Jeff Miller

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, would that be divided?

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, the Miller- Miller amendment, is a modest and simple reform of the sugar program. It is not the elimination of the program. In 1996, we tried to eliminate the program, missed by 5 votes then, but we kind of are reluctant in this Congress to eliminate anything, especially in the agriculture program. So this is a modest one-cent change in sugar. That is right. We are only going to lower the price from 18 cents to 17 cents, a 5 percent reduction in the price of sugar, which amounts to a $500 million savings, according to the Congressional Budget Office, $500 million worth of savings over the next 10 years. This is a very bipartisan bill, as my colleagues will see from the vote on this particular amendment. Even the secretaries of agriculture from three different administrations have come out in favor of this amendment. Secretary Glickman, Secretary of Agriculture under President Clinton, Secretary Clayton Yeutter under President Bush, and Secretary Jack Block under President Reagan, have all come out and said the sugar program is no longer sustainable, we need to change it, and this amendment is a good step in the right direction. Let me briefly comment about what the sugar program is. Well, the sugar program is a Federal program where we maintain a very high price for sugar in the United States. In fact, sugar prices in the United States are two to three times world prices. That is right, we pay two to three times world prices for sugar, and what it does is it hurts consumers, it hurts jobs, it hurts the taxpayers, bad on the environment, bad on trade. The way it works is the Federal Government tries to manage how much sugar is imported into the country, a very difficult challenge, but we have to allow some imports, and we do not grow enough in the United States. So it tries to manage trade, and here we are, the great free trading country of the world and we are managing trade for sugar. Then what it does, it loans sugar farmers money, and it kicks the sugar as a guarantee and, if they cannot get this high price for sugar, the government says we will buy it back, and we were told back in 1996 it was no cost to this program. No cost to the sugar program. Last year the Federal Government bought $435 million worth of sugar and does not know what to do with the sugar. It is bad for the consumers as I have said. What I mean by bad for consumers is the General Accounting Office, which is the independent agency of Congress, we, division of Congress, branch of Congress, spend $400 million with the General Accounting Office to do studies for us. Their studies show it costs $1.9 billion a year. I know the other side is going to say, oh, that is not right. We spend $400 million for this agency in Congress to do these type of studies, and that is what it says, $1.9 billion. As far as the taxpayers, they have already got this $435 million worth of sugar from last year, and they do not know what to do with it. The latest idea is they are going to have all these sugar farmers where we just bought their sugar, said if they will plow up $20,000 worth of sugar, we will give them $20,000 worth of sugar. Explain that one to the people back in Florida that we are going to buy their sugar and then give it back to them. It makes no sense. When it comes to jobs, we are losing jobs in this country, and I am sure my colleagues from Chicago will talk about how the candy industry is being really hurt in Chicago, whether it is a Bob Candy Company in Albany, Georgia, or the closing down of sugar plants in the city of Chicago. Mayor Daley and the city council of Chicago have come out in support of this amendment. When it gets to the environment, we are very concerned about our Florida Everglades, and last year Congress passed an $8 billion program for restoration of the Everglades, half paid by the State of Florida and half by the Federal Government. A large part of the problem is sugar farming. In 1960 there were 50,000 acres of sugar cane grown. Now, we have 500,000 acres of sugar cane, and it keeps increasing because our program encourages overproduction of sugar. What is included in this bill also is out of the $500 million worth of savings is a program where 300 million can be used for environmental purposes, for conservation and hopefully for the Everglades. It will be controlled by the Committee on Appropriations, but it creates a program that some of the savings can go back into conservation, and hopefully for the Everglades. Then we talk about trade. We are one of the great free traders in the world, except for its sugar. That is the reason the Secretaries of Agriculture have been opposed to this program because they cannot go negotiate and say we want to sell more corn, we want to sell more beef, we want to sell more soybean. We cannot do that because we are always defending the sugar program. So we need to be fair on this whole trade issue. As I said, this has got widespread support and lots of organizations are supporting it. Whether it is good government organizations or conservation groups, they are very strong in favor of this amendment. The sugar program is an anti-free trade, anti-free market movement, and I hope my colleagues will support me on this amendment.