David Price

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee will soon bid farewell to our Congressional Fellow, Benjamin Kramer, as he begins his next assignment as Special Agent for the U.S. Secret Service. Special Agent Kramer has proven himself to be an energetic and thoughtful contributor to the work of this Subcommittee, bringing with him the experience he has gained with the Secret Service and before that as a criminal investigator with the D.C. Inspector General. Working as a member of my subcommittee staff, Ben helped the Subcommittee navigate what was often a frenetic path as we crafted our 2009 appropriations bill, and assisted in our work in overseeing the agencies and programs under our jurisdiction. In particular, Ben had lead staff responsibility for oversight of the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General.- Ben's unqualified professionalism, great sense of humor and cool head have helped our Subcommittee and the Congress address a wide range of policy and budgetary challenges. During his time with the Subcommittee, Ben researched issues for various programs, coordinated committee travel, and compiled materials on amendments. Ben also assisted in managing the database of requests to the Committee from Members of Congress, and in preparing for hearings and briefings. I am grateful for his hard work. Special Agent Kramer has served me, this Subcommittee, and the House well. While we are sorry to see him leave, each of us on the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee wishes Ben all the best as he resumes his Secret Service career, and expect to continue to see great things from him.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, as a co-chair of the National Service Caucus, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of H. Res. 43, recognizing the importance of national service, supporting the efforts of those who serve their communities on Martin Luther King Day, and promoting the Martin Luther King Day holiday as a day of national service. During the 1950s and '60s, civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. recognized the power of service to strengthen communities and achieve common goals. King's ideas of unity and purpose highlighted the great things that can happen when we work together toward a common goal, and these ideas are as important today as they were 50 years ago. In 1994, Congress passed the King Holiday and Service Act to transform the King Holiday into a national day of service to meet community needs. Since that time, millions of Americans have participated in community-building activities on King Day, treating the holiday as ``a day on, not a day off.'' The day before President-elect Obama's inauguration is the Martin Luther King holiday. With thousands of projects planned across the country, in addition to a call to serve from President-elect Obama, the 2009 King Day of Service on January 19 promises to be the most successful national service effort to date. Both President-elect Obama and Vice-President-elect Biden, along with their families, will be participating in service events to honor Martin Luther King and commemorate the holiday. I encourage my colleagues and their staff to share in the spirit of volunteerism and unity by participating in a service opportunity here in Washington, DC, or back home with their constituents on January 19. I am pleased that the President-elect has been part of the call to ensure that this day be a day devoted to service. However, I know, as President-elect Obama knows, that one day of good deeds is not enough. Throughout the presidential campaign, the President-elect spoke about a new era of civic engagement, and I hope that the passage of H. Res. 43 will build on Martin Luther King day and the Inauguration and reaffirm our ongoing commitment to service.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, the resolution before us correctly condemns the actions by Hamas to target innocent civilians in southern Israel and to thwart the ceasefire that had been in place for the previous 6 months. It correctly calls for a new, sustainable ceasefire and affirms the U.S. commitment to a just and durable peace based on a two-state solution. But the resolution does not begin to do justice to the humanitarian disaster gripping Gaza, and it offers little more than lip service on behalf of a serious peace process. Focusing on affixing blame for the current crisis, it fails to emphasize the steps required to lead us toward a long-term solution. I recently wrote an article which appeared in the January 6 Charlotte Observer and Miami Herald in which I proposed immediate actions the U.S. must take to return us to a trajectory leading to a just and lasting peace. I ask permission that it be included in the Record. After the conflict ends and the dust settles, after all the recriminations and resentments have been aired, we will be left with the crucial question of whether and how to resume efforts toward a lasting peace, This is the only goal that can meet our and Israel's long-term security needs in the region. We must act urgently, knowing that the steps we take now will determine just how steep that future road to peace will be. U.S. Must Act Now in Gaza (By Representative David Price) For observers of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict committed to a peaceful and lasting two-state resolution, the conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza brings the temptation to throw one's hands in the air in despair. Mistaken assumptions and lessons left unlearned seem to guide each of the protagonists down a course antithetical to the long-term interests of both Israelis and Palestinians. We can't help but lament another cycle of retributive violence--both for the terrible toll it takes on both sides and because we know it is not the way forward. Yet exasperation and passivity are indulgences that the United States and the world can ill afford. Fighting vs. governing For its part, Hamas has again proven that it would rather fight than govern or tend to the needs of Gazans, making it exceedingly difficult to envision it as a serious partner at the negotiating table. Israel, while unquestionably justified in its move to put an end to the daily barrage of rockets falling upon its citizens, seems to have forgotten the lessons of the 2006 Lebanon war, during which its use of massive force alienated the Arab world and turned Hezbollah into freedom fighters in the eyes of many Lebanese. And the Bush administration once again offers little--only an unconditional green light to follow the fight, now a full- scale ground war, wherever it leads. It is difficult to imagine how the current conflict might ultimately lead to a just and lasting peace. Hamas, though militarily debilitated, is not likely to disappear as a political force or to suddenly prove more pliable in negotiations. It may become more rather than less difficult to bring Gaza under the authority of President Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah, lest they be seen as capitalizing on the misery wrought by the fighting. And Israel, while addressing a key short-term security objective, risks far-reaching damage to the peace process that is essential to its most critical long-term security objective: a resolution to the conflict. Equally troubling, the overwhelming force of its bombardment has buttressed support for extremist elements, like Hezbollah and the Iranian government, that threaten Israeli and regional security. As ominous as the picture may be, it is strongly in the interests of our own country to ensure that the architecture of the peace process is not irreparably damaged. To do so, the United States should take several immediate steps, even as the Bush administration draws anemically to a close. Humanitarian crisis looms First, the administration, working with the international community, must take swift action to avert a massive humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Gazans have been on the verge of a humanitarian meltdown for months; the bombing of border tunnels--which have been used to smuggle food and humanitarian supplies, in addition to weapons--pushes Gaza further toward collapse. Secondly, the administration should urgently engage Israel, along with regional allies like Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, in putting together the framework for a sustainable long-term cease-fire, not simply a temporary halt to fighting. Such a framework must protect Israel from the persistent