Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of my friend, Representative Kaptur's amendment, the Farmers' Market Promotion Program. This amendment would make grants to cooperatives, local governments, nonprofit corporations, and other groups that will increase the number of direct producer to consumer market opportunities.

This bill is a win-win all around. Farmers will have more markets for their goods. Consumers will have access to fresh-picked produced. And cities, towns, and hamlets--any area fortunate enough to have such a market at its core--will benefit from the economic ripples that will flow through their communities.

I have seen the boon these farmers' markets bring at first hand. For many years, the Rochester Public Market in my New York district has both benefited farmers in the adjacent counties while it has become a true gathering place for all our citizens. It's just the place to go-- and with good reason. Who doesn't thrill when the first local tomatoes appear, or delight in the smell of fresh basil while buying just-picked corn that will go to the dinner table the same day? And that's just from the consumer's point of view. For our Monroe County farmers, it represents a fast and dependable way to move their goods to market productively without the otherwise inevitable middlemen.

In Buffalo, I have recently spearheaded a similar project on the East Side of the city, which is in dire need of economic stimulus such as this. In April, Congresswoman Kaptur came to the announcement of a major overhaul of the country's oldest public market, which is now in need of revitalization--the Broadway Market. She, along with New York State Agriculture Market officials, Buffalo and Erie County officials, and agriculture leaders helped brainstorm ways we can return the Market to its former glory. We want it to become the finest farmer's market in the state--and after such a fine start, I'm sure it will. The farmers of Erie, Orleans, and Niagara Counties will reap the financial harvest.

This Farmer's Market Amendment would provide $6 million to help other communities initiate worthwhile projects like the Buffalo Market by providing the seed money necessary for them to blossom and grow. That is exactly what the Agriculture Appropriations bill should be doing across the country, and why I hope my colleagues will join me in a favorable vote.

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

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, historically, manufacturing has been a major generator of good, high-skilled, well-paid jobs and remains a staple of local and State economies throughout the Nation. But manufacturing jobs are disappearing.

From January 2001 to January 2004, the United States lost 2.5 million manufacturing jobs. Manufacturing's decline and the shipping of manufacturing jobs to other countries threaten the livelihood of millions of America's working families.

In western New York, I have seen firsthand the devastation that occurs when communities lose their manufacturing base. Across my district, from Rochester to Buffalo, tens of thousands of high-paying manufacturing jobs have vanished and are vanishing in just the last few years, as companies have been driven out of business by cheaper foreign imports or have outsourced jobs abroad for cheaper labor. Buildings once home to booming businesses and factories now stand abandoned. In western New York and across the country, people are outraged; and they want their Congress to do something.

One small way the Federal Government can help is through the Manufacturing Extension Program. MEPs around the Nation work with small and medium-sized manufacturing businesses to utilize technology so that the companies improve and grow. Experts help train manufacturing employees, adopt better business practices, and take advantage of new technology.

For every Federal dollar spent on MEPs, the client manufacturing companies have benefited more than $8. That is, every $1 benefits by $8. In New York State, over 1,000 manufacturers have benefited from MEPs. In western New York alone, almost 6,000 small manufacturers have been helped.

Just recently, High Tech Rochester, an MEP provider, joined forces with the New York State Research and Development Authority, the Greater

Rochester Enterprise, and the Rochester Institute of Technology in a collaborative effort focused on identifying, incubating, and creating renewable energy companies in western New York. These public-private partnerships are the key to revitalizing our economy and creating good manufacturing jobs.

Inexplicably, the Bush administration wanted to end the MEP program last year. As the economy hemorrhaged jobs, the administration proposed to slash this program that works by 60 percent for fiscal year 2004, threatening as many as 40 MEP centers across the country. I was proud to join my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn), to protest these ruinous cuts.

Reauthorizing the MEP program is one thing that we can do, but we should be doing more. Congress could require the Secretary of Commerce to develop a revitalization program for the electronic component sector. Such a plan would evaluate the potential impact on the domestic electronic component sector if all America's new weapons and security equipment purchased by the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security contain domestically manufactured electronic components like computer chips. This could bring new life into this manufacturing sector, resulting in good, new jobs for hard-working Americans.

I offered an amendment in the Committee on Rules to require the Commerce Secretary to develop a revitalization plan, but the Committee on Rules refused to allow it. I also offered an amendment expressing the sense of the Congress that the Federal Government can be a partner not only in research and development of new products, but also revitalization of key sectors of domestic manufacturing. The Federal Government can take proactive steps to help revive the domestic electronics component sector by adopting Federal procurement policies that promote or require the use of domestic-made goods. The Committee on Rules also refused to make this amendment in order.

The changes in our Federal procurement policies could reignite the lagging high-tech sector. Why in the world do we not want to do that? Why are we stopping here with very little, albeit important measures? The ripple effect of such policies would be enormous and would help domestic manufacturers to compete with foreign manufacturers in private sector activities. Such an initiative could create jobs in the manufacturing sector.

Mr. Speaker, it is a truth that for most workers in America who have lost good-paying jobs, the second job not only pays less salary, but fewer or no benefits. Consequently, the standard of living is falling in the United States. It is high time that the Congress began to debate that and have a better understanding of what we, the Congress, can do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon).

