Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to strongly oppose a provision that was included in H.R. 2881, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007.

The underlying bill contains language that would unfairly target a single company located in my Sate and compel them to change the way they do business. There have been no hearings on this issue and I am concerned that there could be considerable unintended consequences if this provision is approved.

Inclusion of the language could also put this critical aviation safety bill at risk. I have been told that several Senators have made clear this provision is a non-starter that puts a speedy and successful Conference at risk.

At a time where air traffic is in gridlock, I think we have a duty to the American public to pass a bill that can quickly be conferenced with the Senate. Because I do think that we need to move forward on FAA reform, I will reluctantly vote for H.R. 2881. However, I believe that this bill is far too important to be used as a vehicle for targeting a single American company and am hopeful that this issue will be addressed in conference.

Thank you very much, Ms. Kaptur.

I just felt compelled to come down here. And Mr. Regula, I thank you for taking this time.

I guess I've traveled more with Paul Gillmor than any other Member. We have traveled together on the NATO Parliamentary Assembly business for at least the last 9 or 10 years, and that's two or three trips a year to the parliamentary meetings of NATO. And during that time, not only have my wife, Betty Ann, and his wife, Karen, become close friends, but I don't have or didn't have a closer friend in Congress than Paul Gillmor.

He was not only an extraordinarily talented individual who made people comfortable around him, but he also had a leadership quality that I observed up close and personal many, many times in these NATO meetings.

It hasn't been all that easy the last few years. There has been unrest in the

alliance. And Paul was chairman of the Economics and Security Committee during part of that time, and I was a member and succeeded him as chairman. And it was an easy transition from the standpoint that Paul had gained so much respect from our European allies and colleagues that it was easy for us to run that committee in a way that I think was constructive.

He was extraordinarily dedicated to his family. He talked about them all the time. And beyond that, he was a man that had a well-grounded sense of himself. He was one who not only cared deeply for his family, his State and his country, but was willing to go out of his way and inconvenience himself time and time again to go the extra mile to try to make things better. I feel very privileged to just have known him and to be a friend of his, and more importantly, him being a friend of mine.

I'm going to miss him a lot. I know this House will miss him a lot. The country will miss him a lot. He is currently serving as North American Vice President of NATO PA, and I'm sure that that organization will miss him as well.

Thank you for allowing me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with regard to H.R. 3162, The Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act of 2007, and in particular with regard to Section 502, ``Payment Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility (IRF) Services.''

Section 502 takes critically important steps towards ensuring that Medicare beneficiaries have access to medically necessary inpatient rehabilitation in an appropriate treatment setting by permanently extending the 60 percent compliance threshold and by retaining co- morbidities in these provisions. Section 502 prevents further negative impacts from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS) 70 Percent Rule policy, which since the Rule's implementation, has deprived more than 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries access to inpatient rehabilitation care despite their meeting medical necessity standards. I strongly support this permanent extension of the 60 percent compliance threshold.

Section 502 also provides for a permanent extension in co-morbidities policy in ascertaining compliance with the rule. An estimated seven percent of the inpatient rehabilitation cases obtain eligibility through co-morbidities. Reversing this policy would adversely impact both beneficiaries and providers. CMS, in promulgating its Final Rule for the Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility (IRF) Prospective Payment System (PPS) which will be published in the Federal Register on August 7, 2007, has determined that effective July 1, 2008, co-morbidities may no longer be used to determine whether a provider meets the compliance threshold. The importance of Section 502 is particularly urgent in light of this recent regulatory action.

I urge the House to take a firm stance when conferencing with respect to the inpatient rehabilitation provisions of Section 502. More than half of the House has joined as co-sponsors of H.R. 1459, which I-- along with my Colleagues Mr. Hulshof of Missouri, Mrs. Lowey of New York, and Mr. LoBiondo of New Jersey--introduced to ensure that the 60 percent compliance threshold is made permanent and that the co- morbidities provision is extended. I take seriously the trust that has been placed in me by these other 221 House co-sponsors, and I ask that the Conferees do the same.

I also ask that the House safeguard the important provisions of H.R. 3162 that will yield critically important new information and data by requiring the Secretary to report on beneficiaries' access to medically necessary rehabilitative care and variation in that care across treatment settings. The reporting requirements also call for consideration of patients' length of stay and the frequency of readmission in evaluating cost effectiveness for an entire episode of care. These requirements accurately reflect the information necessary for educated decision-making, and we commend their inclusion in Section 502.

There are two issues related to the legislation which I respectfully request our colleagues consider in any future conference negotiations. The House bill currently fails to fix Local Coverage Determinations (LCD) and medical necessity criteria issues which have become apparent in various areas throughout the country. We should not deliver a bill that addresses the compliance threshold but fails to deal with the simultaneous problems apparent in large areas of the country--where Medicare Fiscal Intermediaries are imposing narrow and restrictive interpretations which further limit access to medically necessary rehabilitation care and disregard physician judgments. I appreciate the commitment to addressing these issues demonstrated in Committee. As CMS and its contractors persist in imposing oversight requirements on the inpatient rehabilitation field which are far in excess of those imposed on any other health care sector under Medicare, a more reasonable approach is needed. Congress should codify Ruling 85-2, as called for in H.R. 1459. I appreciate that Chairman Stark has shown his willingness to continue working towards a resolution of our concerns.