rocket fire on Sderot and from Hamas's stockpiling of deadly weapons. But it also must provide relief from the devastating embargo on Gaza. To be effective, it must involve Egypt and regional partners as mediators and monitors. Collateral consequences Coming on the heels of the 2006 Lebanon war, Israel's military actions in Gaza have had the unfortunate collateral consequence of generating substantial domestic political unrest for many of Israel's friendliest Arab neighbors, particularly Egypt. The United States will need to walk a fine diplomatic line, encouraging Arab nations to lead Hamas toward a sustainable ceasefire while empowering them to advocate for the just peace their citizens demand. Finally, both President Bush and, as soon as he takes office, President-elect Obama should explicitly express the United States' unwavering commitment to a viable peace process and undertake diplomacy toward that end. How the present conflict is waged, and on what terms it is halted, will be especially consequential on the Palestinian side of the equation. The U.S., Israel and moderate Sunni regimes have not done enough to help President Abbas and Fatah gain credibility, and that task is now even more urgent and challenging. As for Hamas, while its military capabilities may be downgraded by the conflict, its political stock may rise. The organization and its constituency must be taken into account, directly and indirectly, in any viable process. Regional mediations and renewed Israeli-Syrian talks should figure prominently in such efforts. These steps will not resolve the conflict. But they will help preserve the possibility of a future peace, a possibility that is now teetering on the brink.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, during the presidency of George W. Bush, many of us have watched with horror as the Administration has pursued policies--supposedly to help fight an ill- defined war against terrorism--that shock the conscience and undermine the values fundamental to our understanding of what it means to be an American: torture; disappearance; indefinite detention. Historians will view the excesses of this era with the same scorn as the Alien and Sedition Acts and the reign of McCarthyism. Even in hindsight, however, it will be difficult to understand how these policies could have gained even tacit approval from so many. Many of us have resisted these policies, questioned them, opposed them, and condemned them. We have, in the last two years, begun the monumental task of dismantling them. We also have begun a second, equally daunting effort: to identify policies that will address our very real security challenges without compromising our fundamental values and our standing in the world. Simply put, global terrorism presents a serious and evolving threat, and it demands new thinking about the tools we must use to confront this threat. On September 24, along with nine original co-sponsors, I introduced H.R. 7056, legislation aimed at generating more robust debate about the nature of the threat of terrorism and the tools we must apply to address it. My legislation focuses specifically upon the Bush Administration's most disgraceful and disturbing legacy: its architecture of law and practice in the realm of detention, interrogation, and prosecution of terrorism suspects. My legislation recognizes, however, that a progressive response to the Administration's regressive policies cannot be limited to ``don't do that''--don't torture, don't hold detainees indefinitely, and so on--but must offer a new vision that is responsive to the challenges and opportunities of the current context. I hope my proposals will spark new ideas that will lead to a new, more ethical, and more effective approach to battling global terrorism. The question of how best to organize and mobilize the instruments of our national power in fighting global terrorism, especially with regard to interrogation and detention of terrorist suspects, is particularly pertinent as we prepare to determine the direction and leadership of our country for the next four years. In my view, there are three major challenges the next president will have to address. One: How can we most effectively approach human intelligence collection, a task that includes determining the most effective and most ethical ways to conduct interrogations? Two: What is the best system to prosecute suspected terrorists quickly and effectively? Three: What will be the nature of our detention regime? Where, under what authority, with what rights, and for how long may suspects be detained? All of these questions will require fresh thinking and creative solutions. Debate surrounding the first question has largely focused on whether or not the United States should engage in so-called ``enhanced interrogation'' practices, which often amount to torture. The Bush Administration has adopted policies authorizing aggressive interrogation practices that many of us would interpret to constitute torture or inhuman treatment, placing our nation in clear violation of the constitution, U.S. law, and international treaty obligations. The question these practices have posed is whether, and when, such practices are justified in the name of national security. Most basically, the use of torture violates notions of human rights and dignity that in the American political and legal tradition have been regarded as inalienable and have preempted other considerations. The constitution explicitly prohibits ``cruel and unusual punishment'' and requires that no individual ``be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.'' The constitution does not limit the application of these protections to American citizens or to cases that do not involve potential terrorism or other dangers. Torturing an individual inflicts cruel and unusual punishment upon an individual without granting him or her due process of law. The Bush Administration, by contrast, has taken a utilitarian moral approach in justifying the use of torture. Utilitarian approaches judge an action according to its ability to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Should torturing a single individual prove to save the lives of hundreds or thousands of others, the action of torturing could be deemed justifiable. When vetoing an Intelligence Authorization bill including prohibitions against torture, for example, President Bush argued, ``if we were to shut down this program and restrict the CIA. . . . we could lose vital information from senior al Qaeda terrorists, and that could cost American lives.'' At least two of the factual premises of the utilitarian argument are highly problematic. While advocates often present the case in terms of a dramatic choice to torture one in order to save many, the truth is that torture and abuse have been applied far more widely than to a few unique individuals. The argument might be stronger if torture were a unique exception applied in a singular and critically urgent circumstance--the ``ticking bomb'' scenario. The case begins to fall apart, however, when torture is officially sanctioned policy, available at the discretion of interrogators. What of the claim that violating human rights and liberties might serve some greater good? Even if one acepts such moral reasoning, it is based on false assumptions. Several current and former practitioners of interrogation have persuasively argued that so-called ``enhanced interrogation'' practices--or torture--simply do not work. Such practices are no more likely to yield actionable intelligence than traditional methods and, in fact, in many cases, are more likely to yield false information. As Rear Admiral John Hutson, a former Navy JAG, has explained, ``torture doesn't work. All the literature and experts say that if we really want usable information, we should go exactly the opposite way and try to gain the trust and confidence of the prisoners. Torture will get you information, but it's not reliable. Eventually, if you don't accidentally kill them first, torture victims will tell you something just to make you stop.'' Even the Army Field Manual on Interrogation states that ``the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear.'' Both moral and practical arguments thus lead to the same conclusion: the use of torture and cruel or inhuman practices is the wrong way forward. But the question of torture is only the beginning of the debate, not the end. For far too long, public debate focused our attention only on the abuses of ``enhanced interrogation,'' ignoring--to our peril and