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I was shocked to learn that House committee was sending mail into the committee members' districts. During yesterday's Committee on Rules hearing on the appropriations bill for the legislative branch, we learned that the Committee on Resources is sending mail to committee members' districts touting the individual Member's accomplishments on that committee. Mailed under the chairman's frank, these laudatory mail pieces are sent out as Committee on Resources reports.

But listen to what they say: ``Members of Arizona's congressional delegation are making a difference for Arizonans every day through their work on the House Committee on Resources. Arizona is fortunate to have Congressmen Rick Renzi, J.D. Hayworth, Jeff Flake and Raul Grijalva on these important issues.''

It goes on to read, ``Committee members Renzi, Hayworth and Flake supported the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, which provides resource managers with the tools they need to combat the dangers of overstocked forests.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have four of these committee mailings submitted for the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

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

Let me just close by saying, Mr. Speaker, that the amendment offered by our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), was perfectly germane. The only reason in the world it was turned down was for political reasons. It was a major embarrassment that they had been found out, and I have to assure the people who are listening today that on my part, and I am sure on the part of others, that we will not rest until we rectify this mistake, although it is not a mistake. It is a blatant attempt, frankly, to misuse taxpayers' money as incumbent protection.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for rollcall votes 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, and 325. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes 321, 322, 323, and 325. I would have voted ``nay'' on 320 and 324.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, early this morning the Committee on Rules passed a lopsided rule packed with Republican amendments. It is shocking that of the 19 amendments made in order, only one Democrat amendment and one bipartisan amendment are in order. Senior Democrats were shut out, while the rule makes the amendments of junior Members in order on the Republican side. The rule provides for one-sided debate on H.R. 4663. The House will be allowed to discuss and vote on Republican amendments, but Democratic ideas and amendments have been virtually excluded in the important debate on budget process reform.

Mr. Speaker, the question before us is whether or not the current budget process creates a product that embodies our budget policies and our priorities. The Federal Government has gone from having historic surpluses of $5.26 trillion to having historic deficits of $2.3 trillion. If we are unsatisfied with a budget, are policies or the budget process to blame? Should the budget process enforcement mechanism be policy neutral or should the process force or enable Congress to make policy decisions?

Earlier this spring, the Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process of the Committee on Rules held a series of hearings on these questions. The message that came out of the hearings seemed to be, I thought, that the budget process is not at fault. Its structural flaws in the budget process did not produce Federal budgets with massive debt. Instead, the budgets are products of policy choices. The issue is not the mechanisms we employ. The real issue is that people are now unhappy with policy choices made over the last 3\1/2\ years. This concern is bubbling up as criticism over the budget process, turning process, not policy, into the villain.

Since the adoption of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, many reforms have been proposed and tried. Biannual budget, joint budget resolution, sequestration, caps on discretionary spending, caps on entitlement spending, pay-as-you-go requirements, constitutional amendments, and other ideas were part of previous discussions, and part, again, of the current budget reform debate. We all know that caps on discretionary spending and PAYGO requirements on mandatory spending and tax cuts, which is an important point, worked well in the 1990s.

The underlying legislation is fatally flawed in that it leaves future tax cuts unchecked and applies PAYGO only to mandatory spending. The historic deficits are in large part the product of the tax cuts, which primarily benefit the wealthiest Americans. The Congressional Budget Office has said that the $2.3 trillion deficit has been caused by the tax cuts and the associated debt services.

During the second subcommittee hearing, budget expert Stan Collender offered this advice: enacting a new budget process without first developing the consensus necessary to make it work will be perpetuating a political hoax. You will be promising results the process cannot possibly deliver, allowing the process to be used to justify policy changes that will not otherwise seem appropriate and allowing policymakers to hide behind both procedural votes that, at best, will be confusing and, at worst, completely indecipherable.

The body is sharply divided, Mr. Speaker; and there is no consensus on budget reform. This debate is not an academic exercise. Changes to the process will affect millions of Americans. Caps on mandatory spending will dramatically choke vital programs, like Medicare, Medicaid, veterans benefits and student loans. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule so that all ideas, not just the majority suggestions, may be considered and debated.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), who is the ranking member on the Committee on the Budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the House to vote on an important substitute amendment that was not allowed under the rule.

This substitute by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson), the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill), the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore), and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) would reinstate for 2 years the provisions of the Budget Enforcement Act.

It also provides for pay-as-you-go rules for legislation that increases the deficit, sets discretionary spending limits, and calls for a separate vote to consider legislation that would increase those discretionary spending limits or waive the PAYGO requirement.

It is certainly worthy of discussion and a vote in this debate on the House budget process. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership blocked this amendment, and it was voted down in the Committee on Rules early this morning on a straight party-line vote.

When asked why so few or no Democrat amendments were allowed, the Chair of the Committee on Rules said, Because we are the majority.

Mr. Speaker, there are few Members in this House who have worked as hard and long to improve the budget process and control the deficit, as has the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm); yet he was denied an opportunity after his thoughtful and responsible substitute. Three Republican substitutes were made in order under the rule and 15 other amendments, but the amendment of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) was arbitrarily denied.

