Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure today to recognize Frederick County Commonwealth's Attorney Lawrence R. Ambrogi on the occasion of his retirement after nearly four decades of public service.

It has come to my attention that Larry will not be seeking re- election in November and I want to take this opportunity to recognize his decorated career. A graduate of American University Law and Randolph Macon College, Larry was appointed as the county commonwealth attorney in 1969 and elected in 1971. As the third longest serving attorney in the history of the Commonwealth, Larry is highly respected member of the law enforcement community and has received numerous awards and recognition for his work. Larry has dedicated his professional life to public service and will be sorely missed by Frederick County and the Shenandoah Valley community as a whole.

Larry is a man of high moral character, a true Virginia gentleman, family man, and loyal friend. I would be remiss today in didn't also recognize Larry's dedication to his wife, Carole, and how proud he is of their children, Lawrence and Elaine, and their many grandchildren. I suspect that as Larry prepares for retirement he is looking forward to spending more time with his family. I ask that my colleagues in the House rise today and join with me in recognizing the outstanding career of Lawrence Ambrogi.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to bring the attention of the House to the retirement of Fairfax County chief prosecutor Robert F. Horan Jr. Having served 10 terms, he is the longest serving prosecutor in the history of the Commonwealth of Virginia and one of the very best in America. His dedicated service to law enforcement in northern Virginia is without equal. I am sure the decision to step down after 40 years was extremely difficult given his dedication to public service and to the people of Fairfax County.

I have had the pleasure to call Bob my friend for many, many years. When Bob was first elected as the county's Commonwealth's attorney in 1967, he and his wife Monica made the decision to raise their family right here in northern Virginia, they have watched Fairfax County grow from a rural farm county into a bustling suburb and the most populous county in Virginia. Bob and Monica's three boys, Robert F. Horan III, Kevin, and Timothy all reside locally and are a testament to their father's fondness for the northern Virginia area.

Bob's accomplishments as chief prosecutor are legendary. He has tried and won several high profile cases including the 1993 sniper shooting at CIA headquarters as well as the Washington sniper case against Lee Boyd Malvo. Bob has received numerous awards and recognitions, and rightfully so. I have inserted for the Record a recent Washington Post article which details his unparalleled career.

Perhaps more important than all of his courtroom successes is the way that Bob conducts himself both inside and outside of the courtroom. Bob is a man of the highest moral character, a true Virginia gentleman, a family man, and loyal friend. Bob is a legend in the law enforcement and with Bob's retirement, an era is truly coming to an end in Fairfax County. I suspect that as Bob prepares for retirement he is looking forward to spending more time with his wife, 3 children, and grandchildren, T.J., Maggie, and Jennifer. We wish him the best and thank him for his dedicated service to the people. I ask that my colleagues in the House join with me in recognizing the outstanding career of Robert F. Horan, Jr.

[From Washington Post, Apr. 15, 2007]

After 40 Years Prosecuting Crimes, Retirement Is Scary Prospect

(By Tom Jackman)

It's hard to picture Robert F. Horan Jr. as a defense

attorney. But there was a time, in the mid-1960s, when the

man who would become Fairfax County's chief prosecutor for 40

years worked on the other side of the courtroom.

Then, in 1966, while he was representing a man charged with

sexual assault, the Supreme Court ruled that suspects must be

advised of their rights, a precursor to the Miranda case.

Horan argued that his client's confession was illegal, a

judge threw it out and the man ultimately was acquitted.

``Which kind of soured me on the system,'' Horan said.

``For the police to have taken an honest statement from the

guy, and it gets thrown out, that didn't sit well.''

A year later, the chief judge of Fairfax asked him to be

the commonwealth's attorney. And he has been ever since.

Last week, Horan (D) announced that he will not seek an

11th term. Horan said he will resign in late summer or early

fall rather than serve out his term, clearing the way for his

chief deputy, Raymond F. Morrogh (D), to run as the acting

commonwealth's attorney in the November general election.

Horan agonized over his decision to step down when he would

have been unopposed. He said his declining hearing has

troubled him, particularly in whispered bench conferences,

and he noted that he would be 75 at election time.

But still, even after he decided to retire, he was

ambivalent about leaving a job he clearly loves. ``I'm not

totally happy with it, I concede that,'' he said. ``My wife

is happy with it.''

His wife, Monica, also played a role in keeping the New

Jersey native in Northern Virginia in the early 1960s, paving

the way for him to become the longest-serving prosecutor in

the state and an institution among prosecutors nationwide.

After Horan graduated from Georgetown's law school in 1961,

he was faced with the decision of staying in the area or

returning to New Jersey. But to obtain a law license in New

Jersey, a six-month clerkship was required.

Horan and his wife had one child and a second on the way.

``I couldn't afford to be a clerk for six months,'' he said.

``So we stayed in Virginia and never regretted it.''

Horan spent two years as a Fairfax assistant prosecutor and

two years in private practice. He was appointed the county's

top prosecutor in March 1967, when Ralph G. Louk stepped

down. He faced opposition in 1967, 1971 and 1975 but not

again until 1995. And not since.

In 1967, the county was still partly rural, with vast

undeveloped stretches and some large cattle farms. ``There

were no stoplights

in Seven Corners,'' he recalled of the now complicated

intersection near Falls Church. Horan had five assistant

prosecutors that year. Today, he has 22, still a low number

compared with surrounding counties.

But remarkably, ``the assistants' caseloads are roughly

what they were when I had five,'' Horan said. As the county's

population exploded from about 450,000 in the late 1960s to

more than a million today, the crime rate has steadily

fallen. Homicides now number between 12 and 20 annually, the

same as in the 1970s. Burglaries and larcenies, which totaled

24,000 in 1980, are down to about 15,000 annually.

Horan has a couple of theories. One is that older, more

marginal neighborhoods such as Blevinstown, just outside

Fairfax City, where local feuds tended to erupt into

violence, have been bulldozed and replaced by communities of

higher incomes and education. Another is that ambulance

service is faster and better equipped, as are the teams in

local emergency rooms. ``Many more people survive gunshots

now,'' Horan said.

One thing that hasn't changed in Horan's four decades is

how he runs his office. He keeps the number of prosecutors to

a minimum. He doesn't share police reports, witness

statements or witness lists with defense attorneys. And he's

not afraid to make tough decisions.

``His office could use many more assistant prosecutors,''

said Robert C. Whitestone, an experienced Fairfax defense

attorney. He said the low number of prosecutors sometimes

keeps them too busy and pushes them into courtrooms

unprepared. Loudoun County, with a population about one-

fourth of Fairfax's, has 16 assistant prosecutors.

Horan said the state Compensation Board determines how many

are allocated across the state and sets a starting salary of

about $43,000, which Fairfax supplements to about $50,000.

``Virginia does criminal prosecution on the cheap,'' Horan

said.

He said that when he first took office, ``it had become

trendy to have your own investigators. I said I don't believe

that's the way to do it,'' and he hasn't. Instead, he relies

on Fairfax police.

The officers closely follow Horan's lead, guarding their

information more tightly than virtually any other police

department in the region, because Horan has insisted they not

provide defense attorneys with any ammunition. Those who

violate his instructions are prone to severe tongue-lashings.

Horan said the county police force has maintained high

standards and excellent performance throughout his tenure.

``The Washington Post always wants to criticize me because

I've never charged an officer with murder,'' Horan said.

``I'm proud of the fact they haven't been charged. It means

they're doing their jobs.''