to the detriment of our counterterrorism efforts--the equally important questions regarding our ability to effectively detain and prosecute individuals involved in terrorism. A long litany of policies undertaken by the Bush administration in the service of its war on terrorism-- indefinite detention, habeas corpus exceptions, special military tribunals, and so on--are as morally questionable as the practice of torture. Yet, too often, we have engaged in passionate ideological debate about whether these policies are morally justified, when we might first ask the simple question: do they work? While Supreme Court justices and legal scholars have debated the legality and morality of the Bush administration's justice system for terrorist suspects, reaching an array of different conclusions about the theoretical validity of Guantanamo Bay, the military commissions system, and the like, few would attempt to argue that this legal regime actually works. To wit: the administration's controversial military tribunal system has yielded exactly two convictions in the seven years since 9-11, including one off a guilty plea. In the same time span, the civilian justice system that the tribunal system supposedly improves upon has delivered over 145 convictions. If our objective is a speedy, effective instrument for bringing terrorists to justice, the tribunal system fails miserably to deliver. The denial of habeas corpus rights meets a similar fate when examined from a practical standpoint. This denial has led to numerous lawsuits bogging down the judicial process and has undermined the moral high ground on which U.S. antiterrorism efforts previously stood. In short, the denial of such rights simply does not work to benefit our efforts in combating terrorism. And practices such as the detention of high-value prisoners at secret, so-called ``black site'' prisons, the extraordinary rendition of detainees to countries known to torture suspects, and the broad round-ups of thousands of detainees with limited evidence of links to terrorism similarly have proven to be bankrupt as policies. There is no evidence to suggest that they have improved our human intelligence collection capabilities, they have not advanced our efforts to bring terrorists to justice, and in every case they have had severe dilatory effects on the credibility of our leadership in the global fight against terrorism. In short, they have hurt us far more than they have helped. Looking at real-world results may help us debunk some of the Bush Administration's misguided assertions, but it is not sufficient to help us formulate the right approach. Rather, it is essential that we inform our policymaking by a deep examination and national debate about the relationship between our long-held values--as enshrined in the constitution and law and expressed in our religious and ethical traditions--and our security prerogatives. Examining our detention and interrogation policies through this lens is far more difficult, because legitimate differences do exist about what direction is most just, fair, and ethical, as well as what is most effective. Nevertheless, it is critical that our country have this debate, and that we reach beyond the relatively basic question of whether or not to engage in ``torture.'' Our approach to this area of policy will be most effective when it is well informed by all three branches of government, by politicians and the public, and by the lessons of our experience. Unfortunately, this national conversation has not occurred and, what's worse, has been precluded by shrill fear-mongering and divisive rhetoric. The Bush administration deserves much of the blame. In debates over anti-torture provisions, FISA, military commissions, and the like, it has generally resorted to scare tactics, sharp partisanship, and questions about its critics' patriotism. Such tactics do not promote a productive national debate that will make our nation safer from terrorism; they have only served to deflect attention from the enormous flaws of the Administration's policies. Instead of such cynical partisanship, we must truly wrestle with the very real challenges of developing smart detention and interrogation policies. Such wrestling must go beyond simply opposing the administration's flawed policies. Opposing torture, opposing the denial of habeas rights, opposing extraordinary rendition--these stances are all good and appropriate, but the rejection of bad policy alone cannot make good policy. Instead, we must seek ways to affirmatively improve our human intelligence collection, strengthen the capacity of our courts to prosecute terrorists, and better understand the nature and vulnerabilities of the terrorist threat. In the interest of encouraging such a debate, the bill I have introduced offers a number of proposals for how we might effectively approach human intelligence collection, detention, and prosecution in terrorism cases. My bill combines the imperative of rolling back the Administration's worst abuses with what I hope is forward thinking about improving our ability to collect human intelligence and bring terrorists to justice. It would repeal the Military Commissions Act and direct prosecution of terrorism cases to the time-tested civilian and military justice systems, which have proven far more effective at bringing terrorists to justice; It would close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. It would establish a new, cross-government, uniform set of standards for interrogation practices, enacting a clear prohibition against torture and building in a regular Congressional review. Rather than imposing the Army's standards on everyone, it would establish a process for military and civilian intelligence agencies to work together to develop new standards. It would prohibit the use of private contractors for the critically sensitive, inherently governmental business of conducting interrogations, a red line that I hope we can all agree on. And it would require that all high-level interrogations be videotaped, as proposed by our colleague, Representative Rush Holt. These much-needed reforms are founded upon both moral and practical analyses of the current system's flaws. Such correctives are needed to return our nation to a solid footing. But they must be paired with steps to ensure that our nation's capacity for human intelligence collection is equal to the challenge of global terrorism. To that end, my bill proposes a number of new initiatives designed to make our human intelligence collection better, smarter, and more penetrating. It would establish a new interagency center of excellence to train intelligence collectors, review U.S. policies, and carry out sustained research on the best practices of interrogation and intelligence collection. It would seek to enhance U.S. intelligence cooperation with key allies--like Britain, Spain, and Israel--that have significant experience in dealing with human intelligence collection and anti- terrorism efforts. We need to learn from their successes and mistakes as well as our own. It would require the military to further develop intelligence collection career paths so that, instead of rotating officers in and out of the intelligence specialty, we retain the best and brightest in the field and benefit from the expertise they develop over the course of their careers. And it would require the formulation of a strategy to prevent the radicalization of inmates held in both domestic and overseas detention facilities I offer my legislation with the belief that we must have a far broader national conversation about the questions and the hope that my bill will point to some new and creative answers. The American public must undertake this conversation with a deep reassessment of an even more fundamental question: what makes our nation truly secure? Is our nation more secure when we use aggressive measures that, even if they make some terrorist suspects talk, fuel the radicalization of a new generation of terrorists? Is our nation more secure if we detain hundreds of terrorist suspects extralegally, but then face legal obstacles that prevent us from convicting them? Is our nation more secure if we take measures designed to increase our security against attacks that undermine values we hold sacred? Our national conversation must be oriented toward helping us develop a set of policies that makes far more effective use of the instruments of our national power to defeat terrorism on the battlefield, while capitalizing on the moral authority of our free and open society to defeat terrorism in the battle of ideas. Against those who would do us harm, we must be vigilant and ready to mount an effective defense. But the number of such adversaries, the support they gain, and the threat they pose will depend not only on the defense we mount, at home or abroad, but on the values we project and the role our nation plays in the world. The legislation I offer today will restore our grounding in the values of justice and respect for human rights that have guided our nation through two hundred thirty-two years of history. It will help us lead again through the power of our example. And it will help us mount that vigilant defense against global terrorists by enhancing the effectiveness of our efforts. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. The bill, including funding provided through the disaster relief package, includes $9.3 billion for the Disaster Relief Fund, ensuring that FEMA can continue its work helping communities recover from recent disasters. The bill imposes requirements on the Homeland Security Department to manage its programs efficiently and robustly, and to ensure that programs comply with all laws before they begin operations. The bill withholds a total of $1.4 billion to ensure that this planning takes place before taxpayer dollars are spent. Programs for which funding is conditioned include the Secure Border Initiative, Deepwater, and Cyber Security. Also, I want to correct some comments made on this floor earlier about a sensitive DHS program. The bill does not provide funding for DHS's National Applications Office to use surveillance satellites for Homeland Security or law enforcement purposes. The bill does allow for the Department to use satellites for scientific and emergency purposes--for example, assessing damage from earthquakes or hurricanes. That's being done today. But provisions in this bill bar the Department from using these assets to pay for any other purpose until the Department explains how it will use them, protecting our citizens' rights and liberties, until the GAO reviews that explanation, and until our committee approves the expenditure of funds. Mr. Speaker, this Homeland Security portion of the bill represents the right balance of investments and cost savings to ensure that we continue to make our homeland more secure, and it makes clear that the Federal Government will continue to be a faithful partner with State and local governments in that endeavor. I urge colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the package we are considering today includes the fiscal year 2009 funding for the Department of Homeland Security. The Homeland Security provisions are the product of months of information-gathering and analysis by both the House and Senate subcommittees, and they reflect a careful matching of dollars to priorities. Our subcommittee held 15 hearings featuring testimony from department officials, watch-dog agencies and outside experts, and what we are voting on today is well informed by what we learned from those hearings. As always, we are indebted to our dedicated professional staff and the staff from our personal offices who have worked with them. I want to thank our distinguished ranking member, Mr. Rogers, for his advice and partnership in helping make this a better bill. He and his staff worked cooperatively with us during the bill-writing process and during our negotiations with the Senate, and they provided many constructive suggestions and additions. I also want to recognize Mr. Rogers' substantial and lasting contribution as the first chairman of this subcommittee, especially since this is likely to be his last year as our ranking member. The discretionary total in the bill is $39.98 billion, $2.31 billion or 6 percent above the comparable fiscal year 2008 amount--that includes funding with an emergency designation--and $2.37 billion above the administration's requested funding level. Our primary objective in this bill was to correct known funding deficiencies, which were substantial. Prime among these was the President's proposal to cut first responder, transit, and port grant programs by $2 billion, or 49 percent. This bill restores funding for these grants. A second deficiency in the President's budget was the proposed repeal of law enforcement officer benefits for CBP officers. The bill provides the full $200 million necessary to pay for these benefits in fiscal year 2009. The last major deficiency in the President's budget was a proposed $140 million cut for explosive detection equipment at airports. This cut was based on assumed revenue from a new passenger surcharge that has not been enacted. The bill restores the $140 million to provide level funding at $544 million for this program. The bill also reduces funding that was not fully justified, or for which the budget justification overestimated the need, and it uses the savings to provide increases above the President's request for critical priorities. This includes $200 million for the Emergency Food and Shelter Program, $100 million more than the President requested and $47 million more than was provided in fiscal year 2008. Such an increase is warranted by the rising number of Americans who are relying on food banks and other community support organizations to meet their basic needs. The bill includes $4.99 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, $241 million above the request, and it targets $1 billion for identifying and deporting dangerous criminal aliens. The President proposed no additional dedicated funds for this activity, which should be ICE's top priority. The bill fully funds the request for border infrastructure and technology, while continuing a requirement that the Department consult with local communities on the character and placement of such infrastructure. This does not give border communities a veto over departmental decisions about fencing or other infrastructure, but it does give them a right to be heard. As in past years, the bill requires the Department to provide a plan for how it will allocate its appropriation for border infrastructure and technology, and it withholds a portion of the appropriation until that plan is reviewed by GAO and approved by the committee.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentlewoman.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the Chair of the subcommittee. I thank her for bringing this bill to the floor and her hard work in protecting the interests of credit card holders. As the House considers this bill, I want to make this body aware of a related bill I have introduced, along with a number of cosponsors, the Credit Card Repayment Act, H.R. 1510, which would require lenders to give cardholders more information on their monthly statements. For example, how long would it take the consumer to pay off their entire balance making only the minimum monthly payment, and how much would they pay over that time, including principal and interest? The bill has been endorsed by the Center for Responsible Lending, the Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Action, and the National Council of La Raza. The bill is not part of the legislation we are considering today, but these kinds of disclosure requirements complement the bill currently on the floor, and they can be a valuable part of our efforts to help protect consumers. I ask the chairwoman to work with me to incorporate these provisions into the legislation as it moves forward. I would appreciate the chairwoman's response, but I first yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the chairwoman of the subcommittee.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5959, the Fiscal Year 2009 Intelligence Authorization Act, and the important measures to strengthen oversight and accountability of contractors that the bill includes. I want to first thank Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes for his leadership in crafting this bill. Chairman Reyes very graciously worked with me to include in this bill major portions of legislation I recently introduced along with Representative Jan Schakowsky, H.R. 5973, the Transparency and Accountability in Intelligence Contracting Act.