Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I am deeply disappointed that the FY 2009 budget resolution we are considering today continues business as usual in the House. This resolution is another missed opportunity to come to grips with the financial crisis looming on the horizon for our Nation. We face enormous fiscal challenges and addressing them will take bipartisan commitment. The budget resolution--and all of the substitutes--fail to address the long-term spending crisis staring us right in the face.

Jim Cooper and I have been working together with almost 70 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle ii offering a solution--the Cooper-Wolf SAFE Commission Act--to respond to what outgoing U.S. Comptroller David Walker characterizes as a ``tsunami of spending and debt levels that could swamp our ship of state.''

At the Government Accountability Office, Mr. Walker has coordinated the country-wide ``Fiscal Wake Up Tour'' and has done a tremendous job of working to educate the American people on the grave condition of our country's fiscal health. I salute David Walker for the yeoman work he has done in bringing this issue to the front burner. He is leaving GAO this week, but he is not abandoning the cause in which he believes and into which he has poured his heart and soul over the past few years. He was quoted as saying, ``I love my job. I love GAO. But I love my country more.''

Republicans and Democrats must take to heart David Walker's words-- for the love of country--and come together to avert the financial tsunami coming closer and closer to our Nation's shores. It doesn't take an expert to understand that this nation is teetering on the edge of a financial crisis like no other time in our history.

We had the opportunity in this year's budget process to take the initial steps to get our financial house in order. But again this budget cycle, the House is choosing to look the other way and continue business as usual.

If we don't get our country's financial house in order and make the sacrifices necessary today, the future for our children and grandchildren will be bleak. Our economic growth will come to a grinding halt, our standard of living and even our national security will be at risk if we don't start actively working to change our current course. We cannot continue to keep borrowing and mortgaging our future to countries like China and Saudi Arabia that carry obscene amounts of our debt.

This issue is an economic and moral issue that hangs like an ominous cloud over everything we do as public servants, yet many ignore it. I understand we won't be able to fix our financial woes overnight, but we must come together across the aisle if there is ever to be any hope of ensuring that our Nation's future is strong.

That's why Representative Jim Cooper and I joined efforts and have been calling for a national bipartisan commission that will put everything--entitlement spending, other Federal program spending and tax policy--on the table and come up with recommendations to halt the mounting debt.

Nothing would be off limits for discussion by the commission members.

A critical component of the commission's work will be to engage the American people in a national dialogue about the scope of the country's financial conditions and solutions to the problem. After spending 6 months conducting townhall-style meetings around the country, the commission will present a report to Congress describing the long-term fiscal problems, public suggestions and views, and policy options available to get us back on the right track.

Modeled after the Federal base-closing process, Congress would be required to vote up or down on the plan in its entirety. Mandating congressional action is what makes the SAFE Commission unique. If other viable bipartisan solutions are presented, I think we should look at those, too.

The Cooper-Wolf SAFE Commission legislation has been endorsed by groups across a wide political spectrum--groups who usually disagree more than they agree on policy issues--the Brookings Institution, the Heritage Foundation, the Concord Coalition, and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. The Business Roundtable and National Federation of Independent Business are also on board. National columnists David Brooks, David Broder, and Robert Samuelson all have written about the entitlement crisis facing our country and the SAFE Commission as a potential way forward. Senators Conrad and Gregg have introduced similar legislation in the Senate.

The financial tsunami is moving closer to our shores and the longer we wait to act, the harder it will be to stop the tidal wave of red ink. If our children and grandchildren were on the beach with an actual tsunami off the coast, we would do everything we could to help them. We must move beyond politics and come to grips with the fact that the financial future of our country is an American issue and it's on our watch to fix.

How can this Congress sit by knowing full well that our financial woes will haunt generations to come?

I could easily use all the time for general debate today providing the evidence to support the critical need to address the nation's financial future. This should be the number one budget priority for this Congress. Let me give an example. In January, Moody's Investors Service released its annual report which concluded that the United States triple-A bond rating is at risk. The United States could lose its triple-A bond rating as early as 2012. What does that mean?

That means that respected credit-rating agencies are projecting that the United States will be on par with Greece and Estonia by 2015, Poland and Mexico by 2020, and below investment grade--junk debt--by 2025.

Here's more evidence: the retirement of the baby boomers started this year and presents a demographic challenge that is unprecedented. In 2006, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security consumed 40 percent of the budget. That percentage is expected to jump to 51 percent in less than 10 years. It may be out of sight, out of mind for now, but it's simple math. As the number of Americans aged 65 and up rises, and the working population shrinks, more Americans will draw on promised benefits. The rubber will meet the road, and we will have done nothing to cushion the blow.

We cannot continue to avoid our responsibility to future generations of Americans by passing on a broken system in the form of unfunded Social Security and Medicare obligations and unsustainable spending.

