Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the President for highlighting the issue of sex trafficking in his speech to the United Nations yesterday. I am pleased the Administration is focused on eradicating this appalling practice. Modern-day slavery and slave trading is an ugly practice and is increasing in countries around the globe. Million of people worldwide are bought, sold, transported and held against their will in slave-like conditions.

This summer the State Department released its annual report highlighting countries with the worst records on trafficking. Some of these countries include, Cuba, Greece, North Korea, Sudan, and Turkey. Many countries that the United States does business with everyday are also on the tier 2 watch list. The United States should be particularly hard on these countries and demand that these countries make significant improvements and strengthen their anti-trafficking efforts. I share the President's commitment to work to end slavery.

Below is an excerpt from the President's speech:

There's another humanitarian crisis spreading, yet hidden

from view. Each year an estimated 800,000 to 900,000 human

beings are bought, sold or forced across the world's borders.

Among them are hundreds of thousands of teenage girls, and

others as young as 5, who fall victim to the sex trade. This

commerce in human life generates billions of dollars each

year, much of which is used to finance organized crime.

There's a special evil in the abuse and exploitation of the

most innocent and vulnerable.

The victims of sex trade see little of life before they see

the very worst of life: an underground of brutality and

lonely fear.

Those who create these victims and profit from their

suffering must be severely punished. Those who patronize this

industry debase themselves and deepen the misery of others.

And governments that tolerate this trade are tolerating a

form of slavery.

This problem has appeared in my own country and we are

working to stop it. The PROTECT Act, which I signed into law

this year, makes it a crime for any person to enter the

United States or for any citizen to travel abroad for the

purpose of sex tourism involving children. The Department of

Justice is actively investigating sex tour operators and

patrons, who can face up to 30 years in prison. Under the

Trafficking Victims Protection Act, the United States is

using sanctions against governments to discourage human

trafficking.

The victims of this industry also need help from members of

the United Nations, and this begins with clear standards and

the certainty of punishment under the laws of every country.

Today, some nations make it a crime to sexually abuse

children abroad. Such conduct should be a crime in all

nations. Governments should inform travelers of the harm this

industry does and the severe punishments that will fall on

its patrons.

The American government is committing $50 million to

support the good work of organizations that are rescuing

women and children from exploitation, and giving them shelter

and medical treatment and the hope of a new life. I urge

other governments to do their part.

We must show new energy in fighting back an old evil.

Nearly two centuries after the abolition of the trans-

Atlantic slave trade, and more than a century after slavery

was officially ended in its last strongholds, the trade in

human beings for any purpose must not be allowed to thrive in

our time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 7, the Charitable Giving Act. This legislation takes an important step to help further the efforts begun nearly 40 years when President Johnson declared war on poverty and hunger. Sadly, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture reports that 13 million kids live in households that do not have an adequate supply of food.

In 2001, the USDA says there were 33.6 million Americans--20 million adults and 13 million children--who were hungry or at risk of hunger. In Matthew 25, Jesus talks about the obligation to feed the hungry. In a world, and especially a nation, as plentiful as ours, it is tragic that even one child is hungry.

Barriers need to be eliminated to allow businesses to do the morally conscionable thing and donate their surplus food. It's outrageous that it is more ``cost effective'' for a business to throw out or destroy surplus food rather than donate it to a local soup kitchen. The Charitable Giving Act takes important steps to ensure that more of America's abundant food supply ends up in the mouths of America's hungry families, not in landfills. The USDA estimates that 96 billion pounds of food are thrown away each year.

I would like to submit for the Record a recent article from the Chicago Tribune titled ``Hunger has a new face.'' This article points out that many of these hungry children live in households in with working parents. As the cost of living in many urban areas continues to increase, the number of working poor is expanding rapidly, hitting single moms particularly hard. As the face of hunger in America changes, we must make sure that our policies continue to meet the needs.

The Charitable Giving Act provides incentives to farmers and small businesses, whose

resources are also constrained in these economic times. I applaud the authors of this bill for their dedication to building a greater America. But our work is not yet done. I want to encourage my colleagues appointed to conference this important legislation to consider the food donation provision contained in the Senate bill--the same food donation provision, I might add, that was introduced earlier this year by my colleague Mr. Baker from Louisiana.

America's Second Harvest estimates that the Senate version would produce over 878 million new meals by 2013--that's over three times the number of new meals than the House bill will provide. Make no mistake, the bill we have in front of us today is a very good start and is a victory for all those who have hope for a better America. Let us now move forward, and show America that fighting hunger isn't about what side of the aisle you stand on, but rather what kind of humanity we seek to be.

[From the Chicago Tribune, Sept. 1, 2003]

Hunger Has a New Face

(By V. Dion Haynes)

Bend, Ore.--Despite working full time as a waitress at an

International House of Pancakes restaurant, Crystal Carter

regularly must turn to charities and generous friends to feed

herself and her three small children.

Likewise, Leslie Ramaekers finds it difficult to stretch

the wages from her full-time auto-detailing job to buy enough

food. She often skips breakfast and lunch to ensure that her

four children can eat.

Randy Malone has it even worse. Laid off 1\1/2\ years ago,

he has to use his sparse resources to feed his two nieces and

nephew, who live with him. Forced to skip meals, Malone has

lost 25 pounds.

``I don't normally eat breakfast or lunch. Sometimes for

dinner I might get a peanut butter sandwich or a piece of

bread,'' said Malone, 42, who was picking up a bag of free

groceries from a food pantry in northeast Portland one day

this summer.

``I'd rather them eat it than me,'' he added, referred to

the children, age 7 to 12.

In a survey, 25 U.S. cities reported on average a 19

percent increase in demand for emergency food assistance from

2001 to 2002. Some city officials say Carter, Ramaekers and

Malone represent the new face of hunger in America.

single moms affected

The ranks of the hungry more and more include single

mothers stuck in low-wage jobs, married couples who can't

keep up with soaring housing costs and able-bodied people who

can't find jobs.