In recent years, pickets stood outside the Fairfax

courthouse to protest Horan's decision not to charge a Prince

George's County officer with a fatal shooting, and the family

of a slain Fairfax man denounced Horan's refusal to charge a

Fairfax officer with his death. But it's nothing new to

Horan.

He cited controversial cases dating to the early 1970s,

when an officer fatally shot a man in a 7-Eleven in Herndon,

sparking riots, and another when an officer killed a

teenage burglar. In both, there were no charges, to loud

complaints by some. ``It's part of the job,'' he said with

a shrug.

Another part of the job is successfully taking on a case

when the county, or the world, is watching. No one has

questioned his skill there, even defense attorneys.

``He's a brilliant prosecutor,'' Whitestone said. Said

defense attorney Peter D. Greenspun: ``My clients will be

glad he's not around to prosecute them.''

U.S. Attorney General John D. Ashcroft chose Horan to

prosecute one of the first sniper cases, against Lee Boyd

Malvo, and Horan brought home a capital murder conviction

without any witnesses identifying the shooter, although the

jury did not impose the death sentence. In 1997, he obtained

a death sentence against Mir Aimal Kasi, who killed two

people outside the CIA in 1993.

Horan said his most satisfying case was the prosecution of

Caleb D. Hughes for abducting 5-year-old Melissa Brannen in

1989. Hughes was convicted of abduction with intent to

defile; Melissa has not been found.

``That was a really tough case to try,'' Horan said. ``It

stayed with me for a lot of years.''

Of those that have not been solved, the one that bothers

him the most is the death of Gwen Ames, 17, who was found

strangled near Lake Anne Plaza in Reston in 1972.

Horan noted some interesting changes in the courts over 40

years. The arrival of Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court

ruling requiring police to inform suspects of their rights,

changed the tenor of pretrial complaints from police beatings

to police failure to ``Mirandize.''

And the introduction of sentencing guidelines, giving

defendants a better idea of how much jail time they might

face, has reduced the amount of cases that go to trial to

perhaps 10 percent, Horan said.

Horan reduced his own caseload from about 20 a year, mostly

homicides that he often began working on the day they

occurred, to three or four annually. In recent years, with

the increase in guilty pleas, he had no trials.

But he clearly still loves the courtroom. He will handle

the double-murder death penalty trial of Alfredo R. Prieto,

set for late May.

He's leaving reluctantly. ``My only fear is I've known guys

who loved what they were doing,'' Horan said. ``They hung it

up and they were dead in a year.''

He loves playing golf; he drives a Mercedes-Benz 240 sedan

he won in a charity event in 2002 when he nailed a hole-in-

one. But he doesn't think golf can fill his time, and

``there's not a job in the world as interesting as this

one.''

``I haven't even given any thought to what's next,'' Horan

said. ``I'm sure I'll find something to do.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Smith, and for Mr. Smith's faithfulness to be over here.

This institution is frankly changing. It is changing before our eyes. This institution, on both sides of the aisle, almost doesn't seem to care anymore on these issues of fundamental human rights. This institution needs a little bit of Ronald Reagan.

Many of you voted to give this government PNTR. Read the letter. The conditions have changed dramatically. They're worse today than when you gave them PNTR. And yet this place is almost empty. Nobody seems to care anymore.

Father Ly is in jail. The American Ambassador ought to be fired. This administration has done a horrible job.

Let me just read some of the things that have gone on since we gave them PNTR and the President went over there. February 18, 2007, the second day of Lunar, Father Ly was banished to a remote secluded area. Does the Congress care? Does the administration care?

March 5, 2007, security forces in Saigon told Mrs. Bui Ngoc Yen that they had an order to arrest her husband.

March 8, 2007, Reverend Nguyen Cong Chinch were brutally assaulted by the security forces.

March 8, 2007, two prominent human rights activists and lawyers, Mr. Nguyen Van Dai and Ms. Le Thi Cong Nhan were arrested in Hanoi, told they would be detained for 4 months.

March 9, 2007 Mr. Tran Van Hoa, a member of the People's Democracy Committee, summoned by the security forces and threatened with ``immeasurable consequences,'' that's in quotes.

March 10, 2007, Do Nam Hai, an engineer writing under the pen name Phuong Nam, one of the leading members of the Alliance for Democracy told by security forces he could be indicted any time.

March 10, the same day, state security forces raided the home of Ms. Tran Khai Thanh, a writer.

March 12, 2007, do you get a pattern here? Can anyone see a pattern sort of developing here?

The Congress gave them MFN. Probably a majority on both sides gave them MFN. But do you see a pattern here?

March 10, state security forces.

March 12, lawyer Le Quoc Quan, a consultant on local government for the World Bank was arrested in his hometown.

April 5, 2007 the Vietnamese authorities in Hanoi rudely prevented Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez, from your side of the aisle, from meeting with several dissidents' wives at a gathering organized at the Ambassador's house.

Now this Ambassador, frankly, and Mr. Lantos, and we have a bill that's coming up, this Ambassador has failed to turn the American Embassy into an island of freedom. During the days of Ronald Reagan, one of the greatest presidents we have ever had, not only in modern times, but in all times, turned the American Embassy in Moscow into an island of freedom that dissidents felt comfortable coming, and they were invited.

This Ambassador is just the opposite. He's silent. Dr. Martin Luther King said silence is the real danger. You expect the silence of your enemies, but you don't expect the silence of our friends.

Furthermore, the Hanoi government still has a large number of dissidents that are in jail.

Lastly, and I'm going to read a letter that I'm going to put in the Record that we sent to Secretary Rice the other day. The Vietnamese American community, a young but energetic group comprised of more than 1 million citizens, should be included in future dialogues with U.S. government officials. They know the history, the culture and the values of Vietnam. They also scrutinize the history and the tactics of communism and the Communist government's habits at the negotiating table.

I sincerely believe that the history of Vietnam must inform our approach to this and all other aspects of foreign policy. And the Vietnamese American community is a tremendous asset in this regard. Quite frankly, this administration, when Ambassador Marine leaves, ought to put a Vietnamese American in who understands these issues. So I'm going to submit this in the Record.

But these are important issues. This Congress just can't give these people human rights. And frankly, there is a whole shift taking place. I saw the other day, and if I'm wrong, I'll correct it for the record, that Steven Spielberg is now representing the Chinese government for the Olympics. One of Spielberg's greatest movies was the movie that he did with regard to what took place by Nazi Germany, Schindler's List.

Well, now there's a Schindler's list operation going on in China. There are 42 Catholic bishops that are in jail with China, with priests. And for those who might think it might be amusing, China is the one that's trying to do nothing with regard to the genocide in Darfur. 400,000 people have died. The head of China goes to Khartoum 2 months ago with a bold announcement. The announcement is they are going to build a new palace for the Sudanese that are bringing about genocide. Genocide in Darfur.

There are 46,000 house church leaders, leaders, committed leaders, house church leaders that are in jail in China today. In Tibet, it's against the law to have a picture of the Dalai Lama, and the Chinese public security police sent three public security police to my district spying on Rebiya Kadeer. If you read the Washington Post editorial last week, spying on Rebiya Kadeer in Fairfax County. Her three kids have been arrested. She's a Muslim. Her three kids have been arrested. So I just see, and I want to thank Mr. Smith for doing this, but frankly, for the Congress just to grant MFN to this fundamentally evil government, and for us to just sort of move on and just kind of not care anymore, it just is really troubling. When we fail to speak out for the least, we fundamentally fail to speak out for everyone. And so let me just say, I didn't know this was coming up, and I just caught it and came over here. I want to thank Mr. Smith for his faithfulness in being involved. And frankly, any Member that voted to give these guys PNTR, on both sides of the aisle, man, you've got a great responsibility now to really do something on these people. These are dissidents that are in jail. They are being suffered.

