Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 152.

When the 1947 U.N. Partition Plan created two separate states in Palestine--one Jewish, and one Arab--it was a milestone in world history. Jerusalem was from this point on to be an international city-- neither Jewish nor Arab, but shared by the two cultures.

However, the excitement over this groundbreaking compromise was short-lived. Although Israel accepted the plan, the Arab world refused to sign on, and soon after attacked Israel, plunging the region into Arab-Israeli War of 1948. The result of this war was a division of Jerusalem in two, with one half being controlled by Israel and one half controlled by Jordan.

In 1967, during the Six Day War, Israel retook control of the Jordanian half of Jerusalem. On June 7, 1967, a cease fire occurred, and Israel took full control over the entire city of Jerusalem. One year later, Israel declared a new holiday--Jerusalem Day--to commemorate the reunification of the city.

This year, to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the reunification, Israel held its Jerusalem Day with the slogan ``Something Special for Everyone.'' I commend Israel and all of the inhabitants of Jerusalem for embodying the inclusiveness of the phrase ``Something Special for Everyone.''

I encourage my colleagues to support the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 422.

This resolution aims at encouraging the People's Republic of China to use its influence as one of Sudan's chief purchasers of oil to place pressure on the Sudanese government to improve the conditions for the people in the Darfur region and allow humanitarian organizations to enter the region and assist the people of Darfur.

The underlying basis for the conflict in the Darfur region is difficult to define. Some scholars describe it as a conflict between Arab and African cultures, although this is a simplistic

view. Whatever the foundation of the conflict, the Nile Valley region (the area around the Darfur region in Sudan), has had cultural conflicts dating as far back as the fourteenth century.

The current conflict in the Darfur region of Sudan places the Sudanese military and the Janjaweed militia against rebel groups, including the Sudan Liberation Movement and the Justice and Equality Movement. The Sudanese government, while denying its support for the Janjaweed militia, has nonetheless provided funding and weapons to the Janjaweed.

Because of this military conflict, humanitarian aid groups have been unable to reach most parts of the Darfur region. Further, journalists have been prevented from entering the region by the Sudanese government, thus ensuring that many of the atrocities occurring in Darfur go unreported.

U.N. officials have estimated that over 400,000 Darfur residents have died since the conflict began, many due to starvation. Further estimates put the number of residents displaced from their homes at over 2 million.

It is important that the United States look to any means available to quell the atrocious acts occurring in Darfur. As a leading arms dealer to the country of Sudan, The People's Republic of China is uniquely situated to encourage the Sudanese government to accept the decisions of the United Nations with regard to helping the inhabitants of the Darfur region.

As China readies itself for the spotlight on the world stage at the 2008 Beijing Olympics, it is important that China, along with the rest of the world, step up its influence on the Sudanese government and ensure that the atrocities and human rights violations taking place in the Darfur region are put to an end.

I encourage my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 430.

This resolution calls on the government of Iran to release Dr. Haleh Esfandiari, who is being held captive in Evin prison, despite the Ministry of Intelligence offering no evidence of wrongdoing.

Dr. Esfandiari is a respected member of academia, holding the position of director of the Middle East Program at the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars, having previously taught Persian language and literature at Princeton University.

While visiting her ailing 93-year-old mother in Iran, Dr. Esfandiari was held up at knifepoint; her travel documents and luggage were taken in the process. It was while attempting to procure subsequent documents that Dr. Esfandiari was taken into custody by the Ministry of Intelligence in Iran.

Dr. Esfandiari is not the only American taken prisoner in Iran under the guise of being a ``spy.'' With U.S. and Iranian diplomatic relations resuming again after 25 years, it is important that the United States remain vigilant in opposing these unconscionable tactics employed by the Iranian Government toward United States citizens abroad.

This resolution is a strong first step in standing up for the safety of all American citizens traveling abroad. No American should ever be deprived of their liberty simply because they crossed the safe haven of U.S. borders.

