Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H. Res. 757, marking the third anniversary of the terrorist attacks against the United States.

Three years after this attack, our Nation continues to honor and remember all of those who died that day, and the families and loved ones who they left behind. On that September day, the lives of innocent Americans were lost. But on that day, and nearly everyday since then, our Nation has gained something extraordinary out of that loss: a new and deeper appreciation of the countless acts of courage, sacrifice, and patriotism that resulted from September 11.

These acts began right after the terrorists struck our Nation. First responders in New York City, and at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania risked their lives to try and aid those who were injured. They worked for days to help those who needed medical attention, as police officers and firefighters did their work to extinguish the flames and provide a sense of order. In the years after September 11, first responders and other members of our law enforcement community--including the Capitol Police--have had a great burden placed on them as America remains on alert for terrorist acts. These acts of sacrifice on September 11 in helping to keep our Nation safe in the wake of that day's attacks have earned the admiration and thanks of all of our citizens.

Thirty people from my district died on September 11. We grieve for their loss, and we grieve still because, as Queen Elizabeth explained after September 11, ``grief is the price we pay for love.'' Out of this grief, though, our neighborhoods, the communities of my district, and communities throughout the Nation have drawn closer together, united in a sense of remembrance for those who left us on September 11, and determined that those who seek to harm us in our own land will not triumph.

It is these communities who have sent their sons and daughters to give their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq, and wherever in the world terrorists uneasily rest their heads. My district knows first hand the cost of this sacrifice. Johnny Micheal Spann--a CIA officer and the first American killed in Afghanistan--was from my district. And while we grieve for this loss, we take inspiration from the sacrifices made by Mr. Spann, and the many other acts of sacrifice made by those like him who are serving our country in and out of uniform, overseas and at home.

This resolution marks a dark day in our Nation's history. Out of this darkness came a thousand points of light in the many personal acts of heroism and bravery that our fellow countrymen and women have engaged in since September 11. As we continue to remember the terrorist attacks on September 11, we also are inspired by those who sacrifice day after day to keep us safe, some in ways that are well known, other in ways that we will never know about.

Our Nation continues to make progress in the war against those who harmed us and seek to harm us again. And while we do, a grateful country remembers its dead, and celebrates the lives of those who toil to keep us free.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding to me.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to inform the House of something that I think is very important. Over the last year, Mr. Chairman, we have watched the horrors of Darfur unfold before our very eyes. President Bush and Secretary Powell, the Congressional Black Caucus, and Members on both sides have focused on this issue and using every tool possible to save life.

Today the United States took the historic step of calling what is occurring in Darfur, Sudan, genocide. In his testimony this morning before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary of State Colin Powell stated: ``We concluded that genocide has been committed in Darfur and that the Government of Sudan and the jinjaweid bear responsibility, and genocide may still be occurring. We believe, in order to confirm the true nature, scope and totality of the crimes our evidence reveals, a full-blown and unfettered investigation needs to occur. Sudan is a contracting party to the Genocide Convention and is obligated under the Convention to prevent and punish acts of genocide. To us, at this time, it appears Sudan has failed to do so.'' And then he went on to say what the position is.

I want to thank President Bush, and I want to thank Secretary Powell, and I want to thank the people in the State Department for calling this genocide and to doing everything they can to stop the genocide that is taking place in Sudan.

Remember Rwanda? Nobody would say anything about Rwanda. This administration has said it is genocide, and I say, God bless President Bush and God bless Secretary Powell.

Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Congressional Record the full remarks of Secretary Powell before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:

The Crisis in Darfur

(By Secretary Colin L. Powell)

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the

opportunity to testify on the situation in Darfur. Let me

start by reviewing a little history.

The violence in Darfur has complex roots in traditional

conflicts between Arab nomadic herders and African farmers.

The violence intensified during 2003 when two groups--the

Sudan Liberation Movement and the Justice and Equality

Movement--declared open rebellion against the Government of

Sudan because they feared being on the outside of the power

and wealth-sharing agreements in the north-south

negotiations. Khartoum reacted aggressively, intensifying

support for Arab militias, the so-called jinjaweid. The

Government of Sudan supported the jinjaweid, directly and

indirectly, as they carried out a scorched-earth policy

towards the rebels and the African civilian population.

Mr. Chairman, the United States exerted strong leadership

to focus international attention on this unfolding tragedy.

We first took the issue of Sudan to the United Nations (UN)

Security Council last fall. President Bush was the first head

of state to condemn publicly the Government of Sudan and to

urge the international community to intensify efforts to end

the violence. In April of this year, the United States

brokered a ceasefire between the Government of Sudan and the

rebels, and then took the lead to get the African Union (AU)

to monitor that ceasefire.

As some of you are aware, I traveled to the Sudan in

midsummer and made a point of visiting Darfur. It was about

the same time that Congressman Wolf and Senator Brownback

were here, as well as Secretary General Kofi Annan. In fact,

the Secretary General and I were able to meet and exchange

notes. We made sure that our message to the Sudanese

government was consistent.

Senator Brownback can back me up when I say that all of us

saw the suffering that the people of Darfur are having to

endure. And Senator Corzine was just in Darfur and can vouch

for the fact that atrocities are still occurring. All of us

met with people who had been driven from their homes--indeed

many having seen their homes and all their worldly

possessions destroyed or confiscated before their eyes--by

the terrible violence that is occurring in Darfur.

During my visit, humanitarian workers from my own Agency--

USAID--and from other Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs),

told me how they are struggling to bring food, shelter, and

medicines to those so desperately in need--a population of

well over one million.

In my midsummer meetings with the Government of Sudan, we

presented them with the stark facts of what we knew about

what is happening in Darfur from the destruction of villages,

to the raping and the killing, to the obstacles that impeded

relief efforts. Secretary General Annan and I obtained from

the Government of Sudan what they said would be firm

commitments to take steps, and to take steps immediately,

that would remove these obstacles, help bring the violence to

an end, and do it in a way that we could monitor their

performance.

There have been some positive developments since my visit,

and since the visit of Senator Brownback, Congressman Wolf,

and the Secretary General.

The Sudanese have met some our benchmarks such as engaging

in political talks with the rebels and supporting the

deployment of observers and troops from the AU to monitor the

ceasefire between Khartoum and the rebels. Some improvements

in humanitarian access have also occurred through the

government continues to throw obstacles in the way of the

fullest provision of assistance.

The AU Ceasefire Commission has also been set up and is

working to monitor more effectively what is actually

happening in Darfur. The general who is in charge of that

mission, a Nigerian general by the name of Okonkwo, is

somebody that we know well. He is the same Nigerian

general who went into Liberia last year and helped

stabilize the situation there.

The AU's mission will help to restore sufficient security

so that these dislocated, starving, hounded people can at

least avail themselves of the humanitarian assistance that is

available. But what is really needed is enough security so

that they can go home. And what is really needed is for the

jinjaweid militias to cease and desist their murderous raids

against these people--and for the Government in Khartoum to

stop being complicit in such raids. Khartoum has made no

meaningful progress in substantially improving the overall

security environment by disarming the jinjaweid militias or

arresting its leaders.

So we are continuing to press that Government and we

continue to monitor them. We continue to make sure that we

are not just left with promises instead of actual action and

performance on the ground. Because it is absolutely clear

that as we approach the end of the rainy season, the

situation on the ground must change, and it must change

quickly. There are too many tens upon tens of thousands of

human beings who are at risk. Some of them have already been

consigned to death because of the circumstances they are

living in now. They will not make it through the end of the

year. Poor security, inadequate capacity, and heavy rains

(which will not diminish until late September) continue to

hamper the relief effort.

The UN estimates there are 1,227,000 Internally Displaced

Persons (IDPs) in Darfur. In July, almost 950,000 IDPs

received some form of food assistance. About 200,000 Sudanese

refugees are being assisted by UNHCR and partner

organizations in Chad. The World Food Program (WFP) expects

two million IDPs will need food aid by October.

U.S. Government provision of aid to the Darfur crisis in

Sudan and Chad totaled $211.3 million as of September 2,

2004. This includes $112.9 million in food assistance, $50.2

million in non-food assistance, and $36.4 million for

refugees in Chad, $5 million for refugee programs in Darfur,

and $6.8 million for the African Union mission.

The. U.S. also strongly supports the work of the AU

monitoring mission in Darfur. In fact, 23 initiated the

Mission through base camp set-up and logistics support by a

private contractor. The Mission is staffed with 125 AU

monitors now deployed in the field and has completed

approximately 20 investigations of cease-fire violations. The

AU monitoring staff is supported by a protection force of

305, made up of a Rwandan contingent of 155 (they arrived on

August 15) and a Nigerian contingent of 150 (they arrived on

August 30). Recognizing the security problems in Darfur, the

UN and the U.S. have begun calling for an expanded AU mission

in Darfur through the provision of additional observers and

protection forces. Khartoum appears to have signaled a

willingness to consider an expanded mission.

I am pleased to announce, Mr. Chairman, that the State

Department has identified $20.5 million in FY04 funds for

initial support of this expanded mission. We look forward to

consulting with the Congress on meeting additional needs.

As you know, as we watched through the month of July, we

felt more pressure was required. So we went to the UN and

asked for a resolution. We got it on July 30.

Resulution 1556 demands that the Government of Sudan take

action to disarm the jinjaweid militia and bring jinjaweid

leaders to justice. It warns Khartoum that the Security

Council will take further actions and measures--UN-speak for

sanctions--if Sudan fails to comply. It urges the warring

parties to conclude a political agreement without delay and

it commits all states to target sanctions against the

jinjaweid militias and those who aid and abet them as well as

others who may share responsibility for this tragic

situation. Too many lives have already been lost. We cannot

lose any more time. We in the international community must

intensify our efforts to help those imperiled by violence,

starvation and disease in Darfur.

But the Government of Sudan bears the greatest

responsibility to face up to this catastrophe, rein in those

who are committing these atrocities, and save the lives of

its own citizens. At the same time, however, the rebels have

not fully respected the ceasefire. We are disturbed at

reports of rebel kidnappings of relief workers. We have

emphasized to the rebels that they must allow unrestricted

access of humanitarian relief workers and supplies and

cooperate fully, including with the AU monitoring mission.

We are pleased that the Government of Sudan and the rebels

are currently engaged in talks in Abuja, hosted by the AU.

These talks are aimed at bringing about a political

settlement in Darfur. The two sides have agreed on a protocol

to facilitate delivery of much-needed humanitarian assistance

to rebel-held areas, and are now engaged in discussions of a

protocol on security issues. We are urging both sides to

intensify negotiations in order to reach a political

settlement.

At midsummer, I told President Bashir, Vice President Taha,

Foreign Minister Ismail, the Minister of Interior and others,

that the United States wants to see a united, prosperous,

democratic Sudan. I told them that to that end we are fully

prepared to work with them. I reminded them that we had

reached an historic agreement on June 5--an agreement

between the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's

Liberation Movement (SPLM). That agreement covered all the

outstanding issues in the north-south process.

Since then, the parties have been engaged in final

negotiations on remaining details. However, the parties are

stuck on the specifics of a formal ceasefire agreement and

have not yet begun the final round of implementation

modalities. Special Envoy Sumbeiywo met recently with the

parties, but could not resolve the remaining ceasefire-

related issues. Khartoum appears unwilling to resume talks at

the most senior level, claiming it must focus on Darfur. That

would be fine if its focus were the right focus. But it is

not. The SPLM is more forward leaning, but still focused on

negotiating details. We believe that a comprehensive

agreement would bolster efforts to resolve the crisis in

Darfur by providing a legal basis for a political solution

(decentralization) and by opening up the political process in

Khartoum.

President Bashir has repeatedly pledged to work for peace,

and he pledged that again when we met in midsummer. But

President Bush, this Congress, Secretary General Annan and

the international community want more than promises. We want

to see dramatic improvements on the ground right now. Indeed,

we wanted to see them yesterday.

In the meantime, we are doing all that we can. We are

working with the international community to make sure that

all of those nations who have made pledges of financial

assistance meet those pledges. In fact, the estimated needs

have grown and the donor community needs to dig deeper.

America has been in the forefront of providing assistance to

the suffering people of Darfur and will remain in the

forefront. But it is time for the entire international

community to increase their assistance. The U.S. has pledged

$299 million in humanitarian aid through FY05, and $11.8

million to the AU mission, and we are well on the way to

exceeding these pledges.

