Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, Hurricane Katrina may not only have been one of the most destructive natural disasters in our nation's history, the argument could be made that Katrina was the perfect storm in exposing our nation's vulnerabilities in supplying oil and gas to meet our energy needs.

There is absolutely no doubt that our country must become energy independent. Today we rely on foreign sources of oil to supply 60 percent of our energy needs. We are at the mercy of the Oil Producing Export Countries. Disruption in our energy supply--whether through OPEC polices to reduce production, disruption in domestic drilling and shipping caused by hurricanes, or limited refining capacity--energy security is a matter of national security.

I understand the serious impact that rising fuel prices have on the everyday lives of people and the strength of our economy. It is an issue which impacts everyone who drives or uses oil and every sector of our economy. We must find ways to improve conservation of oil resources, increase domestic production and oil refining capacity. Progress also needs to be made in developing alternative fuels as well as making the machines we use more energy efficient.

The argument has been made that our nation's ability to refine both imported and domestic sources of oil is limited because no new oil refineries have opened in the United States in almost 30 years. Additionally, just under half our refinery capacity or 47 percent is concentrated in the Gulf of Mexico. If every refinery is operating at full capacity, 17 million barrels per day are refined, however, demand averages at 21 million barrels a day. The legislation before the House today, H.R. 3893, the Gasoline for America's Security Act of 2005, attempts to increase refining capacity through provisions to encourage new refinery construction and streamline the regulatory path to build new refineries, among other provisions.

Mr. Speaker, I am giving the benefit of the doubt to Chairman Barton and the Energy and Commerce Committee on this bill and I will vote for it, albeit reluctantly, to help move the process forward. But I believe we need more debate, especially on the issue of making certain we maintain strong environmental protections for clean air and water and endangered species when siting refineries, and I am hopeful that the House can negotiate with the Senate to come up with a more balanced bill. I am glad to see that the provisions modifying the New Source Review Program and the New Source Performance Standards Programs, which would reduce protections against pollutants, were removed from the final version of the bill.

I also am pleased that the bill authorizes the president to have a refinery permitted, constructed and operated for the sole consumption of the United States Armed Forces. It is absolutely necessary that we do everything possible to ensure that our ability to defend our citizens is inhibited by a simple lack of oil and refined gas.

If our nation ever hopes to reduce its dependence on imported oil, we also must increase automobile fuel economy standards. I was very disappointed that the Rules Committee failed to make in order an amendment to H.R. 3893 to increase Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. I enclose for the record a copy of the text of the letter I signed with Representatives Boehlert, Shays, Gilchrest and others to the Rules Committee. We must have fuel efficient automobiles that do not waste gasoline. I support boosting CAFE standards for U.S. auto makers to 33 mpg over 10 years (by 2015), consistent with the findings of the National Academy of Sciences, in order to save 10 percent of the gasoline the nation would otherwise consume by 2015. The current standard of 27.5 miles per gallon has been in effect for nearly two decades despite proven technology that promises to stretch engine efficiency to much higher levels. I believe such a reasonable approach is needed to put U.S. auto makers on notice that they must work to produce more fuel efficient vehicles.

I am also disappointed that, although the bill establishes a program to encourage the use of carpooling and vanpooling to save energy, there is absolutely no mention of telework. Ridesharing is important, but telework is the most efficient way to reduce gasoline consumption and reduce pollutants by taking commuters off the roads and allowing them to work at home or at a telework center close to home. Allowing all eligible federal employees to telework is the law of the land. Why is telework not included in this bill?

I also believe we must have tough penalties on price gouging. I am very concerned when

I hear from my constituents who don't understand how the price of gasoline at the pump can jump 25 cents in one day or how the same brand of gasoline can be selling at widely different prices at gas stations only a few miles apart. Then we hear the major oil companies reporting record profits while consumers deal with skyrocketing gas prices.

This is far from a perfect bill. In the wake of the perfect storm that Katrina brought to our nation, we need to take action to both increase our energy supply and to become more energy and fuel efficient. Congress has an opportunity to craft a fair and balanced bill. I hope the legislation that is brought to the House after conference with the Senate is a bill that protects consumers, protects the environment and moves our nation to energy efficiency and is a final bill that I can support.

Hon. David Dreier,

Chairman, House Committee on Rules,

The Capitol, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: We are writing to urge that the Rules

Committee make in order Congressman Boehlert's amendment to

increase Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards when

it reports out a rule for the consideration of H.R. 3893, the

``Gasoline for America's Security Act of 2005.''

The amendment, a version of which has been made in order in

each of the last three Energy Bill debates in the House, is

germane to H.R. 3893. Indeed, it is difficult to see how the

House could be seen to have a complete debate on the

availability of gasoline without a discussion of fuel economy

standards. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina and $3 per gallon

gasoline prices, more Americans are becoming aware of the

need to address the demand, as well as the supply side of our

gasoline crisis--to protect their own family pocketbooks, as

well as to enhance the nation's energy security. Indeed one

recent poll found that 86 percent of Americans favor higher

fuel economy standards, more than the percentage favoring any

other approach to the current energy pinch. At this time when

both the public and their representatives are becoming more

open to toughening fuel economy standards, fairness dictates

that a serious amendment on fuel economy standards be part of

the debate about how the nation will ensure that gasoline

remains affordable and accessible.

The transportation sector is the nation's single largest

consumer of oil, yet it is also the only sector of the

economy that is less fuel efficient than it was 20 years ago.

A debate on gasoline needs to include measures that will

address that fact, especially when the National Academy of

Sciences concluded four years ago that the technology exists

to accomplish fuel economy goals cost-effectively and safely.

And the study did not even consider three important

technologies that automakers have since begun to introduce in

the marketplace that can achieve even greater fuel economies:

hybrid engine technologies, clean diesel technologies and

high-strength, lightweight composites and steels.

The House needs and deserves to have a discrete debate on

fuel economy, just as it has had during the debate on past

energy bills. The issue must not get lost in disputes about

other aspects of H.R. 3893, which deals with a wide variety

of legal and regulatory issues. We urge you to allow a clear,

full and open debate on the single measure that would do the

most to reduce the U.S. demand for oil.

Mr. Speaker, as Congress considers how to provide Federal assistance to these victims of these hurricanes, it is critical that we make sure resources are focused on helping the poor and the needy rather than subsidizing certain self-sustaining industries like the gambling industry.

The vast majority of the casinos on the gulf coast are owned and operated by entertainment companies that have been and are likely to continue record profits. Most gambling conglomerates have been named to the Fortune list of 100 fastest-growing companies for the fifth consecutive year. These conglomerates have vowed to rebuild bigger and better along the coast.

With budget deficits growing to historic levels, we need to make sure that tax dollars for hurricane relief are going to those who truly need the government's help and not the gambling industry. The truth of the matter is, as Congress struggles to rein in the growth of mandatory spending, it just does not make any sense to give tax breaks to casinos.

Mr. Speaker, I hope and trust that Congress will do the right thing and make sure our Federal resources go to the poor, the needy, the vulnerable and not the big gambling interests to rebuild the casinos.

Mr. Speaker, September 19, 2005, was an historic day for Warren County in Virginia's 10th District. On that Monday, the largest and last major building in the American Viscose (Avtex) plant complex on Kendrick Lane in Front Royal, next to the South Fork of the Shenandoah River, was imploded. The site is now being prepared for redevelopment as a 165-acre technology-oriented business park, 240-acre nature conservancy park, and 35-acre community soccer complex.

The event marked the end of an era for the Front Royal and Warren County area which began over six decades ago. From 1940 to 1989, the Avtex plant was a hub for this community, employing more than 2,500 people manufacturing rayon, polyester and polypropylene fibers for the defense, space and commercial industries. But its closure in 1989, not only eliminated a great number of jobs, it left the site unsuitable for reuse.

Following its closure, the facility was identified by the Environmental Protection Agency as a Superfund site. However, before the EPA could begin its work on cleaning up the site, asbestos and lead-contaminated buildings had to be removed. Since 2000, the Army Corp of Engineers has been partnering with the Environmental Protection Agency, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, the Economic Development Authority of Front Royal and Warren County and the FMC Corporation, a former owner of the site, in the Avtex cleanup efforts. These partners have done an amazing job of cleaning up this site and preparing for a new use.

Clean-up can be very costly. That's why securing federal assistance for the effort has been a priority for Senator John Warner of Virginia and myself for many years. However, the initial funding of $12 million ended up being insufficient to cover the full cost of demolishing the buildings and removing the asbestos. In 2003, Senator Warner and I were able to help provide an additional $11 million in federal funds to finish the effort. It would have been unacceptable to leave the project half-done.

Monday was a very emotional day for many who had dedicated years of service to our nation at the Avtex site. While the occasion was tinged with sadness for many former Avtex employees who were on hand for Monday's ceremony, they are hopeful that their former work site can once again be an economic center for the region.

Former Avtex employees were recognized for their contributions over the years with yellow ribbons. Louise Bowers, an 83-year-old town resident, worked at the rayon plant for 46 years, over half of her life. Her father, the late Noah Martin, had a part in the history of this site having hauled sand used in the construction of the plant.

Mrs. Bowers went to work there in 1940, one of 19 young women hired that day. During World War II, she wound motors for the spinning room. She ended up in the ``double-deck'' or the lower part of the plant, where the syrup-like viscose liquid was poured through platinum ``jets'' or thimbles, forming tiny filaments

of rayon yam. She said the men worked upstairs and the women worked downstairs.