It seems that every time we get on the floor to do a rule, the other side talks about how fair and balanced their rule is. Well, there is nothing fair and balanced about shutting out of the budget reform debate one of the House's experts on this matter. If one does not support the Stenholm substitute, one does not have to vote for it, but at least let it come before the House for a debate in an up-or-down vote.

I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on the previous question. Let me make it clear that a ``no'' vote will not stop the House from taking up the Spending Control Act and will not prevent any of the amendments made in order by the rule from being offered. However, a ``yes'' vote will preclude the House from consideration of the Stenholm substitute, a substitute that would add greatly to this process.

So do the right thing, please vote ``no'' on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment into the Congressional Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, again, vote ``no'' on the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, the fact that the American intelligence apparatus is broken is well-known. In the global war on terror, the most important weapon we have to protect the Nation and its people is intelligence. Today, more than ever, we must make the creation of a strong and flexible intelligence apparatus one of the highest priorities of this body. The terrorist attacks of September 11, combined with the continuing threat of further attacks, underscore the importance of this legislation.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the bill reported out of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence falls far short of what our intelligence community has requested and what the American people expect. Now listen up. This bill provides less than a third of the key operational funding the intelligence agencies have told us that they need to prevent the next terrorist attack. The scheme for funding the counterterrorism operations is to give the agencies, listen, I want my colleagues to hear this, they are going to give them a third of the money they need, and then after the election they will come back and ask for the other two-thirds. Does this sound like we are concerned about the intelligence community? Does it sound like we are worried that we are at war? The answer is no. The election is the deciding point on when we come back and ask for the money.

The plan will starve the counterterrorism efforts, leaves the intelligence community anemic. Funding the intelligence community in bits and pieces, a portion now and a supplemental after the election, is not only irresponsible, it is reckless. Senior intelligence community officials have said that operating this way could jeopardize key counterterrorism operations. That is what they tell us.

Sadly, this year the bill fell victim to partisanship and the cold hard fiscal realities of tax cuts and spending caps. Every single Democrat member voted against favorably reporting this bill, and this is unprecedented. Typically, the importance of this bill trumps personal ideologies or the prevailing partisan winds; but knowing the ranking member and the other Democrat members of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I know that they must have very serious concerns to vote against the authorization bill.

Five dedicated distinguished Democrat members of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, including the gentlewoman from California (Ranking Member Harman), offered five important amendments to the bill. However, the Committee on Rules tossed out four of these vital substantive amendments. The Committee on Rules will not allow the full House to consider and debate and amend to withhold a portion of the funding until the Secretary of Defense provides all information concerning the dealings of the Department of Defense and Ahmed Chalabi. This is information to which Congress is entitled. This is information the American people want to know. Who was this man who had such an incredible effect and so much influence on whether or not we went to war? What did we do besides give him $33 million?

Members will not be able to consider an amendment to restructure our dilapidated intelligence apparatus. Shockingly, the committee Republicans even made out of order an amendment to fully fund American counterterrorism efforts.

Yesterday, a member of the Committee on Rules tried to suggest that the amendments were proposed for political reasons. Far from it. Our Nation's security is at risk, and the integrity of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Democrats, and all Democrats, should not be questioned.

Reported out of committee on party lines, the rule does make in order an amendment to express the sense of Congress and support of the intelligence community and an amendment expressing the sense that the world is a safer place now that Libya has dismantled its weapons of mass destruction. These amendments were presumed to take precedence over the ones that really dealt with the committee and its budget. They do nothing to improve American counterterrorism operations.

Mr. Speaker, this is a seriously, fatally flawed bill; but, again, the Committee on Rules has muzzled debate on some of the most important issues concerning American intelligence operations. This is a double blow. It is another Committee on Rules strike against deliberation, discussion, and serious consideration; and it is a strike against the safety of America.

I am shocked at the rule and the underlying legislation before us this morning, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule so that the full House

can participate in a comprehensive debate on the most important issue confronting us today and to consider the vital amendments to improve the intelligence community.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

Mr. Speaker, I am stunned at what the previous speaker has just said. What does he mean that no Democrat has expressed any outrage? Has the gentleman polled every Democrat in the country? Does he know that no Democrat has expressed outrage over the beheading of American citizens?

Mr. Speaker, let me reclaim my time. I just think that is an outrageous statement to make, and I do not believe that anybody in America is going to be impressed by that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I will close. I urge Members to vote no on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the House to vote on a critical amendment that was defeated on a straight party line vote last night at the Committee on Rules.

The amendment by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) would fully fund the counterterrorism needs of the intelligence community by increasing by 100 percent the funds authorized in the contingency emergency reserve. What many Members may not realize is that the President's budget request covered just a fraction of the intelligence community's counterterrorism requirements, less than a third. They say the rest of the funds will be requested only after the November election.

Well, the Nation's intelligence agencies have indicated that they need additional funds and the Peterson amendment will make sure that they receive them now, not after November elections.

Mr. Speaker, fighting terrorism is not now and has never been a partisan issue. After 9/11, Republicans and Democrats stood side by side on the steps of the Capitol united in our effort to root out terrorists and to keep America safe. It is hard for me to understand why Republicans would now actively work to keep the House from adequately funding the counterterrorism efforts.