Simply put, the budget resolution set forth this year represents a missed opportunity. We need to follow the example of David Walker and for the love of our country, and for our children and grandchildren, do what it will take to protect our Nation's future. The SAFE Commission is the bipartisan way forward. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert for the Record a letter I received from U.S. Comptroller General David Walker, a recent Financial Times article about our Nation's triple-A bond rating, and a Robert Samuelson op-ed from The Washington Post.

[From the Washington Post, October 3, 2007]

Escaping the Budget Impasse

(By Robert J. Samuelson)

Almost everyone knows that the next president will have to

wrestle with the immense costs of retiring baby boomers.

Comes now a small band of Democrats and Republicans who want

to do the new president a giant favor. They want to force the

new administration to face the problem in early 2009. Why is

this a favor? Because dealing with this issue is so

politically unsavory that resolving it quickly would be a

godsend. Otherwise, it could haunt the White House for four

years.

Let's review the problem (again). From 2000 to 2030, the

65-and-over population will roughly double, from 35 million

to 72 million, or from about 12 percent of the population to

nearly 20 percent. Spending on Social Security, Medicare, and

Medicaid--three big programs that serve the elderly--already

represents more than 40 percent of the federal budget. In

2006, these three programs cost $1.1 trillion, more than

twice defense spending. Left on automatic pilot, these

programs are plausibly projected to grow to about 75 percent

of the present budget by 2030.

Stalemate results because all the ways of dealing with

these pressures are controversial. There are only four: (a)

massive tax increases--on the order of 30 to 50 percent by

2030; (b) draconian cuts in other government programs (note

that the projected increases in Social Security and Medicare,

as a share of national income, are more than all of today's

domestic discretionary programs); (c) cuts in Social

Security, Medicare and Medicaid--higher eligibility ages or

lower benefits for wealthier retirees; or (d) undesirably

large budget deficits.

The proposed escape seems at first so drearily familiar and

demonstrably ineffective that it's hardly worth discussing: a

bipartisan commission. But what would distinguish this

commission from its many predecessors is that Congress would

have to vote on its recommendations. The political theory is

that, presented with a bipartisan package that cannot be

amended, most politicians would do what they believe

(privately) ought to be done rather than allow pressure

groups, including retirees, to paralyze the process.

There is precedent for this approach. Since 1988, Congress

has allowed more than 600 military bases and facilities to be

closed or streamlined using a similar arrangement. An

independent Base Realignment and Closure Commission evaluates

the Pentagon's proposed closings and listens to objections.

With the president's approval, it then submits its own list,

which goes into effect unless vetoed by both houses of

Congress. This process provides members of Congress

bipartisan ``cover'' and prevents amendments from weakening

the package.

Two prominent proposals would adapt this approach to the

budget. The first, offered by Sens. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and

Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), the chairman and ranking minority member

of the Budget Committee, would create a 16-member commission,

evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. All eight

Democrats would be from Congress, as would six Republicans.

The administration would have two members, including the

secretary of the Treasury.

Conrad's notion is that the impasse is political and that

only practicing politicians--people with ``skin in the

game''--can craft a compromise that can be sold to their

peers. The commission would report in December 2008. Twelve

of its 16 members would have to support the plan, with

congressional passage needing 60 percent approval (60

senators, 261 representatives). These requirements, Conrad

and Gregg argue, would ensure bipartisan support.

The other proposal comes from Reps. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.)

and Frank Wolf (R-VA.) It would also create a 16-member

commission, with two major differences. First, only four of

its members would be from Congress. Second, though Congress

would have to vote on the commission's proposal, there would

be some leeway for others--including the president--to

present alternatives as long as they had the same long-term

budget impact. Any proposal, however, would have to be voted

on as a package without amendments.

A combination of these plans might work best. A 20-member

group would be manageable and should include four outsiders

to provide different perspectives and, possibly, to build

public support. Perhaps the head of AARP should be included.

And it would be a mistake to present the next president with

a take-it-or-leave-it package. The Cooper-Wolf plan would

allow a new administration to make changes--and get credit--

without being able to start from scratch.

This commission approach has potential pitfalls: It might

create a face-saving package that does little. But everything

else has failed. The main political beneficiary would be the

next president. It would be revealing if some of the

hopefuls--Democrats and Republicans--would show that they

grasp this by providing their endorsements. Otherwise, the

odds that Congress will even create the commission are slim.

Mr. Speaker, in January, Moody's Investors Service released its annual report which concluded that the United States triple-A bond rating is at risk.

We should care that respectable credit rating agencies are projecting that the United States will be on par with Estonia by the year 2015, Poland and Mexico by 2020, and below investment grade, junk debt, by 2025.

