Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, last night I testified before the Rules Committee asking that the Iraq Study Group report be made in order for debate today. The Iraq Study Group offers the way forward, a new approach, and is authored by former Secretary of State Baker and former chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Lee Hamilton. Yet there has been no vote allowed. The American people have been shut out with regard to having a vote on the Iraq Study Group report. You cannot pick and choose with regard to the Iraq Study Group.

Let me read you some of the comments that have been made by the members who served on the Iraq Study Group. Lee Hamilton, Jim Baker: ``There is no magic formula to solve the problems of Iraq. However, there are actions that can be taken to improve the situation.

``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.''

That is the Iraq Study Group. Members on both sides have said they support the Iraq Study Group, and yet there is no vote allowed on the Iraq Study Group.

``In this consensus report,'' Hamilton and Baker go on to say, ``the 10 members of the Iraq Study Group,'' bipartisan, five and five, ``present a new approach because we believe there is a better way forward.''

The better way forward, and the gentleman who just spoke mentioned the Iraq Study Group, is the Iraq Study Group, and yet the Rules Committee last night foreclosed a vote on the Iraq Study Group which is bipartisan.

Lee Hamilton, Jim Baker, Leon Panetta, Bill Perry, Ed Meese. Ed Meese's son is one of the colonels with General Petraeus. Leon Panetta, who served here in the Congress, but yet for some reason the American people are not to be given an opportunity whereby their Congress can vote on the Iraq Study Group.

There are good people on both sides. Every resolution should be in order. God bless you, what you are offering is fine, but give the country, give the American people, give us an opportunity to vote on the Iraq Study Group. You cannot pick and choose.

I urge a defeat of the resolution and urge that we allow this to be voted on whereby we can have a successful policy to bring this country together.

Mr. Speaker, I rise against this rule and against the underlying resolution.

I've been to Iraq three times since the United States sent Armed Forces there. I continue to be deeply concerned about the violence that continues to take the lives of U.S. personnel as well as innocent Iraqi citizens.

That's why, upon my return from my third trip in 2005, I worked to promote an independent, bipartisan review of ongoing operations in Iraq--what I called ``fresh eyes on the target. ``

I initiated the legislation authorizing and funding the Iraq Study Group, which was set up through the U.S. Institute of Peace. The 10- member group--5 Republicans and 5 Democrats--was led by cochairs James A. Baker III, the Nation's 61st Secretary of State and honorary chairman of the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University, and Lee H. Hamilton, our former colleague in this House and director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, who also cochaired the 9/11 Commission.

The other members of the study group included: Lawrence S. Eagleburger, former Secretary of State; Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., former advisor to President Clinton; Edwin Meese III, former Attorney General; Sandra Day O'Connor, retired Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court; Leon E. Panetta, former White House chief of staff for President Clinton; William J. Perry, former secretary of Defense; Charles S. Robb, former Governor and Senator of Virginia, and Alan K. Simpson, former Senator from Wyoming.

After more than 8 months of work, the panel presented its report last December 6. The Iraq Study Group was a truly bipartisan group who came together--like this body should be coming together--and offered the way forward in Iraq.

I believe the group's work provides an important framework to move forward in Iraq and on January 24 I introduced H. Con. Res. 45, expressing the sense of Congress that all the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group become the new baseline strategy for dealing with Iraq. That's the resolution we should be advancing today.

In my car coming to the Capitol this morning I heard a member of this body on a radio interview say he's voting for H. Con. Res. 63 because what we're looking for is a new solution for Iraq. We have that. It's the Iraq Study Group report. Look at the cover of the report--``The way forward--A new approach.''

The Iraq situation has created a bitter divide in our country. We all want to see an end to the fighting in Iraq and stability there, as well as an end to violence perpetrated by terrorists around the world. I continue to pray for the protection of the American service men and women and civilians who are putting their lives on the line every day and also for their families here at home who continue to make tremendous sacrifices.

The Iraq Study Group met the test of developing a bipartisan consensus on how to succeed in Iraq. When our country is divided we are weak. When we are together we are strong.

I want to read from the letter penned by Secretary Baker and Congressman Hamilton as the prelude to the Iraq Study Group's recommendations:

There is no magic formula to solve the problems of Iraq.

However, there are actions that can be taken to improve the

situation and protect American interests.

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.

No one can guarantee that any course of action in Iraq at

this point will stop sectarian warfare, growing violence, or

a slide toward chaos. If current trends continue, the

potential consequences are severe. Because of the role and

responsibility of the United States in Iraq, and the

commitments our government has made, the United States has

special obligations. Our country must address as best it can

Iraq's many problems. The United States has long-term

relationships and interests at stake in the Middle East, and

needs to stay engaged.

In this consensus report, the ten members of the Iraq Study

Group present a new approach because we believe there is a

better way forward. All options have not been exhausted. We

believe it is still possible to pursue different policies

that can give Iraq an opportunity for a better future, combat

terrorism, stabilize a critical region of the world, and

protect America's credibility, interests, and values. Our

report makes it clear that the Iraqi government and the Iraqi

people also must act to achieve a stable and hopeful future.

What we recommend in this report demands a tremendous

amount of political will and cooperation by the executive and

legislative branches of the U.S. government. It demands

skillful implementation. It demands unity of effort by

government agencies. And its success depends on the unity of

the American people in a time of political polarization.

Americans can and must enjoy the right of robust debate

within a democracy. Yet 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.

This last sentence is the essence of what we should be addressing this week. The recommendations of the Iraq Study Group provide the blueprint for a consensus. The work has been done. The recommendations have been made. Now is the time for implementation.

Mr. Speaker, we are a coequal branch of government. We do not work for the President or the administration; our job is to thoughtfully consider the issues before us, and to work with the President and with the administration. When we agree, it is our responsibility to work together for the best interests of our country; and where we cannot agree, however, we have an equal responsibility to make the case of why we disagree, and offer responsible and thoughtful alternatives. This resolution does not meet that test.

Some may say that is what we are doing in the House this week, disagreeing with the President and offering alternatives to the plan. This resolution fails. There is no plan offered.

Certainly the resolution before us includes a statement on which we all unequivocally agree: support for our brave men and women in the Armed Forces who are serving or who have served in Iraq.

Yet it also includes a statement of disapproval on the plan for Iraq offered by the President, a statement of disagreement to which, again, no alternative is offered. If we disagree with the President's plan, we should be offered reasoned, responsible alternatives. Instead of speaking today as Democrats or Republicans, we should come together, speaking as Americans who are seeking to answer the questions of how to move forward with success in Iraq.

Under the process today, we have only one option from the other side of the aisle. Is that what the American people expect from this House? No. The American people expect more. What is so amazing to me and in this Congress, you voted, this Congress voted and passed legislation last year that set our country on a course to find our way forward in Iraq. We have to look no farther than the report of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group to find a way forward, a new approach for Iraq, an approach that can bring us victory.

That is what we should be considering today. The recommendations of this distinguished group can bring us to a consensus and unite the Congress and the Nation on Iraq. I have been to Iraq three times, and since there, I continue to be deeply concerned.

So when I came back from my third trip, I offered this idea of an independent bipartisan commission we called fresh eyes on the target, and many Members on your side have been hailing it, yet you would not permit this to come up for a vote. Why would the Rules Committee shut down something that many of you ask for over and over? And there are Members on my side who don't like it, but it is the only balanced plan.

This legislation was set up, the 10 Members, bipartisan, five Republicans, five Democrats, Jim Baker, former Secretary of State; Lee Hamilton, who served here and has probably, quite frankly, forgotten more about this issue than any Members on your side or any Members on my side. A 10-0 decision, Leon Panetta, Ed Meese, whose son will serve with General Petraeus, they came up with this idea.

Yet the Rules Committee has shut this down not to permit a vote. They worked for more than 8 months supported by expert working groups, and senior military advisors in the areas of the economy, reconstruction, military, security and political development. The study's report was issued on December 6 and was hailed, but yet it is not permitted to come up for a vote.

Because of the importance of this group, I introduced a sense of Congress resolution in support of the recommendations. I asked the Rules Committee late last night to make my resolution in order to be considered during the debate. By doing so, I believe the House will be working to meet our responsibility as political leaders to seek a bipartisan consensus on the issue of war and peace.

But the request, not on my behalf, but on behalf of the American people, was turned down by the Rules Committee. Believe me, just for a second, maybe our side at times treated you wrong; but, believe me, you are getting to be a fast learner, because every time you seem to speak over here, the Republican side of the aisle is shut down from offering anything. This is the major issue of war and peace. Can you imagine if this were 1937 or 1938 or 1939 in the House of Parliament, and it was a resolution like this with Nazi Germany pouring over Europe, there would be some resolution, and everyone else, Churchill would have been shut out because he wanted to offer something constructive to make a difference.

Let me read from a letter penned by Jim Baker and Congressman Hamilton. There is no magic formula, they said, to solve the problem of Iraq. They basically say there are actions to take. The political leaders need to establish a bipartisan approach. They go on to make the report, the consensus report as to work that they have done. We recommend their report, and then they end by saying, ``Yet, U.S. foreign policy is doomed to failure--as is any course of action in Iraq--if not supported by a broad, sustained consensus.'' Then they go on to say how dangerous this is.

I ask you, why? Why couldn't we get a vote? Why couldn't the American people get a vote on something that many on your side may not like, but most do, and some on my side may not like, but most do, and I ask, this body ought to be voting on the Iraq Study Group to show the American people that we can be successful

Madam Speaker, there are more than 40 million uninsured Americans today--

nearly a million in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Throughout the country, medical professionals and countless others have responded to the need of those who are seriously ill and cannot pay for a doctor, medicine, and other health costs. In many places, this help has come in the form of community free clinics.

Community free clinics, particularly in Virginia, have helped people in communities come together to care for those in need. The health care ``safety net'' for the poor, like the community free clinics in my congressional district, exists in communities across America, but often in widely varying degrees.