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor COL Paul J. Kennedy of the United States Marine Corps. Colonel Kennedy is finishing his tenure as the Marine Corps liaison to the House of Representatives, and will soon head to my home State to take command of the Second Marine Regiment, Second Marine Division at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. During the last 2 years, Colonel Kennedy has led the small contingent of Marines that serve as the direct interface between the Marine Corps and the members and staff of the House. Under his leadership, Colonel Kennedy and his colleagues have established strong professional relationships throughout this body, building trust, confidence, and mutual commitment between the Marine Corps and congressional leaders. His integrity, knowledge, and personal attention to the needs and interests of members have garnered great respect and appreciation throughout this Chamber. I have particularly benefited from Colonel Kennedy's leadership as he has become an integral part of the efforts of the House Democracy Assistance Commission (HDAC), which I lead along with Representative David Dreier. During the last 2 years, our Commission has traveled to numerous far-flung destinations in the service of our mission to strengthen the capabilities of legislatures in developing democracies. Not only has Colonel Kennedy organized and escorted every single HDAC delegation, he has jumped at the chance to do so, foregoing travel to more luxurious destinations in favor of our trips to developing nations like Liberia, Afghanistan, and Haiti. He has strongly supported the mission of our Commission, and has moved mountains to ensure that we can carry out our work, no matter what complications arise. As I have gotten to know Colonel Kennedy, I have been tremendously impressed, not just by his professionalism and integrity, but also by his commitment to the United States Marine Corps. He treats the men and women under his direction in the Marine Liaison office with great respect and has taken particularly seriously his duty to mentor young Marines of lower rank. As he leaves to take command of a 5,000-Marine unit, his attention to the development of younger Marines will no doubt be greatly valued. Colonel Kennedy has also been able to share with members of Congress detailed and valuable insights into the war in Iraq. Having served as a Battalion Commander in Anbar Province in Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom II, Colonel Kennedy gained first hand experience in helping our nation confront the new and complex challenges that war has highlighted. While Colonel Kennedy will be sorely missed by this institution, we can take comfort in the knowledge that a man of such tremendous personal character and ability will continue to serve and strengthen the United States Marine Corps and the 5,000 Marines under his command at Camp Lejeune. Let me offer my heartfelt appreciation and best wishes to Colonel Kennedy as he embarks on this new assignment.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the chairman of the committee, our colleague, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, the gentleman talks about the need to have qualified and experienced persons as interrogators. There are some qualified and experienced persons who may be in the private sector, who may be contractors. Yet that contractor is not under a clear chain of command; that contractor is not subject to the same accountability as governmental employees; and that contractor is not in the sworn service of the U.S. Government. If there ever was an inherently governmental function, it would be that of an interrogator. The case is very plain for those services not being contracted out. Madam Chairman, I am happy to yield 1 minute to our colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the chairwoman, and I am pleased to present a narrowly targeted amendment that would simply prohibit the defense community from using private contractors to conduct interrogations. The interrogation of detainees is clearly an inherently governmental function. It is work that is by nature extremely sensitive and critical to our national security. We should all be able to agree that interrogation should be carried out by individuals who are well- trained, who fall within a clear chain of command, and who have a sworn loyalty to the United States, not by corporate, for-profit contractors. Some of my colleagues may question why we need to pass a law to address something that ought to be a matter of common sense, but this amendment is absolutely necessary. The defense intelligence community has often utilized contractors for performing interrogations, and continues to do so. For example, L-3 and its subsidiary, Titan, one of the largest contracting groups working in Iraq, has contracts with the U.S. Army in Iraq under which it performs interrogations. A recent report on the L-3 Titan contract gets to the heart of the pitfalls of using contractors for interrogations. It concludes, ``There are significant problems with these contracts, notably with the hiring and vetting practices of both interrogators and translators, many of whom are unqualified or poorly qualified for the work. This failure has the potential to seriously compromise national security.'' Another example comes from the Department of Justice's Inspector General, who recently issued a report on the FBI's role in interrogations. He noted instances of contractors ordering abusive practices against detainees at Guantanamo Bay. My amendment would put an end to these practices. It is not intended to punish contractors, who are often simply responding to available business opportunities. Rather, it is intended to clarify that the practice of interrogation is an inherently governmental function and that our national security depends on preserving the integrity of this boundary. Let me also note that the amendment withholds judgment on a number of ancillary functions, such as interpretation or IT technicians and report writers, allowing an exemption for contractors to fill these roles. It only prohibits contractors from directly performing interrogations. Madam Chairman, this is a carefully drafted amendment, and I urge its adoption. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the career of John F. Burness, Senior Vice President for Public Affairs and Government Relations at Duke University. Mr. Burness will retire on June 30th after nearly 40 years of service in higher education. His has been a distinguished career that helped revolutionize the way universities handle communications and public affairs. In Durham, North Carolina, he has transformed the relationship between the town and the university in a way that few other institutions have been able to replicate. After graduating from Franklin and Marshall College, where he currently serves as a trustee, John began his career in 1970 as Assistant to the President at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, rising through the ranks to become Deputy to the President for University Affairs and Secretary of the Stony Brook Council. From SUNY, he moved to the University of Illinois, where he was first Director of Public Affairs and then promoted to the newly created position of Associate Chancellor for Public Affairs. Following his time at Illinois, he returned to New York to assume the role of Vice President for University Relations at Cornell University. Regarded as a national expert in university public affairs, he became the founding chair of the Association of American Universities' Public Affairs Committee, as well as a founding member of the steering committee of The Science Coalition, a consortium of universities, scientific societies, and business groups that takes a grassroots approach to promoting investments in scientific research. John Burness's considerable talents are reflected in the many leadership positions he has held in his field: director of the National Association of College and University Business Officers; chairman of the Consortium on Financing Higher Education's Public Issues Committee; and co-chair of the Ad Hoc Tax Group, a consortium of educational institutions that monitors Federal tax policy. He has also served on the Board of Directors of the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, the Committee on Institutional Relations for the Council for Advancement and Support of Education, and The College Board's Government Relations Advisory Panel. I came to know John after his arrival at Duke University in 1991. Over the years, we have conferred and collaborated on a wide range of policy and funding issues in higher education as well as the special needs of Durham. During his time at Duke, he built an award-winning news office and guided a well-respected government relations operation. But it was his tireless efforts in Durham