Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, it is an honor to recognize Ms. Jill Carpenter, an outstanding constituent and educator from the 10th Congressional District of Virginia, for her dedication to bringing real scientific research to the classroom.

Ms. Carpenter, a fifth grade teacher at Hutchinson Farm Elementary in South Riding, VA, was chosen last summer by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Teacher at Sea Program to participate in a ten-day research cruise on the Atlantic Ocean. From aboard the NOAA Ship DELEWARE II, Ms. Carpenter not only researched fisheries, but also interviewed scientists, maintained daily logs, and engaged in dialogue with her fellow teachers, students and the general public. She took part in the Teacher at Sea experience in order to enrich her curriculum and excite her students about the sciences.

In her log, Ms. Carpenter wrote, ``It is exciting to see science experiments happening every day, with real people in a real-life context, instead of reading about it from a worksheet or having that intangible image in my mind of a mad scientist in a white lab coat stirring a beaker of something bubbling. Science is accessible to everybody! You don't have to be in a fancy laboratory or have the latest equipment. It can be done inside or out, on a boat or in your backyard. Science encompasses so many fields and is available to anyone with a curious mind. I am excited to share this realization with my students and make science more real to them. I am looking forward to returning home to my family, friends, and classroom and sharing my experience with them. This trip has been invaluable to me in so many ways. I have met with many amazing people, I have participated in recording ocean data, and I have seen how much thought, effort and talent goes into running a fisheries research vessel. I gained hands-on knowledge and experience.'' Ms. Carpenter was supported by a partnership between the Loudoun Education Foundation and the NOAA Teacher at Sea Program.

I am proud to call attention to Ms. Carpenter's dedication. I congratulate Ms. Carpenter on her spirit of adventure, her willingness to try new things, and her ability to bring this experience back to the classroom. I also commend the Loudoun County School district and the Loudoun Education Foundation for supporting the efforts of this teacher to promote scientific education in the classroom.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

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

Just to bring it back, one, this has nothing to do with trade. So the trade issue is not even out here. It also has nothing to do with the issue of travel, and I have asked for a visa to Cuba, and they denied me when I tried to go.

This amendment should be called not the Diaz-Balart amendment. This should be the Sharansky amendment. This should be called the Yelena Bonner amendment. This should be the Havel amendment. I just read the interview with Havel the other day.

What we want to do with this money is the same thing that was done in Eastern Europe during the days of Ronald Reagan when we brought down communism. This is what we did in Romania to bring down the Ceausescu government. So this is a major cut. The Bush administration funds this to the pro-democracy groups in Cuba. They need this for training. They need this for their journalists. They need this for technical assistance.

They need this for so many other reasons. USAID reported U.S. assistance supported journalism correspondence courses for 200 Cubans; publication of 23,000 reports by independent Cuban journalists, on and on. Dissidents are routinely rounded up.

If this amendment passes, imagine how they will feel in Cuba today to know that the United States Congress stood with them. If it fails, they will be demoralized.

This is really the Sharansky amendment of 2007. This is the Havel amendment of 2007. This is the Yelena Bonner amendment of 2007. This is the amendment that we used to do in the 1980s to bring down communism, to help the civilian side, the dissidents.

This has nothing to do with travel; it shouldn't even be mixed with that. That's a mixed issue; it has nothing to do with trade. It is what do we do to help the dissidents; Armando Valadez has been in jail for almost 19 years.

And so, I would hope that we can come together and send a message that when this amendment is passed, the word goes forth as they listen to their Radio Free Cuba tomorrow to know that the United States Congress stood with them the way that they stood with Havel.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida for the balance of the time.

Reclaiming my time, if Sharansky served in this Congress today, if Havel were serving here in this Congress today, if Yelena Bonner was serving in this Congress today, Yelena Bonner and Sharansky and Havel would be for this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, this restores $156 million of the $458 million that was cut. The amendment that we're going to offer today is in compliance with the Iraq Study Group.

Now, about 226 Members of this body said they favor the Iraq Study Group. What this does is this puts money back in for demining. If you listen to the news today, there were 13 killed with regard to IEDs in the effort for demining. This also puts money in for training for human rights.

Now, whether you want to go out today or whether you want to do whatever you want to do, we still need training for human rights, we still need training for capacity for democracy and governance, we still need ways for reconciliation to bring the parties together. We are always hearing about the differences between the different factions. That's what this money is for.

The administration originally asked for $458 million. We knocked it down. We brought them in and said, what do you really need? They said, this is what we really need.

This amendment is what the Iraq Study Group recommended. The Iraq Study Group recommendation number 6 says, ``Building the capacity of the

Iraqi Government should be at the heart of U.S. reconstruction efforts, and capacity building demands additional U.S. resources.'' That's what this is on.

I urge Members on both sides, this ought not be a political issue or partisan issue, to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays). Members should know that Mr. Shays has been to Iraq 17 times and has been outside the umbrella of the military four times, and probably understands this issue in the Congress probably better than anybody else.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlelady from Miami, Ms. Ileana Ros- Lehtinen.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, just in closing, the gentlewoman has been very good, and I appreciate the work of Mrs. Lowey on a lot of the issues. As Mr. Shays said, there are a lot of good things in the bill.

This, in closing, deals with the whole issue of demining, human rights training, criminal justice, rule of law and human rights. None of these things really ought to be controversial for anybody, whatever their position. Also they fit into the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group.

I think to offer an opportunity to heal and to build the private sector, the civilian sector in Iraq on these issues of human rights training is important, so when the United States is out, there will be respect for human rights, there will be criminal justice, there will be rule of law.

Mr. Chairman, I urge an ``aye'' vote.

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I believe they would be. The reason we did this, I will tell my friend from Illinois, is when the $458 million was cut, we asked the administration to come up and tell us what they really needed, because we said this is a very difficult issue. The gentlewoman put a lot of programs with good money in. What do you honestly need? So everything would be in compliance with the benchmarks. But it would also give them the initial funding. They said, we actually need this $158 million.

But they would be, to answer your question, in compliance.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this is fiscal year 2008, and these would be all issues that I think everybody on both sides, Republican, Democrat, independent, moderate, conservative, would be for.

If you go out on the street and say do you favor funding in the 2008 bill for demining, I think you would get a 90-10 yes. If you said do you favor funding for human rights training or whatever the case may be, people would say yes. Do you favor funding with regard to the human rights rule of law, they would say yes.

This is what the administration and the State Department, not so much the administration, the State Department really felt they would need.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairwoman for accepting the amendment. I appreciate it very much. I thank Mr. Shays for offering it. I think this is really the way the country is going to go.

There may be a vote here. Mr. Udall and other Members, along with Mr. Shays and Mr. McCaul, have a bill in to make the Iraq study the policy for the Nation.

I want to thank the gentlewoman for accepting it and thank Mr. Shays.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Everyone has frustrations. I think the U.N. could do certainly a lot more on Darfur and many of the other things. They stood by and frankly didn't do very much in Rwanda, either. But what this amendment would do, I think, is people have to look at it. This would actually cut NATO fees, and NATO is sort of the backbone of what we're doing in Afghanistan and many other places, but particularly $41 million out of this fund goes to NATO.

Also, on the World Health Organization with regard to avian flu and things like that, this is not the time to do that. Also, there is another issue that I have personally made a cause, of funding the war crime tribunals to bring people to justice. This would cut the war crimes tribunal in Rwanda where over 800,000 people have died between the Hutus and the Tutsis and that whole issue. Also the former Yugoslavia where after the genocide that took place, Milosevic was brought to the court.

So for those reasons, I understand what the gentlelady is trying to do. But I think this would be the wrong place to kind of do it, from NATO and IAEA and the World Health Organization and the war crimes tribunal.

Lastly, this is at the request of President Bush, of the Bush administration. This is what the Bush administration, President Bush, has requested.

For those reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

On behalf of Ms. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, she wanted to thank you very much for the clarification and she appreciates it very much.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Shays has made a good case, and the Chair has made a good case for this. Without mentioning the groups, so we don't call any attention to them, we know the good work that they are doing. Mr. Shays lived with one of the groups for a period of time. You saw the schools they were building. So I am just concerned we are getting wrapped up into process that since nothing is in, we are not going to put things in.

This is something that would actually work and have success in Iraq from the civilian side. It would be a

great boost to have this in. So I strongly support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. Congresswoman Anna Eshoo is interested in this and a lot of others, and I thank the Chair for accepting the Kirk amendment in the full committee.

