Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, yesterday I was on an official leave of absence for a medical appointment. Had I been present and voting, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 1082, H.R. 3315, which I cosponsored, to provide that the great hall of the Capitol Visitor Center be known as Emancipation Hall; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 1083, H.R. 1593, which I cosponsored, the Second Chance Act; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 1084, H.R. 3403, the 911 Modernization and Public Safety Act, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 1085, H.R. 3461, Safeguarding America's Families by Enhancing and Reorganizing New and Efficient Technologies Act.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend the important work of Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, Karen Hughes, in light of the announcement that she is resigning. Under Secretary Hughes has led efforts to improve the image of the United States overseas by changing the way the United States engages with the Muslim world.

Under Secretary Hughes has worked tirelessly to build a strong organization within the State Department that future administrations can rely upon. She has dramatically increased the number of Arabic language interviews, created three rapid response centers overseas to respond to news events, and nearly doubled the public diplomacy budget to combat negative perceptions of the United States abroad.

During her time as head of our government's public diplomacy efforts, Under Secretary Hughes has shown a deep commitment to promoting freedom and to encouraging confidence in speaking out about the values we hold dear. I wish her the best in her future endeavors.

I am inserting for the Record Under Secretary Hughes's remarks today at the announcement of her resignation.

Under Secretary Karen P. Hughes

Department of State, Treaty Room

First, I want to thank President Bush and Secretary Rice

for giving me the great privilege of representing our country

abroad and reaching out to the people of the world in a

spirit of respect and friendship.

It's been a special honor to work for Secretary Rice, who

is both a great friend and a great role model. I also want to

thank my outstanding team in public diplomacy--all that we

have been able to accomplish has been due to their work--and

all the people of the State Department--foreign service,

civil service, foreign service nationals, and presidential

appointees. I've learned so much from them and I've been

honored to serve with them in representing America across the

world.

Later this year, in mid-December, I will be returning home

to Texas. I feel that I have done what Secretary Rice and

President Bush asked me to do by transforming public

diplomacy and making it a national security priority, central

to everything we do in government--while also engaging the

private sector more extensively than ever before.

I have spent almost nine of the last 12 years of my career

in government service and after commuting between Washington

and Austin not nearly as often as I would like for the last

two-and-a-half years, I'm looking forward to returning to

private life and living in the same city with my husband.

When I look back at the last couple of years, I'm very

proud of what our public diplomacy team has accomplished.

We've aggressively expanded our programs, fought for and

won increased funding and put in place many innovations and

institutional reforms.

They include aggressive and significantly expanded media

outreach. We've created new regional media hubs, which put

language qualified foreign service officers on television in

key regional media markets of Dubai, Brussels and London. A

new rapid response unit monitors international television and

blogs and issues a daily report to inform policy makers about

what is driving international news, then provides the U.S.

government's position on those issues. We've transformed the

Bureau of International Information programs into a high tech

hub with web sites in English and six languages, created a

digital outreach team that counters misinformation and myths

on blogs in Arabic (soon to add Farsi and Urdu)--and stood up

a new video production unit. Our ambassadors are now

empowered and expected to engage with the media, and every

foreign service officer is evaluated on public diplomacy

activities.

We've put in place extensive new outreach to young people,

teaching English to thousands of high school students in more

than 40 Muslim majority countries. Last summer, we started a

new program to reach an even younger audience--8 to 14-

year-olds, with a summer program teaching English,

computer, arts and sports activates and leadership

training. English teaching gives young people a skill they

desire, a marketable skill, while opening a window to a

wider world of knowledge.

I'll never forget meeting a young man in one of our English

programs in Morocco. I asked him what difference it had made

in his life, and he said: ``I have a job and none of my

friends do.'' He was from the same neighborhood that produced

the Casablanca suicide bombers. In addition to a job, he now

has a hope, a reason to live rather than kill himself and

others in a suicide bombing.

We've engaged Muslim populations through a new program

called citizen dialogue, which sends Muslim Americans

overseas to dialogue with Muslim communities--and we've

brought more than 600 religious clerics scholars and

community leaders from Muslim countries to America to get to

know us better.

We've engaged the private sector more extensively than ever

before--leveraging more than $800 million in partnerships

ranging from disaster relief to education and health programs

to working to make our airports and embassies more welcoming.

We've significantly expanded outreach to women, with a new

breast cancer initiative in the Middle East and Latin America

and a number of business women's mentoring initiatives.

A new partnership with U.S. higher education helped attract

a record number of international students to study in America

and reversed the trend of decline that began in the years

after September 11th. We issued an all time high of 591,000

student visas in 2006 and traveled with university presidents

across the world to encourage international students to come

to America.

Our flagship programs like Fulbright at record highs, we've

restarted exchanges with Iran for the first time since 1979

and participation in our education and exchange programs--

people-to-people diplomacy--has grown from 27,000 in 2004 to

nearly 40,000 today.

I've worked to set a more strategic direction for USG

broadcasting and recruit new leadership for the Broadcasting

Board of Governors and its entities.

We launched a new Global Cultural initiative, expanded

sports programming, sent musical groups like the fusion funk

group Ozomatli abroad with a message of respect for

diversity. We started a new public diplomacy envoy program,

enlisting well known Americans including Olympic skater

Michelle Kwan and baseball Hall of Famer Cal Ripken Jr. to

represent America overseas.

We have implemented a majority of the recommendations from

more than 30 studies of U.S. public diplomacy, including the

comprehensive Djerejian report, and developed the first

inter-agency strategic communications plan for the U.S.

government.

I'm very proud of what we've started, and I will continue

to be a champion of public diplomacy. I will advocate for

more funding and more programs, because I believe it's

vitally important for the future of our increasingly

interconnected world--and especially for the future of our

children. I want to encourage my fellow Americans to engage

with the world, to study abroad, to travel--one of my own

goals in the years ahead is to improve my Spanish.

