David Price

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer a modest reality check. I hope that's helpful. The gentleman from North Carolina gives an impression of great precision in wanting to cut $8,961,000, and he suggests that we might want to debate tonight whether that's exactly the right figure. He suggests that without indicating, as far as I can tell, any fact or any premise on which this very precise number is based. So we will await that with interest, exactly why this much and no more and no less. Let me offer a little reality check in the form of the language from the committee report. Our committee recommended $14 million for the general counsel. By the way, that's the start of understanding this. This isn't about bureaucracy, in general. It's not about government fat, in general. It certainly has nothing to do with entitlements. It's not even about the Secretary's office, in general. This is about the general counsel's office at the Department of Homeland Security. This figure was arrived at after close consultation with that office. We recommended $14 million for the Office of General Counsel. Now, we didn't give them everything they wanted. President Bush requested $1.2 million above this. We cut that. We did not grant that full amount. Now, 77 staff, 77 is what that appropriation pays for or would pay for. That's equal to the current on-board strength. We do say in the report, and maybe the gentleman disagrees with this, that as vacancies arise in the office, the committee directs the Department to fill the vacancies with positions dedicated to CFIUS reviews and fiscal law. Now, CFIUS, you might remember, is the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, better known by reference, perhaps, to the Dubai ports deal. You will remember a great deal of discussion in this body on both sides of the aisle on how CFIUS needs to be beefed up and do a better job. We don't want to have another Dubai ports deal. That's what we are responding to in consultation with the Department. They need some positions dedicated to those CFIUS reviews so that we do them right. Is there something wrong with that? Is there something wrong with the number 77? That's the rationale. Since nobody else has provided it, I will. That's the rationale for what the committee has done here, as we said, not granting everything that the administration wanted, but trying to make certain that the staff has the strength they need to fulfill their present obligations and to move in this new direction which CFIUS has provided. I hope that's helpful.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his strong advocacy for these nonprofit security grants. I, too, have constituencies concerned about these grants, about their continued availability, and have convincing testimony as to the importance of this resource. We did not have a specified account in our bill, but I am aware that the Senate does, and we will be going to conference. I am glad to assure the gentleman that we will have an open mind about dealing with this in conference. I appreciate that he is not offering the amendment tonight, but we will be very, very happy to work with him going forward.

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

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island who's worked with us on this bill, Mr. Langevin. (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I gladly yield 2 minutes to a very fine Member, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the chairman of our authorizing committee on homeland security.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a member of the full Appropriations Committee.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for his kind words on our bill, and I appreciate his interest in the Protective Security Analysis Center, or PSAC. As the gentleman noted, the bill includes $78.9 million for the Assistant Secretary for Infrastructure Protection to carry out identification and analysis programs. This funding supports the analytical work done by DHS to identify risks to infrastructure and to model the effects of terrorist attacks and natural disasters. The PSAC is an important part of these activities. I look forward to working with the gentleman to ensure that these important activities are adequately funded in our bill.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), another member of our committee.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to our colleague on the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano). (Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I would be happy to work with you and Mr. Hastings to ensure that the Department adheres to the direction provided in the report.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. The gentleman is correct. Language in the report directs the science and technology directorate to fulfill the funding obligation to which it committed itself in the MOU signed last November.