Their predicament forces them every month to grapple with

vexing trade-offs: Pay the rent or child care? Buy that

prescription for a sick child or pay that overdue electric

bill? Put gas in the car or food on the table?

``We're seeing Depression-era food lines in 21st Century

America. . . . This is the most food productive nation on the

planet, and we should not have hunger,'' said Doug O'Brien,

vice president for policy and research at Chicago-based

America's Second Harvest, the umbrella organization for the

nation's food banks and the largest hunger relief

organization in the U.S.

The previous profile of a hungry person, O'Brien said, was

``a homeless, chronically unemployed, mentally ill substance

abuser.''

But by 2001, ``we were as likely to see a single mother

who's employed as we would a homeless man,'' he added.

``Nationwide, 40 percent of the people we serve come from

households where at least one person is working.''

Agriculture Department experts peg the number of hungry or

``food insecure'' people at about 34 million, up from about

30 million in 1995. Hunger and food insecurity are defined

broadly--when people are forced to skip a meal or cut back on

what they eat because they lack money, when people don't

know where their next meal is coming from or when people

must visit a soup kitchen or food pantry for emergency

assistance.

Demand for emergency food rose dramatically from 2001 to

2002 in about 25 cities polled late last year by the U.S.

Conference of Mayors. Requests for food jumped 52 percent in

Kansas City, 49 percent in Miami, 28 percent in Chicago, 25

percent in Los Angeles, 14 percent in Cleveland and 10

percent in New Orleans.

States step up outreach

The issue has been receiving attention in recent months.

Oregon, Wisconsin, Virginia and West Virginia have stepped up

their outreach to hungry people who might qualify for

assistance from food stamp programs. And two bills have been

introduced in Congress to expand the number of children

eligible for free school meal programs.

A study released in July by the Center on Hunger and

Poverty at Brandeis University suggested that hunger is

released to the epidemic of obesity. The study said that low-

income families ``may consume low-cost foods with relatively

higher levels of calories per dollar to stave off hunger''

rather than more nutritious food when their resources run

short.

No state better exemplifies the crisis than Oregon, which

has been ranked by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as No.

1 in hunger and food insecurity.

Oregon, which prospered in the 1990s from the dot-com boom

and has an image as a recreation-friendly and environmentally

conscious state, hardly seems a candidate for hunger capital

of the nation.

But the state, which also ranks at or near the top in

unemployment, has been grappling with an economic meltdown.

If has made drastic spending cuts for schools, health care,

social programs and courts to relieve a nearly $3 billion

deficit.

As serious as the budget problems are, according to

experts, the current crisis is the product of a systemic

shift as low-paying, low-skill jobs in the service industry

replaced high-paying, low-skill jobs in the timber and

fishing industries.

Bend, Ore., reflects that wage gap and economic

metamorphosis.

For generations, this region was timber country, with an

abundance of family-run mills. But from 1989 to 1997, jobs in

the forest industry declined by 47 percent in central Oregon.

Now only one family-run mill is left in the region.

During the same time, dozens of golf courses, spas,

mountain lake and ski lodges and new housing developments

sprang up, transforming central Oregon into a resort and an

upscale retirement area.

``A lot of people say it's going to be another Aspen,

Colo.,'' said Carter; the IHOP waitress, who often visits an

area food pantry to feed her two daughters and son.

``There's no middle class here,'' added Carter. ``Either

you have money or you don't.''

Instead of making $17 an hour in a mill, the most people

can get around here [in serviced industry jobs] is around

minimum wage,'' said Sweet Pea Cole, a coordinator for the

Central Oregon Community Action Agency, where Carter gets her

free food.

Advocates for the poor say Oregon officials largely were in

denial about the state's hunger problem--until this year:

When Gov. Ted Kulongoski took office in January, he made

fighting hunger a priority. Kulongoski, a Democrat, is

appearing in TV public service announcements to raise

awareness.

The governor also is calling for more affordable housing.

And he recently signed legislation to refurbish crumbling

bridges and highways, which would create 5,000 jobs annually

for 10 years.

But some people struggling to put food on the table say the

efforts will do little to help them.

``There has to be some way of training people, people who

are stuck and struggling and want to do something with their

lives,'' said Ramaekers, 28, of Tualatin, Ore., the auto-

detail worker and mother of four who skips meals and

frequents food banks.

``You're working harder but always staying in the same

place.''

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Norton amendment and in support of the bill. I want to begin by thanking the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) and my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), for really taking the initiative. He did not have to do this, and he is doing this. This is very, very important.

I have five children. I am a product of public schools. All of my kids have gone to public schools. I worked for probably only one of a few Members of Congress, Congressman Pete Biester, who had a child in the District of Columbia schools. There are no Members in this body that I know of that have any of their children in District of Columbia schools. Many are in private schools, many are not here, but they are not in the District of Columbia schools.

My daughter Virginia taught in the D.C. public school system. She worked for 4 years at the Community of Hope up at 14th and Belmont. She can tell Members what the conditions of the public schools are. I think as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) said, if D.C. needs more money, offer the amendment and we will support it. But for these 1,000 children, that is their opportunity to get out. Everyone knows, Members know if you had not had that opportunity to have that education, you may not have gotten out. All of us on both sides of the aisle may have been in that condition. It is a way out.

I want to commend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), but particularly Mayor Williams for his leadership. I went to John Bartram High School, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) knows where that is, on 67th and Elmwood Avenue. Education was my way out of there.

My dad was a policeman with a sixth-grade education. Education got me my way out. Why is it not good for those 1,000 families that are going to get their children out of there? Sometimes going into the schools, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) discussed, and in talking to the parents, they tell us their kids may be beaten up and they may have problems. Let us help the schools. Offer the amendment and do what you can.