The intelligence bill has long been considered in this House under an open rule. Any Member who wished to bring an amendment to the floor could do so, but last year things began to change. Republicans started to pass rules that restricted amendments, that allowed them to pick and choose which amendments could be debated in the floor of the House. This year they have taken it too far.

The Peterson amendment is far too important not to be considered and is far too important to be subject to petty partisan games. It deserves a separate vote here on the floor today.

So I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to vote no on the previous question. Let me make it very clear that a no vote will not stop the House from taking up the intelligence bill and will not prevent any of the amendments made in order from being offered. However, a yes vote will mean that the House will not have the opportunity to fully fund the Nation's counterterrorism needs.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, along with my Democrat women colleagues, I want to express my outrage at the Bush administration's way to wage devastating war on women from the first day he took office.

The women in America knew from the past 4 years that ``W'' is for War on Women, and the two reports that my colleague the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) discussed highlight this fact.

I would also like to mention another report issued earlier this year by the Union of Concerned Scientists entitled ``Scientific Integrity in Policy Making and Investigation Into the Bush Administration's Misuse of Science.'' This report documents the unprecedented manipulation, suppression, and misrepresentation of science across disciplines ranking from the environment and climate change to military intelligence and public health as well as attacks on issues that specifically affect women.

As a microbiologist, I am particularly concerned with Mr. Bush's blatant disregard for science. As these three reports demonstrate, the President is clearly engaged in a war on women with particularly vicious attacks on women's reproductive rights.

Let me give you a few examples. President Bush is doing everything in his power to restrict and eventually eliminate a women's constitutionally protected right to abortion. The Bush administration supports and is vigorously defending the first Federal law that bans medically necessary abortion procedures since Roe v. Wade, a law that contains no exception to protect a woman's health. It is plainly unconstitutional.

President Bush and his administration have taken multiple actions to imbue embryos and fetuses with the status of personhood in an effort to undermine Roe v. Wade, even at the expense of potentially life-saving medical research and has distorted scientific information to further its anti-abortion and anti-family planning agenda.

President Bush also endorsed unnecessary legislation that establishes a fetus, embryo, and even a fertilized egg as an independent victim of a crime and, thus, a legal person with the same legal rights as live and born individuals, and, particularly, as its mother.

Ironically, at the same time he is attacking a woman's right to choose, he is making every, every effort to inhibit the ability to prevent unintended pregnancies. The Bush administration has consistently proposed inadequate and often even reduced funding for Title X, the family planning programs which provide women with family planning and other health care across the country.

The administration tried to end the requirement that health insurance plans offered to Federal employees which includes the coverage of prescription contraceptives if the plan covers other prescription drugs and devices such as Viagra.

President Bush named to the Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee of the FDA Dr. David Hager, who reportedly has refused to prescribe birth control to unmarried women and has suggested prayer to women who suffer from premenstrual syndrome.

The Centers of Disease Control and Prevention under President Bush replaced a comprehensive online fact sheet about condoms with one lacking crucial information on their use.

On his first day in office President Bush reinstated the global gag rule and extended it to the entire State Department.

For 3 consecutive years, George Bush has withheld funding for the life saving reproductive health services offered through the United Nations Population Fund in over 150 poor countries around the world.

President Bush promotes the unproven abstinence only sex education programs, denying our Nation's young people critical information on ways to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS, even though we know that over 60 percent of 12th graders report having had sexual intercourse.

In fact, recent analysis of abstinence only programs found that such programs can actually reduce the use of condoms when program participants become sexually active, increasing their risk of pregnancy.

In my opinion, the President's ``abstinence only'' programs should be more accurately labeled ``ignorance only,'' and we are placing the very lives of our youth in danger. This is unconscionable.

When the Nation is in such a severe budget crunch and running skyrocketing deficits, George Bush's decisions to spend millions upon millions of dollars on a program that is not only unproven but potentially harmful is dumbfounding. Moreover, he is also exporting this dangerous ignorance policy to other countries around the world.

Another example is the administration posting information on the National Cancer Institute Web site which misleadingly suggested a link between abortion and breast cancer despite objections from the Centers of Disease Control staff who said that scientific study has long refuted that connection.

Mr. Speaker, at this point I will insert the remainder of my statement into the Record.

In fact, the Bush Administration had to pull the false information off the Web site after significant outcry from the scientific community and the American public.

The most recent transgression is a decision by the Bush Administration's Food and Drug Administration to reject Barr Laboratories' application to make its emergency contraception, Plan B, available to women over-the-counter.

In doing so, the Bush Administration once again demonstrated its blatant disregard for the health and well-being of American women.

According to press reports, George Bush's political appointees based this decision on politics instead of science, going against an overwhelming vote by an independent expert advisory committee and his own staff at the FDA.

Such an action is unprecedented.

The FDA's scientific advisory panel and staff overwhelmingly recommended that this drug be made available to American women over- the-counter, because they know what we all know: The scientific facts irrefutably show that this drug is a safe, effective way for women to prevent unintended pregnancy. The scientific data show beyond a shadow of a doubt that Plan B could cut our Nation's unintended pregnancy rate in half and reduce the number of abortions performed in our Nation by hundreds of thousands.

