Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate National Hunger Awareness Day and to honor the Arlington Food Assistance Center, which is located in my congressional district.

National Hunger Awareness Day was established to help inform individuals, communities, corporations and policy makers that hunger is a severe domestic issue and deserves our critical attention.

The Arlington Food Assistance Center's sole mission is to feed the hungry. This important action allows their clients to make other necessary purchases, such as paying for rent and utilities, without having to sacrifice their health and nutritional needs.

Despite the fact that Arlington County is one of the wealthiest areas in the country, plenty of local residents do not have enough to eat. The Arlington Food Assistance Center, AFAC, seeks to remedy this problem by distributing bread, vegetables, meat, milk, eggs and other food items to those in Arlington who are in need. The Arlington Food Assistance Center currently distributes approximately 1100 bags of groceries each week to over 900 clients, nearly half of whom are children. Each week, families with one to three members receive one bag of food and families of four members or more receive two bags of food-- amounts that are expected to supplement a week's meals.

AFAC obtains surplus food at a minimal cost from the Capital Area Community Food Bank and at no cost from local bakeries, supermarkets, farmer's markets, food drives and private donors.

I would like to commend the staff and volunteers of the Arlington Food Assistance Center who work hard to provide needy families in Arlington with groceries each week.

Mr. Chairman, as the Department proceeds with the site selection for the mirror data services center, we feel it is important that all appropriate GSA site selection procedures be followed and that an RFP be issued clearly stating objective criteria for the site.

We seek your assistance in ensuring these procedures are used and that a proper RFP is issued.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Ms. Christine L. Gallo, who retired from the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Fort Belvoir, Virginia on April 29, 2006. Her distinguished government career spans 38 years, and her record of achievement during this period reflects greatly upon herself and upon the organizations with which she has served. Her contributions to the National Defense will be missed as she moves on to new and exciting opportunities.

Ms. Gallo was a member of the Senior Executive Service and had received numerous awards over her 38-year career. These include the 1998 Presidential Rank Award (Meritorious), the United States Army Association of Quartermasters ``The Distinguished Order of St. Martin,'' the DLA Exceptional Civilian Service Award, the DLA Meritorious Civilian Service Award, and the Department of the Navy Meritorious Civilian Service Award.

Beginning her Federal career as a planning assistant with the Navy in 1968, Ms. Gallo held progressively responsible logistics planning and management positions with the Naval Supply Systems Command before joining the General Services Administration as Director of Distribution for Federal Supply and Services. After joining DLA in December of 1986, she served as Director of the Defense Spares Initiatives Office, Director for Systems Planning for the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Production and Logistics, Executive Director for Readiness and Customer Support, Executive Director for Business Modernization and Integration, and Director for DLA Enterprise Support (DES).

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Ms. Christine Gallo on her retirement from Federal Civil Service. She epitomizes the dedication and professionalism that make our Federal government a model all over the world.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to voice my opposition to the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006.

Madam Speaker, this bill claims that its goal is to ensure that no United States funding goes to support Hamaas, a foreign terrorist organization that has terrorized thousands and seeks the destruction of Israel. Were this what the bill in fact does, I would support it. However, the bill before us today goes much further than what is needed to achieve its stated, goal.

First, H.R. 4681 severely restricts U.S. funding to the many non- governmental organizations that provide critical aid and services to the Palestinian people, and allows for such funding without a presidential waiver for the most basic of services, such as food and shelter. This serves no good purpose. Limiting NGO funding in this manner will only increase the hardship of the Palestinian people. Yes, it is possible that this increased hardship may drive Palestinians to turn against the Hamas-controlled Palestinian government. At the same time, however, the cause of this additional hardship--the termination in U.S. humanitarian aid--will provide a ready excuse to Hamas, allowing it to blame the United States, and others, for its failure. This is not in our interest.

We must not give this ``out'' to Hamas. Instead, we must ensure that, when Hamas fails in its attempt to govern, as it certainly will, it will not be able to blame the United States or any other party for its inability to deliver what the Palestinian people expected.

Second, restricting United States aid to NGOs in this manner will hurt the very people we should be assisting. The Palestinian people are facing an economic crisis that goes beyond basic food and shelter, and includes education, public health, economic development and physical infrastructure. It is in the United States' interest to provide such assistance if we are in fact in support of a two-state solution and peace in the Middle East.

