clear about that. this process is designed to protect the american people. and that's what i have tried to do to the best of my ability. >> if he's captured as part of the war on terror, is the united states and any government in the world, really, entitled to maintain that person in custody until you can assure us that the suspect is not a danger? .

we minimize the danger they could post this country. >> you're taking on an awesome responsibility to divide these people's and tenth, people that had pretty serious involvement in plans to attack and kill americans and attacked the united states. my time is up. i will not run over. thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. attorney-general, at your confirmation hearing, he said at guantanamo would be closed. the administration has been making progress to accept the detainees that have been cleared for release. the recently began court proceedings for one detainee in new york. this is good progress. the president has indicated that some detainees may add -- may have to be held for prolonged detention because they cannot be tried for their crimes. are we really meeting the goals behind closed in guantanamo and simply bring detainees for what

could be indefinite detention? >> what we try to do is make individualized determinations of what should happen to prisoners at guantanamo. some will be tried in federal courts are military commissions. some can be transferred or released. some will be in the third category were there will be detained in a way that is consistent with due process. the determination is not whether they should be detained, but also periodic reviews. they continue to pose a danger to the united states. the president indicated that people could be placed in that category but it would only happen pursuant to pretty robust to due process procedures. >> there are some who might be retained indefinitely? without due process?

>> with due process consistent with the laws of war. due process would be afforded with regard to making the decision. it would be placed into that attention mode. a periodic review would be done. we would want to work with members of the committee and congress to come up with the exact parameters of that due process. we only want to do that in conjunction with congress and the assurance that what we're doing is consistent with our values and our commitment to due process. >> last week, the reported that the administration has all but abandoned plans to have guantanamo detainees live in the united states. is that true? many countries have already accepted detainee's. what if there are others that do

not have countries to go to? what will we do with them? >> we will work with our allies and friends to try to place these people have been approved for transfer or release. we have made significant progress last week with nine people that were placed in different countries. the italians excepted three additional ones. in attempting to place these people, -- we will continue our efforts. the state department is working with us. mr. fried is flying all over the world trying to come up with ways in which we place these people. those efforts will continue. >> those for whom we cannot find a place overseas, what will we do with them? >> i am not sure that we're not going to be able to. >> we leave this record program as the house as reconvene to

tonight. members will continue work on amendments to the $65 billion spending bill to fund the commerce and justice departments along with nasa and other science agencies. the gentleman from california has 1/3/4 minutes remaining. does any member seek recognition on the campbell amendment? if not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed. to mr. flake: i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: the gentleman from arizona requests a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceed thonings amendment of the gentleman from california will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. flake: i have an amendment at the desk designated as

number 87 in the con grgsal record. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 87 printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 552, the gentleman from arizona and a member opposed will each have five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i move to strike funding for the national intelligence drug center and reduce the cost of the bill by a commensurate amount. this is not the first time i've come to the floor to try to strike funding for the ndic, but this is the first time i've tried to come and strike this earmark when it was requested by the president. in times past, the earmark was requested by another member of congress, but this time, the president has taken it up. after years of trying to close down this entity, the administration has decided they

want to keep it. it's been described by the previous administration as duplicative and ineffective. i think that just about every report we've seen on this center has said that. it's a considerable amount of money. i believe $44 million. we should be saving that. according to the administration official by including funding for the ndic in his budget request, the president helped establish the department of justice as the ndic's permanent funding source. in this case, i think permanent is a troubling word. particularly when it regards the ndic. reportedly, the shift will also change the ndic's name to the center for strategic excellent. as shakespeare wrote, a rose by any other name would smell as sweel. but -- as sweet. but i submit the met forremains true, only it's not the perfume of roses we smell here with the ndic.

it was established in 1993 and has been the recipient of more than $350 million taxpayer dollars in the 15 years it's been in existence. despite the money and time, the ndic, according to the previous administration, quote, has proven ineffective in achieving its assigned mission. we all expect the obama administration to disagree with many determinations by the bush administration but the criticism of the ndic extends beyond the previous administration. the report by the g.a.o. back in 1993 cited 19 other drug intelligence centers that already existed. whose functions the ndic duplicates. it's not just the previous administration. long before that, we've recognized that this is money that should and could be saved if we closed down the center. as reported in "the hill" on may 14, a review of o.m.b. agreed. they concluded the ndi

crmbing's efforts were duplicative of other intelligence agencies. a spokesman for d.o.j. said the resources for ndic should be realigned to support priority counterterrorism and national security initiatives. mr. chairman, this is a center begging to be shut down. i don't need trow mind anybody here of the problems we're having fiscally. we're running the biggest deficit we've ever run. we have public debt that's just astounding. we have unfunded liabilities that should make us all shudder and we simply can't keep a center like this open for tens of millions of dollars a year that's been called duplicative and ineffective. i think that this is an amendment that should pass. we're not targeted, as a i mention, any member earmark, this is the president's earmark, and part of the role of congress, one we have not done well is police the administration and look at what they are allocating and earmarking for.