And frankly, I end by saying we ought to do more the way that Ronald Reagan did in the 1980s. Speak out on human rights, religious freedom and those values. And with that, you ought to call a role call vote on this because, frankly, this government is so dense that if they see a voice vote they won't even think it it's important. There ought to be a roll call vote so we can send a message on behalf of Father Ly, a Catholic bishop, a Catholic priest who's done nothing, and all these other people. And frankly, this ambassador ought to be shown the door. And we ought to put somebody in who represents the values of this country. Quite frankly, it ought to be a Vietnamese American who can go over there and advocate on behalf of those who are being persecuted.

Dear Secretary Rice: I am writing to express my deep

concern regarding the worsening human rights situation in

Vietnam in recent months. 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. 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 5, 2007, security forces in Saigon told Mrs. Bui

Ngoc Yen that they had an order to arrest her husband,

Professor Nguyen Chinh Kiet, who is a leading member of the

Alliance for Democracy and Human Rights in Vietnam. Professor

Kiet was in Europe at the time campaigning for democracy and

human rights in Vietnam.

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.

On March 10, 2007, Do Nam Hai, an engineer writing under

the pen name Phuong Nam and one of the leading members of the

Alliance for Democracy and Human Rights in Vietnam, was told

by security forces that he could be indicted at any time for

activity against the State.

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.

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 Nguyen Vu Binh, Huynh Nguyen Dao, Truong Quoc Huy,

Nguyen Hoang Long, Nguyen Tan Hoanh, Doan Huy Chuong, the

religious leaders of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam,

Cao Dai, Hoa Hoa, and more than 350 lay people of the

Protestant churches in the Central Highland.

The Vietnamese-Americans in my district, as well as all

across the country, 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. They believe that Ambassador Marine and his staff

are not doing enough to stop these blatant violations of

human rights.

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.

I hope that you will make clear to the Vietnamese

authorities that we will not stand by while this violence and

intimidation continues. I believe the State Department should

consider putting Vietnam back on the list of Countries of

Particular Concern, and perhaps also consider canceling the

planned visit of the Vietnamese president and prime minister

later this year if the human rights situation in Vietnam has

not improved.

I appreciate the recent comments by Sean McCormack at Voice

of America expressing deep concern about the March 30 trial

and sentencing of Father Ly. I ask that you continue pressing

these issues with the Vietnamese government, including the

need to respect the basic human rights of all Vietnamese

citizens, especially the freedom of information, freedom of

expression, and freedom of religion. The Vietnamese people

should be able to choose their own leaders through free and

fair elections and to use the Internet freely without any

censures or restrictions.

I also ask that you encourage the Vietnamese authorities to

release all political prisoners and religious leaders who are

currently imprisoned because of their peaceful expression of

their ideas or to fight for their religious beliefs. Among

these prisoners are Father Nguyen Van Ly, Pastors Nguyen Cong

Chinh and Hong Trung, lawyers Nguyen Van Dai, Le thi Cong

Nhan, Le Quoc Quan, Messiers Truong Quoc Huy, and Nguyen

Hoang Lon.

Lastly, I believe the Vietnamese-American community, a

young but energetic group comprised of more than one million

citizens, should be included in future dialogues with U.S.

government officials. They know the history, culture and

values of Vietnam. They also have scrutinized the history and

tactics of communism and the communist government's habits at

the negotiating table. I sincerely believe that the history

of Vietnam must inform our approach to this and all other

aspects of foreign policy, and the Vietnamese-American

community is a tremendous asset in this regard. I

respectfully request that you invite a small representation

of the Vietnamese-American community to join the U.S.

delegation in next month's human rights dialogue.

Best wishes.

Sincerely,

Frank R. Wolf,

Member of Congress.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to recognize Deborah Cohn, deputy commissioner for Trademark Operations at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), for her leadership in promoting government telework. With her creativity and perseverance, Deborah Cohn pioneered the development of the USPTO's first telework program at a time when telework was far from the norm. Convincing reluctant agency executives, Ms. Cohn forged coalitions with managers, IT personnel, and the employee union to create an innovative, award-winning telework program at the USPTO.

This month, the Trademark Work at Home (TWAH) program celebrates its 10th anniversary. Established in 1997, TWAH began as a feasibility pilot of 18 teleworkers. Today, TWAH is the most innovative and progressive program in the entire Federal Government involving more than 220 employees, or 85 percent of eligible examining attorneys, who spend the vast majority of their workweek at home.

The lesson learned from Hurricane Katrina is that governments and private sector businesses must continue to operate if our Nation is faced with similar disasters in the future. Telecommuting has proven benefits, not only for continuity of operations, but also energy savings, air quality, employee productivity, and employee cost savings. In short, telework is a winner all around. As the Nation's largest employer, the Federal Government should be the leader in telework policy. The USPTO is the gold standard for the Federal Government thanks to the efforts of my constituent, Deborah Cohn.

Ms. Cohn began her career at the USPTO as a trademark examining attorney in 1983. In 2001, she joined the Senior Executive Service as a Trademark Group director. She became deputy commissioner for Trademark Operations in 2005 and currently oversees the examination and processing of applications throughout the trademark operation.

Throughout her legal career at the USPTO, Ms. Cohn has been involved in work-life improvement initiatives. She is a former Council of Excellence in Government fellow where she first developed the seeds of the trademark work-at-home program. Ms. Cohn is a graduate of The American University and George Mason University School of Law. Ms. Cohn is a sought after resource and speaker as an expert on the development and management of telework programs.

I ask that my colleagues join me in recognizing Ms. Cohn's efforts in making the USPTO the most successful telework program within the Federal Government. I also ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the 10th anniversary of the Trademark Office's award-winning telework program.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to bring the attention of the House to Robert Walter Dingman, a decorated veteran of World War II who was wounded in combat 62 years ago today, on April 20, 1945. Private Dingman was seriously wounded as he crossed an open field and laid paralyzed until a heroic medic rescued him under enemy fire.

Bob Dingman had just turned 18 when he was drafted into the Army in 1944. After basic training at Camp Blanding, Florida, he was soon aboard a troop ship to Liverpool, England and then on to LeHarve, France, in early 1945. The French rail road took him and his fellow soldiers to Verviers, Belgium, where he was issued an M-1 rifle. He was soon taken across the Rhine River where he was assigned to Comp B of the 83rd Armored Reconnaissance Battalion of the 3rd Armored Division.

As a young soldier with a strong faith in God, Private Dingman was determined he would not hate his enemy and had occasions to show kindness toward captives, while carrying out his duties. Since those dark days 62 years ago, Bob Dingman has led a successful, active, inspiring and selfless life. After graduating from Houghton College in New York state, he began his career here in Washington as an employee of the U.S. Navy. He later went into the executive recruiting business and formed his own executive recruiting firm in California in 1978. He rose professionally and is recognized as one of the nation's top executive recruiters.

