Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I want to share with our colleagues the recent passing of Richard D. ``Dick'' Morgan, who retired in 1989 as executive director of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the highest civil service post in the FHWA. He died on June 18 at a hospital in Easton, MD, following a year long battle with leukemia. He was 69.

Many of our colleagues who have been here for a while will remember Dick Morgan as the highway expert who helped steer the reauthorization of the federal highway program in 1982, which included a motor fuel tax increase, the first in more than two decades, to fund repairs for what was described then as the nation's crumbling highways and bridges.

Mr. Morgan received a B.S. degree in civil engineering, graduating with honors from Michigan State University in 1956. The following year he began his federal career as a highway engineer trainee with the Bureau of Public Roads, the FHWA's predecessor agency. Except for a stint in the U.S. Army from 1957-58, he stayed with the agency until he retired.

Over the years, Dick Morgan, a registered professional engineer, held a variety of positions at FHWA. After serving in the Arkansas, Ohio, and Texas divisions, he joined the Washington headquarters staff in 1972 as chief of Special Procedures Branch in the Federal-Aid Division. He became chief of that division and later was name director of the Office of Highway Planning before being appointed associate administrator for engineering and operations in 1979. In that slot, he helped develop a program that saved $225 million in bridge construction costs and shepherded a national traffic signal timing demonstration program, which has been credited with saving millions of gallons of fuel.

After assuming the executive director position in 1982, Dick Morgan is widely credited with helping to move the FHWA from an era of highway expansion to an era of highway preservation. He was one of the originators and strongest supporters of the Strategic Highway Research Program developed to identify pavement design and maintenance techniques that work--and those that don't work. That program has evolved over the years to help highway agencies across the nation provide smoother, longer lasting roads.

Mr. Morgan also was a strong backer of innovative techniques for increasing highway capacity, such as ``smart'' highways, surveillance systems, and computer applications which today are working to reduce traffic congestion in the nation's urban areas.

Having played a major role in the construction of the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, Dick Morgan was deeply involved in the FHWA's efforts to plan for the post-Interstate era. With the Interstate program coming to an end in the 1990's, he formed a ``Futures Task Force'' to identify and study alternatives for the Department of Transportation's legislative initiatives and also worked with organizations such as the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials to develop post-Interstate proposals.

Dick Morgan received many honors during his career. His first recognition was a cash award in 1959. Over the years, he received the Secretary's Award for Superior Achievement (1974), the Senior Executive Service Performance Award on several occasions, and the Federal Highway Administrator's Award for Superior Achievement (1983). In 1982, he received the Presidential Rank Award of Meritorious Executive and in 1987 he was given the President Rank Award of Distinguished Executive. The American Public Works Association recognized Mr. Morgan as one of the Top Ten Public Works Leaders of the Year in 1988.

When he retired from the FHWA in 1989, he became vice president of the National Asphalt Pavement Association in Washington, where he remained until 1998.

Mr. Morgan was born in Cleveland and raised in Royal Oak, MI. In addition to his degree from Michigan State, he received a J.D. degree from the Capital School of Law in Columbus, Ohio.

After living in Anne Arundel County, MD, he moved in the late 1990s to Maryland's Eastern Shore community of Easton Club. He remained active in the community, volunteering with Habitat for Humanity in Talbot County and the Chesapeake Bay Maritime Museum in St. Michaels, MD, where he was a docent.

He was a member of St. Peter and Paul Catholic Church in Easton, where his funeral service was held on June 25. We express our sympathies to his wife of 45 years, Anna Louise Morgan of Easton, and their three children, Thomas Richard Morgan of Oakland, CA, Karen Ann Yocum of Churchton, MD, and Anthony Patrick Morgan of Liberty, SC, his three brothers, a sister, and three grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, we remember Dick Morgan as the ultimate professional whose public service career left a legacy of unparalleled achievement, providing the example for those at the Federal Highway Administration today to follow.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 10:30 a.m. tomorrow for morning hour debates.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 2 o'clock and 8 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, July 8, 2003, at 10:30 a.m., for morning hour debates.

Mr. Speaker, I recently shared with our colleagues several personal accounts related by survivors of the brutal and inhumane act of sexual assault in our nation's prisons.

H.R. 1707, the Prison Rape Reduction Act of 2003, focuses attention on the growing problem of prison rape. I was pleased to co-author this legislation with my Virginia colleague, Rep. Bobby Scott. The bill is pending mark-up in the House Judiciary Committee and we are hopeful that it will be on the House floor soon. I believe in being tough on crime. But this has nothing to do with being tough on crime. It has everything to do with human dignity and ending deliberate indifference toward sexual assaults in prisons, maintaining order in prisons, and reducing social and economic costs to a society left to deal with physically and psychologically damaged former inmates.

Today I want to share additional stories from those whose lives have been forever changed by the sexual assaults happening every day in the prisons in our country.

Imagine knowing that someone you love is being repeatedly

raped, abused, and degraded and that there is little to

nothing that you can do about it.

For the last two and a half years, my family and I have

been paralyzed by this knowledge and our inability to stop

the rape and abuse.

My name is Vivian Edwards and I am here to tell you about

my nephew, Roderick Johnson. In my family, he goes by Keith.

Keith is a Navy veteran and was imprisoned in Marshall,

Texas in January of 2000 for a non-violent crime. He wrote a

$300 check even though he knew that he did not have the funds

to cover this amount, violating the terms of his parole for a

burglary that he committed over 10 years ago.

From the beginning, my nephew knew that being a gay man put

him at risk, so he informed prison officials that he was gay

in hopes that he would be offered protection. My nephew was

offered no protection. While at Allred, he was placed in the

general population.

He might as well have been put in a lions' den. He was

immediately given the name ``CoCo'' by the other inmates

which made it clear to all inmates that he was available for

sexual exploitation. The prison officials also began to call

Keith by this nickname and would refer to him as ``she'' or

``her.''

Keith was raped by a member of the gang called `Gangster

Disciples' in early October 2000. My nephew informed prison

officials about what had happened and that he feared for his

life. He asked for medical attention. He was denied help and

denied medical assistance. They told him that medical care

was only available for an emergency. My nephew was raped! How

can someone say that is not an emergency?

Soon after the rape, things just got worse for my nephew.

Hernandez began `sharing' Keith with other inmates, and Keith

literally became a sex slave.

Keith wrote to several of his family members from prison.

He was afraid to tell most of us that he was being severely

sexually abused. But the letters started to change, and he

eventually told us what was happening. I can still remember

reading the words: ``they make me do things I don't want to

do'' and just crying. He told us that he feared for his life.

We called the prison to find out what was going on. Staff

at the prison said they would check into Keith's complaints.

They said Keith's complaints didn't warrant an investigation

but they would move him to another prison wing. He wasn't

safe there either. Other family members and I continued to

write and call on Keith's behalf, but nothing ever changed--

he was never safe.

During a period of 18 months, Keith appeared before the

classification committee of Allred seven times. Each time he

asked to be put in protective custody, but his requests were

denied each time.

Each time they denied Keith the protection that he so badly

needed, he was sent back to the general population and raped

and

forced to perform sexual acts against his will. He was traded

between various gangs in prison--the Bloods, the Crips, the

Tangos, the Mandingo Warriors--and sold out for $5 and $10

for sex acts.

By December of 2001, Keith feared for his life so much that

he purposely incurred a serious disciplinary violation. He

was given the maximum punishment and received 15 days in

solitary confinement. Ironically, this was the first and only

protection that he ever received while at Allred. Sadly,

though, this punishment also included extending his sentence

for more than two more years past the date that he would have

been eligible for release.

After Keith's seventh life endangerment claim, he began

writing the ACLU and other outside organizations for

assistance. The ACLU National Prison Project came to his

rescue. They filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of my nephew

against several Texas prison officials that ignored his pleas

for protection against gangs who forced him into sexual

slavery.

Keith had asked us to pray for him, and we did. Our prayers

were finally answered. He was moved to a safety protection

unit soon after the ACLU National Prison Project filed the

lawsuit.

Keith has tested negative for HIV, but still lives in

constant fear that he might have contracted other diseases

from countless forced sex incidents. Prison rape is a serious

crime that not only affects the victim, but also the family.