I want to commend also Senator Feinstein and Senator Byrd. Senator Byrd is a statesman, and I commend him for his leadership. He understands. I also commend Mayor Williams because it is tough to break sometimes with your party. I know sometimes we get locked in over here and we do not want to leave, but he did. I commend Kevin Chavous for the leadership to break with the city council and do what he did. They have provided the leadership for 1,000 boys and girls.

If you are a father and you know your kids are not getting an education, if you are a mother and you know they are not getting an education, do not tell them, wait, we are going to improve the schools next year, we have a 5-year program, because if they are 7 and 8 and 9, we may lose them.

This is not to expand a program all over the country. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) has probably done more to help the District of Columbia, working with the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), than any other Member of the House. This is to help. This is to help 1,000 parents to have an opportunity to educate their children.

I strongly urge defeat of the Norton amendment, and I again thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) for their leadership, because in 1,000 homes this year and 1,000 homes next year, they will really make a difference, and help some of the kids to be educated. Come back next year and offer the amendments to beefup the District of Columbia schools. I give my commitment. I will support it; but let us today support this bill to help those 1,000 kids.

Mr. Speaker, I want to call to the attention of the House the impending retirement of Eve Butler-Gee, the Journal Clerk of the House, who is a resident of the 10th District of Virginia. According to research by the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress, Eve is the first woman Journal Clerk in the history of the U.S. House of Representatives.

She began her professional career in the House in her early 20's. She went on to work for a charitable foundation in the middle of her working life, then returned to the House in 1987 as the Minority Enrolling Clerk of the House, appointed by then Minority Leader Bob Michel of Illinois. She served in that position for eight years, before her appointment in 1997 as Chief Journal Clerk.

Eve and three assistant clerks are responsible for keeping the Journal of the House proceedings at the rostrum on the House floor. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the House Journal is the official record of the parliamentary proceedings of the House and is mandated to be kept pursuant to Article 1, Section 5, of the United States Constitution. The first order of business of each day, following the prayer by the House chaplain, is the vote on the Chair's approval of the Journal of the last day's proceedings.

The Journal Clerk's office also publishes the Journal of each session of Congress for use as a reference for the House parliamentarians, Members of Congress, regional libraries, state governments and the general public. During Eve's tenure, the publication of the House Journal has been brought up-to-date and publication procedures modernized.

During her time at the House rostrum, Eve has been a witness to history as the House voted on the Gulf War resolution and a presidential impeachment, authorized the use of force in Iraq, and grieved a gunman's killing of two U.S. Capitol Police officers. She was also in the Capitol when it was evacuated during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and like all offices on Capitol Hill, she had to deal with concerns raised by an anthrax attack.

Both Eve and her husband, Tom Gee, are active in the Episcopal Church. Eve serves on the Vestry and as head verger at the Church of the Holy Comforter in Vienna, Virginia, while Tom is director of lay liturgists. After her retirement, Eve plans to be a volunteer verger at the Washington National Cathedral. She also looks forward to spending her retirement years traveling, pursuing interests in writing and community theater, and enjoying the company of her family, including her daughter and son-in-law, Lora and John Williams, and grandson, Evan, welcoming a new grandchild expected in December.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the entire House--members and staff--we express our deep gratitude to Eve for her public service career and wish her the best in her retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Toomey amendment.

Just before I came here for this series of votes, we were meeting with the FBI. The FBI needs additional resources because they have taken personnel out of crime fighting and drug fighting and are now putting them in with regard to homeland security. They need more people. Then they have taken people off the streets that are working on drugs. So this would not be good for the FBI, aside from the homeland security.

Lastly, across-the-board cuts never work. The best way to do something, if there is a particular program that you want to cut, you go after it. But across the board, to make the FBI take that cut now, and DEA, would not be good for the country, not good for crime, and not good for the fight against drugs.

So on that, I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on the Toomey amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 1707, the Prison Rape Reduction Act of 2003 which I introduced with my Virginia colleague Representative Bobby Scott. Similar legislation S. 1435, sponsored by Senator Sessions and Senator Kennedy, passed the Senate earlier this week. I am encouraged that both the Senate and now the House have taken action on this bill and have moved a step closer to reducing sexual assault in prisons.

I want to thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Representative James Sensenbrenner, for his assistance with this legislation. It is due largely to his efforts and interest in this bill that we are on the floor today to pass. This bill, which is essential to reversing the increasing numbers of prisoners who are sexually assaulted.

Not often discussed, prison rape is a cruel act which has been ignored for too long. Survivors of prison rape often bear physical and emotional scars from their experiences for their entire lives. Moreover, if we allow this problem to continue, we will be allowing increased recidivism, prison unrest, and the spread of disease--all byproducts of prison rape--to continue unabated. Reducing sexual assault in prison will reduce the numbers of prisoners who when released will go back into the community and commit crimes again.

Prison rape occurs every day, For example, just last month, a 19- year-old college student in Florida, in jail on marijuana charges, was raped by a cell mate who was being held on charges of sexual battery. This rape occurred within hours of the student being placed in his cell. There are thousands of other stories of prisoners being raped in prison.

The legislation before us today will facilitate the study of prison rape, allow hearings on the impact of prison rape on inmates and society, and create national standards for preventing prison rape.

It is important to be tough on crime, but turning a blind eye to prison rape has nothing to do with being tough on crime; it has everything to do with treating people humanely, reducing recidivism, and halting the spread of disease. Recently a number of prison rape survivors spoke her in Washington to explain how prison rape harmed them. These were gripping stories, and I have previously entered them into the Record. Today the House can pass legislation to help curb prison rape and reduce the needless suffering and additional punishment of prisoners. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

There have been many individuals responsible for moving this legislation through Congress. I wish to thank Rep. Bobby Scott of Virginia, who co-sponsored this legislation, and Bobby Vassar of his staff. Senator Kennedy and Senator Sessions were the Senate co-sponsors of this bill and their leadership is greatly appreciated, along with the hard work of their staffers, Robert Toone and Andrea Sanders respectively. Representative Howard Coble, chairman of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, and his counsel, Katy Crooks who helped guide this legislation through their subcommittee, and Phil Kiko, Jay Apperson, and Joseph Gibson on the full committee, were very supportive along with Chairman James Sensenbrenner.