Secretary Rice, thank you for this opportunity; it's been

an honor and privilege to work for you and with you, and I

thank my great public diplomacy team.

Madam Speaker, we were saddened with the news last week that an outstanding public servant had lost his battle with cancer. Joseph R. Crapa was serving as the executive director of the bipartisan U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) at the time of his passing on October 25. It was my privilege to know Joe and to work with him and his fellow commissioners and the staff at USCIRF in their dedicated efforts to protecting religious freedom throughout the world.

I would like to share the touching remarks our colleague Rep. David Obey gave at Joe's funeral on October 29 at St. Peters Catholic Church on Capitol Hill. Joe had served as Congressman Obey's chief of staff from 1987 to 1997, the last three years as Democratic counsel to the House Appropriations Committee. I also insert for the Record a news release from the USCIRF mourning the passing of its executive director.

We express our deepest condolences to Joe's wife of 40 years, Barbara Vaskis Crapa of Alexandria, Virginia; his son Judd, daughter-in-law Gretchen, and grandsons Sebastian and Baird.

Remarks by Congressman David Obey--Funeral for Joseph R. Crapa

Joe Crapa could do just about everything!

He taught high school.

He represented 1,000 teachers in budget negotiations.

He taught college courses in literature, writing, and

government.

He was a fundraiser, and outreach director for the

congressional Democratic leadership.

He was a key figure in a government relations firm.

He represented three separate government departments in

dealing with Congress--Commerce, USAID, and EPA.

Building on his experience growing up in ``rural''

Brooklyn, he served as staff director for a House Agriculture

Subcommittee.

He was staff director for two of the ``easiest'' people in

Congress to work for--Chuck Schumer and me.

He worked at my side for 10 years.

Finally, he served as Executive Director of the U.S.

Commission on International Religious Freedom.

He did all of those jobs well.

He had a superb professional career! But WHAT he

accomplished professionally in his life is not nearly as

impressive as HOW he did it.

This is a tough and often indifferent town. If you are not

alert, it can wear you down. Temptations always abound to cut

corners and settle for boilerplate mediocrity. But not Joe!!

Joe was a tough, street smart pol in the best sense of that

term, but what epitomized him most of all was his deep

understanding of human nature and his unflagging honesty. I

cannot tell you how many times he said to me, ``Dave, that's

the dumbest idea I've ever heard of.'' And sometimes his

language wasn't that sweet. Joe was determined to strip away

the irrelevant, the secondary, the trivial, in order to reach

the fundamental.

Where did that come from? I think it came from a character

and intellect that was expanded and burnished by his exposure

to the questions that count by the Jesuits and then as a PhD

student in literature, being exposed to the core realities of

human experience.

As a practical, operational public man, he--with no guilt--

accepted the compromises that are the stock in trade in

politics. He understood what Will Rogers meant when he said,

``When two people agree on everything, one of them is

unnecessary.'' He understood, as my great Irish friend John

Hume once told me, that ``in a democracy politics is a

substitute for violence.''

But Joe also had rock hard convictions on a few essentials:

He fiercely believed that the widening gap between the most

privileged and the poor is obscene.

He believed, as Bill Moyers has said, that politics ``must

be more than who gets what; that it should rise above the

merely transactional and become transformational; that it

must even the starting gate so that people equal in humanity

but not in resources have a reasonable opportunity to pursue

a full and decent life.''

He passionately believed that every world citizen had a

right to pursue their religious beliefs free from persecution

or dictation and he was immensely proud of his relationship

at the Commission with those of every philosophical bent,

including Frank Wolf, who was similarly passionate.

He believed in a religion of tolerance and respect.

He worried that politicians could trivialize and cheapen

religion. He did not believe it was legitimate for

politicians to claim God as their own celestial party

chairman, as a fellow New Yorker once warned against.

As Barbara pointed out Saturday, he believed that a

respectful but separate relationship between church and state

was essential to preserve and protect both religion and

democracy.

Joe loved his last job, but I will always see him as a

superb example of so many on Capitol Hill who never serve in

public office, whose name is never on the door, who day in

and day out love their country and try to make this a better

world.

Because I believe so many of you see Joe the way I see him,

I would like to share with you part of a letter I wrote to

Joe when he went into the hospital for the last time:

``Joe--Judd was in my office yesterday and told me the

latest on your health situation. I wish to God you had

received better news. I'm about to leave to catch a plane for

Wisconsin, but before I did I wanted to put a few thoughts

down on paper so that you know how I feel about you.

When I was first interviewing you to run my office, my

first impression in the first 10 minutes we talked was that

there was no way in God's green earth that I could ever

develop chemistry with this fast talking refugee from

Brooklyn. I have been forever grateful that you proved me

wrong.

I hope you know how grateful I am for everything you did

with and for me. . . . I was blessed to have your energy,

know how, insight, judgment, and wisdom. I hate to think how

little I would have accomplished without having you beside me

during these years.

But even more than that, I appreciate the personal support

and friendship you gave me in those years, even down to

today. Politics is a tough life and those of us who live it

know how exposed and vulnerable we all are.

During these years, you were able to give me sound advice

on every front, but the most valuable aspect of your counsel

was the fact that underneath it all was a moral core that was

true to both you and me. That is a special link between

``brothers'' that I hope we both treasure.

You are a great public servant, a great friend, and a great

human being. Thank you for understanding and accepting my

weakness and shortcomings and for enhancing my strengths.

Please know that there are many, many, many people in this

town who feel the same way about you. . .''

And as we say in the House of Representatives, I ask unanimous consent that these sentiments be considered the views of all of you here who knew, respected, and loved him.