I encourage my colleagues to support this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Ms. Shirley Kay Fegan on the occasion of her retirement after 50 years of dedicated service to the greater Washington, DC metropolitan area.

Before rising to her present role as head of school at The Congressional Schools of Virginia, Ms. Fegan spent many years raising awareness about poverty and cultivating her passion for education.

Upon graduating from Georgetown University, Ms. Fegan traveled to Central America, where she worked with the Alliance for Progress to aid indigenous populations. Impassioned by this experience, Ms. Fegan returned to the Washington, DC area, where she developed programs through the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) to support migrant laborers. Ms. Fegan then applied the skills she had developed at OEO to the District of Columbia, helping to establish the first inner city HMO. Not only did this endeavor succeed in helping those affected by the 1968 riots, but the project eventually culminated in the opening of a 63,000 square foot facility which provides medical, dental, and pharmaceutical services.

In 1979, Ms. Fegan began working at The Congressional Schools of Virginia, where she has made a tremendous impact on students and faculty alike. Her presence was felt from the start as she applied her knowledge of the non-profit field to help restructure the institution and organize a volunteer school board. After becoming head of school in 1992, Ms. Fegan launched a series of initiatives that have led to the creation of strong athletic and community service programs. She has also been instrumental in incorporating information technology into the school's classrooms.

Whether Ms. Fegan was raising awareness on behalf of minority communities, making an impact on the District's inner city areas, or helping transform The Congressional Schools of Virginia into a first rate learning institution, Ms. Fegan has always dedicated herself to the serving others.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I would like to commend and congratulate Ms. Fegan on all of her achievements. I call upon my colleagues to join me in applauding Shirley for her past accomplishments and in wishing her continued success in the years to come.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. John H. La Raia for over 37 years of dedicated military and Federal service.

Following his graduation from the University of Rochester in 1968, John joined the Air Force's Strategic Air Command in Southeast Asia. During his 5 years at this post, John served courageously and valiantly, flying in 155 missions. After completing his active duty, John continued to serve in the Air Force Reserves for an additional 21 years as a logistics plans officer.

Compelled to further serve his government and his Nation, John then began a career in the federal service at the Bureau of Naval Personnel. After his initial training period, he quickly rose through the ranks of the Bureau, serving in a variety of assignments dealing with financial management, systems analysis and both civilian and military personnel.

In 1999, he joined the Senior Executive Service as an assistant for administration to the Under Secretary of the Navy. Through this role John managed duties concerning the Navy's budget, human resources, manpower, facilities and services, IT services and various other functions for the secretary.

During his distinguished career he was awarded the Department of the Navy Distinguished Civilian Service Medal three times. Additionally, he received the Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Civilian Service. Finally, last year he was recognized by President Bush and awarded the Presidential Rank of Meritorious Service.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I would like to commend and congratulate Mr. John H. La Raia for his distinguished career and his service to our Nation. He exemplifies everything our great Nation could hope for in a public servant. I call upon my colleagues to join me in congratulating Mr. La Raia and in wishing him continued success in the years to come.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the efforts of Prince Wiilliam County Public Schools during the 2007 Youth Art Month.

Youth Art Month is an annual effort to recognize and promote art education in schools across the country. Specifically, this program seeks to emphasize the importance and benefits of incorporating art into youth education. Since 1984, the Council for Art Education has acted as a primary sponsor of Youth Art Month alongside fellow organizations, such as the National Art Education Association, to consistently make this effort a success.

Prince William County has a strong tradition of promoting art education and has been celebrating Youth Art Month for 29 years. The Virginia Art Education Association, working in concert with Prince Williams County Public Schools, selected ``Start with Art, Learn for Life'' as the 2007 theme and launched this year's celebration on March 10, 2007, by exhibiting student artwork on the Manassas Mall. This year's Youth Art Month saw tremendous participation from county elementary, middle, and high schools and highlighted the works of many talented student artists.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the men and women who contributed to making this year's Youth Art Month a success. I ask my colleagues to join me in applauding this group of remarkable young artists and congratulate them on a job well done.