I am pleased to introduce today the Charity Care for the Uninsured Act. While this legislation alone will not solve the problem of the uninsured. I believe it will help strengthen community ``safety nets,'' like the community free clinics in Virginia, for those in need and will allow doctors recognition for their willingness to give back to their communities.

The Charity Care for the Uninsured Act would provide a personal income tax credit of up to $2,000 for doctors who provide between 25 and 50 hours of uncompensated, pro bono charity care to the uninsured in a single calendar year. This legislation would encourage the many physicians who have treated patients who were not able to pay, either in their offices or in community clinics, to continue to do so.

The Charity Care for the Uninsured Act also will help provide a valuable tool--a personal tax credit--to community clinics in recruiting physicians as well as helping motivate countless specialty doctors to take community clinic referrals. Free clinics have contributed to reduced emergency room, ER, utilization among the uninsured, helping save taxpayer dollars. A safety net in which the uninsured can access specialists and medications will improve their health and guard against catastrophic illnesses and trips to the ER.

All of the cost savings and health benefits can be traced back to the commitment and the compassion of the doctors and community partners, and their concern for those who cannot afford insurance. The Charity Care for the Uninsured Act of 2007 recognizes and encourages these caring acts made to help those who need a helping hand. This legislation can be an important tool for communities as they seek to strengthen or build the health care safety net available their uninsured residents.

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would also like to second what the Speaker said with regard to Leo McCarthy. He was also a member of the National Commission on Gambling, which I was the author of. And he came by my office a number times. And I was actually going to put his bio in the Congressional Record. So I thank the Speaker for that comment, and second it.

Madam Speaker, I was the author of the amendment to set up the Iraq Study Group. I felt that more should be done to look at what we were doing in Iraq, and so we put together a group and picked 10 people. It was chaired by former Secretary of State Jim Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton, head of the 9/11 Commission. Also

serving on it was former Secretary of State Larry Eagleberger; former prominent lawyer, Vernon Jordan; former Justice of the Supreme Court Sandra Day O'Connor; former Member of the House and Chief of Staff, in the Clinton administration, Leon Panetta; former Secretary of Defense, in the Clinton administration, Bill Perry; former Senator, and Governor from my State, Chuck Robb; and at one time, up until the end, a month before, current Secretary of Defense Gates, former head of the CIA.

This group was provided the opportunity to, in depth, to take a look at what was going on in Iraq and to develop some recommendations. The resolution that I have introduced as House Con. Res., that puts the Congress on record in support of the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group.

Now, here's a group that has taken 9 months to analyze extensive hearings. Also there were 45 military and diplomatic experts, retired and active duty, of all political persuasions, along with key congressional leaders that came up with these recommendations. So I am asking Members to support my resolution when it comes up next week in support of this.

Secondly, it makes a major effort and encourages the administration to adopt also a diplomatic effort in addition to what it is doing. We urge the administration to engage Syria the same way that President Reagan during the 1980s, when we were defeating communism, President Reagan, God bless him, one of the greatest presidents we have ever had, gave the famous speech in Orlando about the evil empires. But he was also having his administration engage with the Soviet Union. And when Ronald Reagan then gave his speech, saying, ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall,'' Reagan also had emissaries going to Moscow to engage.

Those of us in the Congress, when we used to go behind the Soviet Union, the Berlin Wall in the Soviet Union, during the 1980s would always meet with the dissidents, would always attempt to meet with the leadership of the government on behalf of freedom, on behalf of liberty.

President Reagan was self-confident in what he believed. He believed that to engage the Soviets was not a sign of weakness. It was a sign of strength.

Madam Speaker, I would like to put in the Record an article from the Wall Street Journal by Abraham D. Sofaer, who was counselor to Secretary of State Schultz, who also explains how Reagan engaged with the Soviets and how it is appropriate now how he would engage with Syria.

I am hopeful and I ask all Members to support the resolution when it comes up.

[From the Wall Street Journal, Dec. 20, 2006]

A Reagan Strategy for Iran and Syria

(By Abraham D. Sofaer)

The Iraq Study Group's recommendation that the Bush

administration drop its preconditions and negotiate with

Syria and Iran has been praised as a ``no-brainer''--and

condemned as an improper effort to reward rogue regimes.

Neither reaction is correct. Negotiating with enemies can be

a useful aspect of effective diplomacy. But successful

negotiations with enemies result not from the talks

themselves but from the diplomatic strategy that accompanies

them. The Group's recommendations deserve support, but must

be effectively integrated into President Bush's strategy of

ending state-sponsored terror.

The arguments against negotiating with Syria and Iran were

also made against negotiating with the Soviet Union, and by

some of the same people. Soviet misconduct easily matches

that of Syria or Iran in aggression, oppression, murder,

support for terrorist groups and mendacity. President Reagan

challenged Soviet behavior by supporting groups fighting

communist intervention, building the military, strengthening

NATO, condemning human-rights violations, commencing a

missile-defense program, and conveying the message of freedom

in every way possible. George Shultz supported these efforts

but sought to negotiate with the Soviets in an attempt to

increase stability, reduce nuclear weapons, attain freedom

for oppressed groups, and enhance understanding. To make

negotiations possible the U.S. adopted specific policies,

including:

Regime acceptance. The U.S. refrained from activities aimed

at destroying the Soviet regime it was seeking to influence,

while vigorously denouncing its political and moral

legitimacy.

Limited linkage. Negotiations on human rights, arms

control, regional issues and bilateral relations were pursued

without linkage to Soviet conduct, enabling negotiations to

proceed while the U.S. responded firmly through deeds.

Rhetorical restraint. Reagan vigorously criticized the

Soviet system and its behavior, but promised not to ``crow''

when the Soviets agreed to U.S. proposals, enabling Soviet

leaders to avoid being seen as capitulating to U.S. demands.

Self-Interest. U.S. negotiating policy was based on

convincing the Soviets to act in their own best interests.

The Study Group's ``external'' strategy for Iraq contains

several elements necessary for successful diplomacy: the need

for both incentives and ``disincentives''; negotiations

``without preconditions''; and negotiations that are

``extensive and substantive,'' requiring a balancing of

interests. The general incentives identified by the Group are

unlikely, however, to lead to constructive discussions. While

Syria and Iran should realize that preventing a breakdown in

Iraq is in their interests, they see great advantages in

having the U.S. lose strength and credibility in a costly

effort to help a state they are relieved to see powerless.

The notion that they will help in order to have ``enhanced

diplomatic relations'' with the U.S. assumes that states,

will do what they know the U.S. wants simply because

Washington will not otherwise talk to them. The

pronouncements that accompany this Bush policy exemplify the

sort of rhetoric that discourages cooperation. The

possibility of obtaining U.S. assistance in joining the WTO

would be a real incentive in an ongoing negotiation, but it

is not a credible incentive in the context of hostile

confrontation and proliferating sanctions.

The incentives proposed for negotiating with Syria are, by

contrast, concrete and substantial. Syria are, by contrast,

concrete and substantial. Syria would benefit economically

from a stable Iraq, and getting back the Golan Heights would

give President Bashar Assad's standing a much needed boost.

Syria has no deep commitment to Hezbollah or Hamas to prevent

it from accepting peace and with Israel and increased

cooperation in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian areas, in

exchange for the Golan and a constructive role in the area.

But the Study Group too casually assumes that the U.S. can

secure ``Syria's full cooperation with all investigations

into political assassinations in Lebanon.'' The ``full

cooperation'' of a sovereign state in such situations must be

negotiated, rather than made a precondition. Convincing

Israel to give up the Golan Heights will also be difficult,

and Syria's help in securing the release of Israeli soldiers

seized by Hamas and Hezbollah is a good place to start. While

the security threat posed by returning the Golan has largely

been worked out in prior negotiations, the challenge posed by

Syria's claim to access to the Sea of Galilee, and the

meaning of a ``full and secure peace agreement'' will require

great of forts. Still, bringing Syria into a responsible

nation-hood is an objective well worth pursuing.

The anger and scorn heaped on the Study Group for

advocating negotiations with Syria echo the opposition to

negotiating with the Soviet Union. But Syrian behavior must

be addressed, not just condemned. Egypt, too, wrongfully

supported terrorism against Israel after the 1967 war, and

launched the 1973 war, to get back the Sinai. Yet, the U.S.

properly urged Israel to negotiate with Egypt, and the peace

between them serves the interests of both countries.

Similarly an agreement to return the Golan in exchange for

peace would have the support of most Israelis and the current

Israeli government, and would be consistent with governing

Security Council resolutions and the principle that precludes

acquiring territory by force.

The Study Group is probably right that Iran is unlikely to

agree to negotiate with the U.S. to bring stability to Iraq.

The distrust between the U.S. and Iran suggests that

negotiations between them should commence on limited issues,

in a noncontroversial forum. The U.S./Iran Tribunal in The

Hague might well work. Iran resents that many of its

significant claims against the U.S. remain unresolved there

after over 20 years. The U.S. should offer to negotiate these

claims on an expedited basis. As progress is made, the

dialogue would likely expand to include such issues as

Afghanistan, Iraq, commercial matters and human-rights

concerns. (During my negotiations with Iran as legal adviser

between 1985 and 1990, we resolved many cases and discussed

other issues; my interlocutor eventually agreed, for example,

that the fatwa against Salman Rushdie could not be enforced

in any state outside Iran.) A successful negotiation will

include Iranian demands, such as an end to efforts at regime

change. Major change in Iran is in fact more likely to result

from normalization and internal activities, than by

opposition groups seeking to overthrow the regime.

Finally, any effort to negotiate with Syria or Iran will

fail if based only on incentives. The Study Group's proposal

lacks a program of sufficient pressure to make diplomacy

potentially successful. James Baker was able to convene the

Madrid Conference in 1991 only after the U.S. had expelled

Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. The effort to impose sanctions on

Iran for its nuclear program should continue as forcefully as

possible. Multilateral sanctions helped get Libya to abandon

its quest for nuclear weapons. A clear warning that Syria and

Iran must end all forms of state-sponsored terrorism, as now

required by Security Council resolutions, must be a central

element of U.S. negotiating policy, backed with meaningful

preparations for action. The power of the U.S. to inflict

damage

on its enemies remains substantial, despite current

difficulties in Iraq. While it is now difficult to

contemplate military action against Syria or Iran, continued

sponsorship of terror against other states will eventually

provoke the American people, if not the international

community, to exercise their right of self-defense through

affordable wars of destruction instead of costly nation-

building exercises.