SYG Annan's August 30 report called for an expanded AU

mission in Darfur to monitor commitments of the parties more

effectively, thereby enhancing security and facilitating the

delivery of humanitarian assistance. The report also

highlighted Khartoum's failure to rein in and disarm the

jinjaweid militia, and noted that the Sudanese military

continued to take part in attacks on civilians, including

aerial bombardment and helicopter strikes.

We have begun consultation in New York on a new resolution

that calls for Khartoum to cooperate fully with an expanded

AU force and for cessation of Sudanese military flights over

the Darfur region. It also provides for international

overflights to monitor the situation in Darfur and requires

the Security Council to review the record of Khartoum's

compliance to determine if sanctions, including on the

Sudanese petroleum sector, should be imposed. The resolution

also urges the Government of Sudan and the SPLM to conclude

negotiations on a comprehensive peace accord.

And finally there is the matter of whether or not what is

happening in Darfur is genocide.

Since the U.S. became aware of atrocities occurring in

Sudan, we have been reviewing the Genocide Convention and the

obligations it places on the Government of Sudan.

In July, we launched a limited investigation by sending a

team to refugee camps in Chad. They worked closely with the

American Bar Association and the Coalition for International

Justice and were able to interview 1,136 of the 2.2 million

people the UN estimates have been affected by this horrible

violence. Those interviews indicated:

A consistent and widespread pattern of atrocities

(killings, rapes, burning of villages) committed by jinjaweid

and government forces against non-Arab villagers;

Three-fourths (74%) of those interviewed reported that the

Sudanese military forces were involved in the attacks;

Villages often experienced multiple attacks over a

prolonged period before they were destroyed by burning,

shelling or bombing, making it impossible for villagers to

return.

When we reviewed the evidence compiled by our team, along

with other information available to the State Department, we

concluded that genocide has been committed in Darfur and that

the Government of Sudan and the jinjaweid bear

responsibility--and genocide may still be occurring. Mr.

Chairman, we are making copies of the evidence our team

compiled available to this committee today.

We believe in order to confirm the true nature, scope and

totality of the crimes our evidence reveals, a full-blown and

unfettered investigation needs to occur. Sudan is a

contracting party to the Genocide Convention and is obliged

under the Convention to prevent and to punish acts of

genocide. To us, at this time, it appears that Sudan has

failed to do so.

Article VIII of the Genocide Convention provides that

Contracting Parties ``may call upon the competent organs of

the United Nations to take such action under the Charter of

the United Nations as they consider appropriate for the

prevention and suppression of acts of genocide or any of the

other acts enumerated in Article III.''

Today, the U.S. is calling on the UN to initiate a full

investigation. To this end, the U.S. will propose that the

next UN Security Council Resolution on Sudan request a UN

investigation into all violations of international

humanitarian law and human rights law that have occurred in

Darfur, with a view to ensuring accountability.

Mr. Chairman, as I said the evidence leads us to the

conclusion that genocide has occurred and may still be

occurring in Darfur. We believe the evidence corroborates the

specific intent of the perpetrators to destroy ``a group in

whole or in part''. This intent may be inferred from their

deliberate conduct. We believe other elements of the

convention have been met as well.

Under the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment

of the Crime of Genocide, to which both the United States and

Sudan are parties, genocide occurs when the following three

criteria are met:

Specified acts are committed: (a) killing; (b) causing

serious bodily or mental harm; (c) deliberately inflicting

conditions of life calculated to bring about physical

destruction of a group in whole or in part; (d) imposing

measures to prevent births; or (e) forcibly transferring

children to another group;

These acts are committed against members of a national,

ethnic, racial or religious group; and

They are committed ``with intent to destroy, in whole or in

part, [the group] as such''.

The totality of the evidence from the interviews we

conducted in July and August, and from the other sources

available to us, shows that:

The jinjaweid and Sudanese military forces have committed

large-scale acts of violence, including murders, rape and

physical assaults on non-Arab individuals;

The jinjaweid and Sudanese military forces destroyed

villages, foodstuffs, and other means of survival;

The Sudan Government and its military forces obstructed

food, water, medicine, and other humanitarian aid from

reaching affected populations, thereby leading to further

deaths and suffering; and

Despite having been put on notice multiple times, Khartoum

has failed to stop the violence.

Mr. Chairman, some seem to have been waiting for this

determination of genocide to take action. In fact, however,

no new action is dictated by this determination. We have been

doing everything we can to get the Sudanese government to act

responsibly. So let us not be preoccupied with this

designation of genocide. These people are in desperate need

and we must help them. Call it a civil war. Call it ethnic

cleansing. Call it genocide. Call it ``none of the above.''

The reality is the same: there are people in Darfur who

desperately need our help.

I expect that the government in Khartoum will reject our

conclusion of genocide anyway. Moreover, at this point

genocide is our judgment and not the judgment of the

International Community. Before the Government of Sudan is

taken to the bar of international justice, let me point out

that there is a simply way for Khartoum to avoid such

wholesale condemnation. That way is to take action.

The government in Khartoum should end the attacks, ensure

its people--all of its people--are secure, hold to account

those who are responsible for past atrocities, and ensure

that current negotiations are successfully concluded. That is

the only way to peace and prosperity for this war-ravaged

land.

Specifically, Mr. Chairman, the most practical contribution

we can make to the security of Darfur in the short-term is to

increase the number of African Union monitors. That will

require the cooperation of the Government of Sudan.

In the intermediate and long term, the security of Darfur

can be best advanced by a political settlement at Abuja and

by the successful conclusion of the peace negotiations

between the SPLM and the Government of Sudan.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 467, declaring genocide in Darfur, Sudan.

I want to commend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for introducing this important legislation. I want to personally thank the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and his staff and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) for ensuring that this resolution reached the floor in an expedited manner. I want to also thank the leadership for allowing this to come up so quickly.

I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) and their staffs for their continued focus on Darfur. I am proud that this resolution has the support of so many Members standing side by side for the people of Darfur.

Mr. Speaker, I first stood on the floor of the House last March to highlight the situation in Darfur and to call the world's attention to the ongoing slaughter of innocent civilians. At that time, thousands were dead and predictions of more death were certain; and since then the world has finally awakened to what is occurring. Articles have been written, protesters arrested, newspapers have carried the story on the front pages. Now we all know, all the world now knows what is occurring in Darfur, and we must act to stop it. Failure to do so will cost more lives.

Unfortunately, the situation worsens on a daily basis. An estimate of 1,000

lives are now being lost every day. The situation has escalated to the point that I can now firmly say that I believe that genocide is taking place, and we all have a responsibility and a duty to the people of Darfur to try to stop it in its tracks.

I went to Darfur with Senator Brownback. We met the people. We heard their stories. I listened to the women tell us who had been raped over and over. The people of Darfur are suffering.

Historically, in past cases, the world has been slow to act when faced with genocide, but today it is different. Today we stand here in the House, the people's body, staring genocide in the face. And today we know what is occurring and we are not afraid to call it what it is, genocide. The international community now has a moral and a legal obligation to stop what is occurring and bring those responsible to justice.

I want to commend the United States for taking the lead to help end the crisis. Secretary Powell, I want to thank him and Secretary-General Annan. They are to be commended for going to Darfur. I also want to commend the United States Agency for International Development and the team which has people on the ground.

The United States must continue to speak out, and I am proud tonight that for the first time when genocide is taking place, the people's House is speaking out. Every other time the resolutions took place after it was over and all the people were dead.

I want to thank the Members on this side and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for all his efforts from way, way back, and all of them over there and the Members on this side. This is very important to speak out for the voiceless, those who have no voice.

Mr. Speaker, as co-chair of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus I continue to be concerned that Russia has significant problems in honoring the universal human rights standards that are widely accepted in many parts of the world. Russia aspires to be a leading force on the world economic and political scene, but it is failing to respect some of the fundamental and universal principles of the rule of law, human rights and freedom of speech and expression.

I am concerned about freedom of expression in Russia, given the fact that the Russian government's commitment to independent and free media, freedom of assembly, and religious freedom appear to be wavering. In fact, Russia's last major non-state television station was eliminated in 2003 as a result of government pressure. This is a disturbing trend which is in stark contrast to the value placed on freedom of speech by other democracies around the world.

Earlier this year the State Department released its annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, which included documentation of many abuses. Serious violations of basic human rights in Chechnya were highlighted including unlawful killings, abuse of civilians and Chechen fighters and politically motivated disappearances. The report also mentioned that the December 7, 2003, Duma elections failed to meet international standards. Factors undermining party competition included criminal charges and threats of arrest or actual arrest against major financial supporters of opposition parties and the seizure of party materials from opposition parties.

I remain concerned that Russia is named in the State Department's annual report on trafficking in persons as a tier two country and this year was placed on the tier two ``special watch list.'' Trafficking in persons is an evil that must be directly confronted and ended. Countries that fall under the special watch list have high numbers of trafficking victims and fail to provide evidence of increasing efforts to combat severe forms of trafficking from the previous year. Russia is named as the largest source country in Europe for trafficking and is a significantly large transit country. It is my hope that the Russian government will acknowledge the extent of its trafficking problem and play a more active role in ending trafficking in the region.

I also am concerned that Russia still does not fully accept or encourage religious freedom. The 2004 annual report on religious freedom by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom states about Russia:

``A federal law on religious organizations enacted in 1997 contains provisions that have prevented some religious groups from registering and thus practicing freely. Regional governments have often passed ordinances that result in discrimination against minority religious groups, and acts of violence against members of religious minorities are widespread.

``In the past few years, however, trends have emerged that have raised serious questions about Russia's commitment to democratic reform and protection of religious freedom. Russian authorities have denied registration efforts of certain religious communities, based on the allegedly insufficient time they have existed, despite a February 2002 Russian Constitutional Court decision that found that an active religious organization registered before the 1997 law could not be deprived of its legal status for failing to re-register. The government has meddled in the internal affairs of religious communities, including the Jewish and orthodox Old Believer communities.''

The U.S. Congress must speak out about human rights abuses around the world. It is my hope that Russia will begin to encourage religious freedom, crack down on trafficking in persons and comply with international standards on human rights.

I would like to submit for the Record an article from The Wall Street Journal, highlighting the concern for the lack of rule of law in Russia.

[From the Wall Street Journal, July 12, 2004]

Lawless Russia

The murder of Forbes Russian Editor-in-Chief Paul Klebnikov

on a Moscow street Friday night was the most dramatic display

yet of the lawlessness that has Russia in its grip.

Prosecutor General Vladimir Ustinov says he has taken

``personal control'' of the case, a suggestion that the

Russian state is finally conscious of its bad image in the

world. But under its present leadership, the state is itself

an important part of the problem.

The 41-year-old Mr. Klebnikov was a brilliant journalist

and student of Russian history. He had written for our pages

several times, most recently last November when he argued

that the arrest of Russia's richest businessman, Mikhail

Khodorkovsky, was a blow against the ``kleptocracy'' that had

enriched itself with state assets under Boris Yeltsin's

privatization program.

He knew a lot about the subject, having written a

controversial 2000 book, ``Godfather of the Kremlin,'' about

one of the leading Russian oligarchs, Boris Berezovsky. In

the May issue of Forbes Russia, Mr. Klebnikov broke the news

that Moscow has more dollar billionaires than New York City.

The magazine, licensed by Forbes of the U.S. and published

by the German Axel Springer organization, published the names

of Russia's 100 richest business leaders, giving them the

sort of attention many don't welcome. Mr. Klebnikov was not

afraid to make powerful enemies in the interest of honest

journalism.

In a recent book, ``Darkness at Dawn,'' David Satter, a

former Journal Moscow correspondent, wrote that Russia has

been taken over by a criminal elite in which gangsters,

businesses and corrupt officials work together. The result is

a climate of fear and public cynicism. The collapse of

communism, with its history of state-sponsored violence, left

a moral vacuum that persists in a different form. Some of the

modern thugs got their training with the Soviet secret

police.

The Committee to Protect Journalists, which records attacks

on journalists throughout the world, cites Russia as a

special problem. Attempts to shut up the press have been made

by the Federal Security Bureau, formerly the KGB. Russian

President Vladimir Putin, who has systematically seized

control of Russian TV, retains some of the habits he

developed when he himself was a KGB functionary.

Yet Mr. Putin is welcomed to international parleys, such as

G-8 meetings, as if he were the leader of a normal country.

