trading partner, when in fact they are a global superpower with military ambitions directly at odds with the United States.

[From the Washington Times, June 26, 2005]

Chinese Dragon Awakens

(By Bill Gertz)

China is building its military forces faster than U.S.

intelligence and military analysts expected, prompting fears

that Beijing will attack Taiwan in the next 2 years,

according to Pentagon officials.

U.S. defense and intelligence officials say all the signs

point in one troubling direction: Beijing then will be forced

to go to war with the United States, which has vowed to

defend Taiwan against a Chinese attack.

China's military buildup includes an array of new high-

technology weapons, such as warships, submarines, missiles

and a maneuverable warhead designed to defeat U.S. missile

defenses. Recent intelligence reports also show that China

has stepped up military exercises involving amphibious

assaults, viewed as another sign that it is preparing for an

attack on Taiwan.

``There's a growing consensus that at some point in the

mid-to-late '90s, there was a fundamental shift in the

sophistication, breadth and re-sorting of Chinese defense

planning,'' said Richard Lawless, a senior China-policy maker

in the Pentagon. ``And what we're seeing now is a

manifestation of that change in the number of new systems

that are being deployed, the sophistication of those systems

and the interoperability of the systems.''

China's economy has been growing at a rate of at least 10

percent for each of the past 10 years, providing the

country's military with the needed funds for modernization.

The combination of a vibrant centralized economy, growing

military and increasingly fervent nationalism has transformed

China into what many defense officials view as a fascist

state.

``We may be seeing in China the first true fascist society

on the model of Nazi Germany, where you have this incredible

resource base in a commercial economy with strong

nationalism, which the military was able to reach into and

ramp up incredible production,'' a senior defense official

said.

For Pentagon officials, alarm bells have been going off for

the past two years as China's military began rapidly building

and buying new troop- and weapon-carrying ships and

submarines.

The release of an official Chinese government report in

December called the situation on the Taiwan Strait ``grim''

and said the country's military could ``crush'' Taiwan.

Earlier this year, Beijing passed an anti-secession law, a

unilateral measure that upset the fragile political status

quo across the Taiwan Strait. The law gives Chinese leaders a

legal basis they previously did not have to conduct a

military attack on Taiwan, U.S. officials said:

The war fears come despite the fact that China is hosting

the Olympic Games in 2008 and, therefore, some officials say,

would be reluctant to invoke the international condemnation

that a military attack on Taiwan would cause.

Army of the future

In the past, some defense specialists insisted a Chinese

attack on Taiwan would be a ``million-man swim'' across the

Taiwan Strait because of the country's lack of troop-carrying

ships.

``We left the million-man swim behind in about 1998,

1999,'' the senior Pentagon official said. ``And in fact,

what people are saying now, whether or not that construct was

ever useful, is that it's a moot point, because in just

amphibious lift alone, the Chinese are doubling or even

quadrupling their capability on an annual basis.''

Asked about a possible Chinese attack on Taiwan, the

official put it bluntly: ``In the '07-'08 time frame, a

capability will be there that a year ago we would have said

was very, very unlikely. We now assess that as being very

likely to be there.''

Air Force Gen. Paul V. Hester, head of the Pacific Air

Forces, said the U.S. military has been watching China's

military buildup but has found it difficult to penetrate

Beijing's ``veil'' of secrecy over it.

While military modernization itself is not a major worry,

``what does provide you a pause for interest and concern is

the amount of modernization, the kind of modernization and

the size of the modernization,'' he said during a recent

breakfast meeting with reporters.

China is building capabilities such as aerial refueling and

airborne warning and control aircraft that can be used for

regional defense and long-range power projection, Gen. Hester

said.

It also is developing a maneuverable re-entry vehicle, or

MARV, for its nuclear warheads. The weapon is designed to

counter U.S. strategic-missile defenses, according to

officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The

warhead would be used on China's new DF-31 long-range

missiles and its new submarine missile, the JL-2.

Work being done on China's weapons and reconnaissance

systems will give its military the capability to reach 1,000

miles into the sea, ``which gives them the visibility on the

movement of not only our airplanes in the air, but also our

forces at sea,'' Gen. Hester said.

Beijing also has built a new tank for its large armed

forces. It is known as the Type 99 and appears similar in

design to Germany's Leopard 2 main battle tank. The tank is

outfitted with new artillery, anti-aircraft and machine guns,

advanced fire-control systems and improved engines.

The country's air power is growing through the purchase of

new fighters from Russia, such as Su-30 fighter-bombers, as

well as the development of its own fighter jets, such as the

Mr. Speaker, gambling is no longer just limited to the casinos in Las Vegas and Atlantic City. There are now more than 400 tribal casinos in 30 States, online gambling is booming and ESPN and other cable

networks bring high-stakes poker tournaments into our living rooms on a regular basis.

I am deeply concerned about the impact this is having on our society. Gambling destroys families and preys on the poor. More and more youth are also being seduced by gambling. According to a recent PBS NewsHour report, recent studies indicate that more than 70 percent of youth between the ages of 10 and 17 gambled in the past year, up from 45 percent in 1988.

The promotion of gambling is not a proper role of government. I share the concerns of National Coalition Against Gambling Expansion, NCAGE, that as a school of government, Harvard ought to use more discretion in allowing of its credentials to support gambling, which corrupts and addicts government at all levels. As you may know, Harvard Medical School Division of Addictions, Institute for Research on Pathological Gambling and Related Disorders, sits on the board of the National Center for Responsible Gaming, part of the American Gaming Association. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share a recent letter from the NCAGE to the Harvard University leadership outlining the coalition's concerns about what many might regard as an inappropriate relationship between the university and the gambling industry.

The National Coalition

Against Gambling Expansion,

Washington, DC, June 23, 2005.

President Lawrence H. Summers,

Harvard University,

Cambridge, MA.

Harvard Alumni Association,

University Place,

Cambridge, MA.

Harvard Medical School, Division on Addictions,

The Landmark Center,

Boston, MA.

Dear Sirs and Madams: It is with considerable

disappointment that, after much study and thought, we come to

the point where we must challenge the integrity of your work

and the great name of Harvard.

We have listened and tried hard over the last few years to

understand the logic and scientific protocols cited in the

protestations of your scholars as they defend their

``neutrality'' on the subject of gambling. Frankly, we have

never believed that Harvard should be ``neutral'' on issues

that threaten public health. More importantly, we have come

to the earnestly considered opinion that even this professed

``neutrality'' has been widely breached and replaced by

academic activism for and in behalf of gambling interests.

In support of our charge, we cite the attitudes and

activities of the Business School, Addictions Department and

School of Government.

The Harvard Business Review lauds and publishes the success

of business school faculty expatriate Gary Loveman who has

guided Harrah's to its position as the Nation's largest

casino business--by utilizing loyalty-marketing techniques to

promote an addictive substance. It is as if the philosophy

and ethics departments have been buried at the far end of the

campus from the School of Business. Is there no duty to

customers ever mentioned in the MBA programs of this

generation at Harvard? Are our future CEOs being taught that

the highest ``loyalty'' to the market is to sacrifice

humanity on the altar of corporate expansion?

If not, then why does Harvard continue to celebrate such

behavior?

If the business classes have no feeling for humanity, one

would think a division of the medical school might. Not so.

The head of the Harvard Medical School Division of

Addictions, Institute for Research on Pathological Gambling

and Related Disorders, now sits on the Board of Directors of

the American Gaming Association's ``responsible gaming''

team. This AGA front organization, titled the National Center

for Responsible Gaming, has been so pleased with Harvard's

industry apologetics that it now exclusively funds

``research'' through the Harvard facility. The AGA repeatedly

proffers the assumption that only ``peer reviewed'' materials

filtered through this new association can be considered

``valid.'' The veracity of that notion is irrelevant. The

relevance is that the AGA is counting on Harvard to deliver

its good name.

Their reliance is sadly valid.

We see the Harvard journal espousing its own self-

aggrandized superiority as it smugly chides other scholars,

pontificating, ``The Wild West had its snake oil salesmen and

the field of gambling studies is no different. . .

Unfortunately, some contemporary authorities fail to

adequately understand the principles of scientific inquiry

and sustain conventional myths and unfounded casual

relationships. . . Unpublished evidence that has not been

subject to peer review has been presented as definitive.

Preliminary evidence has been summarized in public testimony

or press releases without necessary documentation, including

methodological details that must be available for scrutiny.

In each instance, this public behavior violates professional

standards of conduct and tarnished the work of legitimate

scientists.

The assumed antidote, of course, is to publish only through

Harvard's brand of ``peer review.'' The AGA uses that

language to bolster its own propaganda. ``Over the last five

years, a small group of anti-gaming university professors

have created, out of whole cloth, a series of economic models

which purport to show that any economic benefits from gaming

will be exceeded by the social costs caused by the industry.

These professors, whose theories cannot stand the test of

academic peer review, have created a circle of disinformation

wherein they continually cite each other as sources to

validate their erroneous theories. Three of the professors

are from the University of Illinois and have testified before

the National Gambling Impact Study Commission (NGISC) in

Chicago. They are: Earl Grinols, Richard Gaze (now with the

Federal Reserve Bank but formerly was Grinols' assistant) and

John Kindt.

Curiously, it is Harvard's scholars who have been

promulgating the self-citing circle of obfuscation. Despite

editorial insistence on notational integrity and peer review,

Shaffer and Korn, writing for Shaffer and Korn and repeatedly

citing Shaffer, Korn and others in the Harvard sanctum, come

to completely undocumented hypothesis that ``Until Korn and

Shaffer formally introduced the idea of healthy gambling,

health care, addictions and public health officials

professionals had not considered the possibility of positive

health benefits.''

Their paper, ``Gambling and Public Health,'' draws lines

between dissociated dots arriving at the hypothesis that

gambling is healthy for individuals and communities.

``Like going to a movie, sitting in a pub, or participating

in physical activity, going to a casino or horse race may

provide a healthy change and respite from everyday demands or

social isolation. This may be particularly important for

older adults . . . (not annotated--but then where would one

find a footnote to show feeding a slot machine is equal to

physical activity).

``Gambling is a form of adult play. While importance of

play has been recognized for the healthy development of

children (annotated), play also is important for adults

(annotated). For example, whereas children play card, board

and video games, adults play blackjack, bingo and video slot

machines. In addition to providing fun and excitement, some

forms of gambling can enhance coping strategies by building

skills and competencies such as memory enhancement, problem

solving through game tactics, mathematical proficiency,

concentration and hand-to-eye physical coordination. (Note

how annotated concepts of play being good for children and

adults proceed to the unannotated suggestion that gambling

must be good as well. Good for adults, good for children?

(Shaffer, et al, eschew logic in favor of empiricism as a

basis for scientific inquiry. Given their command of logic,

this is self-explanatory. (Play is good. Gambling can be

called play. Gambling is good.--Communists wear red. Santa

wears red. Santa is a Communist)).

This tome further suggests, ``Health benefits can accrue to

communities through gambling-related economic development . .

.'' and suggests without annotation that gambling created

jobs and economic development accrue to the benefit of

collective mental health.) (Jobs and money make people happy,

so gambling makes people happy. Sadly, no footnotes elucidate

the chasms between these dots either.)

Since co-morbidity is a generally accepted feature of

addiction, this paper even suggests gambling addiction may

``catch'' people from progressing to a more serious

addiction, like heroin. (Gambling addiction may preclude a

worse addiction and is therefore a ``benefit.''

Within a handful of lines, this same paper sneers, ``. . .

An unsupported but commonly cited estimate for the annual

cost to society of each pathological gambler is $13,200.''

Like numbers have been meticulously recalculated and

duplicated, but because they weren't published in the proper

Harvard-edited journal, apparently they are ``unsupported.''

Because they did not emanate through halls funded by the

American Gaming Association, they have not been appropriately

``peer reviewed.''

In this context, ``Peer reviewed'' has come to mean

``gambling lackeys vouching for gambling apologists.''

If the addictions group's advocacy of, or at least affinity

for, the gambling industry is transparent, then the gambling

industry association with Harvard's Kennedy School of

Government is vivid.

Our attached comments speak plainly to deliberate and

blatant examples of that school's use of Harvard credentials

to support gambling, specifically through Indian tribes. It

is shameful for an institution upholding itself a ``school of

government'' to endorse a phenomenon which corrupts and

addicts government at all levels. To my knowledge, no heroic

figure or revered writer on the subject of American democracy

has ever suggested that the promulgation of gambling is a

proper role of government.

We believe the good name of ``Harvard'' has been co-opted

by the gambling industry. It is apparent to any serious

observer that ``Harvard'' is the brand of choice for those

seeking to buy credibility for a product that ruins lives.

If this was a car, or a drug that damaged, ruined or ended

the lives of one of each 100 Americans, we suggest you would

not be ``neutral,'' and certainly you would not be advocates.

Because your performance is tainted and your reputation

threatened, we respectfully ask your institution to stand

down from this debate, and let it be carried forward by

unsullied hands.

We ask for your support for a regeneration of the

activities of the National Gambling

Impact Study Commission to assess the costs and benefits of

legalized gambling in America from a less biased platform.

Sincerely,

Dr. Guy C. Clark,

Chairman.

Attached: Our bulletin article.

``Harvard''--The Best Name Money Can Buy

Harvard, the venerable institution founded in 1636, is

among America's most recognizable academic ``Brands''. Its

public reputation is among the highest of America's

institutions.

Through association, the phrase ``Harvard says,'' becomes

powerful validation, even when followed by statements Harvard

didn't really make, or, perhaps, was paid to say. Thus it

follows that when one of America's least reputable

institutions--gambling--went shopping for a spokesman, they

determined ``Harvard'' was the best name money could buy.

The American Gaming Association (AGA) opened shop in

Washington, D.C. in 1995 to promote, in their own words,

``better understanding of the gaming entertainment industry

by bringing facts about the industry to the general public,

elected officials, other decision makers and the media

through education and advocacy.''

The AGA became the propaganda machine for the commercial

casino companies that funded it. The casinos faced tough

questions from politicians and anti-gambling groups as

gambling proliferated across the nation in the early 1990s.

Those questions intensified in 1996, when Congress funded

the National Gambling Impact Study Commission (NGISC).

Despite gambling's expensive attempts to stack the commission

and its success in stripping it of subpoena power, the

commission's final report in 1999 posted strong warnings

about gambling expansion. It called for a ``pause'' in the

expansion of gambling until more information on addiction,

bankruptcy, crime, job cannibalization and other topics could

be studied.

But gambling proponents were already staging their

response. The same year the NGISC started its research,

casinos founded their own ``gambling research'' organization,

the National Center for Responsible Gambling (NCRG). Boyd

Gaming Corporation provided the start-up funds for the NCRG

and made a 10-year pledge of $875,000. Other leading gaming

companies, including Harrah's Entertainment, Inc.,

International Game Technology, Mandalay Resort Group, MGM

Mirage and Park Place Entertainment Corporation were ``early

and generous supporters,'' according to NCRG's own web site.

The site notes, ``Today, with the contributions of the

casino gaming industry, equipment manufacturers, vendors,

related organizations and individuals, more than $13 million

has been committed to the NCRG, an unprecedented level of

funding for gambling research. This financial support has

enabled the NCRG to attract the best minds from the most

prestigious institutions to conduct research in this

uncharted field,'' (Emphasis added.)

