Frank Wolf

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mid-70s in prison for giving holy communion. Now, the government put him in jail. Nobody else. You have a government that you fundamentally cannot trust. Lastly, Secretary Powell, a constituent of mine, somebody that we all admire. He lives out in my congressional district. Here is what he said on July 15, 2004: ``Despite these efforts, China continues to employ coercion in its birth planning program including through severe penalties for out-of-plan births. And UNFPA's program has not been restructured to solve the problems identified in 2002.'' So Secretary Powell, who we all trust, said they are still doing it. And then he ends, ``however, as in 2002, UNFPA continues its support and involvement in China's coercive birth limitation program in counties where China's restrictive law and penalties are enforced by government officials.'' I urge you to defeat this amendment and send a message to this fundamentally bad government that is doing all these horrible things to women, doing all these things to Catholic priests, Catholic bishops, to evangelical pastors, to Buddhist monks. I was in Tibet, went in every monastery we could. They told us what they are doing to the Buddhist Church. It is against the law to have a picture of the Dalai Lama. Vote ``no'' on this amendment. The Secretary of State, Washington, DC, July 15, 2004. Hon. Henry J. Hyde, Chairman, Committee on International Relations, House of Representatives. Dear Mr. Chairman: The Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2004 (Pub. L. 108- 199, Div. D) (``Act''), like every foreign operations appropriations act since 1985, provides that ``none of the funds made available in this Act . . . may be made available to any organization or program which, as determined by the President of the United States, supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.'' Separately in Section 567, the Act earmarks $34 million for the United Nations Population Fund (``UNFPA''). In July 2002, I determined that UNFPA's support of, and involvement in, China's population-planning activities allowed the Chinese Government to implement more effectively its program of coercive abortion, and that, therefore, the Kemp-Kasten Amendment precluded funding of UNFPA at that time. Since that time, we have had numerous discussions with the Government of China to urge an end to China's program of coercive abortion. We have also urged UNFPA and China to restructure the UNFPA program so that UNFPA does not support or participate in the management of China's coercive program. Despite these efforts, China continues to employ coercion in its birth planning program, including through severe penalties for ``out of plan births'' and UNFPA's program has not been restructured to solve the problems identified in 2002. However, as in 2002, UNFPA continues its support and involvement in China's coercive birth limitation program in counties where China's restrictive law and penalties are enforced by government officials. More information on the nature of China's birth-limitation regime and UNFPA's involvement therein is contained in the enclosed report on China's Birth-Limitation Policy. The Administration is preparing to take the steps, including consulting with Congress, that would be necessary to apply the amount that had been reserved for UNFPA in the ``International Organizations and Programs'' account to the ESF account, for use in support of the President's initiative to aid victims of trafficking. We will continue to remain engaged with China and UNFPA on this issue. As I stated in 2002, if Chinese laws and practices were changed so that UNFPA's activities did not support a program of coercive abortion, or if UNFPA were to change the program implementation for its funding so that it did not support a program of coercive abortions, I would be prepared to consider funding UNFPA in the future. Sincerely, Colin L. Powell. Enclosures: As stated. Report to Congress on China's Birth Limitation Policy The Conference Report accompanying H.R. 2673, H. Report 108-401, in the Statement of Managers, requests the Department of State [hereinafter ``the Department''] to report ``not later than July 15, 2004, on the steps it and UNFPA have taken to urge the Government of China to end its birth limitation policy, including the social compensation fee, and the results of those efforts, nationally, and particularly in the counties in which UNFPA operates.'' This report responds to that request. U.S. Engagement Since the Secretary's determination of July 21, 2002, that funding for UNFPA was precluded by the Kemp-Kasten Amendment of the FY 2002 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, the United States has actively engaged with China to end coercive practices in its birth-limitation program and with UNFPA to end its support for that program. We have urged China to implement fully the principle recognized in the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) that all couples should have the right ``to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and . . . to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence. . . .'' In order to implement this principle the Chinese family planning program should be fully voluntary and free of all forms of coercion. Immediately following the Secretary's determination, the Department commenced a round of five negotiating sessions with China with the objective of eliminating coercive provisions in law and ending coercive practices in the counties in which UNFPA is involved. We also encouraged China and UNFPA to restructure their proposal for the new fifth country program (CP5) agreement in a way that would allow the United States to fund UNFPA. Discussions were held with senior UNFPA and Chinese officials in New York, Washington, Beijing, and during international meetings on population matters. Department personnel visited UNFPA project counties in China on two occasions, in November 2002 and August 2003. Embassy and Consulate personnel based in China made numerous field visits, both to counties in which UNFPA operates and counties in which there is no UNFPA