ing a potential adversary. And I think the model for us, the model for me, is really the model that Ronald Reagan had.

And with that, I will just end and maybe cover one other question in that you can maybe answer it if you want to or just submit it for the record, because you may not know about this. But in February, Amnesty International produced a report documenting the continued practice of torture in China. Torture through beatings, whippings, electric shock, sexual abuse and other sometimes deadly

means.

The research reveals that during 1998 and 2000, at least 185 businesses were involved in the manufacture, the distribution, supply or brokering of devices that always or sometimes were used to inflict torture. Of these, the United States is by far the most prolific, with at least 74 U.S. companies involved in marketing electroshock weapons, leg irons, shackles, thumb cuffs, always used for torture devices.

Could you give us some sense of maybe you are going to have somebody look into this to see if the policy of the Department of Commerce could change with regard to the export of these torture devices that are pretty clearly torture, whether it be to China or Turkey or any other country?

Secretary EVANS. Certainly. You bet I will.

Mr. WOLF. Great.

Secretary EVANS. I am not familiar with this particular article that you read or this specific issue, but we will look into it and get back to you.

Mr. WOLF. I thank you, Mr. Secretary.

Secretary EVANS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Serrano.

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In listening to you, Mr. Chairman, and Secretary Evans, I am trying to suggest that the Chairman and I are the opposite sides of trade, because I am a big believer in trading with everyone. However, in listening to his comments about people we do trade with, I must tell you that it reinforces my belief that we have no reason not to trade with Cuba. Because if we can trade with all these other folks, we certainly can trade with Cuba.

Which brings me to a question which was not going to be my first question, but since I am on that subject, I will ask the question now. We did pass a bill last year, after much debate, which in my opinion watered down the original intent of a bill I and former Congressman Torres and other folks had introduced, to allow the open sale of food and medicine, food items or seeds and so on, agriculture items and supplies and equipment for Cuba. We passed that bill with a lot of strings attached, as you know, about financing and so on.

But there were parts that your department had to do in putting forth regulations to make this possible. Those regulations I understand were supposed to be in place by the end of February, and I believe that they are not in place yet. Could you comment on that as to where those regulations might be?

And I understand that one of the arguments is what happens to the products if they are sold, if they are purchased, when they get to Cuba. As much as that was always a concern, that was not part

of the legislation. The legislation was to sell food and medicine to Cuba. And I would like to know where we are with that in terms of the regulations.

Secretary EVANS. Certainly. Congressman, my knowledge is that we are very, very close to having the_regulations in place. I was not aware of the February deadline. But it is my understanding that they will soon be in place. I would say "soon" probably means by the end of May they will be in place.

But the one area that I think we need some clarity is that it is my understanding the way the law reads, this will be trade of food to Cuba and not food and medicine. So I think that is something that we want to make sure we have clear.

Mr. SERRANO. I could stand corrected. My understanding was that, again, notwithstanding all the regulations that were imposed on it, it would allow food and medicine. I am not sure if it would allow-and the reason we are not sure, and the reason you may not be sure is because the bill left the Committee one way and came back to the floor-actually left the floor one way and came back into law in a different way, and do not ask me how that happened. Something that happened in Texas that I have no control over.

Secretary EVANS. Congressman, let's do this. Let's let your staff get with our staff. I am hearing that there was a drafting error in the bill itself, and it may have taken medicine out. But I am not certain of that. So let's get your staff with our staff and get that resolved.

Mr. SERRANO. Okay. And my understanding is that it was 120 days after enactment the regulations were supposed to be in place, which would have brought it to about February 28th.

Secretary EVANS. Right. Right. Well, I am sorry we did not get that done and we should have if that was in the law, but we did not, unfortunately. But from what I am hearing now I guess I have a commitment from my team that we will have it in place by the end of May.

Mr. SERRANO. Well, I appreciate that.
Secretary EVANS. You bet.

DIGITAL DIVIDE

Mr. SERRANO. I appreciate that. Mr. Secretary, I am sure you are familiar with a report released by the Commerce Department a couple of years ago called "Falling Through the Net". And this report demonstrated that a digital divide exists in America. The report showed that the divide is still widening, especially for those communities that are already isolated or falling behind.

For example, the report showed that 46 percent of white households then owned computers while only 25 percent of Hispanic households owned them. What is the Administration and the Commerce Department in particular doing to ensure that no American is denied access to the tools on which the new technology-based economy rides?

In addition, your budget request provides only $15.5 million for the Information Infrastructure Grant Program, also known as the Technology Opportunities Program, or TOP. This amount represents an almost two-thirds reduction below the current year funding level for this program, which supports innovative projects

that help to address the digital divide. Why does the budget request not provide more resources to our achieving this goal?

And let me tell you that there was a time in communities like mine in the South Bronx or across the river in Harlem where the issue of technology was left to the talk shows and the people dealt with the daily struggles of surviving and moving ahead.

Now this is not true. Parents and local businesspeople and students are aware of the fact that this technology is out there. They have touched it, it has touched them. But they are also aware of the fact that they are being left behind.

And there are a lot of things here in this society, Mr. Secretary, that you and I and the Chairman and any Members of this Committee play no role in having people left behind. But this one came on really during our watch in this society, in our time on this planet. And if we allow it to happen, then we will be the ones responsible.

But you really can play a major role in making sure that it does not happen, and that is why I would like to see your views on it and hear your views.

Secretary EVANS. Sure. Congressman, the President has said many times over the last number of years that no child should be left behind. It disheartens me to see so many children in this country that cannot read. And I think it is vitally important that we remain focused on making sure that every child in this country has a good education and learns to read at grade level and stays on grade level throughout their school years.