that had the most profound impact. Under John's leadership, the Duke-Durham Neighborhood Partnership was created in 1996. This partnership has led to increased home ownership, improved student achievement, and greater access to health care for residents in several of Durham's neighborhoods. John was also the founding chairman of the Board of Directors of the Durham Communities in Schools dropout prevention program, and he serves on the board of MDC, a nonprofit organization located in Chapel Hill. North Carolina, which seeks to expand opportunities, reduce poverty, and build inclusive civic cultures in Southern communities. Through his public endeavors and his behind-the-scenes work, John's efforts to improve the quality of life for his fellow Durhamites have touched countless citizens and have earned him the respect of leaders throughout the community. As a testament to John's dedication and achievements, the science center at E.K. Powe Elementary School in Durham has been rededicated as the John F. Burness Science Center, and the Duke University Board of Trustees has established an endowment in John's name to support collaboration between the Duke and Durham communities. I recently attended a retirement reception for John in a community center and was struck by the many tributes from those whose lives and endeavors John has touched. It is thus with great pleasure that I congratulate John Burness for his outstanding contributions to the Nation's system of higher education, to Duke University, and to Durham, North Carolina. My wife Lisa and I wish him and Ann all the best in retirement, and in the many activities they will still be engaged in as active and caring members of the community.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the amendment before us, which will force a dramatic shift in strategy in Iraq that will protect our national security and bring our troops home. I have been one of a group in the House that, for several years now, has vocally advocated a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Thanks to a President who has stubbornly adhered to a failed policy that does not serve the best interests of our military, our foreign policy, and our national security, we are now no closer to a withdrawal--or a resolution to the conflicts that beset Iraq--than we were 5 years ago. This amendment will change that. This amendment will begin to bring our troops home, in an orderly and responsible fashion. Some argue that conditions on the ground have improved since the beginning of the President's surge strategy, and that advocates of a troop withdrawal are somehow blind to changed conditions. That is simply not the case. We have watched conditions in Iraq closely, hoping for the kind of progress that would transform Iraq's internal political dynamics, hoping for a turning point that might produce a lasting end to the violence. We have supported our troops as they have carried out their tactical military mission with remarkable success. But we have also watched the Iraqi Government's continued failure to complete its political mission, the success of which is the necessary condition for ensuring Iraq's long-term stability. There is simply no indication that tactical progress in reducing the levels of violence in certain regions of Iraq has been translated into lasting, strategic gains in the political realm. Unfortunately, the Administration has now concluded that the military drawdown initially promised cannot be carried out. A successful surge should justify taking troops out of Iraq, not keeping them in. The bottom line is this: Tactical gains notwithstanding, we and the Iraqis have yet to build a sustainable political and security architecture that brings us closer to our goal--a politically coherent Iraq that can manage its own security. Without political progress, the security situation in Iraq will remain fragile. In such a context, we risk institutionalizing an indefinite dependency on the U.S. military to maintain security. And over the long run, we simply will not be able to sustain the level of budgetary or military commitment we have today. Our national interest requires that we remain committed to helping Iraq reach its long term goals, but it also requires us to carefully calibrate the nature of our involvement. The United States military mission in Iraq cannot be held hostage to Iraqi progress (or lack of progress) toward security or political benchmarks. We simply cannot continue to commit our overstretched personnel and resources without regard to Iraq's progress toward governing itself. For that reason, it is essential that we begin a withdrawal of our military from Iraq. Moreover, such a withdrawal is perhaps the only way we can motivate Iraqis to take the steps necessary to overcome sectarian differences and unite as a nation. This amendment will initiate such a withdrawal, and for that reason I ask for my colleagues' support. There are other important reasons to support this measure. It would help us recover our moral compass by banning torture. It would ease the burden on our troops by establishing a more reasonable deployment policy. And it would prohibit the establishment of permanent bases in Iraq, a measure many of us have strongly supported. I am particularly pleased that this amendment includes legislation I proposed over a year ago to ensure that government contractors-- including tens of thousands of armed private security contractor personnel working in combat zones in Iraq and Afghanistan--will be held accountable under the law for misconduct, just like our troops. This legislation passed the House over seven months ago, and its enactment is long overdue. My legislation will ensure that all Government personnel--military personnel, civilian employees, and contractors under any agency--will be accountable under U.S. Federal criminal jurisdiction through the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act. Since the war in Iraq began, private contractor personnel have committed numerous abuses resulting in the deaths of dozens of Iraqis. Yet, many of these individuals have operated in a legal gray zone, immune from both Iraqi and U.S. law. As a result, accountability has been undercut and the credibility of our operations in Iraq has been seriously damaged. One need only point to the events of September 17, 2007, to understand the consequences of such impunity. On that day, private contractor personnel accompanying a convoy through the streets of Baghdad opened fire in a downtown square, killing 17 civilians; 8 months later, no charges have been filed and none of the participants have been brought to justice. We have worked sincerely with the Administration to ensure that Government and contractor personnel who are carrying out their mission conscientiously and legally will not be made vulnerable under this law. Instead, this measure will give us the tools we need to ensure that those who run afoul of the law are brought to justice. The measure before us is a major step forward toward a new approach to national security, one that will make our Nation safer and restore our global moral leadership. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure and bringing an end to the war in Iraq.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the dedicated service of our former colleague, Martin Lancaster, to North Carolina and the Nation. Martin retires today as President of the North Carolina Community College System, which he has led since 1997. The system enrolls more than 800,000 students in 58 comprehensive community colleges across the State. Internationally recognized for the scope and quality of its programs, the system is one of the largest in the county and North Carolina's primary provider of workforce preparation and adult education. Martin has worked to increase State and private funding for facilities, equipment, faculty salaries, and instruction and to strengthen the system's essential role in workforce and economic development. He led community college participation in the successful State Higher Education Bond Referendum of 2000, which included $600 million for community college construction, repair and renovation. He has worked successfully with successive presidents of the University of North Carolina system to ensure a seamless transition for students between community colleges and 4-year state institutions. In his years as president, Martin and I have collaborated on a number of projects. We've worked hard on the Partnership Fellows Program to help address the serious