It was through her job at Avtex that Louise met her husband, John C. Bowers. He worked at Avtex for 39 years. Much of his work was in the ``staple'' department, where sheets of fluffy rayon were baled. Like his wife, it was a bittersweet moment to see the boiler house imploded.

For Lloyd W. Ebaugh Sr., 92, of Woodstock, his work at Avtex over 32 years provided a good living for him and his wife, Catherine, to raise their twin daughters. Avtex was the lifeblood for other communities from Winchester to Woodstock to Edinburg to Luray, across the mountain, all around. It was the major industry in the area. His wife was saddened by Monday's implosion noting that ``it represented the end of a lot of things, wonderful and good things.''

Also on hand for Monday's implosion was William K. Sine, 76, of Front Royal, who earned his living at Avtex for more than 29 years. His was the next to the last shift worked before the plant closed for good on November 9, 1989. ``It was a good experience,'' Mr. Sine said. ``I know a lot of the guys I worked with up there, most of them are dead now.''

The implosion of the last significant remaining building was a milestone for everyone involved--the town, the county, the Economic Development Authority, and all the federal partners. As the U.S. representative for this area, I was pleased be able to participate in this historic occasion--the end of the Avtex plant but the birth of a new economic generator for the people of Front Royal, Warren County and the surrounding areas. The people of Warren County are to be commended for their resolve to see this project through to its completion.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe the White House is planning to provide the gambling industry in the gulf region with special tax breaks as part of their economic recovery package. This is a disgrace.

In the wake of devastation left by Hurricane Katrina, taxpayer dollars should be helping these, indeed, the poor and the vulnerable.

In today's Washington Post, White House officials are quoted as saying they do not plan to exclude the gambling interests from receiving tax breaks.

In Mississippi, the gambling interests do not even receive special economic development tax breaks. I am outraged. And probably more telling is the shock coming from the industry itself.

A Harrah's spokesman in this morning's Post is quoted as saying, ``We're actually scratching our heads. We can't ever remember an instance of being offered a tax credit, ever!''

Economists in Mississippi say it is not needed. ``The casinos don't need this. If they are eligible, that would be a complete waste of money,'' from an economist from Ole Miss in The Washington Post today.

It is outrageous with budget deficits growing to historic levels, tax breaks for the gambling industry does not make sense.

The Bush administration, I will tell you, if this is in their package, this will be a disgrace and the American people will turn against this administration.

Give the money to the poor, the needy, the vulnerable, and not to the gambling interests that already have special insurance policies for this.

Mr. Speaker, I recently returned from Iraq and Afghanistan and Qatar with my administrative assistant Dan Scandling, and I wanted to give a report on what I saw and some recommendations for the Bush administration.

This was my third time to Iraq, second time to Afghanistan. This time we went to Baghdad, Tikrit, and Kirkuk. I have now been to all parts of Iraq except to Kurdish areas in the north. On previous trips we have been to Baghdad, Nasaria, Alkoot twice, and Basra.

I want to begin by praising the military, both active duty, Reserve and National Guard and note their very, very positive attitude and great, great morale. I also want to publicly acknowledge and thank them and praise their families in noting the sacrifices that they and their families are making. I also want to offer condolences to the families who have lost loved ones.

Before I go any further, Mr. Speaker, I want to read a passage from an online journal being kept by a chaplain I met from Gloucester, Virginia during my recent trip. We were in the Kirkuk area and he sat across the table from me and he told me this story.

We then got this from his Web page. It is incredibly moving and describes the quality of the men and women serving in uniform. It is the hero mission from a trip report excerpted with permission from Army chaplain J.D. Morris, ``Chronicles of Pastor J.D., January 27, 2005.''

He begins by saying, ``I was abruptly caught off guard today by one of the administrative privates from flight operations. He told me that the flight operations battle captain was looking for me. When I arrived to see the battle captain, he told me that I was given a hero mission for a young soldier who had died in battle only hours before.

``I had about 20 minutes to ready myself and go back by Blackhawk with Specialist Tussant to recover the soldier's body from his unit and to escort the hero to another base where he would be sent home to his family. I found Specialist Tussant, gathered my gear, and made my way to the flight line to board the aircraft. When I arrived everyone was as sober as I.

``I prayed over the aircraft, received our mission briefing, and then we departed. Once arriving to the location of the unit, I found the fallen soldier's unit neatly and sharply in formation next to the landing zone. Their clothes were muddy, their faces were downcast, and immediately you could sense their pain.

``Tussant and I immediately departed the aircraft and hastily made our way to the chaplain of the unit who was standing with his soldiers like a good shepherd. In the chaplain's arm was a large red Bible embraced against his chest.

``The soldiers carefully opened the back of the vehicle and solemnly and with honor removed the fallen friend from the vehicle. The black body bag hung in the hands of his friends.

``Tussant and I stood next to the vehicle and rendered a slow salute. We slowly and reverently followed the soldiers and the fallen comrade to the aircraft. Once arriving to the helicopter with the blades still churning and whirling, we all carefully placed the hero in the aircraft.

``The crew chief in the aircraft gently situated the new crew member, our hero. We stopped and prayed. As I turned to my rear, I looked back to see the rest of America's sons. Their chaplain, Chaplain Fisher, came to me, embraced me tightly and with a shattered voice said, `Thank you for being here and escorting our friend part way home. Thank the unit for us for their help.'

``I could only return his embrace, pat his shoulder, and look into his face. I then boarded the aircraft. We began our assent. As the helicopter blades aggressively moved the air and we began to rise off the ground, I looked to my right out the window to see the unit being swayed by the turbulence but still saluting their fallen hero.

``As long as I could see the hero's unit standing at attention in the blowing turbulence, saluting their combat buddy, the soldiers remained standing steadfast, saluting and honoring our hero.

``I certainly will never forget this hero mission. I was very quiet back to Speicher, which was the base. I could only think of the pain a family back home was getting ready to experience. I prayed for the family.''

Why did I go to Iraq for the third time and Afghanistan for the second time? I have been hearing a constant drumbeat of negative stories all summer, so I wanted to assess the situation again with my own eyes. Not believe the administration, nor believe the media, but I wanted to see firsthand for myself.

I saw a lot of positive things. Hospitals are being renovated. Schools are being built. Pipelines are being repaired. And the Iraqi Army is being trained.

In the comparison of my first visit and my second visit and this visit 2 weeks ago, I could see the improvement that was being made. Security, however, is still the greatest challenge we face. Who did I meet with? I met with Lieutenant General Petraeus, Ambassador Khalilzad, members of Iraqi leadership including the President, Prime Minister, and the Speaker of the National Assembly, NBC officials, folks from the Department of Justice, Department of Transportation, Department of Energy, the USAID, and a lot of soldiers from privates to generals.

What were my impressions? There is real progress being made, but there are still concerns. Security remains our greatest challenge. The country is far from being safe. Everywhere I went I was escorted by a full complement of heavily armed soldiers and security personnel; and even when riding in an armored vehicle we had to wear body armor and a helmet.

Until we get security under control, our efforts to rebuild Iraq will continue to be a challenge. If embassy officials, USAID staff, NGOs, nongovernmental organizations, contractors and, yes, even the media cannot move around the country without the fear of being attacked, our efforts to bring peace to Iraq will be hampered.

I was told that many contractors remain unwilling to bid on work because of the level of violence that still exists and those who take on projects spend enormous sums of money on private security.

I was also told the World Bank, a critical element to rebuilding Iraq, had refused to send staff because of security concerns.

But I saw improvement from when I was there the first time, an improvement from when I was there the second time. And this administration has failed to articulate the improvement that has been made in Iraq.

To really understand what has happened in Iraq, you have to talk to the service men and women, God bless them, who are serving or who have served there. They are the fathers, the mothers, the sons, daughters who put their lives on the line in this war on terror. They are the neighbor down the street who has been called up for Reserve or Guard duty. They are the Federal employee who has volunteered for a temporary assignment.

I was struck by the number of people saying the Iraq they see on TV every day is not the Iraq they know. In the mess halls, throughout the mess halls there are six to eight television sets that are on every day to CNN. One junior officer told me that he does not even watch the news anymore. Most soldiers said they were bewildered on what they were seeing on the news compared to what they know was taking place firsthand in Iraq.

In speaking with our service personnel, I was troubled to learn our troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are well aware of the media coverage of anti-war protests in America. Especially the vigil of Cindy Sheehan. The televisions, as I said, in the mess hall and sleeping quarters are turned to CNN and MSNBC and Fox. I had several soldiers express wonderment on what is taking place back home.

At one point, an enlisted soldier pulled me aside and asked if he could talk to me in private. He said that he had been watching the news about the protests and wanted to know if the American people were still behind the soldiers. I reassured him they were, but he just looked at me and asked me again, almost as if he did not hear me, when he said he did not believe me. Then he said that when some of his fellow soldiers learned about the antiwar vigil, their morale was impacted.

I raise this point because I believe that it is important for the antiwar protesters to know how their actions may potentially be perceived by our soldiers on the front lines who are doing their jobs. Protest and dissent is the beauty of democracy, and it is important in a democracy, and everyone has the right to protest and dissent, but I think it is important that the antiwar demonstrators need to understand that our soldiers know about their actions. They need to realize that those actions can have a negative impact on the soldiers' spirits.