USCIRF Mourns Passing of Executive Director Joseph Crapa

Washington.--Joseph R. Crapa, the Executive Director of the

United States Commission on International Religious Freedom,

died Thursday after a struggle with cancer. Mr. Crapa, 63,

had led the Commission since 2002.

``Joe had sharp political instincts but a soft personal

touch,'' said Michael Cromartie, current Chair of the

Commission. ``He had an unwavering, principled commitment to

advancing the work of this bipartisan Commission in

protecting religious

freedom worldwide. Everyone who knew and worked with Joe

found him to be a remarkably committed public servant.''

``We have lost a uniquely talented leader, trusted

counselor and beloved friend to each of the Commissioners,''

said Commission Vice Chair Preeta D. Bansal, who served as

Commission Chair in 2004-2005. ``I respected tremendously his

commitment to the substance of our work and his appreciation

for the critical issues at the juncture of religion and

foreign policy at this unique period in our history. His

sharp political and human instincts and his deep love for

humanity were crucial to our work in this sensitive arena. We

loved him and will miss him dearly.''

``It was an honor to serve on the Search Committee that

recommended Joe Crapa to be the Executive Director of the

Commission,'' said Vice Chair Richard D. Land. ``As a

Republican appointee, I was most happy to enthusiastically

endorse and commend this faithful Democrat who loved America

and loved the freedom for which it stands. He was a tireless

proponent of religious freedom around the world and was

instrumental in making the Commission an extremely effective

voice for religious freedom. It was an honor and a privilege

to have known him and served with him. All of us who knew him

will miss him.''

``Joe Crapa took a newly established Commission, at a

crucial time in U.S. history, and, during his tenure, turned

it into a respected voice on post-9/11 foreign policy and a

source of new research and insights into the influence of

religious freedom and related human rights on world

affairs,'' said Felice D. Gaer, Chair of the Commission in

2002-2003, when Mr. Crapa joined USCIRF, and in 2006-2007.

``Joe's great love of people and respect for religion

transcended all differences. With ebullience and panache, he

effectively directed the Commission through a transformative

period when the salience of the universal and inalienable

right of religious freedom has been demonstrated daily by

world events,'' said Nina Shea, who has served as a

Commissioner since USCIRF's founding in 1999. ``He will

always be an inspiration for me and those who had the

privilege of working with him.''

Prior to coming to the Commission, Mr. Crapa served as

Chief of Staff to Senator Charles E. Schumer (D-NY). Mr.

Crapa spent the four prior years as Assistant Administrator

at the U.S. Agency for International Development. He also

served as Assistant Secretary at the Department of

Agriculture and Associate Administrator at the Environmental

Protection Agency, where his portfolio included Congressional

Relations and Public Affairs.

For 10 years, Mr. Crapa served as Chief of Staff to Rep.

David Obey (D-WI), currently the Chairman of the House

Appropriations Committee, and also as counsel to the House

Appropriations Committee. He was an Adjunct Professor of

Government at Georgetown University (1990-1995) and was a

Stennis Fellow of Congress (1995-1997). He also was a

Lecturer for the Washington Campus, a consortium of

universities where he lectured on Congress and the policy

process.

A native of Brooklyn, New York, Mr. Crapa graduated from

Cathedral College Preparatory Seminary. He received a B.A.

from St. John's University, an M.A. from Duke University, and

a Ph.D. at the University of Arizona, where he was a National

Defense Teaching Fellow.

The Commission extends its most sincere condolences to Mr.

Crapa's wife Barbara, son Judd, daughter-in-law Gretchen,

grandsons Sebastian and Baird, and his extended family.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen. I want to thank the chairman very much for his help and his support and your staff. I also want to honor Mr. Regula, who has probably made such an impact on these issues over the many, many, many years.

I rise in strong support of this. The journey through hallowed grounds is hallowed growth. It begins with Monticello where Jefferson came out and wrote those words ``that all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator.'' Ronald Reagan said those words were a covenant, a covenant with not only Americans but with the entire world.

Then we move up to Antietam, Antietam where President Lincoln took that win, that battle, that victory there of 20,000 deaths and then had the Emancipation Proclamation. That is hallowed ground because when you walk in 1 day, 20,000 people died.

And then we move up to Gettysburg, Gettysburg where President Lincoln, probably the greatest or second greatest President after President Washington, gave that famous speech that made sure the Union came together.

This is hallowed ground. It is areas that we have helped define ourselves and who we are and why we are who we are.

Also in this area is Monroe's house, Oak Hill; Montpelier, President Madison; also Zachary Taylor's home; Eisenhower's farm; Teddy Roosevelt's cabin; Kennedy's house; Marshall's house, who helped devise the Marshall Plan. This will help commemorate, preserve and promote.

Let me read you what David McCullough said. He said, ``This is the ground of our Founding Fathers. These are the landscapes that speak volumes, small towns, churches, fields, mountains, creeks and rivers with names such as Bull Run and Rappahannock. They are the real thing, and what shame we will bring upon ourselves if we destroy them.''

For those who have objected, this is what the bill says: nothing in the subtitle alters any duly adopted land use regulation, approved land use plan or other regulatory authority of any Federal, State, tribal or local agency.

It goes on to say: nothing in this subtitle conveys any land use or other regulatory authority to any local or coordinating entity.

And the bottom line is, this bill cannot and does not affect the rights of any property owner.

In closing, let me say here's what Lincoln said. When Lincoln was in this area he said, ``We cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have hallowed it far above our poor power to add or detract.''

