Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to bring attention to the book Alms for Jihad, coauthored by J. Millard Burr and Robert O. Collins. This seminal work details the use of Islamic charities to fund terrorist activity around the world.

The book's publisher, Cambridge University Press, agreed to pulp all unsold copies of ``Alms for Jihad'' in the face of a defamation lawsuit by Saudi billionaire Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz. The publisher also sent letters to 280 libraries around the world, asking them to insert an erratum slip or withdraw the book from their shelves. Since March 2002, bin

Mahfouz has sued or threatened to sue at least 36 times against individuals in England who have linked bin Mahfouz to terrorist financing and activities.

``Alms for Jihad'' reaches back into history, particularly into Sudan where much of the activities of fundamentalist Islamist groups found their origins, and traces them to the modern-day struggle against extremist forces around the world. We cannot understand the current war on terror, which extends far beyond the terrible events of September 11, without examining the chronology and details of this issue.

I have enclosed the author's response to the lawsuit, and encourage our colleagues to obtain and read this important book.

Saudi Billionaire vs. Cambridge University Press: No Contest

On 3 April 2007 Kevin Taylor, Intellectual Property Manager

for the Cambridge University Press (CUP), contacted Millard

Burr and myself that the solicitors for Shaykh Khalid bin

Mahfouz, Kendall Freeman, had informed CUP of eleven

``allegations of defamation'' in our book Alms for Jihad:

Charities and Terrorism in the Islamic World and requested a

response. On 20 April CUP received our seventeen page

``robust defence'', but it soon became apparent that CUP had

decided not to defend Alms for Jihad given ``knowledge of

claims from previous litigation'' and that ``the top-line

allegations of defamation made against us by bin Mahfouz are

sustainable and cannot be successfully defended . . .

certainly not in the English courts, which is where the

current action arises.'' Of the eleven points of alleged

defamation ``we [CUP] could defend ourselves against some of

his individual allegations . . . which, as you say could

hardly be deemed defamatory on its own,'' but on pp. 51-52

where you use the phrase `` `The twenty supporters of Al

Qaeda' followed by the Golden Chain references . . . is

defamatory of him under English law.'' The Golden Chain was a

list of twenty wealthy Saudi donors to al-Qa'ida which

included the name ``Mahfouz'' on a computer disk seized

during a raid by the Bosnian police and U.S. security agents

of the Sarajevo office of the Saudi charity, the Benevolent

International Foundation (Bosanska Idealna Futura, BIF).

On 9 May 2007 CUP agreed to virtually all of the Shaykh's

demands to stop sale of the book, destroy all ``existing

copies,'' prepare a letter of apology, and make a ``payment

to charity'' for damages and contribute to legal costs. After

further negotiations the press also agreed, on 20 June 2007,

to request 280 libraries around the world to withdraw the

book or insert an erratum slip. During these three months of

negotiations Millard and I had naively assumed that, as

authors, we were automatically a party to any settlement but

were now informed we ``are out of jurisdiction'' so that CUP

had to ask ``whether of not they [the authors] wish to join

in any settlement with your client [Mahfouz].'' On 30 July

2007 Mr. Justice Eady in the London High Court accepted the

abject surrender of CUP which promptly pulped 2,340 existing

copies of Alms for Jihad, sent letters to the relevant

libraries to do the same or insert an errata sheet, issued a

public apology, and paid costs and damages.

The crux of this sordid and sorry saga lies firmly in the

existing English libel law which is very narrow and

restrictive compared to its counterpart in the United States

with a long history and precedent of ``good faith'' protected

by the First Amendment, absent in English jurisprudence. In

effect, CUP was not prepared to embark on a long and very

expensive litigation it could not possibly win under English

libel law in the English High Court, known to journalists the

``Club Med for Libel Tourists.'' Laurence Harris of Kendall

Freeman was quite candid. ``Our client [Shaykh] Mahfouz chose

to complain to Cambridge University Press about the book

because the book was published in this jurisdiction by them''

where he had previously threatened to ``sue some 36 U.S. and

U.K. publishers and authors'' and in which Shaykh Mahfouz had

previously won three suits for the same charges of his

alleged financing of terrorism. Even Justice Eady's pious

pronouncements about ``the importance of freedom of speech''

were of little relevance before the weight, or lack thereof,

in English libel law he rigorously enforced.

This was the first time that Shaykh Mahfouz had brought

suit only against the publisher that did not include the

authors, for ``our client [Shaykh Mahfouz] took the view that

they [CUP] were likely to deal with his complaint sensibly

and quickly, which they did,'' rather than include the

authors who would not. As American authors residing in the

U.S., we were ``out of jurisdiction'' and under the

protection of the U.S. Courts, specifically the unanimous

ruling by the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in June

2007 that Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld could challenge in a U.S.

Court the suit previously won against her by Shaykh Mahfouz

in Justice Eady's High Court in London thereby establishing a

defining precedent in U.S. jurisprudence. Dr. Ehrenfeld is

the director of the American Center for Democracy in New York

whose book, ``Funding Evil: how terrorism is financed--and

how to stop it,'' published by Bonus Books of Chicago in

2003, describes how Shaykh Mahfouz helped finance al-Qa'ida,

Hamas, and other terrorist organizations in greater detail

than ``Alms for Jihad.'' Although her book was not sold in

Britain, Shaykh Mahfouz secured British jurisdiction by

demonstrating that ``Funding Evil'' could be purchased or

read on the internet by British citizens. When she refused to

defend the case in the London High Court, Justice Eady

declared for the plaintiff and ordered Dr. Ehrenfeld to pay

$225,000 damages. She then chose to confront the Shaykh and

seek redress in the U.S. Court system.

Millard Burr and I had adamantly refused to be a party to

the humiliating capitulation by CUP and were not about to

renounce what we had written. ``Alms for Jihad'' had been

meticulously researched, our interpretations judicious, our

conclusions made in good faith on the available evidence. It

is a very detailed analysis of the global reach of Islamic,

mostly Saudi, charities to support the spread of fundamental

Islam and the Islamist state by any means necessary. When

writing ``Alms for Jihad'' we identified specific persons,

methods, money, how it was laundered, and for what purpose

substantiated by over 1,000 references. I had previously

warned the editor at CUP, Marigold Acland, that some of this

material could prove contentious, and in March 2005 legal

advisers for CUP spent a month vetting the book before going

into production and finally its publication in March 2006. We

were careful when writing ``Alms for Jihad'' not to state

explicitly that Shaykh Mahfouz was funding terrorism but the

overwhelming real and circumstantial evidence presented

implicitly could lead the reader to no other conclusion.