Personally, I believe that President Bush should have met with Cindy Sheehan. I still believe that President Bush should meet with Cindy Sheehan. I have read news accounts of some of the President's meetings with families of soldiers who have been killed in action. You cannot help but get emotional reading the reports.

The President's a compassionate man. He shares in the grief of those families who have lost a loved one, and I know that the burden on him as Commander in Chief is tremendous. So, therefore, I believe that he should include Cindy Sheehan in his next meeting with families of fallen or wounded soldiers.

Some of my thoughts on return. There are good people on both sides of the decision to send U.S. forces to Iraq. We are now there. We cannot abandon the mission to bring peace and stability to Iraq and its people. We need to recognize the rebuilding of Iraq needs to be based on a different timetable and not necessarily on our timetable or what we think is going to take place today.

The Bush administration needs to do a better job of explaining what failure to succeed in Iraq means to the average person in the United States. Let me state that again. The Bush administration needs to do a better job of explaining what failure to succeed in Iraq means to the American people.

I asked everyone I met with, at every meeting I went to, and when I would get up in the morning and go into the mess hall by myself at 5:30 or 6 o'clock in the morning, I would sit down with the soldiers and ask them and ask everyone this question: What does failure mean if we fail in Iraq? The responses were chilling.

Somalia, one person said. Have you seen the movie Black Hawk Down, he said. Another person said the former Yugoslavia, and I was in the former Yugoslavia during the fighting in Sarajevo and Vukovar, and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and I were in Vukovar before the slaughter took place. All the people that we met with in Vukovar all were later slaughtered when the Serbs came in and slaughtered them in Vukovar.

Civil war. More foreign fighters pouring in across the border, the destabilization of the entire region. They said maybe the Kurdish area might make it. They said in the south the Iranians will come across the border for the Shiite and the Sunni triangle. Civil war, militia against militia. Killing and death and destruction. Foreign fighters coming in from Syria, pouring in, with more killing taking place.

Others said the destabilization of the gulf region. Some said perhaps the overthrow of the Jordanian Government. Others said perhaps the overthrow of the Saudi Government. Another said perhaps the overthrow of the Egyptian Government.

Oil exports. One person said, if you think oil's expensive now, if this region explodes, the price of oil in the West will be astronomical. The impact on the economy of the West.

Others said that Iraq will turn into a haven, a haven for terrorists, similar to what happened when the West left Afghanistan on its own, and then the Taliban was able to constitute itself. Osama bin Laden moved to Afghanistan and Kandahar and Jalalabad and Kabul. We saw the pictures of gunning down women in burqas, and we saw what took place, and there will be a haven for terrorists to operate.

Loss of American credibility. Danger, danger. We put in our report: danger to the American people. More emphasis with regard to the Jihadists in the West thinking that they can bring terror again. Thirty people from my congressional district died in the attack on the Pentagon, and we all know what took place with regard to the World Trade Center because we just went there and remembered on 9/11 what took place.

The administration has failed to tell the American people the ramifications of failure in Iraq. If we were to pull out of Iraq and fail in Iraq, the ramifications on the war on terror are very, very bad for the average American.

I want to take a few minutes to read what others are saying about the potential consequences of failure in Iraq.

From Lawrence Kaplan, senior editor at New Republic, speaking at a recent conference by Notre Dame's Kroc Institute and Fordham University's Center on Religion and Culture, said the following: ``Preventing Iraq from coming apart at the seams means preventing the country from becoming what Afghanistan was until recently, a vacuum filled by terrorist organizations, which is what one National Intelligence Council report suggested Iraq is now fast becoming.

``Hence, Americans must ask themselves exactly what they owe Iraq.

``If U.S. policy truly has a moral component,'' and our policy must have a moral component, ``if U.S. policy truly has a moral component,'' he said, which I believe it does, ``the answer must be something better, or, at the very least, not worse, than what went before.''

From Kenneth Pollack, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute, a distinguished scholar in this region, in an op-ed that ran in the New York Times on July 1, said, ``No matter what one thinks of the invasion, it is clearly in our best interest, to say nothing of the Arab world's, that we succeed in Iraq.''

From Francis Fukuyama, professor of international political economy at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, in a New York Times op-ed piece on August 31, said the following: ``If the United States withdraws prematurely, Iraq will slide into greater chaos. That would set off a chain of unfortunate events that will further damage American credibility around the world.''

From Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute and author of, ``Making War on the Terror Masters,'' in a June 17 article in the Dallas Morning News said, ``A precipitous U.S. withdrawal would obviously encourage the terrorists and the countries that support them. It would probably encourage them to expand their activities because they, too, are fairly focused against us in Iraq right now. They'd probably be more inclined to attack us elsewhere.''

Keep in mind the two attacks, the London subway bombings not too long ago, that al Qaeda has now taken credit for.

In the same article, Tony Cordesman, who is a distinguished military analyst for the Center for Strategic and International Studies said, ``A withdrawal that left an Iraqi Government unable to defend itself would shatter U.S. standing in the Middle East, making it harder for moderate Arabs to stand up to Islamic extremists who hope to overthrow their governments.

``Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan and other U.S. allies would find it very, very hard to hold together and deal with this problem without distancing themselves from the United States.''

Then he went on to say, ``And we need to remember that we are talking about a region in the gulf with about 40 percent of the world's proven oil resources.''

That is unbelievable. Now, why has the administration not laid out carefully to the American people what the ramifications are to our country and our citizens of failure? Time is not on the side of the administration. There is a sense that public support is waning in both the United States and Great Britain. No one believes we will lose the war in Iraq. If the war in Iraq is lost, it will not be lost in Iraq. It will be lost here at home. One general officer told me point blank: The center of gravity for our success in Iraq is the American public.

The Bush administration also needs to do a better job of letting the American people know how they can participate in this effort. In World War II, my dad served in World War II. We had war bonds. We had victory gardens. We had scrap metal collections. The American public supports the troops and wants to do more. There ought to be more opportunities where the administration can let the American people know how they can participate to help the effort, to help the young men and women who are serving in the military and their families.

For example, at a rest and relaxation facility in Qatar, there is a need for clothes for servicemen and -women after their activities, and they get 4 or 5 days off. They come to this center, and they have no shirts, and they have no shaving gear. There they have skirts and dresses and T-shirts and sweatshirts to wear. Well, the American people, if they knew it, would love to participate, would love to help. And the administration has to do a better job of telling the American people how they can participate and help, because there are many Americans wearing the uniform today and their families who are making a major sacrifice. Others would like to participate and be part of that.

Some of the major recommendations: The Bush administration should select a group of capable and distinguished individuals, some with a military background and others with extensive foreign policy experience, to go to Iraq and other parts of the gulf region and Afghanistan to comprehensively review our efforts. All the individuals, and I can name who they would be but I think it would be inappropriate because they have to be picked by others, but all of the individuals selected would be known for their honesty, for their integrity, for their competence, for their patriotism. They would love their country more than they would love their political party.

The group would essentially provide what I call fresh eyes on the target; the target, of course, being how we bring about success in Iraq and lead to whereby our young men and women can return home.

Upon this group's return, they would report to the President and the Congress, but more importantly, they would report to the American people. The motive would not be to find fault. One can always go back and say there were mistakes. Quite frankly, I believe that we should have never disbanded the Iraqi Army. But it would be a forward-looking report, to see what we can do in the best interests of our servicemen and how we can bring about success.

An independent, comprehensive review could help assure Americans, no matter what their position is on the war, that every effort is being made to protect our troops and realize their goal of a secure and peaceful Iraq, that it would look at what is going right and what is going wrong. I recognize that the Bush administration has sent other individuals to Iraq to assess the ongoing situation, but what I call ``fresh eyes review'' would be different, in that rather than just reporting back to the President or the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of State, this group would also report back to the Congress and to the American people.

Frankly, I believe the administration has a moral obligation to the American people to do this and to provide this information. There are no downsides in such a review. In our daily lives, we regularly seek second opinions. As chairman of the House appropriations subcommittee with oversight of the State Department and the Justice Department, in addition to being the author of the National Commission on Terrorism, later known as the Bremer Commission, I am keenly aware of what is at stake if we fail to achieve our goals in Iraq.

In September of 1998, when I returned from having been in Algeria, where terrorism has killed over 100,000 people, the bombing of our embassy in Kenya and in Tanzania took place, and I introduced a bill to create the National Commission on Terror. When I introduced the bill on the floor of this House, I said that Osama bin Laden lived in Sudan from 1991 to 1996. There was very little interest by the Clinton administration for this. Very few agencies wanted to participate and cooperate, but, finally, they did.

This is the report of the Bremer Commission. It says, ``Countering the Changing Threat of International Terrorism,'' and it came out in the year 2000. And distinguished Members served on the commission, bipartisan members of the commission, Republican and Democratic members of the commission. In fact, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), who is the ranking Democrat on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence today was on the commission. The commission was made up of Paul Bremer; Maurice Sonnenberg; Richard Betts, Wayne Downing, who is a U.S. Army General, retired, with expertise; Jane Harman, a good Member of the House; Fred Ikle; Juliette Kayyem; John Lewis, Jr.; Gardner Peckham; and James Woolsey, who was the head of the CIA.

On the cover of the commission report that they came out with is a picture of the World Trade Center on fire. Now, the World Trade Center bombing took place on September 11, 2001. This was the picture of the World Trade Center on fire from the attack that took place in 1993, and no one paid any attention to it. They neglected it.