The murder of Paul Klebnikov demonstrates that Russia is not

a normal country. Perhaps it's time for the leaders of free

democracies to ask Mr. Putin whether the rule of law exists

in Russia.

Mr. Speaker, after visiting Darfur, Sudan, and seeing firsthand the horrific conditions and oppression, and I have here a picture of a camp that was burned down by the Janjaweed, but having seen the horrific conditions and oppression, and having talked to eyewitnesses, I believe genocide is taking place in Darfur.

The United States and others around the world said never again after the genocide in Rwanda. So now I call on the United States, the United Nations, and world leaders to call it what it is, genocide, and to take action before more die. We have the ability to prevent further deaths and to stop genocide in its tracks. Our actions should follow our words.

Amnesty International just released a new report. It documents hundreds of cases of women who have been raped in Darfur. To highlight one story, I quote:

``I was sleeping when the attack on Disa started. I was taken away by the attackers, they were all in uniform. They took dozens of other girls and made us walk for 3 hours. During the day, we were beaten. And they kept telling us, `You, the black women, we will exterminate you, you have no God.' At night, we were raped several times. We were not given food for 3 days.''

This story echoes the stories of rape that I heard when I was in Darfur. We were given a letter by 44 women who were raped. The translation is heartbreaking.

It said, and this was to Senator Brownback and myself, ``We are 44 raped women. As a result of that savagery, some of us became pregnant, some have aborted, some took out their wombs and some are still receiving medical treatment. Hereunder, we list the names of the raped women and state that we have high hopes in you and the international community to stand by us and not forsake us to this tyrannical, brutal, and racist regime, which wants to eliminate us racially, bearing in mind that 90 percent of our sisters at this village are widows.''

Women are systematically raped on a massive scale. These are crimes against humanity. The overall situation constitutes genocide.

Despite promises to rein in the militia, the violence continues to escalate. Over the weekend, U.N. humanitarian agencies reported that local authorities and militia continued to loot convoys and gang rape women.

The United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment on the Crime of Genocide describes genocide as acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, national, ethnic, racial or religious groups. Specifically cited is:

Number one. Killing members of the group.

Thousands of black Africans have been killed. There are reports of mass graves.

Number two. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group.

One woman told us that the Janjaweed told her that she was being raped to create ``lighter-skinned babies.''

Number three. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction in whole or in part.

It is clear that the eradication of the Darfurian African population will occur if people do not return to their homes.

Number four. Forcefully transferring children of the group to another group.

There are constant stories of the abduction of children.

No matter what we call it, Mr. Speaker, genocide, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity, people are dying on a massive scale, and that is not acceptable. What matters now is action.

The international community has a moral and a legal obligation to stop what is occurring, and those responsible must be brought to justice. The United Nations Security Council needs to take immediate action to end this crisis.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, a large peacekeeping force made up of troops in the African union is now needed to allow the Darfurians to return to their homes and to verify that the government of Sudan is disarming the rebels. We must remember that the government of Sudan armed the rebels. We need independent monitors to ensure that they are disarmed. We need monitors and forensic experts on the ground to preserve the evidence for a future war crimes trial.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, two points: Every day that we delay and hesitate, more people die. The United States must speak out loudly. We must not shy from calling it what it is: Genocide.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 1587, The Vietnam Human Rights Act of 2004 and commend Representative Chris Smith for his leadership on this issue. In 2001, the House of Representatives passed a similar bill, but unfortunately the human rights situation in Vietnam continues to get worse.

The United States will soon ratify the U.S.-Vietnam bilateral trade agreement. We must send a strong message that trade with the United States should come with a responsibility to uphold basic human rights.

The Government of Vietnam continues to commit serious abuses in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It continues to jail writers, scientists, journalists, and religious leaders.

This year's State Department human rights countries report on Vietnam is 24 pages long and cites numerous violations including:

The Government of Vietnam's human rights record remained

poor, and it continued to commit serious abuses. The

government continues to deny the right of citizens to change

their government . . . The government significantly

restricted freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom

of assembly, and freedom of association . . .

The government did not permit human rights organizations to

form or operate. Violence and societal discrimination against

women remained a problem. Child prostitution was a problem.

I am very concerned that religious activity is extremely restricted in Vietnam and reports that over 400 Christian churches in the Central Highlands have been forcibly closed. Imprisonment and harassment of Protestants and Catholics continue and many religious leaders are under house arrest. Many Christians have been forced to renounce their faith.

I also remain extremely concerned about the recent crackdown against Montagnard ethnic minorities in Vietnam, many of whom are Christians. Thousands of Montagnards who gathered to protest ongoing religious repression and confiscation of tribal lands last Easter were met with brutal force by Vietnamese agents and security forces.

Three years ago, Father Thaddeus Nguyen Ly, a Catholic priest, submitted testimony to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. On October 21, 2001, Father Ly was sentenced to 15 years in prison by the Vietnam government. Father Ly has done nothing more than call for religious freedom in Vietnam.

The U.S. House has repeatedly called for Father Ly's release and expressed growing concern about the poor human rights record of the Government of Vietnam. We have been met by silence from the Government of Vietnam.

I continue to ask the State Department to designate Vietnam as a ``country of particular concern'' (CPC) for its systematic and ongoing religious freedom abuses. The Commission on International and Religious Freedom recommended Vietnam be listed as a CPC last year. This latest incident in the Central Highlands, along with the Vietnamese government's relentless repression of ethnic minority religious groups, clearly supports the need for CPC this year. It is my hope that the State Department will act this year.

I support the Vietnam Human Rights Act. Hanoi must begin to make significant progress toward releasing political and religious prisoners and respecting human rights of all minorities. In closing, we in the United States must continue to speak out for the innocent wherever they are. This is our duty. Those suffering persecution are encouraged when the United States speaks out on their behalf.

Ridding the world of repressive dictators will take time, patience and persistence, and we must press on toward the goal of freedom for all people. We, as a country, and we, as individuals, must have the courage to take on tough issues. Human rights are God-given rights. We should not accept anything less.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time; and I thank his position, too. I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) for offering this and all the comments that have been made.

Senator Brownback and I were in the Sudan, Darfur, a week and a half ago, where we witnessed firsthand the destruction and immense suffering taking place at the hand of the Janjaweed militia and the government of Sudan.

I think members of the subcommittees have to know the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide describes genocide as acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, national, ethnic, racial or religious groups. Specifically, it cited killing members of the group. Thousands of black Africans have been killed. I heard a report yesterday from somebody on the scene that saw a mass grave, 14 black Africans face down, shot in the back of the head.

It also says, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group. We heard stories of rape and branding. Some women were told that they were being raped because they were African. One woman told us personally that the Janjaweed told her that she was being raped ``to create a lighter-skinned baby.''

We were given a letter from a group of women who were raped. There were 40-some women. This is what the letter says. ``We are 44 raped women. As a result of that savagery, some of us are pregnant, some have aborted, some took out their wombs, and some are still receiving medical treatment. We list the names,'' and all the names of the women are on the letter, ``of the raped women and state that we have high hopes in you and the international community to stand by us, not to forsake us to this tyrannical, brutal and racist regime which wants to eliminate us racially, bearing in mind that 90 percent of our sisters at this camp are widows.''

Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction in whole, it is clear that the complete eradication of the Darfurian African population will occur if people do not return to their homes. We stood in burned-out villages. The Janjaweed have systematically ensured the villagers can no longer return. Bombing with bombers, Soviet helicopters, Janjaweed come in on camels and horses, kill the men, rape the women, brand the women, loot the village, put the loot on the helicopters, then torch the place and burn it up.

Darfur is a harsh climate, so when you push people out of the villages, they die; and when people are forced to live in crowded IDP camps, they continue to die.

I believe that after seeing with my own eyes, and Senator Brownback with his own eyes, that there are indications that what is happening in Darfur meets the test of genocide. Now, people may not want to say that, but when you see it, no matter what we call it, genocide, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity, people are dying on a massive scale, which is unacceptable, what the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) said.

I think what matters now is action. The United Nations Security Council needs to take immediate steps to end this crisis. A large peacekeeping force made up of troops from the African union is needed to allow Darfurians to return to their homes and to verify that the government of Sudan is disarming the rebels. Without having a verification group in there, there is no way to know if what they say they are doing is really, really being done.

We must remember that the government of Sudan armed the rebels, so we need independent monitors to ensure that they are disarmed. We also need monitors, including forensic experts on the ground, to preserve the evidence for future war crime trials.

In any event, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) for the time, and I, too, thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson). And he has been out talking about this for a long time. Every day we delay and hesitate, more people die. We are told in the one IDP camp, Abu Shouk, nine people die every day. We left Abu Shouk several days ago, and by those estimates, if you count, in essence, nine people, so the clock runs in that one camp, and then there are many, many other camps. And Abu Shouk, where all these people died, is probably the best-run camp in that region.

So I think it is important to adopt this and also to put pressure, and I think the Bush administration has done a good job. I think John Danforth has to be very aggressive, though. Up at the U.N., some of our allies are not with us on the Security Council resolution, and I think the more pressure and the more the world faces this and addresses it, you will not be able to say when people write stories about this that we did not know, because we now know. We have seen it with our own eyes. We have talked to people that have seen it, and we now know.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of H. Res. 703, a resolution offered by my colleague Representative John Peterson, congratulating my alma mater, The Pennsylvania State University, on 150 years of service and commending Pennsylvania's designation of the university as Pennsylvania's sole land-grant institution.

As a native Pennsylvanian, I was proud to attend Penn State and earn my undergraduate there in 1961. I also met someone there who would become the most important person in my life--a fellow Penn State student named Carolyn Stover who accepted my proposal to be my wife.

We have many fond memories of our time together at Penn State, strolling together past Old Main, and our dates to the Creamery, enjoying the best ice cream in the world--bar none.

Mr. Speaker, you may not know the tradition of the Creamery. It all started in 1892, when Penn State became the first American institution of higher education to establish collegiate-level instruction in ice cream manufacture, a program that has helped make the university an internationally recognized center for research in frozen confections.

Penn State without question has had an outstanding 150 years as one of the finest land grant institutions in the Nation. Its list of achievements is long and impressive. It was the first institution of higher education in the country to offer undergraduate degrees in industrial engineering, fuel science, and turf grass science. Its strong and varied undergraduate program draws students from across the country and the world.

Penn State's graduate programs also are impressive. It's supply chain/logistics, industrial/manufacturing engineering, materials engineering, nuclear engineering, agricultural engineering, higher education administration, administration/supervision, vocational/ technical education, counseling services, ceramics, and rehabilitation counseling graduate programs rank among the Nation's top ten, according to U.S. News and World Report. Penn State's medical, law, and business graduate programs are also stellar.

It is important to note that one in every eight Pennsylvanians with a college degree, one in every 720 Americans, one in every 50 engineers, and one in very four meteorologists are alumni of Penn State.

Penn State is an institution that not only trains the mind, but the body as well. The Nittany Lions are known throughout the intercollegiate sports world for its outstanding teams. Penn State's football team is synonymous with gridiron excellence. Coach Joe Paterno is a football legend, and became the all-time leader in wins in college football in 2001. Penn State also fields quality teams in cross- country, women's volleyball, and gymnastics, just to name a 3 few. The Penn State athletic tradition is robust, and the university has garnered an impressive 56 national team championships in its history.

Penn State's scholar/athletes have impressive academic credentials: the university graduated 80 percent of its scholar/athletes from the entering class of 1996--1997 within six years, compared to a national average of 62 percent for scholar/athletes at all Division I NCAA institutions. Penn State maintains an emphasis on education and athletics that is to be envied.

Penn State's history is full of accomplishments and its future is full of promise. I will insert for the record a list of 50 ways Penn State has shaped the world. This is just a fraction of the ways the students, faculty, staff and all those associated with Penn State have helped to make our Nation and the world a better place.

The education I received at Penn State and the relationships I developed--the most important of which was meeting my future wife-- helped shape my life and the public service path I pursued. Carolyn and I, both proud Penn State alumni, congratulate the university on its sesquicentennial, and look forward to celebrating Penn State's future accomplishments.

50 Ways Penn State Has Shaped the World

Since its founding in 1855, Penn State and its people have

been leaving their mark on the world. From the viewing of the

first atom, to the leading roles played by alumni in Desert

Storm, Penn Staters have had a profound impact on the world

and are leaving a legacy of contribution.