This region, this area is sacred. It is hallow. I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, please pass this bill so we can preserve and protect and promote together, to educate our young people so when they hear the word ``Antietam'' they understood what took place; when they hear about ``Gettysburg'' they understood what took place; when they read the Declaration of Independence, they honor the men who said we give our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

I urge an ``aye'' vote for this and again want to thank Mr. Rahall very, very much and his staff and Mr. Regula for his leadership, not only on this but on all of these park issues and all of these important preservation issues over the many, many years.

Madam Speaker, I want to call to the attention of the House the outstanding public service of Robert C. Thompson of McLean, Virginia, in my congressional district, as he prepares to retire this month.

Mr. Thompson has contributed more than 30 years of public service to our Nation, most recently as Deputy Director for Management and Administration of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, which he helped completely restructure from the ground up following 9/11. He has proven himself a pioneering, tireless leader in the Navy's efforts to combat terrorism around the globe.

Robert Thompson began his career in the Army, where he saw armed conflict in Vietnam, and was stationed in the Republic of

Korea and stateside. After leaving the Army, Mr. Thompson joined the Naval Investigative Service as a special agent in 1976, where he quickly made a name for himself in counterintelligence. He was selected to head counterintelligence operations for the Navy in 1984, and was awarded the National Intelligence Medal of Achievement in December 1990.

In 1994, Mr. Thompson was detailed to the National Security Council, where he helped build the foundation of U.S. counterintelligence strategy. His contributions to this effort permanently improved this Nation's efforts in combating terrorism. During a later tenure as Acting Director of the National Counterintelligence Center, Mr. Thompson was entrusted with performing several high-profile damage assessments on the impact of espionage and security breaches of the highest order of importance to the U.S. government. His exemplary service was recognized with the National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal, the highest award bestowed by the U.S. Intelligence Community, in November 2001.

In retirement, Mr. Thompson looks forward to traveling with his wife, Betty Ann, and enjoying the outdoors with his family. His son, Robert, is currently on his second tour with the Virginia National Guard in the Middle East.

I am proud to call attention to Mr. Thompson's dedication. I congratulate Mr. Thompson on his exceptional performance, leadership, and unfailing commitment to his country. The contributions he has made to the intelligence community will serve as a strong foundation for future success in the global war on terror for years to come.

Madam Speaker, I bring to the attention of the House Mr. Nick Palmiotto, a dedicated soldier, a leader, a father, a husband, a member of my Service Academy Advisory Board and my constituent from Sterling, Virginia, who passed away at the age of 44 on October 6 after a valiant fight against leukemia.

It was an honor to have Nick serve as a member of my Academy Board which assists in the selection of nominees for military academies. As a 1984 graduate of the Naval Academy, Nick recognized the character and integrity that would enable young men and women to become leaders and heroes, much like himself. Nick was the embodiment of what it meant to be a soldier and a true gentleman.

Nick Palmiotto was born on November 18, 1962, in Mount Kisco, New York. After completing high school at the top of his class, Nick attended the Naval Academy and graduated 11th in his class. He was accepted at the prestigious Nuclear Power School and was commissioned as a nuclear power submariner. Shortly thereafter, however, Nick was medically retired from the Navy after learning of a blood disorder that would prevent him from serving at sea.

Upon leaving the Navy, Nick continued his involvement with the military as a defense contractor, developing many high-tech programs which enhanced operations training and helped to save the lives of many soldiers on the battlefield. During the final years of his career he served in support of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Nick was an asset to the community and he will be greatly missed by all those who knew and loved him, including his two children, Kyleigh and Chad, and his wife, Janelle, of 19 years. We send our condolences to his family and friends and salute Nick Palmiotto for his life of service to his country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in full support of H.R. 1721, the Pool and Spa Safety Act. It has been my pleasure to work with Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz during the last two sessions of Congress to bring this legislation to the floor. I applaud Representative Wasserman Schultz for her dedication and fully support the congressional efforts to protect our children from swimming pool accidents.

Every summer we hear the tragic stories of young children involved in harrowing pool accidents. Though pool season is winding down for the year we must push forward and enact legislation to protect our children in the summers to come.

It's tragic that over the last 20 years, we have lost at least 33 children under the age of 14 as a result of pool and spa entrapment. Entrapment occurs when part of a child's body becomes attached to a drain as a result of the powerful suction of a pool or spa's water circulation system. Death or serious injury can occur when the force of the suction overpowers the child's ability to disengage from the drain.

According to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, drowning is the leading cause of accidental injury-related death for children under 4 and the second leading cause of accidental injury-related death of children under 14. However, these figures are very likely understated because law enforcement do not always note ``entrapment'' when reporting a drowning.

In the hundreds of tragic drowning cases across the country each year, simple pool safety precautions could help save these precious lives. But it's important to remember that this legislation is not a federal mandate. Instead, it will encourage states to adopt comprehensive pool safety precautions that will substantially reduce the dangers of accidental drowning, body part entrapment, and hair entanglement. It will also promote swimming pool and spa safety.

We can prevent these tragedies and save our children. I urge the support for the Pool and Spa Safety Act, H.R. 1721.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 717) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it is with profound sadness that we come to the floor tonight to honor the memory of our colleague and friend, the Honorable Jo Ann Davis, who lost her 2-year battle with breast cancer this past Saturday. She was not only our House colleague; she was our Virginia colleague who represented the First District of Virginia, a district which she proudly called ``America's First District'' because of our country's roots at Jamestown and the many significant events in history which occurred there.

Jo Ann Davis also could have had a first next to her name because she was the first Republican woman elected to Congress from Virginia in 2000 to succeed our late colleague Herb Bateman. But that historic aspect of her career in Congress was not important to her. Representing her constituents and being the best Member of Congress she could be for the people of her district, that was what was most important to her.

Her career in elected office spanned 10 short years, from her first election in 1997 to the Virginia House of Delegates to her four elected terms in the House beginning in the year 2000.