assistance. These field visits were designed to learn about the implementation of China's birth limitation laws and policies/practices, and about UNFPA's activities in China. Despite several rounds of discussions with U.S. representatives, UNFPA and China decided not to make substantive changes to the proposed UNFPA fifth country program. For example, UNFPA did not condition the start of the program on the elimination of social compensation fees (SCF). When CP5 was adopted at the first regular session of the UNFPA Executive Board in January 2003, the United States could not support the program because of coercive measures in the enforcement of China's birth limitation laws. The U.S. delegate stated that the United States believes that UNFPA should not be associated in any way with coercion. In the summer of 2003, the Administration considered that circumstances surrounding UNFPA's continued involvement in China's birth limitation program had not changed sufficiently to warrant U.S. funding. As described below, many of those circumstances continue to persist, despite claims by Chinese officials that they are working to eliminate coercive measures. These, along with others described in State's annual human rights reports, information supplied by UNFPA, the results of U.S. efforts to engage both UNFPA and China on numerous occasions from 2002 through 2004, and the fact that China's coercive policies have, since the Secretary's July 2002 determination, now been codified and enforced as a matter of national law, all contribute to the finding that the Kemp-Kasten amendment continues to preclude funding for FY 2004. China's Birth-Limitation Regime--Now Law A new national Law on Population and Birth-Planning went into effect on September 1, 2002. This law codifies on a national basis, for the first time, China's longstanding ``one child policy'' and specifies a number of government birth-limitation measures that amount to coercion. (As mentioned in the 2002 determination, county laws had previously been in place and were used to enforce the birth limitation policy.) The national law provides, inter alia, ``. . . practicing birth planning is a basic national policy of the State. The State (shall) employ comprehensive measures to control population quantity and improve population quality.'' (Article 2.) ``Citizens have a right to have a child and also have a duty to practice birth planning according to the law. . . . (Article 17.) ``The State shall stabilize currently implemented birth policies. . . . Those who meet the conditions in laws and regulations can request the arrangement of the birth of a second child. Specific methods (shall be) stipulated by the people's congresses of provinces. . . .'' (Article 18.) ``Citizens who give birth to a child in violation of Article 18 of this law should pay a social compensation fee. . . .'' (Article 41.) ``Among (government) personnel who pay a social compensation fee in accordance with Article 41 of this law, those who are State staff should also be given administrative punishment according to law.'' ``Other personnel (who are not state staff) should also (in addition to the social compensation fee) be given disciplinary punishment by their own unit or organization.'' (Article 42.) Since the promulgation of the national law, all provinces and equivalent governmental units except the Tibetan Autonomous Region have issued implementing regulations that set out birth planning requirements. These regulations generally allow only one child, with specific exceptions that allow qualified couples to have a second, or in rare cases, a third child. They also set ranges for assessment of the social compensation fees (SCF) by local authorities. Fees range from the equivalent of one half the local average annual household income to as much as 10 times that level. One county where UNFPA has activities, Liuyang in Hunan Province, assesses a fee of two times the average annual household income. Liuyang County has waived the fee for pre- marriage births, but not for inadequate birth spacing (when an additional child is allowed), or for ``out-of-plan'' births. (An example of province implementing regulations is provided as annex two.) The Department has urged Chinese government officials to eliminate the SCF, as well as other coercive birth limitation measures. UNFPA has urged experimentation with the fee in UNFPA program counties with a view towards elimination by the end of the current program. The Chinese government has suggested that because the SCF is specifically prescribed in national law, local governments do not have authority to completely waive collection of the fee. Other coercive measures in place in China include cutting off state-funded education or health care benefits for ``out of plan'' children, loss of employment, and imposition of a system of severe fines and penalties. National and Provincial Chinese government officials have declined or been unable to assure us that penalties such as demotion or loss of job are not also imposed in countries where UNFPA operates. The 2004 State Department Country Report on Human Rights Practices confirms China continues enforcement of its birth limitation policies and law. (Annex One.) UNFPA's Engagement with China Last month, at the Department's request, UNFPA furnished in a very timely fashion information regarding its China program. The Director of UNFPA's Asia and Pacific Division, Sultan Aziz, wrote to the Department on June 14, 2004, highlighting the concerns UNFPA shares with the United States ``over aspects of China's family planning strategy that could lead to coercion.'' In particular, he made the following points about UNFPA's view of it approach and progress in China: ``UNFPA, like all UN organizations, is guided by international human rights standards and principles in all our programs. Using the ICPD principles as our platform, UNFPA Country Programmes focus on voluntary, client-oriented family planning services with a range of choices and options.'' ``UNFPA has made a significant contribution in improving reproductive health knowledge, reducing (the) proportion of sterilization and abortions, reducing maternal mortality and