1. American Literature--Fred Lewis Pattee, who joined the

faculty in 1894, became the first in the Nation to hold the

title of Professor of American Literature, a field then

considered a minor subdiscipline of English literature. He

helped make Penn State one of the earliest centers for

American literature studies.

2. Animal Nutrition--In the early 1900s Professor Henry

Armsby used a respiration calorimeter to try to determine the

net energy value of food--that is, the portion of food energy

that an animal used to produce milk or meat. His experiments

attracted worldwide interest and helped to develop livestock

feeds of higher nutritive value.

3. Architectural Engineering--Penn State offers America's

oldest continuously accredited (since 1936) curriculum in

this field. It introduced the curriculum in 1910 to provide

``liberal training in both the aesthetic and construction

sides of architecture.''

4. Art Education--Penn State became an international center

for art education when Austrian-born Viktor Lowenfeld joined

the faculty in 1946. Lowenfeld was the most influential art

educator of the 20th century and wrote the field's dominant

book, Creative and Mental Growth, based on his pioneering

work in psychology and the art of the visually impaired.

5. Artificial Insemination--Over a 30-year period beginning

in 1946, dairy scientist John Almquist perfected commercially

viable artificial insemination techniques for dairy cattle.

His research has led to more than $600 million worth of

increased food production and cost savings worldwide.

6. Artificial Organs--A heart-assist pump developed by

medical and engineering faculty in 1976 to prolong the lives

of cardiovascular patients was the first surgically

implantable, seam-free, pulsatile blood pump to receive

widespread clinical use. It led to the Penn State Heart, the

only artificial heart approved by the U.S. Food and Drug

Administration.

7. Astronauts--Four Penn Staters have flown in space:

alumni Paul Weitz, Robert Cenker and Guion S. Bluford Jr.

(the first African-American astronaut, who flew on the space

shuttle Challenger in 1983), and Assistant Professor of

Kinesiology James Pawelczyk.

8. Astronomy--Penn State, with the University of Texas,

operates the Hobby-Eberly spectroscopic survey telescope, the

largest instrument of its kind in the world, which measures

individual wavelengths of light to reveal information about

stars, galaxies, and other deep-space phenomena.

9. Atom First ``Seen''--In 1955, physics Professor Erwin

Mueller became the first person to ``see'' an atom, using a

field ion electron microscope of his own invention. The

device was a landmark advance in scientific instrumentation

that allowed a magnification of more than 2 million times.

10. Best-Selling Authors--Vance Packard (The Hidden

Persuaders, The Status Seekers) earned his degree from Penn

State in 1936. Jean Craighead George, a member of the class

of 1941, authored the Newberry Award-winning children's book,

Julie of the Wolves.

11. Cinema--Penn State alumnus Julius Epstein won an Oscar

for his screenplay for the classic Humphrey Bogart film,

``Casablanca.'' Character actor Ed Binns, class of 1937,

received critical praise for supporting roles in such box

office favorites as ``Patton'' and ``Fail Safe.''

12. Commercial Television--Penn State alumni who have made

their mark in television include Carmen Finestra, an

executive producer and writer for the hit ABC-TV comedy

``Home Improvement,'' Jonathan Frakes (Commander Will Riker

on the hit television series ``Star Trek: The Next

Generation''), and writer and director Stanley Lathan

(``Cagney and Lacey,'' ``Remington Steele'' and ``Sanford and

Son'').

13. Correspondence Courses--In 1892, Penn State became the

first American college or university to offer correspondence

courses in agriculture, an initiative that was followed by

national expansion of correspondence instruction in many

technical fields.

14. Diesel Engineering--One of the world's first academic

research programs in diesel engineering began at Penn State

in 1923. Discoveries in such areas as supercharging and

scavenging helped to bring about today's fuel-efficient and

powerful engines.

15. Discovering Planets--Alexander Wolszczan, professor of

astronomy and astrophysics, discovered the existence of three

planets orbiting outside of our solar system--the first

scientist to do so.

16. Driver Education--Amos Neyhart taught America's first

classes for driver education teachers at Penn State in 1936,

three years after he began the Nation's first driver

education course at nearby State College High School.

17. Engineers Everywhere--One in 50 professionally licensed

engineers in the U.S. is a Penn State graduate.

18. Environmentally Correct--Polymer scientist Bernard

Gordon III developed a biodegradable plastic that, with the

assistance of water, disappears in two years. Early tests

indicate that molecular weight of the polymer reduces as

water is added, and at 120 degrees to 140 degrees Fahrenheit,

the material falls apart in three days.

19. Environmental Stress--The Noll Physiological Research

Center, established in 1963, was the Nation's first academic

research center dedicated to studying human tolerance to

heat, cold and other environmental stresses, and served as

the prototype for similar labs worldwide.

20. Family Doctors--Penn State's Milton S. Hershey Medical

Center in 1967 became the Nation's first medical school to

establish a department of family and community medicine on

the same level as traditional medical specialities. It also

introduced a residency in the field, thus foreshadowing a

renewed emphasis Nationwide on family practitioners.

21. First AG Degrees--Penn State was the first American

institution to confer baccalaureate degrees in agriculture,

in 1861.

22. Geraniums--Penn State researchers developed the world's

first commercially successful geranium grown from seed, the

Nittany Lion Red.

23. Greek Leadership--With 56 fraternities and 29

sororities, Penn State has the largest number of Greek

organizations of all colleges and universities in the

country.

24. Heavy Water--Penn State physicist Ferdinand Brickwedde

in 1931 produced the world's first measurable amount of

deuterium, a hydrogen isotope needed to make ``heavy

water''--an essential ingredient in basic atomic research.

25. Ice Cream--In 1892 Penn State offered America's first

collegiate instruction in ice cream manufacture, followed

soon after by a pioneering ``short course'' program that

has helped to make the University an international center

for research in frozen confections. Ice cream gurus Ben &

Jerry got their start from a correspondence course in ice

cream making from Penn State.

26. Industrial Engineering--The world's first baccalaureate

curriculum in industrial engineering was introduced at Penn

State in 1908.

27. Management Education--Established in 1915 as one of the

nation's first continuing education programs for business and

industry, Penn State's management education classes boosted

Pennsylvania's economy by tailoring instruction to thousands

of clients statewide in such fields as time management,

employee motivation and leadership, and served as models for

similar efforts nationally.

28. Materials Research--In 1960, Penn State established the

nation's first interdisciplinary curriculum in solid state

technology and in 1962, created one of the first

interdisciplinary research laboratories, which has since won

international acclaim in materials synthesis,

electroceramics, diamond films and chemically bonded

ceramics.

29. Mathematics--Mathematician Haskell Brooks Curry's

research in the 1950s into the foundations of mathematics,

especially his development of combinatory logic, later

found significant application in computer science,

particularly in the design of programming languages.

30. Meteorologists--One in every four meteorologists in the

United States is a Penn State graduate.

31. Minority Enrollment--Among more than 100 colleges and

universities in Pennsylvania, Penn State ranks second in the

enrollment of African Americans and graduates more of these

students than any other institution in the Commonwealth.

32. Mushroom Research--In the 1920s, Penn State became the

first land-grant college to initiate a comprehensive mushroom

research program. Researchers developed improved composts and

production practices that were adopted by growers worldwide

and also helped Pennsylvania retain its leadership as the No.

1 source of domestic mushrooms.

33. Music--Fred Waring, nationally beloved choral leader

(``The man who taught America how to sing'' ) and founder of

The Pennsylvanians, was a Penn Stater. So is Grammy Award-

winning singer, songwriter and pianist Mike Reid (``Stranger

in the House,'' ``Lost in the Fifties Tonight'' ).

34. Nobel Prize--Stanford University biochemist Paul Berg,

a member of Penn State's class of 1948, won a Nobel Prize in

1980 for his study of the biochemistry of nucleic acids.

35. Nuclear Reactor--Penn State in 1955 became the first

university to be issued a federal license to operate a

nuclear reactor, which it continues to use for studies in the

peaceful uses of atomic energy and the training of nuclear

industry personnel.

36. Pacemaker--A surgeon and two engineers at Penn State

perfected the world's first long-life, rechargeable heart

pacemaker.

37. Penn Staters Everywhere--Penn State has more than

466,000 living alumni. One in every 720 Americans, and one in

every 70 Pennsylvanians, is a graduate of Penn State.

38. Personality Tests--In 1931, psychologist Robert

Bernreuter began refining his ``Bernreuter Personality

Inventory,'' a pioneer multiphastic test of traits that

became the standard by which other personality tests were

measured and is still used worldwide for counseling and

personnel selection.

39. Petroleum Research--In the 1920s, Penn State

researchers began pioneering investigations that identified

the components of crude oil, leading to significant

improvements in the refining process and the development of

today's widely used lubricants that can withstand extremes of

heat and cold.

40. Playwrights--The hit Broadway play ``Give'em Hell,

Harry,'' based on the life of President Harry Truman and

authored by Penn State alumnus Samuel Gallu, was made into a

critically acclaimed motion picture. So was Penn Stater John

Pielmeier's ``Agnes of God,'' which received three Academy

Award nominations.

41. Progesterone--Pioneer steroid chemist Russell Marker's

work in synthesizing the hormone progesterone in the 1930s

laid the foundation for the birth control pill and such

medical applications as cortisones and various hormone and

steroid therapies.

42. Public Television--The first national conference of

educators and broadcasters was held at Penn State in 1952 and

urged the Federal Communications Commission to set aside

licenses for noncommercial use. The FCC responded favorably,

thus providing the regulatory basis for today's system of

public television stations.

43. Pure Food--Pennsylvania's and the Nation's pure food

laws stem partly from the work of pioneer chemist William

Frear, who in the early 1900s analyzed foods for government

agencies and headed an expert committee whose recommendations

shaped the landmark Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906.

44. R Values--This widely adopted standard of heat

resistance, used to measure the insulating properties of such

materials as fiberglass and window glass, was developed by

Everett Shuman, who in the 1960s headed Penn State's Building

Research Institute.

45. School Administrators-- One out of every four senior

school administrators in Pennsylvania is a graduate of Penn

State.

46. Science, Technology, and Society--In 1969-70, Penn

State established the Nation's first interdisciplinary

program in science, technology and society. Its integrative

courses addressing critical issues in these areas served as a

model for similar programs at many other universities.

47. Telecommunications--Penn State alumnus Charles

Krumreich invented the telephone jack. More than a billion of

his patented Jack-11 square plastic plugs are used worldwide

for telephones, modems, and fax machines.

48. Toymaker--Herman Fisher, co-founder and longtime

chairman of the board of Fisher Price, one of the Nation's

largest toymakers, graduated from Penn State in 1921.

49. Visionary Educator--Evan Pugh, Penn State's first

president (1859-64), was among the first nationally

recognized advocates of adding science, agriculture and

engineering to traditional collegiate studies.

50. Weather Prediction--Meteorologist Hans Panofsky

conducted fundamental work at Penn State (1952-82) that led

to a new understanding of atmospheric turbulence, air

pollution, ozone depletion and planetary atmospheres, and was

among the first to apply computer analysis to weather

prediction.

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. 4574, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. The gentleman's amendment is an attempt to roll back part of the PATRIOT Act, which should not be done on an appropriations bill with 20 minutes on each side. This is a matter that the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), ought to be holding hearings on and have an opportunity to take a look at it. The business records provision the gentleman wishes to amend sunsets at the end of 2005.

I think it is a great opportunity that the Congress has oversight on this issue, and I know that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) will be doing that aggressively, whereby the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and others from both sides can come and testify; but the Committee on the Judiciary must be given an opportunity to review this policy, determine whether the gentleman's amendment is a good idea, whether it would create a potential safe haven for terrorists at libraries and address any of these issues particularly; and that is why the Congress legitimately wanted it to sunset.

Finally, and I would tell the gentlemen on both sides, OMB's Statement of Administration Policy states if any amendment that would weaken the USA PATRIOT Act were adopted and presented to the President for his signature, the bill would be vetoed.

I urge a ``no'' vote, and let the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and let the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) really take a lot of time to bring the best constitutional authority together and look at this. That is the right way to go.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter), who has done a great job on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume before I recognize the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), to respond.

We just received a letter from the Justice Department, and I wanted to read it for the Members.