Another area that this country is concerning itself with is the Digital Divide, as you have described it. I would probably go to an area like Digital Empowerment or Digital Opportunity. I think it is very, very important that every child and every citizen has the opportunity to participate in this.

The E-rate is an example of how government is playing a role in making sure that we are not leaving citizens behind. I think the E-rate raises some $2.3 billion a year, which is a substantial amount of capital to use in this effort. I know the Housing and Urban Development has a program that they have expanded this last year that deals with penetrating communities with technology. They have increased their budget from $40 to $60 million a year. I know that some of the research shows us that over the last several years, we are improving the penetration of technology into communities across America. I mentioned earlier in my comments on Spectrum-I did not say anything about the role Spectrum will play in making sure that this technology reaches not only those in the inner cities and the suburban areas but rural America as well. So there are a number of programs that are ongoing in government to try and deal with this issue.

TECHNOLOGY OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM

I am one that is a big proponent of public and private partnerships in dealing with this issue, and that is in part what TOP is, the Technology Opportunities Program. And it is the TOP Program, which was implemented a number of years ago and had a commitment of about $15 million in FY 2000. And then last year, the year

we are in right now, they tripled that. They went from $15 million to $45 million.

These are grants that are one-time grants. They are a specific program at a specific point in time, so it is not a grant that you are committing to fund over a series of years. It is a one-year, onetime grant. And the money has been used to also try and attract other money, try and find matching money, and from what I know has been a helpful program.

But again, in going through a budget, you have to make tough choices. As we looked at the program and saw the dramatic increase, the tripling in a one-year period and understanding the other programs and initiatives that the government has underway, the E-rate program, the program in HUD, we felt like it was appropriate this year, for this request, to return back to its 2000 level, which was $15 million. Then take a hard look at it, see if there are ways to improve it and enhance it, and see what kind of results we are getting from it.

So that is just one of those choices that we made when it came to priorities, we felt like taking it back to the level it was in 2000 was the right request to make.

Mr. SERRANO. Now you said that they were one-time grants. You did not say if you agreed with that or if you thought that the program should be changed.

Secretary EVANS. No, I said that because, if we had made grants that were kind of a three-year obligation, moral obligation, I might have viewed it differently. If we had made a grant to a community and said, this is a three-year commitment, but we have to go back to Congress to fund that commitment in year two, three and four, it would be a different kind of perspective for me than grants that are just one-time, one-year, no commitment to follow up. I will give you an example, the Advanced Technology program. We have scaled that back in this budget.

But in that program, we have made commitments, moral commitments, that we would fund certain grants over a period of time as opposed to just one year.

So when I looked at that, I looked for ways to make sure we honored what I considered was a moral obligation to continue funding those programs.

Mr. SERRANO. Well, that is not a difficult one for us to agree on. I agree in the notion of supporting a community or a group of folks over a period of time. But certainly if I can get you more excited about these kinds of programs by being an ally in getting them supported over a period of years rather than a one-time shot, then I, as we say in the South Bronx, I think we can do business. I feel we can come to some agreement.

Let me ask you one further question here. As I am sure you will hear for a while, I represent a district in the Bronx, but by virtue of the fact that I was born in Puerto Rico and the lack of proper relationship that we have with the Commonwealth, in my opinion, in many ways I also represent the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. And I speak for them-I speak about them in a lot of issues.

CENSUS AND PUERTO RICO

Now the Census Bureau took a big step this year, partly as a request of this Committee, in including the population figures from Puerto Rico on the report that was handed down, the first report. Unfortunately, in my opinion, it was a total, and then Puerto Rico without a grand total.

And I have a very simple theory on that. I think that notwithstanding the fact that the Constitution-and that is a very heavy notwithstanding-the Constitution said count the people throughout the States-I believe that is what it says-that those folks who wrote that never envisioned having American citizens living outside the States. But American citizens do live outside the States. So I am wondering out loud when we take a census count, are we really taking a census count in certain areas, or are we counting all Americans or all residents? Because it is interesting.

Listen to this. If you are a noncitizen-in fact, if you are undocumented and I do not have any problems with that, as everyone knows-but if you are undocumented, you will get counted in New York in the regular count.

Secretary EVANS. Right.

Mr. SERRANO. But if you are an American citizen living in Guam, Samoa, the Virgin Islands, or Puerto Rico, you are not included in the regular count.

Secretary EVANS. Right.

Mr. SERRANO. I think-I do not know, I am not a Constitutional lawyer. I do not know that it would take a Constitutional amendment to add those American citizens to the regular count. So I would hope that as one of the million things that you pay attention to, that you pay attention to the next time maybe including all people who live under the American flag in the regular census count rather than in a separate census count.

Having said that, on the American Community Survey. I understand from staff that while we were out voting, Mr. Miller asked some questions about it and you sounded very supportive of that work. The ACS also was supposed to include Puerto Rico. But now I understand that there are no plans to include Puerto Rico in the survey. And again, the Census Bureau, whether as an aside or as an integral part of the census, will be counting Puerto Rico next time. So why not include them in this program also?

Secretary EVANS. I guess we are saying it is a dollars-and-cents issue. But we will be glad to look at it with you and your staff.

This summer is the pilot study to determine if it is effective or not. If it is, then we will design a more comprehensive, kind of across America study. In the preliminary planning, I would assume that they probably had not thought about Puerto Rico.

I do not know, if that is true or not. All I am saying is, I hear your concerns and we are glad to talk to you about it and see if there is a way to incorporate that in there.

And I might also add that I share your same frustration and I agree with your logic. It confused me initially when they told me that we are going to count those here in America that may not be Americans, but yet those that are not in the country, we do not count.