with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia rise? mr. mollohan: in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mollohan: thank you, mr. chairman. the national drug intention center was requested by the administration, the president's request was for $44.023 million . the request in that amount was approved by the committee. the national drug intelligence center provides strategic drug-related intelligence, document and computer exploitation support, and training assistance to the drug control, public health and law enforcement and intelligence communities in order to reduce the adverse effects of drug trafficking, drug abuse and other drug-related criminal activities. in this bill, mr. chairman, the organization is funded at our

recommendation of $44 million -- of $44,023,000 which i repeat is at the budget request. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i thank the chairman. i've -- i'm often told you shouldn't be challenging member earmarks, because we should be going after the faceless bureaucrats and the things the administration proposes and we don't look at enough system of here's a case where the administration, not just the previous administration, but administrations before that, have said this is duplicative, it's a center in search of a mission. it ought to be shut down. we could save $44 million a year. yet we won't do it. if we're not going to cut this, where will we cut?

let me quote a performance summary for f.y. 20 10. the most significant challenge for ndic is its lack of funding source. if that's the biggest challenge they've got, not you know, finding a strategic mission or way to help in the drug control effort, but finding a permanent funding source that seems to be their mission. for what we know that may be mission accomplished because the president is seeking to put it under d.o.j., where it will remain permanently. but we in congress, it's our role, part of our oversight function is to ensure that money is not wasted by those, i'm always told, faceless bureaucrats. here's a perfect example of where we can make a difference, where we can save money, and we ought to do it. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired.

the gentleman from west virginia. mr. mollohan: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: all time having expired, the question son the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed. to for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. flake: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceed option the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. flake: i have an amendment at the desk, designated as amendment number 86. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 86 printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: the gentleman from arizona and a member opposed each will have five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: this amendment would remove $500,000 for the innovative science learning

center in florence, south carolina and reduce the overall cost of the bill by a commensurate amount. according to its website, science south is a nonprofit institution established in 2000 that seeks to advance scientific understanding and increase the competitiveness of future generations. it offers program for schools and families and summer camp sessions and hands-on science workshops at its newly opened science south pavilion. additionally, science south, that's tough to say is planning to open a new permanent facility. it's unclear whether the innovative science learning center is connected to this. there's no mention of it in the science south website and my staff was unable to find any information on the center online. this project is likely connected to the growth of this institution, perhaps, for clarification here. i agree with the sponsor of the project that it appears to offer a valuable service to the

community. i appreciate efforts to make learning fun for families and applaud sign south's decision to expand. i have to question how essential it is that science south receive federal funding. according to the website, science south counts wachovia, at&t and many others as sponsors and received funding from the state legislature and holds an annual gala to raise funds from private donor, yet year after year we see earmarks such as these approved by the house and year after year, some of us try to come to the floor of the house and ask why. why do we continue to fund these projects? we're often told that we're trying to wean them off federal funding, yet that weaning never seems to be accomplished. this year, i'd also like to draw attention to the fact that earmarks like this exist because we have a pretty

powerful spoil system that favors powerful members of congress over just ability everyone else. with more than 1,000 earmarks in this bill a 23ul8 review and breakdown of earmarks was a tall order. however, you look at just a glance at one earmarked account in this bill, the cops law enforcement and technology account, reveals that members of the house leadership, appropriators, committee chairmen, and ranking members are taking home more than 45% of the earmarked dollars in that account. i wish i could say this was the exception to the rule. unfortunately, it's not. when you look at last year's defense spending bill, for example, the same powerful members took home 54% of the total earmarks contained in the bill. i remind my colleagues that this subset of members comprised only 25% of this body. . i hear that members k i hear that members know their

districts better than faceless bureaucrats. it would be a tough case to make that only members of the appropriations committee or members in leadership positions, they happen to know their districts better than anybody else, so why should they get half of the earmarks when they comprise less than one quarter of the body. i yield back. mr. mollohan: i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mollohan: i yield to our majority whip, mr. clyburn. the chair: the majority whip is recognized for five minutes. mr. clyburn: i thank chairman mollohan for yielding me the time, ranking member wolf, mr. flake, members of the committee and subcommittee and staff, i very seldom come to this floor, but i do tonight because i

consider it to be very, very critical to the education of our young people for us to continue and to expand the partnerships that all of us are trying to develop with the business community in trying to educate our children. most especially those children who live in disadvantaged or what we call at-risk conditions. science south is a hands-on, minds-on program that many of us have worked a long time to develop. and i want the gentleman to know that we aren't talking about my district here. we are talking about the i-95 corridor that has been dubbed the corridor of shame that runs for 200 miles through south carolina.

one of the partners he mentioned in his statement is the city of dillan. dillan is not in my district. it is a city made famous by its school district number two on the evening the president of the united states addressed a joint session here in this well, in this room and he identified the young lady sitting next to his wife and talked about the letter she wrote to him. she is one of the students benefiting from this program and dillan is not in my district. this is not about seeking largesse for the district i represent. this is about educating the children of this great nation and of my home state.