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, before I begin, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw). (Mr. SHAW asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me respond to a couple of questions that have come up in this debate. First of all, they talk about the cost of it, and they say, well, the sugar is lower here, there, it does not cost anything. I want to refer once again to the General Accounting Office report, the GAO. We pay this agency, which is a part of Congress, $400 million a year to do studies for us. It is not a partisan organization; it is not a biased organization. It has the experts, or brings in the consultants, to come up with the best knowledge they can. In this case it was asked, what is the cost of the sugar program? It was a very detailed report. They are the ones that came up with the $1.9 billion cost. So the program really does cost money. You say it does not cost anything. My colleague from Florida was talking about jobs. We are concerned about jobs. But what about the candy companies that are losing jobs? Here is an article from the Nashville Business Journal about a company, Bradley Candy Corporation, on June 29 closed their doors and went out of business. My colleague from Chicago talks about the companies in Chicago going out of business. Bob's Candy from Albany, Georgia, makes candy canes. Hard candy is the one that uses a lot of sugar. They are being driven offshore for production because the cost of sugar in something like candy canes just makes it prohibitive to compete. Let me also make a comment about the trade issue. Many of my colleagues say they are free-traders. I am a little baffled by my colleagues that support free trade, especially if you support it in the grains and soybeans and such. We are big exporters of agricultural products. That is great. But the problem we have with our trade negotiators is they go sit at the table to negotiate trade and say, we want to sell more corn or wheat to your country, but do not sell us any sugar. We are hurting ourselves opening up markets for the grains and other products that we do manufacture so efficiently and produce in this country so efficiently, because we have to defend sugar. That is the reason those former Agriculture Secretaries say get rid of the program; we cannot negotiate more markets for our agricultural products when the one product we have to defend is sugar.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, before I yield to the gentleman from Ohio, let me make a couple of comments, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. The sugar program is not being eliminated. Under the Miller-Miller amendment, the sugar program will be here 10 years from today just like it is now. All we are talking about doing is lowering the price from 18 cents to 17 cents; one penny, 6 percent change. The world price, as of October 2, if we look in the Wall Street Journal or any of the financial pages, is 6\1/2\ cents. Now, I agree; that probably is a dump price, and I would not want that price in the United States. But we are only talking about 18 cents down to 17 cents. We do have requirements and other laws on the books, and I fully support them, to keep subsidized products from coming into the United States. France subsidizes their sugar production. And we should not allow France to sell sugar to the United States, and they do not. So if there is a company that subsidizes it, we keep them out. One of the largest sugar producers in the world is Australia. They have a free market on sugar. They sell it around the world for 6.5 cents. Of course, when they sell it to the United States, we pay them 18 cents. That is even the dumber part of the program. So the fact is there is a dump price that I agree is like 6.5 cents, but all we are talking about is going to 17 cents. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring to the attention of the gentleman, no sugar is in soft drinks in the United States. The price of sugar is so expensive that we use corn syrup. Sugar is not used in the products in the United States; it was driven away from the market. The more we put up the price of sugar, the less uses we will find. We will find an alternative. That is the reason corn syrup has been used as a substitute for soft drinks, so we will not find that in soft drinks, sadly, in the United States. It is used in the other countries in the world where they have a free market in sugar. We keep referring to candy. That is just one of the uses for sugar, and they use a lot of it. It is in so many different products we use. I have a colleague who has a company that produces medicine. They have cough drops. Cough drops have a lot of sugar in them. This company manufactures them in England because they cannot bring them to the United States for production because of the cost of sugar, they say. My colleagues started to discredit the General Accounting Office: ``Why are we paying them $400 million to do all these studies?'' In the case of this one, that is the $1.9 billion. That is the most authoritative source we have. They contracted out a lot of this work with a professor from the Department of Agriculture, one from Iowa State University, a professor from the University of Maryland, a former assistant professor of economics at USDA, a number of other professors from the University of Florida, from the University of California, Davis, from North Carolina State University. They all participated in this study that came up with the $1.9 billion number. The Department of Agriculture would not participate in this, did not want to get involved in it, and they want to discredit it, which is really sad. But of course, we have to remember, the Department of Agriculture has hundreds of people over there trying to manage this program, and it is a jobs program there. So what we are doing is the cost, which is no net cost, even though we have to buy and store all this sugar, we have hundreds of employees that have to kind of maintain this program and manage the imports allowed in this program. So yes, it is a $1.9 billion cost to all the consumers of America, and consumers are taxpayers. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Miller-Miller amendment is just a modest change in the sugar program. We are not trying to eliminate it like we debated back in 1996, and that is really what I wish we would eliminate, but we are only talking about a one-penny change, dropping the price by about 5 percent. Now, I have my colleagues talk about, oh, the consumers do not ever gain from this, and I keep referring to this GAO report. Let us also look at all the organizations that support the Miller-Miller amendment. What consumer agreement supports the sugar program? None. The Consumer Federation of America supports the amendment. The Consumers for World Trade support the Miller-Miller amendment, and Consumers Union supports the Miller-Miller amendment. They support it because the consumers are the one that get the bad deal off the sugar program. Let me also talk about some of the other organizations, and many of them are going to be rating this vote, that is, scoring it and saying how important the vote is to them. For business groups, we have a lot of the users of it and good government groups. We have Citizens Against Government Waste, National Taxpayers Union, Americans for Tax Reform, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Taxpayers for Common Sense. Environmental, people say, oh, it really does not hurt the environment. Why do National Audubon Society, Sierra Club, The League of Conservation Voters, Everglades Trust, Friends of the Earth, World Wildlife Fund all support this amendment? As I said earlier, three former Secretaries of Agriculture, one Democrat, a former colleague of ours, Dan Glickman under President Clinton, again, Secretary Clayton Yuetter under President Bush, and Secretary Jack Block under President Ronald Reagan, all signed a letter concluding, and let me read a couple of quotes of it. Whatever its merits in the past, the sugar program in its present form no longer serves its intended public policy goal. It should be reformed. They go on, there appears to be no reasonable way to sustain the present sugar program. Defending this import restrictive program is increasing the untenable for our trade negotiators. This conflict harms the interest of other farmers, ranchers and processes. Reform of the sugar program is long overdue, and they encourage the support for the changes outlined in this amendment. This is a simple, common sense, reasonable and modest amendment. We have not had a full debate on this issue since 1996. We were promised things in 1996 like, oh, it will not cost us anything, and then last year we bought the $465 million worth of sugar. Are we supposed to believe it is not going to cost us again when in the year 2000, we bought $465 million worth of sugar and we are a million and a half dollars a month just to store sugar we do not even know what to do with? So come on, it is going to cost us because it cost us last year. We are overproducing sugar, and we need to bring some reasonable common sense to this. So I encourage my colleagues to support the Miller-Miller amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), a classmate from the 103rd Congress.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk). (Mr. KIRK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to mention that while my colleague from Hawaii brings up the fact there is no net cost, that is not what we were told back in 1996. Last year, the Federal Government bought $435 million worth of sugar. They have no use for it. They cannot even give it to Afghanistan, let alone give it away in this country. And we are paying millions of dollars to store that 750,000 tons of sugar. So it does cost real dollars. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer Amendment No. 41.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan. It just makes common sense that we try to make this a more fair and equitable type of bill, because it really does help very, very wealthy people. I was kind of embarrassed, a newspaper article on the front page of my Sarasota paper, unfortunately it was back on September 11, on the front page showed President Bush waving upon his arrival the night before. The other big article was an AP wire service story about how most farm subsidies go to a few. It talks about how 1,200 universities and government farms and State prisons get money. It talks about how Ted Turner gets $190,000 from it, Scotty Pippin, the basketball player making $14 million a year, gets $26,000. It talks about people after people who get $1 million, hundreds of thousands of dollars. All that the amendment of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) does is try to make a little more equity and tries to make a little more fairness in this program.