But in an outrageous move, the FDA ignored the expertise of its own scientists and staff--and the will of American women and hundreds of women's, health and doctors' groups--and instead denied this safe contraceptive over-the-counter status.

The FDA threw the facts out the window and instead caved to pressure from right-wing ideologues.

Even FDA officials admitted that this decision was unusual. And last April, two FDA scientists wrote an article in which they openly speculated that political pressure was influencing the FDA's decision on emergency contraception.

We must get to the bottom of how this decision was allowed to happen. We cannot jeopardize future FDA decisions with partisan pandering.

American women trust the FDA to make the best decisions possible with respect to their health.

We absolutely must be able to trust that the federal agency responsible for allowing us access to miraculous drugs will leave politics out of decisions that can so profoundly affect our health.

In my mind, the FDA's decision on Plan B has completely shattered this trust, especially in the leadership of the FDA.

Therefore, my colleague Henry Waxman and I spearheaded a letter along with 28 of our colleagues asking the General Accounting Office to conduct an investigation into the influence of partisan politics upon the FDA, eviscerating its ability to make decisions based upon sound science.

I also believe that FDA Acting Commissioner Lester Crawford and Dr. Steve Galson, acting director of the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, need to be held accountable for this outrageous decision that so clearly goes against the scientific data.

Therefore, I have called upon President Bush to request their resignations. Only when partisan politics are no longer allowed to take precedence over science will our trust in the FDA be restored.

There are so many other examples of President Bush and his cronies riding roughshod over science that I do not have time to discuss them all this evening.

However, I would encourage the American public to take a look at all of these reports to find out what the Bush Administration doesn't want you to know.

As I noted a few minutes ago, the President's moniker that ``W is for Women'' is a joke.

Mr. President, no one is laughing, because the actions you have taken against women are having devastating consequences.

Indeed, you have proven time and again that ``W is for WAR on Women.''

Mr. President, the women of America know what you are doing, and we will not stand for it!

Mr. Chairman, before I begin, I just want to say I am perplexed by the notion that we should leave this contract in place because Accenture will hire Americans to do the work. My assumption is that the two American companies who stay here and pay taxes would do the very same.

I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) for offering this amendment to stop this $10 billion government contract to Accenture. I do not have to explain to anybody in this room why this practice that we have here I think makes no sense at all. A lot of the American companies have decided to evade their Federal tax responsibilities. If you follow this debate, maybe they should all go. It seems it is trying to give us some idea that that is better for us.

But adding insult to injury, this Federal Government turns around and gives billions of dollars worth of contracts to those very companies who will not pay their share.

Corporate expatriates, as my colleagues know, cost us the $5 billion. And when they got this contract, as a member of the Committee on Homeland Security, I was both outraged and flabbergasted to learn that they were going to be responsible for launching the US-VISIT program at our 50 busiest land borders. One of them is just outside my district, in Buffalo, the Peace Bridge.

What do you think my constituents said to me when they learned the company responsible for securing the border, a company funded by their tax dollars, does not pay taxes itself? That the very company that was going to have the important responsibility of tracking foreign visitors is in itself a foreign visitor?

Not only is the contract an insult, it flew in the face of congressional intent. In July of 2002, the House passed an amendment sponsored by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) to prohibit the Department from awarding contracts to corporate expatriates. Unfortunately, it could not block the companies already moving to Bermuda, but we have been trying to close those loopholes.

Last year, I offered an amendment to Project BioShield that would have barred expatriate corporations from receiving $5 billion worth of contracts with the Department of Homeland Security, but it was voted down along party lines. But this week we achieve a partial victory.

The House Committee on Rules of which I am a member granted protection to part of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) that would close the loopholes in homeland security contracting ban, and the amendment easily passed the Committee on Appropriations.

As a long-time member of the Committee on Rules, I can tell my colleagues that is no small feat. As many of us joke, we should probably put a sign above the door to the Committee on Rules room like that hung above the gates of hell in ``Dante's Inferno'' that says, ``All hope abandon, ye who enter here!''

It is no secret that the Committee on Rules is used by the Republicans to kill amendments before they can reach the floor for debate and to substantially restrict debate on legislation having a vast impact on this public.

But 2 days ago a miracle occurred, and we were able to protect the loophole provision on the Delauro-Berry amendment, but this fight is not over.

It does not make any sense, and America knows it. What in the world are we doing here? We are reading every day of the giveaway contract, the no-bid contract to Halliburton that is causing us so much harm and delivering no goods in Iraq, and then we sit here in this Congress and protect the giving of a contract to a corporation that has refused to pay its American taxes. Will my colleagues think about that? They bid against two companies staying here, good corporate American citizens who are at a disadvantage because the company who got the contract does not have to pay those taxes.

It is an outrage, and I think that today we will show that this House of Representatives believes that it is an outrage. I agree with what my colleagues said before: if this bill would ever be allowed by the Committee on Rules to come here for a full debate and vote, we would really show America that most people in this Congress do not like what the leadership is foisting on us.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, the appropriations process for the coming

fiscal year has just begun, and much is being said about how tight the budget numbers are this year. And while this is a statement of fact, it is no excuse for our current fiscal situation.