No one can convey this message more effectively than George

Bush, who remains determined to prevent a future of state-

sponsored terror. He should accept the Study Group's sound

message on negotiating with enemies but supplement it with

the toughness that effective diplomacy demands.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to bring the attention of the House to the passing of Virginia State Senator William A. Truban on Saturday, February 3, 2007. Senator Truban represented Virginia's 27th district in the Virginia General Assembly for over 20 years.

A veterinarian and father of six from Shenandoah County, Senator Truban was a leader in his community and dedicated his life to helping those in Winchester and the surrounding area. Inserted for the Record is the obituary published in the Winchester Star which details the many accomplishments of Senator Truban.

[From the Winchester Star, Feb. 5, 2007]

Former State Sen. Truban Dies

(By Suzanne E. Wilder)

Winchester.--William A Truban, a longtime Virginia state

senator who represented Winchester and the surrounding region

for more than two decades, died on Saturday.

The resident of Shenandoah County and retired veterinarian

was 82.

Truban represented the state's 27th District--which then

included Shenandoah, Frederick, Clarke, and Warren counties

and the city of Winchester--from 1971 through his 1992

retirement from politics.

His family and friends are mourning the loss of a man who

was well known in the Shenandoah Valley as ``Senator

Truban,'' ``Doc,'' or--to his loved ones--``Pap,'' according

to a statement from one of his sons, John W. Truban.

Born in 1924 in Garrett County, Md., Truban served during

World War II as a member of the U.S. Army Air Force.

After his service, he attended West Virginia Wesleyan

College, where he met his future wife, Mildred Hayes. He then

attended the University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary

Medicine.

John Truban, one of Truban's six children, said his parents

selected Woodstock and the Shenandoah Valley for their home

after visiting Winchester, where one of William Truban's

sisters lived.

Truban became the only licensed veterinarian in Shenandoah

County, John Truban said.

He worked all over the Valley and cared for animals from

Woodstock to Haymarket to Stephens City. His veterinary

practice, Shenandoah Animal Hospital, is still in business

though Truban retired several years ago. His son, Thomas,

continues to run the clinic.

In 1970, Truban was elected to the Virginia State Senate.

He had been urged to run by several prominent Republicans,

including then-Gov. A. Linwood Holton Jr.

``I met him when he was under a cow,'' Holton said in a

telephone interview on Sunday.

Their first phone conversation, Holton recalled, had been

after someone informed him that Truban was caring for a sick

cow.

Holton had heard that Truban would make ``an excellent

candidate for state Senate,'' he said. ``And he became a

strong leader in the Senate.''

``You need good people to represent the area. He was well

known and well liked,'' said Warren B. French, a former

chairman of the state Republican party who lives in

Woodstock. ``And he made a great senator.''

``He'll be missed, but he made a valuable contribution in

many ways to his community,'' said French, who is a former

chairman at Shentel and knew Truban from the Woodstock United

Methodist Church.

Many of the people who worked with him politically remember

Truban as a person with ``strong integrity,'' in Holton's

words.

I. Clinton Miller served in the General Assembly for much

of the time Truban was a state senator.

Miller represented Shenandoah County and Woodstock in the

House of Delegates and was also a Republican. At the time,

the GOP was in the minority in Virginia politics.

``We shared a lot of time on the road, and we shared a lot

of discussions,'' Miller said.

Truban ``was especially well-repected by both sides of the

aisle,'' Miller said. ``He was always concerned with whatever

was best for Virginia.''

John Truban said his father instilled the value of hard

work in his children.

``He loved working,'' he said. ``His hobby was working.''

That diligent attitude likely came from growing up during

the Great Depression, the son said. ``His era, they had no

safety net.''

``I think what we all probably got from his is a sense of

working hard and . . . trying to help others,'' John Truban

said.

But that was not the only trait Truban passed to his kids.

John Truban said his dad, who was Italian by blood, loved to

cook and passed the same interest to his five sons and one

daughter.

``My dad always would cook and help out in the kitchen,''

he said.

Truban had health problems in recent years, including

congestive heart failure. He died as a result of those

illnesses, John Truban said.

Truban is survived by his wife, six children, 25

grandchildren, seven great-grandchildren, and one brother.

Truban's two sisters and a brother are deceased.

A memorial service will be at 1 p.m. Saturday at the

Woodstock United Methodist Church. Dellinger Funeral Home in

Woodstock is in charge of arrangements.

Memorials may be made to the Woodstock United Methodist

Church, the Virginia Maryland Regional College of Veterinary

Medicine at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State

University, and the Shenandoah County Animal Shelter.

Madam Speaker, today I introduced with Congressmen Ehlers the Math and Science Incentive Act of 2005. This legislation would pay--over the life of the loan up to $10,000--the interest on the undergraduate student loans of math, science or engineering majors who agree to work 5 years in their respective fields. The idea for this legislation came from the book Winning the Future, by my friend and our former colleague Newt Gingrich. America's dominance in science and innovation is slipping, but this legislation can help combat this trend.

We are facing today a critical shortage of science and engineering students in the United States. Unfortunately, there is little public awareness of this trend or its implications for jobs, industry or national security in America's future. We need to make sure we have people who can fill these science and engineering positions. In an era in which students are graduating college with record levels of debt, I am hopeful that this incentive will be a significant motivator in attracting or retaining math, science and engineering students.

How do we know that our Nation is slipping in the areas of math, science, engineering and technology? Americans, for decades, led the world in patents. But we can no longer claim that lead. The percentage of U.S. patents has been steadily declining as foreigners, especially Asians, have become more active and in some fields have seized the innovation lead. The United States share of its own industrial patents now stands at only 52 percent. Foreign advances in basic science now often rival or even exceed America's. Published research by Americans is lagging.

Physical Review, a series of top physics journals, last year tracked a reversal in which American scientific papers, in two decades, dropped from the most published to minority status. In 2003--the most recent year statistics are available--the total number of American papers published was just 29 percent, down from 61 percent in 1983.

Another measuring stick: Nobel prizes. From the 1960s through the 1990s, American scientists dominated. Now the rest of the world has caught up. Our scientists win now about half of the Nobel prizes, the rest go to Britain, Japan, Russia, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland and New Zealand. According to the National Science Foundation, the United States has a smaller share of the worldwide total of science and engineering doctoral degrees awarded than both Asia and Europe.

This is a real problem. In 2000, Asian universities accounted for almost 1.2 million of the world's science and engineering degrees. European universities--including Russia and eastern Europe accounted for 850,000.

North American universities accounted for only about 500,000. Since 1980, science and engineering positions in the U.S. have grown at five times the rate of positions in the civilian workforce as a whole.

The Math and Science Incentive Act augments the recently approved National Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent grants-- National SMART grants. National SMART grants provide grants of up to $4,000 to Pell Grant-eligible students in their third and fourth academic year of undergraduate education at a 4-year, degree-granting institution of higher education. The student must be pursuing a major in the physical, life, or computer sciences, math, technology, or engineering or a foreign language. The student must also have a grade- point average of at least 3.0.

SMART grants are an important tool for attracting and retaining lower-income students in

the critical areas of math, science and engineering. The Math and Science Incentive Act will build on the SMART grants by providing a direct incentive to middle class students who may not meet Pell grant eligibility. We critically need to attract and retain the best and brightest to study these challenging fields and this loan forgiveness may just make the difference for some.

I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation to help America continue to be the innovation leader of the world.

Madam Speaker, I am introducing legislation today to clarify provisions in Section 1221 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 regarding the designation of National Interest Energy Transmission Corridors (NIETC).

As the Department of Energy and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) begin implementation of Section 1221, concerns have arisen in my state and in other states about this section of the new law. Specifically, those concerns include how the designation of these corridors could work to usurp the state decisionmaking process, override merit-based decisions by state siting authorities, destroy protected lands, ignore alternative energy solutions, and fail to provide compensation for landowners adjacent to new transmission lines. My legislation attempts to clarify Section 1221 to ensure that the necessity of building interstate energy transmission lines is balanced with other important national interests.

Building transmission lines that use 200-feet rights-of-way and rise up to 270 feet into the air have a tremendous and permanent impact on the surrounding landscape and property values. Patterning the electric transmission line process after current gas line siting regulations does not take into consideration the far reaching visual impact of power lines. Above ground facilities for gas lines are generally a maximum of eight feet high, therefore the viewshed affected is minimal. But power lines

towering over 100 feet can be seen for miles around. It is traditionally understood that local and state governments are best equipped to properly consider and evaluate land use needs for local communities. Federal siting processes for transmission lines must be carefully tailored to allow greater protections to both local landowners and to the state decisionmaking process.

Currently, Section 1221 provides that state regulatory authorities can have their jurisdiction to approve or disapprove an application for new transmission lines in the state usurped by the federal government after one year in the application process. Additionally, the FERC can simply override disapproval by the state regardless of how sound the rationale for disapproval might have been. This is unacceptable.

Under my legislation, if the state entity denies an application, any subsequent application to FERC would first have to prove that the state decision was arbitrary and capricious. Furthermore, if the state goes beyond a year to act, the applicant must show that the state had no valid reason for delaying action.

Additionally, in order to ensure that lands that have been protected by the federal or state governments through conservation easements, ownership and similar preservation initiatives will not be impacted, the legislation prohibits these lands from being included in a NIETC and requires that the Department of Energy consider the national interests in protecting these resources.

I fully support investment in alternative energy sources and conservation, yet current law requires no assessment of alternative energy solutions before action is taken to designate a NIETC. My legislation would require the Department of Energy to consider all energy use alternatives to building new transmission lines before designating a NIETC. Furthermore, the Department of Energy will be required to solicit public comments on the analysis.