teacher shortage by providing scholarships for individuals transitioning from associate degree programs in education to bachelor-degree granting institutions. He's helped ensure that future Federal scholarships for prospective teachers will be available to community college students. We also continue to promote funding from the National Science Foundation for the Advanced Technological Education, ATE, program to underwrite innovation and excellence in curriculum development, teaching methods, and public-private partnerships. The North Carolina system and individual campuses compete very successfully for this support. Most recently, we have secured Department of Education funding for an innovative partnership among the North Carolina Symphony, the community college system, and local public school systems. Soloists and small ensembles from the Symphony will visit far-flung communities and, based in their community colleges, offer performances and classes for aspiring young musicians. Prior to his work with the North Carolina Community College System, Martin served as assistant secretary of the Army for Civil Works from January 1996 until June 1997. Before that, he served as special advisor to President Bill Clinton on chemical weapons. Many Members of this body will remember his 8 years of distinguished service, representing his home town of Goldsboro and the rest of the Third Congressional District. With the experience of being on active duty in the Navy during the Vietnam war and continuing to serve as an active Reservist until his retirement as a Navy Captain in November 1993, Martin was an effective member of the Armed Services Committee. During his tenure, he fought to obtain benefits increases for disabled veterans and sponsored Agent Orange compensation measures. He also took a special interest in procurement and other small business issues as a member of the Small Business Committee. Our friendship stretches across decades, including our years in the House, which we began together in the Class of 1986. Martin's commitment and leadership in his law practice, the North Carolina General Assembly, the U.S. Congress, on many boards and commissions, and especially in our community colleges, have improved the quality of life for people of all ages. We have known each other long enough to watch our grandchildren's generation benefit from his talent and dedication. It is with the greatest respect and my deepest appreciation that I rise today to honor Martin Lancaster and thank him for his many invaluable contributions to our State and Nation. On behalf of all who have also been fortunate to work with him, I wish him, his wife Alice, and their two daughters, Mary Martin and Ashley Elizabeth and their growing families, the best in all of their future endeavors.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 997, which expresses our support for bids by Ukraine and Georgia to attain Membership Action Plans for joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this resolution. Ukraine and Georgia are both perched on the fulcrum of democracy, with their future on balance. On one side of the balance lies a future marked by integration with NATO and Europe, continuing progress toward the establishment of stable democracy, security, and prosperity. Each nation faces its own challenges on the other side of the balance. Ukraine confronts persistent threats to its fragile democracy, a rancorous division between its eastern and western regions, and difficult economic challenges. Georgia's democracy is also threatened, both by separatist movements in Abkhazia and Ossetia and by the lack of effective opposition in government. Its economy is undermined by severe unemployment. This week's NATO summit in Bucharest will determine, at least in the near-term, in which direction the balance will tilt. NATO membership will bring with it economic, political, and military integration with Europe, helping to solidify democratic institutions, expand each nation's economy, and strengthen security. A Membership Action Plan is not equivalent to NATO membership and should not be conflated with NATO membership, but it is certainly a crucial step toward this goal. To reject the bids by Ukraine and Georgia for Membership Action Plans would be to deal democracy a significant setback. As NATO nations gather to pass judgment on these bids, hovering over the summit is a specter in the form of an increasingly antagonistic Russia. Fear of further deterioration in relations with Russia no doubt shapes the hesitation of some of our European allies in proceeding with these Membership Action Plans. Russia must understand that NATO membership does not cast a choice between Europe and Russia. Rather, the choice is between political and economic integration and isolation. Russia must also realize that seeking NATO membership is not a path foisted upon nations by NATO itself, but rather one sought freely and enthusiastically by prospective member nations. Finally, our European allies must persevere in the principle that decisions must be made in the best interests of our alliance, never allowing any nation to hold a veto on our collective security and shared values. As many of my other colleagues have stated, both Ukraine and Georgia have already demonstrated their worth to NATO with contributions to NATO efforts in Afghanistan, Kosovo, and elsewhere. There is no doubt that the alliance would benefit from their inclusion in this multilateral security architecture that will be essential for confronting numerous major security challenges in the 2151 century. Setting Ukraine and Georgia on a path toward NATO membership is not only vital to their future, it is vital to ours as well. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker. I rise today in support of H.R. 1188, the Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis Research, Cure, and Care Act, and encourage my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation. As many as 7.5 million Americans are affected by psoriasis--a chronic inflammatory, painful, disfiguring and disabling disease for which there are limited treatments and no cure. Between 10 percent and 30 percent of people with psoriasis also develop psoriatic arthritis, which causes pain, stiffness and swelling in and around the joints. Brian Lehrschall, coleader of the Triangle Psoriasis, Education, Advocacy, and Support group in my congressional district, is just one of my constituents living with psoriasis. Diagnosed with plaque psoriasis at age 13. Brian underwent many courses of treatment to address his severe condition, including several different topical medications and ultraviolet radiation. Through the years, Brian has remained active in his local psoriasis support group and been a staunch advocate for the National Psoriasis Foundation's work to increase psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis research. H.R. 1188 would direct the National Institutes of Health to expand and intensify research and related activities of the Institutes with respect to psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. Specifically, the bill would direct the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases to conduct a number of research activities related to psoriasis. The bill also would establish a national psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis patient registry through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and would direct the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary to convene a national summit on psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis research. Finally, the bill would authorize a study by the Institute of Medicine regarding medications and treatments for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. I appreciate the work Brian and his colleagues have done on behalf of so many individuals living with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, and I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1188, the Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis Research, Cure, and Care Act.