I looked for you yesterday. What I wanted to ask you to do was to offer an amendment on the floor, and I know the gentlewoman would have accepted it, of another $100,000, or $1 million, for the Chaldean Christians, and get a roll call vote on it; because colloquies are colloquies, but a roll call vote is a roll call vote.

AID has failed to address this issue. We have asked them a number of times. They tell us that we can't be targeting with regard to certain ethnic groups, and it has never been a satisfactory answer. So it is too late now, but it would have been a good thing to do. In fact, this Congress and this government, we have abandoned the Christians in the Middle East. We have pretty much walked away and the Christian community in the Middle East is declining.

So you are on to something, and hopefully you can find a way in another bill or in the supplemental perhaps to offer to work with the gentlewoman to have an amendment, and then you offer an added $100,000 or $1 million or whatever you think is appropriate, and then ask for a roll call vote so the entire Congress is on record, because you are right on target.

I want to thank you, and we will work with you and help you in any way possible. But a roll call vote of 435-0 would send a message to the AID people that they would have to face and focus on.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman. I think that comment really sends a message. Obviously AID is watching this debate right now, and for the Chair of the committee to say that, they have actually gotten the message. So I thank the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Pitts amendment.

First of all there is the flexibility; there is ability to waive. I hope Mr. Pitts will cover that.

Let me read you what Ambassador Mark Dybul said. He said recent data from Kenya, Zimbabwe and urban Haiti show decline in HIV prevalence. A new study has concluded that these reductions and prevalence do not simply represent the natural course of these nations' epidemics, but can only be explained by changes in sexual behavior. This demonstrates the power of behavior changes to save lives and the importance of support for effective behavior change intervention.

If people from my old neighborhood back in southwest Philadelphia heard this debate that the Congress was debating ``faithful'' in this, is it a good idea or a bad idea, they would say, what is going on?

As Mr. Pitts said, I would argue too that he is right. I think Biblical faithfulness is a Biblical principle. Faithfulness is a very good principle. Does anyone disagree? Now we are debating abstinence? We are saving lives.

So there is flexibility. So there is a fake argument here. There is the ability to waive; and what we are doing here, we could talk about different things, they are underlying agendas. We are talking about basically are we going to save lives. Are we going to save lives.

I will stipulate that Mark Dybul has forgotten more about this than this Congress knows. Because of that, I will urge an ``aye'' vote for the Pitts amendment to save lives.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to my friend from Pennsylvania.

Would the gentleman yield?

Would the gentleman be saying Archbishop Desmond Tutu would be basically supporting your amendment?

Nobel Prize winner Bishop Tutu from South Africa supports the amendment.

I mean, is there a greater expert, from both moral and understanding than that?

Did the gentleman say there have been waivers granted?

Every single country. I think the gentleman has made the case.

I yield to the gentleman.

I yield to the gentlewoman.

I will yield to the gentleman first.

Would the gentlelady yield?

I want to join my colleagues in continuing to work on the important issue. U.S. assistance to Colombia has been directly responsible for bringing stability to the country. The people of Colombia couldn't travel freely, but now they can. The security is due to Plan Colombia. I appreciate the Speaker's hard work over the years on this issue.

I want to thank Mrs. Lowey, Chairwoman Lowey for really being very open and taking all the time to kind of work this out.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, the question here is who really gets the money. That's the question. I think that it hasn't been addressed adequately.

I want to say at the outset, I support, I, Frank Wolf, support family planning, period.

A May 22 Washington Post article described a recent crackdown on Chinese families that have violated China's one-child policy. The article stated that Chinese birth control bureaucrats showed up in a half-dozen towns in Guangxi Province carrying sledgehammers and electric cattle prods to destroy the homes and businesses of those who had failed to pay their fines under China's coercive one-child policy. The article described family-planning officials as ransacking businesses owned by parents of more than one child. Those who protested were bloodied in the struggle, and villages reported people being killed in the violence.

Now, I heard that on NPR too. It was brutal. So that's really what we are talking about, because the United States-Mexico City policy prevents funding from going to international organizations that promote abortion as a means of family planning, including in China.

Two prime examples of these organizations are the International Planned Parenthood Federation and Marie Stopes International, both of which are closely tied to the Chinese one-child policy. They are, in essence, the ones that will get this. They never, ever speak out.

In fact, China was the second country to become ``officially recognized as a qualified member of the International Planned Parenthood Federation.'' On its Web site, International Planned Parenthood Foundation recently touted, saluted, just said it was a great thing, China's effort to exploit, its exploitation policy, family-planning policy regime worldwide.

I don't want to get off too far on this, but this is a country getting aid for these groups that are poisoning your toothpaste, poisoning your pets, and, if you read the article the other day, painting Thomas the Tank Engine trains with lead paint that most people here, their children and grandchildren have. This country is the country.

We restrict UNFPA funds to China expressly because China is coercive and this is a coercive government. This is a government that single- handedly could be stopping the genocide in Darfur today.

Organizations that will receive funds under the new family planning language in this bill will be able to help China continue these unconscionable, and, I would say, immoral activities.

I support family planning, but I can't support, will not support giving family planning taxpayer funds to these kind of organizations that not only never speak out, but actually participate.

I'd be glad to yield.

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

These groups that I just referenced, and Mr. Jackson, if you could have heard the NPR, I will get you the text of the NPR story. In fact, I will get it and I will insert it in the Record.

Yes. These groups, under this provision would be allowed to get the support that are now active doing this in China.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to Mr. Burton to respond to something that was said.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt).

Mr. Chairman, how much time does each side have?

Mr. Chairman, before I recognize the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Ms. Fallin), I would say to my friend, my very good friend, I would increase the funding for family planning. I would gladly increase it. So I think the question is how much money would be good if we could actually increase it with that.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Ms. Fallin).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I have one more speaker in this round.

The gentlelady has the right to close, is that correct?

Would the gentlewoman like to proceed, then?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

(Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, this is the article that I referred to, Public Radio, I'll put it in the Record. It says, Morning Edition, April 23. ``During the past week, dozens of women in southwest China have been forced to have abortions even as late as 9 months into the pregnancy, according to evidence uncovered by NPR.'' It goes on, mentions a family which Liang describes how they told her that she would have to have an abortion. ``You don't have any more room for maneuver,'' he says they told her. ``If you don't go to the hospital, we'll carry you.'' The couple was then driven to Youjiang district maternity ward in Baise City. ``I was scared,'' Wei told NPR. ``The hospital was full of women who had been brought in forcibly. There wasn't a single spare bed. The family planning people said forced abortions or forced sterilization were both being carried out. We saw women being pulled in one by one.''

Now, in answer to Mr. Ryan's comment, Mr. Ryan, I led the opposition over here in opposition to PNTR. President Clinton was one of the biggest supporters. He accused President Bush, criticized him, and then switched and strongly supported it.

I have sent your office, with due respect, probably 25 letters asking you as a Blue Dog member to cosponsor a bill that I have, and I'll do it again, on the SAFE Commission. On my SAFE Commission I have eight Members from the Democratic Party, eight Members from the Republican Party, and I put everything on the table, tax policy. Someone on your side said there is no Republican over there that would do it. I put tax policy on it. Some of my people don't like it, but we do. We also put all the entitlements to save the country.

I agree with you. God bless you. I agree that the debt that the Saudis hold is terrible. The debt that the Chinese hold. And I would beg you, because I know you're a good person, I watch you in committee, I followed your campaigns, join me in the SAFE Commission. We can get a handle on this deficit that we have in the country. This places a partisan political pit, and both sides are at each other.

So what I want to do is what we did on the Iraq Study Group, get eight Republicans and eight Democrats, give 1 year, this is modeled after David Walker, the GAO, to go around the country and educate and talk to the American people and listen. And then we use the Base Closing Commission concept whereby this Congress has to vote.

You're right. The amount of debt that the Chinese hold is horrible and that the Saudis hold. And I have written you over and over. The fact is, I will say it right now, I've been surprised that I haven't had anybody from your side cosponsor, because I will stipulate you care about the deficit as much as I do, maybe as a newer Member you may actually care about it more. But I agree with you, and the SAFE Commission is the opportunity to deal with this.

If you look at the language in the package I'll send to your office, I put every single thing on the table. And if you would join me, I don't know if we could pass it in this Congress or not, but I think you're exactly right, we could help save this country because we are living off of Chinese money and Saudi money. And keep in mind, the Saudis funded all the madrasses up at the border. There were 15 Saudis funding the Wahhabis. The Saudis are funding radical, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic. So if we could come together and do that.