Madam Chairman, General Walter Boomer, the commander of the Marines in the first gulf war, once said, a soldier's best friend, next to his rifle, is the postman.

This amendment, which is a scaled down version of H.R. 1439, the Supply Our Soldiers Act of 2007, sponsored by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) and myself, will help our soldiers, our sailors, our airmen and marines fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan receive letters and packages more regularly from their loved ones.

We're not able to be with our heroes fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we're able to send a little piece of home overseas to them. Whether it's mailing the basic essentials or a videotape and a letter, tangible items from loved ones are always appreciated.

Holding a son or daughter's art project or biting into a homemade cookie reminds them that they support what they are doing and the sacrifices they are making for our country.

The cost of sending letters and packages overseas to Iraq and Afghanistan can be a burden for a family already making great sacrifices. I think that regular communication between soldiers and their families should not be inhibited by the cost of postage, and some things just can't be e-mailed. This amendment will help soldiers receive the necessary supplies and words of encouragement from loved ones more frequently, keeping morale raised while in the combat zone.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment to extend for three years the Information Technology Exchange Program--also known as the Digital Tech Corps--has been included in this en bloc amendment, and I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for accepting this amendment.

In 2002, I included language in the Electronic Government Act of 2002 creating the Digital Tech Corps program.

The program gives mid-level federal IT managers the opportunity for intensive, on-the-job training in how the private sector manages complex IT projects. Too many complex federal IT procurements fail because of improper management. The Tech Corps gives employees insight and experience in how the best companies in the world are successfully managing IT so they can bring this knowledge back to government.

The Tech Corps works in reverse as well, giving private sector IT employees the opportunity to volunteer for rewarding public service. In tackling some of the world's toughest IT problems, they can return to their companies understanding the challenges facing the world's largest employer.

The Tech Corps program is a relatively new vision for public service in this century, enabling broader public-private sector exchanges of talented IT professionals. It builds on the successes of other successful personnel exchanges, such as the 1970 Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA).

All Tech Corps participants must adhere to strict federal employee ethics rules, and they must abide by the laws and rules of the agency and Federal Government. Participants do not receive any special privileges, pay, or incentives--all participants retain pay and benefits from their respective employers while participating in the program.

The Electronic Government Act of 2002 required the Office of Personnel Management to issue guidance for agencies engaging in the Tech Corps program. Agencies had 5 years from the date of enactment in December 2002 to implement the program. OPM issued its guidance in 2005, making it difficult for agencies to receive the full benefits of implementing the program.

Since the issuance of OPM's guidelines in 2005 and the approval of DOD's Tech Corps policy in 2006, the agency has worked aggressively to get its Tech Corps program off the ground. Nearly a dozen DOD components have expressed interest in participating in the program.

My amendment would extend the authorization period of the Information Technology Exchange Program (ITEP) by 3 years for the Department of Defense (DOD) so it can achieve the intended benefits of the program.

In particular, the benefits of the Tech Corps program include: (1) participants learn new job skills; (2) the private sector employees can learn about government procedures and processes; (3) the public and private sectors can share best practices; (4) participating organizations are infused with new ideas; and (5) participants gain perspective from others, improve personal competencies and skills, and close skill gaps within the government organizations.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I also express my support for language included in this en bloc amendment offered by my colleague, Mr. Moran, which would require that the transportation infrastructure necessary to accommodate the large influx of military personnel and civilian employees to be assigned to Fort Belvoir, VA, as part of the BRAC realignment of the installation, be substantially completed before the relocation of these employees.

The 2005 BRAC Commission recommended relocating 22,000 Department of Defense personnel to Fort Belvoir by 2011. That is a workforce equal to that of the Pentagon. Due to the magnitude of the BRAC realignment, the existing congestion in the Springfield area, and the potential impact on the surrounding community--and indeed all of Northern Virginia--BRAC implementation has to be done right.

I voted against the BRAC recommendations for several reasons, including my belief DoD had not adequately considered the ramifications of transferring 22,000 new personnel to Fort Belvoir within a 6-year timeframe.

Since the recommendations were approved, I have worked diligently with my colleagues to ensure the Army is sensitive to the concerns of my constituents and devotes adequate time and resources to mitigate the impact of BRAC to the extent possible.

I would like to commend my colleague for this amendment, because it gets to the heart of the matter: it ensures the necessary transportation infrastructure will be in place before personnel begin to relocate to Fort Belvoir. This only makes sense.

Without sufficient infrastructure, daily commutes could last for hours. In fact, it might simply be impossible for DoD personnel to even get to and from work, thereby preventing agencies from being able to accomplish their missions. It surely would mark a drastic reduction in quality of life for those employees stuck in what could be a traffic nightmare, and I would submit could easily lead to significant turnover.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter for including language in the bill to require the Army and GSA to work out an agreement to allow the Army to use the GSA warehouse property in Springfield. This facility is located adjacent to an existing Metro and Virginia Railway Express station, yet it currently is used for warehouse space. I have long thought this federal property could be put to much better use than warehouses. With this language, we will put this property to much better use, promote transit options, and take cars off the road. Again, I am most grateful this provision has been included.

In closing, I would like to thank Mr. Moran for this amendment and for his continued hard work on behalf of Northern Virginians. I urge my colleagues to support this language and the en bloc amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud we have brought this resolution to the floor today. it is sadly fitting, as today marks the 1-year anniversary of the fatal shootings of Master Police Officer Michael E. Garbarino and Detective Vicky O. Armel of the Fairfax County Police Department--the first two officers shot and killed in the line of duty in the department's long, distinguished history.

These local officers were shining examples of the courage and selflessness found in our law enforcement community. Their stories also illustrate the fact that personal sacrifice and danger have always been synonymous with law enforcement service, beginning with New York City's Deputy Sheriff Isaac Smith, who on May 17, 1792, became the first recorded police officer to be killed in the line of duty.

Today, there are 870,000 sworn law enforcement officers in the United States who continue the ``quest to preserve both democracy and decency, and to protect a national treasure that we call the American dream,'' a quote by President George Bush engraved on the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. Each one of these officers and their families carry with them the knowledge their efforts put them in harm's way. Today, more than 56,000 are assaulted each year and every 53 hours, an officer is killed while serving the American people. September 11, 2001, was the deadliest day for police officers in all of American history when 72 officers were killed while responding to terrorist attacks.

May 15 is Peace Officers Memorial Day, a holiday created in 1961 by Congress to honor fallen law enforcement officers who dedicated their lives to protecting this country and its citizens. The flag is flown at half-staff and thousands of people visit the Memorial, which was authorized by President Ronald Reagan in 1984 and built in 1989 and currently has 17,912 names etched into the wall.

Mr. Speaker, I support this resolution to honor the memories of Master Police Officer Garbarino and Detective Armel, and all the fallen heroes from the law enforcement ranks for their service and their willingness to expose themselves to danger in their pursuit of a safe community.

Mr. Speaker, I've traveled a long road with the District of Columbia Access Act--from March 1, 1999, when it was introduced, until the present day.

That road took us through the predecessor subcommittee I chaired at the time, to the full Government Reform Committee, to the House and Senate floor, and then to the White House, where then-President Clinton signed the measure on November 12, 1999.

In all of its legislative approvals the College Access Act--also known as the Tuition Assistance Grant Program--was passed unanimously, by voice vote. President Clinton had included sufficient money in his budget submission that year, and a statement of administration policy endorsed the approach we had taken in authorizing use of those funds.

I am deeply proud of our hard, bipartisan effort in enacting this measure and in reauthorizing it 2 years ago.

My thanks to Eleanor Holmes Norton, who was ranking member of the District of Columbia Subcommittee in 1999, and who has worked tirelessly to enhance this legislation ever since.

I would also like to thank my then-counterpart in the Senate, George Voinovich, for his continuing support, and Senators Warner and Durbin for working with us to improve this legislation.