During his recruiting career, he repeatedly went out of his way to assist faith-based organizations in their searches for competent leadership, in addition to his broad array of commercial clients. Over the years he led the search projects for leaders of such organizations as World Vision International, Mission Aviation Fellowship, Young Life, numerous Christian Colleges, and many other church-related organizations. He also gave generously of his time and abilities by serving on the national boards of such organizations as the Salvation Army and Mission Aviation Fellowship and the local boards of Hospice and Whitworth College.

As a disabled veteran of World War II, he was awarded a 50 percent disability in 1951. As one who has experienced the physical and emotional pain of rehabilitation, Mr. Dingman is currently turning his attention to finding ways to help newly disabled veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I ask that the House join me today in recognizing Bob Dingman for a lifetime of service to his country and others, and for his example of determination, hard work and commitment to his faith.

Madam Speaker, today I am reintroducing the Federal Employee Combat Zone Tax Parity Act, which would provide parity by extending the tax credit currently received by military personnel to the civilian federal employees working alongside them.

It is only fair that both military and civilian employees who are serving side by side receive the same tax treatment. In fact, even contract employees can get a tax break through the foreign earned investment tax credit, but federal employees are specifically exempted from that tax credit.

As a former federal employee, I am keenly aware of the invaluable contributions federal employees make to our country. I believe we must ensure that our federal workforce is treated with fairness and respect.

The Pentagon stated in the proposed regulations for the new National Security Personnel System that ``NSPS is essential to the department's efforts to create an environment in which the total force, uniformed personnel and civilians, think and operates as one cohesive unit.'' What kind of message does it send to civilian employees if they receive disparate tax status from their military colleagues?

Just as military personnel, federal employees serving in combat zones must leave their families behind and this can increase the financial burdens on families. Families with two working parents suddenly have only one parent able to care for the needs of the family. Military personnel in combat zones were given a tax credit back in 1913 to help alleviate their tax burden, but federal employees were left out.

Since 9/11 it has become ever more vital to have a thriving civil service participating in our efforts to fight the war on terrorism. Now more than ever in our nation's history we must take action that reflects the contributions both our civilian and military employees are making--in the war on terrorism and as well as the daily operations of the federal government in providing the services upon which every American relies.

Federal employees are on the front lines of the war against terror.

The first American to die in Afghanistan was a CIA agent from my district.

Federal employees are in Iraq helping the Iraqi people to build a free nation.

Throughout the world, America's civil servants are serving our government and our people, often in dangerous locations.

How can we tell them we will not give them a fair and equitable tax credit that recognizes their hard work, dedication, and sacrifice?

We are asking federal employees to take on more and more responsibility every day. They are on the ground in the war on terrorism taking over new roles to relieve military personnel of tasks civilian employees can perform. They are all playing a vital role in keeping us safe and deserve to be treated with respect and fairness.

We have a long tradition in the Congress of recognizing the valuable contributions of our federal employees in both the military service and in the civil service by providing fair and equitable treatment. This is not the time to shirk our duty to the civil service.

I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the Federal Employee Combat Zone Tax Parity Act.

I want to thank Mr. Scott and Mr. Boucher for bringing this resolution up.

Words are inadequate at this time. And our community and our State and the Nation have been devastated by what has taken place.

Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today in support of this resolution offering the condolences of the House to the victims and their families of the horrific violence at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia, on Monday morning, and to the students, the faculty, administration, staff and their families who have forever been changed by this tragedy.

My heart is heavy for the entire grieving Virginia Tech community and the families in the 10th District of Virginia who are mourning today because the young, promising lives of their children have ended. According to the morning news we have received, there are going to be at least five victims who call the 10th Congressional District, my district, home.

There really are no words that can adequately express, and as a father of 5 children and a grandfather of 12, words you can say, that can express the sorrow we are feeling for the families today. But with this resolution, it is my hope that the families in my district and the families and loved ones of all the victims will know that this district, this Commonwealth of Virginia and indeed the entire Nation are with them in spirit, offering them our heartfelt sympathy and prayers.

With my colleagues in the Virginia delegation, I attended the very moving and emotional convocation yesterday in Blacksburg. I was impressed with the Tech community, the students and staff, administration. President Bush did an outstanding job, as did Governor Kaine, in addressing the students and the administration. It was truly a feeling of family coming together to offer love and support to each other in their time of grief and loss.

There is still a numbness and incredulity about what happened on the Virginia Tech campus just 2 days ago. The wounds in Blacksburg are deep, but with the unity of spirit and the deep faith I felt yesterday on the Tech campus, it is my hope that as the tomorrows come, this outstanding institution and all those who are associated with it will find hope and peace.

May God bless all of us at this very, very difficult time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to share with our colleagues additional information on the new initiative for the Middle East that I announced at a press conference on March 22. I submit for the Record the remarks of former Ambassador David Abshire, who in his capacity at the Center for the Study of the Presidency will be administering this initiative. I also submit observations on the Middle East from Dr. Robert Cooley, President Emeritus of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary.

Remarks From Dr. David Abshire Before the March 22, 2007 Press

Conference on New Middle East Initiative

We are grateful to Congressman Wolf for his leadership, and

encouragement of this initiative facilitated by the non-

partisan Center for the Study of the Presidency. This

initiative on Israel and Palestine is based on

recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, which Congressman

Wolf also helped launch: ``The United States will not be able

to achieve its goals in the Middle East unless the United

States deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict.'' The

Secretary of State, when in Ramallah, said ``I have heard a

clear call for deeper American engagement, and we are

absolutely committed.''

The current effort that we are announcing today, which

Secretary Rice supports, observes this recommendation, and we

are honored that our Center, which examines the American

Presidency, has been asked to contribute to such an important

initiative. Eleven U.S. Presidents have had to deal with this

challenge. We are therefore delighted that Ambassador Dennis

Ross of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy will

serve as a Senior Advisor at the Center, and bring his

extensive experience to this endeavor.

In terms of exchanges, health is essential to the economy,

well-being, national security, and future of the Middle East

region. The goal of this part of the initiative is to foster

collaboration and facilitate interactions between medical and

scientific experts in Israel and Palestine to improve health.

Our Center has the advantage of the leadership and experience

of Senior Advisor, Rear Admiral Susan Blumenthal, M.D., who

is an expert on a broad range of public health and medical

issues. She served as Assistant Surgeon General in the US

Department of Health and Human Services, where her work in

global health included fostering a Middle East health

initiative with Israel, Palestine, Egypt and Jordan.

We also will encourage more academic and scientific

exchange and cooperative efforts in the model of the Israeli-

Palestinian Science Organization--a non-political, nonprofit

organization which is dedicated to nurturing and supporting

cooperation between Israeli and Palestinian scientists and

scholars in joint research ventures. In doing so, IPSO brings

about dialogue between the two sides, even in these highly

explosive times.

On a separate track, we enthusiastically welcome the

leadership of former Democratic Congressman Tony Hall, also

former Ambassador to the UN Agencies for Food and

Agriculture. Tony has written a truly remarkable book on his

experiences here--Changing the Face of Hunger. Ambassador

Hall and his team of diverse lay and religious leaders will

seek to build better understanding between religious leaders.

The Holy Land is common to the three religions that find

their beginning in Abraham, and this initiative is indeed

appropriate at the time when we seek peace and understanding

throughout the Middle East.