Court records in the case of U.S. vs. Enaam Arnaout, Director

of the Benevolent International Foundation and close

associate of Osama bin Laden, accepted as evidence the

``Golden Chain'' which the British High Court later refused

as evidentiary. The Mawafaq (Blessed Relief) Foundation of

Shaykh Mahfouz and its principal donor was declared by the

U.S. Treasury ``an al-Qaida front that receives funding from

wealthy Saudi businessmen'' one of whom was the designated

terrorist, Yassin al-Qadi who ``transferred millions of

dollars to Osama bin Laden through charities and trusts like

the Muwafaq Foundation.'' It appears very strange that the

founder of his personal charity and its major donor had no

idea where or whom or for what purpose his generosity was

being used.

Although the reaction to the settlement by CUP has been

regarded by some, like Professor Deborah Lipstadt at Emory

University, as a ``frightening development'' whereby the

Saudis ``systematically, case by case, book by book'' are

shutting down public discourse on terrorism and intimidating

publishers from accepting manuscripts critical of the Saudis,

there still remains the free exchange of ideas, opinions, and

written text in the world of the internet protected by the

First Amendment. Ironically, the eleven points of the Mahfouz

suit against CUP amount to little more than a large footnote,

a trivial fraction of the wealth of information in ``Alms for

Jihad'' that cannot be found elsewhere. The Shaykh can burn

the books in Britain, but he cannot prevent the recovery of

the copyright by the authors nor their search for a U.S.

publisher to reprint a new edition of ``Alms for Jihad'' for

those who have been seeking a copy in the global market

place.

Madam Speaker, I want to call to the attention of the House the outstanding public service of Raul Danny Vargas to his fellow citizens of Virginia's 10th Congressional District.

Danny took the helm of my 10th District Hispanic Advisory Committee when it was created over 2 years ago. As its first chairman, he has directed the group's efforts in providing a forum for issues of interest to the Hispanic community in northern Virginia and advising me on ways to assist the community and respond to its unique concerns.

Through his extraordinary leadership, the group's membership as well as its outreach to the community have grown and advanced. Danny has led the committee in advising me on issues of importance to the Hispanic community, such as the infiltration of gangs in our community and how to respond. He led the advisory panel in organizing a gang prevention town hall meeting conducted in Spanish in the Herndon community. The committee also has addressed education and immigration issues of importance to the growing Hispanic population in northern Virginia.

Danny is living the ``American Dream.'' He was raised in a single parent home along with three other siblings by his mother, who immigrated to America from Puerto Rico. Danny served his country as an Air Force intelligence officer before launching his own company, VARCom Solutions, a full-service marketing, sales, and communications support company located in Herndon. An active leader in the business, Hispanic and at-large communities, he has served as chairman of the Dulles Regional Chamber of Commerce. He also was appointed as a board member for two non-profit organizations in northern Virginia--Northern Virginia Family Service and the Fairfax Partnership for Youth, lending his expertise in marketing, communications, media, and public relations to these organizations and their missions to serve the needs of families and youth in the region.

Danny Vargas is a proven and respected business and community leader. As he turns over the reins of the 10th District Hispanic Advisory Committee, I want to thank him on behalf of the people of the 10th District for his hard work and dedication to making the 10th District a better place to live and work and raise a family.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 497, which expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that Rebiya Kadeer's children should be immediately released from detention, and that the Chinese Government should refrain from further persecution of the Uyghur people. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this resolution and believe strongly that the Chinese government must be pressed on these points.

The China of today is not progressing, Madam Speaker, it is regressing. It is becoming more violent, more repressive, and more resistant to basic values of human rights and religious freedom. The Chinese government tortures and imprisons Catholic bishops, Protestant church leaders, Muslim worshipers, Falun Gong followers, and Buddhist monks and nuns just because of their faith and systematically destroys churches and confiscates Bibles. It persecutes the Uyghur people, cutting them off from the outside world as it pursues a policy of cultural liquidation.

Rebiya Kadeer is a brave soul who has stood up to this violence and repression. She has suffered so much at the hands of the Chinese Government, and yet does not recoil in fear. For her bravery, the Chinese Government has retaliated by capturing and imprisoning her children who remained behind in China. They have been held at unknown locations, interrogated, and very possibly tortured.

A couple of years ago, the FBI identified Chinese secret police following Rebiya Kadeer and spying on her at her Fairfax home. The Chinese Government will stop at nothing to silence those who oppose its brutal tactics against its own citizens.

I urge the House to adopt this resolution, and to demand that the Chinese Government cease its persecution of the Uyghur people and immediately release Rebiya Kadeer's children from detention.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3096, the Vietnam Human Rights Act of 2007, a bill which I am pleased to cosponsor. Introduced by my good friend and colleague, Representative Chris Smith of New Jersey, a champion of human rights in this House, this is an important measue which speaks to the deteriorating state of human rights in Vietnam.

After joining the World Trade Organization in January 2007, the politburo of the Vietnamese Communist Party (VCP) has carried out a large-scale brutal campaign of arrest against the nascent movement for democracy in Vietnam. Ignoring all international criticism and strenuous protests of the Vietnamese people, inside Vietnam and abroad, the communist regime in Hanoi has shamefully pushed ahead with its crackdown. Among others, the following events were particularly disconcerting to me:

On February 18, 2007, the second day of the Lunar New Year, which is the most sacred time in Vietnamese culture, the communist security forces raided Father Nguyen Van Ly's office within the Communal Residence of the Hue Archdiocese. Father Ly was later banished to a remote, secluded area in Hue.

On March 8, 2007, Reverend Nguyen Cong Chinch and his wife were brutally assaulted by security forces of Gia Lai Province in the Central Highlands, who then arrested Reverend Chinch on undisclosed charges.

Also on March 8, 2007, two prominent human rights activists and lawyers, Mr. Nguyen Van Dai and Ms. Le Thi Cong Nhan, were arrested in Hanoi and were told that they would be detained for four months as part of an undisclosed investigation.