At the turn of the 21st century, the Federal Government had an historic budget surplus of $3 trillion. In just 3 years, the government is facing historic deficits, upwards of $7 trillion. Bad fiscal policy has greatly diminished the Federal Government's ability to invest in the Nation's resources and the Nation's people. The tight budget numbers are the result of tax giveaways to people who least need it, the people that the Oracle of Omaha, Warren Buffett, has said owe the most to the country and pay for far too little.

Much is lacking in this appropriations bill. Overall spending levels are down. Federal land acquisition funds have been significantly cut, even the projects requested by President Bush. Once again the bill fails to meet the obligations of the so-called CARA light agreement. Operating funds for the National Park Service are only modestly increased. The modest spending boost is barely enough to keep pace with expenses and fails to tackle the $5 billion maintenance backlog at the Nation's parks. The National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities are again underfunded. The bill shortchanges investments in the American people and our country's natural resources. Former President Theodore Roosevelt, one of the fathers of the American conservation movement, warned that in utilizing and conserving the natural resources of this Nation, the one characteristic more essential than any other is foresight. We are lacking that, Mr. Speaker.

Back in 1992, funding for the NEH and the NEA reached their funding zenith, $176 million for each agency. Over the years their budgets have been slashed again and again. Recently this body has voted to increase the funding for the arts and the humanities and I urge my colleagues to continue this trend to support an amendment to increase funding for both of these agencies. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and I will offer an amendment later to do so. As Pulitzer prize-winning former Librarian of Congress Daniel Boorstin said, ``Planning for the future without a sense of history is like planting cut flowers.''

Investing in the arts is smart business. The $232 million the Federal Government invested in the NEH and NEA in 2002 had an economic impact of $132 billion and generated billions in Federal, State and local tax revenues. Every dollar they invest in local theater groups, orchestras or exhibitions generates $7 for the arts organization by attracting other grants, private donations and ticket sales. In my district alone, 1,215 arts-related businesses employ almost 20,000 people. Buffalo, New York, I am pleased to say, was just recently designated as the number four destination in the United States for top art events and venues. We are very proud of that. Nationwide, creative industry businesses employ almost 3 million people, 2.2 percent of all who are employed.

Investing in the arts is also smart for our children. Over and over arts education has proven to increase academic performance, regardless of socioeconomic background. The NEA provides grants for local arts activities in every State and every congressional district. Small grants make a big difference.

The National Endowment for the Humanities is at the forefront in preserving our American culture and history. Democracy will not flourish without an understanding of its past. The NEA and NEH preserve and promote the understanding of where we have been and where we are today that our democracy needs to endure. Democracy dies in a cultural vacuum. This bill even guts funding for the President's We the People initiative, which supports exploration of the significant events and themes in American history.

Bruce Cole, the Chair of the National Endowment for the Humanities, warns, ``We face a serious challenge to our country that lies within our borders and even within our schools, the threat of American amnesia. We are in danger of having our view of the future obscured by our ignorance of the past. We cannot see clearly ahead if we are blind to history. And a Nation that does not know why it exists, or what it stands for, cannot be expected to long endure.'' Very wise words from Mr. Cole.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, much is being said about how tight fiscal restraints are this year. We know that is so, but it is not an excuse for our current budget constraints. Just a few years ago, the Federal Government had a budget surplus of $3 trillion. Today, the government is facing historic deficits upward of $7 trillion. Bad fiscal policy has hamstrung the Federal Government's abilities to invest the sums necessary to protect the Nation from terrorism. The tight budget numbers are the result of tax giveaways to people who least need it, the people that the ``Oracle of Omaha,'' Warren Buffett, has said owe the most to the country and pay far too little.

It is good for the Nation that overall funding for the Department of Homeland Security has increased. However, the increase is not enough. The cost of securing the Nation is high, but throwing dollars at the threat is not the solution. We must spend homeland security funds wisely, and all homeland security activities must be coordinated within the department itself and with State and local governments.

But well into its second year, the department is still underachieving. Several years into our own war on terrorism, the department has not developed a comprehensive threat vulnerability assessment. How can we protect the people of this country when we act blindly without this basic information necessary to develop and implement a comprehensive homeland security plan?

Recent reports have shown that airports are not any safer despite the creation of Transportation Security Administration. There is no coordination of homeland security functions along the southern or along the northern border.

I represent the second busiest gateway between the United States and Canada, and the need to increase the resources along the over 4,000- mile border between the U.S. and Canada is great. For years, little attention was paid to our northern border. But if we are to maintain the $1 billion a day trade between the United States and

Canada while maintaining U.S. safety and security, we have to provide the resources to do it. We must create a northern border coordinator to ensure our dollars are invested prudently and that Federal, State and local authorities are working together.

I am extremely troubled by the $300 million cut to funding for our first-responders, the people on the ground valiantly protecting our communities with too few resources and lots of overtime. How can we justify cutting funding for police officers, firefighters and EMTs, who are the first people on the scene to respond to a terrorist attack? Money has been awarded to States and localities, but the process is so cumbersome and lengthy that local governments have difficulty actually spending the first-responder grant money.