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

The gentleman's concern, and the gentleman is a very good Member, and I appreciate when he speaks a lot of times in committee. I agree with him, and not only do I agree in my conscience, I vote with him, and sometimes I even speak for him. But it is an issue here of going to the groups that are involved, and I will put a copy of the article in the Record, but the two that I mention, and to give them the support whereby they would do these things. I can't speak for other people, but I think it would be wrong.

June 21, 2007

Cases of Forced Abortions Surface in China

(By Louisa Lim)

MORNING EDITION, APRIL 23, 2007.--During the past week,

dozens of women in southwest China have been forced to have

abortions even as late as nine months into the pregnancy,

according to evidence uncovered by NPR.

China's strict family planning laws permit urban married

couples to have only one child each, but in some of the

recent cases--in Guangxi Province--women say they were forced

to abort what would have been their first child because they

were unmarried. The forced abortions are all the more

shocking because family planning laws have generally been

relaxed in China, with many families having two children.

Liang Yage and his wife Wei Linrong had one child and

believed that--like many other couples--they could pay a fine

and keep their second baby. Wei was 7 months pregnant when 10

family planning officials visited her at home on April 16.

Liang describes how they told her that she would have to

have an abortion: ``You don't have any more room for

maneuver,'' he says

they told her. ``If you don't go [to the hospital], we'll

carry you.'' The couple was then driven to Youjiang district

maternity hospital in Baise city.

``I was scared,'' Wei told NPR. ``The hospital was full of

women who'd been brought in forcibly. There wasn't a single

spare bed. The family planning people said forced abortions

and forced sterilizations were both being carried out. We saw

women being pulled in one by one.''

The couple was given a consent agreement to sign. When

Liang refused, family planning officials signed it for him.

He and his wife are devout Christians--he is a pastor--and

they don't agree with abortion.

The officials gave Wei three injections in the lower

abdomen. Contractions started the next afternoon, and

continued for almost 16 hours. Her child was stillborn.

``I asked the doctor if it was a boy or girl,'' Wei said.

``The doctor said it was a boy. My friends who were beside me

said the baby's body was completely black. I felt desolate,

so I didn't look up to see the baby.''

Medical sources say fetuses aborted in this manner would

have been dead for some time, so the tissue is necrotic and

thus dark in color.

``The nurses dealt with the body like it was rubbish,'' Wei

said. ``They wrapped it up in a black plastic bag and threw

it in the trash.''

This was also the treatment given to the stillborn baby of

He Caigan. Family planning officials turned up at her house,

in the countryside several hours outside Baise, before dawn

on April 17 to force her to go to the hospital. This would

have been her first baby--but she hadn't married the father,

in contravention of family planning laws. She was already 9

months pregnant, just days away from delivery.

``They told me I'm too young, I couldn't keep the child and

I should have an abortion,'' she said. ``I'm too young to get

a marriage certificate--I'm only 19 and my boyfriend's only

21.''

After the forced abortion, her boyfriend left her. She said

that she's still in great physical pain and that her life had

been ruined.

An eyewitness, who requested anonymity for fear of the

consequences, said that he counted 41 occupied beds on just

one floor of the maternity hospital in Baise and that he

believed none of the women he saw had come to the hospital of

their own free will.

Coerced abortions such as these were not unusual after

China's one-child policy was first introduced in 1980. But a

law passed five years ago guarantees China's citizens a

degree of choice in family matters. When contacted for

comment, an official at China's State Commission for

Population and Family Planning said she'd heard nothing about

forced abortions in Guangxi and asked for more details. But

in Baise, a family planning official surnamed Nong

acknowledged that such behavior would violate regulations.

Despite the fact that these allegations refer to events that

happened just within the last week, he said an investigation

had already been held.

``We were very surprised to hear of these accusations,''

Nong said, ``but our investigation concluded some individuals

who were dissatisfied with our family planning policies were

fabricating stories. These facts simply don't exist. We

really love and care for women here.''

Official figures published by the Xinhua news agency shed

some light on why a forced abortion campaign might be judged

necessary. They show that the Baise government missed its

family planning targets last year. The recorded birth rate

was 13.61 percent, slightly higher than the goal of 13.5

percent. This is significant because the career prospects of

local officials depend upon meeting these goals.

Wei Linrong and her husband Liang Yage, were incensed by

their treatment, seeing it as little short of murder.

``I think their methods are too cruel,'' said Wei, ``my

heart really hurts. Such a tiny baby, it was innocent. And

they killed it.''

``Every time we talk about this child, we both cry,'' Liang

added. ``We can't bear talking about this child.''

Liang and his wife risked further official disapproval by

contacting a Christian group overseas to publicize their

plight. China may once have depended on its state apparatus

of control and fear to silence those who suffer human rights

abuses at the hands of its officials. But China's victims are

angry, and they want their voices to be heard.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Reclaiming my time, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and in support of the committee's language. In fact, I think the language is very moderate, perhaps even, from my own perspective, a little bit too moderate because I think we could have put some other conditions on it.

Ayman Nour is still in prison. I visited Ayman Nour's wife. He is still in prison. He is not very, very well. We have interceded on his behalf, the Congress and everyone else. But Ayman Nour is still in prison.

The Coptic Christians. The life of the Coptic Christians is worse today than it has been for a long while. So if you're a Coptic Christian in Egypt, you're in trouble.

For the Baha'is, the Baha'is in Egypt just live the most miserable life that you can possibly live. They are not even recognized. They cannot even get a card for a driver's license. They are a nonentity. They are not even there. They are not. So they can't move. They can't do anything.

There is anti-Semitic and anti-Christian editorials and cartoons in their newspapers. Just look at what they say. The government controls those newspapers. So if a government controls a newspaper and anti- Semitism and anti-Christian language is in there, does that not mean that someone in the government is saying that?

Also, the language is moderate. They gunned down the Sudanese. I was there shortly after they gunned down the Sudanese. There are many Sudanese that live there, and they gunned them down. There is police brutality.

The Gaza. The gentleman, Mr. Lantos, was right with regard to the Gaza. They have a powerful military. They could be doing much, much more.

Egypt is a great nation. It is a great nation. They are great people. They are our friends. But friends have to be honest with friends.

Mr. Obey was exactly right. We have given them, Mr. Obey would have this figure better than I would, over $15 billion. Martin Luther King said, in the end, we will remember not the words that were of our enemies but the silence of our friend. As a friend, for us not to speak out on this issue, we would be derelict in our duty. We would be derelict in our duty.

So, Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, and in support of it, and would say to the gentlewoman, the Chairwoman, it would have sent a very refreshing message if one of the other conditionalities had been with regard to the Coptic Christians, who are very patriotic people in Egypt and who love their country and who always speak proudly of their country and who always honor their country; and also if we had conditionality language with regard to the Baha'is. But I think Mr. Obey is right. I agree with the Chairwoman. I would hope that we would defeat the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks) for a brief discussion on the issue of the persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt.

I thank the chairman of the committee and thank the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I thank the gentleman, and I yield to the gentlewoman from Virginia Beach, Mrs. Drake.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak).

Reclaiming my time, if I may, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to just yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

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

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I know it has been accepted, but this is an important amendment. My father was a policeman for 20 years in the city of Philadelphia.

If a country isn't prepared to send somebody back, then we ought to do what the gentleman from Texas said. We ought to deny them the visa. And I will push for this when we get to conference. I think this is a good amendment.

We just can't go to all these meetings and say we love our police officers and we honor them and then all of a sudden we walk away from them. The gentleman is exactly right. Let's pass this. I appreciate its being accepted. But I think we ought to pass it because they think we are a patsy.

We also had a young man in my district who was run over and killed around Christmastime. And the guy left and went back to El Salvador, and that family hurts, are in pain every day, and they can't get this guy back. So I think if there is any deficiency in it, it probably ought to cover every felon but at least peace officers.

So it is a good amendment, and it has been accepted. But, frankly, I think we should have asked for a roll call vote to get every Member on record for it. But since it has been accepted, let's keep it in the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) to finish her speech.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I am not opposed to the amendment. I am for the amendment. So I will strike the requisite number of words.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Reclaiming my time, perhaps the amendment really doesn't go far enough in the sense that to do something that really matters, there is a real concern that many American Ambassadors to Saudi Arabia are now out working for the Saudi Government. And I have an amendment that we're trying to get through the Rules Committee. Mr. Lantos and I are working on asking various groups to look into this. There are actually, I understand, CIA station chiefs, American CIA station chiefs who were station chiefs in Saudi Arabia that may be now working for the Saudis.