increasing the proportion of births with skilled attendants.'' ``UNFPA does not support China's one-child policy, and has proactively engaged in serious dialogue with the Chinese government on this issue. There is growing realization in the government, if not directly stated, about the problems arising from the one-child policy--sex ratio imbalances, ageing and population structure.'' ``China is committed to the ICPD and its steadily, incrementally and firmly moving beyond demographic targets towards a voluntary and client-oriented FP [family planning] approach. UNFPA, has been catalytic in fostering, supporting and guiding the transition.'' UNFPA's Fifth Country Programme for China Much of UNFPA ``input,'' i.e., its programs, goals, and activities, in China is designed to assist China in ``forming new management and service approaches of its population and family planning program.'' The goals of its current program (CP5), building on those of its previous program (CP4), continue to strive toward moving the Chinese government from an ``administrative'' approach to a ``client-centered, quality of care'' approach, closer to the standards of the Programme of Action--and thus toward achieving through individual counseling desirable population goals without coercion. But these efforts miss the mark; they are narrowly tailored to expand access to reproductive health information and to allow couples and individuals to select their contraceptive methods in compliance with the national and provincial regulations. Their end result is not that couples and individuals may freely make decisions as to the number and spacing of their children. Rather, in counties where the UNFPA operates, China continues to implement its coercive laws and practices. The UNFPA-China agreement sets as a hortatory objective the elimination of the SCF by 2010, but it provides for no specific actions to further that end. UNFPA noted that it required CP5 participating counties to lower fees and encouraged further experimentation, but the agreement does not provide for elimination. Further, the agreement requires that counties participating in CP5 eliminate targets and quotas, but does not require them to eliminate coercive ``administrative'' or ``disciplinary'' punishments--thus continuing to reflect UNFPA's support for China's coercive program. The UNFPA budget for CP5 amounts to almost $8 million over 3 years. The funding allocation for CP5 is similar to that in CP4 funding. It includes cost for personnel (including consultants), monitoring and evaluation, research, publications, international meetings and exchange visits, and vehicles. UNFPA also continues to fund equipment for China, including for management information systems and data management software which are capable of tracking births, although UNFPA claims in its June 14, 2004 letter that the Management Information System [MIS] is ``categorically not intended for tracking out of plan pregnancies, or to help enforce the social compensation fees.'' UNFPA is also financing improvements in the administration of the local family planning offices. These resources are provided directly or indirectly to the State Family Planning Commission in counties where it enforces the fines and administrative penalties such as job loss, demotion, and expulsion from the Communist Party. The UNFPA activities include training of reproductive health service providers in, among other things, awareness of the law in order that they may provide reproductive health counseling. This, as well as UNFPA's supplying equipment and supplies to the very agencies that employ coercive practices, amounts to support for not only in China's broader population-planning activities, but also specifically for the Chinese government's more effective implementation of its program of coercive abortion. conclusion Both China and UNFPA have been willing to engage with the United States on approaches to eliminating coercion in China's birth planning law and policy. We welcome this dialogue and efforts by China to move forward in this important area and we will continue our engagement. We congratulate China and UNFPA on the elimination of targets and quotas in UNFPA counties and reduction of the incidence of maternal mortality. Unfortunately, coercive birth limitation measures in law and policy continue in counties in which UNFPA assists China. Excerpts From Country Reports on Human Rights Practices China, 2003 Authorities continued to reduce the use of targets and quotas, although over 1,900 of the country's 2,800 counties continued to use such measures. Authorities using the target and quota system require each eligible married couple to obtain government permission before the woman becomes pregnant. In many counties, only a limited number of such permits were made available each year, so couples who did not receive a permit were required to wait at least a year before obtaining permission. Counties that did not employ targets and quotas allowed married women of legal child-bearing age to have a first child without prior permission. The country's population control policy relied on education, propaganda, and economic incentives, as well as on more coercive measures such as the threat of job loss or demotion and social compensation fees. Psychological and economic pressure were very common; during unauthorized pregnancies, women sometimes were visited by birth planning workers who used the threat of social compensation fees to pressure women to terminate their pregnancies. The fees were assessed at widely varying levels and were generally extremely high. Reliable sources reported that the fees ranged from one-half to eight times the average worker's annual disposable income. Local officials have authority to adjust the fees downward and did so in many cases. Additional disciplinary measures against those who violated the limited child policy by having an unapproved child or helping another to do so included the withholding of social services, higher tuition costs when the child goes to school, job loss or demotion, loss of promotion opportunity, expulsion from the Party (membership in which was an unofficial requirement for