This group, this National Commission on Terror, could ensure that we are successful in this effort. They would travel to all parts of Iraq; the Shi'a south, the central Sunni Triangle, and the north, where the Kurds reside. They would have to go to the region for 7 to 10 days to 2 weeks. They would meet with general officers, junior officers, NCOs, specialists and privates in Iraq and in Afghanistan. They would meet with embassy officials and other Federal Government employees working in Baghdad. They would meet with civilian contractors and NGOs, nongovernmental organizations operating in the country. They would meet with Iraqi leaders and also ordinary Iraqis in country towns and villages.

And to better educate the American public about our ongoing efforts in Iraq and the gulf region, perhaps a select group of media should also accompany this group during its visit, not as a tool for U.S. propaganda but to ensure transparency. This would give the media the opportunity to travel to all parts of the country and report on both the good and the bad.

Because as many of my colleagues know, it is very difficult for the media to move around Iraq. The media has lost roughly 60-some people. Media have died. It is very difficult to get from point A to point B, from Baghdad to Kirkuk, or Baghdad to Nasaria, or Baghdad to Tikrit. This would give the media the opportunity to travel to all parts and to report on both the good and the bad. And the pool would include both broadcast and print media.

This fresh-eyes review would assess answers to such questions as the following:

How accurate a picture do we have of the insurgency? What is the realistic strength of the insurgency? Is the insurgency growing or diminishing in capability? What can we do to get better tactical intelligence on the enemy? And what will it take to get actionable intelligence? How reliable and effective is the growing Iraqi security establishment? What is its ethnic makeup? What is the power and effectiveness of local militias in the country, and how much of a problem do they pose in the longer term for the Iraqi Government? What role is Iran playing in the evolving political and security situation in Iraq?

We heard that the Iranians have poured across the border and are a destabilizing influence in what is taking place in Iraq. They would take a look at that.

What role is Syria playing? We have been told that the Syrians are allowing foreign fighters to pour across their border. This group could look at that and see if that is the case and see if there are ways of securing the Syrian border.

They would look at what will it take in terms of resources and organization and time to effectively control the Iraqi borders. Is there an anti-sabotage strategy to protect the energy infrastructure? If so, why is it not working? Are there alternatives?

They would look at what is the status of the efforts to organize the Iraqi ministries and get them up and running. Is progress being made? If not,

what more needs to be done? What criteria should guide the pace of withdrawal of American and Coalition Forces?

We owe it to the thousands of men and women who are in harm's way to test the process and ask the questions. We owe it to the American people. I urge the administration, having been there three times in Iraq, two times by myself, without anybody telling me where I could go or where I could not go, and two times in Afghanistan, where I led the first congressional delegation to Afghanistan with the gentleman from Lancaster, Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), and my best friend and former Congressman Tony Hall of Ohio. We owe it to the American public.

So in closing, Mr. Speaker, I urge the administration to act quickly to put together this team to offer fresh eyes on the target. There is nothing to lose.

And, lastly, Mr. Speaker, we owe it to the men and women who are mentioned in this article that I opened up with in the excerpts by Army Chaplain J. D. Moore, ``Hero Mission.'' I am asking this administration to support this group.

Mr. Speaker, I submit herewith for the Record the commission report I referred to earlier.

[Report from the National Commission on Terrorism]

Countering the Changing Threat of International Terrorism

Appendix C: Commission Members and Staff

Commissioners

L. Paul Bremer III, Chairman, is the Managing Director of

Kissinger Associates. During a 23-year career in the American

diplomatic service, Ambassador Bremer served in Asia, Africa,

Europe and Washington, D.C./ He was Ambassador to the

Netherlands from 1983 to 1986. From 1986-1989, he served as

Ambassador-at-Large for Counter-Terrorism, where he was

responsible for developing and implementing America's global

policies to combat terrorism.

Maurice Sonnenberg, Vice Chairman, is the senior

international advisor to the investment banking firm of Bear,

Stearns & Co. Inc. and the senior international advisor to

the law firm of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP. He is a

member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory

Board. He recently served as a member of the U.S. Commission

on Reducing and Protecting Government Secrecy and as the

senior advisor to the U.S. Commission on the Roles and

Capabilities of the U.S. Intelligence Community.

Richard K. Betts is Leo A. Shifrin Professor of War and

Peace Studies in the political science department, Director

of the Institute of War and Peace Studies, and Director of

the International Security Policy program in the School of

International and Public Affairs at Columbia University. He

is also Director of National Security Studies and Senior

Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and author of

``Surprise Attack: Lesson for Defense Planning.''

Wayne A. Downing, General, U.S. Army, retired in 1996 after

a 34-year career, where he served in a variety of command

assignments in infantry, armored, special operations and

joint units culminating in his appointment as the Commander-

in-Chief of the U.S. Special Operations Command. Since

retirement, he was appointed to assess the 1996 terrorist

attack on the U.S. base at Khobar Towers, Saudi Arabia, and

to make recommendations to protect people and facilities

world wide from terrorist attack. General Downing serves on

several boards and panels in both the private and government

sectors.

Jane Harman just completed a year as Regents Professor at

U.C.L.A. where she taught at the Department of Political

Science and Center for International Relations. Harman

represented California's 36th Congressional District from

1992-1998 where she served on the National Security, Science

and Intelligence Committees. Prior government experience

includes Senate Counsel, White House Deputy Cabinet Secretary

and DoD Special Counsel. Harman is currently seeking election

to her former seat.

Fred C. Ikle is a Distinguished Scholar, Center for

Strategic & International Studies. Dr. Ikle is Chairman of

the Board of Telos Corporation and a Director of the Zurich-

American Insurance Companies and of CMC Energy Services.

Prior to joining the Center, Dr. Ikle served as

Undersecretary of Defense for Policy and Director for the

U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.

Juliette N. Kayyem is an Associate of the Executive Session

on Domestic Preparedness, John F. Kennedy School of

Government, Harvard University. She writes and teaches

courses on counter-terrorism policy and the law. Ms. Kayyem

has most recently served as a legal advisor to the Attorney

General at the U.S. Department of Justice and as Counsel to

the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights.

John F. Lewis, Jr. is Director of Global Security for

Goldman, Sachs & Co., New York. Previously, he was Assistant

Director-in-Charge of the National Security Division of the

Federal Bureau of Investigation. Mr. Lewis managed the FBI's

national counterintelligence and counterterrorism programs.

Mr. Lewis has held a variety of positions, including an

appointment as Director of Intelligence and CI Programs,

National Security Staff and previous Chairman of the

International Association of Chiefs of Police Committee on

Terrorism.

Gardner Peckham is Managing Director of the government

relations firm of Black, Kelly, Scruggs & Healey with a

practice focused on international trade, defense and foreign

policy issues. Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Peckham served

as Senior Policy Advisor to the Speaker of the United States

House of Representatives. He also held several other senior

positions in Congress and during the Bush Administration

served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs

at the U.S. Department of State and Director for Legislative

Affairs at the National Security Council Staff.

R. James Woolsey is a partner at the law firm of Shea &

Gardner with a practice in the fields of civil litigation,

alternative dispute resolution, and corporate transactions;

he also serves on several corporate boards. Previous to

returning to the firm, Mr. Woolsey served as Director of

Central Intelligence. His U.S. Government service includes

Ambassador to the Negotiations on CFE, Under Secretary of the

Navy, and General Counsel of the U.S. Senate Committee on

Armed Services. He has served on many Presidential and

Congressional delegations, boards, and commissions.

Mr. Speaker, upon the 50th anniversary of the Communist government assault on the Roman Catholic Church in Shanghai, I wish to submit for the Record a letter

from the Cardinal Kung Foundation to Chinese President Ju Hintao. The Cardinal Kung Foundation advocates on behalf of the persecuted underground Catholic church in China.

September 1, 2005.

President Hu Jintao,

People's Republic of China, c/o Ambassador Yang Jiechi,

Embassy of the People's Republic of China, Connecticut

Avenue, NW Washington, DC.

Dear President Hu: September 8, 2005 will be remembered as

your historical first visit to the United States and to Yale

University as the President of the People's Republic of

China. The world will be eagerly listening to your vision for

China. However, September 8, 2005 is also being observed by

12 million Roman Catholics in China and millions more

worldwide as the 50th anniversary of the unjust and brutal

assault on the Roman Catholic Church in Shanghai when the

Chinese government simultaneously arrested the late Bishop

Ignatius Kung Pin-Mei, at the time the Roman Catholic Bishop

of Shanghai, 21 priests, 2 nuns, and approximately 300 Roman

Catholics for practicing their Roman Catholic religion.

Today, fifty years later, we commemorate and weep silently

about this gross injustice and tragedy that your government

had inflicted upon these innocent Catholic religious and

faithful. All of them were sentenced to 10-30 years and even

to life imprisonment. In honor of these bloodless martyrdoms,

the late Pope John Paul II secretly (in pectore) elevated

Bishop Kung Pin-Mei to a Cardinal in 1979 while he was still

in jail and publicly proclaimed him a cardinal in 1991 amidst

a 7-minute standing ovation before an audience of 7,000

people.

Since 1949 when your government took over China, literally

tens of thousands of Roman Catholic bishops, priests, nuns,

and their faithful have been imprisoned for 5, 10, 20, 30 or

even 40 years. Many of them, such as Bishop Fan Xueyan of

Baoding (34 years in solitary confinement), died in jail.