The Saudis funded the madrassas up along the Pakistan-Afghan border. There were 15 Saudis on the aircraft, one of them went into the Pentagon and killed 30 people from my congressional district. The first person killed in Afghanistan was Michael Spann, a CIA agent from my district, because of the activities of the Saudis.

The Saudis are funding anti-Semitic, anti-Christian activities in some of the schools. This is Wahhabism. I've been kind of shocked. This is a milquetoast amendment. This is a weak amendment. There should be something really strong to get control of this Wahhabism that is spreading.

So, yes, let's pass it. But I would hope the next time we really do something that really can make a difference because this is dangerous. Had they not funded those madrassas, frankly maybe what took place on 9/11 may have never taken place.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment for three reasons. One, I would hope in the next Congress we have a Republican Speaker, and so I wouldn't want to see that side limit our Speaker. That is number one.

Number two, Senator Sam Brownback and I were one of the first ones to go to Darfur. I wish more Members would go to Darfur. I think it is genocide. I think one of the problems is that this place hasn't moved fast enough because people haven't seen it.

They couldn't smell it. They just couldn't feel it. And so to say you couldn't go to Darfur where there is a genocide taking place now is just not a good idea. I have been to Sudan five times. Certainly you couldn't limit the Speaker to go some place that I, as a lowly Member, could go to.

The third reason is that I was one of the Members who went to Syria. Now, I am not a weak person. I used to go to the Soviet Union during the days of Communism and speak out for the dissidents. Chris Smith and I went into Perm Camp 35 and interviewed Sharansky's cellmate and did a lot of things that really made a difference.

When I went to Syria, here is what I said to Assad. With me was Robert Aderholt, not exactly a liberal Member of the House; Joe Pitts, again, God bless him, a very conservative Member of the House, a good person. Here is what we said to Assad four times, and it was good that he heard it. I said it twice, and Mr. Pitts said it once, and Mr. Aderholt said it once. We said, one, stop allowing foreign fighters to come and transit your border. I am not saying it is because of our effort, but 2 weeks after that, the Commanding General in Afghanistan said that the foreign fighters had slowed down. They actually saw the results.

Secondly, Israel's right to exist. Assad should have heard Members. More Members should go tell Assad, Israel has the right to exist.

Thirdly, I said stop supporting Hezbollah and Hamas. We were 4 feet from him. We looked at him directly in the eye and said no more support. We know and they know where Hamas and Hezbollah have their offices. They're in Damascus.

Lastly, we said to them with regard to this, stop interfering in Lebanon's right to exist.

So, I am of the mind, and I may be in the minority of my party, I take the Ronald Reagan approach. Ronald Reagan, when he called the Soviet Union the evil empire, his greatest speech was to the National Association of Evangelicals, Orlando, Florida, 1983. He called them the evil empire. But as he called them the evil empire, he sent people out to talk.

If you recall his speech he gave at Danilov Monastery, where he talked about freedom, Gorbachev was there. Ronald Reagan defeated the Soviets because he went and engaged, not in weakness. He put the Cruise Missiles in in Europe in 1983 when people complained. But he was able to do it.

So, one, I hope we have a Republican Speaker, and I would hope everyone on our side agrees when we have a Republican Speaker in the next Congress.

Two, I went to Sudan. I think everybody in this body ought to go to Sudan. They ought to go to Darfur. Maybe it was because of the failure of people to go to Rwanda. Maybe that wouldn't have taken place.

Lastly, intellectually it would be impossible to say this was a good idea if I was one of the ones that went. I think by going I served the interests of our Government. I was criticized. I had people criticize me.

But I thought it was good that Assad heard that.

Lastly, I met with the leading dissident in Syria, and I said, ``Should we put your name in our release?'' And he said, ``Please, put my name in.'' Sharansky used to tell us, ``When you spoke out for me, when you said things for me, my life got better.''

This dissident said, ``Mention my name. Mention my name. I will stand with you,'' because, he said, ``nobody else is coming to meet with me and stand with me.'' We stood with him, and when we left Syria, after we left, the Syrian Government criticized us for the tone of what they thought we said.

But, God bless, I would hope that every Member of this body would go to Syria and sit down with Assad and say, stop the foreign fighters; Israel's right to exist; stop the support for Hezbollah and Hamas; and stop messing around in Lebanon and let these people who want freedom to have freedom.

For that reason, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is going to be the only vote that you're going to have on this issue. When the power lines are coming through your district, and this is coming through your district, how will you explain to your constituents, to your neighbors, your friends, your local elected officials, your farmers, that you had a chance to slow this down and you didn't do it?

How are you going to tell them that you sided with the power companies and not with the citizens?

This is a time out. It will give us a chance to reexamine the process.

These corridors divide communities, neighborhoods. They destroy landscapes. In fact, the current corridor in the Mid-Atlantic includes Antietam, where 20,000 people died in 1 day. We need to make sure that we take time to do it right, and don't bow to the scare tactics and the false Dear Colleague letters.

This is your first and likely your only vote on this issue. Don't let this vote come back to haunt you. Voting against the Hinchey amendment means you don't want to make sure these corridors are sited properly.

I strongly urge the Members to vote aye for the Hinchey amendment.

I thank the gentleman.

We are not asking for a repeal. We are asking for time.

Again, this section, and it is amazing, was never voted on in the House. The power industry lobbyists have been roaming this Hill. Your constituents are back in their districts expecting you to represent them.

The corridor goes over and includes Gettysburg, where Lincoln gave the Gettysburg Address. Antietam, 20,000 people died. No environmental impact statement. No consideration of energy efficiency technology. No consideration for historic lands. It is an assault on property rights.

In the last Congress, we all got worked up on the Kelo decision. This is, in essence, whereby they can do this. And someone said, well, you go through the State. The power companies won't really try to go through the States. They will pro forma it, knowing that they can go to FERC and FERC will do it.

Here's what the FERC administrator said: ``The authority to lawfully deny a permit is critically important to the States for ensuring that the interests of the local communities and the citizens are protected.''

What the Commission does today, it's a significant inroad in traditional State transmission citing authority. It gives States two options: Either issue a permit, or we will do it for them. Obviously, there is no choice.

I strongly urge, in the interest of all these things we're talking about, a vote for the Hinchey amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me start by commending the chairwoman on putting together a thoughtful bill, her first as the chairwoman of this new and important subcommittee. I must also recognize the chairwoman's continuation of this subcommittee's bipartisan tradition, as well as stating how much I appreciate the chairwoman's willingness to listen to our concerns and accommodate them as much as possible.

Overall, I think it is a very good bill, but I do have some concerns.

First and foremost, I believe this bill sends a terrible message to the State Department's officers and foreign service nationals and our military fighting in Iraq. The report accompanying the bill clearly states that there is no funding provided for Iraq. I intend to offer an amendment to restore $158 million of the $391 million that the President requested. I believe that not providing the requested funding for counterterrorism and de-mining activities is shortsighted and potentially dangerous. This program has trained more than 1,000 Iraqis in explosive detection and removal, therefore helping to protect the lives of our military and also improving public safety to reduce insurgent access to deadly munitions.

No funds are provided to develop effective civilian law enforcement and anti-terrorism programs in Iraq, specifically to focus on strengthening terrorist financing and money laundering.

No funds are provided to continue English language training and professional training for military officers in the United States. This training focuses on international human rights, fostering respect for civilian control of the military and the rule of law. Such funding is crucial if public statements by Members about wanting Iraqis to be able to defend themselves are, in fact, accurate and not purely rhetorical.

Also, this fits into the recommendations made by the Iraq Study Group, and when the resolution came up a while back that the other side had, I think 220-some Members said they supported the Iraq Study Group.

Well, no funding is provided to help Iraq manage their national budget, a crucial step towards Iraq self-reliance. No funding is included to enable Iraq to stimulate local economies to counter the impact of the insurgents. Assistance was requested and denied that would help Iraq create jobs in the agriculture sector and create food production, thereby stimulating Iraq's second largest economic sector after the oil area. These funds would directly weaken the insurgent base in rural areas, which we all on both sides want to do.

Finally, no funding is included to help national reconciliation, political reform, and fair provincial elections in 2008 and fair national elections in 2009. Additional funding was requested to develop the Iraqi criminal justice system. These necessary funds would allow the Iraqi government to identify, bring to justice, and incarcerate insurgents and terrorists who are trying to destabilize the country. So, hopefully, we can adopt that amendment.

The second issue of concern for me is there are new provisions regarding funding for family planning programs overseas. The President clearly stated in a May 3, 2007, letter to the Speaker of the House that he would veto any legislation that weakens current Federal policies and laws on abortion. As a result of these language changes alone, I believe the bill will now be vetoed, which is unfortunate because there are so many good things in the bill.