They boast the group is run by scholars and health care

professionals, but it is chaired by professional lobbyist and

former Congressman Dennis E. Eckart, with William Boyd,

chairman of Boyd Gaming, serving as president, and the AGA's

senior vice president and executive director, Judy Patterson

as secretary-treasurer. Only five of the 21 remaining

directors represent health care or academic organizations.

The rest are all gambling executives or lobbyists.

Among the five is Howard J. Shaffer, Ph.D. Director,

Division on Addictions, Harvard Medical School, which is

funded by the gambling industry through NCRG.

Gambling interests funded the NCRG with, according to their

own accounts, $13 million. Of that they have contributed $6

million to ``research,'' with that funding now going

exclusively to the Harvard Project.

Harvard insists the NCRG board exercises no control over

its research, but at least two noted treatment experts left

the NCRG board because of their concerns about just such

problems. Both indicated the NCRG would not likely allow

researchers to tackle the big issues of proximity, high-speed

addiction of machines and other factors that could be

damaging to the industry.

Clinical psychiatrist Dr. Henry Lesieur from the Rhode

Island Hospital's gambling treatment program and UCLA's Dr.

Richard Rosenthal resigned from the NCRG board three years

ago after concluding that the gambling industry wielded too

much influence over the research.

Still, Harvard's addiction department continues to disburse

grants to other research applications. With Shaffer as editor

and other Harvard staff on the editorial board, The Journal

of Gambling Studies, served as a prestigious gathering point

and filter for research. Harvard editors in turn spent

considerable ink ``debunking'' other contributed research. As

an adjunct to its publishing efforts, Harvard distributed the

WAGER, an online review of current topics between 2004 and

2005. The typical WAGER review comprised an outline of a

study's premise, followed by the study's findings. Typically

the last WAGER paragraphs were dedicated to a repetitive

disclaimer that results were not conclusive because of sample

size or some other weakness.

A classic example was the August, 2002 examination of

suicides and their relationship to gambling. ``Do Casinos

have Casualties? Mixed Evidence for a Gambling-Suicide

Link.'' Why Harvard would choose to review this study, which

it concluded was inconclusive and flawed in many regards, is

unclear. The Harvard editor dismissed the study's results for

a number of reasons, including, ``relationships between

gambling settings and suicide rates could potentially be due

to common features that influence suicide other than casino

presence. For example, Nevada is home to a great number of

retirees, a population which has demonstrated higher suicide

rates.''

That would be interesting if it were true. Nevada ranks

44th in the nation for population over 65, Nevada has ranked

first in the nation in suicide rates for 10 of the last 14

years, never coming in lower than fourth. In suicides per

capita it was surpassed recently by Montana, which has more

video lottery terminals and Gamblers Anonymous chapters per

capita than any other state in the nation.

Still, AGA spokesman Frank Fahrenkopf traverses the country

announcing that ``peer reviewed'' studies have ``failed to

prove'' a relationship between gambling and suicide. In AGA

logic, having ``failed to prove'' an assertion is equal to a

``proof' of its antithesis.''

Fahrenkopf and his peers have deceived numerous legislators

with illusions of ``peer reviewed'' studies that ``prove''

there is no correlation between gambling and crime, no

correlation between casino proximity and addiction, and that

gambling takes money away from other businesses.

Harvard's addiction department is not the only tool of the

gambling industry. The university's renowned Kennedy School

of Government is deeply connected to Native American

organizations dedicated to the economic and political

development of Indian reservations. Unfortunately, those

organizations have adopted the NIGA mantra of gambling as the

``New Buffalo'' which will elevate the reservations to the

status of economically and politically independent nations.

Again, the ``Harvard'' brand is a deliberate purchase of

the gambling tribes. In 2003, just after Time Magazine

published a blistering expose on the status of Indian casino

development, NIGA commissioned Harvard to produce a study

deliberately designed to show the benefits of Indian

gambling.

News reports at the time quoted Deron Marquez, chairman of

the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians saying, ``NIGA's

fellow trade organization, the AGA, constantly produces

numbers to help its cause. The data bolsters policy decisions

and helps make problems go away. Our study would allow the

same to take place.''

The study was to be headed by Katherine Spilde, a former

Director of Research for the NIGA, and an ardent proponent of

gambling expansion. Spilde told reporters the study would

help reverse ``a bona fide public relations crisis,'' for

Indian gambling.

NIGA's Marguez said the study would be ``the centerpiece of

a public relations campaign'' to promote Indian gambling.

``The PR and the research go hand in hand. The study will

provide the necessary data, and the campaign the necessary

visibility.''

The study was funded to support an intended finding, with

an advertising campaign as the intended result.

Spilde also played the ``peer reviewed'' card, noting the

study would be ``validated'' by other academics. ``A peer-

reviewed report will have the highest integrity possible and

insulate us from critics who may try to imply that funding

from Indian Country has influenced the results,'' she said.

``Gambling industry lackies vouching for gambling industry

apologists,'' fumes NCALG/NCAGE chairman Dr. Guy C. Clark. A

dentist by trade, Clark said, ``It reminds me of a mouthwash

introduced some years ago with a claim that its in-house

studies showed the product was highly effective at removing

plaque. Later independent studies showed the product was

'slightly less effective than water.'

``Harvard's motives look about as transparent as water too,

no matter what they claim for intentions. I would think they

would want to be more protective of the school's heritage,''

Clark concluded. ``These so-called studies are no more than

gambling industry in-house advocacy dressed up as

academics.''

Mr. Chairman, earlier today I was at Walter Reed Army Medical Center visiting Army Specialist Matt James, a constituent from Virginia's 10th District, who was wounded while serving in Iraq, and I missed the vote on rollcall 326.

Had I been present and voting, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall 326, the Pitts amendment to H.R. 3057, Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the further consideration of H.R. 2862, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment amounts to a complete rejection of the United States' engagement with the United Nations and many other nations of the world.

Last year this bill created a high-level task force to review the efforts of the United Nations. This task force was chaired by former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, and former Majority Leader Senator Mitchell, and the task force came out with its recommendations yesterday. They are fairly dramatic, which will mandate, if you will, and force the United Nations to make dramatic change. Hopefully the Bush administration will embrace the Gingrich-Mitchell recommendations that will then be adopted by the United Nations when they meet in September.

As the chairman knows, we initiated this task force because of the U.N.'s lack of involvement on the Darfur, Sudan, issue, the sexual exploitation of young girls by U.N. peacekeepers, and the oil-for-food scandal. If we were not participating at all, we would not be able to put pressure on the U.N. to do the right thing with regard to Darfur. Genocide is taking place in Darfur as we now speak. Also, the U.N. will be sending peacekeepers to the North-South Sudanese peacekeeping agreements, and, as my colleagues know, better than 2.1 million people, mainly Christian, some Muslim, died at the hands of the Khartoum government as a result of their activities for the North. Also, Sudan is involved in terrorist activities, and we need to be able to put pressure on the Sudanese.

Not speaking boldly in an effort to force the U.N. to do something on this issue, the genocide in Darfur, and also to be able to implement and monitor, not with American soldiers, but with U.N. peacekeepers in Sudan, would be a mistake.

As the gentleman knows, we already have cut the administration request for international organizations by $130 million; therefore, essentially we are already recommending holding back any growth of the U.N. Lastly, as the gentleman from Texas says, the Hyde bill will be coming up shortly after this bill, and that is where you should address these issues.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman from Colorado's (Mr. Hefley) amendment.

As the gentleman can see, and I have great respect for the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley). I know what he is trying to do, and I want to acknowledge that. As the gentleman can see from the debate and the other amendments offered on the bill, many Members feel the funding for the whole host of programs in this bill is already inadequate. In fact, all the amendments, most that we have been able to reject, have been to add money into the bill. The one that was accepted by the body was the one to add $73 million in for 7(a) loan programs which nobody in the country wants or needs. So the gentleman can see the trend that things are moving.

The budget resolution passed by the Congress has imposed upon us a very restrictive spending climate. This amendment constitutes attempts to reopen the decisions we already made in the budget resolution. The bill we are considering today stays within the budget resolution framework and represents a lot of hard work and difficult decisions to match limited funds to competing national priorities. A number of accounts in the bill are funded very close to the bone and a reduction of 1 percent in many salaries and expenses would have a dramatic effect on the FBI, DEA, ATF, Marshals Service.

And so for those reasons, respecting what the gentleman is trying to do, I would ask for a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, if the next is the amendment that I think the gentleman is offering, I was going to say I accept it. I understand the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) wants to speak on it. I have to go upstairs briefly for a brief moment. But I wanted to be on record as being for it, and so I did not want to have my absence for 5 minutes look like I was avoiding an issue. I think this is the torture amendment. If it is, I think it is a good amendment, and I urge the Congress to adopt it, and I am going to vote for it.

I will yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Amendment Offered by Mr. Markey

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment to prohibit funds for a competitive sourcing study. We had asked the gentleman to consider withdrawing the amendment. We would have a meeting with the Weather Bureau and really do everything we could. But for the Congress to interfere and do something like this, would be unprecedented.

I understand that NOAA first announced this particular cost competition in 2003. NOAA recently canceled the competition to ensure that the statement of work is comprehensive and plans to reannounce the study shortly. These competitions are conducted pursuant to the Competitive Sourcing Initiative in the President's Management Agenda, and NOAA supports the competition.

Though I understand the gentleman's concerns and have no preconceived notion as to the outcome of the study, I believe we cannot have the Congress on every A-76 proposal coming down and stopping it.

I see the gentleman from Virginia is here, the chairman of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to say again, for the Congress to be voting on each and every procurement issue like this, it would just never end. So I reluctantly oppose the amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we would be glad to work with the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis), too. The chairman of the committee has jurisdiction. We could have a meeting, the gentleman could bring the representative of the group out there, and we would try to make sure that this is done appropriately. We would do everything we possibly can.

This concern is if we did every one of these on the floor, and if we did one for the gentleman, there are probably 15 Members that would then come forward and say, Why did I not have an opportunity? I give my word, we would work in good faith.

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

Mr. Chairman, this is a different amendment than was printed in the Record. I am not even sure that it addresses the same issue. We were told we had the ability to prohibit the amendment to be offered and I did not even want to do that. We felt that whatever the outcome was, it should be. The amendment unnecessarily takes away from funds from State and local law enforcement. We just saw the amendment. I saw it 2 minutes ago, maybe it was 5 or 6 minutes ago.

We do not know the full impact of the funding prohibition. All we know is that the amendment will cut funds to fight crime. I told the gentlewoman we will continue to work with her on this issue. Just 5 minutes before, is it the same thing that the reference said it would be? Where does the language come? If my memory serves me correctly, there have been many amendments to add into that category that we have spent time here.

Because of all those reasons, not for the subject matter, but for all those reasons, I would urge a ``no'' vote on that.

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

I will close.

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

I urge a ``no'' vote on this. The gentlewoman probably would have been prohibited from offering the amendment. We said fine. The amendment was changed. In fact, the title was there and then the amendment changed. I do not think anybody truly here knows, I do not care where they went to law school, what it truly does and what it truly means.

They could have gone to UVA, Georgetown, Harvard, or Timbuktu.

Secondly, if I could have the gentlewoman's attention, I offered to her to let us sit down and talk about this. Nobody is opposing necessarily what she is trying to do. Let us sit down. Let us talk about it. Let us work it. No, we are going to go ahead and do it.

So this institution has to have some definition, or else we just take any amendment that comes along.

So all the amendments, I counted them up. The gentleman from Washington wanted to take money from the bill to put it in State and local law enforcement. This takes money from State and local law enforcement and puts it somewhere else. The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) wanted to take money from the rest of the bill and put it into State and local law enforcement. This takes it from State and local law enforcement and puts it somewhere else. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell) wanted to take money from another part of the bill, and God bless him, he had a good amendment, and put it in State and local law enforcement. This takes it from State and local law enforcement and puts it somewhere else; for what, we are not even sure. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) wanted to take money from the rest of the bill to put it where? In State and local law enforcement. This takes money from State and local law enforcement and puts it not even completely where people even know it is. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) had a great debate here. I think he wanted to take $126 million from NSF to put it in State and local law enforcement. This takes money from State and local law enforcement and puts it somewhere else. The beat goes on. The beat goes on.

So, because not knowing what this does, we are going to go ahead and oppose this. I just think if Members want to vote on something they do not understand, I think they ought to come down here and vote on something that they do not understand. I think that is part of their right to being here, but I do not understand it.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if we offered to work with the gentlewoman to resolve the issue, I think, from where I come from, that resolves the issue. But she has offered something that we do not even know what it does. It takes funds from an area that everyone else is saying they do not want to take it from, I am having a hard time understanding what that precisely means.

And I would say we could get both of these amendments in different versions and send them to Georgetown Law School or UVA Law School or George Mason Law School and see if they think there is any change. I understand we offered to work with her. I thought that was really the right thing to do.

With that I urge a ``no'' vote on an amendment that I am not sure what it does.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not belong in the bill. It is really an amendment that relates to the Foreign Assistance Appropriation, under the bill of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) where this comes. It is inappropriate to use the funds for the Department of State's operations, including salaries, to enforce the law, because it is the responsibility of the Secretary of State to enforce the law and would in essence mean that there could be no enforcement of Kemp-Kasten. It would make it null and void.

It was determined by the Secretary of State in 2004 that because UNFPA continues its involvement in China's coercive birth limitation program, current law precludes funding for UNFPA.

I visited China. The China policy with regard to coerced and forced abortion, the one-child policy, is barbaric. I could take a whole day to talk about the government of China with regard to the persecution of the Catholic

Church, the persecution of the Protestant Church, the persecution of Buddhists, the persecution of Muslims, the sale of kidneys with regard to execution of prisoners, the slave labor camps, and now in essence the coercive policy that this government has. In order to do anything that would send a message to that government that it is okay to do what they are doing is absolutely wrong. So you can argue this on process, this is not the place, but I think you can argue this on the merits.

China is doing fundamentally evil things, and the record should state the evilness of their policies. For that, I urge a strong ``no'' to send a message to that government that their actions are totally inappropriate.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Lancaster, Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

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

Mr. Chairman, I want my comments to be separated. One, I want to commend and thank the minority leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), for her strong support on human rights. Particularly, she has been very good in China. She was there from the Tiananmen Square times and all the time. So I just want the record, we want to separate these out, but I want the record to show that I admire her and respect very much her support for human rights in China. It has been outstanding.

The second point I want to make is to separate back to the debate that my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), was just talking about. I favor family planning. I am speaking for myself. I favor family planning. But this is a government that still has Tiananmen Square demonstrators in prison. In 1991 the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and I were in Beijing Prison Number 1, and we are the only two Members of the Congress that have been in a Chinese gulag, and we saw Tiananmen Square demonstrators making socks. Some of you may be wearing the socks, socks for export to the United States. God bless him, Senator Moynihan got the socks, when I came back, held the socks up on the Senate floor with regard to how bad China was. And I will get that, what Senator Moynihan said, and put it in the Record.

Mr. Moynihan. Mr. President, here are products of prison

labor, sold in international trade by the Chinese. You can

buy these: socks with a panda with the word ``boxing'' and a

little boxer; this fellow is playing golf, whatever.