As I said before, my entire family has been horrified and

devastated for the past two and a half years because of what

has happened to Keith. Today we are praying for Keith, but we

are also fighting for him and for every other prisoner that

has been a victim of rape while in prison as well.

Mr. Speaker, I want to share with our colleagues that Mr. James Etter has been selected by the Small Business Administration, SBA, as a Virginia Small Business and Business Advocate Award winner, and named the Veteran Small Business Advocate of the Year for 2003. Mr. Etter is founder/chancellor of American Public University in Manassas, VA, and was also a winner at the regional level, receiving the Region III SBA award. SBA's Region III includes the States of Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia. As the Region III winner, Mr. Etter is one of only 10 Veteran's Advocate winners in the Nation.

Mr. Etter, a retired U.S. Marine Corps officer, founded the university in 1991 to find innovative ways to empower veterans and active duty military, by providing educational opportunities. The university courses are delivered exclusively through distance learning. Before distance learning was an everyday concept, James Etter developed a way for veterans and active duty military stationed abroad or locked into rigid schedules to work toward their undergraduate or master of arts degrees. From an initial enrollment of 18 students, American Public University has grown to over 10,000 registered students, of which approximately 70 percent are active and reserve duty military. The nearly 600 faculty, 76 percent of whom are veterans, provide instruction and mentoring to students from all 50 States and 30 countries. I have been told that the university maintains the most expansive military studies, strategy and history curriculum in the world. Continuing education, through the flexibility of distance learning, affords veterans and active duty military the foundation they need to become entrepreneurs.

Virginia's SBA Award winners were honored at an Awards Gala in May that also celebrated the Small Business Administration's Richmond District Office's 50th Anniversary. Mr. Etter was nominated for the award by Linda Decker, who serves as president and CEO of the Flory Small Business Center in Manassas. She also serves as the chairman of the Virginia Small Business Awards Foundation.

Other winners included: Virginia Small Business Persons of the Year-- Sharon Bennett, Founder & CEO and Evan Wooton, President, Premier Pet Products, LLC, Richmond; Runners Up for Small Business Person of the Year--Maxanne Taverniti, Williamsburg Group Tour Service, Williamsburg and James Cheng, President, Computer & Hi-Tech Management, Inc., Virginia Beach; Small Business Accountant Advocate of the Year-- Elizabeth Moore, Partner, Goodman & Company, LLP, Newport News; Small Business Exporter of the Year--Marti Morenings, Universal Companies, Inc., Bristol; Financial Services Advocate of the Year--Teresa Walker, Vice President and Senior Community Development Officer, Wachovia Corporation, Roanoke; Small Business Journalist of the Year--Mary Flachsenhaar, Inside Business, Norfolk; Minority Small Business Advocate of the Year--Dr.

Donald Jones, Director, Office of Minority Procurement, University of Virginia, Charlottesville; Women in Business Advocate of the Year-- Claire Gastanaga, Principal, CG2 Consulting, Richmond; Young Entrepreneur of the Year--Bryce Lee Robertson, LowTechWeb.com, Mechanicsville and Entrepreneurial Success of the Year--Dennis Gilbert, President, Tesoro Corporation, Virginia Beach.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2474. The Congressional Hunger Center was established 10 years ago with a mission of fighting hunger by developing leaders. They have been doing that ever since.

When I think of the Congressional Hunger Center, I think of my good friend Ambassador Tony Hall. It was Tony who first got me involved in fighting hunger. In 1984, he persistently encouraged me to travel to the Horn of Africa to witness the devastation of the famine. As many of you know, that experience changed my life.

Many of the Congressional Hunger Center fellows are having similar experiences right now. There are Bill Emerson fellows who are having life-changing experiences in 12 locations across the country and Leland International Fellows in 15 locations throughout the world. The combination of the life-changing practical and the policy experiences will equip these young people to be active leaders on hunger issues wherever they may go.

One of the program's most committed international fellows is Robert Oliver Davila. Robert was a Peace Corps volunteer in Africa for three years. He joined the first class of international fellows after being a manager at the Worcester County Food Bank. Robert visited schools all over Ethiopia helping them implement the World Food Programme Global School Lunch Program. Robert monitored and evaluated the impact of the program on the lives of children, families and communities. Robert is now working with the Global School Feeding Support Unit in the Strategy and Policy Division of the World Food Programme.

Sarah Boron, from Dennison University in Ohio, helped develop a model to assess food and farm issues at Food for Lane County in Eugene, Oregon. Sarah is now helping local groups form food policy councils through the Community Food Security Coalition.

Many of us who have supported the Congressional Hunger Center over the years have maintained a vision of self-sufficiency for the organization in the future. As some of you know, Congress has been providing the bulk of the Hunger Center's operating budget each year through annual appropriations. Last year, the dream of self-sufficiency came closer to being a reality.

In the 2002 Farm Bill, Congress authorized an endowment to move the Hunger Center's fellows programs toward self-sufficiency. Unfortunately, when the appropriations committee provided funding for the newly authorized endowment, the Congressional Hunger Center was not able to access any funds for operating the fellows program.

H.R. 2474 will allow the Congressional Hunger Center to access the funds it needs to operate the fellows program, equipping people like Roger and Sarah to become leaders in fighting hunger. Equally important, this legislation does not detract from the vision of an endowment that allows the fellows program to operate self-sufficiently.

In closing Mr. Speaker, I encourage all my colleagues to support this legislation, which makes the technical corrections necessary to allow the Congressional Hunger Center fellows program to continue uninterrupted, growing leaders to fight hunger around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 199, calling on the government of the People's Republic of China to immediately and unconditionally release Dr. Yang Jianli, and calling on the president of the United States to continue working on behalf of Dr. Yang Jianli's release.

Dr. Yang Jianli is an internationally renowned scholar, Harvard graduate, and the president of the Foundation for China in the 21st Century. Dr. Yang was actively involved in the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989 and was subsequently blacklisted by the Chinese government for his participation. Following Tiananmen Square, Dr. Yang fled to the United States and earned two doctorates. Dr. Yang is a permanent resident of the United States.

On April 26, 2002, Dr. Yang entered China using a friend's passport to investigate reports of labor unrest in northern China. Dr. Yang Jianli was detained eight days later and has not been heard from since. The Chinese government will not confirm where he is being held and he has been refused access to an attorney. He has been held for more than 13 months and no charges have been brought against him. The maximum fine for entering China illegally is a one-year prison sentence. Dr. Yang has already spent more than a year in detention. I call on the Chinese government for his immediate release.

The State Department's recent report on human rights states that the government of the People's Republic of China ``has continued to commit numerous and serious human rights abuses, including arbitrary arrest and detention.'' On June 4, a United Nations working group ruled that Yang Jianli has been illegally detained by the Chinese government and called for Dr. Yang's immediate release.

China lacks due process. Citizens continue to suffer at the hands of Chinese officials. It is time for the state-sponsored, state-led persecution in China to stop. I join the members of the House of Representatives and the international community in calling for Dr. Yang's immediate release. It is my hope that he will be released quickly and free to reunite with his wife and two children back in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, today I want to bring attention to the illegal use and abuse of the powerful painkiller OxyContin that is destroying families and crippling communities, particularly in rural parts of the country. Southwest Virginia, western Kentucky and Maine have been hit particularly hard.

OxyContin does serve a very real and useful purpose for people with chronic, debilitating pain or who are terminally ill. It is hailed as a miracle drug for terminally ill cancer patients. I know what it is like to see people suffer from cancer. Both my mother and father died of cancer.

My concern is that this powerful painkiller has increasingly become a drug of choice for people who choose to abuse it; for people who have no legitimate need for this pain-killing drug. When taken properly, OxyContin is a wonder drug. But when it is ground up or chewed, the time release mechanism in the tablet is disabled, providing abusers with a heroin-like high.

I am also concerned about how this drug has been allowed to be marketed. Clearly, OxyContin should be available for the terminally ill. It should also be available to those people who suffer with severe chronic pain. I do not believe it should be prescribed to treat moderate pain.