Thirdly, the bill does not include any funding to support the recommendations by Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba. The Castro regime is the only nondemocratically elected government in the Western Hemisphere. So now is the time to demonstrate a commitment to the future of freedom for Cuba and to fund the programs that will facilitate peaceful democratic transition. And, again, this has nothing to do with the whole trade issue that this place talks about or the whole travel issue. This is to help the democratic movement in Cuba.

In conclusion, I believe this bill has the potential to do a lot of good, and I want to say that this bill will help save a lot of lives not only here but around the world. This is the work of the Lord. And I know Members are going to come down and are going to be against the bill. And I hope that we can change some of these things to prevent a veto, but this bill, eventually when it passes, assuming it will be vetoed, is really to feed the poor, the hungry, the naked, the sick. Almost a better title would be a Matthew 25 bill. So it has the potential to do a lot of good, and I hope to work with Chairwoman Lowey to ensure the State Department has what it needs to do these things, the war on terror, to provide humanitarian assistance to the most needy, and to improve human rights around the world.

And Members on our side are offering amendments with regard to cutting. This is actually under the allocation with regard to the administration.

I look forward to working with the chairwoman to resolve the differences.

I also want to thank Nisha Desai, Craig Higgins, Steve Markes, Michel Sumilas, Celia, Rob, and also Christine, who were too embarrassed to put their names down. I wanted to put them down too. And I also want to thank the full committee staff on both sides, who have been very helpful.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Before I yield to Mr. Lewis, I want to comment on the gentleman's remarks. I wouldn't question what his interpretation is, but in Luke it says ``To whom much is given, much is required.'' Some versions say ``expected,'' but it is actually a requirement, and we know a requirement in college, you have to do it to pass. So I think the authentic version says ``To whom much is given, much is required.'' But I see it makes the gentleman's statement much more powerful, and I appreciate the reference.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the former chairman and the ranking member, who has been very generous and very interested in this subcommittee's work, Mr. Lewis.

I recognize the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) for 5 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I recognize the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) for 5 minutes.

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

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

I thank the gentleman.

There will be a vote on the Hinchey amendment later on today. It doesn't repeal section 1221, but it slows it down. There was never a hearing on this. There was never a vote on this in the Congress. This whole power line issue in corridors, which in this area will go through Antietam, will include Gettysburg and First Manassas, will be coming to your area.

So when given the opportunity if you look at all the groups that support the Hinchey amendment, we strongly urge you to support the Hinchey amendment. On the current language, no environmental impact statement, no consideration of energy efficiency, no consideration of historic lands.

The Hinchey amendment is good for the country.

Offered By: Mr. Wolf

Amendment No. 15: Page 2, line 22, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $108,000,000)''.

Page 9, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced

by $50,000,000)''.

Page 40, line 26, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $140,000,000)''.

Page 58, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $16,000,000)''.

Page 63, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $2,000,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 422, which calls upon the Government of the People's Republic of China to use its unique influence and economic leverage to stop the genocide in Darfur.

The violence in Darfur grows more gruesome by the day. I led the first congressional delegation to Darfur in 2004 with Senator Sam Brownback, and I have personally witnessed the nightmare there with my own eyes. Every day that passes, more men are killed, more women are raped, and more children die of malnutrition. This is simply unacceptable.

The people in Darfur have lost their homes, their livelihoods, their loved ones. They have seen unspeakable horrors, carried out by the genocidal National Islamic Front in Khartoum and their cruel compatriots, the Janjaweed militia.

The U.S. and the international community have made strong efforts to halt the violence in Darfur, and have provided significant levels of humanitarian support to the victims of this genocide. However, these efforts have largely failed to stop the NIF's desire to complete their campaign in Darfur.

The Chinese Government's destructive role in the region is partly to blame for the continuing violence in Darfur. A recent Amnesty International report showed that China is making the conflict worse by providing weapons to the Sudanese Government to carry out the genocide in Darfur.

When President Hu visited Khartoum in February, instead of using his influence to persuade Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir to stop the violence in Darfur, he promised to build Bashir a brand new palace.

When President Hu appointed a new special envoy to Darfur, the envoy came back from the region claiming that the ``final solution'' for Darfur lies with removing ``mistrust'' between the Sudanese Government and the United States. He said the violence in Darfur is limited to sporadic conflicts along the border with Chad.

China has used its veto power on the U.N. Security Council to repeatedly obstruct efforts by the U.S. and the U.K. to introduce peacekeepers to curtail the slaughter. Beijing is uniquely positioned to put a stop to the slaughter, yet they have so far been unabashed in their refusal to do so.

China, which is a major business partner of Sudan, should be using its influence with the Sudanese Government to bring an end to the violence in Darfur. China's role in extracting oil from Sudan and maintaining close business relations with this genocidal regime are clearly more important to the Chinese Government than saving human lives.

This resolution calls on the Chinese Government to use its influence to stop the violence in Darfur. It urges China to push the Sudanese Government to accept a hybrid peacekeeping force, to disarm the Janjaweed militia, and to join the international community in imposing economic sanctions on Sudan if the government continues to support attacks on civilians.

I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this resolution. A critical part of our efforts on Darfur is pressing the Chinese Government to stop supporting the genocide there. China must begin playing a constructive role in the region.

Madam Chairman, I oppose the amendment.

But let me ask your side. I had an amendment to say that CIA station chiefs and people who were ambassadors cannot go out and work for the Khartoum government. Many on your side talk about the genocide in Darfur. I have been before the Rules Committee three times, and I have never had an amendment made in order. Now you give him an amendment, which may be a good amendment or maybe not, but I don't get any opportunity to offer my amendment.

Many on your side say, we are concerned about Darfur. This would have done more. There was a CIA station chief who left the CIA, working for the Khartoum government, and you would not even allow us to offer an amendment. Yet you go to the rallies and you speak out against Darfur.

I rise in opposition this amendment, and I rise against the activity of the Rules Committee. You all are pushing too much. And you are pushing people on this side.

I am pointing at the Rules Committee. I am pointing at everybody on this side who would not give me an amendment to stop the genocide in Darfur.

Madam Chairman, I continue to grow more and more frustrated that my side of the aisle is not being heard.

I have been to the Rules Committee no less than three times this year--most recently last night--seeking amendments to bills coming before the House. Each time I have offered substantive changes, aimed at improving legislation. I have not been offering partisan amendments that would gut bills.

The amendment I sought to have debated as part of this bill would have closed the revolving door on former ambassadors and CIA station chiefs from representing countries in which they served for five years. Currently, an ambassador can leave the service of the United States one day and be hired the very next as an agent of foreign nation where they had served. These officials see every decision the United States makes in relation to that country. They have access to intelligence, policy documents and other confidential information. But under today's rules, the day they leave they have every legal right to use that same information on behalf of a foreign nation. These are people who have been entrusted with great responsibility. And they don't always work in the most friendliest of countries, or countries who have the United States best interests at heart.

My amendment would have ended this practice. Regrettably, it wasn't ruled in order, yet Mr. Abercrombie's amendment, which aimed at closing the revolving door for flag and general officers from going to work for huge defense companies, was. I don't understand. Your side talks about wanting to work in a bipartisan fashion. I don't see it. My amendment drives at the same thing as Mr. Abercrombie's, yet was roundly dismissed. This issue has nothing to do with Republican or Democrat. It has to do with what is right.

Last year I learned that a former State Department official and former CIA station chief, trained at the expense of the American taxpayer, were lobbying on behalf of Sudan, the same government that is playing a role in the genocide in Darfur.

No other government is a more established enemy of human dignity. Not only is the government widely linked to organizing and arming militias who have raped and killed innocent women, men and children, pillaged villages and displaced millions in Darfur, the Khartoum government gave safe haven to Osama bin Laden from 1991 to 1996 and allows the terrorist group Hamas to operate within its borders.

We all say we want to end the genocide yet we have no problem with rogue govermnents hiring Washington-based lobbyists. Yet the Rules Committee won't allow an amendment barring former high ranking diplomats and CIA station chiefs from representing country's like Sudan.

Don't even get me started on Saudi Arabia, where not just one, but several former ambassadors to Saudi Arabia have been on the Kingdom's payroll.

Severe human rights abuses and religious persecution are status quo in Saudi Arabia. Our own State Department has flatly said religious freedom does not exist in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The Wahhabi doctrine, which is at the root of our global war on terror, is taught and encouraged by Saudi Arabia.