On March 9, 2007, Mr. Tran Van Hoa, a member of the People's Democracy Party in Quang Ninh Province, and Mr. Pham Van Troi, a member of the Committee for Human Rights in Ha Tay, were summoned by security forces and threatened with ``immeasurable consequences'' if they do not stop their advocacy for human rights in Vietnam.

Also on March 10, 2007, state security forces also raided the home of Ms. Tran Khai Thanh Thuy, a writer, on the grounds that she advocated for ``people with grievances'' against the government. They took away two computers, two cell phones, and hundreds of appeals that she had prepared for victims of the government's abuses.

On March 12, 2007, lawyer Le Quoc Quan, a consultant on local governance for the World Bank, Asian Development Bank, UNDP, and Swedish International Development Agency, was arrested in his hometown, Nghe An, less than a week after he returned from a fellowship at the National Endowment for Democracy in Washington, D.C. His whereabouts are unknown at this time.

On April 5, 2007, the Vietnamese authorities in Hanoi rudely prevented Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) from meeting with several dissidents' wives at a gathering organized at the U.S. Ambassador's home. The police reportedly used very hostile and undignified manners to intervene in the meeting.

Furthermore, the Hanoi communist regime is still imprisoning many political dissidents and labor advocates such as Huynh Nguyen Dao, Truong Quoc Huy, Nguyen Tan Hoanh, Doan Huu Chuong, and more than 350 lay people of the Protestant churches in the Central Highland.

I share the concerns of the Vietnamese-Americans in my district, as well as all across the country, who are very angered and distressed by what they perceive as a new and aggressive plan of the Hanoi government to reverse the progress of human rights in Vietnam. It seems to me that the Vietnamese government is conducting this crackdown on advocates of human rights and religious freedom because it believes that the U.S. has no further leverage in the region. Now that Vietnam has been admitted to the WTO, and met with the Holy See, they believe they can respond in this brutal fashion to supporters of democracy and freedom and we will not respond.

Throughout my years in Congress, I have worked to foster human rights and religious freedom throughout the world. I have raised this issue with U.S. government officials often, especially since this recent crackdown, in an effort to pressure the Vietnamese government to stop persecuting its citizens. I believe the State Department should consider putting Vietnam back on the list of Countries of Particular Concern if the human rights situation in Vietnam does not improve. I believe that the State Department is failing the Vietnamese people struggling for human rights, and is not doing all that it can do to advocate on behalf of the Vietnamese people. The Vietnamese people should be able to choose their own leaders through free and fair elections and to use the Internet freely without censure or restrictions.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a unanimous vote for passage of this legislation so that the Vietnamese people will know that the U.S. House of Representatives stands in support of their freedom.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with our colleagues today to pay tribute to the lifetime of public service of our late colleague Paul Gillmor of Ohio.

I know this House today is in shock at the devastating news of Paul's passing just last night. I join in expressing profound sympathy to Paul's family--his wife Karen, two daughters Linda and Julie, and three sons, Paul Michael, and twins, Connor and Adam. Our thoughts and prayers are with them.

Paul, who began his 10th term in the House in January, chose a noble life of serving his country. A graduate of Ohio Wesleyan University and the University of Michigan Law SchooI, he attained the rank of captain while on active duty as an Air Force judge advocate during the Vietnam War. Before coming to Congress as the representative of the 5th District of Ohio, he diligently served the people of Ohio for 22 years in the Ohio Senate. As a state senator, he was unanimously elected Republican leader five times, and served as president of the Senate for three General Assemblies.

Paul was a respected member of this House and friend to those on both sides of the aisle. He Ioved this institution and worked hard for the people of his district and for all Americans not only on national issues, but he also was unanimously elected in 2006 by representatives of the 26 NATO countries to serve as vice president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, in remembering Paul Gillmor and his proud life of public service, I am reminded of the words of scripture in Matthew 25: ``Well done, good and faithful servant.''

This House and this Nation will miss the service of Paul Gillmor. God bless you, Paul, and God's blessings on your family and many friends and constituents in Ohio.

Madam Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of the House the recent passing of a former Senate staffer and reporter, John Jay Geddie, of Sterling, Virginia, in my congressional district. I knew John for more than 15 years and always enjoyed reading his weekly columns. He died August 22, 2007, at Inova Fairfax Hospital of kidney failure and pneumonia related to the treatment of cancer. He is survived by his wife of 44 years, Shannon LaNelle Geddie of Sterling; a son, John L. Geddie of Reston, and a brother Michael Geddie of Kilgore, Texas.

Below is an excerpt of remarks read at his funeral last week in Leesburg. Written by his son, these words truly capture who John was and what was important to him.

Certainly, most of the people here are most familiar with

dad through his work here at the Loudoun Independent. The man

could write well and he was always quick with a story or a

good one-liner. He never felt that professionalism could be

glossed over simply because it was a local paper covering

mostly local news.

My grandmother told a story about dad that I think says a

lot. The boys were obliged to work during summers. One

summer, my grandfather had gotten him a job hauling pulp

wood. Apparently, the heavy labor under the summer Texas sun

did not sit well with him. Dad came home exhausted and

covered in sweat and told his mother that it was his

intention to get a job where ``I have to wear a suit every

day.'' Apparently, no one expects you to sweat when you're in

a suit.

That reporters wear suits must have played some part in his

calculations. While his mother wanted him to be a preacher,

he managed to avoid this while still maintaining her love and

support. Dad graduated from Marshall High School and went on

to earn his journalism degree at East Texas State University.

ETSU is now affiliated with Texas A&M University and known as

Texas A&M-Commerce. That my dad retroactively became an Aggie

is an irony that only Texans will understand.

After graduation, he went off to work at the San Angelo

Standard-Times as a reporter. During this period, dad was

drafted into the army. His active duty lasted for 18 months,

where he served as a specialist at Fort Knox, Fort Hood, and

Fort Carson. As a `soldier-of my acquaintance' recalled it,

the closest he ever came to combat was throwing a stick at a

passing helicopter.

Dad stayed at the San Angelo Standard-Times for several

years. During this time, he started dating another reporter

at the paper--Shannon LaNelle Harris. The pair married and

the marriage lasted for 44 years. Not long after they were

married, the young couple adopted their first needlenose dog.

As regular readers know, it was the first of many.