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to start by saying how proud I am of the work of our subcommittee and its fine staff that has been done over the last number of months. Through the 20 hearings we have held so far this year, featuring testimony from Department officials, watch dog agencies and outside experts, numerous security vulnerabilities and management problems have been identified and solutions offered. I believe that the bill reported by the committee is well informed by what we learned in these hearings. I want to express my gratitude to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), both for his leadership as the inaugural chairman of this subcommittee and more recently for his significant contributions as ranking member. Mr. Rogers established a strong, bipartisan approach to providing vigilant oversight of the Department, and I have endeavored to continue on that path. I also want to pay tribute to Martin Sabo, the former ranking member of this subcommittee, who is an example to all of us not only for his expertise and leadership on homeland security issues, but also his commitment to public service and to this institution. And I don't want to go any further without expressing my respect for and gratitude to the professional staff of the subcommittee, both majority and minority. Beverly Pheto has been an exemplary clerk. Her mastery of the issues facing the Department and each of its components has been invaluable. And I cannot underestimate the contributions of Stephanie Gupta, Jeff Ashford, Jim Holm, and Shalanda Young on the majority side; and Tom McLemore, Ben Nicholson, and Christine Kojac on the minority side, as well as Darek Newby of my personal staff. Our subcommittee relies on the professionalism and expertise of these individuals. They are performing an invaluable service to the country. Mr. Chairman, in total, the bill before us contains $36.3 billion in discretionary funding, which is $2.5 billion, or more than 7 percent, above the funding appropriated in 2007, including funding given an emergency designation in the 2007 bill. That so-called ``emergency'' funding was primarily for border security needs that have necessarily been absorbed into the baseline for fiscal year 2008. The bill contains $2 billion, or 5 percent, more than the amounts requested by President Bush. I hope my colleagues will agree that the country's outstanding homeland security vulnerabilities, including border security, more than justify this level of funding. This bill does four important things: First, it provides funding to address our country's most pressing security vulnerabilities with a new emphasis on our ports and on rail and transit systems. Secondly, the bill provides critically needed funding to our States and communities to confront not only the threat of terrorist activity but also natural disasters and the emergency situations that must be dealt with in our community every day. Homeland security requires a faithful partnership among the Federal Government, States, and local communities. And this bill honors that partnership. Thirdly, the bill helps to ensure that taxpayer dollars are well spent by requiring specific management reforms related to contracting, procurement, and competition. It cuts $1.2 billion below the fiscal 2007 levels and $244 million below the requested amounts for programs and activities that are not performing well or for which increased or level funding has not been adequately justified; and it withholds a total of $1.9 billion for various programs until the Department submits detailed expenditure plans. And, fourth, the bill takes a long-term approach by requiring outside reviews of several major programs and activities to ensure that long- term investments of taxpayer money are made wisely and productively. For example, we are commissioning studies by the National Academies of Science on the current direction of the BioWatch program and on the Department's risk analysis capabilities and the improvements needed to ensure that investments are well targeted. The funding increases provided in this bill address the security vulnerabilities identified by numerous expert groups, including the 9/ 11 Commission and the Hart-Rudman Commission. They also fund security actions mandated in the SAFE Ports Act and the Katrina Reform Act. Aviation explosive detection systems are funded in total at $849 million, $324 million more than the regular 2007 bill. Air cargo security is funded at $73 million, $18 million more than the 2007 bill. And the bill directs TSA to double the amount of cargo it screens prior to loading onto passenger aircraft. Transit security grants are funded at $400 million, $225 million more than the 2007 bill. Port security grants are funded at $400 million, $190 million more than the 2007 bill. An additional $40 million is provided for the Coast Guard to implement the requirements of the SAFE Ports Act. Emergency Management Performance Grants are funded at $300 million, $100 million more than the 2007 bill. Metropolitan Medical Response System Grants are funded at $50 million, $17 million more than 2007. State Homeland Security and Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention grants are funded at $950 million; that is $50 million more than 2007. Urban area security grants are funded at $800 million, $30 million more than the 2007 bill. REAL ID and interoperable communication grants are funded in total at $100 million, in contrast to no funding provided in 2007. Fire grants are funded at $800 million, $138 million more than 2007. And FEMA management and administration is funded at $685 million, $150 million more than 2007. Mr. Chairman, I want to highlight a number of other provisions in the bill that are particularly important. We have all heard about contracts and awards from the Department that were not competed. FEMA recently submitted a list of nearly 4,000 contracts that were never competitively bid. This bill mandates that all grant and contract funds be awarded through full and open competitive processes except when other funding distribution mechanisms are required by statute. This approach creates a level playing field and also ensures that there are no congressional or administration earmarks in this bill. In addition, the bill addresses a major immigration vulnerability that exists today. It requires that ICE contact correctional facilities throughout the U.S. on a monthly basis to identify incarcerated immigrants who are subject to deportation. Although