Third, placing tight restrictions and sanctions on those parts of the Palestinian Authority that are not controlled by Hamas is a serious mistake, for it precludes our executive branch from working with governmental officials who may be viable options to Hamas. Other provisions in the bill--restricting the ability of all Palestinian Authority representatives to travel in the United States, interfering with the participation of Palestinian Authority representatives in international organizations, and refusing assistance to the Pestinian judiciary--are petty actions that will not, in any way, advance peace in the Middle East.

There is a high likelihood that as a result of this bill, Hamas and the Palestinian Authority will turn around and seek the support from wealthy Arab and Muslim states, as well as extremist governments, like Iran and Syria. The message that this bill sends will push the Palestinian people away from us and quite possibly, the peace process. It will isolate them and force them to become more dependent on Hamas and their extremist supporters. This is not in our interest.

Madam Speaker, it is clear that the purpose of our every response to the Hamas electoral victory and to the fact that it now controls the Palestinian Authority must be (i) to deny any form of direct assistance until Hamas renounces its terrorist traditions and policy, (ii) to assist in the delivery of humanitarian aid and relief to the Palestinian people, and (iii) at least for as long as Hamas does not actively engage in or support violence, to refrain from any actions that will deepen the divide between the Palestinian people and this country, thereby allowing some room for progress to occur. The bill under consideration fails to meet two of these criteria. For these reasons, I will not support it.

Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to John M. Evans, one of our Federal Government's finest public servants and a long time resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia. This March he retired from an exceptionally distinguished career of service to his country. He has served our Nation as a career civil servant for over 33 years. He has been an exceptional leader and has played a key role in ensuring effective financial management for the Department of Defense. It gives me pride to have the opportunity to honor him today for his tremendous accomplishments.

Mr. Evans began his career with the Navy in the financial management field working for various field activities. He progressed to a management position in the Military Traffic Management Command at the Department of Defense where he had responsibility for personnel and administration.

Mr. Evans first served in the Department of Defense Comptroller office as a senior budget analyst for a number of major Department of Defense-wide programs, including the DoD Family Housing Program, the DoD Real Property Maintenance Program, Navy Military Construction, and DoD Depot Maintenance.

Mr. Evans also served as the director for revolving funds beginning in April of 2000. While director, he was responsible for financial management oversight for all DoD revolving and working capital funds, including the Defense Working Capital funds.

Since 2001, Mr. Evans was the director for operations. As director, Mr. Evans was responsible for the Department's Operations and Maintenance appropriations, including programs that support the global war on terror and the Department's homeland security functions.

Senior leaders, both in the Congress and the Department of Defense, have benefited from Mr. Evans' experience, outstanding leadership, and distinguished performance. His efforts have enabled our Nation's leader to make the most effective use of defense resources to ensure America's military strength. On behalf of my colleagues, I thank him for his service to our country and wish him well on his retirement.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Dicks- Slaughter-Shays-Leach-Price amendment to increase National Endowment for the Arts by $5 million and increase the National Endowment for the Humanities by $5 million.

The dividend this Nation receives from the Endowment for the Arts and the Humanities far exceeds the investment we make with the limited Federal dollars.

We could eliminate all funding for the endowments tomorrow, and the arts and humanities would survive.

That's not the issue.

The grants NEA provides don't make or break most theater productions, studio exhibitions or symphonic performances.

What NEA does with its grants is to ensure that these performances, exhibits and productions are shared with greater audiences of Americans.

Scholarly research on the humanities will continue without the NEH, but research, writings and creative thought on what it is to be an American, like the We the People initiative, the embodiment of who and what we are, and diffusion of this understanding and insight among Americans will suffer.

Mr. Chairman, there is too much that divides us as a Nation.

We need institutions like the NEA and the NEH, that find common ground through performances and pamphlets that inspire us to look past the parochial and appreciate greatness.

Support the Dicks-Slaughter-Shays-Leach-Price amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is legal, it is simple, and it is fair. All we are asking is to preserve existing contracts but that those firms that fail to renegotiate fairly would then not be granted new oil or gas leases.