From 1962-1972, dad worked for the Dallas Morning News. He

was among the reporters to cover the assassination of

President John F. Kennedy and the murder of Lee Harvey

Oswald. Later, he covered the appeals process of Jack Ruby.

Originally a believer in the Warren Report and the single

bullet theory, he was less certain as time went on. When

asked about a conspiracy, he said `I just don't know.'

In 1972, he became the Washington Bureau Chief for the

Dallas Morning News, covering both state and national news

until 1981. During this period, Dad covered the political

scene in depth, being among the very first to break the story

of President Richard Nixon's resignation. He covered both the

Democratic and Republican conventions of 1976 and 1980, as

well as the campaign trips of President George H.W. Bush and

Howard Baker.

After leaving the Dallas Morning News, he became

administrative assistant to Congressman Abraham 'Chick' Kazen

(D-TX) and later served as a speechwriter for the U.S. Senate

Committee on Environment and Public Works, serving closely

with Senator Lloyd Bentsen (D-TX). During this time, dad also

began working as the Editor of the Loudoun Easterner, a small

direct-mail newspaper in Loudoun County. He eventually

retired from Washington to pursue this full-time. Very few

people are able to do what they love for so long.

Under his stewardship, the Loudoun Easterner gained a loyal

following in Sterling and the surrounding areas. His unique

perspective and humor made him a fixture in the county.

Working with Publisher Beth Miller was a great experience for

dad. The pair of them could be seen lunching every day and it

is difficult to imagine closer friends. Her death was hard on

everyone, but dad took it especially hard. Wounds heal

though, and his relationship with Beth's daughters Amy and

Allyson grew even stronger.

In 2005, he and Amy Burns started up a new paper, the

Loudoun Independent. Dad proved that he still had the skill

to produce a first rate paper.

My dad was diagnosed with skin cancer in March. By the time

of the diagnosis, the cancer had already spread in the area

of his neck and lymph nodes. While not immediately life

threatening, treatment required a combination of radiation

and chemotherapy. At no time was he in pain and dad went into

work at the paper every day until almost the very end.

Eventually the treatment weakened him enough so that his

kidneys failed and the extra stress on his body made it

impossible for him to recover from pneumonia and septic

shock.

Ever since I was a boy and my dad started working at the

Easterner--and later the Loudoun Independent, we knew that he

was not to be bothered on Mondays and Tuesdays. The paper

goes to the printer on Wednesday morning, so you have to

work until everything is done. My dad died on a Wednesday

morning. I don't go much for symbolism in life, but I

wonder at it. Tuesday is over and your labors are

complete. On Wednesday, you can sleep in and rest--then

get ready to start all over again.

In retrospect I do feel blessed to have had John Geddie in

my life for so long. More than that, I'm thankful for those

last months we had together. Having been designated as his

driver/companion for all medical trips, I was able to spend

almost every day with him for the last three months. As

people get older, sometimes they forget why they love their

parents. Those last three months reminded me.

Dad had something of a mantra when the conversation turned

to his health or potential dangers. He'd raise his hand, tilt

his head and say, ``Don't worry about me. I've had a good

life.'' He said it in a light way, but something in his tone

inevitably ended the conversation. While incredibly

frustrating at the time, it's a comfort to us now.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Arcuri amendment.

This amendment simply authorizes the use of State eminent domain authority rather than Federal eminent domain.

For those on our side, referencing for our side, this is, this is a States' rights amendment. I urge Members on my side to support the Arcuri amendment.

I want to say congratulations to Mr. Albright.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply authorizes the use of State eminent domain authority rather than Federal eminent domain authority when siting federally approved transmission lines.

This amendment is vital to the protection of the landscapes in my district by recognizing State and local conservation easements and designations. In the 10th District of Virginia, which I represent, these designations protect the lands that George Washington surveyed, that inspired Thomas Jefferson, and that Chief Justice John Marshall farmed.

Millions of Federal, State, local and private funds have been used to preserve and protect the lands now threatened by the designation of a National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor which authorized the Federal Government to override state transmission siting authority.

We must give these lands this limited protection. I urge you to support this commonsense amendment to protect our private citizens and our national treasures.

Mr. Speaker, I went to the Rules Committee yesterday for the fourth time since January asking that my amendment be made in order to allow the House to discuss and vote on the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group as the way forward in Iraq.

For the fourth time this year, the Rules Committee said no. I can only assume from that action that the Democrat leadership instead prefers to continue to lock down the House and deny the opportunity to take the bipartisan road on Iraq policy.

On the question of finding solutions in Iraq, this House cannot continue to just blindly follow the White House or the leadership of the Congress.

The Washington Post has editorialized that the debate on Iraq in recent weeks is all about political gamesmanship. Every member in this House knows that's true and that is what's been going on here. More importantly, I believe that the American people know what's going on. Just look at the polls on where Congress stands.

We owe it to the men and women in our armed forces who are putting their lives on the line every day in Iraq to at least take the time to discuss the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group.

We also owe it to their families.

We need to have a honest, true debate on the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group.

To not vote on the recommendations of such a distinguished group that took over eight months looking at this issue and talking to dozens of military officers, regional experts, academics, journalists and high- level government officials from America and abroad just doesn't make sense. Take a look at the Iraq Study Group report for the extensive lists of those who advised the ISG, including the military senior advisor panel--retired Navy Admiral James O. Ellis, Jr., retired Army General John M. Keane, retired Army General Edward C. Meyer, retired Air Force General Joseph W. Ralston, and retired Army Lt. General Roger C. Schultz, Sr.

As I have said time and time again, the Iraq Study Group is the way forward and what I believe is the best and most appropriate way to be successful in Iraq.

It was bipartisan and all of its 79 recommendations were unanimous.

Two of its members--Lee Hamilton, the co-chair, and Leon Panetta-- served in this body. Two others--Alan Simpson and Chuck Robb--served in the Senate.

Co-chair Jim Baker and Lawrence Eagleburger served as secretary of State.

Bill Perry was President Clinton's secretary of Defense.

Bob Gates served on the panel for seven months--stepping down to become the current secretary of Defense.

H.R. 2574, the Iraq Study Group Recommendation Implementation Act of 2007, which was the basis of the amendment I asked to be made in order under the bill we are debating today, has 59 cosponsors--34 Republicans and 25 Democrats.