certain jobs), and other administrative punishments, including in some cases the destruction of property. These penalties sometimes left women little practical choice but to undergo abortion or sterilization. Rewards for couples who adhered to birth limitation laws and policies included monthly stipends and preferential medical and educational benefits. In the cases of families that already had two children, one of the parents was usually pressured to undergo sterilization. In March, the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) concluded a 4- year pilot project in 32 counties. Under this program, local birth planning officials emphasized education, improved reproductive health services, and economic development, and they eliminated the target and quota systems for limiting births. However, these counties retained the birth limitation policy, including the requirement that couples employ effective birth control methods, and enforced it through other means, such as social compensation fees. Subsequently, 800 other counties also removed the target and quota system and tried to replicate the UNFPA project by emphasizing quality of care and informed choice of birth control methods. In April, a new UNFPA program began in 30 counties. Under this program, officials defined a list of ``legitimate rights of reproduction according to law,'' including the rights to choose contraception and right to legal remedies, among others. Jiangsu Province Birth Limitation Regulations Excerpts chapter 1 general principles Article 5 Local people's governments at all levels within the province shall take integrated measures to control the size of the population and to improve its quality, and shall implement population and family planning programs. . . . Article 7 Citizens have the right to reproduce and the obligation to practice family planning in accordance with the law. . . . chapter 3 fertility regulation Article 21 A man and a woman who have been legally registered as married may have one child, provided that neither has had a child previously. Article 22 Married couples meeting any of the following conditions may apply to give birth to one additional child: The couple has only one child, and that child is certified by a pediatric illness and disability authentication institution to have a disability, other than a serious genetic disability, that cannot at present be treated, or that despite systematic treatment will prevent that child from developing into a normal worker or seriously affect that child's future marriageability. Either spouse is a member of the armed forces, armed police, or public security police or is a `Good Samaritan' and that spouse has sustained a Class 2, Grade 2 or higher disability in the exercise of duty; or either spouse is the only child of a [revolutionary] martyr and [the couple] has only one child. One spouse has been widowed and the other spouse has never had a child. One spouse is divorced and has either had only one child or has legally had two children and the other spouse has never had a child. Neither spouse has had a child and, after having legally adopted a child, the wife becomes pregnant. One spouse is a second-generation only child, or both spouses are only children, and [the couple] has only one child. One spouse has been occupied in downhole operations for a continuous period of five years or longer, is currently occupied in downhole operations, and [the couple] has only one child which is a daughter. Article 23 Apart from the provisions of Article 22 of these regulations, married couples may apply to give birth to one additional child if the wife is a rural resident and any of the following conditions is met: One spouse is an only child, and [the couple] has only one child. Only one child has been had, and the brother(s) of the husband is/are unable to have a child. The husband has moved his residence to the place of residence of the wife and is supporting the parents of the wife, who has no brothers, and [the couple] has only one child which is a daughter. This rule shall apply to only one sister on the wife's side. The man has no brothers and only one sister, and [the couple] has only one child which is a daughter. The couple permanently resides in a coastal reclamation area with population density not greater than one person per five mu of land (calculated on a per village basis), and has only one child which is a daughter. One spouse has been continuously occupied in ocean fishing for five years or more, is currently employed in ocean fishing, and the couple has only one child which is a daughter. chapter vi legal liability Article 44 A couple that gives birth to a child not in accordance with these regulations shall pay the social compensation fee. . . . For urban residents, social compensation fees shall be calculated by taking as the basic standard the per capita annual disposable income of urban residents in the municipality with districts or in the country (city) in the year prior to the child's birth. For rural residents, social compensation fees shall be calculated by taking as the basic standard the per capita annual net income of rural residents in the township (town in the year prior to the child's birth. . . . The specific standards for the social compensation fees to be paid in accordance with paragraph one of this article are: Those who have had one additional child not in accordance with the provisions of these regulations shall pay social compensation fees in the amount of four multiples of the basic standard. Those who have had two or more additional children not in accordance with the provisions of these regulations shall pay social compensation fees in the amount of five to eight multiples of the basic standard. Those who have had one child outside of marriage shall pay social compensation fees in the amount of 0.5 to 2 multiples of the basic standard. Those who have had two or more children outside of marriage shall pay social compensation fees in the amount of five to eight multiples of the basic standard. Those who have had a child in a bigamous marriage shall pay social compensation fees in the amount of 6 to 9 multiples of the basic standard.

Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not belong in the bill. It is really an amendment that relates to the Foreign Assistance Appropriation, under the bill of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) where this comes. It is inappropriate to use the funds for the Department of State's operations, including salaries, to enforce the law, because it is the responsibility of the Secretary of State to enforce the law and would in essence mean that there could be no enforcement of Kemp-Kasten. It would make it null and void. It was determined by the Secretary of State in 2004 that because UNFPA continues its involvement in China's coercive birth limitation program, current law precludes funding for UNFPA. I visited China. The China policy with regard to coerced and forced abortion, the one-child policy, is barbaric. I could take a whole day to talk about the government of China with regard to the persecution of the Catholic Church, the persecution of the Protestant Church, the persecution of Buddhists, the persecution of Muslims, the sale of kidneys with regard to execution of prisoners, the slave labor camps, and now in essence the coercive policy that this government has. In order to do anything that would send a message to that government that it is okay to do what they are doing is absolutely wrong. So you can argue this on process, this is not the place, but I think you can argue this on the merits. China is doing fundamentally evil things, and the record should state the evilness of their policies. For that, I urge a strong ``no'' to send a message to that government that their actions are totally inappropriate.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I urge a ``no'' vote on this. The gentlewoman probably would have been prohibited from offering the amendment. We said fine. The amendment was changed. In fact, the title was there and then the amendment changed. I do not think anybody truly here knows, I do not care where they went to law school, what it truly does and what it truly means. They could have gone to UVA, Georgetown, Harvard, or Timbuktu. Secondly, if I could have the gentlewoman's attention, I offered to her to let us sit down and talk about this. Nobody is opposing necessarily what she is trying to do. Let us sit down. Let us talk about it. Let us work it. No, we are going to go ahead and do it. So this institution has to have some definition, or else we just take any amendment that comes along. So all the amendments, I counted them up. The gentleman from Washington wanted to take money from the bill to put it in State and local law enforcement. This takes money from State and local law enforcement and puts it somewhere else. The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) wanted to take money from the rest of the bill and put it into State and local law enforcement. This takes it from State and local law enforcement and puts it somewhere else. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell) wanted to take money from another part of the bill, and God bless him, he had a good amendment, and put it in State and local law enforcement. This takes it from State and local law enforcement and puts it somewhere else; for what, we are not even sure. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) wanted to take money from the rest of the bill to put it where? In State and local law enforcement. This takes money from State and local law enforcement and puts it not even completely where people even know it is. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) had a great debate here. I think he wanted to take $126 million from NSF to put it in State and local law enforcement. This takes money from State and local law enforcement and puts it somewhere else. The beat goes on. The beat goes on. So, because not knowing what this does, we are going to go ahead and oppose this. I just think if Members want to vote on something they do not understand, I think they ought to come down here and vote on something that they do not understand. I think that is part of their right to being here, but I do not understand it.

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we would be glad to work with the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis), too. The chairman of the committee has jurisdiction. We could have a meeting, the gentleman could bring the representative of the group out there, and we would try to make sure that this is done appropriately. We would do everything we possibly can. This concern is if we did every one of these on the floor, and if we did one for the gentleman, there are probably 15 Members that would then come forward and say, Why did I not have an opportunity? I give my word, we would work in good faith.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman from Colorado's (Mr. Hefley) amendment. As the gentleman can see, and I have great respect for the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley). I know what he is trying to do, and I want to acknowledge that. As the gentleman can see from the debate and the other amendments offered on the bill, many Members feel the funding for the whole host of programs in this bill is already inadequate. In fact, all the amendments, most that we have been able to reject, have been to add money into the bill. The one that was accepted by the body was the one to add $73 million in for 7(a) loan programs which nobody in the country wants or needs. So the gentleman can see the trend that things are moving. The budget resolution passed by the Congress has imposed upon us a very restrictive spending climate. This amendment constitutes attempts to reopen the decisions we already made in the budget resolution. The bill we are considering today stays within the budget resolution framework and represents a lot of hard work and difficult decisions to match limited funds to competing national priorities. A number of accounts in the bill are funded very close to the bone and a reduction of 1 percent in many salaries and expenses would have a dramatic effect on the FBI, DEA, ATF, Marshals Service. And so for those