It is also imperative that we take threat, vulnerability, and strategic importance into account when we allocate the first-responder dollars. High threat areas with high population densities certainly deserve attention and dollars. Areas of strategic importance need and deserve Federal assistance. And, as I mentioned, the border crossings at Buffalo and Niagara Falls are the second busiest portals between the United States and Canada. This entry port is tactically important to the security of the United States. Terrorists could use this entrance to gain access to the country or use the bridges as a means to slip weapons into the country. Western New York's strategic position and role are vital to national safety. Such areas need the resources to secure the northern border without disrupting the important commerce between the United States and Canada.

Mr. Speaker, another issue that greatly bothers me, and is an insult to every taxpayer in this country, are the corporate expatriates, American companies that incorporate abroad in order to skip out on their tax obligations to this country. These corporations earn millions of dollars from the Federal Government. According to the General Accounting Office, corporate expatriates cost this country an estimated $5 billion in lost tax dollars, and yet they continue to receive $2.7 billion in government contracts. That is a disgrace.

Accenture, the scion of Arthur Andersen of infamous Enron fame, recently received a $10 billion contract to build a foreign traveler tracking system known as US-VISIT. During committee consideration of the homeland security appropriations, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) offered an amendment to ensure that companies incorporated outside the United States for tax purposes could not enter into contracts with the Department of Homeland Security. It makes sense. The DeLauro-Berry amendment would void the Accenture contract by barring any contracts with corporate expatriates before, on or after the date of enactment.

H. Res. 675 protects the first part of the DeLauro-Berry amendment, which will probably disappear in conference, but it specifically refuses to protect the second provision in the amendment that would invalidate the $10 billion contract with Accenture.

Bloomberg News reported that Accenture posted increases in American earnings from $247.3 billion in 2002 to $566.9 billion in 2003, doubled in one year, while the company reduced its tax liability to $143 million from $382 million. During that same time period, Federal procurement records show that in 2002 Accenture benefited from Federal contracts worth $450 million, of which $250 million were related to military or homeland security functions, another disgrace.

At this time, when unemployment levels have remained consistent since December 2003, it is important that we as public servants and as agents of the Federal Government do everything we can to keep jobs in this country. We should not reward companies that incorporate outside the United States in order to avoid Federal taxes.

Think of the advantage it gives them in bidding against American companies. Expatriate corporations like Accenture have a huge structural advantage over companies that stay in America, employ Americans and pay their fair share of taxes. It is our duty to support the American companies. Giving the largest contract yet awarded by the Department of Homeland Security to an expatriate company contradicts the principles and ideals that I was sent here to uphold.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

(Mr. OBEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

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

Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman have any further speakers?

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

Mr. Speaker, when the previous question is called I will ask for a no vote. It seems that hardly a day goes by that we do not turn on television and hear some new report on a terrorist plot around the world. Some of the most recent reports have indicated terrorists may be planning attacks in the United States this summer. Just the other day authorities arrested a man in Ohio allegedly planning to blow up a shopping mall.

With news like this it is little wonder that the security of our Nation weighs heavily on the minds of our constituents. Unfortunately, the bill before us today does not provide an adequate level of funding to give our communities the resources that they need to keep America and its people safe. Excluding Project BioShield, the Homeland Security appropriations bill barely keeps up with inflation, and it even cuts funding for programs to help our police, firefighters and emergency personnel 7 percent.

How do we expect to keep our Nation secure when we are cutting funding for the very people tasked with keeping our constituents safe.

It does not have to be this way, Mr. Speaker. Last night at the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) brought forth a very important and responsible amendment that would have provided an additional $3 billion to the Department of Homeland Security in a contingent emergency reserve. As the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) pointed out in his testimony, this money could be used to increase the number of air marshals on planes or to address the problems in our current aviation security screening system.

It could provide for more radiation and surveillance monitors at our borders and ports and allow for increased inspection of shipping containers coming into the country. It could be used to increase surveillance in our transit systems and to improve communications between police, firefighters and other first responders.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we will not get a chance to vote on more money for security at our borders or on our transit systems or for our first responders because the amendment by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) was defeated on a straight party line vote.

So today, Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote no on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will make in order the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). This fund represents a tiny fraction of the money that has gone towards rebuilding Iraq. I do not think it is asking too much to make sure that our own Nation is fully protected and that emergency monies are available should they be needed.

In the 2 years since the creation of the Homeland Security Department, we have found a number of areas that need more resources. The monies contained in the contingency fund could provide a much- needed shot in the arm for these programs and services that may have vulnerabilities. Mr. Speaker, this should not be a partisan issue. The safety of our Nation and its citizens is of utmost importance to all of us in this House.

Today this Congress can put aside partisanship and act to protect America's homeland by giving the Department of Homeland Security the additional resources provided in the Obey amendment to meet our most urgent security concerns.

I am confident that all Americans and all Members of this House support that sentiment. So I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to vote no on the previous question.

Let me emphasize that a no vote will not stop the House from taking up the Homeland Security appropriations bill. It will not prevent other amendments from being offered under this rule. However, a yes vote will prevent the House from considering this badly-needed amendment to create an emergency contingency fund for homeland security and preserve that department's ability to more fully protect Americans against terrorism.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote no on the previous question and yield the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a set of amendments, and I ask unanimous consent they be considered en bloc.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that will provide just a small increase for Federal arts agencies but which will pay us back many times over, both in hard dollars and in ways that are simply incalculable for the people that we represent.