Not to accept this amendment is to take sides, is to choose to stand by an industry that has posted the highest profits of any industry in modern history by charging consumers about $50 every time they fill up their gas tank. Those profits are coming from our constituents. And not to support this amendment is to decide we are going to side against our constituents. We are going to give up as much as $80 billion, $80 billion over the next 25 years. That is money that should be our constituents' because it is their Federally owned land that the oil companies are drilling on.

We have a responsibility to represent the American people before we represent a very wealthy and profitable industry. And to decide that we are going to figure out a way to let them continue with these contracts that never should have been signed this way in the first place, that gives up $80 billion of American taxpayers money, is wrong. It is wrong.

It is wrong that our consumers are paying so much when these oil companies are making tens of billions of dollars more than they have ever made. Here is an opportunity, legal, fair and simple, to represent the interests of our constituents, the American taxpayer.

To turn down this amendment is to choose one of the major political contributors in this corrupt political system instead the interest of our constituents.

Pass this amendment.

Mr. TAYLOR or North Carolina. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support this amendment to help save a national treasure--the wild horse.

The wild horse is known throughout the world as a symbol of the American West and we should be doing everything we can to protect it.

In the 1800s, more than 2 million wild horses roamed the American West. Today, that number is down to 35,000.

Due to a provision slipped into the 2004 omnibus appropriations bill, the sale of any wild horse that has been rounded up and is more than 10 years old is now allowed. This language was placed into law without any hearings or public debate.

This rider removed protections under the Wild Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act, which was passed in 1971 after the public demanded that something be done after the shooting of hundreds of thousands of horses and burros for pet food and meat in European restaurants.

Already, at least 41 horses have lost their lives due to this irresponsible language, and the lives of 8,400 horses now being held by the Bureau of Land Management are in jeopardy.

This is an inhumane slaughter against these majestic animals, and there is no need for it to continue.

There are other options we can explore.

The Bureau of Land Management could reopen over 100 herd management areas or use animal contraception methods to keep the size of the herds manageable.

There is simply no reason for these horses to be slaughtered for use as meat in other countries.

The American public want the wild horses protected. In my district alone, countless constituents have asked me to stop this senseless slaughter.

The horse is more than just an animal to our country. It is a beloved literary figure, a character in a movie or television show, a symbol of adventure, a friend of the cowboy, and an important part of our history.

Poet and author Pam Brown says, ``A horse is the projection of people's dreams about themselves--strong, powerful, and beautiful--and it has the capability of giving us an escape from our mundane existence.''

I cannot say it any better, and encourage all of my colleagues to support this amendment and help save the wild horse.

Protect America's Wild Horses

After 34 years, protections for wild horses from sale to

slaughter were removed through an omnibus rider. No bill, no

hearings, no debate. Late in 2004 (and late into the night),

Senator Conrad Burns (R-MT) attached this highly

controversial rider to the omnibus appropriations bill. The

amendment, passed with no hearings or public review, reversed

longstanding federal policy of protecting wild horses from

being sold at auctions and subsequently shipped to slaughter

plants. Representatives Nick J. Rahall (D-WV), Ed Whitfield

(R-KY), John Sweeney (R-NY), and John Spratt (D-SC) will

offer the Rahall-Whitfield-Sweeney-Spratt Wild Horse

Amendment to the FY 2007 Interior Appropriations bill. Just

last year, the House overwhelmingly approved an identical

amendment, as well as another similar appropriations

amendment to prohibit horse slaughter, but the Department of

Agriculture has thwarted Congress's will and used private

funding to enable the grisly slaughter of horses to continue.

``A public outcry has again begun across the United States

over the change in law that now allows the commercial sale

and slaughter of these animals, `` said Rahall. ``We need to

act before it is too late for thousands of these animals.''

It is already too late for 41 mustangs. On April 15, 2005,

six horses were purchased by Oklahoman Dustin Herbert. Only

three days later, these horses were sent directly to a

foreign-owned slaughter plant in Illinois. Mr. Herbert told

the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) that he intended to use

the horses for a church youth program. Another 35 were killed

at the same slaughter plant one week later after being traded

unwittingly by the Rosebud Sioux Tribe soon after they were

sold by BLM. By pure chance, another 52 were snatched from

the slaughterplant line in a last minute effort to preserve

their lives by fast-thinking officials. We have graphic

evidence in hand now that sale authority is not a workable

solution.