Remarks on the Middle East From Dr. Robert Cooley, President Emeritus,

Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary

First, a little background on my experience in the Land and

at home, as well. My doctoral studies were in the fields of

the Ancient and Modern Near East with special interest in

Hebrew Studies and Syro-Palestinian Archaeology. I have

excavated at five buried sites in the three countries of

Jordan, Egypt and Israel. During these past 48 years, I have

had the privilege of working with Palestinian Moslems,

Palestinian Christians and Israelis in a variety of roles,

most notably as the director of 75 study tours and as an

archaeologist. Further, I have served as the Annual

Professor, William Foxwell Albright Institute of Archaeology

and Visiting Professor at the Jerusalem University College.

Many of the citizens of the Land have become personal friends

over these many years

and we continue to communicate and visit with each other. In

all of these associations, I have sustained an apolitical

stance, having personal values and feelings for all of the

people based upon my own faith commitment and understanding

of their own aspirations and vision.

In the USA, I have been a professor at Wheaton College,

Evangel University, Dropsie University, Missouri State

University where I served as the Director of the Center for

Archaeological Research. Most recently, I served as president

of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary until my retirement in

1997.

I join Congressman Wolf in underscoring the strategic role

that people of faith have in creating the mood for meaningful

dialog toward a lasting peace. It is time that such persons

have a voice in framing the peace conversation and the

solution that will allow all to have lives of dignity,

freedom and tranquility. The roots of religion run very deep

into the region's antiquity and cannot be separated from

matters that we in the West would call secular or merely

political. After all, the three major groups in the Land are

Sons of Abraham and share a common understood relationship

that serves as a basis for living together in harmony today.

The past 50 years of failed politics have undermined communal

harmony and allowed outside forces to enter and to modify

relationships. Now, differences in a culture of hatred are

about to fragment the greater society and turn the region

into a quagmire of despair. An approach that takes seriously

the Abrahamic factor can bring the parties back to his tent

for conversation and where participants can look each in the

eye and see each other's humanity and aspirations. The God of

Abraham unifies through His promises and mercy.

It is true that religion can divide a society. This is no

more true than in the Holy Land and the Middle East.

Religious differences are sharp and numerous. The majority of

the people are Muslims. But, within Islam, there are at least

72 sects with the Sunni and the Shi'a being the most

populated. Christians tend to be identified along four lines:

Eastern Orthodox Churches, Oriental Churches, Roman

Catholics, and Protestants. Judaism has its own deep

divides--Orthodox, Conservative and Reformed, along with

other lesser groups. Of course, there are several other

religious groups, due to the history of the region and they

represent a variety of mixtures, such as, The Druzes, The

Yazidis, The Sabeans and The Bahais. Superimposed over these

religious groups are the interests of politics and geo-

economics.

One cannot speak about peace on the political level without

taking into account the religious roots of the people. The

veneration of holy sites and places is fundamental to

identities, and they are multiple. The only solution is an

open and free society that must be the goal of peace.

Madam Speaker, I would like to share with our colleagues information on a new initiative for the Middle East that will combine economics and faith. Ambassador Dennis Ross, of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and former presidential negotiator in the Middle East, and Ambassador Tony Hall, who served in Congress from 1979 to 2002, will be key players in the initiative. The initiative will be coordinated by the Center for the Study of the Presidency and be supported by a grant from the U.S. Agency for International Development.

I submit for the Record my remarks, as well as those of Ambassador Tony Hall, at a press conference on March 22 at which this initiative was announced.

Frank Wolf's Remarks Before the March 22, 2007 Press Conference on New

Middle East Initiative

Thank you for coming today. I also want to thank and

recognize Ambassador David Abshire and Ambassador Tony Hall

for joining me today. Both will be speaking in a few minutes.

I have known and worked with both David and Tony for a number

of years and have great respect for them. And I can honestly

say that Tony was my best friend in Congress and remains my

best friend today.

Today we are here to announce the launching of a new

initiative in the Middle East that will combine economics and

faith. It will be coordinated by the Center for the Study of

the Presidency and be supported by a grant from USAID. We are

deeply concerned that time is running out to find a peaceful

solution to the issues that separate the people in the land

so many call holy.

In the Middle East, religion plays such an important role

in people's lives. If you're Jewish, you have the Western

Wall. If you're Christian, you have the Church of the Holy

Sepulcher. If you're Muslim, you have the Dome of the Rock.

We cannot work toward peace in the Middle East without taking

into account the religious roots of its people.

The U.S. government doesn't have the capacity to deal with

this reality in the lives of those who live in that region.

That is why I have put together an initiative that includes

the faith component. The faith component of this initiative

will be led by former Congressman Tony Hall. His depth of

faith and experience in building bridges between people is

critical to this initiative.

The economic development component will be led by

Ambassador Dennis Ross. Dennis is a seasoned diplomat who has

maintained a significant role in shaping U.S. involvement in

the Middle East peace process for many years.

Dr. Bob Cooley, president emeritus of Gordon-Conwell

Theological Seminary, recently provided me some insightful

observations about the faith dynamics in the Middle East. He

has worked with Palestinian Muslims, Palestinian Christians,

and Israelis during his 48 years of pursuing Hebrew Studies

and Syro-Palestinian Archeology.

He points out that the three major religious groups in the

land are ``all Sons of Abraham, who share a common understood

relationship that serves as a basis for living together in

harmony today.'' It is largely the past 50 years of failed

politics that have undermined communal harmony in the region

and modified the relationships between these groups. A

complete copy of Dr. Cooley's remarks about the relationships

between these groups is attached to my statement.

The faith dynamic in the region is critical to forming the

most effective approach to the political situation. If you

buy a young plant, you can't place it in the ground without

tilling the soil first. The purpose of this initiative isn't

to deal with boundaries, or questions of status. It is to

build relationships; to prepare the soil in preparation for

the diplomatic efforts of Secretary Rice and others to find a

political solution for the region.

Psalm 122:6 tells us to ``pray for the peace of

Jerusalem.'' I do this every day. I believe that this

initiative will bring the people of different faiths together

and build bridges between them. Now I am going to turn the

program over to Dr. Abshire and then Tony. We will take any

questions after both of them speak. Thank you.

Statement by Ambassador Tony Hall at Middle East Press Conference on

March 22, 2007

I am very pleased to be part of this initiative headed by

my friend, Frank Wolf, and supported by other members of the

Congress and Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice.

As His Majesty King Abdullah of Jordan so clearly spelled

out two weeks ago to the Congress, the unresolved conflict

between Israel and Palestine has resulted in tremendous pain

in Israel, the Palestinian territories and other nations in

the Middle East. This problem has fueled additional fires

outside of the region that have brought fear, destruction and

extremism to many countries and people, including our own.

The situation is at such a point that it is no longer only an

isolated regional conflict in which we can choose to be

involved, it is a problem that directly affects the security

of the United States.

I have traveled a number of times to the Middle East,

starting in 1979, and most recently having returned from

there this past week. We did a lot of listening; and what I

have seen and heard leads me to believe that there has not

been a more urgent time for peace. There are a lot of people

already working on multiple fronts in waging peace, and my

role in the coming months will be to support them by

fostering additional relationships, understanding, and

cooperation among the various communities in the Holy Land.

I want to clarify that my mission is not to distract from

the political side of the peace process, but to lay

additional groundwork for an eventual political outcome.

However, one cannot speak about peace on the political level

without taking into account the religious roots of the people

involved--especially in the Holy Land.