But over that decade she made her mark as a deeply caring and very hardworking public servant who believed in common sense and conservative ideals. In remembering Jo Ann's work in Congress, there are several thoughts I would like to share.

She battled to the end with courage and grace in her fight against breast cancer. When she was first diagnosed in 2005 with the insidious disease, she announced it publicly to encourage other women to beware of the disease. Her bravery and personal strength were a source of inspiration to many. She was a person of honesty, integrity, and very strong moral conviction in representing her district and living her life. And she had a very strong commitment to the Lord. She was a dedicated and tenacious fighter for her beliefs, and the importance of her faith was obvious in the way she cared for and treated others and in the way she did her job.

She was a tireless and passionate advocate for the First District in Virginia, working to protect the military interests in her district and Navy shipbuilding in Newport News. She cofounded the Congressional Shipbuilding Caucus as she worked to provide for the defense of our Nation.

But as important as that work was for Jo Ann, protecting the interests of men and women in uniform, their families, and veterans was priority number one.

She also worked hard for other local interests, such as the removal of the ``ghost fleet'' of obsolete, environmentally hazardous ships from the James River; better regulation of the amount of trash coming into Virginia; and protecting the resources of the Chesapeake Bay.

This House and this Nation will miss Jo Ann Davis and her dedication to public service. I want to express my sincere condolences to her staff, both in Washington and in her district, who can be proud of their work by her side for the people of America's First District. Jo Ann Davis had an outstanding staff, and I want to thank the staff.

I also want to join with my colleagues in expressing profound sympathy to Jo Ann's husband, Chuck; and their two sons, Christopher and Charles; and a granddaughter.

In remembering Jo Ann Davis and her life of service to others, I am reminded of the words of Scripture where it says: ``Well done, good and faithful servant.''

Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a news article and editorial from the Newport News Daily Press about our late colleague, the Honorable Jo Ann Davis.

[From the dailypress.com, Oct. 8, 2007]

The Unlikely Politician--The Self-Described Country Gal Preferred

Horses to the Capitol Hill Party Circuit

(By David Lerman)

She was, by her own admission, an unlikely politician.

Virginia Rep. Jo Ann Davis, who died of breast cancer

Saturday at age 57, was more at ease with her beloved horses

on her Gloucester farm than the cocktail party circuit on

Capitol Hill.

The self-described country gal and former real estate agent

fell into a congressional career almost by accident. It took

church connections, perseverance and the sudden withdrawal of

the leading Republican Party favorite to propel Davis to the

office she first won in 2000.

``I could have cared less about politics,'' she recalled in

a 2003 interview. ``I did not know there was a Republican

Party committee in Virginia.''

But since becoming Virginia's first female Republican

member of Congress, Davis learned her role quickly and, many

agreed, managed to make the 1st District House seat her own:

When obsolete, environmentally hazardous ships started

mushrooming in the James River off Fort Eustis, Davis fought

for federal funding to speed up their removal--and made

significant progress.

When state and local officials complained about the barrage

of trash coming into Virginia landfills from other states and

littering state highways, Davis pushed for legislation to

limit interstate waste.

While that effort stalled, she won approval of a measure

establishing a series of random safety inspections for waste

haulers.

When military personnel and federal employees complained of

inadequate benefits, Davis won passage of legislation

increasing the life insurance benefits paid to survivors of

military members killed on duty.

And when Pentagon budgets forecast a steady decline in the

size of the Navy's fleet, Davis sounded the alarm.

A staunch advocate for the thousands of shipyard workers in

her district, she co-founded the Congressional Shipbuilding

Caucus and pushed legislation, albeit unsuccessfully,

mandating a larger fleet.

``At a time when people have such a negative impression of

Washington, Jo Ann Davis was a refreshing reminder that there

are people here who do their best for their constituents,''

said Christopher Connelly, her chief of staff.

``A lot of the issues she worked on were local issues. She

didn't get lost in the Washington glamour.''

While seldom a major player on national policy matters,

Davis won respect from Republicans and Democrats alike for

her ability to delve into local concerns and to stay true to

her beliefs.

``While we had different political loyalties, we had no

differences in our efforts to work together for the Hampton

Roads area,'' said Rep. Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, D-Newport

News.

Davis'' rise to political power was as unconventional as it

was unlikely.

Unlike her predecessor in office, the late Rep. Herbert H.

Bateman, Davis lacked the traditional credentials and years

of political grooming that typically foreshadow a

congressional career.

No prestigious university or law-school degree appeared on

her resume.

The daughter of a Hampton city bus driver, Davis came from

modest roots that stood in contrast to those of many of her

wealthier colleagues in Congress.

After graduating from Hampton Roads Business College in

1971, she went to work as an executive secretary for a real

estate firm before becoming a stay-at-home mom.

She later got her real estate license and opened Davis

Management Co. in 1988, followed by Jo Ann Davis Realty in

1990.

All the while, Davis was becoming a deeply religious

person.

When her mother-in-law suffered a fatal heart attack, Davis

has said, she had a born-again experience and then joined the

Assembly of God church.

Through her church, Davis met Brenda Pogge, a fellow real

estate agent and local GOP activist, who encouraged her to

enter politics and invited her to her first Republican mass

meeting.

``She was my sister in the faith,'' Pogge said. ``She was

my friend, my boss and then my congresswoman. Jo Ann was such

a role model.''

In 1997, at Pogge's steady urging, Davis reluctantly agreed

to challenge a 15-year Democratic incumbent in the General

Assembly and won, despite being outspent roughly 3 to 1.

In 2000, when Bateman announced his retirement and then

died in office, Davis launched her upstart campaign for

Congress.

The odds seemed stacked against her because of formidable

opposition for the Republican nomination, led by former

Newport News Mayor Barry DuVal.