this program is very, very important. and it's been around for nine years. and i would like the gentleman to know that this is not anything that we are trying to wean off of. this is something that i wish we had more money to spend on. we cannot put this kind of condition on the education of our children. now, i don't understand why it is that we can understand the necessity for repeat expenditures to educate people and not understand why partnerships ought to exist because students are being born every day. this program is not maintained for the same students. it is being maintained for

students who are being born every day who reach a level every day of benefiting from this program. so when that young student goes on to college or university, which i'm going to ensure that she does, there will be others behind her to benefit from this program. so this is not repetition on the same students. this is repetition of a program that is proved to be very, very beneficial. and might i say in closing that this program is so important to the business community in south carolina, until richard paul recently ended his career at a global welding and cutting firm where he held positions of senior vice president of strategic planning, senior vice president of information

technology and vice president of and took over the directorship of this program. this is one of the reasons we exist, to make the quality of life better for those people especially those who live along the i-95 corridor that so many of us like to talk about is the corridor of shame. we would like to turn that corridor into an oasis of opportunity for those children. and with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from west virginia reserves his time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i thank the chairman. there are a lot of commendable education programs and this sounds like this is certainly one. we are facing a $2 trillion deficit this year alone. i think it be hoofs us as members of congress to make some choices at some time.

i think all of us would like to have money for every worthy project, but here is a project that is receiving a lot of money from the private sector. i listed some of the responsors. they have been able to get large grants. yet it has been around for nine years and it has received $1.26 million in earmarks from this body. at what point do we say enough is enough? at what point do we say, yes, it is time to wean this program off of federal dollars. if not now, when? when we hit $3 trillion? at what point do we say we are spending too much? we all know we have to borrow any money that we spend on any of these programs, because we are running a $2 trillion deficit. i would submit that we have to make some cuts somewhere and we don't seem to be willing to do it anywhere. with that, i would urge support of the amendment. and i yield back the balance of

my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from west virginia has 15 seconds. mr. clyburn: will you give me the 15 seconds? mr. mollohan: the gentleman is recognized. mr. clyburn: let me say to the gentleman that i agree that we must find places to cut and i work very hard on this side of the aisle to do that. but i think it is foolhardy to cut from the education of our children. theyr in fact, our future. this is an investment in the future of our children and this great country. the chair: all time having expired, the question is all ti expired, the question is on the1 the chair: all time having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.. the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i would ask for a

recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the motion by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. mr. flake: i have an amendment at the desk number 85. the clerk: amendment number 85 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 552, the gentleman from arizona and member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: this would remove $1 million from the university. i have nothing against environmental science. i think very highly of the gentleman who has sponsored this earmark, but i do have a problem of handing out these kind of earmarks to private universities. drew university is not only a private institution, but has a reported endowment of $268 million. in addition, the university was

awarded a grant of $950,000 by the andrew l. mullen foundation, a grant that was for the establishment of the new environmental studies and sustainability major at the school, according to the university's website. aapplaud drew university. it speaks highly of the university that it was able to secure a grant. but it's curious that it should receive a $1 million earmark for the development of new environmental studies courses for the construction and improvement of science laboratories. it sounds to me like this new course of study not only got a grant from the foundation for the new major but $1 million grant from the taxpayers as well. i'm sure the curriculum at drew is competitive and noteworthy, but so are others at many other universities across the country. there has been increasing attention paid to earmarks for

private companies. what do we do about earmarks to private universities that have demonstrated their ability to secure generous grants from prestigeous foundations. why do the taxpayers have to provide funding as well? drew university has the benefit of relationships with members of congress, obviously. but does that justify this kind of earmark? as i mentioned, there is a bit of a spoil system here. i mentioned the spending bill overall, when you look at one program, like the cops grant, again, it contains nearly $123 million in earmark funds. members of congress, powerful members of congress, operators, committee chairs and ranking members are taking 45% of the total dollars earmarked. yet, i would remind our colleagues, this subset of members comprises only 25% of

this legislative body. i would smith -- submit the taxpayers have an education. we have received an education in congress' wasteful earmarking ways and don't need to subsidize a private university. and i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> personally, i believe that we do need to rein in excessive government spending and promote fiscal discipline and i have been involved in that. i want to thank you, representative flake, for bringing this important project to everyone's attention. i know we can agree on the importance of math and science education. throughout my career in county and state and now in washington, i have been a strong proponent of instilling an interest in stem education in our young people so they may tackle our

country's and our planet's most pressing issues. drew university environmental science initiative and drew is located in madison, new jersey, fits perfectly in line with this goal, advancing science education. this program benefits drew's undergraduate students and assists drew in expanding local, elementary middle and high schools. many speakers have come to the floor saying, how are we going to meet the challenges of china and india? one of the ways you meet the challenges of china and india and their educational systems is to make sure that their colleges and universities are doing what they can to graduate students that are heavily involved in math and science studies. i strongly share drew's belief that in order to confront tomorrow's environmental challenges, we must capture the