Our service is to support and encourage the people of faith

who bear influence in the region. We are connecting with

people of faith because as leaders of these communities they

can either encourage the way of compassion, sacrifice, and

grace in this process--which is necessary to support a

political outcome--or they can incite their people in the

hopeless path of the status quo. We want to help the Jewish,

Muslim, and Christian communities who recognize and labor for

peace

by practicing the commandment to ``Love your neighbor.''

The Abrahamic faiths have been in conflict for so long,

that most of us have forgotten that at the core of each of

them lies that universal commandment: ``Love your neighbor.''

By going back to this fundamental starting point ourselves,

and encouraging our friends in the region to do likewise, we

believe that we can construct some good will that we hope may

help support a political settlement.

We are not under any illusion that we alone can solve the

conflict. My good friend Cardinal Theodore McCarrick and

other community, political, business and religious leaders

are coming together to share in the work of preparing the way

for peace in the Holy Land. Together we hope that our

combined efforts can, in some small way, assist in paving the

way for a just and lasting peace.

It's worth a try.

Mr. Speaker, there are legitimate and important emergency funding needs for the troops and our Federal civilian corps on the ground in Iraq and elsewhere. The President requested $93.4 billion in emergency supplemental appropriations to continue the fight against terrorism, and that is what we should be doing.

Unfortunately, this bill offers, I think, a way of not doing that in an appropriate way. It is bloated with $124.3 billion in spending, $21 billion over what was requested. It is true we have provided funding for emergency supplementals before, but it would be hard pressed to convince the American people that $25 million for spinach producers, which may be important to do, but in the regular order; $74 million for peanut storage may be appropriate, but in regular order. It should not be done here. At the same time it does that, it restricts the civilian spending for the provincial reconstruction teams, which helps us do some of the civilian things that we should be doing in Iraq.

The larger issue, however, is this legislation before us has become a vehicle, unfortunately, for polarization on the fight to stabilize Iraq. I have been there three times. I believe tying the hands of our military commanders to adapt to the changing circumstances can only hurt our mission and our troops.

I don't believe it is a good policy to criticize the administration's strategy as failing, while at the same time cutting the very funding necessary for the administration and the troops to succeed, and then putting conditions on releasing the funding provided. They just don't all fit together.

We have to look no further than the report of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group to find ``the way forward, a new approach for Iraq.'' Just last months when we debated the Iraq war resolution, 106 Members from both sides of the aisle mentioned the importance of the Iraq Study Group and how they supported it.

Last night Mr. Shays asked the Rules Committee to make in order an amendment that I was cosponsoring to do exactly that, and it was turned down, and just at the very time the diplomatic engagement that most of us wanted to see take place begins to take place. The meeting 2 weeks ago had us engaging with the Syrians and the Iranians. We accepted Mr. Moran's amendment in the full committee, which was good, to really put the Congress on record in support of that diplomatic effort. But Mr. Shays was turned down again, as I was turned down several weeks ago.

The Iraq Study Group's Cochairmen Baker and Hamilton said in the group report, ``The U.S. foreign policy is doomed to failure, as is any course in action in Iraq, if not supported by a broad, sustained consensus.''

This bill is not a broad, sustained consensus. The recommendation of the Iraq Study Group could have brought us, and still may very well bring us, to a consensus that unites the Congress and the nation on Iraq. That is the policy both the Congress and the administration should embrace. This bill does not do it, and I urge a ``no'' vote on it.

There are some legitimate and important emergency funding needs for our troops and our Federal civilian corps on the ground in Iraq and elsewhere. The President requested some $93.4 billion in emergency supplemental appropriations to continue the fight against terrorism. That's what this bill should be addressing.

Unfortunately, this bill fails to offer a reasonable way forward in supporting our troops, and I cannot vote for it.

This is a bloated $124.3 billion spending bill--over $21 billion than what was requested.

It's true we've provided funding for emergencies in other supplementals, for example hurricane relief and planning for a flu pandemic. But I think we would be hard pressed to convince the people we represent that $25 million for spinach producers or $74 million for peanut storage costs qualify as emergency spending needed today. The debate on that kind of spending should be part of the fiscal year 2008 appropriations process where it belongs.

The larger issue, however, is that this legislation before us has become the vehicle for polarization on the fight to stabilize Iraq. It does not offer an alternative. Instead, it would ultimately mandate a retreat.

I have been to Iraq three times, and my concern for our troops has never been stronger. If I thought that this bill was in their best interests, I would support it.

Tying the hands of our military commanders to adapt to changing circumstances can only hurt our mission and our troops.

Within the State-Foreign Operations portion, it cuts funding necessary to support projects such as the Provincial Reconstruction Teams. PRTs are joint civilian-military teams living in the provinces among the Iraqi people. They work side-by-side with the Iraqis to identify development and governance programs and offer our best bet for improving stability and governance.

Cutting funding for these teams is cutting them off at their knees before they get a chance to stand up. These funds are essential for improving safety and stability--the very safety and stability which will enable our troops to withdraw more quickly.

I just don't believe it is good policy to criticize the administration's strategy as failing while at the same time cutting the very funding necessary for it to succeed and then putting conditions on releasing funds provided.

We have to look no further than the report of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group to find ``the way forward--a new approach'' for Iraq. They worked for more than 8 months, supported by expert working groups and senior military advisers in the areas of economy and reconstruction, military and security, political development, and strategic environment.

The study group's report released last December 6 was hailed as an important opportunity to chart a new course for Iraq. That is what we should be considering today.

Just last month when we debated the Iraq war resolution, 106 Members from both sides of the aisle mentioned the importance of the Iraq Study Group's recommendations as the way forward in Iraq.

Last night, Mr. Shays asked the Rules Committee to make in order an amendment, offered in partnership with me, to support the findings of the Iraq Study Group. By doing so, we believed the House would be working to meet our responsibility as political leaders to build bipartisan consensus on the issues of war and peace.

But his request was turned down. That was the second time in a month that the Rules Committee has not allowed an amendment on the Iraq Study Group's report. Instead, we have before us a political statement that pulls us farther apart.

The ramifications of this polarization reach far beyond Washington; all the way to Baghdad and the Iraqi provinces. I want to read from the letter Secretary Baker and Congressman Hamilton wrote as the prelude to the Iraq Study Group's recommendations:

Many Americans are dissatisfied, not just with the

situation in Iraq but with the state of our political debate

regarding Iraq. Our political leaders must build a bipartisan

approach to bring a responsible conclusion to what is now a

lengthy and costly war. Our country deserves a debate that

prizes substance over rhetoric, and a policy that is

adequately funded and sustainable. The President and Congress

must work together. Our leaders must be candid and forthright

with the American people in order to win their support.

And it goes on to say:

. . . U.S. foreign policy is doomed to failure--as is any

course of action in Iraq--if it is not supported by a broad,

sustained consensus. The aim of our report is to move our

country toward such a consensus.

The bill before us does not move the country toward a consensus. The country must come back together. We must be united. That is the only way we will be successful.

The recommendations of this distinguished group could have brought us to consensus and united the Congress and the Nation on Iraq. That is the policy both the Congress and the President should embrace.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Madam Speaker, as a nation we are moving closer and closer to the edge of the financial cliff. A few steps forward and we will start a free fall into a canyon of debt which will be base for our country. Is that what we want for our children and grandchildren?

Of course not. The baby boomers start retiring at the end of this year. That will bring unprecedented levels of entitlement and other program spending.