ICE deports some number of these individuals now, it is not systematically identifying and deporting them. There is simply no excuse for failing to identify every deportable alien and deporting them immediately upon their release from prison. These are undocumented individuals who have served time in jail for committing crimes, and we are now, unfortunately, releasing them all too often back into the population. So asking prisons for information about these individuals so they can be deported should be among the first priorities in our illegal immigration enforcement strategy. This bill provides the direction and the funding to ICE to make this happen. The bill funds the Secure Border Initiative at the requested level of $1 billion, while requiring the Department to clearly justify how it plans to use these funds to achieve operational control of our borders. For each border segment, the Department will have to produce an analysis comparing its selected approach to alternatives based on total cost, on level of control achieved, impact on affected communities, and other factors. We are also requiring the Department to seek the advice and support of each local community affected by a border infrastructure project. I want to be clear that this does not give border communities a veto on border projects and it will not result in any project delays if the Department efficiently carries out its responsibilities. The provision simply requires the Department to actively and faithfully consult affected communities to ensure that our border security efforts minimize adverse community impacts. That is reasonable to ask of the Department, and the Department agrees that such consultation is appropriate. We are also directing the Department to increase by over 40 percent the number of Border Patrol agents on the northern border to comply with the levels called for in the Intelligence Reform Act. In addition, the bill addresses a Customs and Border Protection staffing problem that we heard about on a February congressional delegation to the southwest border. Because CBP officers are not considered law enforcement officers, despite the increasing role of law enforcement in their duties, they don't receive the same benefits as DHS personnel who are considered law enforcement officers. This has made it extremely difficult to hold on to CBP officers. In a nutshell, the bill would allow eligible CBP officers to transition to law enforcement status beginning in fiscal 2008. The Transportation Security Administration's loss of the personal data of thousands of its employees is only the most recent example of the privacy problems plaguing the Department. The bill withholds funding for certain DHS programs until the proper privacy protections are in place because security and privacy can and should go hand in hand. In conclusion, let me mention a few other provisions, Mr. Chairman. First, the bill includes language mandating that stricter State and local chemical security laws and regulations cannot be preempted by the Federal Government. Secondly, the bill mandates that all grant and contract funds comply with Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements. Thirdly, the $101 million in the bill for the new DHS campus facility at St. Elizabeth's will not be available until the Department submits an explosive detection equipment spending plan and promulgates long overdue regulations on U-Visas for victims of domestic violence, rape, and involuntary servitude. This withholding of funds should not be interpreted as a signal of lukewarm support for the development of the St. Elizabeth's campus. On the contrary, the Department and the country would be better served by colocating most of its headquarters components onto this single campus. This is simply our way of signaling that any further delay on an explosive detection plan or on the overdue U-Visa rule is completely unacceptable. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address H. Con. Res. 152, recognizing the 40th anniversary of Israel's victory in the Six-Day War. This resolution will pass by a large majority, but I fear that it will become the latest in a series of missed opportunities for this body to support a viable peace process in the Middle East. This resolution has several positive features. It is appropriate to commemorate Israel's victory in the Six-Day War. Its overwhelming military victory helped to secure Israel's continuing existence as a sovereign nation, something that was very much in doubt on the eve of the conflict. I particularly support the third clause of the resolution, which commends Egypt and Jordan for their bold and brave decisions to reach peace with Israel. Their leadership has been a critical, if often underappreciated, guarantor of Israel's security and survival, and I continue to hope that other nations in the region will follow their lead. It is also important to affirm that Jerusalem is the rightful capital of Israel, while acknowledging that the Palestinian people also have a claim to Jerusalem as a capital and as a sacred city. Nevertheless, I am concerned that this resolution, while calling for peace negotiations, actually undermines U.S. efforts to secure the trust of all sides in the search for peace. The resolution pursues an obsolete notion, put forth as if the last decade of peace negotiations simply had not occurred. The idea of an undivided Jerusalem under sole Israeli sovereignty has not been part of any serious peace proposal--proffered by Israelis, Palestinians, or the international community--in the last several years. Israel's 2000 Camp David proposal and the Clinton compromise proposal, the 2002 Road Map for Middle East Peace, the 2003 Geneva Initiative, the 2003 ``People's