The Speaker of the House, J. Dennis Hastert, and Margaret Peterlin in the Speaker's office have been of great assistance in moving this bill. Majority Leader Tom Delay, and his staffer, Carl Thorsen have been invaluable in getting this bill through the final hurdles and onto the floor of the House.

There are others who need to be thanked. First and foremost, I must thank Michael Horowitz of the Hudson Institute has been the guiding force behind this legislation; his foresight and dedication to this issue are incomparable. Nathaniel Zylstra, Mr. Horowitz's assistant, has also provided valuable help. There are others outside Capitol Hill who played a role in this legislation. They are: Vince Schiraldi, Justice Policy Institute; Mariam Bell, Prison Fellowship; Mike Thompson, Council on State Governments; Paul Rosenzweig, Heritage Foundation, principal drafter of the bill; Ed Haden, formerly of Senator Sessions' office; Gene Guerrero, Open Society Institute; Marian Zapata-Rossa, National Council of La Raza; Ben Jealous, Amnesty International; Hilary Shelton, NAACP; Linda Chavez, Center for Equal Opportunity, who first came up with the concept for this bill; John Kaneb, private businessman and a passionate backer of our efforts; David Saperstein, the Religious Action Center; Wendy Patten, Human Rights Watch; Prison Fellowship, specifically Mark Earley, Kate Fowler and Chuck Colson; Pat Nolan, Justice Fellowship; Rich Cizik, National Association of Evangelicals; Barrett Duke and Shannon Royce, Southern Baptist Convention; Salvation Army, specifically Richard Land, George Hood, Todd Bassett; Rich Lowry, National Review; Jennie Osmer, Cal Skinner, former State Senator in Illinois; Micah Solomon, Virginia businessman; Charles Sullivan, Citizens United for Alternatives to the Death Penalty; David Whettstone, Mennonite Central Committee; Cindy Struckman-Johnson, University of South Dakota; Bob Dumond, licensed clinical mental health counselor, Frank Hall, who headed six prison systems; Tom Cahill, co-founder, and Lara Stemple, Stop Prison Rape.

Finally, I wish to thank John Martens of the House Appropriations subcommittee on Commerce-Justice-State; Daniel Scandling, my chief of staff; Janet Shaffron, my legislative director; Neil Siefring, my legislative assistant for Judiciary issues; and Chris Santora, a former legislative assistant in my office who worked hard on this issue in the early days of the bill's history.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I certainly share the sentiments of my colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, if I can just read a brief thing. The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) wanted me to submit this and read this to you briefly. He had to run and catch a plane. I will not read the whole thing, but I want to read the beginning and the end.

``This House will suffer a true loss next month. Eve Butler-Gee, our Chief Journal Clerk, will be retiring at the end of August after 20 dedicated years. I want to join my colleagues today in recognizing her contributions to this Chamber.

``As we thank Eve for her dedication, we also wish her the very best for a happy retirement, with much time spent with her husband Tom; her daughter Lora and Lora's husband John Williams and their son Evan; and Tom's son Sean.

``I am proud to also note that Eve has a number of family connections to West Virginia, Mr. Chairman, and it is my hope that her travels will bring her to our State often.''

God bless. We wish you the best.

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

Mr. Chairman, the following table details budget authority of the Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY03.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY03.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY03.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY03.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY03.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY03.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY03.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY03.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY03.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23JY03.010

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2799 and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 minutes.

I am pleased to begin consideration of H.R. 2799, the Departments of Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary and related agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004. This bill provides funding for programs whose impact ranges from the safety of people in their homes and communities, to the conduct of diplomacy around the world, to predicting the weather from satellites in outer space. The bill before the House today reflects a delicate balance of needs and requirements. We have drafted what I consider a responsible bill for fiscal year 2004 spending levels for the Departments and agencies under the subcommittee's jurisdiction. We have had to carefully prioritize the funding in this bill and make hard choices about how to spend scarce resources.

The bill before the House today recommends a total of $37.9 billion in discretionary funding, which is $700 million above the enacted level for fiscal year 2003 and $237 million above the President's request. For the Department of Justice, the bill provides $20.15 billion in discretionary funding, which is $1.15 billion above the request.

The bill includes funding for Federal law enforcement agencies to perform traditional law enforcement duties and fight terrorism. The bill also provides more than $1 billion above the request to support State and local law enforcement crime-fighting efforts. It includes $4.64 billion for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, an increase of $424 million above fiscal year 2003 and the same as the President's request. This funding will support almost 2,500 new agents and analysts in the FBI to improve counterterrorism and counterintelligence efforts and to continue fighting violent crime, drugs, corporate fraud, and cybercrime.

The bill includes $80 million for high-priority FBI technology needs and funding above the request for language translation and training programs. $2.16 billion is provided for the Drug Enforcement Administration, an increase of $237 million above fiscal year 2003 and $57 million above the comparable request to fight drug crime. The amount includes a transfer of the interagency crime and drug enforcement program under the DEA to consolidate drug law enforcement efforts, $25 million to establish a drug intelligence fusion center to allow agencies to share realtime investigative data, and funding above the request to support 939 new positions, including 434 new DEA and FBI agents. $3.5 billion is provided for proven State and local law enforcement crime-fighting programs, which is $1.2 billion above the request.