We all know the war has created a bitter divide in our country. The ISG allows us to come together.

I will say it again: the best way forward is for both the Congress and the president to embrace the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group.

Mr. Speaker, in the final analysis, it comes down to doing the right thing. The question is, when will the leadership in Congress show the courage that the American people expect and do the right thing--not for me or for the members of this House, but for the thousands of brave men and women serving in uniform, their families and the good of our country?

Madam Speaker, I rise in honor of the late Dr. John Garang de Mabior, known to those close to him as ``Dr. John.'' Dr. John was president of the Government of Southern Sudan and chairman of the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army, SPLM/A. Yesterday was the second anniversary of Dr. John's sudden death in a helicopter crash.

Dr. John led a heroic life, leading the South of Sudan through the decades-long war with the tyrannical northern government eventually to peace, culminating in the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement on January 9, 2005. The southerners saw him as their founding father, their leader, their inspiration. Dr. John transformed his guerilla movement into an organized rebel force, and then into a political party, and eventually into a partner in the coalition government with the North. His influence over the South's destiny was clear; his leadership set the country on a track toward an agreement to share Sudan's vast wealth and power.

While Dr. John's passing deeply saddened us all, those who desire a bright future for Sudan hold in their memories the strength of Dr. John's character, and his strong and abiding belief that Sudan will indeed one day find peace.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act. I want to thank Congressman Lee for her leadership in this effort; also Chairman Frank for his effort to move this thing and not just talk about it, but actually get it out; also Congressman Bachus and Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen for their effort.

I also want to thank all of the young students around the country who have participated in this whole disinvestment thing. When the whole tide was running against them, they went against the tide, and this language, this legislation, will enable them now to move.

Genocide continues. 400,000 to 450,000 have died. There are 2.5 million in camps, many in Chad. Now, the Sudanese government, I heard on Friday, are giving the right for people in Chad to come back, not Sudanese but people from Chad, to come in and take over much of the land, some of the land, up to 90,000 that belongs to the people of Darfur.

The previous speaker just said the U.N. failed. Wow, the U.N. failed so much. The U.N. failed in Srebeniza. They stood by and allowed the Serbs to come in and commit genocide in Srebeniza. The U.N. failed. And Kofi Annan, who was really head of U.N. peacekeeping, and he failed while he just stood by and allowed the genocide to take place in Rwanda. Kofi Annan and the U.N. failed and history has to show it. It has to show that the people at the U.N. failed to deal with this issue of genocide.

When Senator Brownback and I were there with the first group, we came back and asked Kofi Annan to go. He had not actually been there before. This has been a failure. And because of Congresswoman Lee and Chairman Frank and others coming to demonstrate the United States is committed to doing something that can really make a difference and not just a resolution that calls something something and nothing ever happens.

The Chinese have failed. We cannot hide the fact. Every time you purchase a piece of furniture or food or whatever and it says ``Made in China,'' this is the government that has helped bring you the genocide in Darfur. Their Olympics in 2008 will be a monument to their genocidal activity and effort. Period. Period. They've even hired people to put on a good show similar to what Nazi Germany did, Hitler did, in the Olympics in the thirties. They could have singlehandedly stopped the genocide. The President of China went to Sudan and we all thought that he was going to announce that he had put pressure on the Sudanese government. He announced that he was building them a new palace. China, after the Government of Sudan, is the number two country responsible, history will show, responsible.

Lastly, because of the efforts of Congresswoman Lee, hopefully now all of the Governors and the State legislatures, including my own, which did it in the Senate but not in the House, will now feel released and there will be no excuse to pass these, the same way that the State of New Jersey did under the leadership of Don Payne and the people there. The same way that California did. The same way that Illinois did. Many States have been reluctant. They have looked for excuses to find out. This legislation takes away all the excuses and hopefully this time next year after all the legislatures have had an opportunity to act, there will be a rollcall and all 50 legislatures will have participated and made this State law whereby the disinvestment takes place around the world.

Again, I thank Congresswoman Lee. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. There ought to be a rollcall vote on this. I don't know what the intentions are, I'm not involved in it, but there ought to be a rollcall vote because they will look to see. One, it will be interesting to see if anyone votes ``no'' on it, but secondly I think the Chinese will look, the Bashir will look, the Khartoum government will look, and lastly the people in the camps will find out that the United States Congress has done something to really make a difference.

Madam Speaker, I have a longer speech today which I will insert for the record, but I want to highlight some of the key points.

During the debate over granting China permanent normal trade relations status, proponents argued that economic liberalization would lead to political liberalization in China, that exposing China to the West's ideas and values would lead them to play a more constructive role in the international community, and that the U.S. and other industrialized nations could influence China through economic activity to better respect the rights of its citizens to fundamental human rights.

Instead, we have seen why the protection of basic liberties should not come second to economic growth. The China today is worse than the China of yesterday, or of last year, or of the last decade.

And now, in addition to all of the horrible things the Chinese government does to its own citizens, it is doing to other countries' citizens as well.

Just read the headlines:

Toothpaste from China containing an industrial solvent and prime ingredient in some antifreeze.

Chinese-made Thomas the Tank children's trains slathered in lead- based paint, a substance that is toxic if swallowed.

Unsafe food products from China including prunes tinted with chemical dyes, dried apples preserved with a cancer-causing chemical, scallops and sardines coated with putrefying bacteria, and mushrooms laced with illegal pesticides.

Five types of farm-raised shrimp and fish from China banned by the FDA because they are so contaminated from unsafe drugs in China's polluted waterways.

Malfunctioning fireworks from China responsible for critical injuries, including in my hometown of Vienna, Virginia on July the 4th.

Chinese-made tires sold without a critical safety feature that prevents the tread from separating from the tire.

Within a year, China will also be the biggest source in the world of greenhouse gases from all the new coal-fired power plants being built.

I could take several 1-hour special order speeches to detail China's egregious human rights record:

Slave labor camps;

Religious persecution, including torture and imprisonment of Catholic bishops, Protestant church leaders, Muslim worshipers, Falun Gong followers, and Buddhist monks and nuns;

Human organ harvesting and selling;

Sophisticated system of espionage against the U.S. government and American businesses;

World's leading producer of pirated products.

Then there's China's foray into Sudan, selling weapons to the very government orchestrating the genocide in Darfur.