Finally, under current law landowners are compensated only for the portion of their property actually taken for a NIETC right-of-way. There is no compensation for any reduction in the value of the remainder of a landowner's property or for adjacent landowners whose property is devalued. This legislation would allow all landowners who are able to prove a 10 percent diminution in property value because of the construction of the transmission lines a cause of action to recover those damages from the energy company. The fact is that transmission lines that tower 270 feet into the air have an impact far beyond the footprint required for construction and maintenance and this must be acknowledged.

Madam Speaker, I invite our colleagues to join with me in support of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Lewis for yielding.

I rise in opposition to the resolution. And let me just stipulate it probably has a lot of very good things in it. But when I was chairman of two different subcommittees, we always had complete consultation, and if what I am saying is not accurate, those Members should come down here and attack me for it, complete consultation before we sent the bills out. And what I am concerned about is the precedent that we are establishing.

I have a resolution to put the Congress on record in support of the Iraq Study Group. Now, am I going to be foreclosed from offering that resolution? Here is a group of men and women, Baker and Hamilton, who spent 8 months. It was one of these evil earmarks that you hear all about it. Am I going to be foreclosed from offering the Baker-Hamilton solution to the

problem? The administration doesn't like it. Probably Members on both sides of the aisle don't like it. But am I going to be foreclosed? Here is a group that spent 8 months looking at this. And Jim Baker is a good man and Lee Hamilton is a good man. They were bipartisan. Chuck Robb; Bill Perry; Leon Panetta, who served over here; and Ed Meese. Based on what we are seeing here now, I will be foreclosed. Any resolution that comes from this side of the aisle is automatically foreclosed. We have watched it for the whole month of January.

So let me just say I am sure, Mr. Obey, this is probably a lot of good stuff. But we on the minority side have to be treated the way we should be. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Now, the test will be with my resolution, and there are only two of us on it, Gilchrest and myself. Will I be foreclosed by the Rules Committee in 2 weeks from my resolution that puts the Congress on record in support of the Baker-Hamilton Commission? Ten people, five Republicans, five Democrats, spent more time looking at this issue of Iraq than this Congress has, than the Republican Party has and the Democratic Party has. And based on what is taking place so far today, I will be foreclosed.

And I hope I am not foreclosed because when you are in the minority and you don't have that opportunity to offer amendments, then, frankly, you are being cut out of the process.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution.

This is a continuing resolution like no other that I have seen before. It is an omnibus appropriations bill that will fund nearly one- half of the federal government for fiscal year 2007.

When I was Chairman of the Science, State, Justice Subcommittee, we had in-depth discussions and consultations with our Ranking and minority members. On our committee we worked in a bi-partisan manner. The precedent that this CR is setting troubles me.

I have a resolution supporting the recommendations of the recently released Iraq Study Group, also known as the Baker-Hamilton report.

Based on this CR process with its closed rule and no committee debate, does this mean that I am going to be foreclosed from offering the resolution?

The chairman of the Appropriations Committee has been quoted saying that most of the negotiations on the CR were conducted by staff. While we have terrific staff on both sides of the aisle, this is not the way this institution is supposed to operate.

The resolution before the House includes $31.2 billion for the State, Foreign Operations accounts.

This is an increase of $1 billion dollars over the Fiscal Year 2006 level.

I am in no way criticizing the Gentlelady from New York, but I did not meet with the chairwoman of the subcommittee to discuss the CR. I know she is fair and reaches out across the aisle, and perhaps her hands were tied in this unfair process.

To be candid, there are some positive aspects of the State, Foreign Operations chapter. One is the full funding of the president's request for Global HIV/AIDS. This funding will provide life saving drugs to thousands of people infected with HIV/AIDS and will meet President Bush's goal of treating 2 million people, preventing 7 million new infections, and caring for 10 million people by 2009.

In addition, another $50 million is provided for the African Union's Mission in Sudan, and another $113 million for United Nations' international peacekeeping.

But, these funding increases had to result in decreases elsewhere. The president's 2007 Budget request included $3.2 billion for the Economic Support Fund, the continuing resolution cuts $746 million from the request, and is $148 million below the 2006 enacted level. A reduction of this magnitude will affect the Administration's ability to carry out critical foreign policy priorities, including democracy, infrastructure, and economic development programs in Iraq.

The president's 2007 Request included an increase of $709 million for stability and reconstruction programs in Iraq, these programs are essential to improving the safety of our troops in the country. Yet, the majority directed that there be no mention of funding for anything related to Iraq in the resolution.

This process is not the way the House's business should be conducted. I urge members to vote against this measure to make a statement about the way this entire process has been handled.

Madam Speaker, earlier today I was in my congressional district at a hearing held by the Virginia State Corporation Commission presenting testimony in opposition to a proposed major increase in tolls on the Dulles Greenway, a commuter route for many of my constituents.

Had I been present and voting, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 61, H. Res. 90, congratulating Lovie Smith of the Chicago Bears and Tony Dungy of the Indianapolis Colts on becoming the first African- American head coaches of National Football League teams to qualify for the Super Bowl; rollcall 62, H. Res. 24, establishing the House Democracy Assistance Commission for the 110th Congress, and rollcall 63, H. Res. 20, calling on the Government of the United Kingdom to immediately establish a full, independent, and public judicial inquiry into the murder of Northern Ireland defense attorney Patrick Finucane, as recommended by Judge Peter Cory as part of the Weston Park Agreement, in order to move forward on the Northern Ireland peace process.

Madam Speaker, earlier this week 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.

Support for the bill is coming from both sides of the aisle. I submit for the Record letters from several former Members.

This legislation will be good for the future of America.

The Blackstone Group,

New York, NY, June 28, 2006.

Hon. Frank Wolf,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Wolf: Thank you for sending me a summary of your

bill creating a bipartisan commission on long-term fiscal

policy and for the excellent statement you made in

introducing the bill. I read both with great interest and I

wholeheartedly approve of what

you are trying to do. I understand that George Voinovich has

introduced a similar bill in the Senate.

While I would like to think that the economic and moral

case for serious reform is compelling enough to spur action

without resort to another commission, I fear that the reality

is otherwise. Given the harsh partisan environment you note

in your letter, I have come to believe that a new commission

could serve a very useful trust-building purpose--so long as

it is truly bipartisan and all policy options are on the

table.

You clearly agree with these principles, which is one

reason I think your bill could help break the political

gridlock. It is an added bonus, in my view, that your bill

would require the commission to hold public hearings around

the country and compel congressional consideration of the

commission's recommendations. As one who has sat on many

commissions, including the Kerrey-Danforth entitlement and

tax reform commission more than 10 years ago, I think all of

these special attributes bode well for the success of a

commission formed pursuant to your bill.

As you may know, I serve as President of The Concord

Coalition. Former Senators Warren Rudman (who I know you have

spoken to about this) and Bob Kerrey are co-chairs of The

Concord Coalition. We have been urging bipartisan action to

bring about a more sustainable and generationally equitable

fiscal policy for many years. Our executive director, Bob

Bixby, has sent you a letter with our approval on behalf of

The Concord Coalition expressing our appreciation and

commending you for your leadership in drawing attention to

one of the nation's most daunting challenges. To that, let me

add my personal thanks and encouragement.

Sincerely,

Peter G. Peterson.

Madam Speaker, I would like to call to the attention of the House the following assessment of the current human rights situation in China. Harry Wu, a renowned human rights activists who survived 19 years in China's notorious laogai labor camps, has detailed in this assessment the current level of human rights abuses by China's brutal dictatorship.

As we approach the 2008 Olympics in Beijing, and China continues to grow as an economic and political powerhouse, we must remind ourselves of China's abusive and oppressive treatment of innocent civilians, and fight against the tyranny of the communist regime in Beijing.

The Current Human Rights Situation in China, January 2007

(By Harry Wu)

The People's Republic of China (PRC) continues to awe the

world with its rapid economic development attracting foreign

investment from all over the world. Recently, China's power

and influence in international politics has also grown. China

has been extolled for taking the lead in negotiations with

North Korea, and the world looks forward to the 2008 Olympic

Games in Beijing. However the international community has

overlooked the most important fact--the Chinese government is

still a ruthless dictatorship.

China may be involved in the Six-Party talks with North

Korea but it is still the nation's closest ally and biggest

supplier. China is embracing capitalism but that does not

equal freedom and democracy. This memo provides a brief

description of human rights violations in China that are

occurring

on a large scale. China's brutal system of forced labor camps

is thriving and remains a tool for repression and economic

profit. Religious freedom is nonexistent without government

approval, and independent trade unions are forbidden. The

government refuses to reveal how many prisoners are executed

each year, and organs are harvested from prisoners for money.

Women and their families are being persecuted for violating

the national one-child policy, and are subject to forced

abortions and sterilization, detention and other punishments.

Internet access is censored and cyber-dissidents are

frequently monitored and arrested with the help of American

companies. The number of political prisoners is on the rise

as the Chinese people speak out against freedom of speech,

press, and religion, the one-child policy, labor conditions,

and property rights.

The truth is that a more democratic and free China that

respects human rights and the rule of law would lead to a

more stable region, and ultimately would be better for US

interests and national security.

The Laogai System

The Laogai is a vast system of prison camps in the PRC

consisting of a network of more than 1,045 prisons, labor

camps, and mental institutions. The fundamental role of the

Laogai is the same as it was during Chairman Mao Zedong's

reign--reform through labor. Labor camps are used as a

mechanism to suppress political dissent, human rights

activists, religious and spiritual believers, ethnic

minorities, and common law offenders. The UN Special

Rapporteur on Torture has confirmed that prisoners are

frequently tortured to extract false confessions to be used

to convict in court.

Although some judicial reforms have been made, China's

legal system is still rule by law not rule of law. The

administrative detention system that the rest of the world

has deemed a violation of international law, is still used.