Some of them are still in jail on this date or have vanished

after they were arrested. Many of them were released after a

very long period in jail. Some of those released are still

living in China or in other parts of the world. Some, such as

Cardinal Kung Pin-Mei, whom the late Pope John Paul II called

``this noble son of China and of the Church'' (30 years in

solitary confinement and 2.5 years in house arrest), and

Archbishop Dominic Tan Yee-Ming of Canton (24 years in jail

without a trial), have since died.

It does not matter if these prisoners are dead or living

today. They are still considered criminals because the

``criminal'' charges against them were never erased by your

government.

There are thousands more like Cardinal Kung, Bishop Fan and

Archbishop Tang. They are all loyal citizens of China and

they love China.

Mr. President, you have the power and the leadership to

bring modern China into an era of true religious freedom. Mr.

President, you also have the wisdom and historical acumen to

realize that a country without religious freedom is never

peaceful and constructive. You know the importance of

changing the world's perception of China's human rights

policy for the better and you can do it. And, we pray that

you will do it.

The Chinese government has justifiably exonerated numerous

political prisoners in the past. On this 50th anniversary of

the unjust and brutal assault of the Roman Catholic Church in

Shanghai described above, the Cardinal Kung Foundation

appeals to you once again, as we have appealed to your

Ambassador Yang Jiechi on March 23, 2005, that all these

prisoners, including Cardinal Kung, Bishop Fan and Archbishop

Tang and many others, both living and dead, be officially and

posthumously exonerated of so called crimes of which the

Chinese government falsely and unjustly accused them, some as

long as five decades ago. We also appeal to you to release

all current religious prisoners from prison and labor camp as

per the attached list. By your doing so, the reputation of

these living and dead religious prisoners of conscience in

China can be restored. Those who are still living can at

least once again enjoy equal treatment in the society. To do

so will be a powerful testimony to the Chinese government's

respect for and adherence to human rights and liberty. To do

so will also prove that China is honoring the spirit of the

Olympic Games that you will have the honor of hosting in

2008.

God love you.

Thank you.

Yours truly,

Joseph Kung,

President, Cardinal Kung Foundation.

Mr. Speaker, I remain terribly concerned about the explosion of gambling outlets, particularly casinos, opening around our country.

I am deeply concerned about the impact this is having on our society. Gambling destroys families and preys on the poor. According to the California Council on Problem Gambling, which operates a crisis hotline, 3,400 callers had lost an average of $32,000 each. That's $109 million of lost wealth, many who probably could least afford to lose it. Even more tragic is the fact that this statistic represents problem gamblers in only one state.

Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a copy of the article When Gambling Becomes Obsessive from the July 25 edition of Time magazine. I recently wrote President Bush

urging his action on calling a halt to tribal gambling, which is now moving off reservations. Unfortunately, the administration responded that they do not have the authority to address this issue. If the administration believes it does not have authority to issue a moratorium to halt new tribal gambling operations, it should send Congress legislation so that we can take action to give it that authority.

[From Time Magazine, July 25, 2005]

When Gambling Becomes Obsessive

(By Jeffrey Kluger)

For a man who hasn't bet a nickel since 1989, Bruce Roberts

spends a lot of time in casinos. He's rarely there alone,

however. He usually has an escort walk him through--the

better to ensure that he doesn't succumb to the sweet swish

of the cards or the signature rattle of the dice. A onetime

compulsive gambler, Roberts, 62, weathered his years of

wagering better than many. He never lost his wife or his

home--although he has refinanced the house nine times.

``Cards and Vegas were the two biggest things in my life,''

he says. ``I'm a helluva poker player, but I have one serious

flaw: I can't get my ass off the chair.''

When Roberts visits a casino these days, it's as executive

director of the California Council on Problem Gambling, an

organization that helps gaming halls run responsible gambling

programs. The rest of the time, he's back in the office,

overseeing a crisis hotline. Last year his service took 3,400

calls from gamblers who had lost an average of $32,000 each.

That's $109 million of evaporated wealth reported to just one

hotline in just one year.

And California is not alone. More than 50 million people

describe themselves as at least occasional poker players.

Millions turn on the TV each week to watch one of eight

scheduled poker shows--to say nothing of the 1 million who

will tune in to ESPN's broadcast of this year's WorId Series

of Poker.

Two hundred forty-seven Native American casinos dot tribal

lands in 22 states; 84 riverboat or dockside casinos ply the

waters or sit at berth in six states. And with local

governments struggling to close budget gaps, slots and

lotteries are booming. All told, 48 states have some form of

legalized gambling--and none of that includes the wild

frontier of the Internet. By 1996 the annual take for the

U.S. gambling industry was over $47 billion, more than that

from movies, music, cruise ships, spectator sports and live

entertainment combined. In 2003 the figure jumped to over $72

billion.

All that money is coming from someone's pockets, and it's

not the winners'. According to Keith Whyte, executive

director of the National Council on Problem Gambling, as many

as 10 million U.S. adults meet the ``problem gambling''

criteria. Kids are hit even harder. Exact figures aren't easy

to come by, but various studies place the rate of problem

gambling among underage players somewhere between two and

three times the rate for adults.

Nobody thinks the gambling genie can be put back in the

bottle. What health officials want to know is whether the

damage can be curbed. What separates addictive gamblers from

occasional ones? Is it personality, brain chemistry,

environment? Can a behavior be a true addiction without a

chemical driving it? ``People have seen gambling in moral

terms for a thousand years,'' says Whyte. ``It's only

recently that we've begun seeing it as a disease.''

Defining compulsive gambling is like defining compulsive

drinking: it's not clear when you cross the line. But if

there are enough signs that your behavior is starting to slip

out of your control (see the self-test), chances are that you

have a problem. It's a problem of special interest to

researchers because it reveals a lot about addiction as a

whole. One of the difficulties in understanding drug or

alcohol abuse is that the minute you add a chemical to the

body, you muddy the mental processes. ``It's hard to tease

the connection out because you don't know how much is the

drug and how much is the behavior,'' says Whyte. ``But

gambling is a pure addiction.''

To see if that's true, scientists turn to such advanced

diagnostic tools as functional magnetic resonance imaging

(fMRI) machines to peer into the brains of gamblers while

they play. In a 2001 study conducted at Harvard Medical

School and elsewhere, researchers monitored subjects as they

engaged in a wheel-of-fortune game. The investigators looked

mainly at several areas of the brain known to be involved in

processing dopamine, a pleasure-inducing chemical released

during drug and alcohol use.

Sure enough, the same areas lighted up when test subjects

gambled, becoming active not only when they won but also when

they merely expected to win--precisely the pattern of

anticipation and reward that drug and alcohol users show.

``This put gambling on the map with other neurobiologic

addictions,'' says Dr. Barry Kosofsky, a pediatric

neurologist at Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York City.

Surprising support for that work came earlier this month

when researchers at Minnesota's Mayo Clinic reported that 11

Parkinson's disease patients being treated with dopamine-

enhancing medications began gambling compulsively; one

patient eventually lost $100,000. Six of the 11 also began

engaging in compulsive eating, drinking, spending or sex.

Only when the dopamine was discontinued did the patients

return to normal.

The dopamine cycle may not be the only thing that drives

gamblers. Personality also plays a part. This month

researchers in the U.S., Britain and New Zealand released the

latest results from an ongoing, 30-year study of roughly

1,000 children born in the early 1970s. One purpose of the

research was to determine which temperament types were most

likely to lead to addictions.

The just released results showed that compulsive gamblers,

drinkers and drug users have high underlying levels of

negative emotionality, a syndrome that includes nervousness,

anger and a tendency to worry and feel victimized.

Significantly, they also score lower in the so-called

constraint category, meaning they are given to impulsiveness

and thrill seeking. That's a bad combination, particularly

when you throw drugs, drink or gambling into the mix.

``It's like picking your poison,'' says psychologist

Avshalm Caspi of King's College in London, one of the

researchers in the study.

What makes people start gambling may also be a function of

availability. A 1999 study ordered by the U.S. Congress found

that people who live within 50 miles of a casino have two

times as much risk of developing a gambling problem as those

living farther away. And the growing popularity of electronic

gambling only makes things worse. In one study, researchers

at Brown University found that while gamblers take an average

of 312 years to develop a problem when they're playing

traditional games like cards, slot-machine players fast-

forward their addiction, getting hooked in just over a year.

So what can be done to get problem gamblers to quit?

Medication, in theory, may help. Psychologists like G. Alan

Marlatt of the University of Washington are interested in the

potential of so-called opioid antagonists, drugs that might

partially disrupt the neurochemistry that produces feelings

of well-being, thus denying gamblers the kick they seek.

More effective may be the 12 Step protocol used by

Alcoholics Anonymous. Gamblers Anonymous groups meet all

across the country, stressing abstinence and providing a

community of ex-gamblers to offer support. Marlatt is worried

that abstinence may be less effective with young gamblers and

is exploring cognitive techniques that instead teach kids to

recognize the triggers that get them to gamble too much. The

states may also have a role to play. Illinois has instituted

a self-exclusion program in which gamblers can put their

names on a voluntary blacklist, allowing casinos to eject

them from the premises, require them to donate their winnings

to a gambling-treatment program and, in some cases, charge

them with trespassing.