In addition, we strongly believe that Section 502 moves in precisely the wrong direction in making radical changes to payment rates for hip and knee replacement and hip fracture cases. We believe neither CMS nor Congress has the clinical data and comparative research necessary either on which to base this policy or to understand the impact of this decision. We should support accurate payments by the Medicare program that are based on sound analysis, clinical evidence, and aligned with the actual cost of providing high quality care. Instead, Section 502 uses the average per-stay skilled nursing facility payment rate as a baseline for calculating repayment in the inpatient rehabilitation context. Inpatient rehabilitation is fundamentally different and clinically more advanced than skilled nursing care. For patients requiring medical rehabilitation, these settings are not interchangeable. Therefore, the payments should not be interchangeable. Paying inpatient rehabilitation providers a lower amount bases on the rate for nursing facilities is contrary to the principles of pay-for- performance.

Finally, we believe that the overall changes in payment rates called for in Section 502 results in a disproportionate financial impact for the rehabilitation hospital sector. Inpatient medical rehabilitation accounts for $6 billion in annual Medicare spending out of a total estimated $437 billion in 2007. Scoring by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) confirms that payments to the sector will be reduced by $2.4 billion over a 5-year period, and $6.6 billion over 10 years. In other words, inpatient rehabilitation hospital reductions represent 41 percent of Part A spending cuts currently in the bill for a sector that represents a mere 1.4 percent of total Medicare spending. Inflicting 41 percent of the Part A spending cuts on this sector appears to be disproportionate.

In addition, it should be noted that the rehab hospital sector has already absorbed substantial cuts as a result of the phased implementation of the 75 Percent Rule policy. Data from the Centers from Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) confirm that rehabilitation providers experienced cuts of at least $300 million in the first year of implementation alone.

The Department of Health and Human Services and CMS initiated the 75 Percent Rule without direction from Congress, and have moved forward with the policy in an unbridled way. It is imperative that this Congress take the necessary steps to protect patient access to inpatient rehabilitation hospital-level services. A final bill must be more reasonable for the rehabilitation sector and fairer to Medicare beneficiaries.

I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to retain the 60 percent compliance threshold and co-morbidities and address the remaining problematic issues relating to local coverage determinations and medical necessity criteria, and our payment policies for hip and knee conditions, as the legislative process moves forward.

Mr. Speaker, I understand this or any administration's defensive posture when it comes to criticism of policy. And I understand the members of his party feeling the need to defend it. This interim report, ordinarily, I would be one who would wait until September. But this interim report that shows an appalling lack of progress on the political front in Iraq leads me to this conclusion.

I was on active duty for 4 years during Vietnam, and I went down to Vietnam Wall the other night; 50-something thousand dead American names down there. We have now, 3,500-plus dead American names on the Iraq wall.

And what was true then, to me, is true now. And General Petraeus himself said it not long ago when he said, military action is necessary, but any student of history recognizes that no military solution to a problem like

Iraq is there. Military action may be necessary, but it is not sufficient. There needs to be a political aspect.

The political aspect, as reported in this interim report, shows this: Of the 275 members of the Iraqi parliament, over one-third are presently boycotting meetings. Over one-third of the ministers are boycotting the meetings. Two years after the Iraqi elections, the government there is dysfunctional.

Now just listen to General Petraeus's words. We have to have a political aspect. And this present strategy, whether the surge works or not, is beside the point. These people are unwilling or unable to come together, after 2 years of a government, to work together to build any kind of civil society that we can support.

I think that it is now time, with this interim report and the lack of political progress there, to send a message. Nobody's talking about precipitous withdrawal. What we are talking about is this Congress engaging with this administration to support the troops and help them from this morass.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the work and achievements of Mrs. Sandra L. Merin, president of the Board of Directors of the District of Columbia Children's Advocacy Center, also known as Safe Shores. This week Mrs. Merin is being honored by the National Children's Alliance as its 2007 Volunteer of the Year for her extraordinary service and leadership on behalf of abused children in the Nation's Capital.

Established pursuant to the Children's Advocacy Center model created over two decades ago by our distinguished colleague Representative Robert ``Bud'' Cramer of Alabama, Safe Shores is a nonprofit organization that each year helps over 800 children whose lives have been marred by physical abuse, sexual abuse or other violence. Safe Shores' mission is to ensure the safety, health and well-being of abused children in the District of Columbia by uniting the strengths of public, private and community partners.

Mrs. Merin has been a volunteer with Safe Shores for 6 years, during which time she has shown tremendous energy, persistence, and determination in being a voice for children who face abuse, neglect, and painful realities that no individual should ever know.

Mrs. Merin leads the volunteer board of directors, helping to guide the governance of the organization and the board's development and expansion; she has helped forge a relationship between a respected local university and Safe Shores; she has served on the organization's 10th Anniversary Event Committee.

In the true spirit of community service and philanthropy, Mrs. Merin does all her fine work for Safe Shores humbly and without seeking praise or reward. A devoted wife and mother, Sandra Merin exemplifies the spirit that made this country great and continues to sustain us.

Madam Speaker, please join me in congratulating Mrs. Sandra Merin for her dedicated and invaluable support of Safe Shores and its crucial efforts to reduce trauma and promote healing for the youngest and most vulnerable of Washington, DC's residents.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to help remember our former colleague, a distinguished leader and fellow Tennessean, former Representative Robin Beard, who passed away over the weekend. I had the honor of knowing him both professionally and personally.

A former Marine, Robin served twice as assistant secretary general of NATO in Brussels. He and I had several lengthy conversations about NATO and the relationship between that organization and our work here in the House of Representatives. I appreciated his first-hand knowledge into the goals and workings of NATO, and his insights are helpful now as we represent the U.S. Congress at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.

Madam Speaker, I hope you and our colleagues will join me and the Tennessee delegation in remembering former Congressman Robin Beard, who made great contributions to our state, our country and the global community.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank Mrs. Blackburn for bringing this to our attention.

Robin Beard was a friend of all of ours from Tennessee, and many of you, both professionally and personally. I actually got to know him when he served two stints as Assistant Secretary General in NATO parliamentary, or the NATO organization in Brussels.

He had a keen sense of humor, and he was a man who enjoyed the collegiality of the House. He was a House man, and he served his country well, both in uniform and out, when he was with NATO.

And so I join on behalf of all of our Members from Tennessee and, really, all of the House and Mrs. Blackburn in this tribute to our fallen colleague, Mr. Beard.

Madam Speaker, I recently led a bipartisan House delegation to NATO Parliamentary Assembly meetings in Madeira and Lisbon, Portugal, and to additional meetings in Tunisia and Morocco from May 24-June 3. The co-chair of my delegation was the Hon. Paul Gillmor. In addition, Representatives Ralph Regula, Jo Ann Emerson, John Shimkus, Ellen Tauscher, Dennis Moore, Tom Tancredo, John Boozman, Baron Hill, Ben Chandler, Kendrick Meek, and Charles Melancon, and staff, worked to make this a highly successful trip in which we examined a range of NATO and Mediterranean security issues.

The NATO Parliamentary Assembly, NPA, consists of parliamentarians from all 26 NATO member states. In addition, members of parliament present from such associated governments as Russia, Georgia, Croatia, and Afghanistan join discussions and debates over the key issues of interest to the alliance. The NPA thereby provides a forum for elected officials to analyze issues that NATO discusses in Brussels. Delegates have the opportunity to learn first-hand the views and concerns that other countries have over the key security issues of the day. An invaluable aspect of the meetings is the chance to meet and come to know members of parliaments who play important roles in their own countries in shaping the security agenda that their governments debate at NATO headquarters. These contacts can endure through a career, and can provide an invaluable private avenue for insights into each ally's particular views on an issue.

The key issues before NATO today are Russia, missile defense, and the conflict in Afghanistan. Each of these was on vigorous display at the NPA meetings. Russia under Putin is following an increasingly assertive policy in its use of energy supplies as a political lever, and in efforts to intimidate neighboring states such as Estonia and Georgia. It was clear from our meetings that not only the United States and NATO, but the European Union as well, are concerned about Moscow's posture on a wide range of issues. The Bush Administration's missile defense proposal for Europe was also a central subject of discussion. While many governments accept in the abstract the need to consider such a defensive system in an era of missile and nuclear proliferation, the meetings revealed a wide array of views among the allies on the efficacy and timeliness of this particular system. The United States has approximately 25,000 troops in Afghanistan, of whom 17,000 are engaged in NATO's International Security Assistance Force, ISAF, fighting the Taliban.

Portugal hosted the NP A meetings in Madeira. Before the opening sessions, the delegation had a detailed briefing and discussion with Ambassador Victoria Nuland, the U.S. representative to NATO. She very ably prepared us for the nuances of the discussion of the issues that would be debated in the NPA sessions. There followed another private meeting with NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, who gave an overview of member state perspectives on the most controversial issues confronting the alliance; he later addressed the NPA's plenary session. The Prime Minister of Portugal also addressed the plenary, and emphasized the importance of Mediterranean security issues, which were a recurrent theme in our trip.

There followed 2 days of NPA committee meetings. There are 5 NPA committees. In each, parliamentarians present reports on issues before the alliance, which are then debated by all members of the committee who may make counter-arguments or suggestions for amending a report. We divided our delegation so that U.S. Members were present in each committee meeting.

I chaired the Economics and Security Committee, which heard reports on the Republic of Georgia's progress towards democracy and its increasingly close association with NATO, on defense resource management, and on economic developments in East Asia. Representative Boozman was the co-rapporteur of this last report, which he very ably presented, and which aroused an interesting discussion. Rep. Boozman noted the growing commercial interests of the United States and its allies in East Asia, and the political and security implications of this growing web of economic connections. The Committee also heard a provocative and interesting presentation by Lawrence Korb of the Center for American Progress. He discussed the U.S. defense budget debate, and the effects that the Iraq war is having on U.S. military capabilities around the world.

The NPA Political Committee, of which Rep. Chandler is a vice- chairman, heard several reports that touched off sometimes contentious debates. Most notable were exchanges between the Russian delegates and their counterparts from NATO parliaments over the cyber attacks on Estonia's government and business electronic systems, in all probability launched in retaliation for Estonia's relocation of a Soviet-era war memorial. There was also a report by a Canadian delegate on the conflict in Afghanistan. Backed by her U.S. colleagues, she called for a reduction in caveats--restrictions that some allies place on their forces in Afghanistan--and a greater sharing of the combat burden among member states.

The Defense and Security Committee also heard a report on Afghanistan that concentrated on military operations there. Representative Shimkus then gave a clear, succinct, and analytical presentation on his report on the NATO-EU security relationship. He called for better coordination between the 2 organizations so that member governments might pool and share resources more smoothly as NATO and the EU work more closely together in such missions as Afghanistan and Kosovo. His report was well-received, and led to an interesting debate. Representative Tauscher is a vice-chair of one of the Committee's subcommittees.

The Science and Technology Committee heard reports on climate change and on the transformation of warfare brought on by the increasing use of computers and other high technology. A report by a Russian delegate set off a broad debate on the administration's missile defense proposals. The concerns of Moscow were clearly, if ideologically, laid out by the Russian delegate, with responses from a range of European delegates. Representative Tauscher provided a clear and concise congressional perspective on missile defense after a presentation on the issue by a U.S. Department of Defense official.

The Committee on the Civil Dimension of Security heard reports on a range of issues, the most interesting of which was the protection of critical infrastructures. The issue of the recent cyber attacks in Estonia was again raised; vulnerability of communications and other electronic networks in allied states is likely to become a matter of growing debate in the alliance. Representative Emerson is a vice-chair of one of the Committee's subcommittees.

The rapporteurs will present updated drafts of their reports during the next NPA meetings, which will occur in Reykjavik, Iceland, October 5-9, 2007.

The delegation also met with a member of the Afghan parliament who is an observer delegate to the NPA. We discussed NATO operations, the narcotics trade in Afghanistan, and governance issues with him.

The delegation next went to Lisbon on May 28-29 for meetings there and visits to 2 military bases. After a briefing by U.S. Ambassador Alfred Hoffman and his staff, the delegation visited the NATO Joint Command just outside Lisbon. Joint HQ Lisbon is an allied mobile command that becomes a sea-based command in the initial stages of operations ranging from peacekeeping to war fighting. It is a reflection of NATO's ongoing transformation into a lighter, more mobile military structure able to counter crises around the world. Joint HQ Lisbon currently provides the headquarters structure for the NATO mission in Darfur.

The delegation then visited the NATO Joint Command for Combined Air Operations Center, CAOC, which has highly sophisticated electronic systems that monitor all air traffic off southwestern Europe, northwestern Africa, and in the western Mediterranean. The CAOC can scramble aircraft to counter any potential aerial threat to the region.

The delegation again picked up the themes of Mediterranean security in Tunis on May 30-31. Tunisia is part of NATO's Mediterranean Dialogue, in which NATO governments join a number of Arab governments along the Mediterranean coast and Israel to discuss and begin to train for counter-terror and counter-proliferation efforts. Bilaterally, Tunisia is also an important friend of the United States in countering terrorist threats in North Africa. At the same time, some Members raised concerns about the need for the Tunisian Government to make greater progress on the road to democracy.

In 1942-1944, 2,841 American soldiers gave their lives in the effort to defeat German and Italian forces in the North African theater during the Second World War. The delegation visited their resting place in the North African Cemetery, managed by the U.S. American Battle Monuments Commission. While we tend to think of U.S. cemeteries in the Second World War theater as being located in Europe, the cemetery outside Tunis is a monument to the brave soldiers who gave their lives in the strategically critical and often extremely difficult battles that weakened Germany's lines of defense and supply in preparation for the conclusive battles of 1944-1945 in Europe. Accompanied by other members of the delegation, I laid a wreath at the cemetery's central monument. Members of the delegation then walked to individual graves of fallen soldiers from their states. This was perhaps the most memorable and poignant moment of the delegation's trip.

After a briefing by U.S. Ambassador Robert Godec, the Members had a lengthy and highly informative meeting with the Tunisian President, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, where we discussed the key issues in U.S.- Tunisian relations, as well as matters of Mediterranean security. There followed meetings with the Foreign and Defense Ministers, where issues of U.S.-Tunisian cooperation and U.S. military assistance were discussed in detail. These meetings provided a precise, focused discussion of how the United States and Tunisia might work more closely together on security issues. The delegation also visited the Tunisian parliament.

On June 1-2, the delegation went to Rabat for meetings with Moroccan officials on security issues. Morocco has experienced an increase in Al Qaeda activity; the Madrid train bombings of March 2004 were largely carried out by Moroccan Islamist extremists. Morocco, which is on a path of moderate democratization, is one of the United States' oldest allies, and was the first government to recognize U.S. independence.

After a briefing by U.S. Ambassador Thomas Riley and his staff, the delegation held meetings with the Moroccan Defense Minister and with upper-level officials in the Foreign Ministry. The focal points of these discussions were Morocco's participation in NATO's Mediterranean Dialogue, and U.S.-Moroccan bilateral efforts to counter proliferation and terrorism. We also visited the Moroccan parliament for a meeting with the chamber of deputies' leader, comparable to our Speaker of the House.

The U.S. Air Force Reserve elements from Scott Air Force Base piloted our aircraft and security for it was provided by members of the United States Air Force Reserve from Andrews Air Force Base. Our military personnel provide a quiet but invaluable service in ensuring safety and an efficient schedule for U.S. congressional delegations, and this group of service men and women was no exception. I thank them for their hard work and their dedication to duty.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in recognizing American Eagle Day to honor the birds that have symbolized our country's freedom and democracy for centuries. H. Res. 341 encourages all Americans to acknowledge American Eagle Day on June 20, 2007, which marks the 225th anniversary of the bald eagle's designation as our national symbol.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 412) expressing gratitude to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and His Royal Highness, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, for their State Visit to the United States and reaffirming the friendship that exists between the United States and the United Kingdom, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Two hundred and thirty years ago, Americans threw off the yoke of the British monarch with much fanfare, as everyone knows. But, since then, the American people have celebrated the royals, and they have watched and observed the demeanor of the royal family of Great Britain throughout the years. As a matter of fact, we gave a coveted film award to a woman portraying the Queen just not long ago.

But, anyway, a few short weeks ago, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and His Royal Highness Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, were greeted by enormous crowds visiting the United States. This was the Queen's fourth State visit following previous visits in 1991, 1976 and first in 1957.

Her most recent trip was highlighted by her commemoration of the 400th anniversary of the founding of Jamestown, the first permanent English settlement in the New World. When 108 London entrepreneurs set sail on orders from King James I to settle Virginia, that would set the stage for one of the most, if not the most, successful and lasting alliance in modern history.

The Queen praised such historic links and bonds of friendship between our two countries when she was here and referred to the fact that our relationship has been built on a shared commitment to democratic traditions and liberty.

During her visit, she also noted, as well, our shared future. Just as the settlers of 1607 set out to discover a new world, researchers on both sides of the Atlantic are now seeking to explore new frontiers in medicine and space. This collaboration between British and American scientists is invaluable.

The Queen has served tirelessly as an ambassador for the British people, and she has led her country through times of prosperity as well as times of turmoil. It is for these reasons and others that I am delighted to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 422) calling on the Government of the People's Republic of China to use its unique influence and economic leverage to stop genocide and violence in Darfur, Sudan.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution, and yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Six days ago, the President imposed a new series of sanctions on the Sudanese government and its murderous leaders. The administration may have sent a stronger message a month ago, but did not. But new American sanctions, however belatedly imposed, are in place. Now the rest of the civilized world must respond. Strong sanctions represent a crucial bridge in efforts to force the regime in Khartoum to give

up its reprehensible program of genocide in Darfur. But it is now readily apparent that we can only cross that bridge with the help of China.

Time and again, we have witnessed national interests taking precedence over the destruction of people's lives, their society and their culture. China, purely for economic interests, in our opinion, has stood firmly in the way of a robust international response to the Darfur genocide.

It has been 3 years since this Congress declared that the unfolding atrocities in Darfur constitute genocide. Yet, since it began, China has acted as a shield for Sudan against international criticism and tough sanctions at the United Nations.

In spite of unimpeachable evidence of genocide and other atrocities, China has continued as Sudan's largest trading partner and the main foreign investor in its oil sector.

China's sales of arms and military equipment to Khartoum is even more disturbing. But China has taken it one step further by actually blocking efforts to send international forces into Darfur.

Several countries have been resistant. But among the states unwilling to support a robust civilian protection operation to stop the genocide, China assumes a unique culpability because of its influence, its permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council, and its role in Sudan.

In 2004, China forced the Security Council to water down an oil sanctions resolution and threatened it would veto any future resolutions sanctioning Sudan.

China shielded Khartoum against international sanctions while the Sudanese military drove tens of thousands out of their communities and oil regions just to speed exploration.

In 2006, China explicitly argued to the Security Council against a peacekeeping deployment to Darfur, arguing that it could not support the resolution because Sudan's government was not yet ready to accept U.N. peacekeepers on its soil.

Not only did China oppose the deployment on behalf of Sudan, its Ambassador lobbied hard for the Russians to take the same position. Only under relentless international pressure, with the actress Mia Farrow and others raising the specter that the upcoming Beijing Olympics will become the ``Genocide Olympics,'' has China finally begun to take a few small, constructive steps in the right direction on Sudan.

If we are going to save lives in Darfur, it is imperative that we keep the pressure on China to force Sudan to end the atrocities, resume peace talks and bring resolution to the horror known as Darfur.

This very important resolution calls on China to condemn explicitly the atrocities in Darfur, to cease military arms sales, to suspend economic cooperation with Sudan and use its influence to urge President Bashir to comply with full and immediate deployment of the African Union peacekeeping force.

It also calls on all parties to the conflict to adhere to the ceasefire agreement and allow unfettered access by humanitarian workers to those in need. It's a clear signal to China and Sudan that their relationship cannot and will not withstand the glare of international scrutiny.

Unless it wants to permanently scar its reputation, China must act as a responsible world power and use its influence to stop this now.

I therefore urge passage and commend the author, my friend and colleague, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, for her tireless leadership on the Darfur issue.

Let me also thank our majority leader, Steny Hoyer, for his consistent and effective efforts to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the author of the resolution, Ms. Barbara Lee of California.

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to yield 2 minutes to Ms. Shelley Berkley of Nevada.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize Mr. Steve Israel from New York for 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I now am proud to yield the floor to Mr. George Miller from California for 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time we have?

I am pleased to yield to the author of the resolution our remaining time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 430) calling on the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to immediately release Dr. Haleh Esfandiari, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution and yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, just a few short months ago, a remarkably accomplished Iranian American woman, Dr. Haleh Esfandiari, made a decision that any of us would make under a similar circumstance. Her 93-year-old mother was failing and she needed to visit her in Tehran without delay. She boarded a flight to Iran, completely unsuspecting of what would unfold.

After a visit with her ailing mother, Dr. Esfandiari reached the Tehran airport. As one of the leading Middle East scholars in the United States at the highly respected Woodrow Wilson Institute, she had no reason to believe she was about to encounter trouble. But on

her way to the airport, she was attacked by plain-clothed, knife- wielding thugs and her passport was stolen.

This was only the beginning of her nightmare. Iranian authorities refused to grant her a new passport. She was interrogated and put under house arrest. She was told she would not return to the United States. And the ordeal grew worse. Dr. Esfandiari, a slender woman of 67 years, has been detained without just cause ever since, under the outlandish pretense of being an enemy of Iran. And, ominously, late last month she was formally charged with espionage.

She now sits in Iran's notorious Evin Prison. She has been allowed to make but a few painfully brief phone calls to her family. She has been interrogated at excruciating length. At the height of absurdity, she has been pressured to acknowledge participation in some kind of alleged coup against the Iranian government. This type of effort at forced confession is beyond absurd. It goes to the heart of the injustice of the Iranian regime.

Despite quiet initiatives of diplomacy undertaken by many countries, organizations, and individuals on Dr. Esfandiari's behalf and frustrated by her audacious commitment to the truth, the Iranian security services have done what they know best, and that is arrest without cause.

In discussing Dr. Esfandiari's case, news articles have also cited at least four other cases of dual Iranian American citizens deplorably being detained in Iran for no justifiable reason. It is particularly worrisome that two of these detainees, like Dr. Esfandiari, have now been charged with espionage.

Oddly enough, what all of these five seem to have in common is a commitment to U.S.-Iranian engagement. The government of Iran has unjustly detained five American citizens without due legal process. And Mr. Van Hollen's resolution today aptly expresses the serious concern we have on their behalf and our justifiable demand that they be released without delay. These outrageous arrests are indicative of the blatant excesses and obvious shortcomings of the Iranian political system, too much tyranny and too little rule of law. This is a matter of basic human rights, and we cannot allow the Iranian government to continue trampling on the fundamental liberties of our citizens in this manner.

Ten Iranian parliamentarians have recently formed a Parliamentarian American friendship group. I call on these parliamentarians and all Iranians of good will, all people of good will, to use whatever influence they have to help bring about the immediate release of all American citizens in Iran who are held so unjustly and against their will.

I commend my friend and colleague from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) for introducing this important measure.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the author of the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I have no more requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the Screaming Eagles of the 101st Airborne Division of the United States Army, based at Fort Campbell, a portion of which I am honored to represent in this chamber. This week marks the biennial celebration known as ``The Week of the Eagles,'' when we acknowledge the immeasurable contributions to our country from the current, veteran and fallen members of the 101st Airborne Division and their families, all of whom have made great personal sacrifices in service to our Nation.

The inspiration for the book and television mini-series ``The Band of Brothers,'' the Screaming Eagles have historically played prominent roles in World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam and Desert Storm. They were instrumental in successes in Operation Anaconda, a tough early front in the War on Terrorism in Afghanistan. They have also answered the call of duty repeatedly to serve in Iraq, and many of these courageous men and women will deploy to Iraq again later this year.

The tradition of ``The Week of the Eagles'' began in 1973 when the Screaming Eagles returned home from the Vietnam War and held a community festival to showcase the division's combat readiness. The celebration was resurrected in 1996 by 101st Airborne Division Commander Major General William Kernan to remember those service members who made the ultimate sacrifice in service to the United States Army. We now celebrate ``The Week of the Eagles'' biennially to both honor the fallen troops and their families and showcase the readiness of the 101st Airborne's mighty combat units.

I trust that, even if there is healthy difference of opinion among some of our colleagues and the international community about the civilian leadership of the United States Armed Forces, every member of this body supports those families who are bravely serving our country and is proud of the families of the 101st Airborne Division, whose efforts throughout the division's long and storied history have served our country well.

Madam Speaker, I join you and our colleagues in the House of Representatives in honoring the 101st Airborne Division, thanking the Screaming Eagles and their families for their dedication and patriotism, remembering those 101st Airborne members who have given their lives in service to our country, and recognizing ``The Week of the Eagles.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join our colleagues in congratulating the University of Tennessee Lady Volunteers for their 2007 NCAA Division I Women's Basketball Championship. This team, under the leadership of head coach Pat Summitt, made Tennesseans proud with their victory over the Rutgers Scarlet Knights.

Coach Summitt, the winningest coach either men's or women's basketball, continues to lead some of the finest student athletes in the country. The 2006-2007 Lady Vols team included Nicky Anosike, Alberta Auguste, Shannon Bobbitt, Elizabeth Curry, Alex Fuller, Alex Hornbuckle, Cait McMahan, Candace Parker, Dominique Redding and Sidney Spencer, led by Summitt, assistant head coach Holly Warlick and assistants Nikki Caldwell and Dean Lockwood. This group of dedicated players and coaches played magnificently throughout this entire basketball season and certainly earned their championship title. These young women are shining examples of loyalty, dedication and teamwork.

Mr. Speaker, I am an alumnus of the University of Tennessee and the UT basketball program, and am proud to be an avid fan of Tennessee Lady Vol basketball. I joined many orange-and-white-clad Tennesseans April 3 watching as the Lady Volunteers captured their seventh NCAA championship in the last 20 years. These successful student athletes bring honor to themselves and the University of Tennessee. I am proud to support this resolution and thank you and our colleagues for taking the time to recognize our Lady Vols.

Mr. Speaker, well, thank you very much.

I wanted to come tonight and join with my colleague, Mr. Ross. I heard what you have been saying and I wish this was not true, but all one has to do is go to the Web site of the U.S. Treasury and see for one's self how much money has been borrowed in the last 60 months from foreign sources, and I heard you address that point earlier.

I want to talk about a bill that we introduced last Congress that the Blue Dogs endorsed and that we hope to introduce in the next few days in this Congress; and hopefully we can pass it this time.

It has to do with the subject of, the theme of tonight's Special Order with regard to accountability. And this is not a Democrat or Republican bill. A lot of times these Special Orders are utilized by people who want to come and blast the Democrats, if they are Republicans, or Democrats who want to blast the Republicans on the other side, and that is not what this floor is for. Politics should end here. We all represent people in this country in a public office and, therefore, all of us represent not political parties in our jobs here but citizens of this country.

This accountability bill that I want to talk about for just a few minutes, if I may, has to do with demanding that those whom we appropriate money to, any administration, Democrat, Republican, does not matter, actually manage the money so that we at least know where it goes. We may disagree as to how it is spent, but we at least, as public officials, ought to have the responsibility for ourselves and those whom we represent to understand and appreciate what it is going for.

We have here in Washington, the Congress has, an organization called the GAO, General Accountability Office. The GAO is charged with the responsibility, as a nonpolitical branch of the government, to audit, among other things, other responsibilities, audit the various Federal agencies to see what they are doing with the money that we remove from people's pockets involuntarily. And I heard you mention tax day earlier. Today is tax day. We remove the money involuntarily from the taxpayers, the citizens of this country, and then we appropriate to an administration, any administration.

Well, the GAO does audits as part of their responsibility, and they have reported to us that 18 of 24 Federal agencies could not produce an acceptable

audit in fiscal year 2005, which is the latest figures that we have.

Now, there is no private enterprise in America that could withstand that kind of either sloppy bookkeeping on the one hand, to be charitable about it, sloppy bookkeeping, or out-and-out negligence, incompetence, fraud, whatever one wishes to call it. Eighteen of 24 could not do that.

So last year, we, the Blue Dogs, designed a bill that said when that happens, when the Inspector General of any department or the GAO identifies any element or any agency of the Federal Government that cannot tell us what they did with the money that we removed from people involuntarily in the form of taxation and appropriated to them, this bill would provide that within 60 days Congress must, by law, hold a hearing to determine why it is they cannot account for the money that was appropriated to them or, in the alternative, if they cannot account for it, then it is simple: They do not get it.

That makes eminent sense to me as a businessperson at home in Tennessee. I cannot imagine going to the comptroller or the treasurer of our business and saying, here is an expenditure of X amount of dollars, what did you do with it, and they would respond, I do not know, I cannot tell you what happened to that. That would not be acceptable in any private enterprise in this country, and it should not be acceptable here in the public domain because it is all of our moneys that we are talking about, 18 of 24.

The other aspect of this bill is, in government talk, when the GAO identifies a high-risk program, what they mean is the program is being mismanaged, number one; or two, it is not doing what Congress intended it to do when the law was passed. Pretty simple. It is either the program is not working or they cannot tell us what they did with the money. In either event, Congress ought to hold a public hearing so the people of this country know that this program is either not working or that it is being so badly mismanaged, by again any administration, that we need to stop the spending.

I hope as we move through this Congress that we will be able to actually enhance and improve on it; not only that, but actually pass it into law. It needs to be done. It has everything to do with the trust that the American people have placed in us when they voted for us to come here to this arena to transact their business on their behalf.

One of the things I like so much about the Blue Dogs is that we have this quaint belief that the voting card that all of us possess as Members of Congress belongs not to either party leadership but to the people who hired us. That is, I believe, what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they created the People's House.

And so, therefore, when we have all this talk about partisan politics here, it really has nothing to do with the philosophy of the Blue Dogs in that we believe we ought to work for the people that hired us, and that is the people in our respective districts who have every right to expect that when we come here. We will not only be guardians of the country in terms of funding what is necessary for national defense, and we are very strong on that, as you know, but we also will try as best we can individually and collectively as a body to see that the moneys that are being spent are being spent in the best possible way.

I gave a talk at home over the Easter recess, and I told them, I said there are two things that are being witnessed here by this unbelievable not only spending spree, but borrowing spree that has gone on around here for the last 60 months. We have transferred so much of our Nation's treasure to interest, for which we get nothing, that we are degrading basically the tax base to the point where I am afraid in the future our country will not be able to make the two investments that I believe are necessary for our Nation's security.

One is in the area of infrastructure. One only need go to any country on the planet where there is no infrastructure, no highways, roads, bridges, water, sewer, all of the things that private enterprise in this country can build around to create the economic opportunity, the jobs, to create the commerce that will result in further tax receipts for more investment, whether it be for water and sewer and highways, airports, bridges, roads, tunnels, anything like that, to see that the government must make those investments so that private enterprise can prosper.

Nobody is prospering in these countries. We call them Third World countries, but they are nonetheless countries where there is no infrastructure. Nobody is doing any good because there is nothing to build around to create the economic activity, the commerce that must go on to make things happen. And so we are degrading our tax base by this interest that we are now paying, for which we get nothing.

The second thing is human capital. From my reading of history, there is no country in the history of civilization and mankind, or humankind, that has been able to maintain itself as a strong and free country with an unhealthy, uneducated population. We are beginning to see the budget being cut in areas where, number one, we have to have public education because all of us, as American citizens, are charged with the responsibility not only for ourselves and our families, but we are charged with making decisions for our cities, counties, State and country. Without public education for the literally millions of kids who may not get that in their homes, because of various economic factors and otherwise, we have to educate our citizens. Thomas Jefferson said it as well as anybody.

The other thing is health care. We are going to be taking up SCHIP, it is called, which is basically children's health insurance. We cannot afford in this country, in my view, to leave it better than when we found it with unhealthy, uneducated children, and so what we are trying to do is stop this ever-increasing encroachment on the tax base of interest so that we are rendered unable as citizens to do the things necessary to keep our country competitive in an increasingly globalized world. This is not just a hope. It is a necessity, in my view, that we be able to do that.

So, as we talk about fiscal responsibility, we talk about this unbelievable borrowing that is taking place, what we are really talking about is balancing the budget, not for the sake of balancing the budget, but for the sake of stopping an ever-increasing encroachment on the tax base for which we get nothing.

Last year, this country sent overseas $145 billion thereabouts. That is almost seven times as much as the so-called foreign aid bill. I do not particularly like the way we do that, but at least one can make some strategic decisions about money that is being appropriated in the foreign aid bill in terms of whether or not it will advance the interests of the United States in a given part of the world. Interest checks, on the other hand, just go to whoever bought our debt. That is a huge difference, and it is one I hope that people will relate to, understand, appreciate and hold dear when they make the decisions that they make with regard to who ought to be running our United States Congress.

Again, this bill basically does not address who controls the Congress or who controls the White House. It simply says that all of us who come here as public servants ought to have that kind of responsibility to oversee and to look after the moneys that are removed from people's pockets involuntarily in the form of taxation and appropriated to any administration.

I think, and I am glad that the Blue Dogs share that philosophy and share that opinion, because oftentimes, all you hear coming from these microphones is, well, the Republicans are worse than the Democrats, the Democrats are worse than the Republicans, and they did it to us, so we will do it to them. That is not getting us anywhere.

We have much more serious matters to discuss, and we ought to be talking about it in this Special Order. Tonight is one opportunity. I want to thank you again for allowing me this time to talk about these, I think, critical matters that affect us all. There is no Democrat or Republican; we are all Americans.

As Americans, we are not doing what we ought to do to do the things that I heard Allen Boyd talk about awhile

ago about what our parents taught us: one, live within your means; two, pay your debts; three, invest in the future. Unfortunately, we haven't been doing any of those, and it's going to catch up with us at some point if we don't reverse it.

We are trying, we need help doing it, but we are going to keep plugging away at it.

I am very proud of this Special Order that you put together. I am actually really proud of the work that the Blue Dogs are doing.

That is according to the GAO. There were six that were compliant with the Federal management, financial management law. Commerce, Labor, the EPA, the National Science Foundation, the Office of Personnel Management, and the Social Security Administration.

The ones who were not were Agriculture, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Interior, State, Transportation, Treasury, Veterans Affairs, Agency for International Development, General Services Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Small Business Administration.

There may be valid reasons why they could not tell us what they did, but we ought to have a hearing and find out what those reasons are. If they need help to correct it, and legislation to do so, then we at least would know that; and we could begin to work on that to try to correct this problem.

But to ignore it is, in my judgment, an act of irresponsibility by the Congress and by the administration.