When combined with funding provided in the homeland security bill, the committee is providing more than $2 billion above the request for State and local crime control and domestic preparedness funding. The bill restores funds for programs that were proposed to be eliminated, including $500 million for the Byrne formula program, $400 million for the local law enforcement block grant program, and $400 million for

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

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 Virginia.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I absolutely am. These are provisions that have been carried before. The gentleman is the new chairman of that committee. Before we do that next year, we will sit down with the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for bringing these to our attention and for not striking.

Mr. Chairman, there was an analysis of the FCC's travel paid for by non-Federal sources. They found that agency officials took more than 2,500 industry-sponsored trips between May of 1995 and February of 2003, costing $2.8 million. Each of the current commissioners took trips. One commissioner took 44 trips during that time frame, including trips to Las Vegas, Hawaii, and London.

When the issue came out, a member of the FCC staff said that it was because the Committee on Appropriations did not fund their travel. That is not accurate. And as a result of that, we wanted to do this.

One commissioner, who has only been a commissioner since July of 2001, took 12 trips valued at over $14,000. One career employee took 104 trips valued at $150,000, including to France, Japan, Singapore, the United Kingdom, and Sweden. That means the regulatees are paying for the trips of the regulator.

So the reason we are putting this in, I would say to my friend from Michigan, was that when this study came out, the FCC said the reason they had to do this was because they were not being adequately funded, which was not accurate and, therefore, they are adequately funded to travel. I think from a public interest point of view, to allow one person to take 104 trips valued at almost $150,000 to France, Japan, Singapore, the United Kingdom,

and Sweden was why the subcommittee did that from a public policy point of view.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, we will do that, I can assure the gentleman.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) about an amendment that we are prepared, when we go to conference, to make sure it is not in the bill, which is what he desired. Since his time has passed, and in fairness to others who missed that time, rather than going back, and there may be an objection, I just want to assure the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) that what he is offering, working with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), we will accept that amendment and strike it when we go to conference, in fairness to the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

Reclaiming my time, I will do that and work with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano); and in order to protect the gentleman's interests, we will do that.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

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

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

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

I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

I continue to yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, other Members have been in this situation. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) missed the opportunity and could not offer an amendment. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) missed the opportunity and could not offer an amendment, as did the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus). And I think there were several over on that side. And once you have told them that they have missed their opportunity, to do this now, in essence, I would have to go back.

Also, there are a large number of other amendments that are subject to a point of order.

I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if I may, as the gentleman knows, under Helms-Biden, which passed in the year 2000, the contribution level was reduced from 25 percent to 22 percent.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

Reclaiming my time, I share the gentleman's concerns, particularly with regard to one of the countries mentioned, Romania, but as the gentleman knows, the President's request proposed the elimination or reduction to broadcasted nations that have either entered or are on the road to joining the European Union or have been invited into NATO.

And the International Broadcasting Bureau has additional money because the President's request prioritized money to the Middle East and the Muslim world, including Southeast Asia, to bolster the efforts of the war on terrorism.

So we do have report language to require the Broadcasting Board of Governors to closely monitor the situation in those countries and inform the committee of any changes that would alter the priorities.

But I understand what the gentleman is saying.

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

The gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) is supposed to be here, but in the interim, just to briefly discuss the issues.

The bill provides, as people know, the funding for the programs whose impact ranges from the safety of people in their homes and community diplomacy. The overall bill today recommends a total of $37.9 billion in discretionary funding, which is $700 million above the enacted level of fiscal year 2003 and $237 million above the President's request.

For the Department of Justice, the bill provides $20.15 billion in discretionary funding, which is $1.15 billion above the request. The bill includes funding for Federal law enforcement agencies to perform traditional law enforcement duties and fight terrorism. The bill also provides more than $1 billion above the request to support State and local law enforcement crime-fighting efforts. That has been an issue that a lot of people have been deeply concerned about.

It provides $4.64 billion for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, an increase of $424 million above fiscal year 2003 and the same as the President's request. This will result in more than 2,500 new agents and analysts at the FBI to improve counterterrorism and counterintelligence and continue the fight on crime, drugs, corporate fraud and cybercrime.

Also, there is $80 million for high-priority FBI technology needs and funding above the request for language translation.

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

Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) for bringing this matter to our attention. We are confident that the Department of Justice will soon resolve the issue, and I will continue to work with the gentleman to make sure this happens.

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

Before I recognize the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), let me say I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) for the comment.

To the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), we have been very fair. In fact, we have been very fair to every Member in the House, on both sides of the aisle; and I think the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) points are well taken. There are other amendments that have not been made in order, and I am not going to get into a debate. If the gentleman wants me to yield, I will yield to him; but I think we have been fair, and I did just want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) for the comments.

I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to thank the gentleman for his comments on the importance of the Police Corps. I have heard from several other Members on this issue, and I know that many of our colleagues would agree with the gentleman about the role this program has had in helping to provide an exceptional level of training for our Nation's police force.

I support the program. It is a good program, and I will work with the gentleman and the Senate to ensure the program is well funded in the conference.

I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for his comments.

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

The bill includes $71.4 million for the United States to join UNESCO. There was a vote, I believe, in the last Congress whereby this issue was voted on. I believe it was offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). This was an initiative that President Bush announced last year. The U.S. withdrew from UNESCO in 1984 when the organization was rife with corruption and an anti-Western bias. The organization was mismanaged and was not working with regard to the national interest. Since that time, the Bush administration believes that the organization has undergone a number of reforms and the current leadership is committed to sustaining these gains and is committed to fundamental human rights and democratic principles. The Bush administration believes that participation in UNESCO will allow them to be engaged with the international partners on a host of critical issues.

Therefore, I would urge my colleagues to stand with the Bush administration on this initiative and reject the gentleman's amendment.