Like Marlatt's moderation strategy, however, the Illinois

program takes a measure of self-discipline that may be the

very thing compulsive gamblers lack. ``In addiction, they

call it chasing the high,'' says psychologist Carlos

DiClemente of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County.

``In gambling, it's called chasing the big win. And that's

where self-regulation goes down the tubes.'' Better, say

DiClemente and others, to simply to put down the cards or

dice or cup of coins for good. As battle-scarred gamblers are

fond of saying, the only way to be sure you come out ahead is

to buy the casino. --With reporting by Melissa August/

Washington, Helen Gibson/ London, Noah Isackson/ Chicago,

Coco Masters/ New York and Jeffrey Ressner/ Los Angeles

Mr. 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 ``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 2005 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 to their uninsured residents.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with my colleagues the attached statement by our former colleague Tony Hall, who now serves as U.S. ambassador to the World Food Programme. Ambassador Hall is concerned about the future of world food aid in light of current negotiations at the World Trade Organization.

In the past year, the world has been broadsided by tragedy.

Mother Nature wreaked havoc in Indonesia, destroying lives

and impairing the ability of tens of thousands of survivors

to feed themselves. In Darfur, the constant need for food aid

will not subside until people can safely return to their

homes and begin to plant seeds. Ethiopia has once again found

itself on the brink of famine. There, the causes are complex,

but the need is simple. Food aid is helping Ethiopians stay

alive.

I want to discuss another looming tragedy. But we can

prevent this one. I'm talking about negotiations happening

right now in Geneva at the World Trade Organization.

Some European members of the WTO are working to eliminate

most in-kind food donations to humanitarian situations. There

is a belief among some countries that the best way to insure

minimal impact is to move to a cash only system for

donations.

The U.S. is adamantly opposed to any proposal that would

RESTRICT and therefore REDUCE the amount of donations to the

world's hungry. There are 850 million people who don't have

enough food to eat. And yet we are reaching only about 100

million of them with assistance. We need to be increasing our

volumes of food aid worldwide but some of the wealthy WTO

member states are pushing positions that will inevitably cut

food aid back.

Eliminating in-kind assistance results in smaller amounts

of food aid to the hungry of the world. For example, WFP'S

own research found ``a clear decline in European Union food

aid after the EC and other European member nations moved from

in-kind to cash.''

It is inconceivable to me that a group of our colleagues

meeting in Geneva would put already fragile lives at risk.

Why is this conversation even happening, considering the

humanitarian emergencies in the world today?

The U.S. has given $1.6 billion in 2005--that's half of

total food aid--and emergency needs are still not being met.

The WTO should not be even be discussing food aid reform.

FAO and WFP are the experts. The discussions of improving

food aid

deliveries should be taking place in Rome, not Geneva. The

United States urges WTO to rely on UN food agencies for their

expertise.

We have a moral obligation to the people of Darfur, Panda

Aceh and Ethiopia and many more to protect the flexibility of

our assistance programs. It would be costly mistake to limit

our food aid. We are talking about people's lives--those with

children, parents, sisters and brothers. People who are

needed on farms, in schools, factories and churches. We have

a moral obligation to do the right thing. Food aid saves

lives.

Mr. Speaker, I have just read the very disturbing cover story from the most recent edition of Fortune magazine. The cover headline reads: ``America the 97 Lbs. Weakling?'' The cover shows a picture of a strong China punching a weak Uncle Sam.

The facts in the article should sound the alarm across our country.

America is falling behind.

As chairman of the appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over NASA, NSF, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy, I have had the opportunity to meet with leading groups of people who represent the science and technology sector in our nation.

Many will tell you that America is in a stall, and even more will tell you that America is in a decline, when it comes to global competition in science and technology.

None of these groups will tell you that America is doing well in this critical area.

The Fortune article points out that U.S. students have fallen behind.

America currently ranks 28th in the world in mathematical achievement among 15-year-olds.

The U.S. is graduating fewer and fewer engineers, with an estimated 70,000 this year, while China will graduate 600,000 and India 350,000. This is the generation we will look to to create a newer and better Internet, develop energy saving automobiles, or build a better i-Pod.

This is an issue directly tied to America's economy, and could well determine how--dare I say if--we maintain our quality of life and our very way of life.

Let me share with you a few more statistics: Patents awarded to U.S. companies/scientists--Down; Nobel prizes won by U.S. scientists--Down; scientific papers published by U.S. scientists--Down.

U.S. investment in research and development has stayed flat for the last three decades while growing significantly in places like China, India, Brazil and Israel. U.S. students are behind their counterparts in other countries in math and science, and some Asian countries are graduating more than four times as many engineers. U.S. 12th-graders ranked near the bottom of math and science testing scores, according to the third International Math and Science Study.

The proportion of U.S. graduates in science and engineering has declined 10 percent from 1994 to 2001 while the total number of undergraduate degrees awarded in the U.S. has increased 14 percentage points. The U.S. now awards more MBAs than math, science and engineering degrees. Ten years ago, Boeing produced nearly 60 percent of the world's commercial aircraft. Today, Boeing produces less than 40 percent.

This news should be the wake-up call to spur us into action to help America get back on track to keep our country as the world's innovation leader.

investment in innovation

We must invest in innovation. Our Nation needs a commitment to fund its ``Innovation Budget.''

I have written the president about this issue and asked him to work to triple the Nation's innovation budget for Federal basic research and development over the next decade.

America needs to be mobilized, much like it was after Sputnik in the late 1950s.

The White House has to provide leadership. I believe Congress will support the effort.

Congress two years ago fulfilled the commitment to double NIH budget to jump-start work on medical research to help find cures to debilitating and fatal diseases. A similar commitment for the innovation budget should be made.

national conference on science and innovation

Congress has laid the groundwork for addressing the innovation deficit through a provision in the supplemental appropriations bill

passed in May that directs the Department of Commerce to work with business and industry groups to hold a conference this fall in Washington on science and innovation, and where the United States is headed.

Among the participants will be the Council on Competitiveness, the Business Roundtable, the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Electronics Association.

Education Is Key

Education is key to our Nation's commitment to innovation and technology prominence. I have been pleased to work with Representatives Boehlert and Ehlers--two members who have been leaders in Congress on promoting science and technology issues--on legislative solutions.

My proposal to forgive interest on student loans for math, engineering and physical science majors is in the higher education reauthorization bill now moving through the House.

Education and the Workforce Chairman Boehner and Representative McKeon of the committee have been very supportive of efforts to advance the loan interest provision, and I thank them for their work.

The genesis for this legislation was from the book, Winning the Future, by former Speaker Newt Gingrich, who has done a good job of outlining America's challenge to remain the world's leader in innovation and technology.

I am hopeful that this legislation will attract more students into the science and engineering fields by offering to forgive the interest on their college loans. We must fill the critical shortage of math, science and engineering students in the United States.

The provision allows up to $5,000 in interest to be forgiven on federally backed government loans if science majors agree to work in their field for five years upon graduating.

Research Is Also Key

The House, through passage of the FY 2006 Science-State-Justice- Commerce bill, has supported funding for science education and research: $4.38 billion for National Science Foundation (NSF) research and related activities, an increase of $44 million above the president's request.

This is the Nation's largest resource pool for basic scientific research across all fields: $807 million for NSF's education programs, which is $70 million above the request; $169 million for NASA education programs, which is $2 million above the request; $28.9 million for a new consolidated education program for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The measure also encourages the National Science Board to establish a commission to present recommendations for broad Federal action to address the crisis in science and math education.

Mr. Speaker, it is critical that administration's FY 2007 budget include a significant investment to respond to this crisis and I urge members to make their support known.

I also urge members to read the latest article in Fortune if they have not done so.

All is not lost, but America is at a crossroad.

It's time to roll up our sleeves and get to work on this issue, and respond to this challenge through the commitment of the administration and Congress and the American people. America's future is at stake.

Mr. Speaker, with consideration of H. Res. 376, which expressed the sense of the House of Representatives that the Federal Trade Commission Should Investigate the Publication of the Video Game ``Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas'' to determine if the publisher intentionally deceived the Entertainment Software Ratings Board to avoid an ``Adults-Only'' rating, I would like to enter a recent article from the Los Angeles Times into the Record. This article highlights the conflict of interest that is inherent in a voluntary rating system. The real question is: Can you trust this industry?

[From the Los Angeles Times, July 21, 2005]

Hidden Sex Scenes Spark Furor Over Video Game

(By Alex Pham)

The oversight board that puts parental ratings on video

games took the unusual step Wednesday of slapping its

strongest warning on a bestselling title as the game maker

admitted putting explicit, interactive sex scenes on the

disc.

Retailers began pulling copies of ``Grand Theft Auto: San

Andreas'' from their shelves after the Entertainment Software

Ratings Board revoked the game's ``Mature'' rating and raised

it to ``Adults Only.'' Publisher Take-Two Interactive

Software Inc. said it planned to rework ``San Andreas''--the

top-selling video game of 2004--and reissue it later this

year.

The ratings board is similar to the Motion Picture Assn. of

America's rating board. A ``Mature'' rating is analogous to

an R movie rating, and ``Adults Only'' is equivalent to NC-

17. Most retailers refuse to sell ``Adults Only'' games.

Executives at New York-based Take-Two had denied for weeks

that company programmers were responsible for the graphic sex

scenes, which can be unlocked with software that was widely

available on the Internet. But Wednesday they acknowledged

that the game's designers had created the scenes, dubbed

``Hot Coffee.''