It said, ``In anticipation of the U.S. House of Representatives' consideration of an amendment that would prevent the Justice Department from obtaining records from public libraries and book stores under section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, your staff has recently inquired about whether terrorists have ever utilized public library facilities to communicate with others about committing acts of terrorism. The short answer is `yes.' ''

The letter continued: ``You should know that we have confirmed that, as recently as this past winter and spring, a member of a terrorist group closely affiliated with al Qaeda used Internet services provided by a public library. This terrorist used the library's computer to communicate with his confederates. Beyond this we are unable to comment.''

This letter is to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), Mr. Chairman; and I am providing it herewith for the Record.

Department of Justice,

Office of Legislative Affairs,

Washington, DC, July 8, 2004.

Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner: In anticipation of the U.S.

House of Representatives' consideration of an amendment that

would prevent the Justice Department from obtaining records

from public libraries and bookstores under section 215 of the

USA PATRIOT Act, your staff has recently inquired about

whether terrorists have ever utilized public library

facilities to communicate with others about committing acts

of terrorism. The short answer is ``Yes.''

You should know we have confirmed that, as recently as this

past winter and spring, a member of a terrorist group closely

affiliated with al Qaeda used internet services provided by a

public library. This terrorist used the library's computer to

communicate with his confederates. Beyond this, we are unable

to comment.

We hope this information is useful to you and your

colleagues as you consider amendments relating to the USA

Patriot Act.

Sincerely,

William E. Moschella,

Assistant Attorney General.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

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

I think one of the major issues, though, is this is something that should not be handled on the floor of the House in the heat of the moment with 20 minutes on each side. It is a serious issue.

Secondly, I was one of the Members who supported the 9/11 Commission. Thirty people from my congressional district died in the attack on the Pentagon. I think instinctively, no matter which side Members are on, they would want to wait until the 9/11 Commission. I know some have been critical of the 9/11 Commission. I have not. I have been supportive of it. We would want to see what the 9/11 Commission said; did they think this was a problem. I am sure that they are looking at it. We have been in contact with the 9/11 Commission on the reorganization of the FBI, so there are two issues.

We would want to wait to hear them, and we would also want to bring in the librarians, constitutional scholars, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and others to come and review with thoughtful consideration, rather than a heated debate with 20 minutes on each side.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

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

Mr. Chairman, I again rise in opposition. The debate has been good, though; and I think it is good we have had it.

Let me say, first, that the PATRIOT Act does not allow or authorize martial law. It is important we know that. It does not.

Second, in the statement the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) made, it was inaccurate when he stated that grand jury subpoenas issued for business records, including library records, in ordinary criminal investigations are governed by a probable cause standard. That is not so. Rather, grand jury subpoenas in criminal investigations are governed by a standard of relevance, the same standard that applies to the issuance of court orders for the production of business records in intelligence investigations pursuant to section 215 of the PATRIOT Act.

So, really, you cannot just get down here and say this and say that, because we are moving people. People are listening back in their offices.

Third, there has been a lot of talk about legal issues here. We have not been hit since 9/11. No one has died in an attack on this country since 9/11. We know that.

We also know that al Qaeda, and frankly, Osama bin Laden lived in Sudan from 1991 to 1995 and nobody did a darn thing about it. Nobody did a thing about it. They could have picked him up several times, and they did nothing about it. But we know that Osama bin Laden and others want to bring about death and destruction and kill American citizens. We have seen the beheading of Nicholas Berg and others.

Has the PATRIOT Act helped us and our safety? I believe it has, and based on briefings that other Members on both sides have had, they do believe that it has actually helped us and kept what took place at the Pentagon, in my area, and I agree with what the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) said, up in their area, where they have deep, deep concern. We know it does and has helped.

Now, on this amendment, was Mr. Mueller, the Director of the FBI, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) would agree, has been asked what he thinks of this amendment? Has he been asked if this amendment hurt their efforts with regard to cutting off al Qaeda and other groups from killing United States citizens?

We see the letter that came from the Justice Department. I put it in the Record. It said, ``You should know,'' this was to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), ``we have confirmed that as recently as this past winter and spring,'' winter and spring, two times apparently, ``a member of a terrorist group closely affiliated with al Qaeda,'' the al Qaeda who did the 9/11, al Qaeda who did Tanzania, al Qaeda who did Nairobi, al Qaeda who did the USS Cole, al Qaeda who did the World Trade Center in 1993, that al Qaeda that ``used Internet services provided by a public library.''

Now, this says in here to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that in the winter and the spring somebody connected with al Qaeda used the Internet at a public library. If we can stop what took place in my area with regard to the Pentagon, then I want to stop that, because we have gone to enough funerals, and you all have gone to enough, and two of my children live in New York City, and I know how the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) and those of you feel. It says they have used it.

Lastly, will this create a safe haven? I do not know. Let us let the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the members of the Committee on the Judiciary look at it.

It comes to an end. The Congress had wisdom to bring it to a sunset in 2005. Have hearings been held? I would ask the gentleman, Have hearings been held on this issue by the Committee on the Judiciary? There have not been. I see the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and I say to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), I will not be at that 2 o'clock meeting we are going to have. The hearings have not been held.

Since hearings have not been held, since the FBI has not been asked, since we have not been hit, I strongly urge Members on both sides, even though you have reservations and doubts, to vote down this amendment and allow the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) to do their work and make sure that whatever they do is appropriate and constitutional and in the best interests of this country.

Mr. Chairman. I urge members for a ``no'' vote.

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

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

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

(Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, just for 30 seconds. This is a good amendment, and I strongly, strongly support it. I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri for offering it.

The exploitation of women is very common, and, unfortunately, a growing, growing problem. I appreciate the leadership of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) and others on this issue.

So I strongly support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we have been led to believe that only, as the gentleman said, applies to the section that he made clear earlier, only to that section dealing with HIV/AIDS. I personally, though, would make it apply to everything, because of the thought of the exploitation to women. But unfortunately, it just applies to that one very narrow section.

I think it is appropriate on this bill, because we have extensive funding in this bill with regards to sexual trafficking. But unfortunately, it does just cover that narrow section with regard to

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's strong feelings and he makes a very powerful case, and I can see how passionate he is about it. I think this is one of those cases that ought to be done by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

As a result of that, Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law constituting legislation in an appropriations 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.''

This amendment directly amends existing law. I ask for a ruling from the Chair. I am certain that this will be an issue that will be discussed quite deeply by the committee.

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

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

I support what the gentleman is trying to do, but what agency would get the money?

I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

But this law is not enforced by the Department of Justice. This law is enforced by Department of Homeland Security.

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. The gentleman's amendment provides $1 million to enforce two sections of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. However, the amendment does not specify what agency would receive this funding.

Secondly, what agency would get this funding and be tasked with enforcing these immigration provisions? Enforcement of this section of the immigration law is the responsibility of the Department of Homeland Security. The Homeland Security Act specifically changed the responsibility from the Attorney General to the Department of Homeland Security. No agency funded in this bill has that responsibility. The gentleman should have done the amendment on the right bill as the other Members sought to do. So it just does not fit.

Now, I would say, and I have offered the gentleman a number of times and I will do it again, that I think either the gentleman is trying to get something out to get a vote to see what happens, or he is trying to get it done. I would rather get it done, and I know that it is a problem. That is a problem even in my region and other regions.

The way to do it is to bring the administration up, to bring the Justice Department up, bring the Department of Homeland Security up, and sit down and have them resolve the issue, and honey gets people more than a stick, and particularly this agency that the gentleman is amending the bill for the Justice Department is not the agency to enforce it.

I will be glad to set up the meetings and see what we can do to resolve this. Because of this reason, I oppose the amendment.

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

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

We are opposed to the amendment. I want to put in the Record that we will be glad to work with the gentleman and bring the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice up and see if we can try to do what this amendment does not do, but we can really try to accomplish what they are trying to accomplish.

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

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

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

I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) for his persistence. He should get an ``A'' for that, if not for the content.

I called Volcker after this happened, and I have the same concern. I want to bring to the gentleman's attention, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) might get a copy of the report, page 107. Here is what we said.

``The Committee directs the Department to bring all necessary resources to bear on the investigation of fraud and bribery allegations regarding the United Nations Oil-for-Food program. The Committee expects the Department to provide all requested documentation to Congressional Committees, and to provide any requested support to the Secretary General's Independent Inquiry Committee. The Committee strongly supports this Inquiry and expects the Inquiry Committee's review to be thorough, rigorous and expeditious.''

Secondly, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), who has really done a good job, has been holding hearings.

I called Director Mueller, the Director of the FBI, and asked him would he give the best FBI agents that he has to be on the team with Volcker. He has agreed. He said he would get some of his best white- collar crime people. Mr. Volcker then called me and thanked me for that and is moving ahead, and he said when we need your help, we will ask you for that help.

We also are going to get FinCEN, the financial service center of the Department of the Treasury, to also be involved. We have also asked the Secret Service that does money laundering to be involved.

The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) is right, this ought to be condemned, and if the U.N. does not participate, if Volcker says he is not getting the cooperation, the only criticism of the Smith amendment is it will not do enough. It should not do $20 million; that is wimpy.

It should do $50 million, $60 million. It will be a wimpy amendment if they do not cooperate. Volcker has said he wants to pursue this, and he believes he is making progress. And the FBI and FinCEN and Secret Service will be involved.

Now, let me tell my colleagues what the Smith amendment does. It has nothing to do with that. It has nothing to do with that. It would cut money from the Food and Agricultural Organization. The Food and Agricultural Organization, where our former colleague, and my very best friend, Congressman Tony Hall, is running it and doing a lot to abolish hunger in the world, and talking about GMA and things that the gentleman is interested in, would be cut. That program would be cut.

The World Food Program. Jim Morris, an American, running the World Food Program, one of the people who are trying to bring food to Sudan and to Darfur, where there is a genocide, perhaps, going on. That organization would be involved.

Also, this amendment would impact on the International Atomic Energy Agency, whereby we are trying to make sure that Iran does not have nuclear weapons and is trying to deal with the issue of North Korea. Why would we want to go after them?

Lastly, NATO. This would cut all the international organizations. Why would we, when NATO is in Afghanistan and we are trying to get NATO to participate, as I believe they should in Iraq, and quite frankly I am disappointed that the Germans and French have not participated with us, why would we do this at this time?

Now, I think in fairness, that is not the intention of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith). I think the gentleman is trying to make a point, but the point is a very blunt point. And to cut FAO, to cut the Atomic Energy Agency, to go after NATO, and to deal with the World Food Program and the FAO, which is trying to bring an end to the famine and the hunger in Eritrea, Ethiopia, and particularly in Darfur would be a mistake.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Reclaiming my time, it is not. And I do not think the gentleman would want to do anything that would hurt Volcker with regard to the efforts. I would rather have the FBI and the Secret Service and the Financial Center there.

Also, when the gentleman says independent agencies, that is also the World Food Program. That is also the issue with regard to the SARS outbreak in China. We do not want SARS to come here to the United States. And NATO.

So for all those reasons, and God bless the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), I give him an A for the intention and effort to pursue this, and I hope we see his son here next year taking his place, but this amendment that he meant to do does not do what he meant to do. I think it would do a lot of harm; and due to that, I oppose the amendment.

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

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

And then I can strike the last word?

I thank the Chair. I wanted to be sure there was time for the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) to speak.

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

Mr. Chairman, if all the things have been done that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) thinks have been done, and I think they may have, the Smith amendment is a power puff amendment. It is too weak. We will follow this carefully. If they have done it, then I think it should be more drastic.

I would call to the attention of the gentleman from Michigan page 26 of the report. It says: ``Oil-For-Food: The committee directs the FBI to provide assistance in the United Nations' investigation of the Oil- For-Food Program, if requested by the recently established independent inquiry committee chaired by Paul Volcker. The committee strongly supports this investigation and encourages the FBI to make resources available as appropriate to assure its successful conclusion.''

So I think what the gentleman from Michigan is saying is accurate; and we will be very, very aggressive, but we called Mr. Volcker. I personally called the director of the FBI. He personally gave me a commitment to put his very best agents on this.

Having said that, I think the gentleman's language would be better if it had been conditional, saying that if there is not cooperation by the Russians and by others, then this will be the case. But I do not want to do anything to keep Volcker from getting to the bottom of this.

There are probably people involved in this that may very well go to jail, and I want to see the Secret Service, the Financial Service, and the FBI deal with this. So the amendment does not deal with that; it cuts, potentially, contributions to NATO or something like that.

I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I would have no objection to that at all.

If it would say what again?