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

We have a position from the Justice Department, and I will read a portion for Members. It says that ``The Justice Department asked the United States Supreme Court to reaffirm the right of Americans to recite voluntarily the Pledge of Allegiance. Two decisions of the Supreme Court have said without qualification that the Pledge is constitutional.'' And I, as I am sure most Members of this body are, am opposed to what the Court ruled and agree with what the Justice Department is saying here.

Two decisions of the Supreme Court have said without qualification that the Pledge is constitutional. No Justice has expressed any other views. Schools across America and hundreds of thousands of school children have relied on the Supreme Court's repeated assurance as they have started their day with the Pledge.

And they go on to say, and I agree, ``Our religious heritage has been recognized and celebrated for hundreds of years in a National Motto, 'In God we trust,' the National Anthem, the Declaration of Independence, and Gettysburg Address. As the Court has ruled again and again, our government and people can acknowledge the important role religion has played in America's foundation, history and character.

``The Justice Department,'' they go on to say, ``will vigorously defend our Nation's heritage and our children's ability to recite the Pledge.'' And I believe that Attorney General Ashcroft will do that.

The concern of the amendment is, and I will submit the full statement of the Justice Department in the Record, they end by saying this: ``Consideration of this legislation at this point would probably be premature. Congress,'' they say, ``should consider whether the Supreme Court should be given the opportunity to review the Ninth Circuit's decision without intervening legislation complicating its analysis and the procedural posture of the case. For example, part of the government's case before the Court involves demonstrating that there is real harm to the Ninth Circuit's ruling.'' And this is the case. ``So if the Ninth Circuit's ruling is gutted legislatively, the Justice Department might find it harder to make that claim and could strengthen the hands of our opponents' efforts to diminish or eliminate the Federal Government's role in defending the Pledge of Allegiance.

``Also, if the Justice Department prevails in the Supreme Court, there is a chance that opponents might try to construe this statutory language as limiting the Federal Government's ability to spend funds in a manner consistent with the Supreme Court ruling.''

I do not agree with the Court's ruling, and I understand, and I was with my colleague here, but I certainly do not want to do anything in this bill that does, as Justice Department said, if it is gutted legislatively, the Justice Department might find it harder to make that claim and could diminish the strength of the hands of the opponents' efforts to diminish or eliminate the Federal Government's role in defending the Pledge of Allegiance.

I think to do this on a legislative appropriations bill, we really have to go with the Justice Department, and I am going to rely on Attorney General Ashcroft to fight the Ninth Circuit's case and not do something that might, even though the meaning is good, work against the other way and result in something taking place that I certainly do not want to take place, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) and frankly, I do not think this House wants to take place; and I oppose the amendment.

The Justice Department asked the United States Supreme Court to reaffirm the right of Americans to recite voluntarily the Pledge of Allegiance. Two decisions of the Supreme Court have said without qualification that the Pledge is constitutional. No Justice has expressed any other view. Schools across America, and hundreds of thousands of school children, have relied on the Supreme Court's repeated assurances as they have started their day with the Pledge.

Our religious heritage has been recognized and celebrated for hundreds of years in the National Motto (``In God we trust''), National Anthem, Declaration of Independence, and Gettysburg Address. As the Court has ruled again and again, our government and people can acknowledge the important role religion has played in America's foundation, history and character. The Justice Department will vigorously defend our Nation's heritage and our children's ability to recite the Pledge.

The Newdow case was about whether the inclusion of the phrase ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Newdow sued both the United States and the Elk Grove School District to have the Pledge declared unconstitutional. The Ninth Circuit held that the Pledge is unconstitutional when its voluntary recitation is led by teachers in public elementary schools.

On April 30, 2003, the Justice Department joined the Elk Grove School District and asked the Supreme Court to overrule the 9th Circuit (Newdow has also sought to overrule the 9th Circuit for an even broader invalidation of the Pledge). The latest filling by the Justice Department was on July 14, 2003. Some time in October, we will know whether the Supreme Court has decided whether or not to take the case.

Consideration of this legislation at this point would probably be premature. Congress should consider whether the Supreme Court should be given the opportunity to review the 9th Circuit's decision without intervening legislation complicating its analysis and the procedural posture of the case. For example, part of the government's case before the Court involves demonstrating that there is a real harm to the 9th Circuit's ruling. So, if the 9th Circuit's ruling is gutted legislatively, the Justice Department might find it harder to make that claim and could strengthen the hands of our opponents' efforts to diminish or eliminate the Federal government's role in defending the Pledge of Allegiance.

Also, if the Justice Department prevails in the Supreme Court, there is a chance that opponents might try to construe this statutory language as limiting the Federal government's ability to spend funds in a manner consistent with the Supreme Court ruling.

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

Mr. Chairman, I completely agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), completely; and I would ask Members to vote against the Hinchey amendment. The Hinchey amendment would weaken the bill and we would end up with exactly what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said.

This is an issue of values. This is an issue of values that Members on both sides of the aisle have to deal with. I know that there have been powerful lobbyists and interests that have been hired in this town to work against what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is doing, and in essence they would come down here and ask you to probably support the Hinchey amendment. But it is an issue of values.

Many times there is such garbage on these TV shows that a locality cannot preempt them, ``The Millionaire,'' ``The Bachelor,'' ``The Bachelorette.'' They do not cover the issues with regard to the famine in Africa or issues like that. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is right.

I would ask Members on my side of the aisle, this is an issue of values. If you look at those concerned with the expansion in allowing one network, one network that may not very well repeat and have our values, be able to do this, what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said is exactly right. So I just second it. He said it better than anyone could.

I urge Members to defeat the Hinchey amendment, because it would do exactly what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I understand the gentleman from Iowa is going to withdraw the amendment, and I appreciate that; but I think Members ought to understand that the gentleman raises a very, very valid and very, very important point. I voted for Fast Track. I voted for it without the administration asking me to vote for it. But he makes a very valid point, so I hope someone from the Trade Representative's Office is listening to what the gentleman is trying to say here.