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, just in conclusion, one of the concerns I have about this total bill, it has 70-some billion of new spending over and above what has been spent over the past year. It is supposed to come out of our non-Social Security surplus. Now, not only do we not have a Social Security surplus, we are going to be into deficit spending. Anything we can do to reduce that 70-some billion of new spending that was put in the budget back in May of this year, that I supported, that was expecting these $300 billion surpluses. Now that we do not have these huge surpluses, it makes it very difficult for us fiscal conservatives to support a bill like this. So anything that can reduce the total cost of this bill by $1 billion I would hope would be supported by this House.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I inform my colleagues of the loss of a committed public servant Marion Britton. Marion was a passenger on the United Airlines Flight 93 that was highjacked on September 11, 2001, and crashed outside Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Marion Britton's career with the Census Bureau spanned 21 years during which she worked with dedication and distinction on all major Regional Office field data collection operations including the Current Survey programs, the Decennial Census, and Census Tests. She began her career in 1980 in New York City as a Field Operations Assistant during the 1980 Census. In 1981, Ms. Britton accepted a position as a Survey Clerk in the New York Regional Office. Desiring a supervisory position, she applied for and was selected in 1983 to participate in the Census Bureau sponsored Upward Mobility Program. In 1989, upon her successful completion of this program, she advanced to a Supervisory Survey Statistician position in the New York Regional Office. In recognition of her considerable abilities to manage technically and operationally complex field data collection operations, Ms. Britton was selected to work on the 1995 Census Test in Paterson, New Jersey, managing the critical coverage measurement operations. The 1995 Census Test was an essential part of the development of the overall design of Census 2000. Ms. Britton had also participated in the initial test of the Computer-Assisted Personal Interviewing coverage measurement instrument and training and contributed input that proved beneficial on a nationwide basis. After her considerable contributions to the successful completion of the 1995 Census Test, she was promoted in rapid succession to the position of Coordinator in the New York Regional Office in 1996, where she managed and directed several Supervisory Survey Statisticians assigned to Current Survey programs and then to Assistant Regional Census Manager, in 1997. In this position, she was instrumental in leading the crucial preparations and early operations for Census 2000. In 1998, Ms. Britton was called upon to serve as the Assistant Regional Director and given full operational and managerial responsibility for the New York Regional Office during the period of time while Census 2000 was being conducted. This was also a period of major expansion of the Current Survey programs. Shortly after this, she was selected to serve in an expanded managerial role as the Deputy Regional Director which included providing direct guidance and leadership for the Census 2000 Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation. After the completion of Census 2000, Ms. Britton returned to her position as the Assistant Regional Director for the New York Regional Office. During her career with the Census Bureau, Ms. Britton earned several major honors and awards for her outstanding managerial and technical skills and innovative contributions. She received the Census Award of Excellence in 1988, the Bronze Medal Award, the highest honorary award granted by the Census Bureau, in 1993, and the National Partnership for Reinventing Government's ``Hammer Award'' in 1999 for her work on the American Community Survey.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my following statement be entered into the Record. It is with great sadness that I inform my colleagues of the loss of a committed public servant, Waleska Martinez. Waleska was a passenger on the United Airlines Flight 93 that was hijacked on September 11, 2001, and crashed outside Pittsburgh, PA. Waleska Martinez's career with the Census Bureau spanned 13 years during which she worked with strong commitments to excellence and innovation on all major Regional Office automation operations in support of the Current Survey programs, the Decennial Census, and Census Tests. She began her career in 1988 as a clerk in the New York Regional Census Center. Within a matter of months she was promoted to an Assistant Manager for Administration position and then to an Administrative Specialist position. During the 1990 Census, Ms. Martinez provided exemplary payroll/personnel support and other administrative support and guidance to all areas of the Regional Census Center and the District Offices. In addition, she developed specialized automation reports and spreadsheets that provided managers with valuable, easy-to-use