But when DuVal withdrew from the race, Davis had an

opening. She faced a grueling five-way party primary but

emerged victorious with 35 percent of the vote.

Her general election victory was then little in doubt

because of the 1st District's strong Republican tilt. She

easily won re-election repeatedly, as she did last year.

Because of her faith, Davis has said, she remained an

outspoken conservative voice on social issues.

She co-sponsored a constitutional amendment banning gay

marriage and took a purist position on abortion, opposing it

even in cases of rape, incest or when the mother's life is

endangered.

``It's just who I am,'' she once said. ``I believe what I

believe. I didn't know I was called a right-winger.''

If there was a historic aspect to Davis' career, it was in

her becoming the first Republican woman to win a House seat

from Virginia. Former Rep. Leslie Byrne of Fairfax was the

first Democratic woman.

But Davis bristled at such gender-based distinctions, which

she regarded as irrelevant. ``It shouldn't matter if you're

male or female,'' she once said. ``I'm just a member of

Congress, like they are.

``No different.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time to the gentlewoman from Virginia, Thelma Drake.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).

I yield such time as he may consume to Mr. Lincoln Diaz- Balart.

I am going to yield to Mr. Cantor. We have been told we can do one more, but we will resume after the votes for anyone that is interested and is listening. But before we go to the votes, I recognize Mr. Cantor from Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) for as much time as he may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode).

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentlelady from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt) for the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H. Res. 717.

Mr. Speaker, I think for those who are watching, you've seen this Congress at its best, to see people from both sides of the aisle come together, and that is a tribute to Jo Ann.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to extend a warm welcome to our guest chaplain, the Reverend Elton Van Welton of Leesburg, Virginia.

Reverend Van Welton is the senior pastor of Crossroads Baptist Church. In the two short years he has been at Crossroads, the church membership has grown dramatically, and its rate of financial giving to world missions to the poor and to the hungry has increased by over 500 percent. He has also worked to establish many local ministries, such as Saving Addicts for Eternity, which partners with local Narcotics Anonymous groups to provide spiritual guidance to those struggling with addiction.

Pastor Van Welton first joined the ministry in 1999 after receiving a master's in divinity from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. Before his career as a pastor, Reverend Van Welton received his juris doctorate from Regent University and was a practicing attorney in the Commonwealth of Virginia before he received his call to the ministry.

I commend Rev. Van Welton for his dedication to spreading the word of the gospel and for his faithful service to our community in northern Virginia. It is a blessing to have him here today to serve as our guest chaplain.

Mr. Speaker, last evening I came to the House floor to talk about one of the most critical issues facing our Nation today.

Our country's financial outlook is desperate. How do we stop the red ink and the bleeding? How do we come together as Republicans and Democrats and make certain that the American people don't suffer for our out-of-control spending?

I'm talking about entitlements and other mandatory spending. How do we change course? Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security combined with interest on the national debt will consume all of the government's revenue by the year 2026.

According to the GAO, balancing the budget in 2040 would require cutting total Federal spending by 60 percent or raising taxes by 2\1/2\ times today's level. Both would devastate the economy.

The longer we wait to get serious about this reality, the harder and more abrupt the adjustments will be for the American people.

I ask every colleague in the House, how will you feel when there isn't enough money for medical research, for cancer research, for Alzheimer's, for Parkinson's, or for autism? How will you feel when you know it was today's Congress, this Congress that we all have the honor to serve in, that passed the buck to the next generation, that avoided the issue, and said it was just too hard?

I'm challenging every Member of this House to come together, to know that while we served in Congress, we did everything in our power to provide the kind of security and way of life for our children and our grandchildren that our parents and our grandparents worked so hard to provide us.

Congressman Jim Cooper, a Democrat from Tennessee, and I have come together because we know what is at stake. We have a bill that we believe is the way forward to help stop the bleeding. And, quite frankly, I would say to my friends on both sides of the aisle the American people desperately want to see us working together, Republicans and Democrats, to deal with these important issues.

The bipartisan SAFE Commission will send its recommendations to Congress. We will have an up-or-down vote

similar to the base closing process, which we now have in effect in the Congress, on getting our financial house in order.

There are other ideas, too. I am inserting Robert Samuelson's op-ed in today's Washington Post. He hits the nail on the head when he talks about the need for bipartisan work, a bipartisan panel, to help us do our job. ``Everything else has failed,'' he says.

I urge you to think about this issue and the real problem we face now. Not an issue for next week or next month or the next Congress but an issue for this Congress. An issue for now.

In the song by Simon and Garfunkel, ``The Boxer,'' it says, ``Man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.'' I urge us to tell the American people not what they want to hear but what they need to hear. And I urge us to come together and work in a bipartisan way for our young people, for our children, for our grandchildren, and for all Americans.

[From the Washington Post, Oct. 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.

Madam Speaker, today my colleague Rep. John Sarbanes is joining with me in introducing a resolution to promote the establishment of National Telework Week and provide an opportunity to encourage more employers to consider telework for their employees. Telework should be a regular part of the 21st century workplace. The best part of telework is that it improves the quality of life for all.

Nearly 20 million Americans telework today, and according to experts, at least 40 percent of American jobs are compatible with telework. Telework reduces traffic congestion and air pollution. It reduces gas consumption and our dependency on foreign oil. Telework is good for families--working parents have flexibility to meet everyday demands. Telework provides people with disabilities greater job opportunities. Telework helps fill our Nation's labor market shortage. It is also a good way for retirees to pick up part-time work.

Companies save significantly when they have a strong telecommuting program. At one national telecommunications company, nearly 25 percent of its employees work from home at least one day per week. The company found positive results in the way of fewer days of sick leave, better worker retention, higher productivity, and increased morale.