If left unchanged, in just a few decades there will be little money for transportation, education, health care, medical research, cancer research, veterans, the environment, and all the programs our constituents depend on us to provide. We cannot continue to keep borrowing and mortgaging our future to countries like China that carry our debt.

Young people should be clamoring for Congress to act. They have the most to lose from inaction. It's their future that is being mortgaged. Everyday we don't act, we increase the debt burden they must repay in future years.

I have a bill which offers an opportunity to change the current course. Senator Voinovich and I first introduced the SAFE Commission last summer. And we reintroduced it in January.

Our country is in trouble--and we can't afford to wait much longer to take action.

The bipartisan SAFE Commission will put everything on the table-- entitlements, other federal spending, and tax policies--as it comes up with recommendations.

It will hold town hall meetings across the country to explain the financial crisis we face and discuss this issue with the American people.

We need to listen to them. I believe that the American people, given the hard facts from a bipartisan panel, will understand that solving this problem will take sacrifice from everyone.

The commission's recommendations would then come to Congress and we would take an up or down vote on the proposals in their entirety, similar to the BRAC process.

Mandating congressional action on the panel's recommendations is what makes this commission unique.

There also is the opportunity for Congress to put forward an alternative proposal to reach the same goal at the same time the SAFE Commission recommendations are voted on.

Holding out some hope that Congress could act on its own, the legislation also has a provision that if Congress were to pass a measure making substantive changes in entitlement spending and taking other action to get our financial house in order before the SAFE Commission acts, then the commission would cease to exist.

But if Congress doesn't act, no later than 17 months from the organization of the commission, it would be required to vote--up or down--on the SAFE Commission's legislative proposal.

I have written a number of Dear Colleagues and personally talked with a number of my House colleagues about joining this effort--more than once.

While 20 Republicans have signed on, including the Minority Leader John Boehner, this effort has fallen on deaf ears on the other side of the aisle.

I have sent a personal letter to each of the Blue Dog Coalition members appealing to them to step forward and join me in focusing national attention on this critical issue.

I have also written to the media and public opinion leaders a number of times over the last year. While there have been a few columnists who have written op-eds, overall I have been disappointed that there hasn't been more reporting about the grave consequences of inaction.

I certainly understand how this issue is competing with other national priorities, including the war in Iraq and the larger war on terrorism. But I fear that if we can't get Congress to move this year, there will not be another opportunity for a couple years with the 2008 presidential campaign already heating up.

As the father of five and grandfather of 12, the fiscal challenges facing the nation with the

baby boomers' retiring strike me as much more than a routine policy discussion.

Without action, just what kind of future are we leaving to our children and grandchildren?

In a word--bleak.

We owe a debt to previous generations--our parents and grandparents-- for the sacrifices they made to make our country what it is today.

Likewise, our generation must find the resolve so that generations to come will have a secure economic future.

America needs our help and I welcome your support.

Madam Speaker, as a nation, we are moving closer and closer to the edge of the financial cliff. A few steps forward and we will start the free fall into a canyon of debt which is bad for our country.

The baby boomers start retiring at the end of this year, and that will bring unprecedented levels of entitlement and other program spending. If left unchanged, in just a few decades there will be little money left for transportation, education, health care, medical research, cancer research, veterans, the environment, and all the other important programs. We cannot continue to keep borrowing and mortgaging our future to countries like China that carry our debt.

Young people should be clamoring for Congress to act; they have the most to lose from our inaction. It is their future that is being mortgaged, and every day we don't act we increase the debt burden they must repay in the future.

I have a bill which offers an opportunity to change the current course. Senator Voinovich and I first introduced the SAFE Commission last summer, and we reintroduced it in January.

Our country is in trouble, and we cannot afford to wait much longer. The bipartisan SAFE Commission will put everything on the table, entitlements and other Federal spending and tax policies, as it comes up with recommendations. It will hold town hall meetings across the country to explain the financial crisis we face and discuss the issue with the American people. I believe the American people, given the hard facts from a bipartisan panel, will understand that solving this problem will take some sacrifice from everyone.

The commission's recommendations would then come to Congress and we would take an up or down vote on the proposals in their entirety, similar to the BRAC process. Mandating congressional action on the panel's recommendations is what makes this unique.

There is also an opportunity for Congress to put forward an alternative proposal to reach the same goals at the same time the SAFE Commission recommendations are voted on. Holding out some hope that Congress would act on its own, the legislation also has a provision that if Congress were to pass a measure making substantive changes in entitlement spending and taking other action to get our financial house in order, the commission would cease to exist. But if Congress doesn't act no later than 17 months from the organization of the commission, it would be required to vote up or down on the SAFE Commission.

I have written a number of Dear Colleagues and personally talked with a number of my House colleagues about joining this effort. While 20 Republicans have signed on, including minority leader John Boehner, this effort has fallen on deaf ears on the other side of the aisle. I have personally sent a letter to each Blue Dog Coalition member appealing to them to step forward and join me in focusing national attention on this critical crisis. I have a history of working in a bipartisan way in this panel, and yet I hear absolutely no support or interest from the other side of the aisle.

I have also written to media and public opinions and leaders about this issue over the year. I certainly understand how the issue is competing with other national priorities, including the war in Iraq, but I fear that if we can't get Congress to move this year, there will not be another opportunity for a couple of years, with the 2008 presidential campaign heating up. This is a moral issue that this Congress is not addressing.

As a father of five children and a grandfather of 12, the fiscal challenges facing the Nation with the baby boomers retiring strike me as much more than a routine policy discussion. Without action, what kind of future are we leaving to our children and our grandchildren? In a word, ``bleak.'' We owe a debt to previous generations, to our parents and our grandparents for the sacrifices that they made for our country to make our country so great. Likewise, our generation, those who serve in this Congress and serve in the administration, must find the resolve so that generations to come will have the same type of financial future that our parents and grandparents gave to us.

I ask Members of Congress to look at this and join in a bipartisan way to deal with this issue in this Congress. And I also urge the administration, which has been silent on this issue, to stop, to break the silence. And for Rob Portman and the Secretary of Treasury and others to come up here and support this so we can make sure that we give our children and our grandchildren the same opportunities that our mothers and fathers gave to us.

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure today to recognize Mr. David Mabie, of Nokesville, Virginia, on the occasion of his retirement after over four decades of public service.

After serving three years in the U.S. Army, Dave and his wife Copper moved to Waynesboro, Virginia, in 1967 where Dave joined the Waynesboro Police Department. Then in 1970 he became a police officer in Manassas, Virginia, and served as one of the original members of this newly formed Prince William County department. Dave served as a detective and eventually was assigned to the Commonwealth Attorney's Office where he specialized in trial preparation for capital murder cases.

In 1992 Dave was elected to serve as clerk of the Circuit Court in Prince William County, from where he will be retiring on April 1, 2007. Through the years Dave has been an active member of several organizations including the United Way, Regional Jail Board, and Chamber of Commerce. Dave has dedicated his professional life to public service and will be sorely missed by Prince William County and the northern Virginia community as a whole.

I cannot say enough about Dave and how honored I am to have worked with him throughout his career. I would be remiss today in didn't also recognize Dave's dedication to his wife Copper, and how proud he is of their children, Andrew, Meredith, and Christopher, and their many grandchildren. I suspect that as Dave prepares for retirement he is looking forward to spending more time with his family. We wish him the best and thank him for his dedicated service to the people.