I'm also grateful to my namesake Chairman Danny Davis, chairman of the subcommittee, for holding a hearing on this bill March 22, ranking subcommittee member Kenny Marchant for his support, and Chairman Waxman for marking this bill up so expeditiously.

The 5-year reauthorizing legislation before us today will enable District residents to continue to attend colleges and universities at in-State rates. President Bush, in his budget submission for fiscal year 2008, has included sufficient funds to make this happen.

Then-Mayor Anthony Williams and now D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty have both strongly supported this law as being very important for District high school graduates. The Tuition Assistance Program has doubled the total number of District students attending college since 1999-2000, the school year before the program started. We have incentivized getting a college education.

This law is a classic ``leveling of the playing field.'' No city or county in the country is required to supplement in-State rates with local funds, and neither should the taxpayers in the Nation's capital be saddled with this burden. Neither should the city be penalized for its own success in administering this program.

Back on March 4, 1999, when I first introduced this bill, I went to nearby Eastern High School with Ms. Norton. I was deeply moved by the reaction of the students. I will never forget how so many took our hands, looked into our eyes, and thanked us for introducing the original bill.

I'm proud of all we have been able to do in the Nation's capital since 1995, when the city was literally bankrupt. Economic development, public safety, the real estate market, and so many other aspects of city life have changed for the better.

But nothing has given me more satisfaction than working to improve educational opportunity. Fighting for equal educational opportunity is one of the reasons I entered public life.

We need a healthy city to have a healthy Washington region.

Reauthorizing this law, which has expanded higher educational choices, is a strong part of our vision for the future.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule.

In the manager's amendment adopted by the rule, the majority stripped out a number of commonsense amendments, mostly offered by Republicans, which would enhance homeland security. I think it is a regrettable turn of events which could cost the majority the support of many minority Members.

I guess the good news here is that we know this bill may pass the House, but it is not going anywhere in the Senate, and in this form, it is unsignable by the President.

But the rule also disallowed a critical amendment to help ensure that the Washington area would receive the necessary senior-level attention from the Department of Homeland Security so that Federal, State, and local governments are properly coordinating their homeland security activities.

In 2002, when we established the Department of Homeland Security in a bipartisan manner, it created an Office of National Capital Region Coordination. To demonstrate the importance of this, we put it in the Office of the Secretary.

Unfortunately, the administration decided in their reorganization to put this deep inside of FEMA. My amendment, which was not allowed, was pretty straightforward. It was to restore the office to its original and rightful place in the Office of the Secretary. This amendment would have passed with a large bipartisan majority, but it was not allowed by the other side.

Now, why is this important? The events of 9/11 made it all too important that better coordination of first responders is needed in the D.C. region, with two States and the District of Columbia, 12 local jurisdictions, three branches of the Federal Government, 2,100 nonprofit organizations, thousands of businesses and nonprofit organizations, 4 million Americans. They want to put that responsibility into FEMA. It belongs in the Office of the Secretary. We have been through ``tractor man.'' We have been through disruptions at the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. We have been through the snipers. This needs the highest Federal attention for coordination among all these different organizations in the region. And they wouldn't allow this amendment.

We are going to introduce this as a commonsense stand-alone bill. I hope it will receive the attention of this House. But in disallowing this amendment, now the other side takes ownership of this provision by putting their confidence in FEMA instead of the Office of the Secretary.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment will remove from this legislation a very dangerous and costly restriction on the government's ability to obtain protective gear, apparel and other materials that are critical to those charged with protecting our Nation.

Is 9/11 already such a distant memory that we are willing to sacrifice the safety of those protecting our country in order to delude ourselves into believing we are saving jobs? Are there Members of this House who believe we should not be doing everything we can to make sure that our Customs Officers, our Border Patrol agents, our Air Marshals have the best protective gear, the best bulletproof vest, the best body armor available in the world when we go out and purchase this for them? Wherever it is made, we want them to have the best.

Make no mistake about it, a vote against my amendment is a vote to jeopardize the safety and security of the agents and officers protecting our country by restricting the sourcing and our ability to buy the best available around the globe.

What is more, section 407 limits competition, which ends up driving up taxpayer costs, and it limits the Homeland Security Department's ability to obtain the best products to protect our homeland.

Members should not be conned into thinking that domestic source restrictions, ``Buy America,'' save jobs. Time and time again, these shortsighted restrictions have ended up costing us more American jobs than they save, as our trading partners then take retaliatory action against American-made goods and services that we sell abroad. We should remember that we are only 4 percent of the world's consumers here in the United States. Pretty soon, with these kind of source restrictions on what America can buy and sell, we are going to be selling only to ourselves.

Restrictions such as these jeopardize national security; do not make available to us the most modern technologies, the best body armor, the best

bulletproof vests in the world. The highest technology available in the world for ID cards could be eliminated under this amendment. It hamstrings market competition by eliminating who can bid on these contracts, it leads to higher prices and lower quality goods and services, and it wastes precious taxpayer dollars.

I think by supporting homeland security, you should support our amendment to strike section 407.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, one of the difficulties in our procurement system today in government is that we try to reach too many competing policy goals in the way that we buy goods and services. When we use taxpayer dollars, when we take hard-earned money from our taxpayers and the government needs a good or a service, our purpose ought to be to buy the best good and the best service and get the best value for our tax dollars, period. That is what we do when we buy our cars. That is what we do when we add additions to our home. The government should be subject to the same rules and regulations.

In this particular case, there is no safety issue over where these materials may be made. That is a subterfuge. What this is is an attempt to try to protect American jobs in some ways, and of course, the end result is you lose them in others.

But by reaching these competing goals in procurement through set- asides, where we exclude parts of the economic system from bidding, this ``Buy America'' language is another effort another effort to restrict competition. We end up driving up costs for the taxpayers. We don't make use, many times, of the best technology. Although there is catch-all language in this and other ``Buy America'' language that allows the Secretary to certify certain things, in point of fact, they don't work. They are reluctant to do that, and you end up many times with higher-costing goods of the same order. That reduces our ability to use taxpayer dollars wisely.

In a global economy, American taxpayers should get the benefit of the best value when we go out and use our dollars to buy goods and services. Restrictions on competition like this means that tax dollars are limited in their choices. Fewer choices means inferior products. It means greater costs. It means less competition. Section 407 of this legislation restricts competition, and it should be restricted.

My amendment is endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, by the Information Technology Association of America as well. I think every taxpayer ought to be concerned about how their tax dollars are spent.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from North Carolina and his position in the area that he represents, but I just don't think these restrictive source provisions over the long term are in the American taxpayers' interests.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this bill to correct a long standing historical inequity.

H.R. 1294 would provide federal recognition to six American Indian tribes in the Commonwealth of Virginia. With this formal recognition our Government will extend to these tribes the respect, dignity and benefits afforded to 562 other American Indian tribes.

Despite historical records documenting the existence of these tribes dating back to the 1600s and formal recognition by the Commonwealth in the 1980s, their efforts to receive Federal recognition have been ongoing for decades.

While documents normally required by the Bureau of Indian Affairs are missing or have been altered, this was not the fault or result of tribal action. In 1997, Virginia passed legislation to correct these historical records and in 1999 passed a resolution urging Congress to grant these tribes Federal recognition.

This inequity should stand no longer. The Chickahominy Indian Tribe, the Eastern Division of the Chickahominy Indian Tribe, the Upper Mattaponi Tribe, the Rappahannock Tribe Inc., the Monacan Indian Nation, and the Nansemond Indian Tribe deserve to be on equal footing with other tribes in the United States. They would benefit greatly from the ability to compete for educational programs, grants and other federal services.