reasons, respecting what the gentleman is trying to do, I would ask for a ``no'' vote on the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of time to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is a different amendment than was printed in the Record. I am not even sure that it addresses the same issue. We were told we had the ability to prohibit the amendment to be offered and I did not even want to do that. We felt that whatever the outcome was, it should be. The amendment unnecessarily takes away from funds from State and local law enforcement. We just saw the amendment. I saw it 2 minutes ago, maybe it was 5 or 6 minutes ago. We do not know the full impact of the funding prohibition. All we know is that the amendment will cut funds to fight crime. I told the gentlewoman we will continue to work with her on this issue. Just 5 minutes before, is it the same thing that the reference said it would be? Where does the language come? If my memory serves me correctly, there have been many amendments to add into that category that we have spent time here. Because of all those reasons, not for the subject matter, but for all those reasons, I would urge a ``no'' vote on that. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment to prohibit funds for a competitive sourcing study. We had asked the gentleman to consider withdrawing the amendment. We would have a meeting with the Weather Bureau and really do everything we could. But for the Congress to interfere and do something like this, would be unprecedented. I understand that NOAA first announced this particular cost competition in 2003. NOAA recently canceled the competition to ensure that the statement of work is comprehensive and plans to reannounce the study shortly. These competitions are conducted pursuant to the Competitive Sourcing Initiative in the President's Management Agenda, and NOAA supports the competition. Though I understand the gentleman's concerns and have no preconceived notion as to the outcome of the study, I believe we cannot have the Congress on every A-76 proposal coming down and stopping it. I see the gentleman from Virginia is here, the chairman of the committee. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment amounts to a complete rejection of the United States' engagement with the United Nations and many other nations of the world. Last year this bill created a high-level task force to review the efforts of the United Nations. This task force was chaired by former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, and former Majority Leader Senator Mitchell, and the task force came out with its recommendations yesterday. They are fairly dramatic, which will mandate, if you will, and force the United Nations to make dramatic change. Hopefully the Bush administration will embrace the Gingrich-Mitchell recommendations that will then be adopted by the United Nations when they meet in September. As the chairman knows, we initiated this task force because of the U.N.'s lack of involvement on the Darfur, Sudan, issue, the sexual exploitation of young girls by U.N. peacekeepers, and the oil-for-food scandal. If we were not participating at all, we would not be able to put pressure on the U.N. to do the right thing with regard to Darfur. Genocide is taking place in Darfur as we now speak. Also, the U.N. will be sending peacekeepers to the North-South Sudanese peacekeeping agreements, and, as my colleagues know, better than 2.1 million people, mainly Christian, some Muslim, died at the hands of the Khartoum government as a result of their activities for the North. Also, Sudan is involved in terrorist activities, and we need to be able to put pressure on the Sudanese. Not speaking boldly in an effort to force the U.N. to do something on this issue, the genocide in Darfur, and also to be able to implement and monitor, not with American soldiers, but with U.N. peacekeepers in Sudan, would be a mistake. As the gentleman knows, we already have cut the administration request for international organizations by $130 million; therefore, essentially we are already recommending holding back any growth of the U.N. Lastly, as the gentleman from Texas says, the Hyde bill will be coming up shortly after this bill, and that is where you should address these issues. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. I will close.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if we offered to work with the gentlewoman to resolve the issue, I think, from where I come from, that resolves the issue. But she has offered something that we do not even know what it does. It takes funds from an area that everyone else is saying they do not want to take it from, I am having a hard time understanding what that precisely means. And I would say we could get both of these amendments in different versions and send them to Georgetown Law School or UVA Law School or George Mason Law School and see if they think there is any change. I understand we offered to work with her. I thought that was really the right thing to do. With that I urge a ``no'' vote on an amendment that I am not sure what it does.

Mr. WOLF

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

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, and I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition. The Committee on the Judiciary has held over 10 hearings on the PATRIOT Act, including a hearing devoted just to national security letters. We saw this amendment for the first time Monday night. It is unclear to me why health insurance records are different than any other records. We do not know how this amendment would impact a counterterrorism investigation. We just do not know. And here we are with 7\1/2\ minutes on each side. What is this? This is no way to protect the country. I could never support 7\1/2\ minutes. And I do not care if it is just the naming of some government building somewhere. So I strongly urge Members to vote ``no'' on this. Seven-and-a-half minutes? We cannot do it. I urge a ``no'' vote. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney).

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.

Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the Committee on the Judiciary has held over 10 hearings on the PATRIOT Act, including a hearing devoted just to this issue. The Committee on the Judiciary is planning on marking up the PATRIOT Act reauthorization bill in the near future, and the authorizers will certainly give this very close attention. The authority of the Justice Department to obtain a library or bookstore record is not without appropriate checks and balances. A Federal judge must approve the use of this authority before the Department of Justice can obtain business records, including book records. This authority can only be used to obtain foreign intelligence information, not concerning a U.S. person, or ``to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.'' It cannot be used to review the reading habits of the general public. Mr. Chairman, I will include for the record a letter from the Justice Department dated June 14. It says the following: ``Further, libraries and bookstores have never been exempt from similar investigative authorities. Prosecutors have always been able to obtain records for criminal investigations from bookstores and libraries through grand jury subpoenas. For instance, in the recent case of Olympic Park bomber Eric Rudolph, a grand jury served a subpoena on a bookseller to obtain records showing that Rudolph had purchased a book giving instructions on how to build a particularly unusual detonator that had been used in several bombings. This was important evidence identifying Rudolph as the bomber. ``In the 1997 Gianni Versace murder case, a Florida grand jury subpoenaed records from the public libraries in Miami Beach. Similar in the 1990 Zodiac gunman investigation, a grand jury in New York subpoenaed library records after investigators came to believe that the gunman was inspired by a Scottish occult poet and wanted to learn who had checked out that poet's book. ``Finally, bookstores and libraries should not be carved out as safe havens for terrorists and spies, who have, in fact, used public libraries to do research and communicate with their co-conspirators. For example, in March and April of 2004, Federal investigators in New York conducted surveillance on an individual who was associated with al Qaeda. In the course of tracking the individual, investigators noted that, although he had a computer at his home, he repeatedly visited the library to use the computer. Investigators discovered that the individual was using the library computer to e-mail other terrorist associates around the world.'' Lastly, it goes on to say, ``We know that Brian Regan, a former TRW employee at the National Reconnaissance Office, who recently was convicted of espionage, extensively used computers at five public libraries in northern Virginia and Maryland to access addresses for the embassies of certain foreign governments. This evidence, which also showed that Regan consulted a book present at the library, `How to Be Invisible,' to further his scheme, was critical during his trial.'' Mr. Chairman, I include the entire letter for the Record. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legislative Affairs, Washington, DC, June 14, 2005. Hon. Frank Wolf, Chairman, Subcommittee on Science, State, Justice, and Commerce, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: The Department of Justice is pleased to provide information about section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act (``PATRIOT Act''), an invaluable authority afforded to national security investigators when Congress overwhelmingly passed the Act more than three years ago. It is critical that Congress' decision whether to continue this vital tool in the war on terror be informed by reason, rather than rhetoric. We would oppose any amendment that would unduly restrict our ability to compel the production of records relevant to sensitive terrorism and espionage investigations. As stated in the statement of Administration policy released today on H.R. 2862--Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006--if any amendment that would weaken the PATRIOT Act were adopted and presented to the President for his signature, the President's senior advisors would recommend a veto. Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act provides a useful tool for catching terrorists and spies by specifically authorizing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (``FISA Court'') to require a person or organization to produce ``tangible things'' that are relevant to international terrorism and espionage investigations. These are the same types of materials that prosecutors have long been able to obtain with grand jury subpoenas in criminal investigations. Moreover, section 215 and grand jury subpoenas are both governed by a similar relevance standard; with respect to section 215, the requested records must be relevant to a national security investigation while with respect to grand jury subpoenas, the requested records must be relevant to a criminal investigation. As a result, section 215 applies in a much narrower set of circumstances than do grand jury subpoenas. While grand jury subpoenas can be used to investigate all types of criminal conduct, section 215 can only be used ``to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.'' 50 U.S.C. Sec. 1861(a)(1). Further, contrary to misleading rhetoric about section 215, it does not empower FBI agents to obtain records without a court order. Rather, section 215 can be used to obtain documents only with an order from the FISA Court. Thus the Department's use of section 215 requires more scrutiny than do grand jury subpoenas, which are generally issued without prior judicial approval. Moreover, we have taken the position in litigation that: 1) recipients of a section 215 order may disclose receipt of an order to an attorney and; 2) recipients may challenge a section 215 order in FISA court. In addition, the Attorney General has testified that the Department of Justice supports amending section 215 to clarify any ambiguity related to these points. In addition to the requirement of court approval, this provision establishes other important safeguards. For instance, section 215 provides for thorough congressional oversight. On a semi-annual basis, the Attorney General is required to ``fully inform'' Congress on the Department's use of section 215. In addition, the Attorney General must report to Congress the number of times agents have sought a court order under section 215, as well as the number of times such requests were granted, modified, or denied during the preceding six