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Ethics Task Force, I rise today to support the establishment of the Independent Office of Congressional Ethics for the House of Representatives. The 110th Congress, under new leadership, has already adopted a comprehensive package of rules, lobbying, and earmark reforms. Today we can take another positive step by creating the Office of Congressional Ethics. The proposal before us is the result of a year-long effort by the Ethics Task Force ably and fairly led by our distinguished colleague, Mr. Capuano. Some have argued tonight that this proposal takes reform too far, others not far enough. I believe that the office would improve on the current ethics enforcement process in two important ways. First, it will provide a mechanism for a quick and impartial review of potential ethics violations, bypassing the bipartisan conflicts that have bogged down enforcement. Secondly, it will ensure accountability and transparency by requiring reasonable reporting and public disclosure of the activities of the office and the Ethics Committee. A number of changes have been made to strengthen the proposal and address Member concerns. The proposal is not perfect, but it is a move in the right direction. I support H. Res. 895, and I urge my colleagues to do so as well.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I received news today of a horrific event that has shocked and deeply saddened the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill community, which I represent. The Chapel Hill police informed us today that UNC's student body president, Eve Carson, had been shot to death a short distance from campus yesterday morning. This senseless act of violence ended the life of a promising young leader and left a community of family, friends and admirers mourning in disbelief. The police department is sparing no effort to find the people who committed this heinous act and to bring them to justice. Eve was originally from Athens, Georgia. Since the time she arrived in Chapel Hill in 2004, she excelled in her college career. In addition to being elected student body president, she was a Morehead Scholar, a North Carolina Fellow, a member of the Phi Beta Kappa honor society, and was double majoring in political science and biology. Eve put a high priority on service to her community. During her college career. she mentored middle school students, taught science to elementary school students, and served as a running coach for young girls. To Eve, service knew no borders. She spent her summers volunteering in Ecuador, Egypt and Ghana, and she co-chaired a student organization devoted to alleviating hunger around the world. I recently met Eve at a reception hosted by UNC's Chancellor James Moeser. My wife and I were impressed with this lovely young woman who-- it was clear to see--had so much potential to make a difference in the world. She expressed to me her interest in working abroad after graduating in May, perhaps in Africa. At the time of her death, my office was working to help her find a way to realize her goal. Unfortunately, Eve will not be able to realize that goal. Our community is deeply sad at the loss of this special person. We also regret the loss for all those who would have been touched by Eves big heart in the future. This is truly a loss for us all. Our thoughts and prayers are with Eve's family and friends and with the UNC community as they gather on Polk Place this afternoon to remember Eve and to grieve together. Madam Speaker, I ask permission to include a brief biography of Eve Marie Carson at this point in the Record. Biography of Eve Marie Carson Eve Marie Carson, 22, was elected student body president at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in February 2007. Her term would have ended in April. A native of Athens, GA, Eve was born Nov. 19, 1985. She came to Carolina in the fall of 2004 as the recipient of a prestigious Morehead Scholarship. A member of the Phi Beta Kappa honor society, she was a pre-medicine student majoring in both political science and biology. As a North Carolina Fellow, she was part of a four-year leadership development program for undergraduates. While at UNC-Chapel Hill, she was extremely active in both leadership and service roles. As student body president, she was also a member of the UNC-Chapel Hill Board of Trustees. She served as co- president of the Honors Program Student Executive Board and as a member of the Committee on Scholarships Awards and Student Aid; the Academic Advising Program, and the Chancellor's committee for University Teaching Awards. Teaching and working with children were key service interests for Eve. In 2006, she taught science at Frank Porter Graham Elementary School in Chapel Hill as part of UNC's INSPIRE program, whose mission is to encourage young students to pursue science as an interest. In her junior year, Carson was a tutor at Githens Middle School in Durham. She was also an assistant coach in the Girls on the Run of the Triangle, a character development program for girls ages 8-12 that uses running to teach values and a sense of self. Eve's service extended well beyond the Triangle, however. In the spring of her sophomore year, she participated in a study abroad in Havana, Cuba, and she spent her summers working and volunteering in Ecuador, Egypt and Ghana as part of the Morehead Summer Enrichment program. ``I credit my prior experiences, especially my past two Morehead summers, for preparing me to get along with pretty much whatever comes my way,'' she wrote in an e-mail posted on the Morehead Web site. On campus, she became involved in Nourish International, an organization started by UNC students in 2002 for hunger relief. Eve served as freshman volunteer coordinator (2004) and co-chair (2005) for the group. The daughter of Bob Carson and Teresa Bethke, Eve was also the student body president of her high school, Clarke Central, in Athens, GA. When she ran for the same office at Carolina, she was elected with 55 percent of the vote in a runoff with a bigger turnout than the previous year's general election.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I rise to commend the students, friends and family members from the Carolina Friends School community in Durham, North Carolina who are making a simple, but powerful, statement today to raise awareness of a topic that compels the attention of this body--the plight of Sudanese citizens driven to camps for refugees and internally displaced persons, or IDPs, by the horrible genocide occurring in Darfur. The Carolina Friends School community members, along with others from across the country and around the world, have given up one luxury item today--something like a restaurant dinner, a movie, or a cup of coffee--and will donate the money they would have spent to the Genocide Intervention Network's Civilian Protection program. Individually, these are small sacrifices, but collectively, these donations will make a tremendous difference. IDP camp residents are under tremendous threats, despite the relative protection the camps offer. Residents must venture from the camps to obtain simple items, such as the firewood needed to cook food. But camp residents have routinely been attacked, raped, or killed by Janjaweed militia members and others when they leave the confines of the camps. Just three dollars--the price of a cup of coffee in many places--can fund protection by UN-African Union peacekeepers for firewood gathering patrols for one camp resident over the course of an entire year. Just one cup of coffee can make a life-saving difference. Beyond simply generating donations, the activism of these concerned citizens sends a powerful message, a cry for help in confronting a horrible tragedy. As their simple actions demonstrate, hundreds of thousands of Darfuris are dying for items we often take for granted. While the DarfurFast volunteers are asked to give up a luxury item for one day, many Darfuris go without food for days at a time. Thousands of camp residents have died from malnutrition, from preventable disease, and from lack of access to clean water. These victims are just as much casualties of the genocide as are the Darfuris killed by marauding militias. I applaud these students and community members for their message, and I urge my colleagues to listen to it closely. Let us ask ourselves, what could we, here in Congress, give up for Darfur? Would we be willing to give up one day of spending in Iraq--worth about $200 million--to save lives in Darfur? Would we forego even a few tax cuts for the wealthy? What are we willing to sacrifice to stop the genocide and save the lives of millions of innocent civilians threatened every day by savage militias and a heartless regime in Khartoum that refuses to stop them? Madam Speaker, once again, let me commend these students and community members--and the individuals around the world participating in DarfurFast--for their activism. I hope we will all heed their call.