According to a George Mason University (Fairfax, VA) study, for every 1 percent of the Washington metropolitan region workforce that telecommutes, there is a 3 percent reduction in traffic delays. George Mason University completed another study which suggests that on Friday mornings there is a 2 to 4 percent drop in traffic volume in the Washington metro region, a so-called ``Friday effect.''

This is promising news because it means that with just a 1 to 2 percent increase in the number of commuters who leave their cars parked and instead telework just one or two days per week, we could get to the so-called ``Friday effect'' all week long.

Just a few weeks ago the Texas Transportation Institute at Texas A&M University released its annual traffic congestion study which calculates 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.

I have stated before that work is something you do, not someplace you go. Hopefully we can make telework as commonplace as the morning traffic report. There is nothing magical about strapping ourselves into a car and driving sometimes up to an hour and a half, arriving at a workplace and sitting before a computer. We can access the same information from a computer in our living rooms. Wouldn't it be great if we could replace the evening rush hour commute with time spent with the family, or coaching little league or other important quality of life matters?

It is time that employers give telework a shot. National Telework Week is an ideal time for employers, for just one day during one week of the year to allow employees to work from home or an alternative work site. I know that telework may not work for every job. But, there are jobs today that lend themselves to telework for which employees make the trip into the office every day of the week. Resources abound to help employees and employers set up appropriate telework programs for their businesses. Calculations also can show savings to the environment, the employer and the employee.

I encourage everyone around the Nation to give telework a chance, find out what it's about and how it can help make your business, our environment and our communities better.

Madam Speaker, I hope our colleagues will consider signing on as a cosponsor of this resolution to promote telework and provide choices for employees and savings for employers.

Madam Speaker, last Tuesday Congressman Jim Cooper and I reintroduced the SAFE Commission Act, and I'm hopeful that by joining efforts our colleagues in the House and the Senate will embrace this bipartisan commission that could put our country on sound financial footing.

U.S. Comptroller General David Walker, the Heritage Foundation, the Brookings Institution, the Concord Coalition and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget all support the Cooper-Wolf SAFE Commission Act.

These groups also have joined on what they call ``The Fiscal Wake-Up Tour,'' which has been traveling across

America from San Francisco to Cincinnati laying out the facts about the future financial condition of our country, discussing possible options and preparing the way for tough choices that those of us in Congress are going to have to make.

When you look at this tour, you see groups who usually disagree more than they agree on policy issues. That makes it even more extraordinary that they all agree that we need to sit down and work together to make sure our country doesn't fall into a financial canyon that we can never climb out of.

That's the message that is resonating with folks who hear them: the need to come together and work to find bipartisan answers to ensure a secure financial future for America.

What the tour has told us, too, is that we shouldn't underestimate the willingness and ability of the American people to hear the truth and support the decisions necessary to change our financial course, and that's encouraging.

Many of you may recall the Simon and Garfunkel song, ``The Boxer,'' with the refrain, ``Man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.'' The Fiscal Wake-Up Tour offers hope that with education Americans may be more ready than we think to accept the fact that Federal spending cannot continue to balloon without consequences. It is time that we tell the American people what they need to hear and not just what they want to hear. ``The Boxer'' song, ``Man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.''

Thirty years from now we won't be arguing in Congress over discretionary spending anymore because there will be no funding left in that category.

I'm not an expert in economics, but simple math tells us that little money will be left to ensure that our highways and bridges are safe, that there will be no money for cancer research and to solve the riddles of Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, that there won't be money to care for veterans.

Resources will be scarce to ensure our schools are the best in the world so that our children and grandchildren can get the necessary tools, particularly in math and science, to compete in the world marketplace.

We owe it to our young people to start the process today. Reining in spending is both an economic and it is a moral issue.

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.

We cannot continue to borrow and mortgage our future to countries like China, which has a terrible human rights record and has plundered Tibet, and has Catholic bishops in jail and Protestant pastors in jail and others in jail, or the Saudi Arabia that is funding Wahabism around the world, that they carry obscene amounts of our debt.

But I'm going to be candid. Congress, on its own, unfortunately can't get it done in this politically charged atmosphere of Washington today. The Congress today is dysfunctional. The latest public opinion polls perhaps validate my assessment.

The American people expect us to put our partisan differences aside and to work together to get things done. We must move beyond the politics and come to grips with the fact that the financial future of our country is an American issue. It's not a red issue or blue issue. It's a red, white and blue issue. It's an issue that, as Americans, we should be working together to deal with.

Under the SAFE Commission process, Congress is the ultimate decisionmaker obviously, but it will be the SAFE Commission, after holding hearings across the country, listening to the American people and putting everything on the table for discussion, entitlements and tax policies, which will send its recommendations to Congress for a mandatory up-or-down vote, similar to what we do on the base closing commission.

Congress will be the major part in the SAFE process. It will be at the table. We even hold out hope that Congress could find its way and act on its own.

First, at least four of the 14 congressionally appointed commission members must be sitting Members of Congress.

Second, if Congress enacts significant legislation aimed at addressing this looming crisis, the SAFE commission would terminate and cease to exist.

We hope this happens, but, quite frankly, I don't think it will. Abraham Lincoln once said: ``You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today.''

I believe there is a moral component to this issue that goes to the heart of who we are as Americans. By that I mean have we lost a national will to make the tough decisions.

The SAFE Commission offers us the opportunity to find a way forward to protect our future. Is it right for one generation to live very well knowing that its debts will be left to be paid for by their children and their grandchildren? No, it is not right, but it is immoral.

I'm challenging our colleagues today to come together--to know that while you served in Congress you did everything in your power to provide the kind of security and way of life for your children and grandchildren that your parents and grandparents worked so hard to provide for you.

The challenge, too, goes out to the leadership in Congress and the Administration to make this a truly bipartisan effort and put the SAFE Commission on the fast track to enactment.