Madam Speaker, earlier this year I reintroduced legislation in the House of Representatives aimed at addressing the looming financial crisis facing the Nation, the Securing America's Future Economy (SAFE) Commission Act. The bill would establish a national bipartisan commission that will put everything--entitlement spending as well as all other Federal programs and our Nation's tax policies--on the table and require Congress to vote up or down on its recommendations in their entirety, similar to the process set in 1988 to close military bases. Mandating congressional action on the panel's recommendations is what differentiates this commission from previous ones.

I submit for the Record an op-ed by Dr. Ed Feulner, President of the Heritage Foundation. Dr. Feulner believes that the SAFE Commission provides an opportunity to address this looming crisis. This legislation can provide a path toward a safe and secure economy for generations to come--a renaissance for America.

This legislation will be good for the future of America.

[From the Sun Times, Feb. 28, 2007]

We Need a New Commission To Tackle Entitlement Programs

(By Ed Feulner)

In any policy battle, it helps to have allies. So it's good

that AARP seems finally ready to help press for reform of

entitlements such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

AARP's shift can be seen in its latest TV ad, ``Future

Champions.'' It shows children stressing the need to ``find

real long-term solutions to some of America's most pressing

issues--health care and long-term financial security.''

The ad is misleading in some ways. Speaking about

entitlements, one boy asks, ``Will we keep those promises?''

when, of course, this child has made no promises. In fact,

the big three entitlement programs are promises made by older

generations--to give themselves benefits that younger workers

will have to pay for through ever-rising payroll taxes.

But the overall message of the ad is that we need to make

some big changes to fix entitlements. That's a refreshing

change from two years ago. Back then, when President Bush was

urging the creation of individual retirement accounts within

Social Security, AARP's ads insisted, ``If you had a problem

with the kitchen sink, you wouldn't tear down the entire

house,'' hinting that entitlement problems weren't all that

bad.

But the organization now seems to understand that the

country's on the verge of a fiscal catastrophe.

The Congressional Budget Office predicts that spending on

Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will soar from just

over 8 percent of GDP today to almost 19 percent in 2050,

when the cute children in today's TV ads will be middle-aged

parents. Their bill will be gigantic: $38 trillion to pay for

the Social Security and Medicare benefits their parents have

promised themselves--but not arranged to pay for. Add in the

national debt and other entitlements, and it works out to

$440,000 for every household in the United States today--

enough to buy each of those families a new home. Or two.

So how can we fix things? Well, as we learned in the debate

over Social Security, we can't simply take on one problem at

a time. If we try to reform just one of the big programs,

some group will always fight for the status quo. We need to

fix all three at once.

Also, we need to give lawmakers some cover. To accomplish

that, Congress should form a commission such as the one Rep.

Frank Wolf (R-Va.) proposed last year. Wolf would label it

``SAFE,'' for ``Securing America's Future Economy.'' It would

have 16 voting members, including at least four members of

Congress, the director of the Office of Management and Budget

and the secretary of the Treasury.

The commission would be bipartisan and have one year to

develop plans to:

Fix the imbalance between long-term federal spending

promises and projected revenues.

Boost national savings to spur domestic investment and

economic growth.

Simplify the budget process to place greater emphasis on

long-term fiscal issues.

The first thing the commission would do is leave Washington

and discuss reform options with Americans. That should help

it avoid the temptation to hatch some scheme behind closed

committee-room doors. Plus, the members would surely find, as

the Heritage Foundation has with our ongoing Fiscal Wake-Up

Tour, a real desire out there to fix entitlement programs.

Once it reports to Congress, lawmakers would be required to

hold a simple up-or-down vote on each of its recommendations.

This should help break the legislative logjam. Just as base-

closing commissions enabled lawmakers to shutter obsolete

military bases (even those in their own districts or states),

a SAFE Commission would help lawmakers make necessary changes

without being accused of ``destroying'' entitlement programs.

Many of us over 50 realize that our generation, however

inadvertently, created the coming entitlement crisis, and we

understand it's up to us to solve it. AARP will be a welcome

ally--if we can believe their ads. Establishing a SAFE

Commission should help us find out.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to bring the attention of the House to the passing of Virginia State Senator Abe Brault on February 13, 2007. Senator Brault served in the Virginia General Assembly for 18 years, including a term as majority leader from 1976 to 1980.

A Navy veteran who served during WWII, Abe opened a law practice in Fairfax County during the 1950s and dedicated his life to serving those in Fairfax and the surrounding area. He was a good man who served Virginia well and I was honored to know him. A family man and true Virginia gentleman, Abe died at the age of 97 and is survived by his wife, three children, and nine grandchildren, and 14 great- grandchildren.

Madam Speaker, I insert for the Record an obituary published in The Washington Post which details the many accomplishments of Senator Brault.

[From Washingtonpost.com, Feb. 14, 2007]

Adelard L. `Abe' Brault, 97; Influential N. Va. Senator

(By Adam Bernstein)

Adelard L. ``Abe'' Brault, 97, a feisty Fairfax County

Democrat who retired in 1983 after 18 years in the Virginia

Senate, including a term as majority leader, died Feb. 13 at

his home in Front Royal, Va. He had pneumonia.

For years, Mr. Brault was considered dean of the Northern

Virginia delegation, and he used his authority to push

through funding for the Metro system, George Mason University

and Northern Virginia Community College.

He and Sen. Omer L. Hirst (D-Fairfax-Falls Church) helped

shape legislation and financing for the 13-mile Dulles Toll

Road, built in 1984 to link Interstate 66 and the Capital

Beltway with Dulles International Airport.

Mr. Brault was the majority leader from 1976 to 1980,

largely because of a moderate-liberal coalition that

successfully challenged the more conservative elements of the

Senate. A conservative faction led by Hunter B. Andrews (D-

Hampton) eventually removed Mr. Brault from the leadership.

He described his loss as a ``power play'' meant to weaken

Northern Virginia's influence.

Mr. Brault was known for blunt and critical commentary that

he regarded as honesty and others sometimes found

uncollegial. As a result, then-Gov. Charles S. Robb (D)

appointed Mr. Brault to the State Board of Education in 1985,

a year later than expected. The delay was attributed to Mr.

Brault's criticism of the leadership ability of Sen. Clive L.

DuVal II (D-Fairfax).

Adelard Lionel Brault was born in Winsted, Conn., on April

6, 1909. He grew up in Washington, where he was a 1927

graduate of Gonzaga College High School and a 1933 graduate

of Columbus Law School, now part of Catholic University. He

served in the Navy in the North Atlantic during World War II.

He had a private law practice in Washington before the war

and opened a practice in Fairfax County in the early 1950s,

where he specialized in representing insurance companies. He

was president of the Fairfax County Bar Association when he

was appointed to the county Board of Supervisors in 1962 to

fill the unexpired term of James Keith, who years later

became a Virginia Circuit Court judge.

Mr. Brault did not seek reelection to the Senate in 1983,

saying at the time, ``Y'all can do what you want to next

year. I'll be in Florida.''

In 1991, state legislators renamed the Dulles Toll Road the

Omer L. Hirst-Adelard L. Brault Expressway, which, having met

the fate of many other such renamings of roads, bridges and

buildings, has not readily been adopted by commuters.

Survivors include his wife, Clarice Covington ``Percy''

Brault of Front Royal; 3 children, Adelard L. Brault, Jr., of

Fairfax County, Nancy Supples of Front Royal and Mary Lynn

Coleman of Moscow; 9 grandchildren; and 14 great-

grandchildren.