information on the status of critical administrative activities. In 1991, upon the successful completion of her 1990 Census Administrative Specialist duties and responsibilities, Ms. Martinez was transferred to the New York Regional Office as a Special Survey Technician. On the basis of her considerable academic and technical background and experience in the areas of computer science and management information systems, Ms. Martinez was called upon to serve as the Regional Office Computer Specialist in early 1993. During the following years of major expansion in Regional Office automation and the introduction of Computer-Assisted Personal Interviewing for the major Current Survey programs, Ms. Martinez kept the New York Regional Office in the forefront of automation support, training, and performance. In 1998, Ms. Martinez was selected to serve as the Census 2000 Automation Supervisor for the New York Region and was given full technical, operational and managerial responsibility for the entire range of automation hardware, software, and support including a complex telecommunications network for the Regional Census Center and the 39 Census 2000 Local Census Offices. During her career with the Census Bureau, Ms. Martinez was the frequent recipient of performance awards and special act awards in recognition of her outstanding technical and managerial skills and innovative contributions in all areas of automation. She received the Bronze Medal Award, the highest honorary award granted by the Census Bureau in 1998.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues and millions of Americans in their shock, sorrow and outrage at yesterday's horrific attack. I join with them, too, in the resolution to stand united against terror and against cowards that would attack innocent men, women and children, and against the fear that would overthrow our liberty. We will recover. We will rebuild. And we will continue to stand proudly, a shining city on a hill, a target to many, but a beacon of hope to so many more. To the thousands of victims of yesterday's attack, and their family and friends, we offer nothing less than the full support of the most powerful nation on earth. All of us share in this tragedy, and my heart and prayers go out to the friends and family of the victims, including the two employees of the Census Bureau's New York Regional Office. Words cannot soothe the pain of this loss, but I pray that it is some consolation, to those who grieve, that a nation grieves with you. Already, the armies of compassion are mobilized. Amid yesterday's terrible destruction was also great heroism. Police, firemen, and rescue workers put themselves in grave danger in order to save the lives of others. Volunteers worked through the night. People lined up around the block and around the country to give blood. Yesterday was a call to action and America answered. No one answered more readily than our Commander in Chief. President Bush's day began yesterday with a visit to Booker Elementary School in my congressional district in Sarasota, Florida. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) and I were there to welcome him to the school when we learned of the attack. We joined him aboard Air Force One to return to Washington. En route to Andrews Air Force Base, we received a credible security threat to the President and Air Force One. Because of this threat, we were diverted to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana. During the flight, we met with President Bush and he updated us on this tragedy. My respect for him has only increased as a result of the experience. I witnessed a President fully informed, engaged, and resolute in easing the pain of the victims' families and our Nation, as well as finding and punishing those responsible. To those who committed this act of war and those who would stand with them or hide them or assist them in any way, I offer only scorn, defiance, and resolution. Scorn, that small men with evil intent would think for a moment that a cowardly attack against innocent men, women and children would ever constitute any kind of victory. Defiance, that we will not allow fear to compromise our liberty or our way of life. And resolution, that those responsible will be found and brought to justice, along with any who would follow their example. These people sought to visit terror upon our country but it is they who will live in fear, their nights spent in terror and their days spent in hiding, until justice is served. Mr. Speaker, I join our President and our country in sorrow and resolution.