And despite all of these abhorrent acts, China was still awarded the honor of hosting the 2008 Olympics.

Where is the outrage over China's unacceptable behavior in the Congress and in the administration? The facts are before us. The United States can no longer say that things are improving in China.

Next time you make a purchase and you see the words ``Made in China,'' think of the poisoned toothpaste, the contaminated food, the polluted waterways and airspace, the exploding tires, malfunctioning fireworks, the human rights abuses, and the intimidation of religious leaders.

Madam Speaker, imagine a country where factory workers have no workplace safety, labor or environmental protections and are required to work 80-hour weeks for no more than $110 per month to produce goods for export.

Imagine a country which boldly supplies missiles and chemical weapons technology to countries that support or harbor terrorists.

Imagine a country that oversees a network of espionage operations against American companies and the U.S. government.

Imagine a country which tortures and imprisons Catholic bishops, Protestant church leaders, Muslim worshipers, Falun Gong followers, and Buddhist monks and nuns just because of their faith and systematically destroys churches and confiscates Bibles.

Imagine a country which has a thriving business of harvesting and selling for transplant kidneys, corneas and other human organs

from executed prisoners who are thrown in prison with no trial or sentencing procedures.

Imagine a country which maintains an extensive system of gulags-- slave labor camps, also known as the ``laogai''--as large as existed in the former Soviet Union that are used for brainwashing and ``reeducation through labor.''

Sadly, none of this is imaginary. Such a nation exists. It is the People's Republic of China.

Sadly, too, that's just part of the list of egregious actions.

In 2006, the Chinese government arrested 651 Christians that we know of. Currently, China has 6 Catholic bishops in jail and another 9 under house arrest. Renowned human rights advocate Rebiya Kadeer has watched from exile as the Chinese government arrests and beats her family members in her homeland.

Late last year, western mountain climbers captured on videotape a horrifying scene: Chinese police shooting from their North Face tents at a group of Tibetan refugees crossing Nangpa Pass. A 17-year-old Buddhist nun was killed and several others were wounded.

There are some who assert that human rights are something that should come once stability has been attained. They say that protection of human rights comes second to attaining economic power and wealth. We must reject that notion.

During the debate over granting China permanent normal trade relations status, proponents argued that economic liberalization would lead to political liberalization in China, that exposing China to the West's ideas and values would lead them to play a more constructive role in the international community, and that the U.S. and other industrialized nations could influence China through economic activity to better respect the rights of its citizens to fundamental human rights and the unfettered practice of their faith.

Instead, we have seen why the protection of basic liberties should not come second to economic growth. The China of today is worse than the China of yesterday, or of last year, or of the last decade. China is not progressing. It is regressing. It is more violent, more repressive, and more resistant to democratic values than it was before we opened our ports to freely accept Chinese products.

And now, in addition to all of the horrible things the Chinese government does to its own citizens, it does to other countries' citizens as well. It poisons children in Panama, the Dominican Republic, and Australia, with toothpaste containing an industrial solvent and prime ingredient in some antifreeze. This toothpaste was marketed under the brand name ``Mr. Cool.''

Some 1.5 million wooden toys in the Thomas the Tank Engine line of children's trains were recalled after manufacturers discovered that the Chinese-made toys were slathered in lead-based paint, a substance that is toxic if swallowed.

China continues to send American consumers adulterated and mislabeled food products, including prunes tinted with chemical dyes, dried apples preserved with a cancer-causing chemical, scallops and sardines coated with putrefying bacteria, and mushrooms laced with illegal pesticides.

Food and Drug Administration inspectors who traveled across the world to investigate the recent mass poisoning of U.S. pets stemming from tainted pet food from China arrived at two suspected Chinese factories, only to find the factories had been cleaned out and all equipment dismantled.

On June 28, the FDA banned the import of five types of farm-raised shrimp and fish from China because they are so contaminated from unsafe drugs in China's polluted waterways.

A recent NPR story described how garlic from China outsold garlic grown in California for the first time last year. China began dumping garlic at U.S. ports below cost in the 1990s. Hefty tariffs kept the garlic imports at bay for a few years, but since 2001, imports of Chinese garlic have increased fifteen-fold.

Several Fourth of July celebrations in my district, including in my hometown of Vienna, VA, included malfunctioning fireworks that injured 11 people, including children and an infant. These fireworks came from China.

Some 450,000 imported tires were recalled from Foreign Tire Sales after it was discovered that the Chinese-made tires were sold without a critical safety feature that prevents the tread from separating from the tire. A blown tire can cause the driver of the vehicle to lose control of his or her car and crash.

China is one of the world's leading producers of unlicensed copies of goods ranging from movies and designer clothes to sporting goods and medications. According to the Motion Picture Association of America, 93 percent of DVDs sold in China are unlicensed copies. The MPAA, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other industry groups say that despite stricter Chinese enforcement, product piracy is growing amid China's booming economic expansion.

China is building a new coal-fired power plant every week and within a year will be the biggest source in the world of greenhouse gases. It is building factories and infrastructure all over the developing world, but we have no solid data on China's plans or programs. A recent editorial in The Washington Post reported that World Bank experts estimate that toxic air and water in China kill some 710,000 to 760,000 Chinese each year.

During a recent visit to Sudan, Chinese President Hu Jintao promised to build a new palace for the Sudanese president, Omar al-Bashir, despite Bashir's role in orchestrating the ongoing genocide in Sudan's Darfur region. This is in addition to the recent Amnesty International report that China is selling weapons to the Sudanese government, which are then being used to kill and maim innocent civilians in Darfur.

China bullies neighboring Taiwan, repeatedly threatening to launch missiles from the mainland for Taiwan's refusal to accept China's claims of sovereignty over the democratically governed territory.

And despite all of these abhorrent acts, China was still awarded the honor of hosting the 2008 Olympics. The Olympic Games: an event designed to lift up ``the educational value of good example and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles,'' according to its own charter. Does China's behavior sound like a ``good example'' to the rest of the world? Or that it is reflecting ``fundamental ethical principles'' that all nations should aspire to?

Amnesty International reports that the Chinese government is rounding up people in the streets of Beijing that might ``threaten stability'' during the Olympic Games, and is detaining them without trial. Human Rights Watch reports that the Chinese government is tightening restrictions on domestic and foreign media, in an effort to control what information leaks out about China's repressive and violent nature during coverage of the Olympics.