Read the attached piece from CQ that ran in February of 2006 about former U.S. Ambassadors to Saudi Arabia--the home to 15 of the 19 al Qaeda hijackers--who have or are presently on retainer by the Saudi government. It is extremely troubling.

During the Reagan Administration no lobbyist would have dared to even suggest representing a country like the Soviet Union. The clients signed up by some in the lobbying business today are among the world's most unsavory governments, including major human rights abusers and direct threats like China.

It saddens me to learn that reputable Washington lobbying firms take up the mantle of a Chinese state-run entity in their efforts to ``merge'' with a private American company. Is there no consideration given to the fact that the Chinese government poses a national security threat to the United States, including an organized spy network, which I have heard described in great detail in FBI briefings?

China blatantly disrespects free trade norms and intellectual property law. It persistently violates human rights, imprisoning and torturing Catholic priests, Protestant house church leaders, Tibetan Buddhists, Uyghur Muslims, and Falun Gong practitioners. China consistently stifles political dissent and free expression. Yet, big K Street firms don't think twice about representing them.

Nor do they think twice about the fact that China is providing guns and ammunition to the government of Sudan, which is complicit in the genocide that is taking place in Dafur. More than 450,000 people have died and China has done nothing to stop the violence. The PRC, in fact, is helping fuel the violence.

Sadly, we didn't get to debate this today. I hope in the future that the Rules Committee, and your side, will look at the aim of the amendment before just dismissing them out of hand.

American Diplomats Tend To Become Saudi Lobbyists--But Maybe Not for

Much Longer

(By Jeff Stein, National Security Editor)

Back in August 2002, a congressional delegation was

traveling around Saudi Arabia, home to 15 of the 19 al Qaeda

hijackers who less than a year earlier had launched the Sept.

11 attacks on the United States.

On one leg of the trip, in a big, white embassy van,

Republican Representative Mike Rogers of Michigan, a former

FBI agent, turned to the U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia,

Robert Jordan. He asked Jordan, in light of how the Sept. 11

attacks had revealed the Saudis' role in nurturing al Qaeda-

connected charities and religious schools, whether Jordan, a

big-time Houston oil and gas lawyer, would be the first U.S.

ambassador to not go to work for the Saudis after leaving his

post.

Jordan, who had George W. Bush as a client before he went

to the White House, considered Rogers' question for a moment,

and then politely declined to ``take the pledge,'' according

to a witness who recalled the episode.

Not that it mattered: Jordan's firm, Baker Botts LLP--that

would be James A. Baker

III, secretary of State in the first Bush administration and

lawyer for the second Bush in the 2000 Florida election

deadlock--already had a host of business clients in the royal

kingdom, with offices in Riyadh and Dubai.

In any event, Jordan in 2003 joined the long list of U.S.

ambassadors and other former American officials working

directly or indirectly for the Saudi royal family.

Rogers last week introduced a bill that would bar federal

employees from representing foreign governments for four

years after they leave public service. Also last week, the

House overwhelmingly approved a resolution (H. Res. 648) that

sharply curtails lobbyists by foreign agents on the House

floor.

Representative Frank R. Wolf, R-Va., plans similar

legislation, but more narrowly targeted diplomatic and

intelligence officials. He called the practice of

ambassadors--and former CIA officials--representing the

Saudis, or other governments where they had worked,

``scandalous.''

``It's a great honor to be an American ambassador, to

represent the United States,'' Wolf said by telephone. ``And

we have some great ambassadors. But with that, to whom much

is given, much is required.''

Reached in Houston, Jordan said he doesn't remember ``all

the details of that conversation,'' but added: ``At that time

I certainly didn't have any intention of representing Saudi

interests. It was premature in any event, because I was still

pretty much in office.''

Pressed further, he said, ``I remember someone bringing it

up, and it may well have been Congressman Rogers.''

Rogers declined to comment on the matter.

Actually, it would be big news if a senior U.S. diplomat in

the Middle East did not accept the warm embrace of the Saudis

or other despots upon leaving the region.

They are sprinkled all over Washington, particularly in

such well-known Saudi-supported think tanks as the Middle

East Institute (MEI).

Two former American ambassadors to Saudi Arabia lead the

MEI--Wyche Fowler Jr. (chairman) and Edward Walker

(president). Former ambassador to the United Arab Emirates

and deputy assistant secretary for the Near East David Mack

is MEI's vice president. Also at MEI is Richard Parker,

former ambassador to Algeria, Lebanon, and Morocco, and

Michael Sterner, former ambassador to UAE and deputy

assistant secretary of Near Eastern Affairs.

Chas. W. Freeman Jr., another former U.S. ambassador to the

kingdom, is president of the Saudi-backed Middle East Policy

Council. Another ambassador, Walter Cutler, leads the Saudi-

backed Meridian International Center.

From the Saudi point of view, all this is a good thing.

The legendary former Saudi ambassador to Washington Prince

Bandar bin Sultan was quoted in The Washington Post a few

years back as saying, ``If the reputation then builds that

the Saudis take care of friends when they leave office, you'd

be surprised how much better friends you have who are just

coming into office.''

Rogers' bill would prohibit U.S. officials from leaving

office and lobbying ``on behalf of any foreign entity.''

Wolf's bill ``will be much more narrow, focused primarily

on ambassadors and [CIA] station chiefs,'' said an aide.

Wolf is concerned about Saudi Arabia's influence. But he's

also watching China.

Last July he sent a blistering letter to the Washington

powerhouse firm of Akin Gump, which represented the China

National Offshore Oil Corp. during some of its aggressive

takeover bids here last year. One of its partners was a

member of the president's Foreign Intelligence Advisory

Board.

``That's just not appropriate,'' Wolf said.

We don't have a vote on it, and it was not made in order. I can't bring it up. And the genocide continues.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to bring the attention of the House to the exceptional work of Eleni P. Kalisch at the Federal Bureau of Investigation. It has come to my attention that she will stepping down as assistant director of the Office of Congressional Affairs and I want to take this opportunity to recognize her leadership within the FBI, and dedication to her work with the Science-State-Justice-Commerce (SSJC) Appropriations subcommittee, which I chaired during the 109th Congress.

FBI Director Robert Mueller recently stated that Eleni ``has been directly involved in every issue facing the FBI over the past five years. . .'' and that ``as an advocate for the FBI and its mission, Eleni's abilities and professionalism have earned her the respect of both lawmakers and colleagues.'' I could not agree more with Director Mueller. Eleni worked with the SSJC subcommittee not only to increase resources for the FBI, but to help transform the FBI from an organization focused on arresting criminals to one focused on terrorism prevention after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that forever changed America. Eleni's public service deserves to be recognized.

During her tenure as assistant director of Congressional Affairs the FBI received funding from Congress to establish more than 100 joint terrorism task forces; increase the number of translators by 82 percent, including a 284 percent increase in Arabic translators since FY 2001; enhance the FBI's capability to communicate classified information with the intelligence community and state and local law enforcement; increase the number of legal attache offices from 44 to 57; increase training for new agents to include classes on terrorism investigate techniques; establish field intelligence groups in every field office, and hire thousands of new agents and analysts.

While I was chairman, we also conducted vigorous oversight of the FBI and Eleni was cooperative and essential in preparatory work to help facilitate FBI transformation hearings each year in addition to the annual budget hearings. Her professionalism and willingness to ensure that the committee had all appropriate information was superior. I also want to recognize Eleni's work with Congress to help enact the PATRIOT Act Reauthorization and Intelligence Reform acts.

In short, Eleni has been a great asset to the FBI, has served the director well, and been an excellent resource for Congress. I wish Eleni the best in her future endeavors and ask that my colleagues join me in thanking Eleni for her hard work and dedication.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to bring the attention of the House to the retirement of State Senator Vincent F. Callahan, Jr., who has represented Virginia's 34th District in the Virginia General Assembly for nearly 4 decades. I want to take this opportunity to salute Vince for his dedication to a lifetime of public service representing those in the McLean area of Fairfax County.

A native of Washington, D.C., and McLean resident since 1960, Vince holds a B.S. degree from Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service and by profession is an editor, publisher, and author. He served as a Marine in the Korean War from 1950-52 and later as a reserve officer in the U.S. Coast Guard.

Elected to the House of Delegates in 1967, Vince is the longest serving Republican in the Virginia General Assembly and dean of the Northern Virginia Delegation. As chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Vince can point to a long list of legislative achievements in service to the Commonwealth of Virginia. He will be sorely missed. In honor of his work for higher education, Vince was awarded an Honorary Degree in the Humane Letters from the Northern Virginia Community College and the Lord Botetourt Award from the College of William and Mary. I have inserted for The Record a recent Sun Gazette article which details his unparalleled career.