Voice'' Initiative offered by Ami Ayalon and Sari Nuseibeh: none of these plans envision an undivided Jerusalem under sole Israeli sovereignty. And this idea is not just outdated in theory; it fails to reflect the present reality in Jerusalem. Israel's security barrier is rapidly creating a physical barrier between already segregated neighborhoods of East and West Jerusalem. Recognizing Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel under sole Israeli sovereignty does not help to bring peace to Jerusalem or Israel, nor does it help achieve the vision the resolution espouses. In fact, the only thing likely to fully guarantee Jerusalem as the permanent capital of Israel is the official, international recognition of Israel's neighbors and the entire international community--and this recognition is unlikely so long as Palestinian claims to their own capital and sacred city are denied. As Christians, Jews, and Muslims, we can best honor our holy city by helping it become a model of peace, unity, and reconciliation. Doing so requires sustained, courageous, and open-minded efforts to promote negotiations, stand against violence, and find solutions. Congress and our Administration must play a much more effective role, returning our nation to active and sustained engagement in seeking peace. I just returned from a brief visit to Jerusalem, now divided, threatened, strained by the anxiety of constant conflict. It is my great hope to one day visit a revitalized Jerusalem, undivided and shared as the capital of Israel and an independent Palestinian state, where Jews, Muslims, and Christians live together in peace and mutually honor the sites sacred to all of us. I can only wish that the resolution before us more adequately expressed this aspiration.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, today we are asked to vote for a fourth time in 2 months on legislation to provide funding for the ongoing military mission in Iraq. The tally of this vote will reflect the dilemma facing this Congress as well as the American people. We are torn by two deeply held sentiments: on the one hand, we support our troops and want to make sure they are protected and supported in the field of battle; on the other hand, we are frustrated by a failed war policy and a President too stubborn to change course. I voted against giving the President the authority to wage war in Iraq. I have introduced legislation to place a termination date on that authorization and to require the President to formulate and execute an exit strategy. But I have consistently voted for bills to fund the war effort because that funding is essential to our troops in the field. Over the last 2 months alone, I have voted three times for funding for the troops in different versions of a supplemental appropriations bill. But I will not vote yes today. In addition to funding troop needs, the previous versions of the bill--despite differences among them and the compromises they contained--would have made substantial progress toward bringing this war to an end. The legislation before us today takes some modest steps forward by including benchmarks for progress for the first time and requiring the administration to report on whether its strategy is achieving them. Unfortunately, however, it does not advance us nearly far enough toward ending this war and putting Iraqis in charge of their own governance and defense. The progress the bill does make has been the result of the pressure brought to bear by the prior supplemental votes. I will be voting against this bill as a way of helping maintain and increase that pressure. Let no one mistake the significance of the vote we take today. This fourth vote is not primarily about material support for the troops-- every Member of this body supports our troops. This vote is fundamentally about the future of our policy in Iraq. Even if this bill were to fail today, the result would not be a cut- off of funding for the troops. The result would be to force the administration to give ground it should have given long ago, and that, sooner or later, I believe it will be forced to give by this Congress. There is nothing about our military strategy that can solve what are fundamentally political and sectarian conflicts among Iraqis. Military and intelligence leaders have consistently declared that the solution in Iraq will be political and diplomatic in nature, not military. We have increasingly asked the military to work toward goals that military force cannot achieve: political agreements between intransigent Iraqi leaders, equitable sharing of power and resources, and an end to sectarian-based civil war. In the meantime, our presence has become a provocation for insurgency and a magnet for international terrorism. We have, in short, left our troops in an impossible situation. I am not willing to vote to fund their operations without at the same time compelling a change in policy that will bring them home. The struggle to change the U.S. course in Iraq is not over. The American people are speaking loudly and clearly. Our efforts over the last 2 months have moved the debate in the right direction, and we will continue exerting pressure on the administration to alter its course in the days and weeks to come as we consider other legislation related to the war. In fact, it should not escape notice that we also passed today a resolution requiring consideration of legislation in September that would require an end to the occupation of Iraq. Our goal in considering the President's supplemental appropriations request was to confront the President over his failed policy and to force a change in course. Even as this supplemental legislation likely passes into law, we can be confident that we have taken important steps toward this goal. We have demonstrated to the administration that it can no longer proceed with its failed policy unaccountably. While many in the House and the other body, where the power of filibuster can be used to obstruct progress, have resisted efforts to craft a more effective Iraq policy, the President and his allies in Congress have been put on notice that the tide is turning. I regret that this bill will not immediately bring the change to our Iraq policy that we so desperately need. But it does represent one more turn of the screw. The President should recognize that a growing number of Members of this Congress, and a clear majority of the American people, will continue boring deeper toward the heart of his failed policy. And we will not stop pressing until our troops begin to come home.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I thank Ms. Schakowsky for yielding and for her good work on this amendment, the Schakowsky- Price amendment. I also want to thank Chairman Skelton for his significant steps he takes in this bill to address the vast challenges surrounding battlefield contracting. He generously worked with me to include key elements of H.R. 369, my bill regarding security contractors, and I appreciate his leadership. Very quickly, I want to highlight three additional improvements this amendment will make to language in the bill. First, it will require the departments doing the vast majority of contracting, DOD, State, USAID, to track contractor casualties. We believe over 800 contractors have been killed in Iraq and many more injured. But what's the exact toll? We do not know. Our amendment will change that. Secondly, the amendment will require these departments when appropriate to issue guidance on appropriate equipment and uniforms for contractors. And thirdly, it will require the departments to clarify how a provision inserted in last year's defense bill, which places certain contractors under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, will be implemented. These are three simple but important additions that make the bill's current language even stronger, ensuring that the agencies engaged in contracting on the battlefield will develop an effective framework for managing and overseeing contractors. Four years into the war in Iraq, and after all the stories of waste and abuse and criminal misconduct, I think we can agree that this is not too much to ask. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, as a matter of fact, this amendment is drafted very carefully to avoid redundancy. It's crafted to deal with a separate area, a different area from those areas covered in the bill itself. And it mandates a reporting requirement, not to add work to the Executive Branch; to ensure that we get the information we need to do our job. Surely, no one would argue that Congress shouldn't be able to assess whether our approach to intelligence is effective or to conduct oversight on the way billions of dollars in taxpayer funds are expended each year. We're not establishing new regulations. We are simply requiring contractors to report on their activity.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I thank my colleague for her leadership on this amendment and on this issue. For a long time now she has helped this House focus on the use of private contractors. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chair, I rise to offer an amendment on behalf of Ms. Schakowsky and myself that would complement the provisions already in this bill related to the use of private contractors by intelligence agencies. I applaud Chairman Reyes for his leadership in addressing many key questions associated with the use of contractors. Last year, I stood at this podium and proposed an amendment that would have required an extensive look at these questions: How extensively are contractors being used? What types of activities are appropriate for contractors? How are they held accountable? Are they achieving savings for the American people? And what are the impacts of contracting on the intelligence workforce? My amendment passed the House, but the other body did not act on the bill. This year, Chairman Reyes has included language in his bill that addresses many of these questions, and I am grateful for his leadership. I also want to acknowledge the efforts of the new Director of National Intelligence, Michael McConnell, who has begun an examination of the questions raised by my amendments last year. He and his staff have just completed a community-wide survey of contracting and are reportedly working on a strategic workforce plan. These efforts are important first steps. Our amendment today focuses on additional aspects of this situation that have not yet been addressed, aspects that are absolutely critical. There's a legitimate debate in the Intelligence Community about how contractors should be used. Our amendment simply asks the Intelligence Community to respond to three basic questions underlying this debate. First, what functions may contractors appropriately perform for the intelligence communities, and what tasks should be viewed as inherently governmental? For example, should they be involved in intelligence collection? Should they be involved in analysis? What about interrogation? What about covert operations? Are there some activities that are so sensitive that they should only be performed by highly trained Intelligence Community professionals? Secondly, how should contractors be vetted and trained? And thirdly, how can we ensure that contractors are as accountable for their actions as Federal intelligence professionals are? Madam Chairman, service contracts, in some instances, represent an acceptable and efficient use of taxpayer dollars. But a decision to use contractors should be made deliberately based on a careful analysis of the issues raised by this amendment. This is true for any use of private contractors. But it is particularly necessary in the context of sensitive Intelligence Community activities. I urge my colleagues to support our amendment. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the accomplishments of Francis T. Miko, Specialist in International Relations with the Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division of the Congressional Research Service. Mr. Miko retired on April 27, 2007, after serving the Congress for over thirty years in various positions at CRS. Mr. Miko's tenure spanned multiple Congresses and several epochs in foreign policy and European affairs, his area of specialization. He has served as the institutional memory of Congress on important issues in which he was the recognized expert. His work as an analyst, manager, and leader in the CRS organization is particularly notable for his tact, judgment, and unswerving commitment to the core CRS mission of supporting an informed national legislature with nonpartisan analytical and research work. Mr. Miko began working at CRS in 1974 as a research assistant in Soviet and Eastern European affairs. As an analyst and later as a specialist, Mr. Miko served as the principal CRS expert on Central and Eastern Europe. The quality of his work earned him widespread recognition and significantly contributed to CRS's reputation as a center for advanced policy analysis. During the Cold War years, he produced numerous studies on Eastern Europe and the detente period between the United States and Soviet Union, including major east-west initiatives such as the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE). He participated in the congressional delegation to the Belgrade Conference of the CSCE in 1977 and the Budapest CSCE Cultural Forum in 1985. He was seconded to the Department of Defense in 1992 to serve as a representative of the Secretary of Defense at the CSCE Review Conference in Helsinki. As the Cold War wound down, Mr. Miko completed major CRS projects on the impact of the transformation of Eastern Europe after 1989 and the end of the Soviet Union in 1991. Later, he provided key analyses on global security issues such as organized crime, trafficking in persons, and approaches to counter- terrorism. In the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, Mr. Miko served as co- coordinator of the CRS Terrorist Task Force that worked across subject divisions to coordinate related research needs for Congress. I got to know Mr. Miko well in another role, one through which he also provided invaluable service to Congress. He has played an instrumental part in two congressional programs to assist with the development of new democracies. From 1990 to 1996, Mr. Miko coordinated the CRS role in the Frost-Solomon Special Task Force on the Development of Parliamentary Institutions in Central and Eastern Europe. The role of the Task Force was to help strengthen the parliamentary infrastructures of the formerly passive legislatures in twelve countries of post-communist central and eastern Europe. This unprecedented initiative of the U.S. Congress entailed extremely demanding and complex activities involving technical assistance on legislative practice, library and research institutional development, and automation systems and design. Mr. Miko's understanding of Europe on the one hand, and of Congress on the other, was essential to the success of the program, as his first-hand knowledge of the people and cultures of Eastern European countries helped the Task Force appropriately tailor its activities to the needs and working styles of its legislative partners in the region. Rep. David Dreier and I worked closely with Mr. Miko on the Frost- Solomon Task Force, and our positive experiences inspired us, in 2005, to establish the House Democracy Assistance Commission to strengthen democratic institutions in emerging democracies worldwide. In this effort Mr. Miko has again proven an invaluable resource as a veteran expert in the development of democratic legislatures. He has helped the Commission determine appropriate partner nations, participated in needs assessments, and delivered direct technical assistance to partner legislatures. Most recently he accompanied us on a mission to Georgia, where we are working to support the democratic gains of the Rose Revolution. I and other Members of the Democracy Assistance Commission will greatly miss having such ready access to Mr. Miko at CRS, but we hope to find ways to continue to draw upon his insights and expertise as we move ahead with our work. Over the years, Mr. Miko assumed several senior management positions at CRS, serving twice as section head of the Europe, Middle East, and Africa section, and once as deputy assistant director for the foreign affairs division. He represented the Library of Congress at the National War College in 1984-1985. He earned a Distinguished Service Award for his performance as representative of the Office of the Secretary of Defense at the 1992 Helsinki Review Conference. In all of his professional endeavors, Mr. Miko has been a role model of the highest level of service to the U.S. Congress, the Library of Congress, and CRS. He has excelled as a capable manager of programs and resources, as a nationally renowned expert in his field of policy expertise, as a diplomat, and as a notable contributor to the legislative work of Congress. On behalf of my colleagues in Congress, I want to express my appreciation to Francis Miko for his many years of public service and for his multiple contributions to the Congress, and to wish him well in his retirement.