We have a 6.4 percent unemployment rate in the country; and there are many of these workers, moms and dads, who desperately want to return to work. So I do appreciate the fact that the gentleman from Iowa is going to withdraw it. I know the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) is going to address the amendment.

But the Trade Representative's Office ought to be paying attention to the King amendment and paying attention to what the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) is saying, or else I think this issue will be dealt with later on.

So I thank the gentleman for offering the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, without really knowing completely what it does. Let me just say if anyone from the Justice Department is listening, is there an office of legislative counsel down there who can give opinions? Hello, is there a policy office down there?

This would be a mistake, though. We are amending the PATRIOT Act, this is not an appropriations issue, on the floor of the House. The gentleman may very well be right, and he seems to have pretty good information, but he may not be. So for us to amend the PATRIOT Act in this bill, I think would be a mistake.

This is not an appropriate amendment for an appropriations bill. This is clearly for the authorizers; this is clearly for the Department of Justice to come up and sit down with the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) and discuss this with him. This is clearly for the legislative counsel of the Department of Justice to address.

The gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) may very well be right. The gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) may not be right. But undoing a statute with a funding limitation at 6 o'clock at night without knowing what the ramifications are is not really the way to legislate.

So because of that, not because the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) is wrong, I want to stress again he may very well be right; and then again, I want to stress he may not be, but I also want to stress that the Department of Justice is AWOL on this issue with regard to coming and sharing with the Congress, and with the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter), some of the concerns. But in an appropriations bill, I do not think it would be appropriate to amend the PATRIOT Act, without having extensive and deep debate.

So with that, I oppose the amendment. I would be glad, as I said, to set up meetings, should this amendment fail, with the Justice Department and the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) so we can get to the bottom, to make sure whether what the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) said is true or not true.

With that, I oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), is a good friend, and I appreciate all the good work he has done on Sudan and the Sudan Peace Act and other issues. It is painful to rise in opposition to this.

This amendment is exactly what we did before on the Homeland Security bill. There was a vote on the Homeland Security appropriations bill, the Rogers bill, it was 106 for the Tancredo amendment, 322 against. We are facing this issue again.

In this subcommittee we do not have jurisdiction over the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. That is under the jurisdiction of Homeland Security appropriations and not this subcommittee.

Also, I understand the gentleman's amendment could result, or probably would result, in the States not being able to receive funding under State and local law enforcement assistance. It could have a devastating impact on resources made available to State and local law enforcement and to citizens that are involved. It could result in States losing tens of millions of dollars in programs such as the Byrne program. People are complaining that there is not enough money in here for the Byrne program; this amendment would reduce that.

The SCAAP program, the budget request has zeroed out SCAAP. We have it at $400 million. That would be impacted, drug courts, State prison drug treatment programs. So to punish the State and local law enforcement, I believe, is not the way. Also, this amendment really should have been offered as it was drafted and it is more appropriate for the Homeland Security bill. We do not have the jurisdiction over the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

So I oppose the amendment and would urge Members to vote no. This amendment is basically what we did several weeks ago, the amendment failed 322 against and 122 for.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I just would say I strongly support the amendment and want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for this. This has been a real problem, and I think what the gentleman has done is going to force this to be addressed.

I know that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) has done an outstanding job with regard to the Saudi government. I saw the ``60 Minutes'' piece; and when we talk to these moms, these children have not been released.

So I will vote for the amendment, support the amendment. I think it is a great amendment; and with that, I want to again thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and all the others.

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

Mr. Chairman, the State Department has been in touch with the committee, and I want to share with the Members their position. They said that this is an amendment that they strongly oppose. They go on to say, we the State Department, have taken a hard stand against Libya, a country that supports terrorism and has a dismal human rights record in its election to chair the Commission on Human Rights. In calling for a vote, the State Department said that they forced members to take a stand on this issue, and everyone knew what the U.S. position was.

They end by saying that withdrawing support by withholding part of our assessed contributions, thus accumulating arrears and eliminating funding for U.S. participation in these bodies, weakens our effectiveness and would be counterproductive.

That is the position of the State Department.

This amendment would prohibit U.S. contributions for activities funded within the budgets of the U.N. or its affiliated agencies whose decision-making bodies (e.g., commission) are chaired by a member state which supports acts of international terrorism (as determined by the Secretary under section 6(j)(1) of the Export Administration Act of 1979).

The Administration fully agrees that U.N. bodies should not be headed or chaired by member states which sponsor or support international terrorism.

We have made these views abundantly clear over the past year.

We took a hard stand against Libya, a country that supports terrorism and has a dismal human rights record, in its election to chair the Commission on Human Rights. In calling for a vote, we forced members to take a stand on this issue, and everyone knew the U.S. position.

We also work hard to keep states that support international terrorism off the U.N. Security Council.

But we strongly believe that withholding funding for bodies chaired by such states will not help us achieve our policy goals at the U.N.

To effect change at the U.N., we need to remain fully engaged, which is our goal and our plan.

Withdrawing support by withholding part of our assessed contributions--thus accumulating arrears--and eliminating funding for U.S. participation in these bodies weakens our effectiveness, and would be counterproductive.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the debate on amendment No. 1 offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) and any amendment thereto be limited to 60 minutes to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the opponent.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to this amendment. The Grand Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police wrote a letter and said, ``Dear Mr. Chairman'' to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), ``I am writing to advise you of the strong opposition of the membership of the Fraternal Order of Police to an amendment to be offered today by Representative Maurice Hinchey to the appropriations measure on the Departments of Commerce, Justice, State which would effectively prohibit the enforcement of Federal law with respect to marijuana in States that do not provide penalties for the use of the drug for so- called `medical' reasons.''

It ends by saying, ``The Hinchey amendment threatens to cause a significant disruptive effect on the combined efforts of State and local law enforcement officials to reduce drug crime in every region of the Nation.''