Since 2001, when our national economy began its dramatic downturn, we have seen some of our largest industries shaken to their core. Without consumer spending and housing market, the recession would have been even deeper and more discouraging for most Americans. But during those dark days, one industry sailed on battered by the prevailing wind but staying afloat, thanks in part to Federal funding, and that was America's incomparable nonprofit arts industry.

Even without the corporate and philanthropic support of prior years and with fewer State and local dollars, the indomitable $134 billion nonprofit arts industry, seen here on this chart, kept selling tickets, employing artists, attracting tourists, providing jobs, supporting small businesses and churning out receipts to Federal, State and local treasuries. In cities, towns and hamlets across the country, artists continued to write and compose and dance and perform, and audiences kept coming to watch and listen and absorb their creativity. Inevitably, they left with what they came for, their minds enlightened, their souls renewed.

How magic that is when what makes both people's life and economy richer is one in the same thing. The lesson is clear, the stability of Federal funding is all the more important to the arts in times of fiscal fluctuation. And where else can we find such a bargain? For 1/ 100 of 1 percent of the Federal budget, the nonprofit arts agencies generate over 5 million jobs and give back 14 billion to State and local governments and over 10 billion to the Federal treasury.

Consider this enormous return on our investment and our request is modest this year. Though the President requested $18 million for the National Endowment for the Arts, because we recognize the tight budget we face we will ask only $10 million, and this small increase will ensure that the NEA's new program, America's Masterpieces: Three Centuries of Artistic Genius, which First Lady Laura Bush announced with such enthusiasm last year, will take the best of our heritage to new and younger audiences across the country. Every dollar of this increase will go to the program. Not a cent will fund administrative costs.

Similarly, rather than the $27 million which the President requested for the National Endowment for the Humanities, we are asking only $3.5 million. The additional money will continue funding for such popular programs as ``We the People,'' which teaches and studies the understanding of American history, and every State and territory in the United States last year benefited from this initiative. Should you have any doubts left about the ability of the Federal seed money to build a local economy, think about your own preference when you travel. What do you look for when you are in a strange city or country?

After checking into your hotel and locating a restaurant, you search out the local cultural attractions, do you not? The museum, the art gallery, the theater, the folk festival, the other indigenous arts; in fact, the attractions that made you want to go there in the first place. Sixty-five percent of all American travelers do the same. They include cultural events on their trips and they spend more on the average than local attendees do at their favorite cultural institutions.

In my own district, the Cities of Buffalo, Rochester, and Niagara Falls, New York are dependent on tourist dollars to keep their economy and local small businesses running. You probably have watched and been grateful for the same phenomenon in your district. Just today I learned that Buffalo was now the fourth most desired arts destination in the country, according to the American Style Magazine's annual poll, and I say thank goodness for those tourist dollars.

I hope by now you have seen the research seen by Americans for the Arts, which was sent to every congressional office. Entitled ``The Creative Industries,'' the report includes a map of your own district and a chart that shows every arts-related business in your district and the number of jobs that each supports. It gives you a graphic indication of the geographic and economic reach of the arts. But the benefits of our Federal investment are neither confined at our districts nor stop at our borders. The output of artists and other creative workers in publishing audio-visual music and recording and entertainment business amounts to over $60 billion annually in overseas sales, and this huge return helps the U.S. maintain an ongoing global position of economic strength and leadership.

Think for a moment about the Reagan funeral. Who was not deeply moved by the tenor's rendition of Ave Maria? Whose eyes did not tear when the Marine band played Amazing Grace or God Bless America and the wonderful choir that sang The Battle Hymn of the Republic? Who can even imagine such a moment of national importance not imbued with such profound feeling without the artists performing their great music?

Long after everyone alive today is gone from this Earth, that ceremony will be remembered by generations to come through the artistry of great photography.

Let us remember that it was President Reagan himself who set up the Presidential Task Force on Arts and Humanities.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify the amendments to correct the line reference from page 103, line 24, to page 103, line 14.

Offered By: Ms. Slaughter

Amendment No. 9: Page 46, line 16, strike ``$93,051,000''

and insert ``$79,551,000''.

Page 46, line 22, strike ``, to'' and insert ``shall''.

Page 46, beginning on line 23, strike ``, shall remain

available until expended for a departmental financial and

business management system''.

Page 103, line 14, strike ``$120,972,000'' and insert

``$130,972,000''.

Page 104, line 5, strike ``$122,377,000'' and insert

``$125,877,000''.

Offered By: Ms. Slaughter

Amendment No. 15: Page 47, line 4, after ``Appropriations''

insert ``Provided further: That amounts otherwise

appropriated by this Act for motor vehicle lease, purchase or

service costs at the Department of the Interior are reduced

by $13,500,000 and, not later than 30 days after the date of

the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of

Management and Budget shall submit to the Committees on

Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate

a listing of the amounts by account of the reductions made

pursuant to this proviso ''.

Page 103, line 14, strike ``$120,972,000'' and insert

``$130,972,000''.

Page 104, line 5, strike ``$122,377,000'' and insert

``$125,877,000''.