Laojiao (re-education through labor) allows individuals to be

held for up to 3 years without legal proceedings. Anyone who

speaks out against the Chinese Communist Party is falsely

arrested and charged with the vague crimes of ``endangering

state security'' or `revealing state secrets', and 99

percent of those who are charged with these crimes are

convicted.

The Laogai is an integral sector of the PRC's export

economy and its forced labor products are frequently sold in

U.S., European and world markets. Despite the 1992 Memorandum

of Understanding (MOU) safeguarding against the export of

prison labor goods between the U.S. and China, little has

been done to enforce this policy. U.S. customs stated that it

could not conduct independent investigations in China because

the Chinese government refuses to comply. Yet the U.S. has

done nothing to encourage compliance. American businesses

often claim to be unaware that their subcontractors are using

prison labor, but this should no longer be an excuse.

Religion

The PRC does not permit religious freedom. Roman

Catholicism is still outlawed and the Chinese government

continues to defy the Vatican by ordaining church officials

without its permission. In late November 2006 the Chinese

Patriotic Catholic Association ordained Bishop Wang in

Jiangsu province, the third incident of this kind in a year.

The government controls all religious activities and any new

groups must apply for permission to practice and to publish

literature. The spiritual practice of Falun gong is banned as

a cult. Falun Gong followers and underground ``house church''

Christians are persecuted daily. They are put under house

arrest, detained without public trial, and imprisoned and

tortured for their beliefs under the auspices of various

government campaigns. The Uyghur Muslim minority in Xinjiang

province has been targeted and arrested according to an

``anti-terrorism'' campaign, while Tibetans monks and nuns

have been forced to sign declarations denouncing the Dalai

Lama as a dangerous separatist or face arrest according to a

``patriotic education'' campaign.

Trade Unions

The PRC outlaws all independent trade unions, forcing its

workers to join the statesponsored All China Federation Trade

Union (ACFTU), which by international standards is useless

and only serves the Communist Party's needs. Most recently

Wal-mart, a company that has opened 62 stores in China,

capitulated to ACFTU demands and agreed to let the union set

up branches in its stores. This fact is alarming because Wal-

mart does not allow its employees to unionize in any other

country. This is a vivid example that disproves the common

theory that economic development is a catalyst for

democratization in China. In contrast, the more companies

that cooperate with the Communist Party's demands, such as

Wal-mart, Cisco. Google. and Yahoo, the more the totalitarian

regime is strengthened.

Death Penalty and Organ Harvesting

China executes anywhere from 3,500-10,000 people per year,

more than the combined total of all the countries in the

entire world. The true number is impossible to ascertain

because this information is not made public, making it

difficult for NGOs such as Amnesty International to keep

records.

After decades of organ harvesting, the PRC's Vice Minister

of Health, Mr. Huang Jiefu, in November 2005 officially

admitted that organs are taken from executed prisoners,

but still insists that the prisoner or his family always

gives informed consent. However, this usually never

occurs. Families are often not notified when their

relative will be executed and afterwards they are given

the cremated remains to cover up any signs of organ

removal, or are not given the body at all Whether or not

consent is actually given by the prisoner is irrelevant

because even if death row prisoners give permission they

are coerced and threatened by prison officials to comply.

Although government legislation to regulate organ trade

went into force in July 2006 prisoners' organs are still

sold to wealthy Chinese nationals and foreigners with the

profits going directly to the Chinese government. Multi-

lingual websites boast about the ease of receiving an

organ transplant in China.

Population Control

The PRC government continues to implement the inhumane one-

child policy that began in 1976. No other country has such a

draconian family planning policy that is offensive to all

religions and all cultural backgrounds, and affects all of

China's 1.3 billion members. Despite other social reforms,

China's population policy still does not conform to

international human rights standards. With few exceptions,

only married couples that obtain pre-approval, i.e. a birth

permit, may legally have a child even if it is their first

child. A majority of Chinese women are required to use

intrauterine devices (IUDs), and in villages women's

menstrual cycles are monitored. Violators, if discovered to

be pregnant, are coerced into having an abortion and to

undergo sterilization. Occasionally the men are sterilized as

well. Doctors who do not perform IUD insertion or

sterilization. or who fake these operations, are jailed.

Family members of violators are often imprisoned if they do

not reveal their relative's whereabouts. Despite relaxation

of certain aspects of China's family planning regulations,

enforcement of the one-child policy continues to be coercive.

Internet Censorship

The crackdown of Internet dissidents remains widespread.

American software companies such as Cisco, Microsoft, Google,

and Yahoo continue to cooperate with the Chinese government

to censor Internet use. These companies have agreed to

restrict access to certain websites and terms, and to reveal

the identities of users. As a result of these policies,

according to Amnesty International at least 57 people have

been arrested for discussing democracy on the Internet.

Journalist Shi Tao was sentenced to 10 years in prison for

writing an e-mail on Yahoo to a China pro-democracy group in

the U.S. Cisco in particular has funded over us $700 million

telecom ventures in China including selling software to the

Chinese police who use it to arrest dissenters.

Directly after the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989, the

US government banned the export of crime control and

detection products to China, such as guns and handcuffs.

However these sanctions are out of date. Today these

restrictions must be expanded to include software and

technology products that are used to censor the Internet.

Dissidents and Political Prisoners

Human rights activists in China are frequently imprisoned

for various reasons. Some recent examples include Sun Xiaodi,

who has petitioned authorities to stop radioactive

contamination in Gansu province Three Gorges activist Fu

Xiancai who was assaulted and paralyzed after being

questioned at a police station, numerous journalists such

as New York Times researcher Zhao Yan, and religious

practitioners and ethnic minorities. Not only are

dissidents imprisoned for criticizing China's totalitarian

regime, but the lawyers who defend them are being

persecuted as well. For instance blind lawyer Chen

Guangcheng is imprisoned for defending victims of forced

abortions and sterilizations, as is Gao Zhisheng for

sending a letter to the government condemning its

practices. Moreover, these cases are only the ones of

which the international community is aware; the reality is

that unknown numbers are currently being harassed,

arrested, tortured and imprisoned. The Chinese government

will continue to quell political and civil unrest to

maintain power and control.

conclusion

The U.S. Congress should send a strong signal to the Chinese government that the world will not accept the human rights violations that are occurring in China. The Chinese people deserve the fundamental rights to a just legal system, to practice religion, to unionize, to plan their families, and to freely express themselves. While economic improvements have been made, China continues to deny its people dignity and basic rights. The U.S. must not remain silent any longer.

Madam Speaker, today 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.

Support for the bill is coming from both sides of the aisle. I submit for the Record an op-ed by former Senators Bob Kerrey and Warren Rudman that ran in the Washington Post, an op-ed by former Congressman Tim Penny that ran in the Washington Times, columns by David Broder and Robert Samuelson, and editorials from the Dallas Morning News, and the Orlando Sentinel on the topic of entitlement reform.

This legislation will be good for the future of America.

[From the Washington Post, Aug. 28, 2006]

Securing Future Fiscal Health

[By Bob Kerrey and Warren B. Rudman]

The economic and moral case for long-term reform of fiscal

policy is clear. Yet politicians refuse to act. If this

stalemate persists, it could end in catastrophe.

Over the next 30 years, spending on federal programs is on

track to go up by 50 percent as a share of the economy. If

revenues remain at their historical level, the resulting

deficits will approach 20 percent of gross domestic product

by 2036--almost 10 times the current size. The debt will

surge to 200 percent of GDP--twice what it was at the end of

World War II.

Political realities explain why nothing has been done about

this. Changing course would require substantial spending cuts

from projected levels or equivalent tax increases. Neither

party wants to be the first to propose these tough choices

out of fear that the other side would attack it. Similarly,

neither side wants to discuss possible compromises of its own

priorities, out of fear that the other side will take the

concessions and run. Unfortunately, these fears are

justified.

Since the regular legislative process seems incapable of

dealing with the impending crisis, some alternative has to be

found. President Bush has suggested a commission. Having

served on many commissions, we understand their potential

value. We also understand how they can go wrong. In our view,

a new commission could be very useful, but only if it

recognizes fiscal and political realities. It needs five

elements to succeed.

First, it has to be truly bipartisan. Any perception that

the commission's purpose is to facilitate swift enactment of

a partisan agenda would doom it to failure. It must have

bipartisan co-chairs and equal representation. Doing

otherwise in the current partisan environment would be a

waste of time and money.

Second, it must have a broad mandate. While it is critical

to control the growth of entitlements, particularly Medicare

and Social Security, the commission should examine all

aspects of fiscal policy.

Third, all options must be on the table. If either side

sets conditions, the other won't participate. Republicans

cannot take tax increases off the table, and Democrats cannot

take benefit reductions off the table.

Fourth, the commission needs to engage the public in a

genuine dialogue about the trade-offs inherent in realistic

solutions. When people are armed with the facts and given the

opportunity for honest dialogue, they are willing to set

priorities and make hard choices.

Fifth, the commission's recommendations should be given an

up-or-down vote in Congress, allowing for amendments that

would not reduce the total savings. Absent that, the report

would likely join many others on a shelf.

Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) and Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio)

have put forward a proposal that satisfies most of these

elements. They would create a bipartisan commission with a

broad mandate to examine long-term fiscal challenges. All

policy options would be on the table. The commission would

solicit input from the public and develop legislation that

Congress and the president would be required to act on. Its

work would address four key concerns: the unsustainable gap

between projected spending and revenue, the need to increase

national savings, the implications of foreign ownership of

U.S. government debt and the lack of emphasis on long-term

planning in the budget process.

A commission with these attributes could give all parties

the political cover they need to tackle the tough choices and

develop a bipartisan consensus for solutions. This would be

invaluable regardless of who controls Congress or the White

House.

In the end, of course, elected representatives, not a

commission, will have to make the hard decisions. But a

commission that produced solutions with meaningful bipartisan

support would provide a catalyst for action. If Congress were

required to vote on the commission's recommendations,

opponents would be challenged to produce solutions of their

own.

Advocates of extending tax cuts would be challenged to say

how they would restrain spending enough to avoid cascading

debt once the baby boomers begin to retire in

large numbers. Those who oppose reductions in current

entitlement promises would be challenged to say how they

would fund those promises without squeezing out other

priorities or raising taxes to unacceptable levels that could

damage the economy.

The Wolf-Voinovich proposal has been greeted with silence

or outright hostility. It deserves better. This is a serious

proposal by two leaders who regard the debt burden and

draconian policy options we are leaving to future generations

as a moral stain on our nation's character.

To be sure, their proposal has shortcomings that must be

corrected. Two improvements that are critical to the success

of a commission are providing for bipartisan co-chairs and

dividing the membership more evenly between parties than the

current 9-6 split in favor of Republican appointments. These

problems are not minor technicalities, but they could be

fixed in negotiations with potential Democratic co-sponsors.

Time is running out to enact reforms. Wolf and Voinovich

have come up with a credible way to get the process started.

Any takers?

Madam Speaker, few are willing to admit--much less discuss--the looming financial crisis facing our country, but there is less than 1 year until the first baby boomer is eligible to retire.

On Wednesday, January 10, the Washington Post included an op-ed by Robert Samuelson which paints a poignant picture of the generational conflict approaching on the horizon. He makes a compelling case for why it is critical that Congress take action now to address the financial emergency facing the Nation with the retirement of the baby boomers.

That is why on Tuesday, Senator George Voinovich and I will reintroduce identical legislation to establish a national bipartisan commission that will put everything--entitlement benefits and all other Federal programs as well as our tax policies--on the table and require Congress to vote up or down on its recommendations in their entirety, similar to the Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) first created by former Rep. Dick Armey in 1988. This commission would be called the SAFE Commission, to secure America's future economy.

I first introduced the idea of the SAFE Commission last summer. Since that time, the proposal has received strong support from across the political spectrum including the Heritage Foundation; the Concord Coalition; former

congressional members from both sides of the aisle; and former Congressional Budget Office directors. It has been favorably endorsed by newspapers across the country, including the Dallas Morning News, the Orlando Sentinel and syndicated columnist David Broder.

There is near universal agreement that the longer we wait to deal with this problem, the tougher the medicine will be to swallow. As a father of five and grandfather of 12, the challenge posed by the pending retirement of baby boomers strikes me as much more than a routine policy discussion. Without action, just what kind of future are we leaving to our children and grandchildren?

My youngest grandchild is just 10 months old. By the time she is 15 years old, 29 cents out of every dollar paid in income taxes will be required to cover the needs of Social Security and Medicare to pay for my retirement. That's not including payroll taxes of almost 15 percent.

By the time she completes her undergraduate degree, more than 45 cents out of every dollar of income taxes then will be needed to cover the shortfall of Social Security and Medicare, rising to 62 cents out of every dollar if she decides to get her doctorate 10 years later. Again, this is on top of payroll taxes.

Sadly, before she retires--and looks into the eyes of her own grandchildren--retired baby boomers will be consuming 88 percent of every income tax dollar. With the baby boomers consuming so much, there will be little money left to meet the needs and challenges of her generation. Not only is this unacceptable, it raises serious moral questions. Is it right for one generation to live very well knowing that its debts will be left to be paid for by their children and grandchildren?

Abraham Lincoln, one of our Nation's greatest presidents, once said, ``You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today.'' Yet that is precisely what we have been doing--avoiding our responsibility to future generations of Americans by passing on a broken system in the form of unfunded Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid obligations.

I deeply believe there is a moral component to this issue that goes to the heart of who we are as Americans. By that I mean, I wonder if we have lost the national will to make tough decisions that may require sacrifice? Moreover, have we lost the political courage to reject the partisan and special interest demands and do what is best for our country?

If we remember the legacy we have inherited, the debt we owe to previous generations--our grandparents and our parents and the sacrifices they made to make our country what it is today--we all will be moved to do our duty. The SAFE Commission should be embraced by both sides of the aisle. I am open to suggestions about the legislation from members of both parties. This is a national issue; not a Republican issue or a Democrat issue.

Last spring I took a trip to Antietam National Battlefield. As I walked along ``Bloody Lane,'' the site of one of the most vicious battles of the Civil War, I was struck by how many individuals made the ultimate sacrifice.

September 18, 1862, was the bloodiest single day in American history. There were more than 23,000 casualties, nine times as many Americans killed or wounded in World War II's D-Day on June 6, 1944. More soldiers were killed and wounded at the Battle of Antietam than the deaths of all Americans in the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican War and Spanish-American War combined.

I also visited the site of George Washington's crossing of the Delaware River in anticipation of the Battle of Trenton. Washington was down to only 3,000 soldiers and the war was almost lost. Yet, with great courage--and sacrifice--Washington and his forces were successful in changing the direction of the American Revolution.

I often think of the tremendous sacrifice being made by the thousands of men and women serving today not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, but around the globe. Their families here at home are also making great sacrifices. These examples of sacrifice for country are what led me to ask just what are we passing on to those who are coming after us?

In less than a year, the baby boom generation will begin trickling into retirement. A few years later, that trickle will become a flood that within five more years will become a tsunami that will begin to wreak havoc on our Social Security and Medicare systems. Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security consume 40 percent of the budget in 2006, but will consume 51 percent by 2016--and that is just the tip of the demographic iceberg.

As we tragically learned the lesson of Katrina in New Orleans, the best time to deal with a damaged flood wall is before the rains begin. Make no mistake; the levies that are our country's entitlement systems can only be plugged for so long. Without major repair and a long-term fix, we are facing a financial perfect storm like never before.

There is near unanimous agreement by all who have looked at this issue: Social Security and Medicare are amassing huge deficits and are ill-prepared for the coming flood of new baby boom retirees. When our retirement security programs like Social Security and Medicare were established, the ratio of workers supporting each retiree was more than 10 times the number supporting retirees today. In 1945, there were 42 workers for each retiree. Last year, the ratio dropped to three workers for each retiree and is expected to drop to just two workers for each retiree by 2030.

Perhaps even more troubling than the Social Security projections are those for Medicare. By 2010, the trust fund expenditures are projected to exceed annual income from all sources and the reserves will be depleted by 2018, 11 short years from now. According to the trustees, ``Medicare's financial outlook has deteriorated dramatically over the past five years and is now much worse than Social Security's.''

This coming crisis demands our immediate attention. While there is never a convenient time to make hard decisions, the longer we wait, the more dramatic the required remedy will be. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), balancing the budget in 2040 necessitates one of two alternatives: cutting total federal spending by 60 percent or raising federal taxes by two and a half times today's level. Either of these options would devastate our economy. But if we can summon the resolve to begin these difficult conversations now--and make some hard choices on the front end--we can change our current course.

Basic economics underscore the dangers inherent in our current national trends. America is living on borrowed dollars and borrowed time. U.S. spending is outpacing income growth and personal savings rates have dropped to negative 1.3 percent in the first quarter, meaning that U.S. consumers are spending more than 100 percent of their monthly after-tax income.

In spite of this, our economy has remained strong, in large part because other countries have been willing to buy our debt. But borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from countries like China, Saudi Arabia, Japan, South Korea, and others puts not only our future economy, but also our national security, at risk. More than $2.6 billion a day is needed to fund our savings shortfall, which has left us with nearly 40 percent of our domestic economy in foreign hands.

As our fiscal deficit balloons, our current account deficit is projected to hit historically unprecedented highs, and our country's net investment position abroad is eroding rapidly. While the Asian Central Banks and petrodollar countries like those in the Middle East have no doubt contributed to our country's growth (the housing boom and the ability of U.S. consumers to spend), the purchase of U.S. securities by foreigners has, at the same time, enabled us to live way beyond our means.

This makes our country--and our children and grandchildren--much more vulnerable in the future. Will a geopolitical dispute with a major oil exporter cause it to stop funding our deficit, resulting in a sharp drop in the dollar, a spike in interest rates and a market meltdown?

If foreigners lose faith in the U.S. and our ability to put our own fiscal house in order, their investment decisions could send shock waves through our financial markets and even result in a collapse of U.S. real estate prices. If we don't address this issue, higher interest rates and inflation are inevitable. It would be only a matter of when and how high. If we don't change our current unsustainable path, our future economic growth, standard of living, and even our national security may be at risk.

Our children and grandchildren deserve a future that will allow them to respond to the challenges of their generation. Who could have predicted, even 10 years ago, that today our Nation would be engaged in a global war on terror. Each generation faces its own international threats, and we have an obligation to ensure that future generations have the flexibility to respond to the challenges of their time.

If current policies are left unchanged, in as few as 33 years and in no more than 40 years, there would be no discretionary money left for defense spending. All federal revenue would have to go to only four sources: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and interest on past debt.

In addition to international considerations there are domestic factors. Getting our financial house in order will allow us to prioritize spending in areas such as cutting edge medical research for cancer, Alzheimer's and autism, and for education, particularly in mathematics and science, which are critically important to America's remaining the world's leader in innovation and technology.

It is with the hope of building consensus on this very difficult issue that I am offering legislation to set up a bipartisan commission charged with evaluating the scope of our fiscal problem and recommending tangible solutions.

One of the most critical responsibilities of this panel will be explaining the crisis we face and listening to the American people about how to get the country back on sound financial footing. It will also develop a strategic plan for the future. It will look beyond the Beltway for solutions, holding at least 12 town meetings--one in each of the Nation's Federal Reserve districts--over the span of 12 months in order to hear directly from the American people.

The SAFE Commission will be truly bipartisan--comprised of 16 voting members, four appointed by the Senate Majority Leader, three by the Senate Minority Leader, four by the Speaker of the House, and three by the House Minority Leader. Four of the 14 congressional appointments must be sitting members of Congress. Additionally, the director of the Office of Management and Budget as well as the secretary of the Treasury will serve as voting ex-officio members. The Congressional Budget Office and the Comptroller General of the United States will be appointed as non-voting ex-officio members of the commission to lend their expertise. The president will appoint bipartisan co-chairs from among the 14 voting members appointed by Congress.

I have heard criticism that such weighty decisions on the Nation's financial future are the responsibility of Congress. I couldn't agree more. The SAFE Commission has two provisions to protect congressional prerogatives. First, of the 14 members appointed to the commission, four must be sitting members of Congress. Second, if Congress takes on the task and enacts significant legislation aimed at addressing this looming crisis, the SAFE Commission would terminate and cease to exist.

The group will comprehensively review entitlement benefits, patterns in savings and insurance for retirement, tax policies and the long-term implications of increasing foreign ownership of the U.S. Treasury. But given the enormity of the challenge, the commission needs to be able to look at every component of our fiscal policy to fairly assess where we stand and how we can best move toward a sound fiscal future. Everything must be on the table. As a fiscal conservative, I believe that the economy grows when people keep more of their hard-earned money, and my voting record reflects this belief.

The SAFE Commission is tasked with addressing tax issues as well as spending policies because current law puts us on a track to sharply higher taxes as well as spending. If the current tax cuts are sunset, then beginning in 2011, taxes as a percent of GDP will jump and then rise each and every year to nearly 20 percent of GDP in 2016, less than 10 years from now. After that they will keep on growing to record levels, hitting over 23 percent in 2046. This happens because rising incomes push Americans into both higher brackets and into the alternative minimum tax (AMT). Yet even extending the tax cuts will shave only one percentage point off these rising numbers.

Americans need to understand all the numbers to avoid the grim default of a rising burden of taxes and spending that will damage our economy. I believe that having revenues as part of the discussion, as one of the areas of reform for the SAFE Commission, will help us paint the full picture and help us confront the tax increases that the country faces in the coming years under current law.

In looking at revenues, I believe reform of the tax code must help simplify the system and stimulate increased economic growth and thereby tax revenue. The late William Simon, who served as Treasury secretary under presidents Nixon and Ford, believed ``the United States should have a tax system, which looks like someone designed it on purpose.''

The IRS estimates Americans spend 6.6 billion hours per year filling out tax forms including 1.6 billion hours on the 1040 form alone and nearly $200 billion on tax compliance. That amounts to 20 cents of compliance cost for every dollar collected by the tax system.

Shouldn't we have a system that people understand? One that encourages faster growth in business formation, jobs, family income and tax revenue? A simplified tax code also could help increase the personal savings rate, which went negative for the first time since the Great Depression earlier this year.

The SAFE Commission legislation provides an opportunity to simultaneously address the likely tax increases that middle class Americans are projected to face and the explosion in entitlement programs. It does this by focusing on reform. The legislation provides an opportunity to reform the tax code in ways that generate more rapid growth. We know from the recent revenue figures that tax policies that spur growth also bring in needed revenue. And the legislation also tasks the commission with exploring entitlement reforms that protect safety net programs while reining in total costs.

After spending 12 months conducting town meetings around the country to determine the scope of the problem and consider solutions, the commission will present to Congress a report describing the long-term fiscal problems, public suggestions and views expressed during the town meetings and policy options available to ensure federal programs and entitlements are available for future generations.

With a bipartisan three-fourths majority vote, the commission will send to Congress a legislative package to implement the commission recommendations no later than 60 days after the interim report. The administration and Congress will have 90 additional days to develop actuarially equivalent proposals to achieve the same cost savings. Essentially, no later than 16 months from the organization of the commission, Congress would be required to vote--up or down--on each proposal.

For example, if the commission's report is delivered on January 1, 2008, then the commission's legislative package would be due by March 1, 2008, and any alternative developed by Congress or the Administration would have to be presented by June 1, 2008.

All proposals must include a 50-year CBO score in addition to disclosing any impact on future federal liabilities. If more than one proposal receives a majority, the one garnering the greatest number of votes would prevail.

I have put in the legislation procedures for expedited consideration of the commission's legislation to ensure that the Congress acts. I do not want this to simply be another blue-ribbon commission whose findings end up on a bookshelf somewhere only to collect dust and never be acted upon.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this legislation. I also welcome a forthright national dialogue. Only by working together in a truly bipartisan manner will we be able to secure America's future economy. I believe most Americans will welcome it as well, especially considering we all want what is best for our children and grandchildren.

I will close with the cautionary words of George Washington's 1796 farewell address: ``We should avoid ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden of which we ourselves ought to bear.''

Madam Speaker, I am planning to 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.

Support for the bill is coming from both sides of the aisle. I submit for the record an analysis by the Heritage Foundation and a letter of support from the Concord Coalition.

This legislation will be good for the future of America.

The Heritage Foundation,

Washington, DC, July 14, 2006.

The Wolf SAFE Commission Act: A Chance To Get the Budget Back on Track

(By Stuart Butler)

The recent Mid-Session Review by the Office of Management

and Budget underscores the facts that sensible tax reform

stimulates the economy and that faster growth swells revenue

to the government as a byproduct of new jobs and extra income

for Americans. The review also confirms the overall,

disturbing long-term budget picture indicated in the

Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) long-term forecast. Under

current law, both taxes and spending will rise rapidly during

future decades towards European levels, with an ever-growing

government taking a larger and larger proportion of the

nation's income and threatening America's future economic

growth. Decisive action is needed.

But faced with this threat, Washington is paralyzed. Rather

than seriously tackling the tsunami of entitlement spending

that will hit the budget after the baby boomers begin to

retire, Congress actually made the situation far worse by

enacting the huge Medicare prescription drug benefit. And

while the Bush tax reforms have significantly helped in the

short term, even if made permanent they would shave only

about one percentage point from the future growth in taxes.

Absent any additional reforms, the CBO forecasts that, with

the Bush tax cuts extended, federal taxes will top 20 percent

of GDP by about 2025 and approach 23 percent of GDP by 2045.

The historical average, and today's level, is just over 18

percent of GDP

With Congress polarized and paralyzed, some Members of

Congress, along with President Bush, are exploring the idea

of a bipartisan commission as a way to break away from the

path of rapidly rising spending and taxes. President Bush

pressed for an entitlements commission in his State of the

Union address. Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) has sponsored

legislation (S. 3521) that includes a commission to review

the long-term solvency of Social Security and Medicare.

Meanwhile, Representative Frank Wolf (R-VA) has crafted a

commission bill (``The SAFE Commission Act,'' H.R. 5552)

specifically intended to win bipartisan support for bold

action to secure the country's fiscal and economic future.

Senator George Voinovich (R-OH) has introduced that bill in

the Senate (S. 3491).

Commissions can help break a political logjam. They can

also become vehicles for action that achieves a short-term

political fix and yet does little in the long term or even

makes things worse. So the political dynamics and mandate of

a commission are critical. Fortunately, the Wolf commission

bill recognizes these facts of political life and offers

real hope for sensible action. A reason for this is that

in its instructions to the commission, the bill wisely

combines reform with fiscal changes in a manner that could

achieve a breakthrough.

The core of the fiscal problem is the sharp projected rise

in future entitlement spending, especially spending on

programs for middle-class retirees. Contrary to many people's

perception, taxes are not falling--as noted, taxes are

projected to rise steadily to record levels under current

law, in real terms and as a percentage of GDP. Still, in

today's political deadlock many lawmakers maintain that tax

revenue must be part of the equation if they are to have the

political ``cover'' to accept curbs on popular entitlements.

But for good reasons, conservatives strongly resist the

idea of raising taxes. For one thing, taxes are not the

problem--spending is. Moreover, raising tax rates or

instituting new taxes would threaten economic growth,

compounding the economic harm associated with government

spending. Further, raising taxes likely would reduce the

pressure on Congress to curb spending or, worse still,

encourage lawmakers to increase their spending promises.

The Wolf bill seeks a solution to this political equation.

It creates a bipartisan commission intended to address the

unsustainable imbalance between federal commitments and

revenues while increasing national savings and making the

budget process give greater emphasis to long-term fiscal

issues. While the commission could consider a range of

approaches, the bill places emphasis on two: reforms that

would limit the growth of entitlements while strengthening

the safety net and tax reforms that would make the tax system

more economically efficient and improve economic growth. The

commission would hold public hearings around the country to

discuss the long-term fiscal problem, and its recommendations

would receive fast-track consideration by Congress.

By combining a slowdown in entitlement spending with

reforms to strengthen assistance to the needy, a commission

proposal could win support of liberals and others who worry

that surging middle-class retiree spending in the future will

crowd out safety net spending. And by placing an emphasis on

pro-growth tax reform, a commission proposal could also lead

to some additional revenues not by raising taxes but thanks

instead to faster economic growth--just as the Bush tax

reforms produced the recent sharp increase in federal

revenues. Combining these features in a commission proposal

could lead to a package that conservatives, liberals, and

moderates all believe would advance their agendas--a

necessary result for an economically sound agreement to

succeed in a polarized Congress.

Some might argue that appointing a commission to address

the long-term fiscal situation is an abrogation of

responsibility by Congress. In an obvious sense, it is. But

the Wolf bill also shows that lawmakers recognize that

America's budgeting system is broken and in the current

environment cannot lead to a responsible long-term federal

budget. Representative Wolf's commission proposal seeks to

alter those destructive dynamics in order to secure a sound

economy for future generations.

The Concorde Coalition,

Arlington, VA, June 28, 2006.

Hon. Frank Wolf,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Wolf: On behalf of The Concord Coalition, I am

writing to express our deep appreciation for your leadership

in sponsoring the Securing America's Future Economy, SAFE,

Act, which would establish a bipartisan commission to

recommend legislation addressing our Nation's unsustainable

long-term fiscal outlook.

We strongly agree with you that the need for serious action

is not just an economic imperative but a moral one as well.

We also share your view that partisan divisions in Washington

have become so wide that a commission may now be the only way

forward on this issue. By establishing a fiscal policy

commission with a broad mandate, meaningful public

engagement, and the ability to consider all policy options,

your legislation represents a very constructive step toward

bringing about consensus solutions.

The demographic and fiscal challenges facing the budget in

the years ahead are well known. Analysts of diverse

ideological perspectives and nonpartisan officials at the

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Government

Accountability Office (GAO)

have all warned that current fiscal policy is unsustainable

over the long-term.

What is needed now is a clear commitment to address these

issues in a straightforward, generationally equitable and

bipartisan manner. Achieving consensus around the hard

choices that must eventually be made will require open minds

and bipartisan cooperation. Your legislation would establish

a process to do just that.

Recently, The Concord Coalition organized a forum with

experts from across the political spectrum to discuss the

possibility of establishing a bipartisan commission to deal

with our longterm fiscal outlook. Three conclusions from the

forum stand out:

The commission must have meaningful participation and input

from a broad range of views. Bipartisan support is essential

to enacting and maintaining policies that will put the budget

on a fiscally sustainable course.

The commission should have a broad mandate with no

limitations on what policy options the commission can

consider or preconditions on what must be included--or not

included--in a proposal. Everything must be on the table,

including revenues as well as entitlements and other

spending.

The commission should engage the public in a dialogue about

the long-term fiscal challenges and the tradeoffs that will

be necessary to bring about a more secure and sustainable

economic future.

The Concord Coalition commends your proposal because it

recognizes each of these conclusions. The SAFE Act would

establish a bipartisan commission of experts and legislators

appointed by the President and Congressional leaders of both

parties. The Commission would be directed to hold hearings

across the country and incorporate the input from the public

in its report. This is a very welcome provision. The public

should be treated as if it were, in effect, a member of the

commission. Doing so will enhance the commission's

credibility and help build acceptance for its

recommendations. Our experience hosting meetings around the

nation on this issue has demonstrated that when the American

people are armed with the facts and given the opportunity for

honest dialogue, they are willing to set priorities and make

the hard choices that often are not made in Washington.

Most importantly, the Commission would be allowed to

consider all policy options to address the imbalance between

long-term spending commitments and projected revenues,

including reforms of entitlement programs and tax laws. In

our view, this is an essential prerequisite for attracting

well-respected individuals to serve on the commission and for

finding solutions that are both substantive and politically

viable.

We particularly commend you for your willingness to

consider constructive suggestions for changes to achieve

broader bipartisan support and increase the prospect that the

commission will produce a balanced proposal that can be

enacted into law. In that regard, we would suggest a few

changes that we believe would strengthen the bill and help

ensure the commission receives the bipartisan support

essential to its success.

We believe the commission would have greater credibility if

the appointees were more evenly divided between parties,

potentially with some commission members appointed jointly or

as a result of bipartisan consultation. Further, we would

suggest that the commission have bipartisan co-chairs. We

would also encourage you to consider a more expansive

legislative process, which would allow for greater debate of

policy tradeoffs by allowing the consideration of budget

neutral amendments. Those who oppose the priorities and

tradeoffs recommended by the commission should be challenged

to say what they would do instead and given the opportunity

to put forward alternative policies to address the problem.

A commission isn't a silver bullet that will solve our

fiscal problems by itself. It will still take action by

Members of Congress and the administration to adopt the tough

choices. But a commission with credibility and bipartisan

support could provide the leadership necessary to ensure that

these issues receive the attention and serious consideration

they deserve.

You deserve great credit for your willingness to undertake

the difficult but absolutely essential task of focusing

attention on the tough choices our nation faces. The Concord

Coalition stands ready to assist in any way that we can.

Sincerely,

Robert L. Bixby,

Executive Director.

Mr. Speaker, last spring I took a trip to Antietam National Battlefield. As I walked along Bloody Lane, the site of one of the most vicious battles of the Civil War, I was struck by how many individuals made the ultimate sacrifice.

September 18, 1862, was the bloodiest day in American history. There were more than 23,000 casualties, nine times as many Americans killed or wounded in World War II's D-day on June 6, 1944. More soldiers were killed and wounded at the Battle of Antietam than the deaths of all Americans in the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican War and the Spanish-American war combined.

I also visited the site of the George Washington's crossing of the Delaware in anticipation of the Battle of Trenton. Washington was down to only 3,000 soldiers and the war was almost lost. Yet with great courage and sacrifice, Washington and his forces were successful in changing the direction of the American Revolution.

I also think of the tremendous sacrifice being made by thousands of men and women serving today not only in Iraq and Afghanistan but around the globe. Their families at home are also making great sacrifices.

After those visits and the lessons in history they brought, I began reading about the looming financial crisis on the Nation's horizon with the impending retirement of the baby boom generation. That information was chilling.

In less than a year, the baby boom generation will begin trickling into retirement. A few years later, that trickle will become a flood. And within 5 more years, it will become a tsunami that will begin to wreak havoc on the Social Security and Medicare systems.

Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security consume 40 percent of the budget in 2006, but will consume 51 percent in 2016, which is just the tip of the Democratic iceberg.

There is near unanimous consent by all who have looked at this issue. Social Security and Medicare are amassing huge deficits, and we are ill prepared for the coming flood of new baby boom retirees. When our retirement security programs like Social Security and Medicare were established, the ratio of workers supporting each retiree was more than 10 times the number supporting retirees today. In 1945, there were 42 workers for each retiree. Last year, the ratio dropped to three workers for each retiree and is expected to drop to just two workers for each retiree in 2030.

In reading about the coming financial emergency, my mind kept going back to Antietam and Washington's crossing and all the substantive examples of sacrifice for country by Americans. I asked myself, what kind of financial security as a Nation are we passing on to those who are coming after us?

While there never is a convenient time to make hard decisions, the longer we wait, the more dramatic the remedy will be that is required.

According to the Government Accountability Office, balancing the budget in 2040 necessitates one of two alternatives: Cutting total Federal spending by 60 percent, and this place will never do that; or raising Federal taxes by two-and-a-half times today's level. Either of these options would devastate our economy.

But if we can summon the resolve to begin these difficult conversations now, and make hard choices on the front end, we can change the current course. Abraham Lincoln, one of our greatest Presidents, said ``you cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today,'' yet that is precisely what we are doing in avoiding our responsibility to future generations by passing on a broken system in the form of unfunded Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

That is why next week Senator George Voinovich in the Senate and I in the House will join to introduce identical legislation to establish a national commission that will put everything, everything, entitlement benefits and all other Federal programs, as well as our tax policies, on the table and to require, require Congress to vote up or down on its recommendations in their entirety, similar to the base realignment and base closure commission, BRAC.

This commission would be called the SAFE Commission, to secure America's future economy. We first introduced the SAFE Commission last summer. Since that time, the proposal has received strong support from across the political spectrum, including the Heritage Foundation, the Concord Coalition, former Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, and former Congressional Budget Office directors. It is being endorsed by major newspapers across the country, including the Dallas Morning News, the Orlando Sentinel and syndicated columnist David Broder.

It is in the hope of building a consensus on this very difficult issue that we will again offer this legislation. One of the most critical responsibilities of the Commission will be explaining the crisis we face and listening to the American people about how to get the country back on sound financial footing.

It will also develop a strategic plan for the future. It will look beyond the beltway for solutions, holding at least 12 hearings, one in each Federal Reserve district, over the span of 12 months in order to hear directly from the American people.

After its 12-month listening tour, the commission will present to Congress a report describing the long-term fiscal problems, public

suggestions and views expressed during the town meetings and policy options available to ensure Federal programs and entitlements are available for future generations.

With a bipartisan three-fourths majority vote, the commission will send to Congress a legislative package to implement the commission recommendations no later than 60 days after the interim report. The administration and Congress will have 90 additional days to develop actuarially equivalent proposals to achieve the same cost savings.

Essentially, no later than 16 months from the organization of the commission, Congress would be required to vote--up or down--on each proposal.

We have put in the legislation procedures for expedited consideration of the commission's legislation to ensure that the Congress acts. I do not want this to simply be another blue-ribbon commission whose findings end up on a bookshelf somewhere only to collect dust and never be acted upon.

The SAFE Commission will be comprised of 16 voting members, four appointed by the Senate Majority Leader, three by the Senate Minority Leader, four by the Speaker of the House, and three by the House Minority Leader.

Four of the 14 Congressional appointments must be sitting Members of Congress. Additionally, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget as well as the Secretary of the Treasury will serve as voting ex-officio members.

The Congressional Budget Office and the Comptroller General of the United States will be appointed as non-voting ex-officio members of the commission to lend their expertise. The President will have the ability to appoint bipartisan co-chairs from among the 10 voting members appointed by Congress.

As a father of five and grandfather of 12, the challenge posed by the pending retirement of baby boomers strikes me as much more than a routine policy discussion. Without action, just what kind of future are we leaving to our children and grandchildren?

I also deeply believe there is a moral component to this issue that goes to the heart of who we are as Americans. By that I mean, I wonder if we have lost the national will to make tough decisions that may require sacrifice?

Moreover, have we lost the political courage to reject the partisan and special interest demands and do what is best for our country?

If we remember the legacy we have inherited--the sacrifices of Washington's crossing and Antietam and so many other examples from the over two centuries of our Nation's history--and the debt we owe to previous generations--our grandparents and our parents and the sacrifices they made to make our country what it is today--I believe we all will be moved to do our duty.

I have heard criticism that such weighty decisions on the Nation's financial future are the responsibility of Congress. I couldn't agree more. The SAFE Commission has two provisions to protect congressional prerogatives. First, of the 14 members appointed to the commission, four must be sitting Members of Congress. Second, if Congress enacts significant legislation aimed at addressing this looming crisis, the SAFE Commission would terminate and cease to exist.

The SAFE Commission should be embraced by both sides of the aisle. This is a national issue; not a Republican issue or a Democrat issue. I am open to suggestions about the legislation from members of both parties. We also welcome a forthright national dialogue.

Only by working together in a truly bipartisan manner will we be able to secure America's future economy. I believe most Americans will welcome it as well, especially considering we all want what is best for our children and grandchildren.

We must heed the cautionary words of George Washington's 1796 farewell address: ``We should avoid ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden of which we ourselves ought to bear.''

I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this legislation.