In the year 2001, the Supreme Court issued a notwithstanding rule and held that marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance under the Controlled Substance Act. It has no currently accepted medical use and treatment in the United States. There are other drugs that now can take its place. It cannot be used outside the FDA-approved DEA-registered research.

Marijuana is the most abused drug in America. More young people are now in treatment for marijuana dependency and for alcohol than for all the other illegal drugs. Marijuana use also presents a danger to others beyond the users themselves. In a roadside study of reckless drivers who are not impaired by alcohol, 45 percent tested positive for marijuana.

It sends the wrong message. What a message it sends. I urge the defeat of the amendment which was, I might say, defeated in the full committee.

Grand Lodge,

Fraternal Order of Police,

Washington, DC, July 22, 2003.

Hon. Mark Souder,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and

Human Resources, Committee on Government Reform, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to advise you of the strong

opposition of the membership of the Fraternal Order of Police

to an amendment to be offered today by Representative Maurice

D. Hinchey to H.R. 2799, the appropriations measure for the

Department of Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary,

which would effectively prohibit enforcement of Federal law

with respect to marijuana in States that do not provide

penalties for the use of the drug for so-called ``medical''

reasons.

In these States, Federal enforcement is the only effective

enforcement of the laws prohibiting the possession and use of

marijuana. Federal efforts provide the sole deterrent to the

use of harder drugs and the commission of other crimes,

including violent crimes and crimes against property, which

go hand-in-hand with drug use and drug trafficking

organizations, particularly in the State of California where

marijuana is sometimes traded for precursor chemicals for

methamphetamines, and in the State of Washington, which is a

significant gateway for high-potency marijuana that can sell

for the same price as heroin on many of our nation's streets.

The Hinchey amendment threatens to cause a significant

disruptive effect on the combined efforts of State and local

law enforcement to reduce drug crime in every region of the

country. On behalf of the more than 308,000 members of the

Fraternal Order of Police, we urge its defeat. If I can be of

any further help on this issue, please feel free to contact

me or Executive Director Jim Pasco through my Washington

office.

Sincerely,

Chuck Canterbury,

National President.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 8\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this is really a cultural issue. That is what this is all about. It is about the culture, nothing else. The Hinchey amendment would mean that State medical marijuana laws are the supreme law of the land. This amendment would prevent Federal officials from enforcing Federal law in a manner contrary to State law.

Under this amendment anyone who manufactures, distributes, or possesses marijuana in purported compliance with State law would have immunity under Federal law.

I think it is a big issue and I think the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) covered it very well. Medical marijuana laws send the wrong message to our youth, too many of whom do not recognize the dangers of marijuana and continue to experiment. It is a cultural issue. It has taken the culture in the wrong direction, and I urge defeat of the amendment.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, the subcommittee accepts the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I do.

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

The rule states in pertinent part ``an amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I feel exactly the same way. I thank the gentleman very much.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Rush

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. It really is not an appropriate amendment for an appropriations bill. It really should be dealt with by the authorizers.

Also, the gentleman's amendment would allow the Department of Justice to prosecute cases involving the death penalty, but would then prohibit them from the sentencing phase. That is probably not a very good way to go.

I understand what he is trying to do, but the Congress has enacted numerous bills dealing with these issues, and I think undoing these bills with a funding limitation is probably not the way to go. I would urge the gentleman to go through the authorizers. I know they are opposed to this amendment.

So because of that, Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and any amendments thereto be limited to 30 minutes to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and by an opponent, and that would be, I think, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

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

Mr. Speaker I rise today in support of H. Res. 194, a resolution condemning slavery and other gross violations of human rights that are occurring in Sudan.

I have been to Sudan four times since 1989. I have seen the conditions on the ground first-hand. Women and children continue to die daily from starvation and illness. According to the State Department Country Report on Human Rights, thousands of Dinka women and children have been abducted and sold into slavery, sent to labor camps, and have been forced to serve in the military. Nearly two million people have died and four million have been displaced as a result of the ongoing civil war in Sudan.

On November 4, 2002, the United Nations concluded that the dire human rights situation in Sudan had not significantly changed. Numerous human rights organizations, including Christian Solidarity International, Freedom House, and the American Anti-Slavery Group have all called for an end to slavery in Sudan. The House of Representatives has repeatedly denounced human rights abuses in Sudan.

The Government of Sudan and the SPLA are beginning to take positive steps toward reaching lasting peace and we are at a critical moment in the peace negotiations between the parties. The war in Sudan must end, but it must end in a just peace, a peace in which all of Sudan can share in its resources, where all Sudanese can worship freely, and in which all Sudanese are treated with respect and dignity. The people of Sudan have suffered for too long.

I urge this body to overwhelmingly pass this resolution and I call on the government of Sudan to abolish slavery and respect human rights.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong support for H.R. 2631 and am pleased to be an original co-sponsor. Before I make my comments, I want to particularly thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) for his efforts.

Those who followed this debate know, through the colloquy that took place on the floor last week, the gentleman from Virginia's (Mr. Tom Davis) efforts with regard to this; and I think every Federal retiree and Federal employee will be very very grateful for that. So I want the gentleman from Virginia to know that I appreciate it, as they will also.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is necessary to clarify the intent of H.R. 1, the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill, which the House passed on June 27. H.R. 2631 would ensure prescription drug parity between retirees enrolled in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program, FEHBP, who are eligible for Medicare, and other Federal employees in the FEHBP. It is vital to pass this legislation to make sure that the bill now moving through Congress to extend Medicare will not reduce prescription drug benefits for Federal retirees enrolled in FEHBP. Federal employees in their retirement must be assured that the commitment will be kept that their drug benefit will remain unchanged and they will not be forced to pay additional costs for prescription drugs. They deserve that commitment from Congress.

I urge all Members to vote for this bipartisan legislation to protect retired and active duty Federal employees.