Absolutely I would support it, and perhaps it maybe ought to be changed from 20- to 40-, but yes, I would support it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), who serves on the Committee on Armed Services.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), chairman of the Select Committee on Homeland Security.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. To drop this on this committee a day before it is brought up, I do not care what side you are on, it just should not be done that way.

How would this amendment treat Osama bin Laden? How would it treat Mohamad Atta? How would it treat people like that?

This amendment should be certainly covered by extensive hearings by the Committee on the Judiciary and also the Committee on Armed Services, but not language that we got yesterday with no opportunity to look at the impact.

Would this language result in the release of a terrorist? Should we look at and fully explore the ramifications and the consequences? Could the result of this be the release of a terrorist within the United States to commit further terrorist acts?

The amendment would prevent an enemy combatant from being detained, would prevent Osama bin Laden, let us not say enemy combatant, would prevent Osama bin Laden from being detained for more than 30 days. What is the rationale for only being able to detain Osama bin Laden for 30 days? Should it be 45 days?

A bad amendment, late, not the approach. I urge a ``no'' vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the proceedings by which the Smith amendment was withdrawn without prejudice be vacated, to the end that the Chair now put the question thereon.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment; but the committee will look at this issue, because I tend to agree with the gentleman on the circumstances involved. If they want to retire, they should retire. But, unfortunately, I do not think this amendment gets to that.

The amendment would effectively reduce the amount of funds available to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. A $7.5 million reduction would more than fully encompass the entire budget of the Clerk's office, both operating expenses, as well as salaries and benefits for the approximately 30 staff employed by the court, which is currently about $3 million.

It is uncertain how the remaining reduction would be absorbed, since most of the remaining costs are contractual, rent and the judges' salaries and benefits. So while the judges and chambers staff would remain on board, with no Clerk's office staff or operating funding, the court would eventually cease operations, few if any cases could be tried, and the backlog would grow.

In addition, this would result in extreme delay for plaintiffs in the more than 2,000 cases that are currently pending before the court that are waiting to have their cases against the U.S. Government.

In addition, because the court was created in part to give citizens a court with jurisdiction to consider claims against the government, it would not be unreasonable to think that this could be viewed by some as a way to eliminate the government's liability in cases brought against it.

So for those reasons, what it would do to the court, I oppose the amendment. But I would urge the Committee on the Judiciary to look into this whole issue of terms. I think once they are judges, they are judges. When they retire, to take a senior status and take no or few cases and still draw their full salary, quite frankly, it is not right.

So I think what the committee will do is to draft a letter, send a letter to the court of claims, the chief justice, to ask them to look into this. But I do not want to shut the whole court down.

Because of that, I oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I again rise in opposition. But I think the Committee on the Judiciary, and we will also look at whether this court ought to be abolished, I think this Congress passes things and creates things. Maybe this ought to be transferred to the D.C. Court of Appeals or some other court. If the conditions are the way that the gentleman said, my sense is maybe it just ought to be abolished. But until it is there, these 2,000 cases are moving. So maybe I would be very supportive of abolishing it, but I think they have to be able to operate.

So for that reason, we will do a letter. We will do a letter to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) asking him to look at this issue, as to whether or not the court ought to stay in existence.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The Comptroller of the Currency is not within this subcommittee's jurisdiction, it is within the Department of Treasury. This is not the right bill to change the Comptroller of the Currency's policies concerning the regulation of national banks and State roles in regulated banks. It is a complex issue. The gentleman seems to acknowledge that the Committee on Financial Services ought to be the one to deal with it. I understand the Committee on Financial Services opposes the language to be included in the bill, so I strongly urge that we defeat the amendment and that he offer it maybe when another bill comes up dealing with the Comptroller of the Currency.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

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

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

The amendment would take $400 million from the bill. As you can see from the debate, other Members feel that the funding for a host of programs is inadequate. The budget resolution passed by the House, we are within that budget resolution. The bill we are considering stays well within it. A number of accounts in the bill are funded very close to the bone. For a number of reasons that other people would realize, we urge strong opposition to the amendment.

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

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

This amendment reiterates current law. We have no objection, and we accept the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I will just make one comment, and then I will yield to the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.

I want to read a letter that came out today. I wish it had come up yesterday and the day before, but it did not. I think every Member ought to know; it deals with the Sanders amendment. Here is what it says.

It says: ``Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner. In anticipation of the U.S. House of Representatives' consideration of an amendment that would prevent the Justice Department from obtaining records from public libraries and book stores under section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, your staff has recently inquired about whether terrorists have ever utilized public library facilities to communicate with others about committing acts of terrorism. The short answer is `Yes.' ''

And then they go on to say, ``You should know we have confirmed that, as recently as this past winter and spring, a member of a terrorist group closely affiliated with al Qaeda used Internet services provided by a public library. This terrorist used the library's computer to communicate with his confederates. Beyond this, we are unable to comment.''

I wish the Justice Department letter had really come up yesterday or the day before so all Members could have been able to see it before the vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the contributions of Tom Farley to transportation efforts in northern Virginia. For the past 11 years, Tom has served as district administrator for the Virginia Department of Transportation's (VDOT) northern Virginia district which is the most populated and congested area of the Commonwealth.

District administrator for northern Virginia is a difficult job which often bears the brunt of public scrutiny. He is often on the front line when someone has a complaint about roads, snow, or potholes. Nevertheless, Tom has excelled because he is adept at bringing people together to find transportation solutions.

In the course of his career, Tom has worked with hundreds of citizens, homeowners, community groups, and elected officials. Tom has personally been a friend to me and helped with many projects that have benefitted the l0th District. He has also been involved in almost every major transportation issue in northern Virginia in the past 11 years including the Springfield Interchange, the new Woodrow Wilson Bridge, Route 50 traffic calming, the Fairfax County Parkway, and the Capital Beltway Safety Study.

I want to thank Tom for his contributions to northern Virginia and wish him the best as he retires from VDOT knowing that he has been a true public servant to the people of Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill (H.R. 4754) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes, and that I may include tabular and other extraneous material.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to bring the fiscal year 2005 Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary and related agencies appropriations bill before the House. In this bill, we have taken an austere allocation and done our best to arrive at a bill that funds important national priorities, including counterterrorism, State and local crime- fighting and embassy security. The result is a solid bill, and I encourage the Members to support the bill today; and my understanding is that we will finish the bill today.

I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) for supporting us. I also want to thank the gentleman from New York (Ranking Member Serrano) for his help in crafting the bill. I very much appreciate the close and cooperative relationship we have established, and I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the full committee, for his assistance.

The recommendation we bring before the House today includes $39.8 billion in discretionary spending. Program increases are focused on most critical areas including counterterrorism, State and local law enforcement, assistance to American manufacturers,

and protection of the Judiciary, and the security of our personnel overseas.

As my colleagues know, Mr. Chairman, we are operating under a very restrictive budget resolution, which is $1.6 billion below the President's request overall for nondefense discretionary spending. Our subcommittee allocation is .6 percent above the President's request for our agencies.

The bill continues the major progress we have made in the fights against terrorism and crime, and builds on the important gains of the past few years on embassy security. At the same time, it also reflects our commitment to responsible stewardship of public funds.

For the Department of Justice, the recommendation includes $20.6 billion, $900 million above the request. We have restored needed funds for State and local crime-fighting to keep our streets and schools safe. The bill also includes significant increases for Federal law enforcement for both terrorism prevention and traditional law enforcement. A $38 million anti-gang initiative will provide both enforcement and prevention funding, including $20 million for State and local grants and $18 million for additional Federal law enforcement efforts.

For the FBI, the bill provides $5.2 billion, $100 million above the request, to provide 1,100 additional agents, analysts and support staff for intelligence and counterterrorism activities. We have also established a new intelligence directorate in the FBI and given the Bureau additional retention, recruitment and retirement authorities with the concurrence of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform. I thank him for that help and cooperation, and the country will be better for it.

We maintain the commitment to fighting illegal drug activities with $1.7 billion for the DEA, the full amount requested. With this increase, we will now have restored the total number of Federal agents working on drug cases to a number above the pre-9/11 levels.

The bill includes $3 billion for proven State and local law enforcement crime-fighting programs, restoring $886 million to the highest priority programs, including Juvenile Justice and the SCAAP, most of which the administration proposed to eliminate or drastically reduce.

For the Department of Commerce and related trade agencies, the recommendation includes $5.76 billion, a decrease of $186 million below 2004, which is largely a result of the reduction of lower priority spending in NOAA and elimination of the ATP program.

Full funding is included to empower our trade agencies to negotiate, verify, and enforce trade agreements that are more free and fair, and to ensure an even playing field for American businesses.

The bill includes vital assistance to the ongoing recovery of our manufacturing sector. Members on both sides have spoken to us about this. So $106 million is included for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program. It is an increase of $67 million above the current request and the current year, and this is important for creating jobs throughout the entire country. The bill also includes $4 million for the Bureau of Economic Analysis, including funding for a study on the economic impacts of offshoring on the U.S. economy.

The bill continues funding for critical core programs of NOAA. The National Weather Service and NOAA's satellite programs are funded at the full requested level; and funding is continued, as requested, for many established ocean and fisheries programs.

The bill preserves the vitality and innovation of our economy with a historic funding increase for the Patent and Trademark Office to reduce the growing backlog in patent processing. The bill provides for $1.52 billion in spending, the same amount that the PTO expects to collect this year in fees.

And finally, under Commerce we are fulfilling the Department's constitutional responsibility to conduct the census. We provide an increase of $149 million to support the ramp-up of the 2010 decennial census, including funding for the American Community Survey.

For the Judiciary, the recommendation provides $5.2 billion, an increase of $391 million above 2004, to enable the courts and probation offices to process record caseloads.

For the State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the recommendation includes $8.9 billion, an increase of $299 million over 2004, and $80 million below the request.

Within this total, we are providing $1.57 billion, the full request for worldwide security improvements and replacement of vulnerable facilities and funding to support over 100 new positions aimed at improving security and strengthening the visa process.

The bill also includes $1.84 billion, the full amount requested for international organizations and peacekeeping.

We strongly support public diplomacy and international broadcasting to continue television broadcasting to Iraq, which was initiated last year and is very critical for the effort now taking place in Iraq. As sovereignty is transferred to an Iraqi government, we need to maintain the lines of communication with the Iraqi people and assure that they are receiving accurate and balanced news and information. This bill will also ensure that the broadcasting to Iraq continues without disruption.

For Related Agencies, the recommendation provides inflationary increases to most agencies, again fully funds the FTC's Do-Not-Call program, and includes a $102 million increase for the SEC to protect American investors.

For the SBA, the recommendation provides a 6 percent increase for operations and additional funds above the request for the Small Business Development Centers. The bill adopts the President's request for the 7(a) business loan program, which provides for up to $12.5 billion in general business loans, an unprecedented level, without requiring an appropriation.

The bill provides $335 million for the Legal Services Corporation, $6 million above the request. The committee has worked over the past few years to successfully bring Legal Services away from controversy. The bill again continues our commitment to provide civil legal aid to those who cannot afford counsel and are seeking justice.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, this is a summary of the recommendations before you today. It will strengthen the operations of Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies. It provides needed assistance to ensure that our economy and our manufacturing sector continue to grow. It provides for a secure and effective diplomatic operations overseas. It enables the judicial branch to successfully manage its growing workload. It represents our best take on matching needs with resources.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would also want to close by thanking the staff. The staff has worked very, very hard, and in fact, not many people realize how hard these staff members work. And I want to thank the members of the subcommittee staff who are putting in very long hours on the 2005 CJS bill. All members and staff of the subcommittees have worked hard, and put in long hours that I believe will be helpful to the country.

I want to particularly thank Mike Ringler, the clerk of the subcommittee who has led this through the House appropriations process. I also want to thank Christine Kojac, John Martens, and Anne-Marie Goldsmith for their tireless efforts. Their work is much appreciated.

I also want to thank our detailee, Jonathan Mattiello, who has lent his support to the bill. In my personal office, Dan Scandling, Janet Shaffron, J.T. Griffin, Samantha Stockman and Neil Siefring for their efforts and work with the subcommittee. And from the minority staff, because we have had a good working relationship which I think can be a model, I want to thank David Pomerantz, Lucy Hand, whom I have known a long while, all the way back to the days where she worked for Mr. Lehman on the Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury and Independent Agencies; Linda Pagelsen, Nadine Berg and Rob Nabors, who have worked with our staff in a bipartisan manner to produce this bill.