month period. See 50 U.S.C. Sec. 1862. The Attorney General recently declassified the fact that as of March 30, 2005 section 215 of the PATRIOT Act had been used 35 times, and had never been used to obtain bookstore or library records, medical records, or gun sale records. Rather, section 215 orders had only been used to obtain driver's license records, public accommodations records, apartment leasing records, credit card records, and subscriber information, such as names and addresses, for telephone numbers captured through court-authorized pen register devices. These figures demonstrate that investigators have used this tool judiciously and responsibly. The provision, moreover, has assisted the Department's national security investigations as there can be a number of situations in which the ability to access documents pursuant to a section 215 order is critical to an international terrorism or espionage investigation, particularly in the early stages of an investigation when officers are trying to develop leads. Section 215 has been attacked for its potential application to libraries, with some critics suggesting that libraries should be exempted from it or that the provision should be repealed altogether. These critics ignore statutory context, well-established grand jury practice, and the reality of the terrorist threat. First, although a section 215 order could be issued to a bookstore or library if it possessed records relevant to an espionage or international terrorism investigation, the provision does not single them out or even mention them. Indeed, as noted above, the provision, as of March 30, 2005, had never been used to request library records. And, in any event, such a request would have to be approved by a court, ensuring an independent check on the Department's investigators. Further, libraries and bookstores have never been exempt from similar investigative authorities. Prosecutors have always been able to obtain records for criminal investigations from bookstores and libraries through grand jury subpoenas. For instance, in the recent case of Olympic Park bomber Eric Rudolph, a grand jury served a subpoena on a bookseller to obtain records showing that Rudolph had purchased a book giving instructions on how to build a particularly unusual detonator that had been used in several bombings. This was important evidence identifying Rudolph as the bomber. In the 1997 Gianni Versace murder case, a Florida grand jury subpoenaed records from public libraries in Miami Beach. Similarly, in the 1990 Zodiac gunman investigation, a grand jury in New York subpoenaed library records after investigators came to believe that the gunman was inspired by a Scottish occult poet and wanted to learn who had checked out that poet's books. Finally, bookstores and libraries should not be carved out as safe havens for terrorists and spies, who have, in fact, used public libraries to do research and communicate with their co-conspirators. For example, in March and April of 2004, Federal investigators in New York conducted surveillance on an individual who was associated with al Qaeda. In the course of tracking the individual, investigators noted that, although he had a computer at his home, he repeatedly visited a library to use the computer. Investigators discovered that the individual was using the library computer to e-mail other terrorist associates around the world. The library's hard drives were scrubbed after each user finished, and he used the computer at the library because he believed that the library permitted him to communicate free of any monitoring. This individual is now in Federal custody. In addition, investigators tracing the activities of the 9- 11 hijackers determined that, on four occasions in August of 2001, individuals using internet accounts registered to Nawaf Al Hazmi and Khalid Al Mihdar used public access computers in the library of a State college in New Jersey. The computers in the library were used to shop for and review airline tickets on an internet travel reservations site. Al Hazmi and Al Mihdar were hijackers aboard American Airlines Flight 77, which took off from Dulles Airport and crashed into the Pentagon. The last documented visit to the library occurred on August 30, 2001. On that occasion, records indicate that a person using Al Hazmi's account used the library's computer to review September 11 reservations that had been previously booked. Similarly, investigators have received information that individuals believed to be Wail Al Shehri, Waleed Al Shehri, and Marwan Al Shehhi visited the Delray Beach Public Library, in Delray Beach, Florida. Wail Al Shehri and Waleed Al Shehri entered the library one afternoon in July of 2001 and asked to use the library's computers to access the internet. After about an hour, a third man, Marwan Al Shehhi, joined them. Waleed and Wail Al Shehri were hijackers aboard American Airlines Flight 11, while Al Shehhi was the pilot who took control of United Airlines Flight 175. Both of those flights crashed into the World Trade Center. A witness who recognized photos of the three individuals that ran in newspaper articles after the September 11 attacks, provided the information about the Delray Beach library visit. While no records exist to confirm the hijackers' visit to the Delray Beach library, the timing, location and behavior described are consistent with other information gathered in the course of the investigation. We also know that Brian Regan, a former TRW employee at the National Reconnaissance Office, who recently was convicted of espionage, extensively used computers at five public libraries in Northern Virginia and Maryland to access addresses for the embassies of certain foreign governments. This evidence--which also showed that Regan consulted a book present at the library, How to be Invisible, to further his scheme--was critical during his trial. Simply put, section 215 of the PATRIOT Act provides national security investigators with an important tool for investigating and intercepting terrorism, and at the same time establishes robust safeguards to protect law-abiding Americans. We hope that this information assists you. Thank you for the opportunity to present our views. Please do not hesitate to call upon us if we may be of additional assistance. The Office of Management and Budget has advised us that from the perspective of the Administration's program, there is no objection to submission of this letter. Sincerely, William E. Moschella, Assistant Attorney General.

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

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