Representative Wolf was in Beijing Prison No. 1, and not

recognizing him as a Member of the House of Representatives,

they thought he was a buyer. They started showing him the

goods for sale.

They have stopped that. We have ratified that treaty at

long last. Surely we ought to indicate that we mean it, that

we intend to help enforce this international labor standard.

This is a fundamentally evil government that you cannot trust. Many Tiananmen Square demonstrators that we lament about and talk about are still in prison. Now, they moved them out of Beijing Prison Number 1, but they are still in prison. And if you do not think there is coercion, call Harry Wu. Harry Wu lives out in Fairfax County, in the district of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran). And Harry will tell the gentleman about the forced abortions and the

policies and the abuse of this government. If you need a new kidney, they will go in the prisons, they will find somebody with your blood type, they will shoot them, maybe a Catholic priest, maybe Buddhist monk, maybe a Protestant pastor, or maybe a pickpocket. But you can get a new kidney for $50,000. This is the government that you basically want to give money to.

Now, many of you saw it. I think I did a Dear Colleague letter. Soon after the death of Pope John Paul, they arrested two elderly Catholic priests. And I say to my friend, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), talk to the Cardinal Kung Foundation and let them tell you of all the persecution. I believe they are now 11 Catholic bishops. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) took holy communion from Bishop Su.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask if I could yield to the gentleman just for two words. Where is Bishop Su now?

He is in prison. One other question. How old is he?

Mid-70s in prison for giving holy communion.

Now, the government put him in jail. Nobody else. You have a government that you fundamentally cannot trust.

Lastly, Secretary Powell, a constituent of mine, somebody that we all admire. He lives out in my congressional district. Here is what he said on July 15, 2004: ``Despite these efforts, China continues to employ coercion in its birth planning program including through severe penalties for out-of-plan births. And UNFPA's program has not been restructured to solve the problems identified in 2002.''

So Secretary Powell, who we all trust, said they are still doing it. And then he ends, ``however, as in 2002, UNFPA continues its support and involvement in China's coercive birth limitation program in counties where China's restrictive law and penalties are enforced by government officials.'' I urge you to defeat this amendment and send a message to this fundamentally bad government that is doing all these horrible things to women, doing all these things to Catholic priests, Catholic bishops, to evangelical pastors, to Buddhist monks.

I was in Tibet, went in every monastery we could. They told us what they are doing to the Buddhist Church. It is against the law to have a picture of the Dalai Lama. Vote ``no'' on this amendment.

The Secretary of State,

Washington, DC, July 15, 2004.

Hon. Henry J. Hyde,

Chairman, Committee on International Relations, House of

Representatives.

Dear Mr. Chairman: The Foreign Operations, Export Financing

and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2004 (Pub. L. 108-

199, Div. D) (``Act''), like every foreign operations

appropriations act since 1985, provides that ``none of the

funds made available in this Act . . . may be made available

to any organization or program which, as determined by the

President of the United States, supports or participates in

the management of a program of coercive abortion or

involuntary sterilization.'' Separately in Section 567, the

Act earmarks $34 million for the United Nations Population

Fund (``UNFPA'').

In July 2002, I determined that UNFPA's support of, and

involvement in, China's population-planning activities

allowed the Chinese Government to implement more effectively

its program of coercive abortion, and that, therefore, the

Kemp-Kasten Amendment precluded funding of UNFPA at that

time.

Since that time, we have had numerous discussions with the

Government of China to urge an end to China's program of

coercive abortion. We have also urged UNFPA and China to

restructure the UNFPA program so that UNFPA does not support

or participate in the management of China's coercive program.

Despite these efforts, China continues to employ coercion in

its birth planning program, including through severe

penalties for ``out of plan births'' and UNFPA's program has

not been restructured to solve the problems identified in

2002. However, as in 2002, UNFPA continues its support and

involvement in China's coercive birth limitation program in

counties where China's restrictive law and penalties are

enforced by government officials. More information on the

nature of China's birth-limitation regime and UNFPA's

involvement therein is contained in the enclosed report on

China's Birth-Limitation Policy.

The Administration is preparing to take the steps,

including consulting with Congress, that would be necessary

to apply the amount that had been reserved for UNFPA in the

``International Organizations and Programs'' account to the

ESF account, for use in support of the President's initiative

to aid victims of trafficking.

We will continue to remain engaged with China and UNFPA on

this issue. As I stated in 2002, if Chinese laws and

practices were changed so that UNFPA's activities did not

support a program of coercive abortion, or if UNFPA were to

change the program implementation for its funding so that it

did not support a program of coercive abortions, I would be

prepared to consider funding UNFPA in the future.

Sincerely,

Colin L. Powell.

Enclosures: As stated.

Report to Congress on China's Birth Limitation Policy

The Conference Report accompanying H.R. 2673, H. Report

108-401, in the Statement of Managers, requests the

Department of State [hereinafter ``the Department''] to

report ``not later than July 15, 2004, on the steps it and

UNFPA have taken to urge the Government of China to end its

birth limitation policy, including the social compensation

fee, and the results of those efforts, nationally, and

particularly in the counties in which UNFPA operates.'' This

report responds to that request.

U.S. Engagement

Since the Secretary's determination of July 21, 2002, that

funding for UNFPA was precluded by the Kemp-Kasten Amendment

of the FY 2002 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, the

United States has actively engaged with China to end coercive

practices in its birth-limitation program and with UNFPA to

end its support for that program. We have urged China to

implement fully the principle recognized in the Programme of

Action of the International Conference on Population and

Development (ICPD) that all couples should have the right

``to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and

timing of their children and to have the information and

means to do so, and . . . to make decisions concerning

reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence. .

. .'' In order to implement this principle the Chinese family

planning program should be fully voluntary and free of all

forms of coercion.

Immediately following the Secretary's determination, the

Department commenced a round of five negotiating sessions

with China with the objective of eliminating coercive

provisions in law and ending coercive practices in the

counties in which UNFPA is involved. We also encouraged China

and UNFPA to restructure their proposal for the new fifth

country program (CP5) agreement in a way that would allow the

United States to fund UNFPA. Discussions were held with

senior UNFPA and Chinese officials in New York,

Washington, Beijing, and during international meetings on

population matters. Department personnel visited UNFPA

project counties in China on two occasions, in November

2002 and August 2003. Embassy and Consulate personnel

based in China made numerous field visits, both to

counties in which UNFPA operates and counties in which

there is no UNFPA assistance. These field visits were

designed to learn about the implementation of China's

birth limitation laws and policies/practices, and about

UNFPA's activities in China. Despite several rounds of

discussions with U.S. representatives, UNFPA and China

decided not to make substantive changes to the proposed

UNFPA fifth country program. For example, UNFPA did not

condition the start of the program on the elimination of

social compensation fees (SCF). When CP5 was adopted at

the first regular session of the UNFPA Executive Board in

January 2003, the United States could not support the

program because of coercive measures in the enforcement of

China's birth limitation laws. The U.S. delegate stated

that the United States believes that UNFPA should not be

associated in any way with coercion.

In the summer of 2003, the Administration considered that

circumstances surrounding UNFPA's continued involvement in

China's birth limitation program had not changed sufficiently

to warrant U.S. funding.

As described below, many of those circumstances continue to

persist, despite claims by Chinese officials that they are

working to eliminate coercive measures. These, along with

others described in State's annual human rights reports,

information supplied by UNFPA, the results of U.S. efforts to

engage both UNFPA and China on numerous occasions from 2002

through 2004, and the fact that China's coercive policies

have, since the Secretary's July 2002 determination, now been

codified and enforced as a matter of national law, all

contribute to the finding that the Kemp-Kasten amendment

continues to preclude funding for FY 2004.

China's Birth-Limitation Regime--Now Law

A new national Law on Population and Birth-Planning went

into effect on September 1, 2002. This law codifies on a

national basis, for the first time, China's longstanding

``one child policy'' and specifies a number of government

birth-limitation measures that amount to coercion.

(As mentioned in the 2002 determination, county laws had

previously been in place and were used to enforce the

birth limitation policy.) The national law provides, inter

alia, ``. . . practicing birth planning is a basic

national policy of the State. The State (shall) employ

comprehensive measures to control population quantity and

improve population

quality.'' (Article 2.) ``Citizens have a right to have a

child and also have a duty to practice birth planning

according to the law. . . . (Article 17.) ``The State

shall stabilize currently implemented birth policies. . .

.

Those who meet the conditions in laws and regulations can

request the arrangement of the birth of a second child.

Specific methods (shall be) stipulated by the people's

congresses of provinces. . . .'' (Article 18.) ``Citizens

who give birth to a child in violation of Article 18 of

this law should pay a social compensation fee. . . .''

(Article 41.) ``Among (government) personnel who pay a

social compensation fee in accordance with Article 41 of

this law, those who are State staff should also be given

administrative punishment according to law.'' ``Other

personnel (who are not state staff) should also (in

addition to the social compensation fee) be given

disciplinary punishment by their own unit or

organization.'' (Article 42.)

Since the promulgation of the national law, all provinces

and equivalent governmental units except the Tibetan

Autonomous Region have issued implementing regulations that

set out birth planning requirements. These regulations

generally allow only one child, with specific exceptions that

allow qualified couples to have a second, or in rare cases, a

third child. They also set ranges for assessment of the

social compensation fees (SCF) by local authorities. Fees

range from the equivalent of one half the local average

annual household income to as much as 10 times that level.

One county where UNFPA has activities, Liuyang in Hunan

Province, assesses a fee of two times the average annual

household income. Liuyang County has waived the fee for pre-

marriage births, but not for inadequate birth spacing (when

an additional child is allowed), or for ``out-of-plan''

births. (An example of province implementing regulations is

provided as annex two.)

The Department has urged Chinese government officials to

eliminate the SCF, as well as other coercive birth limitation

measures. UNFPA has urged experimentation with the fee in

UNFPA program counties with a view towards elimination by the

end of the current program. The Chinese government has

suggested that because the SCF is specifically prescribed in

national law, local governments do not have authority to

completely waive collection of the fee. Other coercive

measures in place in China include cutting off state-funded

education or health care benefits for ``out of plan''

children, loss of employment, and imposition of a system

of severe fines and penalties. National and Provincial

Chinese government officials have declined or been unable

to assure us that penalties such as demotion or loss of

job are not also imposed in countries where UNFPA

operates.

The 2004 State Department Country Report on Human Rights

Practices confirms China continues enforcement of its birth

limitation policies and law. (Annex One.)

UNFPA's Engagement with China

Last month, at the Department's request, UNFPA furnished in

a very timely fashion information regarding its China

program. The Director of UNFPA's Asia and Pacific Division,

Sultan Aziz, wrote to the Department on June 14, 2004,

highlighting the concerns UNFPA shares with the United States

``over aspects of China's family planning strategy that could

lead to coercion.'' In particular, he made the following

points about UNFPA's view of it approach and progress in

China:

``UNFPA, like all UN organizations, is guided by

international human rights standards and principles in all

our programs. Using the ICPD principles as our platform,

UNFPA Country Programmes focus on voluntary, client-oriented

family planning services with a range of choices and

options.''

``UNFPA has made a significant contribution in improving

reproductive health knowledge, reducing (the) proportion of

sterilization and abortions, reducing maternal mortality and

increasing the proportion of births with skilled

attendants.''

``UNFPA does not support China's one-child policy, and has

proactively engaged in serious dialogue with the Chinese

government on this issue. There is growing realization in the

government, if not directly stated, about the problems

arising from the one-child policy--sex ratio imbalances,

ageing and population structure.''

``China is committed to the ICPD and its steadily,

incrementally and firmly moving beyond demographic targets

towards a voluntary and client-oriented FP [family planning]

approach. UNFPA, has been catalytic in fostering, supporting

and guiding the transition.''

UNFPA's Fifth Country Programme for China

Much of UNFPA ``input,'' i.e., its programs, goals, and

activities, in China is designed to assist China in ``forming

new management and service approaches of its population and

family planning program.'' The goals of its current program

(CP5), building on those of its previous program (CP4),

continue to strive toward moving the Chinese government from

an ``administrative'' approach to a ``client-centered,

quality of care'' approach, closer to the standards of the

Programme of Action--and thus toward achieving through

individual counseling desirable population goals without

coercion. But these efforts miss the mark; they are narrowly

tailored to expand access to reproductive health information

and to allow couples and individuals to select their

contraceptive methods in compliance with the national and

provincial regulations. Their end result is not that couples

and individuals may freely make decisions as to the number

and spacing of their children. Rather, in counties where the

UNFPA operates, China continues to implement its coercive

laws and practices.

The UNFPA-China agreement sets as a hortatory objective the

elimination of the SCF by 2010, but it provides for no

specific actions to further that end. UNFPA noted that it

required CP5 participating counties to lower fees and

encouraged further experimentation, but the agreement does

not provide for elimination. Further, the agreement requires

that counties participating in CP5 eliminate targets and

quotas, but does not require them to eliminate coercive

``administrative'' or ``disciplinary'' punishments--thus

continuing to reflect UNFPA's support for China's coercive

program.

The UNFPA budget for CP5 amounts to almost $8 million over

3 years. The funding allocation for CP5 is similar to that in

CP4 funding. It includes cost for personnel (including

consultants), monitoring and evaluation, research,

publications, international meetings and exchange visits, and

vehicles. UNFPA also continues to fund equipment for China,

including for management information systems and data

management software which are capable of tracking births,

although UNFPA claims in its June 14, 2004 letter that the

Management Information System [MIS] is ``categorically not

intended for tracking out of plan pregnancies, or to help

enforce the social compensation fees.'' UNFPA is also

financing improvements in the administration of the local

family planning offices.

These resources are provided directly or indirectly to the

State Family Planning Commission in counties where it

enforces the fines and administrative penalties such as job

loss, demotion, and expulsion from the Communist Party. The

UNFPA activities include training of reproductive health

service providers in, among other things, awareness of the

law in order that they may provide reproductive health

counseling. This, as well as UNFPA's supplying equipment and

supplies to the very agencies that employ coercive practices,

amounts to support for not only in China's broader

population-planning activities, but also specifically for the

Chinese government's more effective implementation of its

program of coercive abortion.

conclusion

Both China and UNFPA have been willing to engage with the

United States on approaches to eliminating coercion in

China's birth planning law and policy. We welcome this

dialogue and efforts by China to move forward in this

important area and we will continue our engagement. We

congratulate China and UNFPA on the elimination of targets

and quotas in UNFPA counties and reduction of the incidence

of maternal mortality. Unfortunately, coercive birth

limitation measures in law and policy continue in counties in

which UNFPA assists China.

Excerpts From Country Reports on Human Rights Practices China, 2003

Authorities continued to reduce the use of targets and

quotas, although over 1,900 of the country's 2,800 counties

continued to use such measures. Authorities using the target

and quota system require each eligible married couple to

obtain government permission before the woman becomes

pregnant. In many counties, only a limited number of such

permits were made available each year, so couples who did not

receive a permit were required to wait at least a year before

obtaining permission. Counties that did not employ targets

and quotas allowed married women of legal child-bearing age

to have a first child without prior permission.

The country's population control policy relied on

education, propaganda, and economic incentives, as well as on

more coercive measures such as the threat of job loss or

demotion and social compensation fees. Psychological and

economic pressure were very common; during unauthorized

pregnancies, women sometimes were visited by birth planning

workers who used the threat of social compensation fees to

pressure women to terminate their pregnancies. The fees were

assessed at widely varying levels and were generally

extremely high. Reliable sources reported that the fees

ranged from one-half to eight times the average worker's

annual disposable income. Local officials have authority to

adjust the fees downward and did so in many cases. Additional

disciplinary measures against those who violated the limited

child policy by having an unapproved child or helping another

to do so included the withholding of social services, higher

tuition costs when the child goes to school, job loss or

demotion, loss of promotion opportunity, expulsion from the

Party (membership in which was an unofficial requirement for

certain jobs), and other administrative punishments,

including in some cases the destruction of property. These

penalties sometimes left women little practical choice but to

undergo abortion or sterilization. Rewards for couples who

adhered to birth limitation laws and policies included

monthly stipends and preferential medical and educational

benefits. In the cases of families that already had two

children, one of the parents was usually pressured to

undergo sterilization.

In March, the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) concluded a 4-

year pilot project in 32 counties. Under this program, local

birth

planning officials emphasized education, improved

reproductive health services, and economic development, and

they eliminated the target and quota systems for limiting

births. However, these counties retained the birth limitation

policy, including the requirement that couples employ

effective birth control methods, and enforced it through

other means, such as social compensation fees. Subsequently,

800 other counties also removed the target and quota system

and tried to replicate the UNFPA project by emphasizing

quality of care and informed choice of birth control methods.

In April, a new UNFPA program began in 30 counties. Under

this program, officials defined a list of ``legitimate rights

of reproduction according to law,'' including the rights to

choose contraception and right to legal remedies, among

others.

Jiangsu Province Birth Limitation Regulations Excerpts

chapter 1 general principles

Article 5

Local people's governments at all levels within the

province shall take integrated measures to control the size

of the population and to improve its quality, and shall

implement population and family planning programs. . . .

Article 7

Citizens have the right to reproduce and the obligation to

practice family planning in accordance with the law. . . .

chapter 3 fertility regulation

Article 21

A man and a woman who have been legally registered as

married may have one child, provided that neither has had a

child previously.

Article 22

Married couples meeting any of the following conditions may

apply to give birth to one additional child:

The couple has only one child, and that child is certified

by a pediatric illness and disability authentication

institution to have a disability, other than a serious

genetic disability, that cannot at present be treated, or

that despite systematic treatment will prevent that child

from developing into a normal worker or seriously affect that

child's future marriageability.

Either spouse is a member of the armed forces, armed

police, or public security police or is a `Good Samaritan'

and that spouse has sustained a Class 2, Grade 2 or higher

disability in the exercise of duty; or either spouse is the

only child of a [revolutionary] martyr and [the couple] has

only one child.

One spouse has been widowed and the other spouse has never

had a child.

One spouse is divorced and has either had only one child or

has legally had two children and the other spouse has never

had a child.

Neither spouse has had a child and, after having legally

adopted a child, the wife becomes pregnant.

One spouse is a second-generation only child, or both

spouses are only children, and [the couple] has only one

child.

One spouse has been occupied in downhole operations for a

continuous period of five years or longer, is currently

occupied in downhole operations, and [the couple] has only

one child which is a daughter.

Article 23

Apart from the provisions of Article 22 of these

regulations, married couples may apply to give birth to one

additional child if the wife is a rural resident and any of

the following conditions is met:

One spouse is an only child, and [the couple] has only one

child.

Only one child has been had, and the brother(s) of the

husband is/are unable to have a child.

The husband has moved his residence to the place of

residence of the wife and is supporting the parents of the

wife, who has no brothers, and [the couple] has only one

child which is a daughter. This rule shall apply to only one

sister on the wife's side.

The man has no brothers and only one sister, and [the

couple] has only one child which is a daughter.

The couple permanently resides in a coastal reclamation

area with population density not greater than one person per

five mu of land (calculated on a per village basis), and has

only one child which is a daughter.

One spouse has been continuously occupied in ocean fishing

for five years or more, is currently employed in ocean

fishing, and the couple has only one child which is a

daughter.

chapter vi legal liability

Article 44

A couple that gives birth to a child not in accordance with

these regulations shall pay the social compensation fee. . .

.

For urban residents, social compensation fees shall be

calculated by taking as the basic standard the per capita

annual disposable income of urban residents in the

municipality with districts or in the country (city) in the

year prior to the child's birth. For rural residents, social

compensation fees shall be calculated by taking as the basic

standard the per capita annual net income of rural residents

in the township (town in the year prior to the child's birth.

. . .

The specific standards for the social compensation fees to

be paid in accordance with paragraph one of this article are:

Those who have had one additional child not in accordance

with the provisions of these regulations shall pay social

compensation fees in the amount of four multiples of the

basic standard.

Those who have had two or more additional children not in

accordance with the provisions of these regulations shall pay

social compensation fees in the amount of five to eight

multiples of the basic standard.

Those who have had one child outside of marriage shall pay

social compensation fees in the amount of 0.5 to 2 multiples

of the basic standard.

Those who have had two or more children outside of marriage

shall pay social compensation fees in the amount of five to

eight multiples of the basic standard.

Those who have had a child in a bigamous marriage shall pay

social compensation fees in the amount of 6 to 9 multiples of

the basic standard.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back all of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material, and that I may include tabular material on the further consideration of H.R. 2862, Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of title I of the bill through page 34, line 11, be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

The committee is dedicated to addressing the methamphetamine problem; and now with the additional funds freed by the amendment, we can dedicate more funds to combat the meth problem. So I am offering this amendment which adds $34 million to the COPS program to combat meth production and trafficking and enhance policing initiatives.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to the amendment. It would inflict a major blow to the Nation's basic scientific research. The Nation has reached a crisis point in terms of science and technology. Any advantage that we have enjoyed is rapidly eroding.

The research budget should be considered part of the national security budget. It is the most strategic investment we make in maintaining America's leadership in the world. We worked hard within our limited allocation to provide an increased funding level in the bill for NSF's basic scientific research, $157 million above last year's level. Every outside group said this is good. It is above what the Bush administration had, and to take it out now would send a message to the scientific community and the university community that would demoralize them. It would make us a second- and third-rate Nation. I urge a strong ``no'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), chairman of the Committee on Science and one who knows so much about this issue.

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

I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for his comments.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), who has been a leader on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that title II of the bill through page 52, line 17, be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

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

I was led to believe the gentleman was going to withdraw the amendment. In the interest of time, I would just say that I understand what the gentleman is saying. He makes some very valid points. We can look into that. But if the gentleman is going to withdraw it, I will not take the body's time.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. The amendment cuts the Bureau of Industry and Security by over 6 percent. What does that mean, because it does not sound that it is that significant? A cut of $5 million to the Bureau of Industry and Security would severely diminish efforts to deter weapons of mass destruction proliferation, would prevent sensitive dual-use items from falling into the hands of terrorists, and enforces the anti-boycott laws of the United States.

Some think that the Bureau of Industry and Security is actually too weak, and I may be in that category. American industry is being hampered in the international marketplace by the long processing time of export license applications. This amendment would roll back the progress that we have made in reducing the average processing time from 44 days to 32 days since 2003. With additional money we could probably get that down.

The trade deficit, the trade imbalance, this would really create a greater problem to deal with that. Quite frankly, I do not think this administration has done enough to deal with the trade deficit, the trade imbalance. So to take $5 million from the Bureau of Industry and Security would severely diminish our ability both on looking at weapons of mass destruction and technology and also hamper American business at the very time when we are urging them to sell American products abroad.

I understand the gentleman makes some good points with regard to the Coastal Zone Management, and maybe we can look at that as we go into conference. But I would not want to take that from here. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).

Mr. Chairman, I think all that is needed to be said has been said. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, there is no amendment. We were going to reserve a point of order on it. But I just want the Record to show, and I appreciate the gentleman's comments, that the bill provides $800 million for the Marshals Service, which is $41 million above the current year and $10 million above the request. This is in addition to the $12 million provided in the war supplemental for judicial security.

So with that I just thank the gentleman for his comments.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, the amendment strikes $200 million from the International Organization Account under State Department. Quite frankly, this would be devastating for the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), who is bringing his bill up tomorrow.

This bill already, the bill we are now dealing with today, cuts $130 million from the President's request for international organizations. These cuts in the amendment offered by my good friend from Arizona would have a direct impact on critical organizations such as NATO, whose members are now providing training and support in Iraq and Afghanistan. Last night I heard the President talk about the success that is taking place in Afghanistan, and this amendment literally would try to take that success away. Further cutting this funding jeopardizes the effort.

Lastly, this body should know that along with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), as ranking member, we had in our bill last year a task force chaired by Speaker Gingrich and Majority Leader Mitchell that just reported today. I read their entire report over the weekend on dramatic reforms to the U.N.

At a press conference today at 10 o'clock, I made the comments that because of the failure of the U.N. to deal with Darfur, and nobody has been more critical in this institution of the U.N. than I have, I led the first delegation to Darfur where genocide is taking place, we went through all those, but we set up the Gingrich-Mitchell task force of the bipartisan AEI, Heritage and all the groups like that, they have now come up with recommendations that will embolden the administration and this Congress to make sure that the reform is done.

Also, how can we even be dealing with this amendment today when the chairman of the Committee on International Relations is bringing his U.N. reform bill to the House floor this Thursday? The gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), God bless him and his committee, worked hard to ensure that reform takes place in the U.N. To take this amendment before the Hyde bill comes up is not only putting the cart before the horse, it just does not make any sense.

The bill of the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), as the committee and Members know, requires

that 39 reforms must take place, and the Secretary of State must certify that these reforms have taken place. So with the Hyde bill and the Gingrich-Mitchell task force today, there will be reforms, but to just come in now before Mr. Hyde has an opportunity would be a mistake.

I know what the gentleman is trying to do, because I care desperately about Darfur. I led the first delegation to Darfur. I have been critical of the U.N., with the failure to address the issue of hunger. We had hunger in 1984 in Ethiopia when I was there, hunger 2\1/2\ years ago, and now hunger again; also there is a problem with the sexual predators who were U.N. peacekeepers in the Congo. But all of those issues, every one of those issues, are dealt with in the Gingrich- Mitchell task force that came out today, and dealt with in the resolution by the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) that will come up either tomorrow or Friday.

So I understand what the gentleman's problems are, but this would not be a good thing to do. So I would ask Members on both sides, as good as the gentleman's intentions are, to just reject this amendment.

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

How much time do I have, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word in order to yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano); but before I do, if I could just say one thing. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) spent a lot of time on this issue, and when a gentleman has worked to the degree that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has, he ought to have a clear shot at the opportunity to pick it up.

Secondly, the Gingrich-Mitchell Task Force report has not been watered down. It is tough. And the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) mentioned democracy. In the Gingrich-Mitchell report, there is a whole chapter urging the United States to push for the abolition of the Human Rights Commission, which Sudan was the chairman of and on, and Libya was on, and instead set up a democracy caucus, and also have someone in New York who would be working with the democracy.

Also, the gentleman from Arizona mentioned that we were told to wait. We did wait. He voted for the bill last year that set up the Gingrich- Mitchell Task Force, and that is what we have done. So nobody told the gentleman to wait. We acted based on something, and I would have acted whether we told the gentleman to act or not because I had concerns. I saw the suffering in Darfur, I know all about that; I have been to the Congo and saw it, but do

not cut the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) out. I urge a ``no'' vote.

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

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

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

I appreciate the gentleman offering the amendment. The fact that it is offered and, hopefully, defeated on behalf of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and others, will put pressure on. I think the U.N. will have an obligation to adopt the Gingrich-Mitchell recommendations and, also, the administration will have an opportunity, but also an obligation to do that, because the U.N. has failed. It failed in Darfur, it failed in Rwanda, it failed in Srebrenic, and it failed in Sarajevo. Hopefully, this amendment will fail, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) will have an opportunity to have his bill and voted on tomorrow.

Mr. Chairman, 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.

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 it violates clause 2 of rule

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella).

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) for bringing this up. We will work with him and see what we can do to help.

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

Mr. Chairman, the new markets program was intended to be a pilot project from fiscal year 2001 to 2006. There are still funds available for this program. There is no need to provide additional funds at this time, especially at the expense of terminating over 400 employees at the SBA. This would result in the termination, which would not be good for anyone. These employees work on critical technical assistance and loan programs at the SBA.

The amendment unnecessarily provides funds for a program that has almost $2 million left in its budget for technical assistance and over $3.1 million in loan authority. The program received a one-time funding of $59 million in fiscal year 2001 that has still not been entirely spent.

I urge the Members to reject the amendment. Particularly we would not want to cut employees who work on programs like small business development centers and women's business centers. So I understand what the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) is doing, but I would urge that we reject the amendment.

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

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

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

I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and thank him for his comments.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 106, line 22, be considered as read and printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 108, line 7, be considered as read and printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I think Members ought to know that the U.S. State Department lists the Cuban dictatorship as one of five remaining state sponsors of terror. The others are Iran, Libya, North Korea, and Syria.

According to the State Department's most recent patterns of global terrorism, Cuba continues to support foreign terrorist organizations and several terrorists and dozens of fugitives from the U.S., as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) just spoke.

Also, if anyone is listening on the other side, I have sincerely asked for the opportunity to visit the country of Cuba through the legal ways. Everyone who always wants to lift the sanctions gets to go, but in a sincere effort at going down to find out what happens, I never can go. Something tells me there is something funny about this. We want to go on good faith. We ask to go through the normal process. We cannot get there.

I think this is a bad amendment, and I urge the rejection of it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart).

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

I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. I would also like to say to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), I would love to go down to Cuba; and I would ask if the gentleman can intercede for both of us to go together, and that would be an unusual trip.

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

But the gentleman has been there several times.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman has been there a couple of times and I have not, maybe the gentleman can try to help me. I would like to go.

Cuba is a source country for children trafficked internally for the purposes of sexual exploitation and forced child labor. Trafficking victims from all over Cuba are exploited in major cities. This government does not give its own people the necessary help.

Cuban forced-labor victims, and this is from the State Department reports, include children coerced into working conditions of involuntary servitude in commercial agriculture.

The Government of Cuba does not fully comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking and is not making significant efforts to do so. In 2001, Cuban officials outlined an extensive plan to address the prevention and prosecution of trafficking victims on a national scale, but there is no evidence to show that the plan has been implemented. Cuba has no strategy to address its trafficking problem and growing child sex tourism industry.

Let the Cuban Government deal with eliminating the trafficking of children first. Cuba is in of the State Department's Trafficking in persons report tier 3, which is among the worst in the world. Let them deal with this issue and then perhaps we can see about some of these issues. But I urge strongly a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman's amendment is an excellent amendment, and I accept it and I am glad he offered it.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), who has been a leader on this issue.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

I rise in opposition to the amendment. Not only does the amendment hurt law enforcement's efforts to combat drug trafficking, but it really sends the wrong message to our children. Marijuana is the most abused drug in the United States. According to the ONDCP and the DEA, more young people are now in treatment for marijuana dependency than for alcohol or all other illegal drugs.

Mr. Chairman, if I could just read that one more time: according to the ONDCP and the DEA, more young people are now in treatment for marijuana dependency than for alcohol or for all other illegal drugs.

This amendment does not address the problem of marijuana abuse, and I know and I want to stipulate that it is not the intention of the authors, but it possibly makes it worse by sending the message to young people that there are going to be health benefits for smoking marijuana. I think it is confusing to young people for the Congress to do that. I understand what the authors of the amendment are trying to do, but it would be confusing and I think the wrong message.

Last year, this amendment failed by a vote of 148 to 268, and I urge rejection of the amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, let me just respond to what the gentleman said about this ``narrow ideology.'' My mom died of cancer, my father died of cancer, there have been many people in my family on my mother's side who died of cancer. I, at one time, supported this and changed my vote in the Congress because I have seen the devastation that drugs can have on young people, the devastation that it is doing to many people.

So people can have differences of opinion. But when the gentleman uses these inflammatory rhetoric of ``narrow ideology,'' it is like all truth is on their side, I think that is really the wrong tone. This is a serious issue. There are good and decent people on both sides. But I think the gentleman's tone and comments were really not exactly accurate.

I care as much about this issue, and I care as much about suffering and pain as the gentleman. I stood with my mom when she died and with my father when he died.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I make 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 proposes to state a legislative provision.

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

Mr. Chairman, we still reserve a point of order.

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

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Chairman, I do. I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger) for their statements and leadership.

I think by their speaking today it sends a message to the world with regard to the importance of us promoting democracy and freedom in Venezuela. Democracy and human rights, whether it be in Venezuela or any place else, are basic fundamental freedoms that must always be preserved and supported.

The United States should always stand with those fighting for those freedoms. The United States should continue to send a clear message to everyone that we will stand with people like Ms. Machado and others like her who speak out for democracy.

I think what the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger) have done is send a message to the world. They have sent a message to the National Endowment For Democracy that when there is another grant application, that application should be met so she has that opportunity for freedom.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Chairman, yes, I would be happy to provide the Committee on Government Reform with information received from the administration regarding e-government initiatives.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Chocola

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I think this is a good amendment and I accept it.

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

I can assure the gentlewoman that the committee has been closely following EEOC's plan to reorganize over the last 3 years. The committee has even asked the Government Accountability Office to evaluate EEOC's proposals to reposition the agency with a particular focus on the National Contact Center pilot project. I just asked the staff. GAO has not come back yet, and they are not late. We just asked them to do this last year.

Also we have language in the bill on page 78 that says, ``Provided further, That the Commission may take no action to implement any workforce repositioning, restructuring, or reorganization until such time as the Committees on Appropriations have been notified of such proposals in accordance with the reprogramming provisions of section 605 of this act.''

The gentleman from West Virginia and myself would look at that before they could go ahead. It really does, though, unnecessarily restrict the agency's ability to restructure. We will be glad to work with the gentlewoman and listen to her, but I think just to accept this amendment now would really be wrong, particularly with the language that we currently have in this bill that provides that the Committee on Appropriations can stop any reorganization, or they have to come up to the committee before they move ahead.

I oppose the amendment.

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

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

I rise in opposition to the amendment. I understand what the gentlewoman is trying to do. I again want to remind Members, though, that the language in the bill prohibits them from moving ahead until they come to the Committee on Appropriations. So I oppose the language because the language unnecessarily restricts the agency's ability to restructure itself to meet the ever-changing needs of its constituency. We will listen to the gentlewoman, but an outright ban on closing or consolidating offices does not seem responsible in this tight budgetary requirement. We know that the EEOC is currently managing in a tight budget, and I think tying their hands could actually make the matters worse.

I am sure the gentlewoman is going to move ahead with her amendment. I think that is fine. We will work with her if she wins. God bless her. If she loses, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and I will work to make sure that before we approve any reprogramming, we talk to her and also let her see what the GAO says when they come up with their report.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the gentlewoman is withdrawing the amendment; is that accurate?

Mr. Chairman, I thank her for bringing this to our attention.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield further, I do not have a colloquy before me. We are aware of the amendment. The gentlewoman makes some valid points. What I told the staff to say is we would work to see what could be done with regard to the filing. But I understand the gentlewoman is withdrawing the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, we will work with the gentlewoman. As we understand more and learn about it, we will keep good faith and work with the gentlewoman, and also the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, the Committee on the Judiciary has held over 10 hearings on the PATRIOT Act, including a hearing devoted just to this issue. The Committee on the Judiciary is planning on marking up the PATRIOT Act reauthorization bill in the near future, and the authorizers will certainly give this very close attention.

The authority of the Justice Department to obtain a library or bookstore record is not without appropriate checks and balances. A Federal judge must approve the use of this authority before the Department of Justice can obtain business records, including book records. This authority can only be used to obtain foreign intelligence information, not concerning a U.S. person, or ``to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.'' It cannot be used to review the reading habits of the general public.

Mr. Chairman, I will include for the record a letter from the Justice Department dated June 14. It says the following:

``Further, libraries and bookstores have never been exempt from similar investigative authorities. Prosecutors have always been able to obtain records for criminal investigations from bookstores and libraries through grand jury subpoenas. For instance, in the recent case of Olympic Park bomber Eric Rudolph, a grand jury served a subpoena on a bookseller to obtain records showing that Rudolph had purchased a book giving instructions on how to build a particularly unusual detonator that had been used in several bombings. This was important evidence identifying Rudolph as the bomber.

``In the 1997 Gianni Versace murder case, a Florida grand jury subpoenaed records from the public libraries in Miami Beach. Similar in the 1990 Zodiac gunman investigation, a grand jury in New York subpoenaed library records after investigators came to believe that the gunman was inspired by a Scottish occult poet and wanted to learn who had checked out that poet's book.

``Finally, bookstores and libraries should not be carved out as safe havens for terrorists and spies, who have, in fact, used public libraries to do research and communicate with their co-conspirators. For example, in March and April of 2004, Federal investigators in New York conducted surveillance on an individual who was associated with al Qaeda. In the course of tracking the individual, investigators noted that, although he had a computer at his home, he repeatedly visited the library to use the computer. Investigators discovered that the individual was using the library computer to e-mail other terrorist associates around the world.''

Lastly, it goes on to say, ``We know that Brian Regan, a former TRW employee at the National Reconnaissance Office, who recently was convicted of espionage, extensively used computers at five public libraries in northern Virginia and Maryland to access addresses for the embassies of certain foreign governments. This evidence, which also showed that Regan consulted a book present at the library, `How to Be Invisible,' to further his scheme, was critical during his trial.''

Mr. Chairman, I include the entire letter for the Record.

U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Legislative Affairs,

Washington, DC, June 14, 2005.

Hon. Frank Wolf,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Science, State, Justice, and

Commerce, Committee on Appropriations, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: The Department of Justice is pleased to

provide information about section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act

(``PATRIOT Act''), an invaluable authority afforded to

national security investigators when Congress overwhelmingly

passed the Act more than three years ago. It is critical that

Congress' decision whether to continue this vital tool in the

war on terror be informed by reason, rather than rhetoric. We

would oppose any amendment that would unduly restrict our

ability to compel the production of records relevant to

sensitive terrorism and espionage investigations. As stated

in the statement of Administration policy released today on

H.R. 2862--Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related

Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006--if any amendment that

would weaken the PATRIOT Act were adopted and presented to

the President for his signature, the President's senior

advisors would recommend a veto.

Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act provides a useful tool for

catching terrorists and spies by specifically authorizing the

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (``FISA Court'') to

require a person or organization to produce ``tangible

things'' that are relevant to international terrorism and

espionage investigations. These are the same types of

materials that prosecutors have long been able to obtain with

grand jury subpoenas in criminal investigations. Moreover,

section 215 and grand jury subpoenas are both governed by a

similar relevance standard; with respect to section 215, the

requested records must be relevant to a national security

investigation while with respect to grand jury subpoenas, the

requested records must be relevant to a criminal

investigation. As a result, section 215 applies in a much

narrower set of circumstances than do grand jury subpoenas.

While grand jury subpoenas can be used to investigate all

types of criminal conduct, section 215 can only be used ``to

obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a

United States person or to protect against international

terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided

that such investigation of a United States person is not

conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by

the first amendment to the Constitution.'' 50 U.S.C.

Sec. 1861(a)(1).

Further, contrary to misleading rhetoric about section 215,

it does not empower FBI agents to obtain records without a

court order. Rather, section 215 can be used to obtain

documents only with an order from the FISA Court. Thus the

Department's use of section 215 requires more scrutiny than

do grand jury subpoenas, which are generally issued without

prior judicial approval. Moreover, we have taken the position

in litigation that: 1) recipients of a section 215 order may

disclose receipt of an order to an attorney and; 2)

recipients may challenge a section 215 order in FISA court.

In addition, the Attorney General has testified that the

Department of Justice supports amending section 215 to

clarify any ambiguity related to these points.

In addition to the requirement of court approval, this

provision establishes other important safeguards. For

instance, section 215 provides for thorough congressional

oversight. On a semi-annual basis, the Attorney General is

required to ``fully inform'' Congress on the Department's use

of section 215. In addition, the Attorney General must report

to Congress the number of times agents have sought a court

order under section 215, as well as the number of times such

requests were granted, modified, or denied during the

preceding six month period. See 50 U.S.C. Sec. 1862.

The Attorney General recently declassified the fact that as

of March 30, 2005 section 215 of the PATRIOT Act had been

used 35 times, and had never been used to obtain bookstore or

library records, medical records, or gun sale records.

Rather, section 215 orders had only been used to obtain

driver's license records, public accommodations records,

apartment leasing records, credit card records, and

subscriber information, such as names and addresses, for

telephone numbers captured through court-authorized pen

register devices. These figures demonstrate that

investigators have used this tool judiciously and

responsibly. The provision, moreover, has assisted the

Department's national security investigations as there can be

a number of situations in which the ability to access

documents pursuant to a section 215 order is critical to an

international terrorism or espionage investigation,

particularly in the early stages of an investigation when

officers are trying to develop leads.

Section 215 has been attacked for its potential application

to libraries, with some critics suggesting that libraries

should be exempted from it or that the provision should be

repealed altogether. These critics ignore statutory context,

well-established grand jury practice, and the reality of the

terrorist threat. First, although a section 215 order could

be issued to a bookstore or library if it possessed records

relevant to an espionage or international terrorism

investigation, the provision does not single them out or even

mention them. Indeed, as noted above, the provision, as of

March 30, 2005, had never been used to request library

records. And, in any event, such a request would have to be

approved by a court, ensuring an independent check on the

Department's investigators.

Further, libraries and bookstores have never been exempt

from similar investigative authorities. Prosecutors have

always been able to obtain records for criminal

investigations from bookstores and libraries through grand

jury subpoenas. For instance, in the recent case of Olympic

Park bomber Eric Rudolph, a grand jury served a subpoena on a

bookseller to obtain records showing that Rudolph had

purchased a book giving instructions on how to build a

particularly unusual detonator that had been used in several

bombings. This was important evidence identifying Rudolph as

the bomber. In the 1997 Gianni Versace murder case, a Florida

grand jury subpoenaed records from public libraries in Miami

Beach. Similarly, in the 1990 Zodiac gunman investigation, a

grand jury in New York subpoenaed library records after

investigators came to believe that the gunman was inspired by

a Scottish occult poet and wanted to learn who had checked

out that poet's books.

Finally, bookstores and libraries should not be carved out

as safe havens for terrorists and spies, who have, in fact,

used public libraries to do research and communicate with

their co-conspirators. For example, in March and April of

2004, Federal investigators in New York conducted

surveillance on an individual who was associated with al

Qaeda. In the course of tracking the individual,

investigators noted that, although he had a computer at his

home, he repeatedly visited a library to use the computer.

Investigators discovered that the individual was using the

library computer to e-mail other terrorist associates around

the world. The library's hard drives were scrubbed after each

user finished, and he used the computer at the library

because he believed that the library permitted him to

communicate free of any monitoring. This individual is now in

Federal custody.

In addition, investigators tracing the activities of the 9-

11 hijackers determined that, on four occasions in August of

2001, individuals using internet accounts registered to Nawaf

Al Hazmi and Khalid Al Mihdar used public access computers in

the library of a State college in New Jersey. The computers

in the library were used to shop for and review airline

tickets on an internet travel reservations site. Al Hazmi and

Al Mihdar were hijackers aboard American Airlines Flight 77,

which took off from Dulles Airport and crashed into the

Pentagon. The last documented visit to the library occurred

on August 30, 2001. On that occasion, records indicate that a

person using Al Hazmi's account used the library's computer

to review September 11 reservations that had been previously

booked.

Similarly, investigators have received information that

individuals believed to be Wail Al Shehri, Waleed Al Shehri,

and Marwan Al Shehhi visited the Delray Beach Public Library,

in Delray Beach, Florida. Wail Al Shehri and Waleed Al Shehri

entered the library one afternoon in July of 2001 and asked

to use the library's computers to access the internet. After

about an hour, a third man, Marwan Al Shehhi, joined them.

Waleed and Wail Al Shehri were hijackers aboard American

Airlines Flight 11, while Al Shehhi was the pilot who took

control of United Airlines Flight 175. Both of those

flights crashed into the World Trade Center. A witness who

recognized photos of the three individuals that ran in

newspaper articles after the September 11 attacks,

provided the information about the Delray Beach library

visit. While no records exist to confirm the hijackers'

visit to the Delray Beach library, the timing, location

and behavior described are consistent with other

information gathered in the course of the investigation.

We also know that Brian Regan, a former TRW employee at the

National Reconnaissance Office, who recently was convicted of

espionage, extensively used computers at five public

libraries in Northern Virginia and Maryland to access

addresses for the embassies of certain foreign governments.

This evidence--which also showed that Regan consulted a book

present at the library, How to be Invisible, to further his

scheme--was critical during his trial.

Simply put, section 215 of the PATRIOT Act provides

national security investigators with an important tool for

investigating and intercepting terrorism, and at the same

time establishes robust safeguards to protect law-abiding

Americans. We hope that this information assists you.

Thank you for the opportunity to present our views. Please

do not hesitate to call upon us if we may be of additional

assistance. The Office of Management and Budget has advised

us that from the perspective of the Administration's program,

there is no objection to submission of this letter.

Sincerely,

William E. Moschella,

Assistant Attorney General.

Mr. Chairman, I see the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) down there. I listened to her the other day on NPR. I was the author of the National Commission on Terrorism. They all laughed on it, frankly, and had I not been on the Committee on Appropriations, we could not have gotten it passed. The gentlewoman was on, and I remember the gentlewoman's statement the other day where she said had they listened to the recommendations, which this Congress and almost nobody did, of the Commission, maybe, maybe, 9/11 may not have taken place.

I do not know if the gentleman's amendment is the right amendment or not. I do know that 30 people from my congressional district died in the attack on the Pentagon on 9/11. I also know that the first CIA agent, from my congressional district, from Manassas Park, was the first one to die in the attack when we went into Afghanistan with regard to the Taliban.

Now, is the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) right? Maybe. But is the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) wrong? Maybe.

So I say in the interest of what took place in this country, and because of the fact that nobody listened to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) and also the Bremer Commission, and the fact is we were ridiculed by it when it came out, and the CIA even opposed it and ridiculed it, and the gentlewoman is right, had it been listened to, and I say listened to the

authorizers, let us see what the authorizers say. Then the gentleman, after he listens can come out on that committee and offer an amendment, and it ought to be made in order.

This is not the place, and I do not want to make a mistake that may very well lead to something else happening, because, God forbid, if something else happened in this country, and the FBI comes under our jurisdiction, and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) knows more about it than I do, but there are people, Hamas is in this country, Hezbollah is in this country, the person who planned the bombing that killed 241 marines walks the streets of Lebanon, and nothing has been done.

If I thought that perhaps this amendment could maybe have one opportunity whereby we would miss somebody like that, I could not live with myself.

So the gentleman may be right, but the gentleman may be wrong. Let us defeat this amendment and allow the authorizers to deal with it and have a full, fair debate after the hearings.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), a former attorney general of the State of California.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do both sides have remaining?

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney).

Mr. Chairman, I have 4 minutes remaining if my arithmetic is still good. And I have two more speakers, plus I am going to close in 30 seconds. How much does the other side have?

Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Chairman, how much time does each side have? I have the right to close; is that right, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have two speakers. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) will have 2 minutes, and I will have 1 minute. If my math is right, we do have 3 minutes; is that correct?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

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

Mr. Chairman, Hamas and Hezbollah and al Qaeda are opposed to liberty.

The gentleman was wrong last year, because he has changed his amendment from that. So he was wrong last year, so maybe he is wrong this year.

We are at war, as the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) said. Go to the Pentagon and look at the monument, go to the World Trade Center. Two of my children live in the district of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), and I know that gentleman does not speak for them on this issue.

When in doubt, do no harm. Be careful. The Justice Department made a mistake on the Moussaoui. They did not look at what was in his computer, and as a result of that mistake, we have paid a tremendous price. And if we make a mistake here, we may pay another tremendous price.

Please, vote ``no'' on the Sanders amendment and let the Committee on the Judiciary deal with this.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, and I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition. The Committee on the Judiciary has held over 10 hearings on the PATRIOT Act, including a hearing devoted just to national security letters.

We saw this amendment for the first time Monday night. It is unclear to me why health insurance records are different than any other records. We do not know how this amendment would impact a counterterrorism investigation. We just do not know. And here we are with 7\1/2\ minutes on each side. What is this? This is no way to protect the country.

I could never support 7\1/2\ minutes. And I do not care if it is just the naming of some government building somewhere. So I strongly urge Members to vote ``no'' on this. Seven-and-a-half minutes? We cannot do it. I urge a ``no'' vote.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), a former attorney general.

Mr. Chairman, I yield half of my time to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control that time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. I think the gentleman makes some decent points. There were the Gingrich-Mitchell recommendations which have been made. The gentleman said that he would withdraw the amendment if we got a GAO study. I think we ought to look at this thing. I think that the committee will ask the GAO to do a study to look at the cost and make sure. It is hard to argue against the gentleman for wanting a study because we now know, and being the author of that task force, that the U.N. failed on the Oil-for-Food program. I think it makes sense.

With that, I will pledge and I will wait to hear what the gentleman from West Virginia says, but we will ask the GAO for a study to look at these things.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we support the amendment. We support safety. I thank the gentlewoman for offering it. We accept the amendment.

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

I would just say, that chart has been used a lot today for different issues. This is probably the right issue for this time; is that correct? It has been up here before. It is the chart that keeps reappearing.

I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

We will definitely work with the gentleman in conference to ensure that this program is funded.

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

Mr. Spedker, the editorial page of The Richmond Times- Dispatch of Richmond, Virginia, recently carried the names of all the service men and women from Virginia who have made the ultimate sacrifice in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom from September 11, 2001, through May 29, 2005.

I submit for the Record a copy of the editorial, titled, ``In Memoriam.'' Words cannot express the appreciation of a grateful nation to the families of these brave men and women.

In Memoriam

Virginians who have died in Operations Iraqi Freedom and

Enduring Freedom in America's defense since September 11,

2001--listed in the order of their death. R.I.P.:

Marine Staff Sgt. Donald C. May, Jr., 31, of Richmond.

Marine Sgt. Michael V. Lalush, 23, of Troutville.

Army Capt. James F. Adamouski, 29, of Springfield.

Air Force Maj. William R. Watkins, III, 37, of Danville.

Army 1st Lt. Jeffrey J. Kaylor, 24, of Clifton.

Marine Lance Cpl. David Edward Owens, Jr., 20, of

Winchester.

Army Pvt. Jason L. Deibler, 20, of Coeburn.

Army Sgt. Michael E. Dooley, 23, of Pulaski.

Army Command Sgt. Maj. James D. Blankenbecler, 40, of

Alexandria.

Army Capt. John R. Teal, 31, of Mechanicsville.

Army 1st Lt. Joshua C. Hurley, 24, of Clifton Forge.

Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Michael J. Gray, 32, of

Richmond.

Army Spc. Frank K. Rivers, Jr., 23, of Woodbridge.

Army Pfc. Andrew L. Tuazon, 21, of Chesapeake.

Army 2nd Lt. Leonard M. Cowherd, 22, of Culpeper.

Marine Pfc; Michael M. Carey, 20, of Prince George.

Army Spc. Leslie D. Jackson, 18, of Richmond.

Army Capt. Humayun S.M. Khan, 27, of Bristow.

Army Spc. Jeremy M. Dimaranan, 29, of Virginia Beach.

Army Staff Sgt. Gregory V. Pennington, 36, of Glade Spring.

Army Staff Sgt. Robert K. McGee, 38, of Martinsville.

Marine Sgt. Krisna Nachampassak, 27, of Burke.

Army Staff Sgt. Craig W. Cherry, 39, of Winchester.

Marine Lance Cpl. Tavon L. Hubbard, 24, of Reston.

Marine Staff Sgt. John R. Howard, 26, of Covington.

Army 1st Lt. Timothy E. Price, 25, of Midlothian.

Army Spc. Clarence Adams, 28, of Richmond.

Marine 1st Lt. Alexander E. Wetherbee, 27, of Fairfax.

Marine Lance Cpl. Brian A. Medina, 20, of Woodbridge.

Marine Lance Cpl. Demarkus D. Brown, 22, of Martinsville.

Marine Cpl. Bradley T. Arms, 20, of Charlottesvil1e.

Army Sgt. Jack Bryant, Jr., 23, of Dale City.

Army Chief Warrant Officer Travis W. Grogan, 31, of

Virginia Beach.

Marine Gunnery Sgt. Javier Obleas-Prado Pena, 36, of Falls

Church.

Marine Cpl. Binh N. Le, of Alexandria.

Army Capt. Mark N. Stubenhofer, 30, of Springfield.

Navy Chief Joel Egan Baldwin, 37, of Arlington.

Army Sgt. David A. Ruhren, 20, of Stafford.

Army Spc. Nicholas C. Mason, 20, of King George.

Army Sgt. Maj. Robert D. Odell, 38, of Manassas.

Army Staff Sgt. Nathaniel J. Nyren, 31, of Reston.

Marine Sgt. Dayton D. Patterson, 26, of Sedley.

Marine Lance Cpl. Darrell J. Schumann, 25, of Hampton.

Marine Cpl. Christopher L. Weaver, 24, of Fredericksburg.

Marine Lance Cpl. Karl R. Linn, 20, of Chesterfield.

Marine Cpl. Jonathan W. Bowling, 23, of Patrick.

Marine Lance Cpl. Jason C. Redifer, 19, of Stuarts Draft.

Army Staff Sgt. Kristopher L. Shepherd, 26, of Lynchburg.

Army Pfc. Lee A. Lewis, Jr., 28, of Norfolk.

Marine Lance Cpl. Tenzin Dengkhim, 19, of Falls Church.

Army Pfc. Pendleton L. Sykes, II, 25, of Chesapeake.

Marine Capt. James C. Edge, 31, of Virginia Beach.

Army Sgt. Tromaine K. Toy, Sr., 24, of Eastville.

Marine Lance Cpl. Nicholas C. Kirven, 21, of Richmond.

Marine Lance Cpl. Jourdan L. Grez, 24, of Harrisonburg.

Army Pfc. Kyle M. Hemauer, 21, of Manassas.

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. 2862, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to begin consideration of H.R. 2862, making appropriations for fiscal year 2006 for Science, the Departments of State, Justice, Commerce, and related agencies. This bill provides funding for programs whose impact ranges from the safety of people in their homes and communities to the conduct of diplomacy around the world, to the farthest reaches of space exploration.

The bill before the House today reflects a delicate balance of needs and requirements. We have drafted what I consider a responsible bill for fiscal year 2006 spending levels for the departments and agencies under the subcommittee's jurisdiction. We have had to carefully prioritize funding in the bill and make hard choices about how to spend scarce resources.

I want to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) for supporting us with a fair allocation and helping us to move the bill forward. I also would like to thank the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), who has been very effective and a valued partner and colleague on this bill. I appreciate his principled commitment and understanding of the programs in the bill.

Also I wanted to thank all members of the subcommittee for their help and assistance: the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Alexander), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), who used to be the ranking member on the committee, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer), the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy), and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), and also the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the full committee.

Mr. Chairman, I also want at the outset to thank the members of the staff who have worked incredibly hard, as I am sure all subcommittee staff on this committee do on appropriations, but particularly want to thank them publicly. Mike Ringler, the clerk of the subcommittee, who has led the subcommittee through the House appropriations process. Also I want to thank Christine Kojac, John Martens, Anne Marie Goldsmith, Joel Kaplan and Celia Aloavado for their tireless efforts. Their work is very much appreciated. They have done an outstanding job.

In my personal office, I want to thank Dan Scandling, Janet Shaffron, J.T. Griffin, Samantha Stockman and Courtney Schlieter for their efforts and work with the subcommittee.

From the minority staff, I want to thank David Pomerantz, Michelle Burkett, Rob Nabors, Sally Moorhead and Julie Aaronson for their insight and input on the bill.

It has been a good bipartisan effort. Sometimes those things are said, but sometimes there is not a lot of reality to them. But this has been a good bipartisan effort. As in past years, we

have worked in a bipartisan manner to draft this legislation, and I look forward to continuing forward in that spirit.

The bill contains $57.45 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 allocation. Program increases are focused on the most critical areas, including counterterrorism, law enforcement, security of government employees overseas, as well as science and space programs.

As we know, the budget resolution upon which our allocation is based actually reduces nondefense discretionary funding from last year's level by 0.8 percent. As a result, we have had to make some difficult choices to focus limited resources on programs that are most critical to the Nation.

The bill continues the progress we have made in the fight against terrorism and crime. We have tried our best to establish strong funding levels for NASA and the National Service Foundation (NSF), the agencies that are new to our jurisdiction. At the same time, the bill also reflects our commitment to responsible stewardship of public funds.

For the Department of Justice, the bill includes $21.45 billion, $1.1 billion above the request, to restore needed funds for State and local crime-fighting to keep our streets safe. The bill also includes significant increases for Federal law enforcement for both terrorism prevention and traditional law enforcement and drug enforcement.

The bill focuses funding on fighting the growth of gangs and reducing gang violence. We have continued and enhanced FBI and ATF antigang programs and restored funding to the gang resistance training programs. In addition, we have created a new $60 million gang program that will allow each U.S. Attorney's office, working with local officials, to fund antigang strategies in cooperation with those in State and local government.

The bill also includes $5.76 billion for the FBI to provide enhanced training and information technology management, and to provide additional agents, analysts and translators to improve counterterrorism and counterintelligence capabilities, while continuing the fight on white-collar crime and gang violence.

We maintained the commitment to fighting illegal drug activities with $1.7 billion for the DEA, slightly above the request, to restore proposed reductions in assistance to State and local law enforcement, Mobile Enforcement Teams and Demand Reduction, and to fully fund the effort to combat heroin production in Afghanistan.

The bill also includes $2.59 billion for improving State and local law enforcement crime-fighting programs, restoring $1 billion above the request to the highest-priority programs. We have restored $1 billion.

I heard the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) talking earlier during debate on the rule, and I agree with what the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) said. Why would the administration have ever zeroed this out? But we have restored $1 billion above the request for the highest-priority programs, including SCAAP, Justice Assistance Grants and Juvenile Justice programs, all which the administration proposed to eliminate or drastically reduce.

For the Department of Commerce and related trade agencies, the bill includes $5.83 billion, a decrease of $831 million below 2005. We have not adopted the President's proposal for a new consolidated community development program, which explains why we are so far below the request for Commerce.

As we did last year, the overall funding levels for the trade agencies, USTR, ITA and ITC, is above the request; it is higher than the administration asked for.

I just cannot understand why this administration is not bringing an intellectual property case with regard to China. We gave them all of the resources last year and are giving them all of the resources this year. If they do not move this year, I do not know what we can do. Hopefully, with Rob Portman down there, they will move.

This will empower them to negotiate, verify and enforce trade agreements that are free and fair, and ensure an even playing field for American businesses.

For NIST, we have provided $19 million above the current year level for the core science programs, focusing on national security standards and nanomanufacturing.

To further bolster our manufacturing sector, the bill includes $106 million for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program, an increase of $59 million. Members from both sides of the aisle spoke to us on numerous occasions about that.

The bill makes some cuts for the NOAA budget, eliminating lower- priority programs and projects. The critical function of the National Weather Service and NOAA's satellite programs are funded above the request, and funding is continued for critical ocean and fisheries programs.

The bill includes $1.7 billion, a 10 percent increase, for the PTO, and equal to the amount they expect to collect in fees. A strong patent and trademark system is essential to protect our intellectual property and maintain innovation in the economy.

Finally under Commerce, we provide an increase of $87 million to support the ramp-up to the 2010 decennial census, including full funding for the American Community Survey.

For NASA, the bill ensures that the President's vision for space exploration is adequately funded at $3.1 billion, while at the same time restoring the aeronautics research program to the enacted level of $906 million, and providing $40 million over the request to partially restore NASA's science programs.

The space shuttle program is funded at the request to ensure that all shuttle safety issues are being fully funded. In coordination with the Committee on Science and the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert), new legislative language is included in the bill directing the President to develop a national aeronautics policy to be submitted with the fiscal year 2007 budget.

Boeing is dropped in production and share of the market. Ten years ago they had 65 percent of the market, now they are down to 48 to 49. Frankly, without an aeronautical policy, that will continue to drop. That language, working with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), is in here.

For the NSF, we are providing an increase of $171 million over last year, $38 million above the request. People say we are falling behind in math, science, physics, chemistry and biology, and we are trying to do everything we can to reverse that. Also I have sent a letter to the administration asking that they triple the funding next year, taking from other areas, but triple the funding on R&D so this country does not lose its competitive edge.

This includes a 3.7 percent increase for basic research funding, $44 million above the request. And for science education we have included $807 million, which is $70 million above the request. Science is the engine of our competitiveness, and I have encouraged the President to substantially increase our investment in basic research and science education in the 2007 budget.

For the State Department and Broadcasting Board of Governors, the bill includes $9.53 billion, a decrease of $1.1 billion below 2005, and $273 million below the request.

Within this total we are providing $1.5 billion, the full request, for worldwide security improvements and replacement of vulnerable facilities and funding to support 55 new positions to support security readiness.

Look at the security that this Capitol Building has. Look at the security that many other Federal buildings have. To say that we are going to send Federal employees abroad and not protect them, we remember the bombing in Tanzania and the bombing in Kenya, so we fully make sure that is funded.

We are providing 100 new positions for high-priority diplomatic requirements, including in the areas of fighting terrorist financing, nonproliferation of WMD and for new critical language needs related to the Global War on Terror.

We continue to strongly support public diplomacy improvements, including significant increases for information programs, international broadcasting and international exchange programs, particularly with the Arab and Muslim world.

We have included the requested funds for international peacekeeping to pay

the assessed costs for missions in Sudan. I think this administration has done a good job in Sudan. More should be done in Darfur, and Under Secretary Zoellick has been to Darfur now twice. But this money for peacekeeping in Sudan will have a major impact on what is taking place in Darfur; also, in Haiti, Liberia and elsewhere.

We have attached to this funding new language requiring notification to the committee that prevention and prosecution measures are in place to ensure zero tolerance of sexual abuse in peacekeeping missions. If you read the report on the peacekeeping abuses, sexual abuse by U.N. peacekeepers in the Congo, it will make you sick. So this language deals with notification to the committee, and prevention and prosecution measures are in place for the zero, zero tolerance of sexual abuse in peacekeeping missions.

We also include new language supporting the maintenance of a flat U.N. budget. We also require the State Department to keep the committee informed of any changes in the U.N. budget.

There is a lot of interest, Mr. Chairman, in the U.N. and, as many of my colleagues know, last year in our bill, we created a United Nations Task Force to make recommendations for U.S. Government action to reform the U.N. and ensure the U.N. fulfills its charter purposes. The task force is cochaired by Senator Mitchell and Speaker Gingrich. Their recommendations are coming to the committee later this week, and we will look closely at their recommendations and do everything we can to advance them, and we would urge the administration and everyone in Congress to do everything that they can to advance their recommendations made by Speaker Gingrich and Majority Leader Mitchell.

The bill again fully funds the Federal Trade Commission Do-Not-Call program, and fully funds the request for the SEC to protect American investors.

For the SBA, the bill provides full requested funding for Small Business Development Centers. We restored $11 million for the Microloan program, which the President proposed to terminate. For business loan programs, the bill allows for $16.5 billion in general business loans, an unprecedented program level, while requiring no appropriation.

In closing, this is a summary of the bill. It provides increases where needed to maintain and strengthen the operations of critical law enforcement and other agencies. It gives no ground in the fight against terrorism, crime, and drugs, and restores desperately needed resources for State and local law enforcement personnel.

It represents our best take on matching needs with scarce resources. We have tried very hard to produce the best bill we could within the resources that we had to work with, and I urge all Members to support the bill.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN05.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN05.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN05.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN05.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN05.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN05.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN05.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN05.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN05.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN05.010

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to do so for the gentlewoman.

I share her concerns about waste, fraud and abuse, and have also expressed my concerns to the SBA about this issue. In fact, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger) had expressed the same concern, too.

I understand that the SBA is now collecting the information on, and essentially tracking, loan agents. Any potential fraud cases are immediately referred to the Inspector General, and perhaps we ought to put some language in saying they should be referred to the FBI for prosecution.

I will assure the gentlewoman I will work with the SBA Administrator and the Inspector General, and also, if the gentlewoman would agree, the FBI, to assure that no fraud occurs in the small business loan program.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I would, definitely.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) for purposes of a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank both the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) for their comments. Frankly, I have learned a lot from them on this issue, and a lot of what they have been pushing for, I now see, if you will. So I want to thank them.

I understand their concerns, and I will be pleased to work with them to explore what might be done to address these concerns in conference. I support the MSP program at the NSF and look forward to working with the gentleman from Michigan and also the gentleman from New York to see if we can address the legitimate concerns they raise.

Furthermore, I am committed to ensuring that our investment in future innovation does not waiver; and I look forward to working with both my colleagues and, hopefully, the President of the United States with additional resources as the budget comes up next year on improving the allocation for science in future budgets.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman from New York that the State Department's American Corners Program is important for several reasons. It encourages the opening flow of ideas, which we desperately need at this time. It teaches people about America, which we also desperately need. And it increases global literacy.

The fundamental function of the American Corners Program is to make information about our country available to foreign publics at large. Access to the American Corners collection is free and open to all interested citizens of the host country, and I think it is particularly important to countries that are closed.

I am happy to work with the gentleman from New York to ensure strong support for this program going forward.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Yes, I do agree with the gentleman that this funding for ongoing research and capital improvements to these laboratories is important. To date, no new funding has been requested by the administration, and plans for such a fence have not been finalized. The committee understands this project may be considered for future budget requests to the Congress.

Also, I tell the gentleman that I would be glad to set up a meeting with the new director of NIST and others to kind of meet in our offices and see how we can resolve this to the gentleman's satisfaction.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we will be glad to work with the gentleman from Texas and Ranking Member Mollohan to see what we can do to help. That sounds like a horrible situation: 31 Americans kidnapped. So if we can help, we will do whatever we can to help you.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for bringing this issue to our attention, Mr. Chairman. As the gentleman said, the budget is very tight this year and difficult decisions had to be made. While I believe that all the programs in the bill are worthy of funding, we had to keep the bill within the subcommittee 302(b) allocation.

I agree with the gentleman that the functions of NOAA are very important and will work to see that the conference funding levels are adequate.

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

I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I agree with the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) and will work with the gentleman to address this issue. If the gentleman can come up with something creative, working with the authorizers, working with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), maybe there is something we could put in our bill at the end, assuming the authorizers agree, that does something special and more direct with regard to the meth issue. I am wide open. I know how meth has impacted the gentleman's State, and he has been a leader with the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) on this issue. I suggest you talk with the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), and maybe we could do something dramatic to deal with this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the Obey amendment.

I do, Mr. Chairman.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 20 minutes to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the opponent.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The amendment would reduce funding for one of the President's top priorities, science and space. This represents more than a 6-percent reduction in the President's new Vision for Space Exploration and would significantly jeopardize NASA's ability to implement its new mission.

I would like to read a letter from the Administrator, Michael Griffin.

``Dear Mr. Chairman:

``It has come to my attention that, during House consideration of H.R. 2862, an amendment will be offered by Mr. Obey that proposes to reduce NASA Exploration Systems funding by $200 million, and redirect the NASA funds to State and local law enforcement assistance activities.

``I must respectfully oppose this amendment. I support full funding of the President's fiscal year 2006 request for NASA. Any reduction in NASA's fiscal year 2006 Exploration Systems funding would threaten the ability of this Nation to ensure U.S. human access to space, our efforts to accelerate the availability of the crew exploration vehicle to minimize the gap between the retirement of the space shuttle and the first operational flight of the CEV, and our efforts to maintain a robust civil service workforce at NASA's field centers in support of these efforts.''

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney).

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment, and any amendments thereto, conclude by 15 minutes, and that the time be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the opponent.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

This amendment takes the worst possible approach to finding offsets with an across-the-board cut. It is a blunt instrument and does tremendous damage. Indiscriminate cuts in this amendment would be irresponsible. Hundreds of people, perhaps thousands, would lose their jobs, and many other negative consequences would occur in virtually every agency in the bill.

For every Federal law enforcement agency in the bill this is a cut. The FBI, working around the clock to protect the country from the next terrorist attack is cut by $26 million. If adopted, a reduction of 161 FBI agents, gone; 45 DEA agents gone, 35 deputy U.S. marshals gone; 22 ATF agents gone; 65 U.S. attorneys gone. In addition, the Bureau of Prisons, $22 million out; State and local law enforcement programs are reduced including a $2 million reduction in COPS and $1.5 million from Juvenile Justice.

This amendment, not that the gentleman meant it to be that way, even cuts education benefits for the survivors of public safety officers killed in the line of duty, as well as disability benefits for officers while injured on duty.

Lastly, NASA is cut by $70 million. Science goes down the tubes and is cut with regard to that. Embassy security, $6.8 million, and remember Americans killed in Tanzania, Americans killed in Nairobi. A $4 million is cut from SEC. Remember Enron, and we would take money from the SEC. Nineteen million dollars cut from the National Science Foundation. At the very time we are falling behind and everyone here is saying put more money into NSF, this takes money out of NSF, as we are falling down behind in engineers and math and science and physics and chemistry, and we just had the colloquy with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

Lastly, there have been a number of groups opposed to this: the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, American Conservative Union, Americans for Tax Reform. If Members find something, if they need something, look at a bill and go through it. To have it equally across the board is the wrong way to go.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, my father was a policeman for 20 years, so I am not going to take any back seat to anybody else.

If you really want to do something, stand up to the drug industry, which this Congress will not do, and do what the State of Oklahoma did: pass the law that makes you go up to the counter and ask for it. If you really want to do something, do that and stand up to the drug industry and deal with it.

This amendment cuts COPS $2 million; U.S. Attorneys, $7 million; Marshals Service, $4 million; the Do Not Call, FEC, $4 million; Small Business Administration, $3 million; NSF, $19 million; NASA, $72 million; DEA, $7 million; public safety officer benefits. Why? If we were looking to have an amendment, we would sort of exempt that out.

That is why these across-the-boards are a bad thing. We would exempt that out. Oceans. We just had a colloquy with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) on oceans. We go down on oceans.

I understand. Meth is coming to my area. We do not want to take away from embassy security so Federal employees get blown up, or reduce the FBI that is fighting that, or DEA. There are other ways to deal with this.

I care about the meth issue as much as anybody else. This is not the way to do it. You cannot go out and explain why we make all these cuts. There must be some focus. If you think this is so important, find out that area, offer an amendment to cut it, and put it back in this. But across the board, this is a bad amendment.

I urge Members to vote ``no.''

Mr. Chairman, I think it is a good amendment, and I have no objection. I think it should pass.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, this is subject to a point of order, and it is unfortunate that it is. I would pledge to the gentleman that we will do everything we can to deal with this problem.

Several weeks ago several of us were down in El Salvador where they made the very case of the people who were involved in violent gangs had gone to coyotes who would take them up. I think the gentleman is right on target, so we will work with him, and I appreciate him bringing this to our attention, so that we can see what we can do.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman raising this issue. This is really an important issue. Before I came to Congress, I was involved in a reentry program at Lorton Reformatory, so I think what the gentleman is trying to do is a good idea.

Reentry programs are critical to rehabilitating prisoners. I support the programs and will continue to work with the gentleman. The bill includes a $6 million increase in the Bureau of Prisons and $10 million in OJP for reentry programs. You really cannot put a man or a woman in jail for 15 years and then, at the end, just open up the cell and let them out without having any reentry programs. So what the gentleman is trying to do is exactly right. But that is the status of funding, a $6 million increase within the Bureau of Prisons and $10 million in OJP for reentry programs.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the debate on this amendment and any amendments thereto, conclude by 15 minutes, and that the time be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the opponent.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw that and would insert 20 rather than 15.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. If we were to pass this amendment, then you can never write to your constituents and say you really care about the deficit. And I know the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) is going to speak about this. We dealt with this program last year. We are now at a record level of loans. So if you vote for this, you will never be able to write and say that I am concerned about the deficit.

The 7(a) program has been operating at record levels without subsidy appropriations since the beginning of fiscal year 2005 when the fees on lenders and borrowers reverted to the pre-2003 level. The SBA administrator continues to assure us the program is running strong, does not require a subsidy. Since lending levels are no longer tied to appropriation, the program has been able to meet the demand.

The program is on track, Mr. Chairman, to far exceed the previous lending levels and in fact may come close to the $16 billion authorized level.

Media reports all over the country have touted the recent success of the 7(a) lending. To highlight this, I have articles which we will put in the Record, if it is appropriate at this time, from the Chicago Tribune, Cincinnati Press Courier. Here are some of the headlines: ``SBA programs looks

sound.'' ``Stable funding turns banks on to SBA lending.'' In fact, lending to every segment of the population, including women and minorities is up from last year's level.

[From the Chicago Tribune, Dec. 27, 2004]

SBA Program Looks Sound

(By Rob Kaiser)

Holiday magic isn't the likely reason the U.S. Small

Business Administration and its numerous critics appear in

harmony for the first time in years.

A more likely explanation is the $16 billion stocking

stuffer for the SBA's flagship 7(a) loan program, which will

likely keep it from suffering short-falls in 2005 that drew

the ire of banks and small-business owners this year.

``The risk of a cap or a shutdown is basically nil,'' said

Tony Wilkinson, president of the National Association of

Government Guaranteed Lenders and a frequent SBA critic.

Such an outlook is a vast improvement from recent years,

when frequent loan limits and speculation about shutdowns

sent bankers scurrying to submit loan applications and left

many business owners in limbo--often with unpaid bills--when

expected loans suddenly evaporated.

To achieve the peace, bankers grudgingly accepted a return

to paying higher fees as the Bush administration got its wish

to wipe away a nearly $80 million subsidy that had been

supporting the 7(a) program. In return, the bankers expect to

inherit a more stable program.

Such stability would have saved Julie Valenza a lot of time

and money.

Valenza was close to purchasing her second Jimmy John's

sandwich franchise in January when the $250,000 loan she

expected to secure through the 7(a) program was suddenly

stalled when SBA stopped accepting new applications due to a

funding short-fall.

To salvage the deal to purchase an existing store in

Westmont, Valenza recruited her sister as a investor.

``At least I didn't have to bring in a stranger off the

street,'' she said.

Still, the setback delayed the purchase by two months and

means Valenza now has to split the store's profits.

Paul Andreotti, an executive vice president at National

City Bank in Chicago, said SBA loans exist so such situations

are avoided.

Without 7(a) loans, many business owners would have to

finance growth on their credit cards or through other

expensive means.

``If the SBA wasn't guaranteeing loans, banks couldn't be

as aggressive and provide as much capital,'' said Andreotti,

whose bank is putting together a 7(a) loan so Valenza can

open a third Jimmy John's location in Oak Lawn.

While he's not happy to see the fees climbing, Andreotti

said, ``In the long run I think it will positively impact

small businesses.''

Fees for the 7(a) program are now 2 percent on loans up to

$150,000, up from 1 percent. Loans between $150,001 and

$700,000 carry a 3 percent fee, up from 2.5 percent. Loans

for more than $700,000 still carry a 3.5 percent fee.

The loan applicant usually pays these fees. Banks have to

pay another fee, which has also increased recently.

The SBA guarantees 85 percent of 7(a) loans up to $150,000

and 75 percent of loans for more than $150,000.

Previously, the highest loan guarantee was $1 million, but

under the new legislation that figure was raised to $1.5

million. This means the program will now guarantee 75 percent

of a $2 million loan, the largest 7(a) loan available.

Still, not everyone in the SBA universe is sold that the

recent compromise was the best solution.

``Clearly there were members of Congress that felt this

program was worthy of receiving an appropriation,'' said

James Ballentine, director of community and economic

development at the American Bankers Association.

Balentine said some business owners as well as leaders may

be dissuaded from taking part in the program because of the

fees.

Early indications, though, are that participation in the

7(a) program is at record levels.

From Oct. 1, the beginning of the fiscal year, through Dec.

10, the program has done more than 18,000 loans, worth nearly

$2.8 billion. During the same period last year, the program

did fewer than 15,000 loans, worth $2.4 billion.

In all of the last fiscal year, the 7(a) program did nearly

75,000 loans, worth $12.6 billion. The program has $16

billion in loans available for the current fiscal year.

``We think that should be sufficient,'' said Jodi Polonet,

senior vice president of Business Loan Express LLC in New

York. ``We are satisfied.''

The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), the chairman of the Small Business Committee who last year supported this amendment, is now supportive of the program continuing to operate without a subsidy appropriation. He has written a Dear Colleague letter, and I hope every Member has read that Dear Colleague letter in support of the status quo. This would really hit Justice Department programs and State Department programs.

So in summary, Mr. Chairman, it is not necessary to provide a subsidy appropriation for 7(a) loan programs. With the legislative and appropriation changes made last year, the program is running strong. The offsets are not a good idea.

I urge Members to oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), the chairman of the SBA committee, such time as he may use.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

Mr. Chairman, I would close when it is appropriate under the rules.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have?

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

The numbers cited by the proponents of this amendment say that SBA's numbers are deceiving. I understand what the gentlewoman is trying to do.

I have information here on the gentlewoman's district, showing that 7(a) demand is up. Last year in the gentlewoman's district, for the entire year, there were 7,849 loans. This year, for the year to date, meaning there are still 3\1/2\ months left to the end of the fiscal year, the figure is 9,267 loans, if that trend continues, the number of loans will, almost double. It is one of the few times we have actually made a difference and rolled something back in this body.

I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments as well.

Hector Barreto, the SBA Administrator, in a letter dated June 3, 2005, that he sent in opposition to the amendment says: ``Through May 20, 2005, SBA guaranteed 60,266 small business loans, a 24 percent increase over the number of loans approved at the same time in 2004.''

That is dramatic, and the cost of this amendment will be upwards of $70-plus million.

I continue to read the letter, ``At this time last year, SBA had guaranteed more than $7 billion in 7(a) loans which was a record- setting figure.''

I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlewoman.

He goes on to say: ``I am proud to report that as of May 20, 2005, SBA has shattered that record by guaranteeing more than $9.2 billion in loans to America's entrepreneurs.''

Then he goes on to say: ``If you go deeper into these statistics, you can see that 7(a) loan volume has increased for women and minority entrepreneurs in fiscal year 2005, up 52 percent to African Americans, up 49 percent to women, up 15 percent to Hispanics, and up 16 percent to Asian Americans.

``At this pace,'' Mr. Barreto goes on to say, ``SBA will likely surpass the fiscal year 2004 figures for both dollars guaranteed and the number of loans approved; especially if you consider that the fourth quarter of the fiscal year traditionally witnesses the highest volume of loans.''

He closes by saying, ``Mr. Chairman, I believe these number speak for themselves,'' and they do speak for themselves, ``and should serve to reassure supporters that the 7(a) program is running strong without need of a subsidy or a reduction in fees.''

I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo). He was on the other side last year. Not many people in this institution do that. I mean, he got up and said, yes, this is right, and I commend him for that. I think it is the right thing to do.

The thing that I worry about, if anyone is listening to this, is if we roll this

back in this tight budget, where do we find the money? I mean, if there was really a crisis with regard to small business, I would be for this amendment, but the loans are up, and if they are up, and to take all this, if I can just ask the staff how much would this amendment take, $79 million? We just had a debate on meth. If we are going to do anything, let us put $79 million in meth. If we are going to do anything, let us put $79 million in fighting the drug trade.

But we are going to take $79 million when we do not have a problem. Let us give it to the war on terrorism. Let us give it to the first responders, but not to a program that does not even need it, does not even want it, does not even ask for it.

I understand what they are saying, but if this amendment passes, I am going to go home very discouraged tonight. I think the passage of this amendment, in my own mind, if this amendment is passed, it will tell me, and it should be telling the American people, that we will never, ever be able to deal with the deficit again. There is no need for this, they are not asking for it, and the figures show that loans are up by 24 percent. The chairman for the committee who was for this amendment last year is now against it, and there is just no hope. It is a Katie- bar-the-door, we are going to spend whatever we need to spend.

I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I just do not think the American people could ever understand that by spending $79 million of additional money that we will help the deficit. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment, and any amendments thereto, conclude in 15 minutes, and that the remaining time be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the opponent.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and yield myself 5 minutes.

My father, as I said in one of the other amendments, was a policeman. The fact is when I think of the name COPS, my dad used to tell me never to call policemen cops, and I even have a hard time saying the word cops, while I know it is the title of the bill. My father was a Philadelphia policeman for 20-some years.

I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. I understand what the gentleman is trying to do, but perhaps the most important program we fund in this bill is the FBI and its efforts to protect the Nation from terrorist attacks.

Thirty people from my congressional district died in the attack on the Pentagon. The first CIA person killed in Afghanistan was from my congressional district. This amendment cuts the FBI by $50 million while the threat of terrorism and espionage from countries, such as China, and the spread of gangs increases.

And I would tell the gentleman that I met with a group of local law enforcement people around the country, and some were from Washington State, one police chief; and gangs are an important issue. We have a carve-out of $60 million in this bill with regard to gangs.

We must provide the FBI, though, with the sufficient resources to combat these threats. This amendment would go the other way.

The bill funds the FBI at the requested level when you account for the Administration's proposal to reduce the FBI's appropriation by $50 million and move it to OCDETF. The committee rejected this proposed transfer, as members on both sides asked us to do.

If you combine the requested increase for the FBI salaries and expenses and requested reimbursement for the FBI under OCDETF, this bill is equal to the request. A reduction now of $50 million from the FBI will reduce the number of funded FBI agents by 365. Now, why would we want to reduce the FBI by 365 agents?

According to the testimony of Director Mueller, there could be, and probably is, al Qaeda sleeper cells operating in the U.S. The committee heard testimony that Hamas and Hezbollah have operatives in the U.S. In fact, as I said to the Director: ``Are there Hezbollah operators in the United States?'' His answer was: ``Yes, there are Hezbollah.'' And keep in mind, Hezbollah are the ones who blew up the 241 Marines in Beirut.

That group that blew up the American Embassy and the 241 marines in Beirut, that man who put that effort together, still walks the street. We know the dangers of Iran, and the Director says Hezbollah and Hamas are here, and we want to take 365 agents away.

Time Magazine reports that more than 3,000 companies in the U.S. are suspected of collecting information for China. China is spying against our companies in the United States, and I urge all Members to get that FBI briefing.

The Department of Justice estimates there are approximately 30,000 gangs with 800,000 members impacting 2,500 communities. This amendment would basically take away all of the money in the bill for gangs. If you happen to have been one of the Members who voted for the bill fighting gangs from several weeks ago, this money takes out all of the money for last year as well as this year. There is so much to

deal with on the issue of gang and gang violence.

It would also have a very negative impact on DEA. We heard earlier today about meth. This amendment cuts DEA by $12 million. The debate conflicts. It switches back and forth. We are not doing enough to combat drugs, do this, do that. And so now this amendment runs counter to all of the other things we have discussed. We take $12 million from DEA. The bill provides DEA with funding above the budget request in order to restore the proposed reductions to combat meth by fully funding mobile enforcement teams. Members said do not cut those teams because locally this is so important. This literally takes out those teams. They will not be there.

The amendment hurts DEA's effort to combat meth, will result in a destruction of more lives in this deadly game. Members saw the pictures that the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) had.

It also reduces the Broadcasting Board of Governors by $16 million. If we cannot broadcast into the Middle East, and into Afghanistan and into Iran and Iraq, we are in trouble. This is a bad amendment.

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

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

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

The first telephone call you would make if you found out a loved one was kidnapped would be to the FBI. We want to take $50 million away from that first agency you would call.

Meth--why do Members want to cut the DEA when we are all concerned about meth?

International broadcasting in Afghanistan and Iraq tell the story and do a good job. You do not want to take money from law enforcement to help law enforcement. There is a different way. This is not a good idea. I urge defeat of the amendment so the FBI has the necessary resources so it can do what it wants to do.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment, and any amendments thereto, conclude by 10 minutes, and that the remaining time be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the opponent.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

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

I rise in opposition to the amendment, but the gentleman makes a good case. On the paperweights, we are going to do a letter to the census saying no paperweights and no gifts and things like that. If that is the case, we ought to deal with it. We ought not, though, take it from the census. I think if the gentleman can work with us, and maybe the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), we really need to do something beyond what we are doing with regard to meth.

This year the bill is $8 million above. I agree with the gentleman. I do not know how this amendment is going to come out. Hopefully, it will fail, because I do not think we want to go after the census as the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) said. But the gentleman is right. Something really has to be done almost beyond what we are doing for meth. So I commit whether you win or lose on this, we will get together and see what we can do, but I would hope that we could vote this amendment down because by helping meth, we do not want to then torpedo the Census Bureau.

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

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

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

We will look into this. We were led to believe by the FBI that they do not have this. The gentlewoman may be right. We will look into it and work with her to see that this does not take place.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment and any amendments thereto conclude in 10 minutes and that the time be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself as the opponent.

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

I want to thank the gentlewoman for the amendment. I accept the amendment. I want the Record to show that the committee did the best it could to fund the Violence against Women. The bill provides $5.4 million over last year for these programs, and it is $500,000 over the President's request. I think the gentlewoman's amendment is good, and I accept it. I think we should adopt it. My only concern is where she takes the money from. She takes the money from the Justice Assistance Grant, the very place that we have had Members down here arguing that there is not enough. So if as we move through, I want to do this, if we can maybe look to see a different place, but I accept the amendment, and I want to thank the gentlewoman for it.

I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment, and any amendments thereto, conclude by 10 minutes, and that the remaining time be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the opponent.

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

I rise in opposition to the amendment. I understand what the gentleman is trying to do. I just wanted to kind of let people know that last year's level for Legal Services was $330 million. At last year's level, the corporation and its grantees cannot do anything new. The level provided in the bill will not even pay for inflationary costs. The corporation actually requested $364 million, but the committee had only enough to fund the current level.

Eighty percent of the legal needs of people in poverty are not addressed. We tried to strike a balance with regard to the poor. This program helps the poor, and there have been so many good restrictions put on the Legal Services under the former leadership of former Congressman John Erlenborn. So to take more money away to cut the Legal Services Corporation could dramatically impact the ability of low- income Americans to seek and obtain justice. Justice, justice thou shall pursue, and I think this is really an amendment that would hurt the poor, so I would hope that we would not accept it. It is not as much as they wanted, but it is about where it should be. And with that I urge Members to vote ``no.''

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

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

I rise in opposition to the amendment. Former Congressman John Erlenborn did a great job of restraining and bringing some sense to the Legal

Services. Legal Services had an event years ago when I was running, and they criticized me. I mean, they were very political, very political, and they have changed that now.

The American Bar Association asked for $364 million. We only did $330 million. But I think we really need to in this society make sure that we are representing the poor, too, when the rich can get representation, and it is even difficult for the middle class. And I have never been a great fan of Legal Services.

I have had some serious problems. The fact is, I will try to find the tape where they criticized me. But I think this year it is a good balance, it is a good level; and I think on behalf of making sure that the poor have legal representation, although I understand what the gentleman is trying to do, I would ask that we do not support the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment, and any amendments thereto, conclude by 10 minutes, and that the time be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself.

Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose the amendment, I support the amendment, so in fairness I ask unanimous consent to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Gilchrest) and 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) in opposition.

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California has a good point. We were down in El Salvador 2 weeks ago and they told us they were pouring across

the border, members of MS-13 and gang members. We met with gang members who told us they came across, got arrested, got into prison, and went back. It is a tremendous burden not only for my region, but also for California, Texas, Arizona, and the entire country. So I understand the gentleman's amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

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

I am going to accept the amendment, but I know there is going to be another amendment later that cuts $200 million out.

Secondly, I think the membership should know that in our bill last year, we had language setting up the Gingrich-Mitchell Reform Task Force, which is making their report, I believe,

tomorrow or the next day, and they had some fairly dramatic recommendations to reform the U.N., and I think that is really the way to go.

Thirdly, while it is true the U.N. has failed in Srebrenica, they failed in Sarajevo, they failed in Rwanda, and they are failing in Darfur, the recommendations of the Gingrich-Mitchell can make a large difference.

Lastly, the peacekeepers that we have in some places, for instance, the peacekeepers in Sudan, keep American men and women, military, from being on the ground. So I would urge Members, where we are going to accept the amendment, to look at the Gingrich-Mitchell recommendations which will be coming out this week which will be dramatically reforming the U.N. on a bipartisan basis.

So having said that, I accept the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, he has my commitment to that. This is a very important issue, and we can work together.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of H.R. 2862 in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House Resolution 314, 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 1, 4, 10, 11, 17, 18, 19 and 21;

amendment printed in the Record and numbered 2, which shall be debatable for 15 minutes;

amendment printed in the Record and numbered 6, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes;

an amendment by Mr. Wolf, regarding funding levels;

an amendment by Mr. Hinchey, regarding implementation of laws on medical marijuana, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes;

an amendment by Mr. Markey, regarding limitation on funds for torture, which will be debatable for 15 minutes;

an amendment by Mr. Nadler, regarding health insurance records under the PATRIOT Act, which shall be debatable for 15 minutes;

an amendment by Mr. Sanders, regarding FISA applications under the PATRIOT Act, which shall be debatable for 40 minutes;

an amendment by Mr. Schiff, regarding protection of the Federal judiciary;

an amendment by Mr. Cardin, regarding WTO action against China for currency manipulation;

an amendment by Mr. Mica, regarding U.S. and Commercial Service Funding;

an amendment by Mr. Shimkus or Ms. Eshoo, regarding NTIA funding;

an amendment by Mr. Inslee, regarding NOAA Coastal Zone Management Program;

an amendment by Mr. Fossella or Mr. King of New York, regarding U.S. fugitives residing in Cuba;

an amendment by Mr. Flake, regarding educational cultural exchanges;

an amendment by Mr. Flake, regarding goods to Cuba, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes;

an amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, regarding data on racial distribution of convictions;

an amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, regarding affirmances by immigration judges;

an amendment by Mr. Moran of Virginia, regarding export licenses for firearms;

an amendment by Mrs. Musgrave, regarding NASA Hollywood liaison;

an amendment by Mr. Otter, regarding delaying notice on search warrants;

an amendment by Mr. King of Iowa, regarding implementation of section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996;

an amendment by Mr. Schiff, regarding DNA collection from convicted felons;

an amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas regarding safety requirements for the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station;

an amendment by Mrs. Jones of Ohio, regarding EEOC;

an amendment by Ms. Moore of Wisconsin, regarding SBA funding;

an amendment by Mr. Weiner, regarding State and local law enforcement funding;

an amendment by Mr. Hayworth, regarding U.N. funding;

an amendment by Mr. McDermott, regarding travel to Cuba;

an amendment by Mr. Reyes, regarding torture of human rights activists.

Each amendment may be offered only by the Member named in this request or a designee or 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, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies each may offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of debate; and shall not be subject to the 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. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I was told the leadership does plan on finishing the bill tomorrow. But the gentleman's points are well taken.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Appropriations may have until midnight, June 10, 2005, to file a privileged report on a bill making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Appropriations may have until midnight, June 10, 2005, to file a privileged report on a bill making appropriations for Science, the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.