China has even gone so far as to claim it will ``force rain'' in the days leading up to the Olympics, in order to have clear skies for the Games. They intend to fire rocket shells containing sticks of silver iodide into Beijing's skies, provoking a chemical reaction that will force rain--despite mixed reviews on the soundness of this science.

China's desperation to conceal its true character leading up to the Games smacks of the Nazi bid for the Olympic Games. Analysts are likening the 2008 Beijing Olympics to the 1936 Olympics, in which Nazi Germany soft-pedaled its anti-Semitic agenda and plans for territorial expansion, fooling the international community with an image of a peaceful, tolerant Germany under the guise of the Olympic Games.

Like the Nazi regime in 1936 Berlin, the Chinese government is preparing for the Olympics by hiring U.S. firms to handle public relations and marketing for the 2008 Beijing Olympics.

Where is the outrage over China's unacceptable behavior? The facts are before us. The United States can no longer say that things are improving in China.

But China would have America and the world believe that is the case. China has hired a number of large lobbying firms in Washington, DC to push China's agenda with the U.S. government. Documents from the Department of Justice show these lobbyists as having a significant presence on Capitol Hill, including almost 200 meetings with Member offices between July 1, 2005 and December 31, 2006.

America must be a country that stands up for basic decency and human rights. America must speak out on behalf of those who cannot speak for themselves--men and women who are being persecuted for their religious or political beliefs. Our foreign policy must be a policy that helps promote human rights and freedom. Not a policy that sides with dictators who oppress their own citizens.

Next time you make a purchase, and you see the words ``Made in China,'' think of the poisoned toothpaste, the contaminated food, the polluted waterways and airspace, the exploding tires, malfunctioning fireworks, the human rights abuses, and the intimidation of religious leaders. Remember that China poses a threat not only to its own citizens, but to the entire world.

American businesses have an opportunity to capitalize on China's failure to protect the safety of its food exports. American businesses should seize this opportunity by reclaiming their place in the global market. The United States government and American consumers must be vigilant about protecting the values that we hold dear.

Mr. Speaker, I rise against the resolution, and I rise in support of the Iraq Study Group.

Most Americans favor the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. In fact, most Members of this body also favor the Iraq Study Group, but all would favor its consideration. I have asked the Rules Committee on three different occasions to make the Iraq Study Group recommendations in order, and I have been denied.

Let me say that we ought not blindly follow the White House, nor we ought not blindly follow the Democratic leadership in Congress. The American people have a very low opinion of this institution, as Mr. Thornberry just said, because all they see us doing is attacking, dividing, and using political rhetoric.

The American people want us to come together. A majority of your side have said they support the Iraq Study Group. A majority of my side have said they support the Iraq Study Group. Lee Hamilton, Jim Baker, Leon Panetta, and Ed Meese have done an outstanding job. They have 41 experts of all political views that have come together.

This body ought to be voting and debating the Iraq Study Group and not a resolution that is preordained that it will be vetoed.

Let's come together. Let's bring it up for a vote, but to blindly follow the White House or to blindly follow the Democratic leadership that will not give this up, we will continue to have the lowest opinion poll this Congress has ever had. The American people deserve better. The men and women who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan deserve better, and their families deserve better.

The 79 recommendations of the Iraq Study Group provide a comprehensive blueprint for dealing with the war in Iraq. Its conclusions were the result of consensus, and most people favor implementing the bipartisan panel's recommendations.

Members of the administration, albeit anonymously, have been quoted as saying the ISG is the way to go. Members of the military have looked favorably on the report. And so have both sides of the aisle here in Congress.

H.R. 2574, which would codify the recommendations of the report, and whose lead sponsor is a Democrat, has 58 cosponsors. 34 Republicans are on the bill; and there are 24 Democrats.

Look who served on the panel: Jim Baker, Lee Hamilton, Lawrence Eagleburger, Vernon Jordan, Ed Meese, Leon Panetta, Sandra Day O'Connor, Chuck Robb, Alan Simpson and Bill Perry. Secretary Gates served until being appointed Secretary of Defense.

The panel took nearly 9 months to come up with its 79 recommendations--which were all agreed to unanimously.

The ISG met with military officers, regional experts, academics, journalists and high-level government officials from America and abroad.

Congress should have opportunity to debate--and discuss--the merits of the Iraq Study group's recommendations.

It is not adequate to just blindly follow the whims of the White House or the Democrat Leadership in Congres. We need to be working together toward building a consensus on this issue rather trying to score political points.

The American people expect more. The men and women serving in uniform deserve more. So do their families.

They want to see us the Congress, the administration and the nation working together; not fighting each other.

Implementing the 79 recommendations of the Iraq Study Group is the one thing we can do that could have an impact.

I have tried three times now to get this Congress to adopt the recommendations of the ISG. Each time my efforts have been rebuffed by the Rules Committee. If we had acted back in January, we wouldn't be here today. I realize the war has created a bitter divide in our country. The ISG allows us to come together.

Madam Speaker, it is an honor to recognize Captain Don Orndoff, a native of Winchester, in the 10th Congressional District of Virginia, for his distinguished career as he retires from the United States Navy.

Captain Orndoff served our country not only as a Navy Civil Engineer Corps Officer for 29 years, but also as Naval Facilities Engineering Command Assistant Commander for Navy Public Works and Navy Public Works Business Line Leader. Captain Orndoff graduated from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University and has done tours in such places as Pearl Harbor, San Francisco and Yokosuka, Japan.

After being chosen to lead a Navy Installation Command and Naval Facilities Engineering Command transformation Captain Orndoff implemented a dramatic restructuring and transformation of all NAVFAC components. He reduced their required workforce by 1,100 civilian positions and increased productivity 13 percent, directly resulting in over $600 million in savings and creating the most comprehensive and fundamental reorganization of the command in more than three decades.

As the Navy Public Works Business Line Leader, Captain Orndoff successfully led over 9,000 civilian and military employees and contractors, executing an annual workload of $3.6 billion for the Navy's global shore installation system.