Our Nation cannot continue on its current financial path. The Cooper- Wolf SAFE Commission Act would put everything on the table, tax policy, entitlements, and other Federal programs, to provide a bipartisan way forward on this issue. Over 70 Members from both sides of the aisle, Republican and Democrat, are already cosponsoring the bill.

We must work together to rein in spending. We cannot continue to avoid a responsibility to future generations, to our children and our grandchildren, by passing on a broken system in the form of unfunded Social Security and Medicare obligations and unsustainable spending.

[From the Financial Times, Jan. 11, 2008]

U.S.'s Triple-A Credit Rating `Under Threat'

(By Francesco Guerrera, Aline van Duyn and Daniel Pimlott)

The U.S. is at risk of losing its top-notch triple-A credit

rating within a decade unless it takes radical action to curb

soaring healthcare and social security spending, Moody's, the

credit rating agency, said yesterday.

The warning over the future of the triple-A rating--granted

to U.S. Government debt since it was first assessed in 1917--

reflects growing concerns over the country's ability to

retain its financial and economic supremacy.

It could also put further pressure on candidates from both

the Republican and Democratic parties to sharpen their focus

on healthcare and pensions in the run-up to November's

presidential election.

Most analysts expect future administrations to deal with

the costs of healthcare and social security and there is no

reflection of any long-term concern about the U.S.'s

financial health in the value of its debt.

But Moody's warning comes at a time when U.S. confidence in

its economic prowess has been challenged by the rising threat

of a recession, a weak dollar and the credit crunch.

In its annual report on the U.S., Moody's signalled

increased concern that rapid rises in Medicare and Medicaid--

the government-funded healthcare programmes for the old and

the poor--would ``cause major fiscal pressures'' in years to

come.

Unlike Moody's previous assessment of US government debt in

2005, yesterday's report specifically links rises in

healthcare and social security spending to the credit rating.

``The combination of the medical programmes and social

security is the most important threat to the triple-A rating

over the long term,'' it said.

Steven Hess, Moody's lead analyst for the U.S., told the

Financial Times that in order to protect the country's top

rating, future administrations would have to rein in

healthcare and social security costs.

``If no policy changes are made, in 10 years from now we

would have to look very seriously at whether the U.S. is

still a triple-A credit,'' he said.

Mr. Hess said any downgrade in the U.S. rating would have

serious consequences for the global economy. ``The U.S.

rating is the anchor of the world's financial system. If you

have a downgrade, you have a problem,'' he said.

Moody's did once threaten to cut the rating of some of the

U.S. Treasury's debt when Congress refused to pass the

president's budget in the mid-1990s. Other large economies,

notably Japan in the 1990s, have had to suffer the symbolic

blow of losing their top-notch credit rating.

Last year, David Walker, comptroller general of the U.S.,

caused controversy when he compared America's current

situation with the dying days of the Roman empire and warned

the country was on ``a burning platform'' of unsustainable

policies.

Medicare and Medicaid spending, which has risen sharply

over the past few decades and now accounts for about 45 per

cent of total federal spending, up from about 25 per cent in

1975, has long been a source of concern.

Last month, Peter Orszag, director of the Congressional

Budget Office, which advises Congress on the federal budget,

said the issue was ``the central fiscal challenge'' facing

the US.

Most presidential candidates have vowed to reform the

healthcare system but many of

them, especially on the Democratic side, have focused on

extending coverage to the 40m-plus uninsured Americans rather

than on cutting costs.

Mr. Speaker, I testified last week before the Budget Committee about the enormous fiscal challenge we face as a Nation and offered a bipartisan solution to respond to outgoing U.S. Comptroller David Walker's characterization of a ``tsunami of spending and debt levels that could swamp'' our Nation. We must come together across the aisle, and if we don't get our financial house in order and make the sacrifices necessary today, we will hurt our children and our grandchildren.

Jim Cooper and I have joined efforts, a Democrat and a Republican, calling for a national bipartisan commission that will put everything on the table, entitlement spending, other Federal program spending, and tax policy, and come up with recommendations to put our country on a sustainable path. Nothing would be off limits for discussion and recommendations by the commission members. Congress would be required to vote up or down on the plan. If other viable bipartisan solutions are presented, we should look at those too.

I urge Members, I beg Members on both sides of the aisle to come together to take this issue to heart. Let's work together to take the necessary actions to save this country.

Mr. Speaker, the need for earmark reform should be an issue that we can all agree upon, a bipartisan agreement. As reported last week, Congress' approval rating fell to just 22 percent. Will the House sit idly by patting each other on the back as this issue continues to grow and be one that the American people care deeply about?

Quite frankly, the effort in the House to bring a level of transparency in the earmark process, as good as it may appear, has yet to satisfy the American

people. As a first step to restoring confidence in the earmark system, Congressman Jack Kingston, a member of the Appropriations Committee, Zack Wamp, a member of the committee, and myself have introduced H. Con. Res. 263, which calls for a joint select committee to review the earmark process, and it places a moratorium on all earmarks while the panel undertakes its work.

Congress holds the power of the purse, and, quite frankly, I don't believe the American people really want us to cede that authority to the executive branch. Under the Constitution, that is the job of the congressional branch. And while I believe that the majority of earmarks are for purposes which help people, those Members who oppose earmarks have made some legitimate claims, and they have to be addressed.

There have been positive earmarks to fight gangs, to fight the violent MS 13 gangs. We created an office of gang intelligence in the FBI to track the gang movement across the country, and there is a growing problem with regard to gangs.

The Iraq Study Group was an earmark, and that helped bring about fresh eyes on the target, if you will, bringing former Secretary of State Jim Baker and former cochairman of the 9/11 Commission, Lee Hamilton, along with Ed Meese, former Attorney General of the Reagan administration whose son is on the staff with General Petraeus over in Iraq, and people like Chuck Robb who is a former marine and Governor and Senator who fought in Vietnam. So it brought together a group of people to take a look at that, and 61 of the 70-some recommendations of the Iraq Study Group have been adopted now, and that basically was an earmark.

I also was told that the work that Dr. Francis Collins has done, and I may be wrong on this, but Dr. Collins has received the gold medal. He is the one who has mapped the human genome system. And there are people alive today because of the work that Dr. Collins has done. Dr. Collins will map those genes whereby we know that some individual with a certain gene may get a certain condition and now they can deal with that to save their life. So there have been some very positive ones.

But I think it is important to acknowledge that the Members who have opposed earmarks have made some legitimate claims, and they deserve that we look at those claims and address those claims.

The joint select committee on earmark reform, which is called for in the bill, would be comprised of 16 members, Mr. Speaker, evenly split between the House and the Senate, because whatever we do, the House and the Senate have to be together, also, between Republicans and Democrats. And I think the American people are thirsty. They are thirsty for some bipartisan activity out of this Congress. So we will come together, Republicans and Democrats, House and Senate, to form this committee.

The panel would examine the way the earmarks are included in authorizing bills, which has not been done, appropriation bills. And to the credit of the committee, there has been some work done on the appropriations. Also, tax and tariff measures. Also, what has not been done very well, executive branch earmarks would also be studied. I want to stress that again, because I think the Congress has ignored some of this and I think the general public doesn't understand, but this panel would also, Mr. Speaker, look at executive branch earmarks, reviewing earmarks in all bills considered by Congress. All bills is really the key.

The House, during this period of time, should place a moratorium on all earmarks until the joint select committee has finished its work and we are able to put into place a rule system that restores the confidence of Americans that legislation is not loaded up with hidden special interests or wasteful spending. It would restore honesty, integrity, and openness to the process that everyone would feel very confident because the ground rules would have been agreed to by everyone. The American public would see how this was done.

I strongly support the earmark reform, including listing names of sponsors on earmarks or specific line item spending. But the rules, Mr. Speaker, must apply an equal standard to all legislation, appropriations, as well as authorizing and tax bills and disclosing earmark sponsors. It must be across the board in every bill, but it also must be a process of indisputable integrity and probity that is honest and authentic, and one in which the American people have absolute trust. That is the key. It has to be a process, Mr. Speaker, in which the American people have absolute trust.

Earmark reform must be bipartisan. It must be an issue on which both political parties can come together so that every Member of Congress can know what is in there, the American people can know it. And I am hopeful that Members on both sides of the aisle will join this effort and support the Kingston-Wamp-Wolf earmark reform bill.

Then, Mr. Speaker, we have the opportunity after we do that, because I know most Americans are concerned about the spending with regard to the Federal debt and the deficit. I have a bill with Congressman Cooper, again, a bipartisan bill, and again, it is good to see, we have to work across the aisle. It is called the Cooper-Wolf bill, Mr. Speaker, and what it does, it sets up a national commission of eight Republicans and eight Democrats, and I would tell Members that there are 70 Members plus on the bill, roughly 30 Democratic Members and 40 Republican Members. I must say, Congressman Hoyer gave a very powerful speech at the Press Club several months ago endorsing this concept. On the bill, we have Congressman Boehner, the minority leader. We have Congressman Blunt, the minority whip. We have people on both sides of the aisle of all political viewpoints from every part of the country. And what it does, Mr. Speaker, it puts everything on the table.

It puts Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and tax policy on the table. It has the support of the Heritage Foundation and Brookings. Alice Rivlin, head of the Office of Management and Budget in the Clinton administration, supports it. We have the support of some of the more thoughtful think-tanks, such as Brookings. A lot of different groups. We have had favorable editorials and comments from David Broder from The Washington Post, David Brooks from The New York Times, and Robert Samuelson, who writes a column for The Washington Post. Also we have had editorials in papers like the Tennesseean and the Richmond Times Dispatch and papers like that.

What it would basically do, it would have this national commission of eight Republicans and eight Democrats to go around the country having a conversation with the American people. They would listen to the American people. Then they would hold public hearings in every Federal Reserve district in the Nation. So they are required to go everywhere.

Interestingly enough, the Brookings Foundation and Heritage, along with David Walker of the Government Accountability Office, are now doing this in what they call ``wake-up tours,'' where they are going out around the Nation to tell the American people of the danger, the fiscal danger, the financial danger, that awaits this Nation if we do nothing about this spending and the debt and the deficit.

Congressman Cooper knows so much about this. I wish he was with me here today. But I respect his knowledge and understanding and his work on the Budget Committee.

But, Mr. Speaker, David Walker said, and I will insert it in the Congressional Record, I have sent it out to some Members of the House, David Walker said there was a tsunami, a financial tsunami off the coast waiting to come in and overcome and overtake this country.

As the father of five children, if our children were on the beach and someone said there was a tsunami off the coast of New Jersey or the North Carolina coast or the Maryland coast, we would as parents want to do everything we can to help our kids. So for our children and for our grandchildren, we have an obligation to deal with this problem.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I think it is also a moral issue. In the Ten Commandments it says: ``Thou shall not steal,''

and for one generation to be living off the next generation is in essence stealing.

With all the support that we have, the bipartisan support, again, a lot of good Members on both sides of the aisle, I am hopeful that there can be a way that we can bring this bill up and vote on it in this session.

So with the earmark bill that I spoke about earlier which deals with a fundamental problem that the Congress has to deal with, and with this bill, we can have a renaissance in this Nation, create jobs and make a tremendous difference. So I just hope that we can pass both of these bills in this Congress.

I see my friend from Tennessee, and I will yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

I thank the gentleman. His comments are very good. I think it really needs to be bipartisan and it needs to be institutionalized, and it needs to be done in such a way that the American people have confidence.

I would yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), also a member of the Appropriations Committee.

I thank the gentleman. And in closing, unless the gentleman has any other comments, I would say this needs to be bipartisan. It is H. Con. Res. 263. I believe it will pass the House. I think it is inevitable that it will pass the House. We have to come together. I acknowledge there have been some sincere efforts made, and I think we come together and institutionalize this with regard to this select committee.

So I want to thank both Mr. Wamp and Mr. Kirk, and Mr. Kingston who could not be here, and the other Members who have put this together and say it needs to be done bipartisan. We have to do it so the American people can say, ``Well done. It really makes sense.''

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Congressman Tom Lantos, our beloved friend and colleague, who passed away on Monday morning from esophagus cancer.

Believers in human rights and oppressed peoples around the world have suffered a terrible blow with the loss of Tom Lantos. He was a tireless champion for those suffering oppression and violence and discrimination, and the world is quite simply a more painful place with his passing. Every time a human rights issue came up on the House floor, Tom was always there, speaking out for the voiceless.

Tom's experiences escaping Nazi concentration camps twice as a teenager and losing most of his immediate family in the carnage of the Holocaust cultivated in him a unique sensitivity to suffering. His compassion

and willingness to stand up for what is right was a constant inspiration to me, both in our work in the House of Representatives and in our co-chairmanship of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus. He was a hero in the eyes of so many, and his loss will be felt acutely by all of us.

I extend my most sincere condolences to Tom's family, and I encourage my colleagues to take up the torch with which Tom illuminated the world's darkest corners.

Mr. Speaker, by defeating the previous question on the rule, Members will allow consideration of H. Con. Res. 263, earmark reform legislation introduced by Jack Kingston, Zach Wamp, and myself.

Quite frankly, our effort in the House to bring a level of transparency in the earmark process has yet to satisfy the American public. Congress holds the power of the purse and I don't believe the American public really wants us to cede that authority to the executive branch. And while I believe that the majority of earmarks are for purposes which help people, those Members who oppose earmarks have made some legitimate claims.

H. Con. Res. 263 would help restore confidence in Congress by creating a Joint Select Committee on earmarks and place a moratorium on all earmarks while the panel undertakes its work. The Joint Select Committee

(JSC) on Earmark Reform would be comprised of 16 members, evenly split between the House and Senate and Republicans and Democrats. The panel would examine the way earmarks are included in authorizing, appropriations and tax and tariff measures. Executive branch earmarks would also be studied. Reviewing earmarks in all bills considered by Congress is key.

The House should place a moratorium on all earmarks until the Joint Select Committee has finished its work and we are able to put into place a rules system that restores the confidence of Americans that legislation is not loaded up with hidden special interest, wasteful spending. I strongly support earmark reform including listing names of sponsors of earmarks or specific line-item spending. But the rules must apply an equal standard in all legislation, appropriations as well as authorizing and tax bills, in disclosing earmark sponsors. It must be across-the-board in every bill, but it also must be a process of indisputable integrity and probity that is honest and authentic and in which the American people have absolute trust.

Earmark reform should be a bipartisan issue that every member of Congress is concerned about.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues Representative Christopher H. Smith of New Jersey and Representative Joseph R. Pitts, we rise today to honor the memory of Pastor Peter Dugulescu, who was the founder and president of the charitable organization ``Jesus the Hope of Romania'' and who passed away from a heart attack on January 3, 2008.

Pastor Dugulescu was born in 1945 in Romania, eventually marrying and having four children. He served as a Baptist pastor during the Communist regime, and was seen as a fighter of the revolution and a true spiritual leader in Romania. He was given the honor of many awards, including the ``Ambassador of Peace'' award from the Interreligious and International Peace Council.

Pastor Dugulescu was a dear friend of many of us who have followed events in Romania over the years. He was a strong Christian, and a selfless servant of the poor. His charity opened an orphanage, created feeding programs for the impoverished, and established a home for the elderly and handicapped children. The loss of this bright soul will be felt acutely by all whose lives he touched. We extend our condolences to his family and friends.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to bring the attention of the House to the retirement of Rose B. Kaplan, area director for 16 Social Security Administration offices in the Washington area. I want to take this opportunity to thank Ms. Kaplan for her dedication to a lifetime of public service. She has served many congressional offices and constituents in the Nation's capital region, including Virginia, Maryland, the District of Columbia and West Virginia, over her 40-year career with Social Security.

Rose has had a distinguished career with the agency. She began as a GS-2 typing clerk and progressed up the ranks of responsibility, eventually gaining her current position as area director. She has been honored several times for great leadership and commitment to the Agency's mission, most recently receiving the Commissioner's Team Award for compassion and leadership in the Severely Injured Marines and Sailors, SIMS, project involving expediting support and processing of military casualty claims. Ms. Kaplan was also integral to shaping and implementing the region's diversity strategy, formulating training and culture programs.

Ms. Kaplan has resided in the Washington area for most of her life and currently lives in Montgomery County, MD, with her husband, Phil. She plans to travel and spend more time with her family upon retirement. I am pleased to call attention to her accomplishments and ask that my colleagues in the House join me in recognizing her outstanding service.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend the important work of U.S. Special Envoy to Sudan Andrew Natsios in light of the announcement that he is resigning. Special Envoy Natsios has led efforts to achieve comprehensive peace in Sudan, which has suffered decades of war and poverty.

I have visited Sudan five times, most recently in July 2004 when I led the first congressional delegation with Senator Sam Brownback to Darfur. I witnessed the nightmare with my own eyes. Every day that passes, more men are killed, more women are raped, and more children die of malnutrition. Special Envoy Natsios has worked tirelessly to end this nightmare, traveling frequently to Sudan to bring greater pressure to bear on the Sudanese Government, and traveling all over the world to coalesce international support for a peaceful end to the violence in Darfur.

Mr. Natsios has also worked to maintain the focus of both the United States and the international community on the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement between north and south Sudan. Without a comprehensive understanding of and approach to Sudan's many conflicts, any policy responses will be inherently flawed. Mr. Natsios's understanding of this reality has filtered through his approach to Sudan.

During his time as special envoy to Sudan, Mr. Natsios has demonstrated an unflagging desire to alleviate the suffering of the men, women and children all across Sudan who want to be free from oppression and violence, and who want a voice in their livelihoods and in the future of their country. I wish Mr. Natsios the best in his future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my deep appreciation for Cherith Norman's service to our country as senior congressional adviser in the Bureau of Legislative Affairs at the U.S. Department of State. I have had the privilege of getting to know Cherith during her time as senior congressional adviser in the State Department's Bureau of Legislative Affairs on budget and appropriations issues. She is one of the best congressional liaisons from the State Department that I have worked with during my entire time in office. I have been deeply impressed by her work ethic and commitment to serving the United States government. She is conscientious, dedicated, and quick-thinking, and has been a tremendous asset to both me and my staff.

Cherith worked for Senator Jim DeMint for 6 years while he was a U.S. Representative and also during his congressional campaign. She worked at the State Department for 4 years, serving as a political appointee since 2003 in the Bureau of Legislative Affairs. During her time at the State Department, Cherith has served as interlocutor between the appropriators and the department on critical spending issues; planned countless congressional member and staff trips overseas; coordinated with the White House, National Security Council, the Office of Management and Budget and other Executive Branch agencies to present the President's international affairs budget to Congress each year; advised senior State Department officials on policy and funding strategy for international programs and State Department operations, and, in a courteous, conscientious and efficient manner, facilitated clear communication between Congress and the State Department.

Cherith is moving to New York to serve on the staff of Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad in the U.S. mission to the United Nations. Cherith's strong work ethic and selfless attitude have been the hallmarks of her service to our government and to the department, and I believe that she will serve the State Department very well in this new capacity. I know I am joined by many of my colleagues in the House of Representatives in expressing our appreciation for her work here in Washington, our sadness at her departure, and our best wishes for her future endeavors in our mission to the United Nations.

I want to begin by thanking the chairman and the ranking member for bringing the bill up, and also to Congresswoman Barbara Lee for the effort here. And hopefully this bill will be signed certainly before Christmas.

I think as we talk about the bill today, we should remember that genocide did take place, and in a certain respect continues to take place as we now stand here at this time.

Also, keep in mind, when talking about the Sudan Government, Osama bin Laden lived in Sudan from 1991 to 1996. And the same government that is there now invited Osama bin Laden to live there. And Carlos DeJackal and many other evil people have been in that country for a long period of time.

This bill, the Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act, takes a very important step to pressure the Sudanese Government to halt the violent genocide, which continues in many respects. It authorizes State and local

governments to divest assets in companies that conduct business in Sudan. It also prohibits the U.S. Government from contracting with companies which conduct business in Sudan. And there are many companies that are doing business. There are many foreign companies, some American companies, a lot of Chinese companies. So this is not set up to do something for something that may happen. There are companies today that are doing business and prospering there.

Many have asked how to be involved in stopping the genocide. One answer is to pass this bill. Targeted disinvestment is a powerful tool. It is important to understand that targeted disinvestment is the removal of investment money from companies that are directly or indirectly helping the Sudanese Government perpetuate genocide. There are Chinese companies that are actually helping; some have sold weapons, some have sold Hind helicopters, some have sold other equipment that is helping with regard to this.

Since the ultimate intent of Sudan disinvestment is to protect the victims of genocide, it is important to tailor the disinvestment to have the maximum impact on the Government of Sudan's behavior and minimal harm to innocent Sudanese. Such targeted disinvestment excludes companies involved in agriculture, production and distribution of consumer goods or activities intended to relieve human suffering.

Many States, and they should be applauded, including California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, and Oregon, have already moved to divest from companies doing business in Sudan. More States should act.

In closing, I want to again thank the Disinvestment Task Force. I would hope there would be a rollcall on this as a message so everyone knows. And again, I want to thank Congresswoman Barbara Lee for her persistence and effort to bring this up and pass this.

Keep in mind, as you're voting today, and hopefully there will be, with the chairman, look up there. This will really send a message to the Sudan Government. And there is genocide taking place today as we now vote.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Virginia, the Honorable Robert J. ``Rob'' Wittman, be permitted to take the oath of office today.

His certificate of election has not arrived, but there is no contest and no question has been raised with regard to his election.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the entire Virginia congressional delegation, it is a great privilege to introduce the newest Member of the 110th Congress, the gentleman from the First Congressional District, Rob Wittman.

Rob Wittman has been a public servant for more than 20 years, serving as a town councilman, mayor, county supervisor and board chairman, and member of the Virginia House of Delegates.

Rob holds a doctorate degree in public policy and administration, a master of public health degree in health policy and administration, and a bachelor of science degree in biology. Throughout his career, Rob's wife, Kathryn, a public school teacher, has been at his side. They are the parents of two children, daughter, Devon, and son, Josh.

Madam Speaker, Rob Wittman is ready to get to work following the decades-long tradition of former Congressman and Senator Paul Trible, of former Congressman Herb Bateman, and our beloved Member, who just left us to go home to be with the Lord, Jo Ann Davis, in providing outstanding and dedicated representation in Congress for the people of Virginia's First District.

I present to you the distinguished gentleman from the Commonwealth of Virginia, Rob Wittman.

Mr. Speaker, America must develop a 21st century energy security policy that will reduce energy costs, increase energy independence, encourage energy conservation, strengthen the economy and protect the environment, including steps to cut carbon emissions and address the impacts of climate change. I believe that policy must also include a commitment to invest in clean, renewable energy technology, the responsible exploration of domestic energy sources, an increase in fuel efficiency standards, and the research necessary to develop the fuels of the future.

Today the House considers a bill that is over 1,000 pages, with only 12 hours of notice and only 1 hour of debate. I found it interesting that while the bill was not introduced and made available to members until 8:30 last night, K Street lobbyists provided copies to congressional staff 3 hours earlier.

In the limited time we have had to read the bill, I have found some provisions that I could support. The bill has provisions to invest in research and development of a whole host of renewable resources, promote energy efficiency by the Federal Government, promote energy conservation programs and investment by the private sector in renewable energy generation. If we are ever to become energy independent, those are the kinds of investment we must make.

The bill also has provisions to establish grants to promote public transportation and expand use of alternative fuels, and extend tax credits for energy efficient projects in commercial buildings, production of renewable electricity and investments in solar energy and fuel cells. Earlier this year I voted for the Udall/Platts amendment to require electricity companies to ensure that 15 percent of their electricity is generated by renewable and alternative sources by the year 2020. Renewable energy development is vital to our national security, our economic prosperity and the health of our environment.

Another provision I support and have cosponsored separate legislation will increase automobile fuel economy standards, also called CAFE, Corporate Average Fuel Economy.

But with all these positive steps promoting energy investment, why add provisions that will penalize domestic oil and gas production? America is at the mercy of countries like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela and even China whose governments control oil resources around the world. If we are ever to wean our Nation from foreign sources of energy, we must tap our own energy sources. Congress had an opportunity through this bill to find ways to partner with America's oil and gas producers to provide incentives to encourage alternative energy use and development and to stop the rising costs of gas and oil. Instead, the legislation adds billions in increased taxes which will hurt energy consumers and threaten U.S. jobs. I don't believe any fair-minded person would say that the way to lower prices at the pump is by raising taxes on the companies that find, refine and transport gasoline.

That is no way to promote energy independence. The tax provisions not only increase taxes for domestic drilling, but also include a massive tax increase on U.S. companies producing energy abroad. This will have the effect of placing U.S.-based companies at a disadvantage by reducing their ability to compete for investments in foreign energy projects. This is unacceptable when China, India and Russia are working night and day to corner the market on many of the world's energy resources. In fact, Cuba has sold leases for offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico to China, India, Canada and Spain.

Additionally, I was shocked to see that provisions to promote telework in the Federal Government were removed from the final bill. According to Environmental Defense, 6 billion gallons of oil can be saved if commuters telework just 1 day each week. Most importantly, these telework provisions did not cost a penny.

Just a few weeks ago the Texas Transportation Institute at Texas A&M University released its annual traffic congestion study which found that congestion creates a $78 billion annual drain on the U.S. economy due to 4.2 million lost hours of productivity and 2.9 billion gallons of wasted gas. That's not even considering the air pollutants caused by idling vehicles around the nation. Why did we not consider savings from the telecommuting provisions included in the energy bill passed earlier this year as an offset instead of new taxes on the backs of the American people?

I also have learned that this massive bill includes a $2 billion earmark for the City of New York. I am sure there are other special interest projects that have been creatively air dropped into the 1,061 pages of this bill. With so little time to cull through those pages, though, no one but the sponsors will know before we vote. No wonder the American people have such low regard for Congress.

To truly create an effective energy policy, we must have an open and transparent process for all members and in fact all Americans working together. We cannot achieve energy security by increasing taxes on oil and gas producers, which will cripple our economy and impact the pocketbook of every single American. We cannot create energy policy through wheeling and dealing or thousand page bills released just hours before a vote.

Finding bipartisan consensus in developing energy policy is critical for our Nation's future economy, prosperity and security. Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate must work together so that America can truly start on the path to energy independence that delivers energy security and lower costs for American consumers in a way that also promotes environmental stewardship.

We can do better. We must do better.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my support for H.R. 3887, the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2007. I have long worked to support action on what may be considered the most egregious human rights violation occurring in the world today. I was pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, TVPA, which created an office at the U.S. State Department to monitor trafficking in persons around the world.

The trafficking of people and the effects on victims--mostly women and children--can only be described as evil. In many cases, women and children are misled and forced to move across borders, to live in a foreign country, alone, away from family, friends and any kind of support network. They are then bought, sold, and forced into the sex trade. Billions of dollars are generated each year through trafficking.

Unfortunately, the United States is also a destination for some of these victims. It is shocking to learn about women being held as sex slaves literally in houses and basements that I drive by every day on my way to the Nation's capital. This reauthorization addresses this aspect of international trafficking by protecting victims in the United States from retaliation by those who trafficked them; expanding and revising U.S. criminal violations to allow offenses against international trafficking criminals and sex tour operators; ensuring assistance to U.S. victims of trafficking, and preventing the trafficking of foreign children found in the United States by ensuring that they are not repatriated into the hands of traffickers or abusive families and are well cared for.

The focus and commitment of the administration on this issue is making a difference in Countries around the globe. We still have a long way to go, but this reauthorization bill is a significant step in giving the State Department the necessary tools to combat this appalling practice. It is a privilege for me to support this important legislation.