I want to thank them, and I want the American public to know and Members of the House to know who they are.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I submit the following statement of comparative budget authority.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH07JY04.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH07JY04.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH07JY04.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH07JY04.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH07JY04.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH07JY04.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH07JY04.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH07JY04.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH07JY04.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH07JY04.010

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments, too; and I appreciate it very much.

I rise in strong opposition. Let me just say that I think the intention of the amendment is a good intention, so I want to thank them for their comments. But the amendment really does not work, and I know it has been dramatically changed, it really does not work what it was supposed to do. If it were passed, the SBA would not be able to use the money for the 7(a) loans because it puts it into an administrative account and not into 7(a). So it just does not do what people would like it to do.

The amendment would augment the administrative appropriation for the business loan account. Because subsidy and administrative loans must be separately appropriated pursuant to the Federal Credit Reform Act, the Manzullo-Velazquez funds could not be used.

It would also violate OMB guidelines. We have followed the President's request for the 7(a) program. This program can provide for $12.5 billion in loans, an unprecedented level, without the appropriation. The Small Business Administration is very, very strongly opposed to this.

But the programs that this would go after; this would take money out of the National Endowment for Democracy and out of the initiative with regard to the Middle East. It would scuttle that program. As my colleagues will recall, the original request for that was $80 million. That has now been reduced in this bill to $50 million. This would take that money out. The President's Greater Middle East Initiative would basically be eliminated with this amendment.

I would remind the sponsors that during the President's State of the Union message, he told the Nation and the world that he would double the funding for the National Endowment for Democracy. The National Endowment for Democracy was established by Congress during the Reagan administration and probably has done more to bring about democracy and freedom in the world than almost anything else that we have done.

Last year the NED budget totaled $39.6 million. The President called for doubling the NED budget; and with this bill, it calls for a $10 million increase, and we would now take that away. It would also deal with the whole issue of an administrative account at the Justice Department. The amendment proposes to reduce the Department of Justice General Administrative Account by $27 million. The bill already reduces this account by $62 million below the request. It would have an impact on counterterrorism, and some might say it could have a devastating impact on the war on terrorism. The only increase provided for above the fiscal year 2004 level for this account is $9 million for inflation to maintain current staff. We would, in essence, take that away.

There are many other reasons, and in the interests of time, and I know the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) is here to speak against it and there are others, but, the amendment does not do what it says they would like to do. Because the reason it does not do that is because had it been put in that account, it would have been ruled out of order. Members from both sides came and said they wanted the Legal Services Corporation protected and we protected it. And others, Members on this side wanted a Manufacturing Extension Program, we protected an increase. When they wanted State and local law enforcement, we did that. So they are having an even more difficult time finding the cuts, so they are now going to NED. Earlier today, they were at international broadcasting, and now they are sort of scurrying around.

Secondly, to wound NED, the National Endowment for Democracy and the Middle East Initiative would be horrible. And lastly, to wound the Justice Department and the effort on the war on terrorism is horrible.

So I urge all Members, if you had an amendment which would have done what you would have liked to have done, that is one thing. This amendment does not do it.

So I urge defeat of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I listened to the debate, and I just want to make a couple of closing comments. One, this does hurt NED. At this time for the Middle East to do this is just not good.

Secondly, it hurts the war on terrorism. Thirty people from my district died in the attack on the Pentagon, and we heard it. Lastly, and I know this is not the intention of the sponsors, this is not, I say, the intention of the sponsors, but the reality of this amendment is that this is a subsidy to put money into the bankers' pockets. That is basically what it is. If one were helping the poor or the hungry or the people that really need it, one ought to support the amendment; but look and listen to the groups that contacted us, the American Bankers Association. This is an amendment to put money in the pockets of the bankers, not the poor, not small business, and for those reasons, in addition to the National Endowment For Democracy when we are trying to get peace in the Middle East on the war on terrorism.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I understand what the gentlewoman is doing and I admire that. I think her purpose is very, very good and I think on the microloan issue is exactly right. That is why the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) and I have an amendment to restore that and deal with this. I want to make sure the record should state that is not the gentlewoman's purpose of doing it, and so I only attribute the honorable, the most wonderful.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the letter from Justice says it would be ``devastating to the management of the Department, including the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review's support for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.'' It also says, ``This would further degrade OIPR's ability to process FISA applications.''

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment, and any amendments thereto, be limited to 30 minutes, to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the opponent, except that the chairman and ranking minority member may each offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of debate.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman from New York for his comments. Let me try to close and put some things in perspective.

The gentleman from Illinois said that the administration did not make any requests for the legal activities office automation. The President did. So we cannot just throw things out. The President requested $80 million. We, the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) and I, only provided $50 million. This amendment cuts $33 million, leaving only $17 million.

Now, what would the impact of that be? Cutting the program any further would delay the deployment of needed information technology and improvements to the Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. Attorneys, the Marshals Service, Federal law enforcement, who continue to be criticized for not being able to connect the dots; and if we now give the Justice Department the ability to make standardized its information technology systems, we will be hindering their ability to share the information. The results could be catastrophic.

That was the whole issue at the 9/11 hearings, the lack of sharing of information. If we expect Federal law enforcement to prevent acts of terrorism, the FBI must be able to have surveillance applications approved in a timely manner.

So the amendment proposes a $33 million reduction in the Department's legal activities office, which funds the Standard Office Automation System, which 15 Department of Justice components operate, their mission and critical applications, the U.S. Attorney, Marshals Service, Bureau of Prisons, civil and criminal and many others.

So they did ask for it. What the gentleman from Illinois said was not accurate. They did ask for it, and the committee was not able to fund the entire amount. I was saying to my friends on the other side and on this side, part of the reason we were not able to do it is we wanted to put money in the manufacturing extension program, MEP. The administration's numbers were 39. We got up to 106. It is like no good deed goes unpunished.

We also wanted to protect the Legal Services Corporation for justice, justice for the poor. We actually have $6 million in here, above, to go after $60 million now with regard to the antiterrorism activity, eliminating funding for processing intelligence. I mean, I would have hoped that the gentleman from Illinois would have found another place, but in the war on terrorism that is just not the place to go.

Also, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall) made the comment about NED. Well, that amount barely would keep up with the rate of inflation. We want to bring about democracy for China. In China today, Catholic priests and bishops are being persecuted. There are 11 bishops in jail in China today.

The gentleman, and I know he has an interest, I was in Tibet where the Chinese are persecuting the Tibetans. We want to bring democracy to Tibet. They are also persecuting the Muslims up in the northwest portion. Nobody speaks out for the Muslims in China. We are trying to have the money for the National Endowment for Democracy to help bring about democracy in China.

The Evangelical Protestant Church, ripped apart; we want to help. We want to do what we did for Eastern Europe or what we did for the Soviet Union. My friends on this side, Ronald Reagan would never have supported this amendment to take all this money out of the National Endowment for Democracy. It almost makes me sick. We came here in 1980, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) said, to bring about freedom.

What about Syria? Should not we try to bring about democracy and freedom in Syria? Should not we try to do something in Egypt? Should not we try to do something in Iran and places like that? And I commend the gentleman and the gentlewoman for what they are trying to do, but it does not make sense to take it from the war on terrorism and to take it from the National Endowment for Democracy.

Strangely enough, too, and I think people have to know, this amendment would result in a RIF of 160 SBA employees. So they want to give to one area but RIF from another area. Now, I understand they had a hard time finding it. They had a hard time finding it.

We protected the Legal Services Corporation. They had a hard time finding it because we protected MEP. They had a hard time finding it, because many on their side and my side said we need COPs grants, we need State and local law enforcement grants.

They asked me, ``Can you help us out?'' And the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) will say many on that side spoke to me about this, and we said we are going to try to help, because we know it is a problem.

We also put in money for a new antigang initiative. We also put in money to study offshoring, because I believe personally it is a problem.

So you have not taken it from any of those areas. You take from terrorism, you take from the National Endowment for Democracy, you take from the administrative account and RIF SBA employees.

Administrator Baretto reiterated zero subsidy is not only good for the taxpayer, but for the stability of the program, the most crucial aspect of the program, according to borrowers and lenders.

He also wrote to me a letter the other day and said, ``I am confident the bill will continue to improve the 7(a) program by serving the capital needs of small businesses in the most efficient and effective manner.''

I understand what both sponsors have been trying to do, and I guess indirectly the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) and I should probably take it as a compliment that they had to struggle to find something. But we are in a war on terrorism.

I was the author of the National Commission on Terrorism, 1998. I had just gotten back from Algeria, where 100,000-some people had been gutted, killed. It was the year of the Nairobi bombing. It was the year of the Tanzania bombing. I introduced a bill for the National Commission on Terrorism, the Bremer Commission.

I could not get any support from either side of the aisle, so I put it in the appropriations bill and we passed it, and Bremer went on, and all the recommendations were made. On the cover of the National Commission on Terrorism report, which I authored, was a picture of the World Trade Center on fire. But it was not the World Trade Center from 9/11, because the report came out in the year 2000; it was the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993.

I just do not believe you could not have found some other place. You could have found some other place.

So, Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote ``no,'' because we ought not cut terrorism funding, we ought not cut the National Endowment for Democracy.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we will be glad to work with the gentlewoman to

see if we can help her resolve that issue.

Mr. Chairman, we will be glad to work with the gentlewoman to see if we can work on this problem for a resolution of it. It is my understanding the gentlewoman was withdrawing the amendment. The gentlewoman wanted a commitment that we would work with her; is that correct?

Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman would further yield, we will work with her, yes.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we would gladly share that with the gentleman, and let me also say that I appreciate his willingness to allow us to move ahead on employee changes with regard to the FBI, which I think will strengthen the country. The gentleman is a good friend, and we will certainly do that.

On these other issues next year, I think a lot of this language has really been in the appropriations bill long before I was ever, ever involved; but we will be glad to consult with the gentleman as we move forward.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we are not aware of any amendment from the gentleman, but I will be glad to talk to him. Maybe I should look at it first. We do not have anything from him.

Well, let us chat about it and see what happens.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, we will work with the gentleman to the best of our ability that we can. I think drug courts make a lot of sense.

Our problem has been just allocations from legal services to NAP and

others, but certainly we will work with the gentleman as we get to conference. My colleague has my commitment on that.

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

The amendment proposes to reduce the Department of Justice's general administration account by $10 million. The bill already reduces the account by $90 million below the request.

Based on the passage of the Manzullo amendment, the reduction will result in massive layoffs and RIFs and hinder the Justice Department's ability to deal with the whole issue of terrorism. I mean, put this on top of Manzullo, it would be devastating.

In regards to the DNA program, and I strongly support that and so does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), the gentlewoman proposed to increase this bill. We fully fund the President's $176 million DNA initiative. This is a $77 million increase, a $77 million increase over the current level. This is the largest increase provided to any State and local law enforcement program. It is an increase of 44 percent.

So I urge rejection of the gentlewoman's amendment. It proposes an unacceptable funding reduction, in addition to the Manzullo reduction, with something that we have had additional funding with a 44 percent increase. I oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, my answer is ``absolutely.''

If the gentleman will continue to yield, as the gentleman said, the bill includes $2.6 million and 25 positions.

Secondly, I want to thank the gentleman, because I went over to the Center for Missing and Exploited Children in Alexandria, and every member of the court ought to go over there and see it. Those two decisions from the court have severely hurt law enforcement with regard to child exploitation.

So, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) is absolutely right. And if the gentleman comes up with language that he thinks would be appropriate to put on this bill, I will do anything. And I thank the gentleman for what he has done.

I cannot understand, and I stipulate that all the men and women on the court are good people, but I cannot understand. The decision by Justice Kennedy is actually shocking. So I agree with the gentleman, and we will work with him and do anything we can to help.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

I certainly will allow the colloquy.

If the gentlewoman will yield once more, that is correct. The Census Bureau and the Department of Commerce have informed us that the American Community Survey can be fielded successfully with the funds allocated in the bill. That is correct.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, that is my understanding. The Census Bureau has informed the committee that the survey can be fielded successfully in 2005 without including people living in group quarters.

I would also say to the gentlewoman that there is an amendment to this bill by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) coming up later on today, which will cut $106 million out of Census. With a cut of $106 million out of Census, Katie bar the door. Census will not be able to do the job.

So I appreciate the gentlewoman's raising this. Her questions are exactly right, but with the adoption of the Weiner amendment, everything we are saying would be wiped out.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, let me tell the gentleman from Delaware that if we can do it, we will do it. We will work with him as we move through the process, but stay in touch as we get ready to go to conference.