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, ``Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls of all ages, welcome to the greatest show on earth! The Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey Circus is proud to present Gunther Gebel-Williams.'' These words were spoken all across the world for the past quarter of a century reaching the ears of an estimated 200 million people, introducing the greatest animal trainer that has ever lived. Gunther Gebel-Williams has recently passed away, but his memory will live on in the minds of the millions of men, women and children that came to see this amazing man and his dangerous performances. There were 1,500 people that attended his funeral to pay their respects in his adopted home town of Venice. Gunther Gebel-Williams began his career at the age of 12 in WWII Germany and he later joined the Barnum and Bailey Circus in 1968 only to make his first American debut on Jan. 6, 1969. From that first debut in 1969 until his last in 1989 he never missed a show, totaling 12,000 consecutive performances. Kenneth Feld memorialized Gunther Gebel- Williams by saying ``He was unlike any performer anywhere. When he entered the circus arena, whether caring a Roman Post on galloping horses or atop an elephant, every eye was always on him until he left the floor.'' When Gunther Gebel-Williams was not performing he would often put on a pair of his old boots and help to sweep the floor. He loved and cared for the animals like a father. At Gunther's funeral Dr. Richard Houch a retired veterinarian, told the audience of his devotion to animals stating, ``He would watch baby tigers and leopards playing to figure out what they could do best in the act. He knew the personality, disposition and idiosyncrasies of every animal.'' He was an amazing man who was not only loved by the animals but also by his fans and friends. I believe that the world has lost a legend and my congressional district a good citizen. He will be missed greatly.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, today I had planned to offer an amendment to the Foreign Operations bill that would allow aid to only be given to countries who have extradition treaties with the United States. Mr. Chairman, I will not be offering that amendment today, but I would like to take this opportunity to discuss the importance of placing international extradition treaties higher on our foreign policy priority list. Will the committee agree that this is a pressing issue that needs to be addressed?

Mr. MILLER of Florida. This past week Ira Einhorn was finally extradited from France. While this is a notable victory, the extradition came only after several years of legal maneuvering and political posturing by Einhorn and the government of France. The Pennsylvania legislature actually had to pass a new law in order for the French to agree to the extradition. Four long years after the first request and 24 years after the murder of Holly Maddux, justice has finally been served. I know that Holly's family is more than relieved to have their sister's killer behind bars, but had they not had the financial resources to continue their pursuit of justice for 24 years, he may never have been returned. Whether or not a country approves of the U.S. system of justice should not be a factor in the decision to return a convicted killer to the United States. For those countries receiving foreign aid, that point could not be more valid. I cross-referenced the list of nations who would receive aid in this year's Foreign Operations bill with the list of countries who do not have extradition treaties. The result was a distressing 65 countries. That means that the United States taxpayer dollar goes to 65 countries who have not taken the time to negotiate a treaty with the United States on extraditing violent criminals. That is unacceptable. The problem needs to be addressed. An extradition treaty is not a matter of rocket science. It is a document typically no longer than a few pages that establishes an agreement of cooperation in returning criminals. The blame cannot be placed entirely on these countries. Our own Department of State needs to make negotiating extradition treaties a higher priority. Some of these nations are willing to come to the table and work with us, but the United States must also be willing to put forth the effort needed to get the job done. It is a mutually shared responsibility that we have put off for far too long. For every Ira Einhorn there is another 3,000 cases that remain open. Families of these victims need closure. It is not right for the U.S. to willingly support countries who spit in the face of our system of justice. Last Thursday, I introduced legislation that would reform international extradition. H.R. 2574 would put uncooperative nations on notice. This bill gives teeth to the Departments of State and Justice in requesting that a criminal be extradited. Right now, all we can say is ``please,'' and most of the time that is insufficient. H.R. 2574 would require the Department of State to submit a country by country report on outstanding extradition cases. The President would then, based on that report, submit to Congress a list of uncooperative countries. Those nations would then face the threat of sanctions, including a loss of U.S. foreign aid, refusal of visas to government officials visiting the U.S., and U.S. votes against the country in any international financial institution. Mr. Chairman, I hope the gentleman can help with this in the future.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. I thank the gentleman. I hope we can get the Department of State to put this at a higher priority and we can continue to push this issue.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, as the gentlewoman knows, we have had our differences on other issues with regard to the census, but this is certainly one we have had agreement on. It is a frustration that we share with the real professionals of the bureau who really have a challenge on their hands. But we are going to do it because we have to do it.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.