``The editing of any game is a highly technical process,''

said Take-Two spokesman Rodney Walker. ``We liken it to a

painter who paints one painting and paints over it on the

same canvas.''

Walker's explanation did little to mollify critics, who

point to the ``Grand Theft Auto'' series to highlight the

issue of violence and sexuality in video games. The games

celebrate nihilistic killing, and Take-Two has reveled in its

image as the bad boy of a $25-billion global game industry

that's trying to gain respectability to match its profits.

``It looks like Take-Two Interactive purposefully conned

the video game industry rating board and parents across the

country,'' said Washington state Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson. ``

`San Andreas,' as a top-selling game in the country, now is

in the hands of thousands of children who can practice

interactive pornography. There should be legal consequences .

. . so [the company doesn't] laugh all the way to the bank.''

``San Andreas,'' which retails for about $50, has sold more

than 12 million copies worldwide since its launch in October.

``Mature'' rated games are intended for players older than

17. Many retailers keep such games under lock and key and

have policies requiring clerks to check the identification of

buyers.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc., which accounts for as much as 20% of

video game sales in the United States, began removing ``San

Andreas'' from its shelves Wednesday, as did Best Buy Co.

``Our policy is not to carry any adult titles on our

shelves,'' said Wal-Mart spokeswoman Karen Burk, who said

buyers ``can certainly bring the product back'' for a refund.

Take-Two said it would make a patch available for

downloading so that customers could block the sex scenes.

Word of the scenes began spreading over the Internet last

month after Dutch programmer Patrick Wildenbourg began

distributing software that he said unlocked them.

Many video games have secrets to which players gain access

as they progress. They might, for instance, win extra powers

or reach hidden levels.

``Hot Coffee,'' by contrast, is an interactive sex game,

featuring oral sex and intercourse.

Wildenbourg, who removed his software from the Internet on

Wednesday, declined to comment.

As late as last week, Take-Two had insisted that the sex

scenes were ``the work of a determined group of hackers who

have gone to significant trouble to alter scenes in the

official version of the game.'' Hackers, the company said,

created the scenes by ``disassembling and then combining,

recompiling and altering the game's code.''

The scenes prompted an outcry from game critics, including

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who last week called

for a federal investigation into ``Hot Coffee.''

The Entertainment Software Ratings Board began a review to

determine whether the scenes were part of the game's original

code and warranted a re-rating of ``San Andreas,'' versions

of which play on Sony Corp.'s PlayStation 2, Microsoft

Corp.'s Xbox and personal computers.

``After a thorough investigation, we have concluded that

sexually explicit material exists in a fully rendered,

unmodified form on the final discs of all three platform

versions of the game,'' said Patricia Vance, president of the

ratings board. ``Clearly the [original] rating was incorrect,

and it needed to be corrected.''

Take-Two's Walker said Wednesday that the sex scenes were

never meant to be seen by the public and that they were

revealed only when an outside programmer, called a

``modder,'' wrote software to unlock them.

``The mod community scratched the painting, revealing the

earlier work,'' he said.

Analysts estimated that modifying and remarketing ``San

Andreas'' would cost Take-Two about $40 million in lost

sales. Shares of Take-Two fell 11% in after-hours trading.

``It was a very poor exercise of judgment and a very costly

one,'' said Michael Pachter, a video game industry analyst at

Wedbush Morgan Securities in Los Angeles. ``It's an

embarrassment for management because obviously a maverick

developer in their studios decided to put this stuff in

there. I can only fault the management team for not putting

systems in place to vet their games.''

Take-Two is no stranger to controversy. Previous

installments of ``Grand Theft Auto'' have been adored by

hard-core gamers but excoriated by parent groups and

lawmakers for their depictions of violence and sex.

In one, players could have sex with a prostitute and then

beat her to death and take back their money. That game was

rated ``Mature'' because players did not see the sex.

Instead, they saw a parked car rock back and forth.

Some lawmakers criticized the ratings board for failing to

detect the sex scenes in its initial evaluation of

``San Andreas'' last year. Although the system is

voluntary, most game publishers seek a rating from the

organization, which evaluated more than 1,000 titles last

year.

``It should not have taken this long,'' said Rep. Joe Baca

(D-Rialto). ``This is evidence that the voluntary ratings

system does not work.''

Video game industry executives tried to assure parents that

the ``San Andreas'' incident was an anomaly.

The ratings board ``has been in business for 11 years, and

there has never yet been an incident of this kind,'' said

Doug Lowenstein, head of the Entertainment Software Assn.,

the industry's trade group. ``You're looking at well over

10,000 games rated. If you look at that track record, you can

say parents have every reason to be confident in the ratings

system.''

Some consumers weren't completely reassured.

``As a parent I've lost some confidence in the [ratings

board's] ability to police the industry,'' said Dennis

McCauley, editor of GamePolitics.com. ``But [the board] did

take a big step today, and I have to give them credit for

that.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor two outstanding constituents and educators from the 10th Congressional District of Virginia. Melissa Fye and Jim Jenkins are to be commended for their extraordinary efforts to bring real scientific research to the classroom.

Melissa Fye, elementary school teacher at Ashburn Elementary School in Ashburn, VA, and Jim Jenkins, elementary school teacher at Mountain View Elementary School in Purcellville, VA, were chosen by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to participate in the Teacher at Sea Program. This three-week-long research program involved a trip to sea in the Pacific Ocean this spring. As Teachers at Sea, Ms. Fye participated in coral reef research and Mr. Jenkins participated in fisheries and ocean current research.

Ms. Fye embarked on NOAA Ship HI'IALAKAI in Honolulu, Hawaii, and cruised in the waters of the south Pacific. Mr. Jenkins's cruise, on the other hand, explored cold Alaskan waters, where he embarked on NOAA Ship MILLER FREEMAN in Kodiak, Alaska, and disembarked in Dutch Harbor, Alaska. While onboard, Ms. Fye and Mr. Jenkins wrote lesson plans, maintained daily logs, took photographs, interviewed scientists, and engaged in dialogue with their students, other teachers and students, and the general public. Ms. Fye and Mr. Jenkins participated in the Teacher at Sea experience in order to enrich their curriculum and excite their students about the sciences.

In her final log, Ms. Fye wrote that she ``. . . wants [her] students to know that life is not a collection of things, but a collection of experiences . . . [and hopes] this trip--the resources and anecdotal stories [she] brings back to the classroom--encourages them to explore opportunities as they arise in their own lives.''

Mr. Jenkins engaged his students each day in daily e-mail messages. In one message, Mr. Jenkins told his students that he has ``. . . been impressed by the cooperative spirit of everyone on [NOAA ship] MILLER FREEMAN,'' and, in turn, encouraged his students to work together as a team while he was at sea.

Both Ms. Fye and Mr. Jenkins were supported by a partnership between the Loudoun Education Foundation and the NOAA Teacher at Sea Program. I commend the Loudoun Education Foundation, and also the Loudoun County school district, for supporting the efforts of these two teachers to promote scientific education in the classroom.

I congratulate Ms. Fye and Mr. Jenkins on their spirit of adventure in the name of education, their willingness to try new things, and their ability to bring this experience back into the classroom.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the members of the Committee on International Relations for their work in bringing this legislation to the floor today. I want to express my gratitude to the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for working with us on an important issue included as a new title, ``Advanced Democracy,'' in the bill, and I thank all of them.

I want to also give commendation of thanks to the staff, the majority and minority staff. They have been very good, and I want to personally thank them.

This bipartisan, bicameral legislation reaffirms that the promotion of democracy, freedom, and fundamental rights constitutes an essential element of U.S. foreign policy. It strengthens the ability of the State Department to promote democracy with respect particularly to nondemocratic countries. Through the cooperation and work of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), much of that legislation has been included in the State Department authorization bill.

With these provisions, we are ensuring that the democratic principles that are the foundation of America are intentionally and purposely promoted worldwide.

This legislation makes critical structural changes at the State Department that reflect our Nation's commitment to the spread of democracy.

Additionally, it increases the number of Foreign Service officers assigned to the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor and creates two regional democracy hubs.

The Secretary of State is also directed to prepare an annual report on democracy which will designate countries as ``nondemocratic'' or ``democratic transition countries.''

There is so much else in this bill, but before I run out of time, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) again and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), and I want to give my special thanks to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) not just for his work on this legislation and for his support for our Advance Democracy effort, but I want to thank him for his dedication to preserving freedom and protecting the innocent throughout his many years in public service.

Mr. Chairman, I can remember being on the floor late at night during the situation with regard to the Contras down in Nicaragua and following the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) on all of these issues. He has been the voice and conscience of this House for years and years. I want him to know that I personally have followed him on many of these issues. I have listened and asked, What is Henry Hyde saying? How is Henry Hyde voting? It has been an honor and a privilege to serve with you.

Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a letter I sent on July 13 to the law firm Akin Gump outlining my concerns with regard to the firm's representation of China National Offshore Oil Corporation Ltd. (CNOOC) in its takeover bid for Unocal Corp. of California.

A critical element that has been absent in much of the discussion surrounding free trade is the fact that CNOOC is not a private foreign company. It is a Chinese state-run entity--70 percent state-owned.

Lest there be any confusion about who we are dealing with when we speak of the Chinese Communist government, I want to highlight a quote from a July 13 Washington Post article. An adviser to the Chinese central government, who spoke on the condition of anonymity fearing government disciplinary action, said, ``No matter if it's rogue or a friend's oil, we don't care. Human rights? We don't care. We care about oil. Whether Iran would have nuclear weapons or not is not our business. America cares, but Iran is not our neighbor. Anyone who helps China with energy is a friend.''

Is there no bright line to separate who the lobbyists in Washington will or will not represent?

Mr. R. Bruce McLean,

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, New Hampshire Ave NW.,

Washington DC.

Dear Mr. McLean: I write today in response to a packet of

information I received in late June, which included a letter

from the chief executive officer of China National Offshore

Oil Corporation Ltd. (CNOOC) peppered with assurances, aimed

at easing growing congressional concern, that CNOOC's bid to

``merge'' with Unocal Corp. of California was in fact

friendly. I must say in all candor that I was shocked that

the packet arrived courtesy of Akin Gump--one of Washington's

most distinguished and reputable lobbying and law firms.

Having worked in Washington for over three decades, I

understand that lobbying is part and parcel of everyday life

in the nation's capital. Every day, good people walk the

halls of Congress making the case for their constituency,

advocating on any number of issues and causes with great

passion and insight. That said, when I noted that CNOOC was

one of your newest clients, I immediately thought, ``Is there

no bright line to separate who the lobbyists in Washington

will or will not represent?''

A critical part of the discussion recently surrounding the

free market, charges of protectionism and the politicization

of trade within the context of CNOOC's takeover bid for

Unocal is that CNOOC is not a private foreign company. CNOOC

is a Chinese state-run entity--70 percent state-owned. At the

end of the day, it has to be obvious that any decisions on

the issues of energy, economic and ultimately national

security regarding the operations of this company will be

based on what is advantageous to the Chinese Communist

government. It is noteworthy that a Pentagon report released

in January by the Office of Net Assessment has warned that

China's need for oil, gas and other energy resources appears

to be driving the country toward becoming an expansionist

power.

As Irwin Stelzer with the Hudson Institute recently wrote,

``China has decided to use its state resources to convert its

major companies into important multi-nationals--part of an

aggressive policy of projecting Chinese power on a global

basis. If that's not political, nothing is . . . That policy

is most noticeable in oil markets. China's acquisition of

Unocal's substantial Asian assets will increase its political

influence in that part of the world.''

But we need not look to ``inside the Beltway'' policy

analysts for insight into China's global ambitions. Chen

Yonglin, the high ranking Chinese defector with intimate

knowledge of China's worldwide intelligence gathering

efforts, has said, ``The United States is considered by the

Chinese Communist Party as the largest enemy, the major

strategic rival.''

I recall with great irony the heated annual debates in

Congress surrounding Most Favored Nation trade status and

ultimately Permanent Normal Trade Relations for China. The

coalition that battled granting China this privilege faced an

almost certain perennial loss. Even so, it served as a

valuable forum in which to highlight just what kind of a

country we are dealing with in China. The list of

egregious actions laid at the feet of the Communist

government of the People's Republic of China is long and

spans decades--human rights abuses, religious persecution

including torture and imprisonment, slave labor practices,

forced sterilization, espionage operations against U.S.

businesses, software piracy and intellectual property

theft, military spying. At the time many argued with

tremendous passion, business interests foremost among

them, that trade with China would change China, not the

other way around.

But recent reports have painted a grim picture of the

purported ``information age'' in China. Chinese bloggers who

have the audacity to type in words like ``freedom,''

``democracy,'' or ``human rights'' receive a message,

courtesy of Microsoft software, that says, ``Prohibited

language in text, please delete.'' It seems China is changing

us after all.

And the change is perhaps no where more apparent than in

the willingness of American companies and lobbyists to do the

bidding of the Chinese government--a government which despite

increased ``engagement'' over the last several years

continues to pose a national security threat, blatantly

disrespects free trade norms, persistently violates human

rights, consistently stifles political dissent and is

indiscriminate in its repression, arrest and torture of

varied faiths targeting the Uygher Muslim population, the

underground Protestant and Catholic house

churches, the Tibetan Buddhists and the Falun Gong spiritual

movement.

I am left to wonder if it was Akin Gump which counseled

CNOOC, and ultimately the Chinese government, to first

caution President Bush not to politicize the Unocal takeover

bid, and then warn Congress to ``correct its mistaken ways of

politicizing economic and trade issues and stop interfering

in the normal commercial exchanges between enterprises of the

two countries.''

Ultimately, I question the appropriateness of an American

firm advising and being on the payroll of the Chinese

government. In my opinion, their interests, and all which

that encompasses, are simply not deserving of your

representation and only serve to degrade the strong

reputation for integrity your firm has enjoyed over the

years.

Sincerely,

Frank R. Wolf,

Member of Congress.

P.S. During the presidency of Ronald Reagan, no major law

firm or lobbying organization would have represented the

Soviet Union if it had tried to take over an American oil

company.

Mr. Speaker, gambling is exploding throughout our country. Tribal casinos have been propagating at an alarming rate.

I am deeply concerned about the impact this is having on our society. Gambling destroys families and preys on the poor. The number of tribes now actively ``reservation shopping'' is extremely troubling. The cover story of the May 9, 2005, issue of CQ Weekly reports on the explosive growth of tribal casinos and cites eight states--Oregon, Kansas, Minnesota, Florida, California, Illinois, New York and Ohio--where off- reservation gambling is being proposed.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record a copy of the letter I recently sent to President Bush urging his action on this matter, a May 9 memorandum prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) of the Library of Congress at my request detailing options the Bush Administration could take to address this issue, and the CQ Weekly sidebar article detailing the explosive growth of tribal casinos. If the administration believes it does not have authority to issue a moratorium to halt new tribal gambling operations, it should send Congress legislation so that we can take action.

House of Representatives,

May 19, 2005.

Hon. George W. Bush,

The President, The White House,

Washington DC.

Dear Mr. President: Many in America, myself included, are

deeply concerned by the explosive growth of tribal casinos.

There are now more than 400 tribal casinos in 30 states.

Tribes also are now aggressively seeking off-reservation

land--commonly referred to as ``reservation shopping''--to

build even more facilities. This rapid expansion of casino

gambling is spiraling out of control, with devastating

consequences for our country.

This is not a Republican or a Democrat issue; nor is it a

conservative or a liberal issue. It is a matter that calls

for action in the best interest of every American. Casino

gambling, once limited to places like Las Vegas and Atlantic

City, is now coming to cities--and even small towns--across

America and bringing with it all its social ills, like higher

crime and suicide rates, increased personal bankruptcies and

the breakup of families.

I write today asking that you issue an executive order

placing an immediate two-year moratorium on the opening of

any more tribal casinos until Congress can thoroughly review

the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) of 1988. Congress,

with the help of your administration, must examine the

unintended consequences of this legislation and address the

gaping loopholes in the law.

The moratorium also should apply to the federal recognition

process of tribes, which is completely broken. As you know, I

have long been calling for reforms of the tribal recognition

process. I repeatedly asked former President Clinton and his

administration to take action and have written your

administration on several occasions asking for a top-to-

bottom review of the process. To date, no steps have been

taken to address the issue.

Something also needs to be done to address the issue of

senior level staff leaving the Bureau of Indian Affairs and

then immediately going out and representing tribes seeking

federal recognition. Tougher restrictions must be put in

place.

Native Americans have become mere pawns in what is now a

billion dollar battleground as outside interests--and

investors, some from outside the country--have worked behind

the scenes to spur the growth of tribal casinos. In September

2001, the then General Accounting Office issued a scathing

report saying the process was fraught with problems and

needed improvement. The report concluded by saying because

of weaknesses in the process, ``the end result could be

that the resolution of tribal recognition cases will have

less to do with the attributes and qualities of a group as

an independent political entity deserving of a government-

to-government relationship with the United States and more

to do with the resources that petitioners and third

parties can marshal to develop a successful and political

strategy.''

The number of tribes now actively ``reservation shopping''

is extremely troubling. The cover story of the May 9, 2005

issue of CQ Weekly reports on the explosive growth of tribal

casinos and cites eight states--Oregon,

Kansas, Minnesota, Florida, California, Illinois, New York

and Ohio--where off-reservation gambling is being proposed.

The sidebar article detailing the battles being waged in

these states over this issue is enclosed.

Also enclosed is a May 9, 2005, Congressional Research

Service memorandum, which I requested, detailing options your

administration can take to address this issue, including

``(1) withdrawing authority to recognize new tribes; (2)

directing that regulations be issued for land acquisition for

gaming purposes and that regulations be rescinded for issuing

procedures for class III gaming in the absence of a tribal-

state compact; and (3) directing the Attorney General to take

certain steps to enforce laws against illegal Indian gaming

operations.''

The unintended consequences of IGRA have not been positive,

either for the overwhelming majority of Native Americans who

still live in poverty or for the hundreds of communities

across America that are now home to tribal casinos. As long

as reliance on gambling continues, the welfare of most Native

Americans will be in jeopardy. At the same time, the victims

of the gambling industry will continue to mount in community

after community after community and the economic and socials

costs to those communities will only increase.

I implore you to involve your administration in this issue

before it brings even more harm to the American people.

Congress has begun to take steps to address some of these

issues--legislation has been introduced in the House to

prevent ``reservation shopping''--but an executive order will

have an immediate impact and is the right thing to do until

the myriad of problems that have come with this explosive

growth are addressed.

Sincerely,

Frank R. Wolf,

Member of Congress.