Horse slaughter is fundamentally inhumane. The cruelty of

horse slaughter is not limited to the slaughter itself.

Economic rather than humane considerations dictate transport

conditions, as horses are shipped in crowded trucks,

frequently over long distances, and are typically given no

food, water or rest. The truck ceilings are so low that

horses are not able to hold their heads in a normal, balanced

position. Heavily pregnant horses, horses with broken limbs,

and horses missing one or both eyes may be legally shipped

for many days to slaughter. Inappropriate floor surfaces

cause slips and falls, and sometimes even trampling. Some

horses arrive at the slaughter house seriously injured or

dead. Horses are required to be rendered unconscious prior to

slaughter, usually with a captive bolt pistol, which shoots a

metal rod into the horse's brain. Some horses are improperly

stunned and still conscious when they are shackled and

hoisted by a rear leg to have their throats cut. In addition,

conditions in the slaughterhouse are stressful and

frightening for horses. Death at the slaughterhouse is not a

humane end for horses. All three of the remaining horse

slaughterhouses in the United States are foreign-owned.

Congress acknowledged this in the strong, bipartisan votes

cast on the FY2006 interior and agriculture appropriations

bills in both the House and Senate (House Interior 249-159;

House Agriculture 269-158; Senate Agriculture 69-28), yet the

United States Department of Agriculture undermined the will

of Congress by constructing a private payment system

specifically to enable the continuation of this brutal

practice.

The number of horses in the US is dwindling. In the 1800s,

over two million wild horses roamed the American West. When

Congress passed the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act

(WFRHBA), there were 60,000. Today, the combined number of

wild horses and burros is approximately 35,000. That

represents a nearly 50% reduction of wild horses out on the

range since Congress passed federal legislation to protect

them. The entire wild horse and burro populations of six

western states have been completely eradicated.

Wild horses and burros have been federally protected for

decades. In 1971, Congress

passed the WFRHBA in response to enormous public outcry over

the shootings of hundreds of thousands of horses and burros

and the slaughter of horses for pet food and human

consumption in European restaurants. The Burns rider removed

crucial protection under the WFRHBA by requiring that the BLM

sell wild horses over the age of ten or those offered for

adoption more than three times. The lives of 8,400 horses now

being held by BLM--and more in the future--are in jeopardy

due to this controversial rider and the law must be changed.

BLM's current removal policy is costing taxpayers over $39

million a year. According to the U.S. Geological Service,

$7.7 million could be saved annually through the use of

contraceptive measures alone. Since 1988, seveeral wild horse

populations have been controlled under pilot programs using a

contraceptive vaccine (PZP) developed with the help of The

Humane Society of the United States. Additionally, there are

other, less expensive alternatives available. A 1990 GAO

Report states that, ``[r]educing authorized grazing levels

would likely be cheaper than wild horse removals to achieve

the same reduction in forage consumption.''

Cattle outnumber wild horses and burros at least 100 to 1

on public lands. BLM's private livestock grazing program

encompasses 214 million acres of public lands and costs over

$130 million to manage annually. Over 4 million head of

private cattle enjoy subsidized grazing on public lands. A

congressionally-mandated study by the National Academy of

Sciences found that, in one year, livestock consumed 70% of

grazing resources on public lands, while wild horses and

burros consumed less than 5%. The WFRHBA mandates that wild

horses and burros be provided 47 million acres of public

lands on 303 herd areas. Since 1971, the BLM has reduced the

number of herd areas to 201, taking approximately 13 million

acres of land from these federally protected animals.

Horses are not crusing rangeland degradation. The 1990 GA0

study detemined that (1) the primary cause of rangeland

degradation is poorly managed domestic livestock grazing, (2)

wild horse removals have not demonstrably improved range

conditions, (3) wild horse behavior patterns make them less

damaging than cattle to vulnerable range areas, and (4) wild

horse removals are occurring in some locations not being

damaged by widespread overgrazing (GAO/RCED-90-110, Rangeland

Management--Improvements Needed in Federal Wild Horse

Program).

Americans want wild horse protection. Support for the

Rahall-Whitfield-Sweeney-Spratt Amendment to protect our

cherished wild horses crosses all social, cultural, and

political boundaries. When it was revealed that wild horses

had been sent to slaughter since the enactment of the Burns'

rider (with widespread media coverage in Peole Magazine, CNN,

MSNBC, and dozens of papers across the country), Americans

made sure their voices were heard, resulting in BLM

temporarily suspending their sales program. Without the

passage of protective legislation, sales will resume.

The answer is simple. There is no need to sell off and

slaughter America's Western heritage. With the millions of

acres of public land in the US, we can surely make room for

35,000 horses. Americans do not wish to have their tax

dollars spent on the sale and slaughter of this last living

icon of our American heritage.

Mr. Speaker, today's record gas prices are the direct result of 5 years of failed policies by the Bush administration and this Republican Congress.

We seem to be more interested in giving still more tax breaks to oil executives than providing real relief to American consumers. Rather than proposing policies that would aggressively confront our energy challenges, Republicans are once again pushing to drill in ANWR. They neglect to say that drilling in ANWR would not be possible for another decade and would only provide about 6 months of oil for the American consumer.

House Republicans are also suggesting waiving environmental laws to encourage new refinery construction. But all of the major oil companies have already testified that environmental laws are not what is preventing them from building more refineries. It is more personally profitable to pay out lower-taxed-dividends than invest retained earnings in refineries.

So along with the silly $100 rebate, this is another proposal from House Republicans that will do nothing to reduce prices at the pump today. But the American consumer is beginning to realize it is time to try something new. It is time for a change in leadership.

Mr. Speaker, this week marks ``Public Service Recognition Week,'' offering our Nation the dual opportunities to reflect on the richness of the public workforce and the upcoming challenges that it must confront.

The landscape of our Nation is not just dotted, but layered with the work and faces of our public servants. It is easy to forget, but Americans are served every single day by public servants at the Federal, State, county and city levels, The efforts of teachers, laborers and police officers blend into the fabric of our lives seamlessly, The bravery of our Coast Guard saving people from rooftops, doctors guarding us against the advancement of epidemic disease and the men and women in the military protecting our Nation stand out as acts of true heroes. These people are all contributing to a common vision of making our Nation a better place to live. They are all public servants.

While this week is a celebration of the public servant, it would be a lost opportunity not to use this focus to address an ominous problem. Our public workforce is aging quickly and in the next 10 years all sectors will face a great ``retirement tsunami.'' In the Washington, DC region, 60 percent of the Federal workforce will be eligible for retirement with ninety percent of its senior executives reaching retirement age. Across the Nation, State and local governments are experiencing similar retirement forecasts.

The race to replenish these lost workers and their institutional experience is proving formidable. Alarming statistics suggest that the next generation of American workers is turning a blind eye to public service. Just 27 percent of young people say that someone has asked them to consider government employment, an 11-point decrease since 2002. Further, only 3-in-10 young Americans say that they would work in the public sector rather than the private sector. While we have begun to acknowledge the cliff we are preparing to walk off, I'm not certain we understand its true depth.

This challenge requires a new appeal to the American worker. A revival of public service is necessary, one that flows through corporate boardrooms and college hallways. President John F. Kennedy summoned a generation of people to give of themselves to the common good. Now is the time to seek a similar commitment.

I believe in public service and in people who contribute to an effort greater than themselves. As we progress deeper into this new century facing new and sometimes unforeseen challenges, our Nation will have to rely heavily upon the strengths of our public servants. We must be ready to answer that call.

Mr. Chairman, the House of Representatives will vote today on a bill that the authors think will help end the culture of corruption that exists in the Congress and restore the public's confidence in this body.

I will vote no on this bill, H.R. 4975, not because I believe we do not need to address these significant matters, but because the bill fails to provide any real reform at all.

We have an opportunity today to make significant changes in the way we perform the people's business and to help restore the people's confidence in their elected representatives. With this bill, the majority, who only a few months ago was shouting for reform, has failed to seize this opportunity. In fact, it has presented a bill that contains no significant reform at all.

Throughout the country, far too many people believe that Congress gives its vote to the

highest bidder. This perception must be eliminated, but the minor changes in this bill will not do so.

Restoration of the people's respect of Congress requires one thing-- that we change the way our political campaigns are financed. While our campaign finance rules have been strengthened over the years, they remain insufficient.

The time has come to take private money out of politics--entirely-- and, in its place, provide limited public funding for all Congressional campaigns. This is real reform. And it is the only type of reform that will even begin to restore the respect and trust of the American people in Congress.

The bill before us today will not do this, and we must into fool ourselves into believing that it will.

Mr. Chairman, almost 2 years ago, the 9/11 Commission reported that our intelligence community failed our Nation because of its aversion to share information, lack of oversight and limited imagination in how to deal with emerging sources of information. Since that final report was issued, Congress has authorized an overhaul of intelligence agencies, but progress has not met with our expectations. We all experienced what can happen with inadequate intelligence on 9/11, so the path that is being taken should serve as a brilliant warning sign that much more needs to be done.

When the House of Representatives votes on this year's Intelligence Authorization, I will vote against the bill. In doing so, my opposition is not because Congress shouldn't fund intelligence activities, but rather I believe that

it is disingenuous for this body to act as if the intelligence community is not the source of great concern. The resistance to change, the absence of leadership and partisan politics have tempered positive evolution and hurt our Nation. Indeed, in the place of real progress, the intelligence community has been a source of a number of controversial and classified programs that the public has since learned about. Last year, we were made aware that:

The President initiated an illegal program to secretly intercept international phone calls, including intercepting calls of American citizens, without fully briefing the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. This new spy program subverts the congressionally approved standard and no one comprehends the full scope of the program;

The United States government operated a secretive program known as ``extraordinary rendition'' that shipped accused terrorist suspect to other countries for imprisonment and interrogation, all to avoid U.S. laws prescribing due process and prohibiting torture;

The White House selectively declassified information and offered it to preferred reporters to discredit political adversaries;

Intelligence officials sat on a report contradicting the Administration's claim that mobile laboratories in Iraq were developing weapons, while the President announced to the Nation that ``we have found the weapons of mass destruction''; and

Last week the CIA fired lifelong federal employee Mary McCarthy for disclosure, offering the misimpression she was fired for a leak she never knew anything about.

These instances are only the most grievous, but they highlight this administration's contempt for accountability and put the unassailable standing of our civil liberties in doubt. And when given the opportunity, the White House has dragged its feet to appoint the staff, fund and begin the work of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board which is intended to safeguard our citizens from unnecessary government intrusion. .

I understand the formidable challenge that is being undertaken and I applaud the many brave and good hearted people who work to secure our nation every day. Unfortunately, the White House and the leadership of these agencies are undercutting reform by failing to deliver greater communication, transparency and accountability. We are reminded repeatedly with reports that the CIA is losing key personnel because of the politicization of the agency, or when the 9/11 Commission gives ``D'' grades to government-wide information sharing and intelligence oversight reform.

The American public looks to Congress to safeguard our civil liberties, and to ensure that intelligence is good and intelligence reform is meaningful. I'm afraid that in the last year there has been increasing evidence that this institution has failed to do its job. Mr. Chairman, instead of passing a reauthorization bill today that does little to address the nation's concern we should reexamine what we can do to ensure our intelligence agencies can do their job and instill our constituent's faith in our intelligence community.

Mr. Chairman, it is appropriate on this floor that we all be entitled to our own opinions, but it is not right that we should all be entitled to our own set of facts. The facts are that if this budget passes it will be 5 straight years of the largest deficits in American history.

Do you know in the last 5 years we have raised the Federal debt limit four times? It is now over $9 trillion. What does that mean to the average American? It means that every American owes $28,110 of that debt. That means

that every child born in America today starts off their life owing $28,110. That is a fact, but it is not fair.

And it is not fair that we continue to cut revenue that this country needs to invest in its physical and its human infrastructure. This budget includes another $228 billion of tax cuts that go overwhelmingly to the people who need it the least. And yet, we have got 13 million children in America living in poverty today; we have got over 43 million Americans without any health insurance. And yet look at the priorities in this budget: You reward those who need help the least and ignore those who need help the most. That is not fair. That is not American. That is why this budget shouldn't pass.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the passage of the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act. This bill reflects the United States' continued commitment to see that the violence ends and a lasting peace is achieved in Darfur.