I thank the gentleman for raising it, as well as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson). I think all three gentleman are right on target, and it is a good idea.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment. My dad was a policeman in the city of Philadelphia over 28 years. We will, one, accept the amendment, and what we will do is try to do more than that. We will try to work with the gentleman and his office and call down to the Justice Department.

I will personally place a call to see, I mean, why should we wait until this bill gets signed? Why should we not do something next month, do something in September, do something quickly?

So, one, we will accept the amendment, so it is accepted; but, two, we will make a call and work with the gentleman's office, if he can work with our staff, and we will try to see if we can make a call by the end of this week so he will get some sense of relief.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Chairman, my father's badge number was 3990, and we will get the gentleman an answer by Friday if we can.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we thank the gentleman for his comments. I appreciate our cooperative relationship, particularly since I have known the gentleman since he was a staffer for Mr. Pirnie and I was a staffer for Mr. Biester a long time ago. Absolutely, I can assure the gentleman we will not direct NOAA to make any changes in the structure of its science programs that the gentleman's committee would not approve.

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

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

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

My concern is on the germaneness of the amendment. The function that this is involved with has been transferred to Homeland Security, and so I rise in opposition to it. It would earmark funding for litigation support contracts, really earmarking just the Department of Litigation Support Contracts, but I believe all this function has been transferred also to the Department of Homeland Security out of the Justice Department.

I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for raising this issue, because it is a concern for Members on my side of the aisle and for many others, and also for constituents of mine. I want to assure the Members and the gentleman that the subcommittee is aware of these issues and will do everything we can to protect the rights of Federal employees. Ms. Dominguez has promised us, and I went back and I looked in the hearing record the other day, that the commission has no intention of closing offices or cutting jobs of current employees and that she will come to the subcommittee before spending any money on the call center or any other reorganization proposal.

So I completely agree.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

In conference last year, the subcommittee worked with the Senate to make NOAA appropriations a priority, with a 15.6 percent increase over fiscal year 2003 levels. The proposed fiscal year 2005 level, I believe, returns NOAA funding to historic levels and allows the subcommittee to restore necessary funding to certain Department of Justice programs, FBI, and also the MEP program that we did for Commerce that were not adequately addressed; also the COPS program, local law enforcement programs in the President's request.

I understand the significance of the coming year, and I saw the ocean reports that came out. I look forward to working with the gentleman who is really a leader on these issues to ensure that every effort is made to maximize funding support for these purposes in this and coming fiscal years.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the debate on this amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 40 minutes to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the opponent, except that the chairman and the ranking minority member may each offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of debate.

No, we are not.

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

Mr. Chairman, the reduction in the amendment would debilitate the 2010 census, and the census department said it will be the worst census ever in the history of our Nation. Once the cuts are made, there will be no opportunity to restart the program. They said the impact of the cuts, human costs in the loss of more than 1,000 Federal jobs at the U.S. Census Bureau. There is no catching up. The cut wastes the $500 million already spent and adds another $1 billion to the cost for the year 2010 for the census. It would cut the Census Bureau by $106 million, resulting in, as I said, the loss of thousands of jobs.

The bill is already $55 million below the request of the administration. The census is a constitutional responsibility, collected every 10 years to apportion the seats of the House of Representatives. The census is one of America's oldest and most enduring traditions. The first census was collected in 1790. The results were delivered to George Washington during his first term.

The United States is a rapidly changing and growing country. The population has grown by 10 million people since 2000, 10 million since 2000. By 2010, there will be more than 300 million Americans living in America, so we need to keep up and monitor and know about that population.

This population will need more homes, stores, hospitals, roads, new schools, and the information is needed to make good decisions. Most of the data used by State and local governments and the Federal Government have come from the Census Bureau.

Further, the Census Bureau collects mostly all of the Nation's economic data. Gross domestic product is delivered in part by the data of the Census Bureau.

In spite of the unprecedented success of 2000, the General Accounting Office, an arm of the Congress, concluded that Census 2000 was conducted at a high cost and great risk and recommended extensive and early planning for the testing. The funding provided in this bill for the Census Bureau is already scaled back from what the Census Bureau requested to fully fund the planning and testing for the 2010 census and the American Community Survey.

A current Congresswoman informed me earlier today, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), who was here today expressing concern that we were even a little bit lower than what the Census Bureau thought was appropriate.

Should there be any additional cuts to the Bureau, there will be both a long- and short-form census that will cost the government upwards of $15 billion.

The budget requests for the Bureau of the Census has already been reduced by $55 million. Further reduction would be irresponsible, as it would endanger our ability to carry out this critical constitutional responsibility.

Regarding the proposed increase to COPS, this bill already significantly improves the President's proposals for State and local law enforcement accounts by providing $886 million above the request. This includes providing an increase of $251 million above the request for programs funded in COPS heading, such as $130 million above the request for law enforcement technologies, $40 million above the request for Meth Hot Spots.

Other important State and local law enforcement programs funded above the request include the Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grants programs, funded at $125 million above the request, SCAAP funding at $325 million

above the request. In fact, that was zeroed out. Juvenile Justice programs are funded at $105 million above the request.

A further increase above the request is not a high priority, particularly if one were taking it from the Census Bureau, which would pretty much decimate that.

So I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on the Weiner amendment.

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

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

I thank the gentleman for his comments. I am ready to yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and the Census; but the account that the gentleman cut with the decennial census does have personnel in it. So he does cut 1,000 jobs, boom, they are gone; and so whether the gentleman is not Xing the counts, he does cut personnel with the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), the chairman of the subcommittee that has jurisdiction over the census.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

Would the Chairman tell us how much time is available for both sides?

Who gets to close?

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

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

I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for his comments. He is exactly right. Also, the COPS program is not authorized. It has not passed the Senate. And as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) said, the goal was to get 100,000 cops; and they are well beyond.

I think the important points are the reduction, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) said, will actually debilitate the 2010 census, resulting in the worse census ever. If this amendment were to pass for 1 year, we would have arguments in the future about how this count is not right and Members would be up in arms.

Secondly, once the cuts are made, there is no opportunity to restart the program.

The impact of this cut in this amendment: 1,000 jobs would be lost, no catching up, stops the census and this wastes the $500 million already spent and adds another $1 billion to the cost to the census in 2010. I urge strong defeat of the amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman not going through this because of the time. I thank the gentleman for that. I did not want there to be any misunderstanding. In the subcommittee mark, there is a $77 million increase over the current level. We also have gone out of our way to make sure there are earmarks.

This is the largest increase provided to any State and local law enforcement program. It is a 44 percent increase. So I do not want the record to indicate that the committee has been slacking. We have really increased it quite dramatically, even more so particularly in a tight budget. But it is an important program, which I strongly support; and I know the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) strongly supports it also.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. The gentleman from North Carolina over the past year has demonstrated that the rules governing media ownership are of great importance to the American people. I agree that the FCC's new media consolidation proceedings should be as open and as inclusive as possible and should include full periods of public comment on proposed rules and full consideration of any relevant independent studies as part of the process.

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

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) 100 percent. I was in a program called Man to Man with Charlie Harroway before I got elected to Congress. It was a prison reentry program helping men out of Lorton.

And I completely agree with the gentleman. I have been a great fan of Chuck Colson in Prison Ministries for that very reason. And the night the President offered that, I applauded, although I might tell the gentleman I do not think there was an awful lot of applause when he made that comment. There is $10 million in here. We have a budget problem. There is money in Labor-H. There is also money in VA-HUD.

I would urge the gentleman to also talk to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman). The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) have a very good bill. He may very well be on it, talking about re-entry. And I think it is absolutely critical. Unfortunately, we are number one in the world in the number of people in prisons per capita, and we just cannot put people in prison for years and years, no rehabilitation and no training when they come out and expect them as they get out to come back and be productive.

So I completely agree; and as we work through this process, anything I can do to help the gentleman. I just want to ask the gentleman one question: Why can they not cut hair and why can they not do those jobs that he mentioned?

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, in the book of Jeremiah it talks about justice, and I think the people need justice, but it also talks about righteousness and we have to deal with those. And perhaps there is an opportunity for the Committee on the Judiciary or we would be glad to maybe sometime have a hearing on that issue because I agree with everything the gentleman has said. And I have learned most of this really through Chuck Colson. We cannot just open the gate, allow a man to walk out, and expect him to have the opportunity to make it because he goes back to the same neighborhood, the same environment; and they need training. So as we move along, if we can work with the gentleman and do that. And the Portman-Souder bill, is the gentleman on there?

Mr. Chairman, if we can work with him and help him, we will be glad to do that. And I appreciate his bringing up the amendment too.

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 47, line 5, be considered as read and printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the debate on this amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 10 minutes, to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the opponent, except that the chairman and ranking minority member may each offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of debate.

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

I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. The amendment would strike all funds to conduct a short-form census. In spite of the unprecedented success, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) said, in 2000, the General Accounting Office concluded that Census 2000 was conducted at a high cost and great risk. As a result, the GAO recommended extensive and early planning and testing, including re-engineering of the process.

We are already well under way in the planning for 2010 Census. This plan relies on the short-form-only census that

fulfills the core constitutional requirement, a complete and accurate count of the population of our country.

The Census Bureau's redesign distributes the cost of the decennial census throughout the decade, rather than lumping the entire cost during the decennial year. It ramps up. The gentleman's amendment would totally eliminate the funds for the short form. The cost of delaying or canceling the 2010 redesign and reverting to the old census method would result in higher costs for the taxpayer. The cost of returning to the old method would cost a total of $15 billion, $4 billion more than the current plan. The White House statement on the bill states clearly that the funding provided in this bill is the minimal amount viable for the 2010 census. So I urge rejection of the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

(Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, to close, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform's Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and the Census.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 30 minutes, to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the opponent, except that the chairman and ranking minority member may each offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of debate.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The reason is, the amendment really does not do anything. I just read the amendment. It says, ``Page 57, line 11, after the dollar amount insert the following: `Reduced by $50,000) (increased by $50,000).' '' So I understand what the gentleman is trying to do, but this does not do it. It just really moves money around.

I understand the gentleman's concern, and I would like to bring to the gentleman's attention to page 46 of the bill, line 22. We put $2 million in the bill for a grant to the National Academy of Public Administration to study the impact of offshoring on the economy and on the workforce in the United States.

I personally believe it is a problem. We have asked the National Academy because they are not involved in the political process. We use them for the FBI reforms and others. So they will look at that issue.

But this amendment, if it had been drafted to do what the gentleman intends it to do, it would be subject to a point of order. Because of that, I object to the amendment and urge a ``no'' vote.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of H.R. 4754 in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House Resolution 701, 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 the debate;

Amendments 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 20;

Amendments 5 and 6, each of which shall be debatable for 20 minutes;

Amendment 2, which shall be debatable for 40 minutes;

An amendment by Mr. Pitts regarding Department of State Diplomatic and Consular programs;

An amendment by Mr. Wolf regarding the Sudan;

An amendment by Mr. Baca regarding video violence;

An amendment by Mr. Hefley regarding an across-the-board cut of total appropriations;

An amendment by Mr. Hefley regarding an across-the-board cut of appropriations not required to be appropriated;

An amendment by Mr. Hefley regarding the Court of Federal Claims;

An amendment by Mr. Burgess regarding the Federal Trade Commission;

An amendment by Mr. Weiner regarding Jerusalem;

An amendment by Ms. Millender-McDonald regarding women's business centers;

An amendment by Mr. Inslee regarding Justice Department detention of individuals;

An amendment by Mr. King of Iowa regarding litigation support contracts;

An amendment by Mr. Sherman regarding enemy combatants, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes;

An amendment by Mr. Wolf or Mr. Serrano regarding SBA microloans, which shall be debatable for 12 minutes;

An amendment by Mr. Flake regarding Cuba, which shall be debatable for 60 minutes;

An amendment by Mr. Smith of Michigan regarding NIST and Contributions to International Organizations, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes;

An amendment by Mr. Sherman regarding preemption of State laws, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes.

Each such amendment may be offered only by the Member designated in this request, 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, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question in the House or 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. All points of order against each of the amendments shall be considered as reserved pending completion of debate thereon; and each of the amendments may be withdrawn by its proponent after debate thereon. An amendment shall be considered to fit the description stated in this request if it addresses in whole or in part the object described.

The Speaker pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Virginia?