I am proud to call attention to Captain Orndoff's service to our country through a career marked by inspirational moral courage, exceptional vision and relentless leadership. I also commend him and his family for their dedication to patriotism and their contributions to the United States Navy, and wish them well in the future.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time, I am going to withdraw the amendment, but I would be remiss if I didn't take this opportunity to call to the attention the financial storm and the tsunami that is off the coast ready to hit our Nation.

Our Nation's Federal fiscal policy remains unsustainable, and in last Thursday's Washington Post, Comptroller General David Walker referred to what called to a ``tsunami of spending'' that will result in ``very rough seas, like we've never seen before in this country.''

If Congress is not proactive in addressing the mounting entitlement costs and fiscal outlook 30 years from now, we won't be here deciding how to spend discretionary funds in an appropriations bill, there won't be any money left for anything. In 2006, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, consumed 40 percent of the budget. That percentage will jump to 51 percent in 10 years, and there will be a devastating impact on the country.

In less than 20 years, there will be no money for student loans, transportation funding, national parks or cancer research or autism research, just to name a few.

More than $2.6 billion a day is needed to fund the savings shortfall, which has left us with nearly 40 percent of our GDP in foreign hands. The Saudis hold

a lot of our debt, the Saudis hold a lot of our debt. The Chinese hold a lot of our debt.

On Tuesday, the Budget Committee held a hearing on foreign holdings of U.S. debt, and the vulnerability of our economy. The CBO director testified that increases in foreign holdings accounted for about 86 percent of total Federal borrowing last year.

We should care about that. We should care that the Saudis hold this debt, the Chinese that hold this debt. China is the largest single source of financing for the current U.S. account deficit. While the U.S. falls deeper and deeper into debt, other countries are saving. Although China usually gets most of the attention, it's also Saudi Arabia. Fifteen of the hijackers for 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia, Iran and Kuwait.

This amendment incorporate to expedite a national commission, eight members from each side to come together. This place is a partisan, political pit. There is no opportunity in this Congress to resolve these issues.

We can't even decide when we are going to adjourn around here sometimes. So what we take is eight Republicans, eight Democrats come together, put everything on the table. Everything has to be on the table, including tax policy.

This Commission would make recommendations and would hold public hearings around the country where the American people could have input. They will come back.

What makes this different than most others is that this would be like the base closing commission. It would require a vote to be taken by the Congress.

But 10 years from now, 20 years from now, when many of our people are going to be sitting on the rocking chair, having served in this Congress, and editorials and the newspaper headlines say ``Nation in crisis,'' we are going to ask, what did we do?

I have written a number of Dear Colleague letters. We are up to 31 cosponsors, Members cosponsored this. We need eight Members from each side, everything on the table, recommendations would come back, require the Congress to vote. But for our children and for our grandchildren, I would ask that we do this.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask to include a Washington Post article by David Broder and also some other material in support of the idea.

[From washingtonpost.com, Feb. 1, 2007]

Deficit Day of Reckoning

(By David S. Broder)

Next Monday is the real day of reckoning for President Bush

and this new Democratic Congress. That is the day the

president sends his budget for next year up to Capitol Hill,

and you really will be able to judge by the reaction what

will happen in Washington in the next 9 months.

Last year, when the budget came out, Democrats hooted in

skepticism and many conservative Republicans expressed dismay

at the size of the projected deficits. In the end, the House

and Senate could not agree on a budget resolution, and the

government went on autopilot in terms of domestic spending,

continuing at the same level as the year before.

This year, as I learned from conversations with two senior

White House officials last week, the president hopes his

budget will become a starting point for serious negotiation--

not a partisan football or simple laughingstock.

That hope was encouraged by a letter to the president last

week from the Democratic leaders of the House and Senate,

Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Harry M. Reid, and the chairmen of

the two budget committees, Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. and Sen.

Kent Conrad.

The first sentence said, ``We are writing to express our

strong interest in working cooperatively with you to address

our Nation's fiscal challenges.'' It acknowledged that as the

process unfolds, ``Democrats and Republicans will disagree

about particular priorities, and we will need to negotiate

our differences in deciding how to allocate scarce

resources.''

But it put forward four principles that could lead to a

successful budget outcome this year.

``The budget should account realistically for projected

federal costs,'' including the billions needed for the wars

in Iraq and Afghanistan and the adjustments needed in the

alternative minimum tax, which otherwise would punish

millions of middle-class families.

``The budget should realistically project short- and long-

term deficits,'' as objectively as the calculations of the

Congressional Budget Office, which show the prospect of very

large deficits if current tax and spending policies are

unchanged.

``The budget should provide detail throughout the entire

budget period,'' making clear the hard choices that lie

ahead.

``The budget should be based on fiscal discipline that is

sustained over the long term,'' underlining the fact that it

will take years of effort to repair the damage done to our

fiscal condition in the past 6 years.

The House took an important first step in repairing our

fiscal health last month by reimposing the ``pay-go'' rule,

requiring any increase in entitlements or tax relief to be

balanced with tax increases or spending cuts.

While not endorsing these specific principles, the White

House officials with whom I met certainly pledged to make

visible the costs of the war and to be specific about the

trade-offs needed to maintain budget discipline, both in the

short term and the long term.

They said that the economic assumptions underlying the

president's budget are modest--if anything, an underestimate

of the revenue likely to be produced by a growing economy.

And the officials indicated that the president will recommend

that, for a second year in a row, overall growth in

discretionary domestic spending--the part separate from

Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security--be held close to

zero.

If Monday's budget fulfills those promises, the stage could

be set for a serious effort to put the federal fiscal house

in order.

But the warning voiced in an interview by Rep. David R.

Obey of Wisconsin, the chairman of the House Appropriations

Committee, must be borne in mind. Obey recalled that when the

late Rep. Richard Bolling of Missouri invented the

congressional budget process, he said, ``It will work only if

all the key players--in Congress and the administration--use

honest figures and make a genuine effort to live within its

discipline. Otherwise, the budget process will become a

barrier to action.''

If the congressional budget process breaks down, two

Republicans, Rep. Frank R. Wolf of Virginia and Sen. George

V. Voinovich of Ohio, have proposed a commission of

legislators and experts to tackle the long-term budget

challenges and bring back a plan that Congress would have to

vote up or down, or substitute an equally effective blueprint

One way or the other, this problem must be faced. Monday's

budget message could be the first step.

Offered By: Mr. Wolf

Amendment No. 14: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following: