Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I come to the House floor today to share some sad news. One of Virginia's great public servants--former 10th District Congressman Joel T. Broyhill, a resident of Arlington, Virginia--died this past weekend.

It could be said that this region of Virginia was shaped in many ways by the life of Congressman Broyhill. He laid the foundation for major transportation projects, including the Metrorail system, Washington Dulles International Airport, and the Woodrow Wilson Bridge.

Congressman Broyhill dedicated most of his life to serving his country. He was born in Hopewell, Virginia, on November 4, 1919. He attended Fork Union Military Academy and then attended George Washington University. He also received an honorary doctorate degree from Georgetown University.

Mr. Broyhill worked at his father's real estate company, M.T. Broyhill & Sons, which was a business his family began in Hopewell. The family later relocated to northern Virginia when Congressman Broyhill was growing up.

Before coming to Congress, Congressman Broyhill had a distinguished military career in the U.S. Army. He entered the U.S. Army in 1942 as an enlisted man and served in the European Theater during World War II in the 106th Infantry Division.

He fought in the Battle of the Bulge at the age of 25 and was taken prisoner and held in a German POW camp. After six months in captivity, he saw a chance to escape. He and another American soldier hid under some hay in a barn, hoping that the Germans would not come through the barn looking for them and thrusting their bayonets into the hay. Fortunately, the Germans did not find them, and Mr. Broyhill made his escape. He rejoined advancing American forces and was released from active duty in 1945 as a captain of infantry.

After the war, he resumed his family's real estate pursuits and in 1952, the same year that President Dwight D. Eisenhower was elected, Mr. Broyhill was elected to the 83rd Congress from the 10th District of Virginia and to the 10 succeeding Congresses, serving for 22 years.

I feel a special connection with Mr. Broyhill because I represent Virginia's 10th District today. Although the district has gone through a number of changes over the years, it was Congressman Broyhill who led the way. He was the first Member of Congress to represent the 10th District, Virginia's newest congressional district at that time.

He began his congressional career and service as a member of the House committees on Post Office and Civil Service and the District of Columbia, and later became a member of the Ways and Means Committee. Congressman Broyhill was known for being a strong advocate for Federal and postal workers and for the postal service.

It was appropriate that in the year 2000, Congress passed legislation I introduced which was signed into law naming the central mail processing facility for Northern Virginia in Merrifield in honor of Joel T. Broyhill.

Congressman Broyhill served the people of Virginia honorably and was especially known for the way he took care of his constituents' needs. According to the Almanac of American Politics in 1972, and I quote, ``There were few offices that took care of constituents' needs and complaints with more efficiency.'' Mr. Broyhill estimated that he had helped more than 100,000 residents of Virginia's 10th District during his more than 20 years in office. I still hear people today say ``Congressman Broyhill helped me.''

The almanac also describes Congressman Broyhill as one who, and I quote, ``should be credited with voting his conscience.''

We salute today the life and dedicated public service of Joel T. Broyhill and offer our condolences to his three daughters, Nancy, Jeanne and Jane Anne; his stepdaughter, Kimi, and his wife of 25 years, Suzanne (Suzy). He also has four grandchildren: Meredith and Maureen, who are fraternal twins; Lindsey, and Kathleen, and three great- grandchildren: Molly, Jack, and Kara.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6102, to name a post office in northern Virginia in honor of Captain Christopher P. Petty and Major William F. Hecker, III, both of whom were killed in Iraq on January 5, 2006, when an explosive detonated near their Humvee in Najav, Iraq.

Both Captain Petty and Major Hecker attended high school in northern Virginia. Now we commemorate their service to America by naming the post office building at 200 Lawyers Road, NW in Vienna, Virginia, in their honor. There is no greater gift a person can give than his or her life to save the lives of others. I cannot imagine the grief of the parents, wives and children of these two courageous men and we honor their memory today in this way to help ensure that their sacrifice will not be forgotten.

This post office will stand as a reminder of the perils faced daily by the thousands of Americans who serve in our armed forces overseas and whose devotion to duty places them in harm's way. My thoughts and prayers remain with the families and friends of Captain Petty and Major Hecker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 2690, legislation to designate a United States Postal Service facility in Manassas, Virginia, as the Harry J. Parrish Post Office.

I want to particularly thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) for his work to bring this legislation to the floor. I am pleased to be a sponsor of the House companion bill to the Senate measure introduced by Virginia Senator George Allen.

Harry Parrish serve over 50 years in elected office. He was elected to the town council of Manassas, Virginia, in 1951, and held that position until 1963 when he was elected mayor. He served in that capacity until 1981.

During his 12 years as town councilman and 18 years as mayor, he guided the transformation of Manassas from a small Virginia town to a thriving, lively suburb.

Mr. Parrish became a delegate in the Virginia General Assembly in 1982 and was elected to 13 terms in the Virginia House of Delegates, including serving as chairman of the Finance Committee starting in 2000. At the time of his passing in March at the age of 84, he was the oldest serving member of the House of Delegates.

As a member of the House of Delegates, he was known for conducting himself in a bipartisan manner, putting Virginia first. At Harry's funeral, current Governor Kaine was there, a Democrat; former Governor Warner, a Democrat. It was a bipartisan group. If only this body could become like that, whereby there could be a bipartisanship that we saw with Harry Parrish.

I was proud to call Harry my friend. He was a true Virginia gentleman in the truest sense of the word.

His public service started in the U.S. Air Force, where he was a decorated World War II pilot. As part of the British Royal Air Force during WWII, he flew C-47s over the Himalayas, delivering supplies, weapons and other cargo from India to China. He received the Distinguished Flying Cross and the Air Medal for his valiant efforts. He served as an Air Force reservist in the Korean and Vietnam wars before retiring as colonel.

He was chairman of the board of his family business, Manassas Ice and Fuel Company.

Naming the post office on Sudley Road in Manassas in his honor and memory is an appropriate reminder to the people of Manassas of Harry's dedication to public service. I urge a unanimous vote for the legislation, and I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) for allowing me to have this opportunity to be here at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of H. Res. 992, supporting the appointment of a Presidential Special Envoy; also, H. Res. 723, calling for the President to take immediate steps to improve the security situation in Darfur; and H.R. 3127, the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act.

I want to commend and personally thank Chairman Hyde, Mr. Lantos, Mr. Payne, and Mr. Smith of New Jersey and their staffs for all the efforts that have gone into this.

Last week at the United Nations, the President renewed our country's commitment to finding peace in Sudan by appointing Andrew Natsios as a Presidential Special Envoy for Sudan. Andrew has a big task ahead of him, but I am confident he goes into this position with the respect of the administration and determination to see peace in Sudan and somebody who understands the issue having been there on numerous occasions. We all support him in this endeavor.

The people of Sudan, north, south, Darfur, all of Sudan, have suffered for too long. What is needed now is immediate action. The women and children are counting on us to end their nightmare. No human should ever have to live through and endure what these people are living through. I have seen through my own eyes during my latest trip to Sudan just 2 years ago the suffering people of Darfur. I visited five refugee camps, all sprawling tent cities jam-packed with thousands of displaced families. Also having visited Sudan in other cases, I have seen the suffering that went on in the north-south issue, people in the south and in the north.

So as Mr. Smith said, this does not only deal with Darfur but also is to make sure that the north-south peace agreement continues to stay alive.

I watched the barbarous Janjaweed militiamen, who are carrying out these attacks, sitting astride camels and horses just a short distance from where young and old sought what they had hoped would be a safe harbor.

In the face of genocide, the international community has been paralyzed to act. The United States Government has led this effort in trying to bring peace in Sudan. Heroes like Roger Winter and others have dedicated their careers to the people of Sudan and should be commended.

But, unfortunately, all of the diplomatic efforts that have been made over the last 3 years have failed to bring peace in Darfur. As we stand here, bombers are taking off, Antonov bombers, strafing villages. Soviet Hind helicopters fly in and attack the villages. Women and children are fleeing for their lives. The Janjaweed militia has continued to rape and kill, wiping out generations of people in Darfur. It is unacceptable, and the world must act.

All three of these measures make it a priority to end the genocide and work to bring a lasting peace for the people of Sudan.

I want to again commend the House for the strong stand. I want to commend Mr. Hyde, who has been a champion on these issues for so many, many times, in a bipartisan effort. I also want to thank Mr. Lantos. Every time one of these issues comes down on the floor, it is Lantos who is sitting over there.

And, lastly, I want to thank my good friend, Mr. Smith, who, quite frankly, on these issues of human rights and religious freedom over the 26 years that I have served with him, he has done more I think than perhaps any other person that has ever served in this institution from the very, very beginning. But it is always Hyde, Lantos, Smith. It is almost like a baseball game and the three.

And, also, I also want to thank Don Payne. Don Payne has been faithful, loyal, always there, always speaking out, always there. Has been there, I do not how many times, but also I want to thank Mr. Payne, and there are so many other Members.

But these four, Hyde, Lantos, Payne and Smith, have been the ones that have really made a tremendous difference. And others again, I stipulate, care about this thing deeply. But it just seems that every time there is a human rights issue on the floor, they are the people that are down there.

So I urge that we pass this thing with a majority vote and send a message to the government of Khartoum.

Mr. Speaker, earlier today I was at Arlington National Cemetery attending the funeral with full military honors for LCDR James Edwin Plowman, a missing-in-action Navy pilot shot down in 1967 in Vietnam, whose remains were positively identified after military investigators found his crash site several years ago. He was the father of James Plowman, Jr., Commonwealth's attorney for Loudoun County in my congressional district.

Had I been present and voting, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 454, the motion to consider H. Res. 1015, the rule for H.R. 4844, Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor for Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia and myself to recognize The Honorable Sean T. Connaughton, former Prince William Board of County Supervisors chairman. Sean was recently confirmed as Maritime Administrator in the Department of Transportation and his education and experience will serve him well at the federal level.

We want to take this opportunity to recognize the dedication that Mr. Connaughton showed the people of northern Virginia as Prince William chairman. At a time when northern Virginia was experiencing heavy population growth, Mr. Connaughton took his responsibilities as an elected official very seriously. Prince William's financial resources were well managed and Mr. Connaughton made significant improvements in terms of education, economic development, public safety, and transportation. On behalf of Virginia's 10th and 11th districts we want to thank Chairman Connaughton on his exemplary service.

Mr. Connaughton is a U.S. Naval War College graduate and alumni of the Merchant Marine Academy. While serving as Prince William chairman he also worked as an attorney dealing with maritime laws and is a part of the Maritime Law Association. A U.S. Naval Reserve commander and former active-duty member of the U.S. Coast Guard, his accomplishments speak for themselves. We have every reason to believe that Mr. Connaughton will be an asset to the Department of Transportation and want to congratulate him upon his confirmation.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit for the Congressional Record a statement by former special representative on Sudan, Roger P. Winter. This statement was delivered at a hearing on the current situation in Sudan--the House International Relations Committee Subcommittee on Africa.

Roger's testimony is compelling and I encourage all members to read it. The warning signs are written on the wall; if the international community fails to act, the genocide in Darfur can and will get worse.

The statement of Roger P. Winter, October 20, 2006, follows:

Statement of Roger P. Winter, Former Special Representative on Sudan of

the Deputy Secretary of State

Sudan's National Congress Party is controlled by an

intellectually-capable, radically-committed, conspiratorial

and compassionless nucleus of individuals, long referred to

as the National Islamic Front (NIF). In the seventeen years

since they came to power by coup to abort an incipient peace

process, they have consistently defied the international

community and won. As individuals, the NIF has never paid a

price for their crimes. Almost all of them are still in

important positions.

The NIF core is a competent cadre of men who have an

agenda, the pursuit of which has killed millions of Sudanese

and uprooted and destroyed the lives of millions more. While

their agenda is radically ideological, it is equally about

personal power and enrichment. They are not at all suicidal,

but they respond only to credible threats against their power

and prosperity. The international community with its

limitless posturing and (too often) empty words has, to date,

never constituted a credible threat. During its seventeen-

year reign, the NIF engaged seriously with critics only once,

that being when confronted by a strong Sudanese Peoples

Liberation Movement and Army (SPLM/A) and an energetic

international coalition led by the United States. The result

was the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), an incredible,

detailed document that ended a twenty-two year war between

the NIF government and the people of southern Sudan, the Nuba

Mountains, Southern Blue Nile and Abyei. Despite Khartoum's

deliberately slow and selective implementation, in my view,

the CPA is now at very serious risk of survival.

Power and wealth in Sudan have historically been

concentrated in ``the center'', in fact in just a few tribes.

All the peripheral populations--North, South, East and West--

have, as a result, been marginalized, largely destitute,

powerless and lacking development, regardless of their

religious, cultural or ethnic background. The U.S. initiative

beginning in 2001 made rather incredible progress in ending

hostilities between the SPLM and the NIF government and

opening up humanitarian access to war-affected people,

raising the hopes and expectations of a better life for

almost all Sudanese. That the peace process took four years

is not surprising, given the egregious history to be overcome

and the quality of the final text. The CPA was signed in

January 2005. In April an SPLM delegation went to Khartoum to

begin implementation arrangements. On landing at Khartoum's

airport they were engulfed by joyous throngs of Sudanese of

all backgrounds--Muslims, Christians, Africans, Arabs and

others--hoisting the delegation onto their shoulders and

dancing in the streets. They understood the implications of

the CPA to be for all Sudanese. On July 8 when Dr. John de

Mabior, chairman of the SPLM and Commander-in-Chief of the

SPLA arrived in Khartoum to sign the Interim Constitution

that was to implement the CPA, huge crowds of Northerners and

Southerners estimated by some at 6-8 million came out to meet

him. His popularity was such that, in a free election, it is

likely that he could be elected President of Sudan by all the

people. A New Sudan was being born.

But Darfur was in flames.

In February 2003, perhaps seeing the progress of CPA

negotiations and concerned about being left out of the

benefits of the CPA, ``rebels'' from Darfur's

marginalized populations who were considered ``African''

as distinct from ``Arab'' initiated hostilities against

the NIF government, The NIF responded precisely as it had

in the war against the SPLA. This involved destruction of

civilian populations, denial of humanitarian assistance to

war-affected civilians, utilization of surrogate Arab

militias in coordination with formal government military

forces and pretence of themselves being the aggrieved

party, being the ``sovereign'' government. The violence

exhibited a character far beyond that which could fairly

be described as ``military''. Ethnic cleansing was clear.

Genocide was its truer name.

The CPA includes a provision that the South and potentially

Abyei can legally secede from the Sudan state if a referendum

in those areas, scheduled for 2011, so decides. (The people

of Southern Blue Nile and the Nuba Mountains, to their great

dismay, have no similar option and fear being overwhelmed by

Khartoum eventually). The NIF committed itself to make unity

attractive but the war in Darfur has demonstrated to the SPLM

that unity in a state dominated by the NIF would be anything

but attractive. Many core NIF adherents were appalled by this

provision, not just at the potential dismemberment of the

Sudanese state but also because a large percentage of Sudan's

known oil reserves, now increasingly coming on line, are

located in the South. If the South legally seceded, that oil

would then belong to it as a new separate country. Those NIF

personnel also saw other CPA interim provisions as

contemptible: that Dr. Garang would become Sudan's First Vice

President, that the South would have its own government, that

the SPLA would continue to exist as a component of ``the

national army'', but separate from the Government's army, and

that national elections would be held.

So, why did the NIF government sign the CPA? With its very

limited allegiance from the Sudanese public and increasing

military threats from Sudan's other disaffected marginalized

populations, with the international war on terror potentially

having

implications for Sudan itself, being on the U.S. list of

state sponsors of terrorism and also being the political

birthing place for Osama bin Laden, not to mention the NIF's

own brand of radical politics, the NIF needed to buy time. It

also hadn't, despite a twenty two year war, been able to

defeat the SPLA. It was in their interests, at least ``for

now'', to sign. At least signing guaranteed it six and one-

half years of protected existence. Who could know what

opportunities for a course-correction might materialize

within that timespan?

On July 30, 2005 Dr. John de Mabior, the embodiment of the

possibility of a united New Sudan, was killed in a helicopter

crash. The opportunity had arrived. That very day, I believe,

the NIF recalculated its future course of action.

To seize the opportunity, the NIF needed to eliminate the

Darfur opposition (civilian and military), destabilize the

SPLM, corrupt or abort any potential for a viable referendum.

maintain possession of the oil fields of Abyei, and ensure

the degradation of the SPLA. The NIF has seen progress on all

of these in the last fourteen months.

We are currently witnessing the NIF's attempt to achieve

the elimination of its Darfur opposition. Khartoum is

attempting to change the realities on the ground in Darfur

before the international community gets serious, if that is

possible. They believe they have ``read'' us, the

international community, all accurately, the U.S. included.

They believe there will be a continued slow response on our

part to Darfur's genocide and acceptable limits to whatever

actions are ultimately taken. After all, that's been pretty

much the case throughout their tenure. Thus, the liquidation

of the Darfur opposition is now in motion.

The NIF has successfully marginalized the SPLM within the

``Government of National Unity'' created by the CPA. The SPLM

is largely powerless to affect significant national policy.

The NIF has ``bought'' several SPLM officials and also

inserted into the SPLM apparatus other key individuals whose

loyalty is to Khartoum. Several veteran SPLM leaders,

brilliant, capable men who were critical in achieving the

CPA, have now left the country in despair.

The process for undermining the referendum is now underway.

The first elections, preliminary to any referendum, are

scheduled for 2008. To prepare for them, basic elements, laws

and structures must be put in place, especially in a context

where there is no history of elections. For example, there

has been no proper census in Sudan since 1983. Thus, the

architecture for elections is being put in place in a context

largely controlled by Khartoum loyalists. And, too, the

international community is being of only limited assistance

to the SPLM in its conversion from a rebel movement into a

nationally competitive political party, a serious

shortcoming.

The future of Abyei, a place little understood by

outsiders, is a critical issue as it is the repository of a

significant amount of Sudan's oil; most of Abyei is an oil

field. Currently that oil is being extracted under Government

contracts with oil companies from China, with its UN Security

Council veto power, Malaysia, India and Sudan itself. Its

products are fueling the NIF's war in Darfur. The CPA

provided for an Abyei Boundaries Commission (ABC) to

determine Abyei's actual borders, so that oil revenues can be

properly allocated. The ABC determined the boundaries but

President Beshir has rejected it and also the appointment of

an interim local government as provided in the CPA. To buy

time as the clock ticks, he refuses to proceed. The highly

volatile Abyei area, thus, remains largely in the hands of

the Sudanese Army.

The Sudan Peoples Liberation Army is, in many ways, the

reason the CPA exists. This rebel army, with very limited

resources, could not be defeated by the Sudan army. But that

was then; this in now. The balance may be changing. The

riches of Khartoum are being used to modernize and equip the

Sudan Army. The SPLA is largely as it was several years ago,

perhaps even less so. In significant part, this is due to us.

Endless debating regarding what the U.S. is authorized to do

to the help in the transformation of the SPLA into a modern

military force is very dangerous. It could cost South Sudan

and potentially all of Sudan tragically in the future.

Transformation of the SPLA is the surest guarantee that the

CPA will survive.

It is my view the war in Darfur and the survival of the CPA

are inextricably entwined, and the NIF sees it. If, through

weak international responses to genocide, the NIF succeeds in

eliminating its Darfur opposition, and that reality is

combined with the reality of the loss of Dr. Garang, the only

southern leader who had the stature to compete successfully

with Khartoum, the stage is set for the NIF to entirely

undermine the CPA. The SPLM can again compete, and its

current leadership is trying to so position it, but its

recovery from the loss of Dr. Garang and from the

destabilization efforts of the NIF will take time. And the

clock is ticking.

Based on this analysis, I encourage the following urgent

steps:

1. Deploy non-consentually the now-stymied UN protection

force. In fact, some of the UN force already in the South, in

such places as Wau virtually next door to Darfur, could be

moved there quickly. In the meantime, declare and enforce a

no-fly zone for Sudan military aircraft throughout Darfur.

U.S. resources exist in Djibouti that could be used for

enforcement purposes.

2. Provide substantial assistance to the SPLM to empower

its participation in governance at all levels. to be

seriously competitive as a national political party and to

effectively govern the South. The Government of South Sudan

also needs assistance in anticorruption efforts. such as

setting up an office of Inspector General of Government. Some

of these issues were discussed by Salva Kiir, President of

South Sudan, when he met with President Bush in July.

3. Focus now urgently on the upcoming interim elections and

ultimately the referendum. Time is flying by, given what

needs to be accomplished. Monitor preparations in detail and

equip the SPLM to be able to fully participate in

preparations.

4. Take Abyei seriously. If war breaks out again between

the NIF and the SPLM, it will in my estimation likely begin

in Abyei. Expose President Beshir's perfidy in delaying.

Raise the issue at the UN Security Council and other

appropriate forums.

5. Seriously assist the SPLA in its conversion from a rebel

force to a modern military, The delays already caused by U.S.

persistent bureaucratics have the potential for actually

encouraging war and the ultimate loss of life and of the CPA.

6. Finally, given the ``no negative consequences'' pattern

experienced by the NIF for crimes committed, accountability

for past, current and future crimes is a critical issue.

Unfortunately for Sudanese, the International Criminal Court

seems to have disappeared. An internationally agreed-on

system of accountability is desperately needed for Sudan's

atrocities. The U.S. should actively take leadership in

addressing this crying need.

Believe me, we are in really dangerous times regarding

Sudan. It could happen that the CPA is stamped ``CANCELLED'',

along with an incredible additional number of Sudanese lives.

And if that happened, it would blot out one of the finest

U.S. initiatives of the last decade.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2784 to award a congressional gold metal to Tenzin Gyatso, the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, in recognition of his many enduring and outstanding contributions to peace, non-violence, human rights, and religious understanding.

I am honored to support the Dalai Lama to receive the Congressional Gold Metal. He has dedicated himself to the Tibetan people and the pursuit freedom. He is the head of state and spiritual leader of the Tibetan people--the epitome of strength and courage, revered around the world for his commitment to the cause of human rights and religious freedom--a man who wants only to be able to return to his country in peace and to lead his people in the practice of their religion. He had led the effort to preserve the rich cultural heritage of the Tibetan people.

I traveled to Tibet in 1997 and saw with my own eyes the suffering the Tibetan people endure. I visited monasteries and talked with many people. Several monks spoke to me in secret and shared with me the horrors taking place in Tibet. I heard stories of monks and nuns who were dragged away to prison and tortured.

These monks and nuns are not alone. Religious persecution is spread across China. Catholic bishops are in prisons and labor camps. Protestant House Church leaders are routinely harassed and detained. Large numbers of Muslims in China are in prison because of their faith. Young Muslim Uighur boys and girls are not even allowed to enter a mosque until they are 18-years-old.

I have been standing on the floor of this House talking about human rights in China and the Dalai Lama for two decades. The world is now looking for resolutions to the human rights problems in China and Tibet. There has been a dialogue taking place between the Dalai Lama's envoys and the Chinese, and that is good. But we now need to see some concrete results from these talks. The Tibetan people deserve to live in peace.

I am proud to support the Dalai Lama for the Congressional Gold Medal. He has kept the cause of human rights alive in Tibet and in other places around the globe. He is a true hero to me and many others throughout the world.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill. Before I make some comments, let me say I have great respect for the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra). He is a good person. But I do not believe this approach is the way to go.

I appreciate the hard work of Mr. Hoekstra and his staff in trying to develop a bill that addresses concerns raised by myself and others, including the Justice Department. And while I appreciate his genuine efforts to address the issue of providing additional opportunities for inmates, I remain concerned that the alternatives provided in this proposal will not be enough to replace the mandatory source authority currently relied upon by Federal Prison Industries (FPI).

H.R. 2965 would decimate the FPI program by eliminating the mandatory source preference without an adequate replacement. Mandatory source preferences account for the majority of inmate jobs in the program.

I also want to acknowledge Mr. Hoekstra's efforts to work with the Justice Department to craft a workable alternative to the currert mandatory source authority that is responsible for many of jobs currently available through FPI. While there have been a number of changes from the proposal that was considered during the last Congress, the Department of Justice has stated that they cannot support this bill in the current form.

The Department of Justice calls FPI ``the Department's most important correctional management tool.'' DOJ has a fiduciary relationship in running these prisons and I certainly wish they had been stronger in articulating their concerns. However, the fact remains that the bill before us does not have their support.

Winston Churchill said one of the best tests of whether we are truly a civilized people is the temper, the mood of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals.

I like to think of myself as a compassionate conservative. I've had the chance to work with prisoners. Before I was elected, I was involved in a program at Lorton Prison called ``Man to Man'' where we would meet with and counsel the inmates. Knowing what this bill could do in terms of prison work opportunities, I think this bill should be defeated.

You cannot put a man in prison for years and expect him to be rehabilitated without work. The Bible says, ``Remember the prisoner as though in prison with them.''

Currently, FPI is a self-supporting government program that provides job skills opportunities to federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) inmates by producing products and services for federal agencies. The FPI prison inmate work program fosters BOP prison safety by helping to keep thousands of prison inmates productively occupied in labor-intensive work activities and furthers BOP prisoner rehabilitation by providing prison inmates with opportunities to develop job skills that will allow them to reenter our communities as productive, law-abiding citizens.

This bill would make it difficult to operate a prison. Inmates without work who are idle are prisoners that are going to later come back and commit a crime. Prisoners that participate in the FPI program have a 24 percent lower recidivism rate than prisoners who are not in the program.

This bill also has major budget impacts. To those on my side of the aisle who talk about balancing the budget, the cost of this bill over 5 years will be $500 million. In an era of limited discretionary funding, I have to ask: does it make sense to replace the self-sustaining FPI program with an alternative work program that would cost hundreds of millions a year, without considering any additional staffing needs that would arise from a loss of FPI jobs?

The FPI program provides those incarcerated with a unique opportunity to learn discipline, responsibility, and job skills needed to re-enter society. We should be supporting these prisoners as they serve their time and seek to make the transition back into society, not undercutting one of the most important programs offered by the prison system to help them do so. I am very concerned that the bill before us does not set up an alternative system that can ensure FPI will be able to continue offering inmate work and training opportunities in the future.

In the last four years, the percentage of inmates able to participate in FPI has plummeted from 25 percent to 17 percent, with the BOP estimating a continued decline if this legislation passes. That is the key. There is no alternative system for ensuring there will continue to be jobs if these reforms are implemented. That would be tragic.

If this bill is not amended, I believe, and I may be wrong, that this bill, as surely as the night follows the day, will make it very difficult to operate prisons. With the opportunity to work comes the chance to restore dignity. Later, I am offering a commonsense amendment with my colleagues Messrs. Lungren, Chabot and Scott that would simply postpone the mandatory source phase-out for one year if the FPI prisoner enrollment falls below the current level of 17 percent.

In a time of low national unemployment, it is hard to believe that we are about to make it harder for incarcerated Americans to learn discipline, responsibility, and job skills that working develops.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this underlying bill and for the Lungren-Chabot-Wolf-Scott amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I introduce this resolution to again call for the immediate appointment of a Presidential Special Envoy for Sudan. In calling for this I would like to commend the President for the leadership he has shown toward Sudan; Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who has traveled there and cares deeply about this issue; the work of former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was the first leader to call the conflict genocide; and former Deputy Secretary Robert Zoellick, for his efforts on behalf of the people of Sudan.

I also want to specifically recognize Roger Winter who has dedicated his life to the people of Sudan. He has been a true hero to the suffering Sudanese.

While we were all hopeful that the signing last May of the Darfur Peace Agreement would bring needed stability to Darfur, I am extremely alarmed that in recent weeks the fighting in Sudan has intensified. The targeting of civilians and humanitarian workers must end. Sudan is at a critical moment and the appointment of a special envoy could not be more timely.

The appointment of a special envoy will send a clear message to Khartoum that the United States will not stand by while genocide is taking place and will send a message to the people suffering in the camps that the United States has been and will continue to be actively involved in ending their nightmare.

I urge the administration to move quickly to bring hope to the people of Sudan.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate bill (S. 3741) to provide funding authority to facilitate the evacuation of persons from Lebanon, and for other purposes, be taken from the Speaker's table, amended in the form that I have placed at the desk, and hereby passed; that the amendment placed at the desk be considered as read; and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment simply gives the permissive authority to the Secretary of State to access these and other previously appropriated funds to cover the evacuation of Lebanon.

Mr. Speaker, they have been in discussion with the staff as to some ideas. But their priority was to get this legislation passed because there are going to be more evacuations taking place.

So as of now I cannot tell you the exact places.

Mr. Speaker, no, there are not. It would merely ensure that the State Department could use the existing funds to get American citizens out of harm's way and to pay the debts that they have obligated both for cruises, for ships and for other things whereby they are taking people to Cypress and other points of safety, so they can pay their bills.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Federal Employee Combat Zone Tax Parity Act, which would provide parity by extending the tax credit currently received by military personnel to the civilian Federal employees working along side them.

Just the other day I received an e-mail from a constituent who is currently stationed in Afghanistan. She said: ``I am completing a one year tour with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Kabul, Afghanistan. I work with the U.S. military and I live in the same residences with the U.S. military. During the riots on Memorial Day, I listened to the same gunfire as the U.S. military and I wore the same 30 pounds of Individual Body Armor and the Kevlar Helmet as the U.S. military.''

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I recently introduced legislation in the House of Representatives aimed at addressing the looming financial crisis facing the Nation, H.R. 5552--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 a recent analysis by the Heritage Foundation; a letter of support from the Concord Coalition; a letter from Douglas Holt- Eakin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, and letters from several former Members.

I also am pleased to submit today the names of 20 of my colleagues who are co-sponsoring the SAFE Commission measure and urge the remainder of my colleagues to join as well. This legislation will be good for the future of America.

The Concord 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 long-term 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 propoal 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 substanive 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, I rise in support of the bill. The bill brings accountability. I have a note here and I quote, ``CBO expects that the proposed amendment would not authorize any additional appropriations.''

I would read that one more time: ``CBO expects that the proposed amendment would not authorize any additional appropriations.''

I rise in support of the bill, H.R. 3496, the National Capital Transportation Amendments Act. The legislation would ensure, and what Mr. Davis is trying to do, accountability for the Federal funding that is provided to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, or, as they call it, Metro. The bill would require an IG office to be established and to provide oversight of the system.

You would have thought that the system would have had an IG, but it requires Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia to identify dedicated funding sources to the Metro system.

The bill also adds Federal members to the Metro board of directors, and I think these are good ideas. The Metro system in Washington, as Mr. Davis has said, is known as the Nation's subway system.

Visitors from all over the country and the world use the system daily when visiting our Nation's Capital, and Metro's highest ridership, as Mr. Davis said, occurs when national events are taking place, such as Presidential inaugurations when people come from all over the country.

The Metro system also supports the Federal workforce. Federal employees rely on the system. Many people up here on Capitol Hill and other agencies, FBI, CIA, DIA, DEA, all the other ones, commute back and forth to work every day. During peak times, over half of Metro's riders are Federal employees.

Finally, this system is vital to the emergency needs of the region. During the terrorist attack of 9/11, Metro was a reliable way to ensure that thousands of people were able to safely and quickly evacuate the city. In order to help hold Metro accountable, which Mr. Davis's bill has done, is accountability for Metro for the use of its Federal funds.

I urge adoption of this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I want to begin by thanking Mr. Leach and Mr. Goodlatte for staying in there when the outside lobbyists were trying to control this institution. And people must know, if you go back and look at history, this institution, this institution, was manipulated by outside lobbyists. So there is a test today whether that outside lobby, outside influence will continue to take place.

With the guilty plea of lobbyist Jack Abramoff and the information revealed about his role in the defeat of the Internet gambling ban a number of years ago, it is time to strengthen the law enforcement tools to crack down on illegal gambling.

With online gambling, people can do it in their bathrobes, as Mr. Leach said. They can do it when they are standing in line. This is a test. Quite frankly, this is a test for this institution about outside influences, ones that all you have to do is read The Washington Post and the New York Times over and over and over to see what they have done. They have manipulated this place.

And today, with Mr. Leach and Mr. Goodlatte and others, you have an opportunity to reverse the manipulation and pass this bill without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the legislation offered by my colleagues Jim Leach and Bob Goodlatte. I want to take this opportunity to commend them for working together and really sticking with it so that we could have a strong bill on the floor today that takes the strengths of each of their measures to comprehensively address Internet gambling.

As the author of the legislation which established the National Gambling Impact Commission, I have long been concerned about the predatory nature of gambling and the corruption that is often associated with it.

It seems as though every day in the news there is a new scandal related to gambling. Without this important legislation, there is no way to regulate Internet gambling.

Today, gambling is legal in almost every State in the Union and more than 400 tribal casinos operate in over 30 States. Sadly, Internet gambling is a growing problem in America, particularly for our young people.

You may recall that last December, Greg Hogan--a Lehigh University sophomore--made headlines when he robbed a bank in

order to pay his online poker debt of more than $5,000.

According to a PBS NewsHour report last spring, recent studies indicate that more than 70 percent of youth between the ages of 10 and 17 gambled in the past year, up from 45 percent in 1988.

And of those who gamble online, an Annenberg Public Policy Center study released last fall indicates that almost 15 percent of our young people aged 14-22 gamble online at least once a month. While 15 percent may not set off alarm bells, consider that more than 50 percent of those who gamble once a week show signs of problem gambling.

Gambling--and particularly online gambling--is a growing problem around the country. According to a Sports Illustrated article from last summer, more than 1.8 million online poker players gamble each month.

They wager an average of $200 million a day. And the industry generates more than $2.2 billion, that's with a ``B,'' in gross revenue annually.

I am pleased to support the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act that will improve law enforcement tools to address this problem. Additionally, I think we have momentum on our side to address the explosion of gambling.

With the guilty plea of lobbyist Jack Abramoff and the information revealed about his role in the defeat of the Internet gambling ban a number of years ago, it's time to strengthen law enforcement's tools to crack down on illegal Internet gambling.

With online gambling, people can do it in their bathrobes, in their family rooms, in fact they could even do it on their cell phones walking down the street. It's literally available everywhere at any time.

The prevalence of online gambling and its explosive growth is a national disgrace that hurts young people. How will the Congress explain to the American people if it fails to address this issue?

Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this legislation.

I thank the gentleman.

I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. It will gut the bill. If you want to kill this bill, hurt this bill, this amendment will do it. This is a poison pill. Mr. Goodlatte was right. God bless Mr. Goodlatte for staying in there. He is right.

Members have been manipulated in the past. The question is, and I think the answer is, this Congress is not made up of people who are so stupid and able to be manipulated, and so my sense is that this Congress, when given an opportunity, will not allow this outside lobbyist, the outside groups to manipulate it again.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the Conyers amendment and an ``aye'' vote and passage of the bill.