Darfur has already been acknowledged as the worst human rights tragedy since the 1994 Rwandan genocide. Nowhere else have we recently seen such a massive attack on innocent civilians who are left to suffer in complete isolation, cut off from the rest of the world.

Nearly 400,000 people have already died in Darfur and over two million people continue to live as refugees and internally displaced persons. Thousands of women have been raped and sexually abused and children are left to die from malnutrition, dysentery and infectious diseases.

Mr. Speaker, last month's approval by the House of funding for Sudan is a solid commitment that brings us closer to resolving the crisis in Darfur and helping those in need. But it is not enough. Congress must continue and hold steadfast to the basic principles of freedom and human rights that we stand for and press on until justice is brought to the Darfurians.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 578 encouraging the nation of Romania to complete the processing of intercountry adoption cases that have already begun, and to amend its laws to decrease this and other barriers to adoption.

The statistics regarding abandoned children in Romania are shocking: 9,000 children are abandoned by Romania's maternity wards and pediatric hospitals every year; 37,000 remain in adoption institutions; and 49,000 more live in foster care or with their extended families. These children deserve every possible opportunity to be raised in loving, permanent families, and many such opportunities are available outside of their home nation. Romania's current laws are detrimental not only to these children, but to the American families that are ready and willing to welcome them into their homes.

Since June 2004, one of these children, Otilia Rotaru, has lived in Falls Church, Virginia with Scott and Lisa Lampman, two of my constituents. Otilia was born with a form of cerebral palsy known as Spastic Diplegia, preventing her from walking independently and causing her significant visual impairment in her right eye. She was abandoned by her biological parents soon after her birth in 1996, and was placed with a foster family who abandoned her in 2003.

Otilia received permission to come to the United States in 2004 for medical treatment, and after surgery and rehabilitation, she can now walk with the assistance of a walker. The Lampmans continue to provide love, physical care and financial support for Otilia, who attends 3rd grade at the local elementary school, has joined the local Brownie Troop, and is taking swimming lessons at the local pool.

Despite living in a loving, well adjusted home, the Lampmans' petition to adopt Otilia was rejected by the Romanian Government because their petition was filed after the appropriate deadline for international adoption. If returned to Romania, Otilia would be returned to an institution, with no family and no access to the medical treatment that will one day allow her to walk independently for the first time.

Mr. Speaker, we must give Otilia and the thousands of children like her the opportunity to grow up in a loving, caring, stable home, whether that home is in Romania or here in the United States. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support H. Res. 578 and ask the Romanian Government to open their adoption laws and provide such opportunities to these children.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Michael Goodman, upon receiving the Commonwealth Academy Recognition for Educators (CARE) Award.

The CARE award honors outstanding educators who work to enhance the lives of their students. This year's honorees are recognized for their unrelenting work to enhance the lives of the students they serve. This award is presented by Commonwealth Academy, located in Alexandria, Virginia, and honors those committed to diverse learning throughout the nation. Michael Goodman, an Instructional Technology Coordinator at Kenmore Middle School in Arlington, Virginia, is honored for his work with assisting teachers and students with using technology to learn at Kenmore.

Mr. Goodman has been teaching for over ten years and has won numerous awards for his technology instruction. Because of his vision, many classrooms at Kenmore are ``technology rich''--meaning the teacher uses a SMART board and other equipment to tailor instruction to engage and challenge all students. Without Mr. Goodman's exceptional and effort, the teachers would not be able to use the technology to reach students. He has been involved in numerous technology activities and programs. As an organizer of ``An Adventure of the American Mind'' Library of Congress program at Kenmore, his enthusiasm helped to motivate 54 teachers from Kenmore to complete the entire workshop series last year, and resulted in Kenmore Middle School receiving $30,000 dollars in technical equipment from the program. Mr. Goodman says of his approach to teaching, ``My job as Instructional Technology Coordinator allows me to work with teachers and students bringing in the unique advantages that technology offers to create and simulate activities based on [multiple] intelligences.''

Mr. Goodman received his B.S. in Technology Education from Virginia Tech and his master's in Instructional Technology from Towson University. He and his wife, Dedra, have three young sons, Harrison, Xavier, and Remington.

I ask my colleagues to join me in applauding Michael Goodman and congratulating him on this distinguished achievement.