Mr. Speaker, this has gone on long enough. As we commemorate the 400th anniveary of

the founding of Jamestown and honor the history and courage that experience entailed, let us also honor these Native Americans who have persevered through a system of exclusion, by mandating Federal recognition.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this bill to correct a long-standing historical inequity.

H.R. 1294 would provide Federal recognition to six American Indian tribes in the Commonwealth of Virginia. With this formal recognition our Government will extend to these tribes the respect, dignity and benefits afforded to 562 other American Indian tribes.

Despite historical records documenting the existence of these tribes dating back to the 1600s and formal recognition by the Commonwealth in the 1980s, their efforts to receive Federal recognition have been ongoing for decades.

While documents normally required by the Bureau of Indian Affairs are missing or have been altered, this was not the fault or result of tribal action. In 1997, Virginia passed legislation to correct these historical records and in 1999 passed a resolution urging Congress to grant these tribes Federal recognition.

This inequity should stand no longer. The Chickahominy Indian Tribe, the Eastern Division of the Chickahominy Indian Tribe, the Upper Mattaponi Tribe, the Rappahannock Tribe Inc., the Monacan Indian Nation, and the Nansemond Indian Tribe deserve to be on equal footing with other tribes in the United States. They would benefit greatly from the ability to compete for educational programs, grants and other Federal services.

Mr. Speaker, this has gone on long enough. As we commemorate the 400th anniversary of the founding of Jamestown and honor the history and courage that experience entailed, let us also honor these Native Americans who have persevered through a system of exclusion, by mandating Federal recognition.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 117.

Mr. Speaker, 400 hundred years ago a group of entrepreneurs from the Virginia Company landed on Jamestown Island with the intent of establishing a colony to find gold and a water route to the Orient. This landing spot became the first permanent English colony in America and later became the capital of Virginia for 92 years.

Mr. Speaker, I ask today that we take a moment to focus on the courage of those who lived there.

In a strange land, yet not the land they sought, in an unhealthy place plagued by disease, fire and the elements, they banded together to make a life.

And that life was not an easy one. By the end of 1607, after a particularly harsh winter, only 60 of the original 214 settlers remained alive. If Captain John Smith hadn't contrived to get food for the Indians, the American dream might well have died on those swampy shores.

Suffering and hard work were not strangers to the colonists. By 1614, the settlers had a cash crop--tobacco--and they worked hard to see that it sustained the colony.

To ensure order, they formed the House of Burgesses, the first representative assembly in America. Soon, every farmer in Virginia was granted 40 acres of land on which to farm tobacco.

Still, they had little beyond that which they could get for themselves or the local Indians. It is hard today to fathom the courage of those who struggled against all to make the colony and their families a success.

Today, 400 years later, we honor not just those brave people but the native Americans they encountered and the Africans who became indentured servants soon thereafter.

I encourage all Americans to take a cue from the Queen of England and make the pilgrimage to Jamestown during this historic year.

I encourage them to observe first-hand the hardships endured, the friendships forged, the commitment to something more than survival--the courage to leave behind far more comfortable lives in England and take the chance of a lifetime.

These were the first Americans in many senses. They were the first to form a government, the first to be willing to push past tradition and comfort for adventure, for fairness, for democracy. That's why I am I proud to urge passage of H. Con. Res. 117.

Madam Speaker, secure information is the lifeblood of effective government policy and management, yet federal agencies continue to hemorrhage vital data. Personal information continues to be placed at risk, and we must ask: What is being done to protect the sensitive digital identities of millions of Americans, and how can we limit the damage when personal data does go astray?

As we all now know, a Department of Veterans Affairs employee reported the theft of computer equipment from his home--equipment which stored more than 26 million records containing personal information. VA leadership delayed acting on the report for almost two weeks, while millions were at risk of serious harm from identity theft and the agency struggled to determine the exact extent of the breach.

But this is only one in a long string of personal information breaches in the public and private sectors, including financial institutions, data brokerage companies, and academic institutions. Last year, we found the Census Bureau could not account for over one thousand laptops containing sensitive information issued to employees. And just recently, we learned the Department of Agriculture left sensitive data on a website, putting the personal information of 150,000 individuals as risk.

These breaches continue to illustrate how far we have to go to reach the goal of strong, uniform, government-wide information security policies and procedures.

On the Government Reform Committee, I focused on government-wide information management and security for a long time. The Privacy Act and the E-Government Act of 2002 outline the parameters for the protection of personal information. These recent incidents highlight the importance of establishing--and following--security standards for safeguarding personal information. They also highlight the need for proactive security breach notification requirements for organizations-- including Federal agencies--dealing with sensitive personal information.

Congress continues working on requirements for the private sector-- but Federal agencies present unique requirements and

challenges. These incidents demonstrate the importance of strengthening the laws and rules protecting personal information held by Federal agencies--and we need to do this quickly.

In order to get a more complete picture of the problem before pursuing legislation, we sent a request to all cabinet agencies seeking information about data breaches involving the loss of sensitive personal information.

The results were troubling. We learned there have been a wide range of incidents involving data loss or theft, privacy breaches, and security incidents. In almost all of these cases, Congress and the public would not have learned of each event unless we had requested the information.

My bill requires timely notice be provided to individuals whose sensitive personal information could be compromised by a breach of data security at a Federal agency. Despite the volume of sensitive information held by agencies, there currently is no requirement people be notified if their information is compromised. Under this legislation, the executive branch must establish practices, procedures and standards for agencies to follow if sensitive personal information is lost or stolen and there is a reasonable risk of harm to an individual. And we provide a clear definition of the type of sensitive information we're trying to protect.

We also give the agency Chief Information Officers the authority, when appropriate and authorized, to ensure agency personnel comply with the information security laws already on the books.

Finally, we ensure costly equipment containing potentially sensitive information is accounted for and secure. Half of the lost Census Bureau computers simply were not returned by departing or terminated employees. The agency did not track computer equipment, nor were employees held accountable for failing to return it. This is taxpayer funded equipment, containing sensitive information, and we must know what we have and who has it--at all times.

Each year, I release Federal agency information security scorecards. Despite some improvement, scores for many departments remain unacceptably low. The Federal Government overall received a C minus, a slight improvement over prior years.

The Federal Government has sensitive personal information on every citizen--health records, tax returns, military records. We need to ensure the public knows when its sensitive personal information has been lost or compromised in some way.

The language in this bill is identical to H.R. 6163, which I introduced last Congress. Last year, with the assistance of then Chairman Steve Buyer, I incorporated this language into the Veterans Identity and Credit Security Act (H.R. 5835), which passed the House on September 26. That bill, including my language, had strong bipartisan support, with 67 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, including the new chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

This bill is a critical first step toward limiting the loss of our sensitive personal information. I hope we can again move this important legislation through the House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support for H. Res. 243. The imprisonment of political prisoners and prisoners of conscience by the Republic of Vietnam is unconscionable. I join my colleagues in urging the communist regime in Hanoi to cease with these repressive actions.

Father Nguyen Van Ly and human rights attorneys Nguyen Van Dai and Le Thi Cong Nhan were arrested earlier this year for allegedly disseminating propaganda against their government. Their actions were peaceful and nonviolent, and are protected by the Vietnamese Constitution. In the 12th round of human rights talks between our government and the government of the Republic of Vietnam last week, the assistant to the Vietnamese foreign minister attempted to highlight their achievements in this arena, citing the protection and execution of basic rights and freedoms of their people.

Madam Speaker, these words are not enough. We need action. The government of Vietnam needs to show us their commitment to providing basic human rights to their citizenry by releasing these Vietnamese patriots. Their alleged crimes amount to nothing more than advocating freedom of religion, speech, movement and association; these actions should be celebrated, rather than punished by their government.

I support this resolution and call upon the Socialist Republic of Vietnam to immediately and unconditionally release these political and religious prisoners. Further, I call upon their government to embrace differing opinions, and ensure their government's vitality through the strength of its principles, rather than the strength of its police force.