Earlier this year I wrote to the Honorable Tommy Thompson, secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, asking him to review the marketing of OxyContin and its classification for treatment of moderate to severe pain. Here is the text of the letter:

Dear Secretary Thompson: in December 2001, the Commerce-

Justice-State and the Judiciary appropriations subcommittee

held a hearing on the illegal diversion of the prescription

drug OxyContin, a pain-killing Schedule II narcotic

manufactured by Purdue Pharma L.P. One of the witnesses, the

father of a recovering OxyContin addict, told a gripping

story of the devastating impact the drug has had on his

family and his son, who was in his early 20s. He proudly told

the committee how his son had just finished rehab and had

kicked his addiction. Sadly, a few months after appearing

before the subcommittee, the son died as a result of abusing

the drug.

When used properly, OxyContin is considered a wonder drug,

especially for terminally ill cancer patients. I know what it

is like to see people suffer from cancer. Both my mother and

father died of cancer. I can remember my mother constantly

asking the nurses for more morphine but being told she

couldn't have any more. My mother was in a great deal of

pain. OxyContin, if it had been available when she was dying,

probably would have made her a lot more comfortable at the

end.

When used illegally, however, OxyContin destroys families

and communities. It also can lead to death. This powerful

painkiller has increasingly become a drug of choice for

people who choose to abuse it by chewing it or grinding it

up. By disabling the time release mechanism in OxyContin,

abusers get a heroin-like high.

Initially, cases of abuse and illegal diversion occurred

primarily in poor, rural communities in Virginia, Kentucky,

West Virginia and Ohio. Abuse is no longer limited to

Appalachia. The drug has found its way to urban areas and

there are now reports of widespread abuse as far away as

Arizona. Florida, I am told, has been hit extremely hard.

Several pharmacies in my congressional District have been

robbed at gun point in recent months for OxyContin. No money

was taken; the robbers only demanded the drug. Earlier this

month, a prominent defense lawyer in northern Virginia who

twice served as a local prosecutor in Prince William County

pleaded guilty to federal drug charges linked to a large-

scale investigation into the illegal distribution of

OxyContin and other painkillers.

Communities where the illegal drug has taken hold are being

completely destroyed. I am told there is one county in

southwest Virginia where no one isn't either using the drug,

knows someone using the drug or been the victim of a crime by

someone needing the drug.

When a professional baseball player recently died after

taking the dietary supplement ephedra, your agency

immediately issued fact sheets regarding potential serious

risks of dietary supplements containing ephedra. You were

even quoted as cautioning all Americans about using dietary

supplements that contain ephedra.

According to fact sheets produced by the FDA, two deaths,

four heart attacks, nine strokes and five psychiatric cases

involving ephedra have been reported. More than 240 people

have died from the abuse of OxyContin and countless numbers

of families and communities have been torn apart by this

drug.

Your agency has done a good job educating the public about

the dangers of ephedra and other dietary supplements. I urge

you to initiate a similar public information campaign about

the dangers of abusing OxyContin.

I have previously written to your department asking for a

review of the marketing of OxyContin and its classification

for treatment of moderate to severe pain. The Food and Drug

Administration did change the warning label on OxyContin but

more needs to be done. The drug should not be marketed to

treat moderate pain. I urge you to no longer allow OxyContin

to be prescribed for moderate pain.

Too many people have died, too many families have suffered

and too many communities have been devastated by the improper

use of this drug.

Sincerely,

Frank R. Wolf,

Chairman,

Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice,

State and the Judiciary

I also have written Mark McClellan, the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, six times since April 1 about this issue, imploring the FDA to take another look at for whom and for what this drug can be prescribed. I have yet to receive a response.

The following is an excerpt from a news article that appeared in the Orlando Sentinel in February cuts right to the heart of the issue. The article was written by staff writer Doris Bloodsworth. It ran on February 21, 2003.

Fort Lauderdale--The maker of the highly profitable

narcotic painkiller OxyContin has been aggressively marketing

the drug far beyond its original purpose to ease the

suffering of cancer patients, according to company documents

released Thursday.

Purdue Pharma for several years has promoted the powerful

drug to treat less-threatening ailments, such as arthritis

and back pain, according to company marketing plans. Those

materials also discuss future marketing of the drug to

obstetricians and specialists in sports medicine.

The company fought to keep the sensitive documents secret,

but a circuit judge in Broward County ordered them released

as a result of a suit by the Orlando Sentinel and the South

Florida Sun-Sentinel.

Purdue officials say OxyContin is a highly effective

product and, when used properly, has a relatively low

addiction rate.

Federal officials have admonished the company several times

for marketing the narcotic inappropriately. And a number of

class-action suits have been filed against Purdue in other

states.

OxyContin, which has come under fire because of the number

of deaths linked to its abuse, was introduced in 1996 to help

cancer patients and others cope with chronic pain.

But Purdue, based in Stamford, Conn., recognized early on

that non-cancer patients represented a larger and more

lucrative market and sought to expand the use of its time-

release painkiller, according to the marketing plans. In a

marketing overview for 2002, the company noted that $2.1

billion in opiate sales were for non-cancer pain compared

with $396 million for cancer patients. The 1999 plans state

more than 70 percent of OxyContin prescriptions were written

for non-cancer pain.

Purdue's most recent marketing plan states: ``In 2002

OxyContin Tablets will continue to be promoted for use in the

non-malignant pain market.'' The plan cited as examples back

pain, osteoarthritis, injury and trauma.

Another goal was an attempt to ``broaden OxyContin Tablets'

usage in the management of pain due to various causes (e.g.,

back pain, osteoarthritis, neuropathic pain, post-operative

pain).''

This is only one of several news stories about OxyContin that have been appearing in papers across the country. My congressional district has not been immune from the damage inflicted by the illegal use and abuse of OxyContin. Several pharmacies in my district have been robbed at gunpoint for OxyContin. A former county prosecutor in my district has pled guilty to Federal drug charges as part of a large-scale investigation into the illegal distribution of OxyContin. Last month there was a murder in my district that is potentially linked to OxyContin. Sadly, the daughter of the man who was murdered died last week of a drug overdose. Press reports allude that OxyContin may have been involved in the overdose. Just last week The Post reported that two slayings in another part of my district are possibly linked to the trade of OxyContin.

Families, communities and careers--particularly rural communities--in Virginia, Kentucky, West Virginia, Maine, Ohio and Pennsylvania are being devastated by the illegal use and abuse of OxyContin. Clearly, there is a problem. Some law enforcement officials I have talked to say the illegal use of this drug could be the next crack cocaine. A recent story in The New York Times said that ``no other drug in the last 20 years has been abused more widely so soon after its introduction'' than OxyContin.

My subcommittee on the Commerce-Justice-State and the Judiciary appropriations held a hearing last December on OxyContin and is pushing the DEA to develop an aggressive plan to combat the illegal use of the drug. The hearing was comprehensive. We heard from the DEA, the pharmaceutical company that manufactures OxyContin, representatives from the American Cancer Society and the parents of recovering addicts.

My subcommittee also set aside a significant amount of money for the Justice Department for a grant program to help states develop a prescription drug monitoring system. Ideally, the program would be aimed at monitoring Schedule II drugs, not all prescription drugs.

In the meantime, I urge the Department of Health and Human Services and the FDA to reexamine to whom this drug can be prescribed before it does any more harm. Failure to take action will result in more deaths.

Mr. Speaker, I recently shared with our colleagues observations following my recent two-day trip to southern Iraq. I was there Sunday, May 25, and Monday, May 26. I also spent a day, Tuesday, May 27, in Kuwait, where I met with Kuwaiti government officials, members of the U.S. military, State Department officials and staff from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

Today I want to share with our colleagues a number of recommendations concerning the reconstruction of Iraq.

Recommendations: these recommendations are based on my observations and conversations with the people I met during the course of my visit. Some were discussed in greater detail in the observations section of my trip report.

Security: security is priority one. While the coalition forces have made great strides in trying to improve security in recent weeks, there is still a long way to go. Security is the linchpin to winning the peace in Iraq. That means security for coalition forces. Security for the NGOs. Security for the contractors. And security for the Iraqi people so they can go about their life. The gun turn-back program recently announced by Ambassador Bremer is a positive step but many are concerned that people may turn in only one gun and keep two. In addition to concerns about personal safety, looting remains a problem. I was told that looters continue to target electrical substations in southern Iraq, stealing the copper wire to sell on the black market. These substations provide much of the power for Baghdad. Coalition forces should provide security until it can be provided by the Iraqis.

Justice System: re-establishing a fair and just judicial system in a timely fashion is critical. Figuring out what to do with locals who break the law, such as looters, but are not a threat to U.S. security must be addressed as soon as possible. The laws need to be clear and must be enforced.

`Play to Win': ``Play to Win,'' the final report of the bipartisan Commission on Post-Conflict Reconstruction, should be used as the blueprint for rebuilding Iraq.

The report, released in January, was produced jointly by the Association of the United States Army and the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Its 17 recommendations provide an excellent model to follow. The commission is made up of 27 distinguished individuals with extensive experience in government, the military, non- governmental organizations and international aid groups. It met throughout 2002 to ``consider recommendations that surfaced over two years of research, expert working groups, and vetting with current policymakers and practitioners.'' The report can be found on the Internet at http://www.pcrproject.org

Commission Visits: a select group of the Commission on Post Conflict Reconstruction should travel to Iraq.

The panel's co-chairmen, Dr. John Hamre, former deputy secretary of defense, and Gen. Gordon Sullivan, former chief of staff of the U.S. Army, should appoint a select number of commissioners to travel to Iraq to assess how the reconstruction efforts are going. Their assessment, a second opinion, if you will, would be impartial and could prove to be invaluable. They should travel in a small group with a military escort to ensure their safety.

Congressional Oversight: small groups of members of Congress should make the trip to Iraq. They should go without publicity to ensure their safety and the safety of those who would be providing protection. Their visit to learn more about what is happening in the country and what it is going to take to rebuild the country would be helpful in their oversight responsibility in Congress. The chairmen and ranking Members--or their designees--of the House and Senate Armed Services committees, Appropriations committees and International Relations/ Foreign Relations committees should consider going.

In addition to meeting with military commanders, the members should meet with Ambassador Bremer and other officials in the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA), USAID officials, representatives from the NGO community and other international organizations, and Iraqi citizens.

Partnering with Iraqi People: every effort must be made to involve the Iraqi people in rebuilding their country, from governance to security to repairing the country's infrastructure. The Iraqi people must be an equal partner in the process.

``Play to Win'' is instructive on this point: ``. . . every effort must be taken to build (or rebuild) indigenous capacity and governance structures as soon as possible. Leadership roles in the reconstruction effort must be given to host country nationals at the earliest possible stage of the process. Even if capacity is limited, host country representatives should chair or co-chair pledging conferences, priority-setting meetings, joint assessment of needs, and all other relevant processes.''

American companies awarded contracts to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure should hire locals whenever possible. There are many skilled and educated people in Iraq and they should be tapped to help rebuild their country.

Reconstruction Support: the sooner the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, now called the Coalition Provisional Authority, is completely operational the better. Every effort should be made to ensure that Ambassador Bremer and his staff have the necessary tools and resources to successfully complete the job.

Provincial Officers: the military's Civil Affairs detachments in Iraq have worked diligently to help restore order and are making more and more progress every day. Consideration should be given to providing the officer in charge of each of the 18 provinces in Iraq with access to a ready cash account--perhaps up to $500,000--so they can more quickly hire translators, laborers and other locals to assist in their efforts in putting together a government without having to get every expenditure signed off by headquarters or Washington.

The money also could be used to purchase goods and services in- country, such as generators, pumps or even a trash truck, on a more timely basis rather than waiting for it to be brought in by coalition forces.

Government on any level needs money to operate. Clearly, this money must be accounted for, but it would greatly assist in the efforts to rebuild the country.

Civilian Expertise: consideration also should be given to helping augment the work of the Civil Affairs detachments by bringing in U.S. civilians with expertise in local government, such as county administrators and city managers, as well as experts in agriculture and public works. In each of the 18 provinces, the head of each military Civil Affairs detachment acts like a governor. They need experts--much like a cabinet--at their disposal who can advise them on issues like banking, education, public works and health care.

For example, the National Association of County Administrators could assist in rotating in civilian administrators to work with the military and local Iraqis in setting up and running local governments. There could be one for each of the 18 provinces. Some of the leading agriculture companies in the country could lend their expertise on irrigation and production. The head of the public works department in any large county or city in the country would bring an inordinate amount of experience to the table. There also is a great deal of expertise in the Federal Government which can be tapped. Again, these individuals would work hand-in-hand with the military and the locals.

Post-Combat Skills: the U.S. military has to begin thinking about training more of its soldiers for a postcombat environment to help fill any void until the necessary Civil Affairs and Military Police units can be put in place. I realize this is asking our war fighters to take on a new mission, but in this new world environment, I believe this skill is necessary.

Communications Systems: communications and communication systems remain a problem for both the military and the aid organizations working in Iraq. I was told that not all of the Civil Affairs detachments are readily able to communicate with each other or with the Humanitarian Assistance Center in Kuwait, which is coordinating all the civil affairs and humanitarian assistance in Iraq. Contacting U.S. officials in Baghdad also is problematic. I was told part of the problem is that most Civil Affairs detachments are made up of reserve units which do not always have compatible communications equipment. This needs to be addressed. It is imperative that all 18 provinces be linked with each other and headquarters. Congress should provide DOD with the necessary funding to ensure that these detachments have radios, computers and other communications equipment that are interoperable.

Aid organizations also are encountering problems communicating with their staff in southern Iraq because telephone and other

data transmission lines have yet to be repaired. This presents a problem, especially for sharing data and supplying information.

Iraq's banking system: the issue of Iraqi currency must be dealt with immediately. Many people in Iraq will not accept payment with the old regime's currency. The World Bank should provide its expertise in helping get Iraq's banking system back up and running.

The Story of Democracy: the State Department working with the National Endowment for Democracy and other groups with similar expertise should develop a program on democracy and how a democratic government works.

I was told that Iraqis watch a great deal of television. Perhaps whatever program is developed should be put on videotapes and tailored to specific age groups so that all Iraqis can understand the democratic process. This program must be made available to the Civil Affairs units in each of the 18 provinces. I understand money already has been appropriated and some contracts have been let. This program must be put into place as soon as possible.

A pro-democracy newspaper also should begin to be published on a daily basis in Iraq.

Ordnance Removal: finding and removing unexploded ordnance needs to be a priority. Sadly, many Iraqi children have been seriously hurt by exploding weapons while playing outdoors. When I visited the General Hospital in Nasiriyah, a young boy had just been brought into the emergency room after either a mine or unexploded ordnance blew up near him. He was severely burned and there was a piece of shrapnel in his right eye. Clearing this ordnance will be a long and laborious process.

Health Care: while great progress has been made to improve health care in southern Iraq since the war ended, there is still a long way to go. While the major hospitals in southern Iraq used to bear Saddam Hussein's name--and are all identically constructed--there was little or no medicine and the conditions inside are deplorable. One NGO that is providing invaluable assistance is the International Medical Corps (IMC). Their doctors, nurses, nutritionists and other health care professionals are making great strides in assessing the health care needs of Iraq. They are also helping provide care. I was told that IMC has helped distribute more than two tons of donated medicine to hospitals and clinics in southern Iraq. There is concern, however, that diseases like malaria and visceral leishmaniasis--also called Dum Dum Fever or Black Fever--could ravage the region this summer because no spraying was done this spring to kill the mosquito larvae or sand flea larvae. Bites from sand fleas are the cause of visceral leishmaniasis, which attacks internal organs. This disease has an 80 percent fatality rate for young children unless treated with a 21-day shot routine. Cholera is another concern. Area hospitals and American drug companies should work with medical NGOs in Iraq to ensure they have an adequate drug supply and the necessary equipment to provide medical services. Any assistance must be coordinated with NGOs on the ground so there is not any duplication of efforts or unnecessary equipment donated.

Women's Health: improving health services for women will be particularly important as the reconstruction of Iraq moves forward. More focus is needed on pre- and post-natal care. The surgical capabilities in the country are seriously lacking. Special instruments for delivering babies and performing cesarean sections are needed. So are the proper medications for delivery. More nurses also need to be trained.

Religious Freedom: as a new government is established in Iraq, care must be given to protect the rights of religious minorities. I urge the Bush Administration to develop a strategy and governance structure within the new Iraqi government to ensure that the hard won freedoms of the Iraqi people also will include the right and protection of religious liberties.

Quality of Life for Troops: the troops serving in the Gulf region are outstanding. The ones I spoke with were highly skilled, highly motivated and extremely professional. They all have made great sacrifices to serve their country. In turn, we should do everything possible to make sure their morale remains high. Hearing from home is a big part of that. Congress should provide DOD with the necessary resources to ensure these service men and women serving in the Gulf, and around the globe for that matter, are able to get messages from home, whether by phone, e-mail or regular mail.

Commendation for Kuwait: Congress should approve a resolution thanking the government and people of Kuwait for their assistance in helping to provide humanitarian relief to Iraq. The Kuwaiti government has provided millions of dollars in assistance, both in-kind and in material goods. The United States' Humanitarian Operations Center is run out of a former government facility in Kuwait City.

NGOs Valuable Role: the NGOs on the ground in the region also have done a tremendous job responding to the needs of the Iraqi people. From helping provide food to medical care to caring for orphans, their experience and expertise has proven invaluable. I was told some of the NGOs in the region are concerned that the humanitarian assistance is being coordinated by the U.S. military. Some of their misgivings may be justified. As the ORHA/CPA gets up and running, however, I suspect many of their concerns will be alleviated. Care must be given though to ensure that ORHA/CPA does not duplicate efforts that are already underway.

Conclusion: in closing, I want to thank all those who helped make my trip possible. For security reasons I cannot mention people by name, but I am forever grateful for their assistance.

I also want to thank all the NGOs who are providing humanitarian assistance in Iraq. The people who work and volunteer for these organizations are extremely dedicated. They work long hours and give up the many comforts of home to serve others, often in very dangerous places around the globe, like Iraq and Afghanistan. They are a special breed and deserve our thanks and praise.

Finally, I want to thank several members of my staff for their help in putting together this report. Dan Scandling, my chief of staff, accompanied me on the trip and served as photographer. Janet Shaffron, my legislative director, edited the report and Colin Samples did the layout and design.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Norton amendment. I would ask all Members to support it.

This airport authority, I was involved, as was the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), Mr. Mineta, and a number of us, the gentlemen from Virginia, Mr. Moran and Mr. Davis, in putting this together. They have done an outstanding job. Those airports were in the 19th century when they took it over. Dulles has expanded and has first-class service. If we look at National Airport now with the parking and everything else, they have really done a great job.

I would urge the House to respect the local airports authority, which has proven I think, without doubt, it can successfully operate both of these airports. I would urge them to support the Norton amendment. I would say if Members bring this back to their own hometown, just as they would not want Congress dictating how to run Members' local airports, we really do not want the Congress to tell them how to run it because they have done an outstanding job.

With that, I would urge that Members support the Norton amendment. I strongly support it. I appreciate the efforts of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) with regard to that.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Norton amendment which would repeal the requirement that the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA) must come to Congress before September 30, 2004, to ensure that the local airports can continue to receive development project grants and impose a passenger facility fee.

I was part of the bipartisan coalition in 1987 which successfully secured the passage of legislation signed by President Reagan which transferred both Reagan National and Dulles International from Federal control to the local airports authority. Because of that change to local control, both airports today are success stories.

Passenger activity at National and Dulles Airports has nearly doubled to 31 million passengers in 2002. A massive capital development program at both airports has totaled well over $3 billion. Reagan National Airport was modernized in 1997 with a new terminal building including major improvements to airport traffic management and Metro system connections.

At Dulles, there are new concourses and the airport's first parking garages, and under way is a $3.2 billion capital improvement project. In tandem with the airport's growth, the Smithsonian Institution will open its new Air and Space Museum annex later this year located at Dulles Airport.

These airports have proven they are quality facilities serving not only the people in the Washington area, but air travelers across the Nation and around the world.

There is simply no reason for the airports to be called to Congress to prove their worthiness. What other airports in the country have to make such a command performance? None. Zero.

Congress got out of the airports business in 1987. It's time to stop micro-managing Reagan National and Dulles.

I also want to say how disappointed I am that Mr. Moran was foreclosed by the rule from offering his amendment on the slots issue at Reagan National.

A delicate balance exists between flight operations at Dulles and Reagan. Increased take offs and landings at Reagan National and more flights beyond the 1,250-mile perimeter hurt Dulles, where longer haul flights originate. Those flight changes also mean coping with more noise for citizens living in the Washington area.

I would urge my colleagues to respect the local airports authority, which has proven it can successfully operate the Washington area airports, and support the Norton amendment.

Just as you would not want Congress dictating how to run your local airport, I would ask you to let the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority do its job in operating Reagan National and Dulles without congressional interference.

Mr. Speaker, I want to share in the comments of the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) and agree with him. Also, I would ask the Members that are thinking of voting against this, this boils down to be really kind of a moral issue of famine in Africa. I learned about this issue from our former Member, Congressman Tony Hall.

What is happening in Africa, there are 35 million to 40 million people that are basically almost starving to death. In Zambia and Zimbabwe, they have been using this argument, and the people are starving and the genetically modified or biotech foods are in the warehouses. What is taking place is some of our friends, and they are friends in Europe, are using this as a trade mechanism with regard to their economy and their jobs; and as a result of this, people are dying in Africa.

So this is an issue with regard to the economy, but I will not say more important; but I personally believe it is more important. It is an issue of people, particularly in Africa. People living in Ethiopia, there is a famine of biblical proportions. Now, fortunately, the Ethiopian Government is not foreclosing this; but in Zambia they are, in Zimbabwe, Mugabe has it in the warehouses and the people are starving outside, and they cannot eat. Some of the other countries, Uganda is going through the same thing. They have genetically modified banana plants. Their banana industry is falling off, and they are afraid to use it because they are afraid they will not be able to have their exports going in to France.

So this resolution is a good resolution. This also would help us feed the people of the world who are starving. So I would hope everyone would vote for this. And if any Members have any doubts before this vote, they may want to call Tony up in Rome at the Food and Agricultural Organization and get his thinking, because this is a major issue of famine and feeding hungry people, particularly in Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 252, but not because of the benefits to U.S. trade or our agricultural industry, but out of concern for the millions of hungry people around the globe. In a world as plentiful as ours, it is unconscionable that women and children still die of hunger.

I have traveled to Africa to witness the devastation of famines, first in 1984 and most recently, earlier this year. I saw women and children who were too weak to feed themselves. Thankfully, relief efforts for the 30 million Africans, whose lives are in peril, are not being complicated by refusals of certain food supplies, as was the case last year in Zambia.

Developing countries need biotechnology to improve crop viability and yield. However, as long as such agricultural products remain unacceptable to European markets, developing countries are likely to continue to reject the very thing they need to bring them to self- sufficiency and beyond.

American agricultural products are among the safest in the world-- even Europe's officials admit that. But making a convincing case on the safety of U.S. products is difficult.

Last year, Zambians turned down genetically modified maize from the U.S., fearing that when their agricultural industry recovers, they would no longer be able to sell their products to their main export market, Europe.

In an effort to alleviate this concern, and at considerably increased costs, the U.S. offered a milled version free from any seeds that farmers could plant, thereby protecting Zambia's agricultural sector. Tragically, the Zambian government never accepted the food.

Famine relief and building longer term self-sufficiency in Africa is a global issue that requires a response from all nations. The U.S. has provided leadership through its contribution in 2002 of 51 percent of the food provided by the UN World Food Programme. Europe's combined contribution totaled only 27 percent.

I don't know which saddens me more, knowing that European countries like France have the ability to contribute more to famine relief efforts, but haven't, or knowing the situation is being exacerbated by European opposition to importing biotech agricultural products.

This resolution is an important statement to encourage the Administration in its efforts to challenge the unwarranted moratorium by EU countries on genetically modified agricultural products.

I urge a unanimous vote of support.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill today. There are going to be several amendments offered. One amendment will be offered as if it is an antigambling amendment. In essence, the amendment will actually bring this bill down. Fifteen years ago, there was gambling in two States, Nevada and New Jersey. Once we in this country moved to what we call convenience gambling, we have seen an increase in crime, corruption, domestic violence, physical abuse, and many other bad things that we Republicans and Democrats do not want to see. The ultimate in what is called ``convenience gambling,'' meaning that you do not have to go very far to gamble, is Internet gambling where you can sit in your own family room in your bathrobe on a rainy weekend and literally go broke in about 24 hours.

There will be an amendment offered that will be sort of viewed as maybe some of the pro-family groups are for it. Let me say I have a letter to the gentleman from Alabama signed by the Christian Coalition, Concerned Women for America, the Family Research Council, the General Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church, and the National Council of Churches, the National Council of Churches headed by former Democratic Congressman Bob Edgar who served here for many years.

I would ask you, do not support the amendments that will weaken this bill. Internet gambling is beginning to be very corrosive in our society. We have a chance to deal with Internet gambling in the Bachus bill that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and other Members of the House have put forth. I rise in strong support of the bill. I think this is an opportunity to get control of Internet gambling and to do it in a way that is constructive and positive.

I ask my colleagues, one, support the bill on final passage; but, lastly, do not support any amendments that may appear on the surface to be good but what will in essence bring down this bill and thereby mean that Internet gambling will never be controlled. Five to 7 percent of the young people in our country are addicted to gambling.

As Internet gambling becomes easier and easier, that addiction rate goes up.

So I hope Members will oppose the amendments that will really bring the bill down, and on final passage do something to help this country, to help the young people, to get control of it, to get control and regulate Internet gambling.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2143, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act, legislation needed to prevent the use of credit cards, checks, or electronic funds transfers for unlawful Internet gambling. It will be of vital assistance in curbing illegal Internet gambling.

This legislation states in the findings section that: ``the National Gambling Impact Study Commission in 1999 recommended the passage of legislation to prohibit wire transfers to Internet gambling sites or the banks which represent them.''

As the author of the legislation which established the commission, I am pleased to see that one of its most important recommendations may indeed become law. The spread of Internet gambling means that people can now gamble at the workplace and their homes, around the clock. The unchecked progress of Internet gambling must be curbed.

The National Gambling Impact Study Commission report went on to state that gambling can breed bankruptcy, divorce, domestic violence, and physical and emotional problems. Even suicide has been linked to gambling. Often times, even school-aged children--who have never gambled before--are lured into on-line gambling.

H.R. 2143 will establish an enforcement structure that will let federal regulators set up regulations which will limit the acceptance of bank instruments such as credit cards for use in illegal Internet gambling, reducing the chance for gambling to gain a further foothold in our society.

Before I close, let me share with you a story. Donna Kelly, a mother of a 12-year-old daughter and a 7-year-old son developed a gambling problem. At one time there were 13 warrants for her arrest for writing bad checks. Gambling had so wrecked her life that she saw only one option: suicide. Two days before Thanksgiving, she tried to kill herself. She failed, and was placed in a mental hospital. Mrs. Kelly spent Thanksgiving in a mental hospital because of her gambling problem.

Her daughter asked her afterwards, ``Momma, why did you try to kill yourself? Do you not love me anymore?'' This is the human dimension to gambling. This story illustrates why it is so important to vote for this bill. When you cast your vote today, remember the many lives ruined by gambling, and remember the family members left devastated by their loved ones gambling activities.

Internet gambling is a vast and growing enterprise which can serve as an avenue for money launders and terrorist funding. Gambling also involves great social costs. This bill will reduce access to the medium of the Internet as another forum for inducing people to

gamble. I urge Members to vote for this legislation.

Hon. Spencer Bachus,

House of Representatives, Financial Services Committee

Member, Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Bachus: As a diverse bipartisan

coalition of family and faith-based organizations, we are

very concerned with the effects of gambling on our society

and the well-being of young people and families. We write to

strongly support the passage of H.R. 2143, To Prevent the Use

of Certain Bank Instruments for Unlawful Internet Gambling,

and for Other Purposes. Internet Gambling is already against

the law in all 50 states, yet offshore gambling interests

continue to operate without any accountability and are

available in every state by utilizing the Internet. We urge

you to support H.R. 2143 and reject any amendment or proposal

which would weaken the bill or hinder its enforcement

according to current federal law.

The National Gambling Impact Study Commission Report

presents a disturbing and devastating picture of the effect

of gambling on families. Some critical points to consider in

the report as it relates to Internet gambling are:

Gambling costs society $5 billion a year in societal costs

including job loss, unemployment benefits, welfare benefits,

poor physical and mental health, and problem or pathological

gambling treatment, bankruptcy, arrests, imprisonment, legal

fees for divorce, and so forth.

Because the Internet can be used anonymously, the danger

exists that access to Internet gambling will be abused by

underage gamblers, our children and youth.

The high-speed instant gratification of Internet games and

the high level of privacy they offer may exacerbate problem

and pathological gambling.

Lack of accountability also raises the potential for

criminal activities, which can occur in several ways. First,

there is the possibility of abuse by gambling operators. Most

Internet service providers hosting Internet gambling

operations are physically located offshore; as a result,

operators can alter, move, or entirely remove sites within

minutes. Furthermore, gambling on the Internet provides an

easy means for money laundering. Internet gambling provides

anonymity, remote access, and encrypted data. To launder

money, a person need only deposit money into an offshore

account, use those funds to gamble, lose a small percent of

the original funds, then cash out the remaining funds.

Through the dual protection of encryption and anonymity, much

of this activity can take place undetected.

Computer hackers or gambling operators may tamper with

gambling software to manipulate games to their benefit.

Unlike the physical world of highly regulated resort-

destination casinos, assessing the integrity of Internet

operators is quite difficult.

Please support H.R. 2143 and reject the spread of a

predatory industry, which is contrary to the well-being of

individuals and all of society.

Sincerely,

Christian Coalition of America, Concerned Women for

America, Family Research Council, General Board of

Church and Society of the United Methodist Church,

National Council of Christians.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Sensenbrenner amendment. There has been a lot of talk on the floor and sometimes what appears to be is not to be. It is very, very confusing to somebody who is watching it. Simply, it is a poison pill. The Sensenbrenner amendment is a poison pill. If you want to kill the bill, vote for Sensenbrenner. It looks good. It looks good, but it will hurt the effort. Many people, particularly young people, will be hurt by the failure of this bill to pass.

If you want this bill to pass, if you are opposed to Internet gambling, if you care about the future of these young people, I ask you to vote against the Sensenbrenner amendment and vote in support of the base bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, Mr. McGovern and I introduced a resolution to help draw attention to the 33 million hungry Americans. The resolution recognizes organizations such as America's Second Harvest that provide emergency food assistance to hungry people in the United States, and encourages all Americans to provide volunteer services and other support for local anti-hunger advocacy efforts and hunger relief charities, including food banks, food rescue organizations, food pantries, soup kitchens, and emergency shelters.

On National Hunger Awareness Day I have mixed emotions. I am proud of the armies of compassion that are represented by organizations such as America's Second Harvest. But I'm also sad because its been nearly 40 years since President Johnson declared war on poverty and hunger and yet, today, 13 million kids STILL live in households that do not have an adequate supply of food. (USDA)

In 2001, there were 33.6 million Americans--20 million adults and 13 million children--who were hungry or at risk of hunger. (USDA) In Matthew 25, Jesus talks about the obligation to feed the hungry. In a world, and especially a nation, as plentiful as ours, it is tragic that even one child is hungry.

My state of Virginia is better off than many states. We are below the national average poverty rate of 11.6 percent. We have fewer people who don't have food--7.6 percent versus the national average of 10.4 percent.

Yet, hunger is still rampant here. 294,434 children, or 43.4 percent, received free or reduced-price meals.

Substantial progress has been made to feed the hungry in the United States, yet too many Americans still go to bed hungry and feel the effects of food deprivation. Federal programs like the Food Stamp Program, child nutrition programs, and food donation programs, provide essential nutritional support to millions of low-income people, but the need remains. Thankfully, community- and faith-based institutions are providing assistance to hungry people across the country.

The armies of compassion are working hard, but we each must do our part to join in and support them. Barriers need to be eliminated to allow businesses to do the morally conscionable thing and donate their surplus food. It's outrageous that it is more ``cost effective'' for a business to throw out or destroy surplus food rather than donate it to a local soup kitchen. A White House conference on hunger, like the one my colleague Senator Dole called for just this morning, would be an ideal venue to discuss these important issues.

I hope that in the midst of the facts and statistics, no one misses the REAL point of National Hunger Awareness Day--that in a land of plenty, 13 million children still go to bed hungry. A country which is as blessed as ours needs to do better.

Mr. Speaker, I just returned from spending two days in southern Iraq. I was there Sunday, May 25, and Monday, May 26. I also spent a day, Tuesday, May 27, in Kuwait, where I met with Kuwaiti government officials, members of the U.S. military, State Department officials and staff from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

Today I want to share with our colleagues some details of my trip. On another day, I will

share a number of recommendations concerning the reconstruction of Iraq.

Let me begin by praising the efforts of all the soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and members of the Coast Guard who served--or are continuing to serve--in Operation Iraqi Freedom. They are the best of the best. I cannot emphasize enough how good a job they have done and continue to do. They and their families all have made tremendous sacrifices.

I was particularly impressed with the soldiers and Marines I talked with who are reservists called to active duty. Many left good jobs and/ or school to serve. Their professionalism and attitude were exceptional.

I also want to express my heartfelt sympathy to all the families who lost loved ones during the war. We will never forget--and will always be grateful for--their service to the cause of freedom.

All the soldiers and Marines I met in Iraq are doing an incredible job under extremely difficult conditions. The heat in Iraq and Kuwait is oppressive and will only get worse as summer approaches. It was over 100 degrees both days I was in Iraq. I was told that the temperature can sometimes reach 140 degrees in July and August. The living conditions for most of the soldiers that I saw were primitive.

Reason for Trip

I believed it was important to go to Iraq to get a first-hand look at the reconstruction efforts that are under way and to assess the humanitarian assistance that is being provided. I crossed over the border into Iraq from Kuwait. I visited the towns of Nasiriyah, Al Kut and Al Amarah.

I spent the night in Nasiriyah--where some of the heaviest fighting during the war took place--then traveled northeast to Al Kut on Monday morning. From there I headed south to Al Amarah then passed through the outskirts of Basra on the way back to the Iraq-Kuwait border.

During the trip I talked with a number of Iraqis, visited two hospitals, including the one from which Army Pfc. Jessica Lynch was rescued, met with military officials, and spent a considerable amount of time with representatives from several non-governmental organizations (NGOs) working in Iraq.

I saw what was left of one of Saddam Hussein's infamous torture chambers, heard ghastly stories about the brutality of Saddam's regime and was told of mass graves. I saw paintings, posters and statues of Saddam defaced or destroyed. His name was scratched off or punched out from signs on buildings bearing his name. I saw ``No to Saddam Yes for Bush'' spray painted in green letters on the side of a building just after crossing over the border from Kuwait.

I saw very sick children, many of whom are probably now dead, and was amazed by the bravery of a young boy I saw in the emergency room of a hospital. He had been brought in just minutes before I arrived. He had been playing outdoors and came in contact with either a land mine or unexploded ordnance. His face was severely burned and a piece of shrapnel was deeply embedded in his right eye. Blood was streaming down his face onto his chest. He looked to be about 10-years-old. He never cried.

I saw the results of precision-guided bombing. It is amazing. In Nasiriyah, I was taken by what was left of the former home of a Baath Party leader. The house was sandwiched between several other homes. While it was reduced to rubble, none of the surrounding houses appeared to sustain any damage.

I was told that Radio Sawa, a 24-hour, seven-days-a-week Arabic- language network whose programming originates from the United States and is broadcast in the region, is very popular. The network plays a mix of the best Western and Arabic pop music and has balanced up-to- the-minute news and analysis. It also broadcasts features on a variety of political and social issues and does in-depth reports on the development of freedom and democracy in the Middle East.

Some were skeptical of the success of the broadcasts. But I was told by locals that since Radio Sawa went on the air in spring 2002, few listen to Arabic radio stations anymore.

Tough Conditions

Life in southern Iraq is difficult. Poverty is widespread. Buildings are dilapidated. Trash and rubble litter the streets. Many of the trees have been cut down and used for firewood because propane was so scarce under Saddam's rule. The water is putrid.

Saddam Hussein did everything in his power over the last decade to make life in towns like Nasiriyah as miserable as possible because of the uprisings following the first Gulf war. It was their punishment for opposing his iron-fisted rule. Thousands of men who defied Saddam literally disappeared and have never been heard from since; they are presumed dead.

The conditions in the two hospitals I visited--while dramatically improved over the last month--are pitiful. At what was once the Saddam General Hospital in Nasiriyah--now just called the General Hospital-- there are no screens on the doors. As a consequence, any time a door is opened, bugs--particularly flies--come streaming in. Flies were swarming over two of the empty beds in the emergency room.

There is no monitoring equipment for the beds in the emergency room. In fact, I saw very little monitoring equipment anywhere in the hospital. Imagine walking into your local hospital and not seeing a machine to monitor your pulse or take your blood pressure. Medicine also is in short supply. It was depressing.

Security in Iraq remains a real concern, not only for coalition forces but for the general public. Lives continue to be lost. Whether I was talking to military officials, NGOs or Iraqis, security was the first issue they always addressed. Looting is still a problem in some parts of the country and I heard several stories about robberies and carjackings. I was told MPs in Nasiriyah successfully stopped a car jacking the Sunday night I was there.

Many Iraqis are afraid to go back to work for fear their home may be looted or that they may be robbed. Several people told me that hearing random gun fire after sundown has become commonplace.

The NGOs that I talked with said that it was not unusual for their vehicles to be pelted with rocks in some parts of the country. Civilian convoys are threatened. No one travels after sunset.

One reason for the lawlessness is that before the war started, Saddam Hussein opened all the prisons, releasing both political prisoners and hardened criminals. Murderers. Rapists. Robbers. Getting these criminals back behind bars is critical.

blueprint for iraq

In order for the United States to win the peace in Iraq it is imperative that we restore law and order. We need to redouble our efforts to ensure that Iraq is safe.

In ``Play to Win,'' the final report of the bipartisan Commission on Post-Conflict Reconstruction, security is one of the four ``pillars'' of post-conflict reconstruction. The other three are: justice and reconciliation; economic and social well being, and governance and participation.

This comprehensive report published in January 2003 by the Association of the United States Army and the Center for Strategic and International Studies should serve as the blueprint for the reconstruction efforts in Iraq. Members of the commission include retired military officers, representatives from the NGO community and international aid organizations, former high-ranking executive branch officials, and Members of Congress with expertise in foreign affairs.

Among those on the commission are: Dr. John Hamre, former deputy secretary of defense; Richard Holbrooke, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations; Gen. Gordon Sullivan, former chief of staff of the U.S. Army; Senator Pat Roberts, chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and Rep. Doug Bereuter, chairman of the House Subcommittee on Intelligence Policy and National Security. (I, too, was a member of the commission, although I did not have a leading role.)

The report makes 17 recommendations ``on what the United States will have to do to enable itself to help countries successfully rebuild themselves following conflict.''

I have asked the commission to provide me with 535 copies of the report so I can share it with my colleagues. It also can be found on the Internet at http://www.pcrproject.org

Below is an excerpt from the report on the issue of security:

``Security is the sine qua non of post-conflict reconstruction. Though every case is different, there is one constant--if security needs are not met, both the peace in the given country and the intervention needed to promote it are doomed to fail. Unless comprehensive security needs are addressed up front, spoilers will find the weak areas and retain leverage to affect the political outcomes, vitiating the peace. While peace is essential, it never will be one hundred percent guaranteed and the perfect must not become the enemy of the good. In order to achieve acceptable levels of security, `coalitions of the willing' and the UN peacekeeping operations need coherent military leadership and core troops from a lead nation that provide the backbone of the operation. The international community must also enhance its ability to deploy civilian police to address temporary needs. In addition, efforts to design and reconstruct local security institutions, including both military and police, must begin early in the process.''

I believe the Bush Administration would be well served to have several members of the commission visit Iraq to measure how the reconstruction efforts match the recommendations in the report. Dr. Hamre and Gen. Sullivan, who served as the co-chairmen of the commission, could be charged with selecting which members should go. There should be no objection to this recommendation. Each of the commission members has a distinguished

and extensive background. Their insight and observations could prove to be invaluable.

In addition to members of the Commission on Post-Conflict Reconstruction visiting Iraq, members of Congress should visit as well. In my opinion, it would make sense for the chairman and ranking member--or their designees--of the following committees to travel to Iraq:

House and Senate Armed Services committees;

House International Relations Committee;

Senate Foreign Relations Committee; and

House and Senate Appropriations committees.

Members should spend time in all parts of Iraq. Obviously safety and security are issues that must be considered, but the trips could be made in small groups without publicity. The only way to get a feel for what is happening is by visiting the towns and cities and talking to the people living there.

In addition to meeting with military commanders, these members or their designees should meet with Ambassador L. Paul Bremer III, the civilian administrator of Iraq, and other officials from the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA)-now called the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA)-USAID officials, and representatives from the NGO community and other international aid organizations. Meetings with Iraqi citizens also should be set up.

Congress needs to be involved in-and kept up-to-date on-the reconstruction of Iraq. Clearly, there is a great deal at stake for the United States in Iraq. The reconstruction effort is going to be long and arduous. No one is naive enough to believe it is going to happen overnight. Nor is anyone naive enough to think that it is not going to come without problems and challenges.

Yet, if Congress is not involved, the Bush Administration is going to be left without a partner in rebuilding Iraq. The Congress is the Bush Administration's greatest ally. There should be nothing to hide. And after my trip, I believe there is great deal to tell-much of it positive.

We must, however, be realistic. We have a long, long way to go in the reconstruction of Iraq. We have won the war, and we must be careful not to lose the peace. Failure cannot be an option. A well developed plan for reconstruction is imperative and congressional involvement will help the Bush Administration from steering off course as it works to rebuild Iraq.

Mr. Chairman, I congratulate our men and women in uniform and in civilian positions who helped liberate Iraq from the grip of Saddam Hussein. Our military--the finest in the world--has in the course of just two years liberated Afghanistan, played a vital role in defending the homeland against terrorism, and worked with our allies to hunt down terrorists. I am grateful to all those who protect our national security, both in and out of uniform. They have my deep respect. They are outstanding Americans and valued federal employees. Indeed, a large number of federal employees, many of whom work for the Department of Defense, call the 10th Congressional District of Virginia their home, and I am proud to be their Representative in Congress.

As we debate H.R. 1588 the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004, I want to express my support for many important programs included in this bill which are investments to make sure that our military remains the best in the world, as it should. Our service men and women and those civilians who support them deserve only the best. Our colleague and my classmate, Duncan Hunter, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, deserves our congratulations for the hard work of his committee in bringing this bill to the floor.

There are some provisions in this bill, however, which deeply concern me. Those address the wholesale personnel reforms and management authority changes at the Defense Department which I believe could shortchange civilian employees and come on the heels of the many recent historic accomplishments made possible by these very employees.

The Department of Defense has acted with lightning speed in presenting to Congress a number of changes to its personnel system. There was minimal consultation with members of Congress, little notice of its plans provided, and relatively few hearings held about this sweeping proposal. Why such a rush to change?

H.R. 1588 would radically alter the way in which many Department of Defense employees are paid, establishing a pay-for-performance plan with standards which are in some cases subjective. The Secretary of Defense would be able to overrule the director of the Office of Personnel and Management in making personnel decisions, if the President agreed with the Secretary.

The Department of Defense would be granted more power than ever before in how it structures policies which will impact its 746,000 civilian employees. While I understand the need for flexibility in the modern-day federal workplace, I am very concerned that some of the changes in H.R. 1588 champion flexibility at the expense of oversight and congressional involvement in ensuring employee protections on a fair and level civil service playing field. When oversight is limited and decisions are channeled to one source, red flags should go up about accountability and the decision-making process at DOD.

I also am concerned about what appears to be some ambiguity on the question of veterans' preference in hiring at the Department of Defense. Veterans are given preference in hiring for civil service positions in recognition of their military service to our nation. This long-standing policy allows the Department of Defense as well as other government departments and agencies to recruit and retain veterans who can continue to provide valuable service to their nation in their civilian lives. It is unclear under this legislation whether the veterans preference in hiring will remain totally intact in all areas of hiring in the Department of Defense. This lack of clarity is troubling not only as a matter of practice, but as a matter of principle: there should be a clear understanding that the veterans preference cannot be waived in any hiring circumstances.

Because of the controversial personnel change included, in this legislation, I am very disappointed that the House Rules Committee foreclosed the opportunity to amend that section of the bill. No amendments were made in order concerning the civil service portion of H.R. 1588. Some colleagues, including Representative Cooper were prepared to offer a valuable amendment and had submitted it to the Rules Committee. That amendment would have created an Employees Bill of Rights offering fundamental civil service protections for the civilian employees at the Department of Defense. That amendment should have been made in order, and this House should have had the chance to debate that amendment. Had we been given that opportunity, I would have voted for the Cooper amendment.

Our colleague Representative Ike Skelton, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, argued yesterday in a Washington Post op-ed that ``major reassignments of constitutional authority such as this demand the same sort of thoughtful foresight as a war plan.'' He added that ``the only thing that is obvious and consistent throughout the 50 provisions included in this bill is the aggregation of power sought for the Department of Defense, removing the legal restrictions and congressional oversight that should safeguard against any abuses, however unintentional. This approach is a rush to judgment that will affect vast numbers of people and, in many cases, will enshrine bad policy in law.''

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld responded to Congressman Skelton's arguments today in his own Post op-ed. He laid out his case for what he sees as necessary ``flexibility and agility'' in managing the civilian workforce at DOD in the 21st century. I would not disagree that we are in a changed world and that the federal government must respond to those changes.

But the secretary should heed his own op-ed conclusion. He stated: ``The fact is that the transformation of our military capabilities depends on the transformation of the way the Defense Department operates. This does not mean an end to congressional oversight. What it means is that we need to work together to ensure the department has the flexibility to keep up with the new threats emerging as this century unfolds.''

Indeed. We need to work together. That means giving Congress the opportunity for thoughtful and deliberate study of this plan, time to investigate its implications, and the chance to ask the tough questions to make sure we fully understand how this plan will impact the lives of the people at the Pentagon who work to serve their country. That doesn't mean that Congress just salutes and says, ``Yes, sir,'' and rubber stamps the secretary's controversial plan.

We must ask what message this plan sends to the rest of government. Will the Department of Defense's rush into a personnel transformation plan encourage other government departments and agencies to do the same, affecting even more federal employees? Because of my concern about responding to the terrorism threat in our country, I voted for the legislation establishing the new Department of Homeland Security and allowing the department to set up new model rules which could be used to judge future decisions on personnel policy. We are on new ground and don't as yet know how well this model works. The DOD personnel proposal before the House could not only affect the Department of Defense, but may impact the entire government in ways which we cannot yet know.

I also must share my concern about a pattern of unilateral action we continue to see within the Office of the Secretary of Defense. There have been troubling news reports about how some high ranking military personnel have been treated at the Department of Defense. I am concerned how senior civilian employees would fare under the new personnel proposals for DOD.

Our Armed Forces deserve the very best, and I am pleased that this bill authorizes giving those in uniform and those civilians supporting them the funding they need to continue to do their jobs in the outstanding way in which they have in the past and will do in the future.

Unfortunately those parts of the bill relating to personnel issues have not been adequately investigated by Congress and will impact civilian employees at the Department of Defense in ways that we can only guess at this point. These Federal employees and the military deserve more than a rushed plan that fundamentally alters the way the Department of Defense interacts with its civilian employees.