Perhaps more important than the well deserved awards and recognitions Vince has accrued over the years is the way he conducts himself. He is a man of his convictions, and of the highest moral character, a true Virginia gentleman, family man, and loyal friend. Vince and his wife Yvonne have eight children and 19 grandchildren between them and I suspect that Vince is looking forward to spending more time with family as he retires. I ask that my colleagues in the House rise today and join with me in recognizing the outstanding public service career of Vincent F. Callahan, Jr.

After 40 Years in Public Life, Del. Callahan To Retire

(By Brian Trompeter)

Forty years is enough: Del. Vincent Callahan (R-34th), a

McLean resident who is the second-longest serving member of

the Virginia House of Delegates, announced March 5 that he

would not seek reelection in November.

``You get to a certain stage in life where you've done what

you want to do,'' he said. ``It gets old after a while.''

Callahan, 75, entered politics early in life. After being

defeated in a 1965 bid for lieutenant governor, he first was

elected to the House of Delegates in 1967. He was one of only

14 Republicans in that body then, versus 86 Democrats. Unlike

today, when legislators have offices and a professional staff

to help them, delegates then operated out of hotel rooms or

their desks in the House of Delegates during General Assembly

sessions, he said. Callahan credited former House of

Delegates Speaker John Warren Cooke (D-Mathews) for teaching

him proper legislative decorum. ``He was born in 1915 and his

father was an officer in the Confederate Army'' who was in

his 70s when Cooke was born, Callahan said. ``You talk about

somebody from the old school. He was the epitome of a

Virginia gentleman.''

Republicans achieved parity in the House of Delegates in

1998 and Callahan was named co-chair of the powerful House

Appropriations Committee. When Republicans became the

majority in 2000, he became the committee's sole chairman.

Callahan, who lost a bid for Congress in 1976, has seen

Virginia's biennial budget grow from $3 billion when he first

joined the General Assembly to $75 billion today. Gov. Kaine

called Callahan on Monday to congratulate him on the latest

budget, which passed unanimously.

Callahan said his key accomplishments in office include

strongly supporting George Mason University, Northern

Virginia Community College and other higher-education

institutions; securing $500 million to help clean up the

Chesapeake Bay; and bolstering mental-health services around

the state. He's also ``tilted at a few windmills,''

championing a higher minimum wage and a ban on smoking in

public places. These bills have been defeated so far but

likely will pass in the near future, he predicted. Virginia

has tremendous colleges, enjoys a AAA bond rating and

consistently is ranked one of the best-managed states in the

nation, he said.

Only Del. Lacey Putney (I-Bedford), who has served since

1962, has spent longer than Callahan in the House of

Delegates. Callahan's tenure has not always been smooth.

Legislators have had to go into special sessions several

times in recent years because of budget disagreements. And in

1998, he apologized after making remarks that some female

legislators found offensive. ``They jumped on me and I

haven't done it since,'' he said. ``It wasn't meant to be

demeaning to women.''

Democrats already were actively targeting Callahan's seat,

with candidates Margi Vanderhye and Rip Sullivan contending

for the nomination in the June primary. Callahan has about

$85,000 in unspent campaign moneys and will use them to pay

office expenses for the remainder of his term. Leftover funds

will be given to other political campaigns or donated to

charity, he said. The 34th District always has been a swing

district and has been represented for many years by a

Democratic state senator, Callahan said. The district's

voters sided with U.S. Senate candidate James Webb (D) during

his victorious campaign in November 2006, but also re-elected

longtime U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf (R-10th), he said. A Republican

candidate seeking the district's seat must take a moderate

approach on issues, Callahan said.

``Moderation is the essence of conservatism,'' he said. ``I

think there's two sides to every issue. You don't do

immigrant or gay bashing to get headlines. You have to look

at the whole picture.'' Callahan will spend the rest of his

term overseeing 400th-anniversary celebrations of the

Jamestown Colony's founding. He will be among dignitaries who

will greet Queen Elizabeth II on May 3 when she visits

Richmond and addresses a joint General Assembly session.

Callahan was born in Washington, D.C., and served in the

U.S. Marine Corps during the Korean War. He also served in

the U.S. Coast Guard Reserve from 1959 to 1963, retiring as a

lieutenant. Callahan has been a staple of Veterans Day

celebrations at McLean High School, where he traditionally

recites from memory John McCrae's World War I poem, ``In

Flanders Fields.''

Fairfax County Supervisor Joan DuBois (R-Dranesville)

credited Callahan with championing Wolf Trap National Park

for the Performing Arts, trails in Great Falls, sound

barriers along Interstate 495 in McLean and the status of

Georgetown Pike as a Scenic Byway. ``He was a gentleman of

the `old school' who knew that partisanship had no place in

efforts to improve his community,'' DuBois said in a

statement released Monday. ``He will be greatly missed by

many of us who knew him as a go-to leader in the General

Assembly for longer than I have lived in Northern Virginia.''

Vienna Town Council member Michael Polychrones said

Callahan's departure will mark the end of an era in state

politics and a loss for Northern Virginia. ``It will be a big

blow to the area,'' Polychrones said. ``Vince has definitely

done a yeoman's job over the years.''

I thank the gentlelady.

I want Members to see an editorial that was in the Wall Street Journal by Ronan Farrow and Mia Farrow entitled ``The Genocide Olympics.''

It deals with the issue that there was a full page ad today in The Washington Post with regard to the genocide that is taking place in Sudan, and the one country that has the opportunity to really make a difference to stop the genocide in Sudan is the country of China.

Mia Farrow says in this editorial, ``One World, One Dream is China's slogan for the 2008 Olympics. But there is one nightmare that China shouldn't be allowed to sweep under the rug. That nightmare is Darfur, where more than 400,000 people have been killed and more than 2\1/2\ million driven from flaming villages by the Chinese-backed government of Sudan.''

I have seen those villages and the burning of the villages and we know that the genocide could be stopped by China.

Mia Farrow goes on to say, ``That so many corporate sponsors want the world to look away from that atrocity during the games is bad enough. But equally disappointing is the decision of artists like director Steven Spielberg, who quietly visited China this month as he prepares to help stage the Olympic ceremonies, to sanitize Beijing's image.'' Steven Spielberg, who produced Schindler's List, is now going to try to turn the 2008 Olympics in China to look like a wonderful, wonderful thing.

China is involved in Sudan where they have Antonov bombers bombing the people, helicopters coming in and killing the people, and the Janjaweed who come in and do all sorts of bad things--kill, rape and maim. And China has used its veto power, Mia Farrow says, on the U.N. Security Council to repeatedly obstruct efforts by the U.S. and the U.K. to introduce peacekeepers to curtail the slaughter. Beijing, she says, is uniquely positioned to put a stop to the slaughter, yet they have so far been unabashed in their refusal to do so.

Now, there are some people saying that maybe--maybe--the 2008 Olympics ought to be boycotted. Now, how will you feel, watching or going to the 2008 Olympics and knowing that the country that is doing that could stop the genocide in Darfur?

And so I would urge that if China does not deal with the issue, then the sponsors, but also the people from the West, certainly ought not encourage China to say that we don't care, therefore, we're going to go to your Olympics when Mia Farrow calls it ``the Genocide Olympics.''

And then she says some other very tough things about Spielberg. Does he really want to be this? I mean, the Chinese are in essence doing what the Nazis did in the Olympics in the thirties, cleaning the streets and changing things.

China has the ability to stop the genocide that is taking place in Sudan, and I think everyone should do everything they can. This administration should do more and everyone in the Congress should do more, that if China doesn't use its leverage in the U.N. and allow the Security Council to pass a resolution allowing the end to come out with regard to U.N. peacekeepers in Darfur, then I believe that Mia Farrow and those who are concerned and are considering boycotting the Olympics will be right. This is a test for China.

Now, the Chinese Embassy is working this Hill aggressively. The Chinese Embassy will be working the administration. The Chinese Embassy will be working powerful governments around the world. But as long as the genocide continues in Darfur where 400,000 people have died, 2.1 million are living in refugee camps, knowing that China has the ability to stop what it mentions on

page A-18 in the Washington Post today in this editorial to stop this, then if China is not prepared to use their leverage to stop the genocide, then quite frankly I think Mia Farrow's title of calling this ``the Genocide Olympics'' will be true and no one should attend those Olympics.

The ``Genocide Olympics''

(By Ronan Farrow and Mia Farrow)

``One World, One Dream'' is China's slogan for its 2008

Olympics. But there is one nightmare that China shouldn't be

allowed to sweep under the rug. That nightmare is Darfur,

where more than 400,000 people have been killed and more than

two-and-a-half million driven from flaming villages by the

Chinese-backed government of Sudan.