How can we lack leadership on such a fundamental issue?

Leadership by definition requires taking initiative--to act before others, to develop fresh approaches.

This issue is timely and critical.

I urge you to review the bipartisan Cooper-Wolf legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to bring attention to the Syrian human rights activist Riad Seif. Mr. Seif is a former Member of Parliament and a prisoner of conscience held by the Syrian Government, one of hundreds like him who are prohibited from leaving Syria to see family, pursue education, or seek medical care. Mr. Seif desperately needs medical attention and should be allowed to leave Syria to seek this care.

I call upon the Syrian Government to immediately lift the travel ban against Mr. Seif and others who are prevented from leaving Syria because of their stand for freedom and human rights. Mr. Seif should be released to seek the medical care that he so urgently needs.

Madam Speaker, I am deeply concerned about the financial future of our Nation. Yesterday, Representative Jim Cooper and I introduced the SAFE Commission Act, H.R. 3654, legislation that would establish a bipartisan commission to review Federal spending. Everything would be on the table--entitlements and tax policies-- mandating Congress to vote up or down based on the commission's findings. Democrats and Republicans must work together to ensure that our country regains sound financial footing. I insert for the Record my statement from the press conference introducing the SAFE Commission Act.

Thank you for being here today. I am hopeful that by

joining efforts with Jim Cooper, our colleagues in the House

and Senate will embrace this bipartisan commission that can

put our country on sound financial footing.

I also want to thank you, David Walker, for your vision and

your courage in laying the groundwork for the legislation we

offer today.

David and the others participating in the Fiscal Wake-up

Tour--the Heritage Foundation, Brookings Institution, Concord

Coalition, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget--have

been crisscrossing America from San Francisco to Cincinnati,

from Tampa to Buffalo--laying out the facts about the future

financial condition of our country, discussing possible

options and preparing the way for tough choices that those of

us in Congress are going to have to make.

When you look at this tour ensemble, you see groups who

usually disagree more than they agree on policy issues. That

makes it even more extraordinary that they all agree that we

need to sit down and work together to make sure our country

doesn't fall into a financial canyon that we can never climb

out of. That's the message that is resonating with folks who

hear them--the need to come together and work to find

bipartisan answers to ensure a secure financial future for

America.

What the tour has told us, too, is that we shouldn't

underestimate the willingness and ability of the American

people to hear the truth and support the decisions necessary

to change our financial course.

We owe it to our children and grandchildren to start the

process today. 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

and obligations and unsustainable spending. We cannot

continue to keep borrowing and mortgaging our future to

countries like China and Saudi Arabia that carry obscene

amounts of our debt.

But the question is asked, why the SAFE Commission? If this

is such a critical issue, shouldn't Congress deal with it?

Yes, it is a critical issue--maybe the most important one

facing our country. And yes, it is the responsibility of

elected officials to act.

Our financial issues are real. 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.

But I'm going to be candid--Congress on its own can't get

it done in the politically charged atmosphere in Washington

today. I describe Congress today as dysfunctional. The latest

public opinion polls perhaps validate my assessment.

The American people expect us to put our partisan

differences aside and work together to get things done. We

must move beyond the politics and come to grips with the fact

that the financial future of our country is an American

issue. It's not red or blue or Republican or Democrat.

Under the SAFE Commission process, Congress is the ultimate

decision-maker.

But it will be the SAFE Commission, after holding hearings

across the country, listening to the American people, and

putting everything on the table for discussion--entitlements

and tax policies--which will send its recommendations to

Congress for a mandatory up-or-down vote like the BRAC (The

Base Closing Commission) process to decide what military

bases to keep open or close.

Congress will be part of the SAFE process--has a place at

the table. We even hold out hope that Congress could find its

way and act on its own. First, at least four of the 14

congressionally appointed commission members must be sitting

Members of Congress. Second, if Congress enacts significant

legislation aimed at addressing this looming crisis, the SAFE

Commission would terminate and cease to exist. We hope this

happens, but, I doubt it will.

Abraham Lincoln once said, ``You cannot escape the

responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today.'' I believe

there is a moral component to this issue that goes to the

heart of who we are as Americans. By that I mean, I wonder if

we have lost the national will to make tough decisions that

may require sacrifice?

The SAFE Commission offers us the opportunity to find our

way forward to protect the future of our country.

My youngest grandchild is just over a year old. By the time

he is 15 years old, 29 cents out of every dollar paid in

income taxes will be required to cover the needs of Social

Security and Medicare to pay for my retirement.

By the time he completes his undergraduate degree, more

than 45 cents out of every dollar of income taxes then will

be needed to cover the shortfall of Social Security and

Medicare. That will rise to 62 cents out of every dollar if

he decides to get his doctorate 10 years later.

Sadly, before he retires--and looks into the eyes of his

own grandchildren--retired baby boomers will be consuming 88

percent of every income tax dollar. With the baby boomers

consuming so much, there will be little money left to meet

the needs and challenges of future generations--for instance

ensuring that our highways and bridges are safe, that there

is money for cancer research and to solve the riddles of

Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, that we can take care of our

veterans, that we have the resources to ensure our schools

are the best in the world so our children and grandchildren

get the necessary tools, particularly in math and science, to

compete in the world marketplace.

Is it right for one generation to live very well knowing

that its debts will be left to be paid for by their children

and grandchildren?

I'm challenging our colleagues today to come together--to

know that while you served in Congress you did everything in

your power to provide the kind of security and way of life

for your children and grandchildren that your parents and

grandparents worked so hard to provide for you.

The challenge, too, goes out to the leadership in Congress

and the administration to make this a truly bipartisan effort

and put the SAFE Commission on the fast track to enactment.