That so many corporate sponsors want the world to look away

from that atrocity during the games is bad enough. But

equally disappointing is the decision of artists like

director Steven Spielberg--who quietly visited China this

month as he prepares to help stage the Olympic ceremonies--to

sanitize Beijing's image. Is Mr. Spielberg, who in 1994

founded the Shoah Foundation to record the testimony of

survivors of the holocaust, aware that China is bankrolling

Darfur's genocide?

China is pouring billions of dollars into Sudan. Beijing

purchases an overwhelming majority of Sudan's annual oil

exports and state-owned China National Petroleum Corp.--an

official partner of the upcoming Olympic Games--owns the

largest shares in each of Sudan's two major oil consortia.

The Sudanese government uses as much as 80% of proceeds from

those sales to fund its brutal Janjaweed proxy militia and

purchase their instruments of destruction: bombers, assault

helicopters, armored vehicles and small arms, most of them of

Chinese manufacture. Airstrips constructed and operated by

the Chinese have been used to launch bombing campaigns on

villages. And China has used its veto power on the U.N.

Security Council to repeatedly obstruct efforts by the U.S.

and the U.K. to introduce peacekeepers to curtail the

slaughter.

As one of the few players whose support is indispensable to

Sudan, China has the power to, at the very least, insist that

Khartoum accept a robust international peacekeeping force to

protect defenseless civilians in Darfur. Beijing is uniquely

positioned to put a stop to the slaughter, yet they have so

far been unabashed in their refusal to do so.

But there is now one thing that China may hold more dear

than their unfettered access to Sudanese oil: their

successful staging of the 2008 Summer Olympics. that desire

may provide a lone point of leverage with a country that has

otherwise been impervious to all criticism.

Whether that opportunity goes unexploited lies in the hands

of the high-profile supporters of these Olympic Games.

Corporate sponsors like Johnson & Johnson, Coca-Cola, General

Electric and McDonalds, and key collaborators like Mr.

Spielberg, should be put on notice. For there is another

slogan afoot, one that is fast becoming viral amongst

advocacy groups; rather than ``One World, One Dream,'' people

are beginning to speak of the coming ``Genocide Olympics.''

Does Mr. Spielberg really want to go down in history as the

Leni Riefenstahl of the Beijing Games? Do the various

television sponsors around the world want to share in that

shame? Because they will. Unless, of course, all of them add

their singularly well-positioned voices to the growing calls

for Chinese action to end the slaughter in Darfur.

Imagine if such calls were to succeed in pushing the

Chinese government to use its leverage over Sudan to protect

civilians in Darfur. The 2008 Beijing Olympics really could

become an occasion for pride and celebration, a truly

international honoring of the authentic spirit of ``one

world'' and ``one dream.''

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to vote for this bill because I believe it represents a significant step forward in ensuring that the Commonwealth's interests are safeguarded when it comes to preventing casino-style gambling from coming to the state while providing full Federal recognition to these six Virginia Tribes.

However, I hope the Senate will take a very careful look at it before proceeding because I have already begun hearing rumors that attorneys are being consulted about ways to overturn the limitation on tribal gambling included in the legislation.

I believe the tribes when they say they aren't interested in pursuing gambling. Nevertheless, I would be extremely disappointed if there is any merit to the chatter I am hearing already--even before the bill gets out of the House--about their interest in a court challenge of the bill's gambling limitation. I certainly hope that's not true, and that what I am hearing is simply rumor.

I also must admit that I am troubled by the fact the tribes have been paying a lobbyist at least $80,000 for the past several years to advance this legislation. I certainly hope that this bill isn't the first step down the slippery slope we've been down before relating to lobbying and tribal gambling.

In moving forward with approval of this legislation, I believe it is important to underscore Congress' basis for this gambling limitation. Under the bill, no Virginia Indian tribe or tribal member, if granted Federal recognition by H.R. 1294, would have any greater rights to gamble or conduct gambling operations under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia than any other citizen of Virginia. Further, it is the expectation of Congress that the language restricting gambling operations by Indian tribes will be upheld if it is ever challenged in court, just as similar language was upheld in Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo v. the State of Texas, 69 Fed. App. 659. The Natural Resources Committee testimony demonstrates Congress' basis for including this limitation in the tribes' ability to engage in gambling.

In Narragansett Indian Tribe v. National Indian Gaming Commission, 332 U.S. App. D.C. 429, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit applied the Supreme Court's rational basis test from Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (1947), to determine that the denial of gambling opportunities under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to the Narragansett Tribe under the Rhode Island Indian Claims Settlement Act did not violate the equal protection standards of the Fifth Amendment. If the legislation before us today, H.R. 1294, is ever challenged in court, a court should similarly find a rational basis for this limitation.

Again, my concern is not with the Federal recognition of Virginia's Indian tribes. It has always been with the explosive spread of gambling and the potential for casino gambling to come to Virginia. No bill should become law unless it protects the interests of the Commonwealth.

If casino gambling were to come to Virginia, it would open the door to the myriad of financial and socials ills associated with gambling. Virginia's tourism sector, its economy and its communities are some of the strongest in the country. Places such as the Shenandoah Valley, Williamsburg and Jamestown are national treasures which draw visitors from all over the world. Small businesses thrive in Virginia. The Commonwealth's reputation would be tarnished if it allowed casino-style gambling within its borders.

As the author of legislation which created the National Gambling Impact Study Commission that released its 2-year study in 1999, I know firsthand about the devastating social and financial costs of gambling. Crime. Prostitution. Corruption. Suicide. Destroyed families. Child and spouse abuse. Bankruptcy.

This legislation, I believe, does shut the door on the opportunity for these tribes to acquire land and eventually establish tribal casinos. As I said, I know that the current tribal leadership has indicated that they do not want to pursue gambling--and I believe they are sincere. But what the leaders today say doesn't lock in the leaders of tomorrow. I have already started to worry that future leadership of the tribes will pursue establishing tribal casinos. I hope I am wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the 23rd annual Public Service Recognition Week. I am proud to be a co-chair of the Congressional Public Service Caucus, proud to have been a federal employee, and proud to represent in Congress a large number of my constituents who are federal employees. These employees are a national asset who work hard day after day with professionalism and dedication.

Federal employees are the backbone of our government. They can be found working to find cures for diseases at the National Institutes of Health, helping seniors with their Social Security benefits, representing our interests overseas in the State Department, serving as stewards of America's natural resources in the National Park Service, helping our country defend the homeland at the Department of Defense and at the Department of Homeland Security. These are but a few examples of the many areas in which federal employees are serving our country.

We must not forget those federal employees who are risking their lives in the war against

terrorism. The first combat death in Afghanistan in the wake of September 11 was CIA officer Johnny Micheal Spann, one of my constituents. And today, Federal employees can be found throughout the globe fighting the war against terrorism in many different ways.

The sacrifice and hard work of our federal employees, whether abroad or at home, should never be forgotten. Federal employees deserve fair pay--which is why I have been pleased to support pay parity for federal employees since I have been in Congress.

They deserve adequate health care--which is why I have supported legislation to make sure federal employees get quality health benefits.

And retired Federal employees must not be forgotten--which is why I have supported legislation to aid Federal employees who have retired from active service. Federal employees deserve to be honored during Public Service Recognition Week. But we must always remember the they are serving our country every day of the year.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to bring the attention of the House to the retirement of Virginia State Senator Russ Potts. In February, Russ announced that he will not seek reelection in November and it is my pleasure today to recognize his hard work and dedication to the people of the 27th District of Virginia.

Born and raised in Winchester, Russ had a paper route and delivered milk as a young boy to help contribute to his family's income. Self- made, Russ majored in journalism at the University of Maryland before returning to Winchester to take a job as the sports editor of The Winchester Star. A homegrown Republican, Russ eventually went on to a career in sports promotion before running for State Senate 1991. As chairman of the Senate Education and Health Committee and member of the Commerce and Labor, Finance, Privileges and Elections and Rules committees, Russ has made a lasting contribution during the four terms he has served the Commonwealth of Virginia. Russ has dedicated a large portion of his career to public service and will be sorely missed.

Russ is a man of high moral character, a true Virginia gentleman, family man, and loyal friend. I would be remiss today if I didn't also recognize Russ's unwavering dedication to his wife Emily, three daughters, and grandchildren. I ask that my colleagues in the House rise today and join with me in recognizing the outstanding career of Russ Potts.