Frank Wolf

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, this is going to be the only vote that you're going to have on this issue. When the power lines are coming through your district, and this is coming through your district, how will you explain to your constituents, to your neighbors, your friends, your local elected officials, your farmers, that you had a chance to slow this down and you didn't do it? How are you going to tell them that you sided with the power companies and not with the citizens? This is a time out. It will give us a chance to reexamine the process. These corridors divide communities, neighborhoods. They destroy landscapes. In fact, the current corridor in the Mid-Atlantic includes Antietam, where 20,000 people died in 1 day. We need to make sure that we take time to do it right, and don't bow to the scare tactics and the false Dear Colleague letters. This is your first and likely your only vote on this issue. Don't let this vote come back to haunt you. Voting against the Hinchey amendment means you don't want to make sure these corridors are sited properly. I strongly urge the Members to vote aye for the Hinchey amendment.

Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman. We are not asking for a repeal. We are asking for time. Again, this section, and it is amazing, was never voted on in the House. The power industry lobbyists have been roaming this Hill. Your constituents are back in their districts expecting you to represent them. The corridor goes over and includes Gettysburg, where Lincoln gave the Gettysburg Address. Antietam, 20,000 people died. No environmental impact statement. No consideration of energy efficiency technology. No consideration for historic lands. It is an assault on property rights. In the last Congress, we all got worked up on the Kelo decision. This is, in essence, whereby they can do this. And someone said, well, you go through the State. The power companies won't really try to go through the States. They will pro forma it, knowing that they can go to FERC and FERC will do it. Here's what the FERC administrator said: ``The authority to lawfully deny a permit is critically important to the States for ensuring that the interests of the local communities and the citizens are protected.'' What the Commission does today, it's a significant inroad in traditional State transmission citing authority. It gives States two options: Either issue a permit, or we will do it for them. Obviously, there is no choice. I strongly urge, in the interest of all these things we're talking about, a vote for the Hinchey amendment.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me start by commending the chairwoman on putting together a thoughtful bill, her first as the chairwoman of this new and important subcommittee. I must also recognize the chairwoman's continuation of this subcommittee's bipartisan tradition, as well as stating how much I appreciate the chairwoman's willingness to listen to our concerns and accommodate them as much as possible. Overall, I think it is a very good bill, but I do have some concerns. First and foremost, I believe this bill sends a terrible message to the State Department's officers and foreign service nationals and our military fighting in Iraq. The report accompanying the bill clearly states that there is no funding provided for Iraq. I intend to offer an amendment to restore $158 million of the $391 million that the President requested. I believe that not providing the requested funding for counterterrorism and de-mining activities is shortsighted and potentially dangerous. This program has trained more than 1,000 Iraqis in explosive detection and removal, therefore helping to protect the lives of our military and also improving public safety to reduce insurgent access to deadly munitions. No funds are provided to develop effective civilian law enforcement and anti-terrorism programs in Iraq, specifically to focus on strengthening terrorist financing and money laundering. No funds are provided to continue English language training and professional training for military officers in the United States. This training focuses on international human rights, fostering respect for civilian control of the military and the rule of law. Such funding is crucial if public statements by Members about wanting Iraqis to be able to defend themselves are, in fact, accurate and not purely rhetorical. Also, this fits into the recommendations made by the Iraq Study Group, and when the resolution came up a while back that the other side had, I think 220-some Members said they supported the Iraq Study Group. Well, no funding is provided to help Iraq manage their national budget, a crucial step towards Iraq self-reliance. No funding is included to enable Iraq to stimulate local economies to counter the impact of the insurgents. Assistance was requested and denied that would help Iraq create jobs in the agriculture sector and create food production, thereby stimulating Iraq's second largest economic sector after the oil area. These funds would directly weaken the insurgent base in rural areas, which we all on both sides want to do. Finally, no funding is included to help national reconciliation, political reform, and fair provincial elections in 2008 and fair national elections in 2009. Additional funding was requested to develop the Iraqi criminal justice system. These necessary funds would allow the Iraqi government to identify, bring to justice, and incarcerate insurgents and terrorists who are trying to destabilize the country. So, hopefully, we can adopt that amendment. The second issue of concern for me is there are new provisions regarding funding for family planning programs overseas. The President clearly stated in a May 3, 2007, letter to the Speaker of the House that he would veto any legislation that weakens current Federal policies and laws on abortion. As a result of these language changes alone, I believe the bill will now be vetoed, which is unfortunate because there are so many good things in the bill. Thirdly, the bill does not include any funding to support the recommendations by Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba. The Castro regime is the only nondemocratically elected government in the Western Hemisphere. So now is the time to demonstrate a commitment to the future of freedom for Cuba and to fund the programs that will facilitate peaceful democratic transition. And, again, this has nothing to do with the whole trade issue that this place talks about or the whole travel issue. This is to help the democratic movement in Cuba. In conclusion, I believe this bill has the potential to do a lot of good, and I want to say that this bill will help save a lot of lives not only here but around the world. This is the work of the Lord. And I know Members are going to come down and are going to be against the bill. And I hope that we can change some of these things to prevent a veto, but this bill, eventually when it passes, assuming it will be vetoed, is really to feed the poor, the hungry, the naked, the sick. Almost a better title would be a Matthew 25 bill. So it has the potential to do a lot of good, and I hope to work with Chairwoman Lowey to ensure the State Department has what it needs to do these things, the war on terror, to provide humanitarian assistance to the most needy, and to improve human rights around the world. And Members on our side are offering amendments with regard to cutting. This is actually under the allocation with regard to the administration. I look forward to working with the chairwoman to resolve the differences. I also want to thank Nisha Desai, Craig Higgins, Steve Markes, Michel Sumilas, Celia, Rob, and also Christine, who were too embarrassed to put their names down. I wanted to put them down too. And I also want to thank the full committee staff on both sides, who have been very helpful. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. Before I yield to Mr. Lewis, I want to comment on the gentleman's remarks. I wouldn't question what his interpretation is, but in Luke it says ``To whom much is given, much is required.'' Some versions say ``expected,'' but it is actually a requirement, and we know a requirement in college, you have to do it to pass. So I think the authentic version says ``To whom much is given, much is required.'' But I see it makes the gentleman's statement much more powerful, and I appreciate the reference. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the former chairman and the ranking member, who has been very generous and very interested in this subcommittee's work, Mr. Lewis.

Mr. WOLF. I recognize the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) for 5 minutes.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I recognize the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) for 5 minutes.

Mr. WOLF. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

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

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman. There will be a vote on the Hinchey amendment later on today. It doesn't repeal section 1221, but it slows it down. There was never a hearing on this. There was never a vote on this in the Congress. This whole power line issue in corridors, which in this area will go through Antietam, will include Gettysburg and First Manassas, will be coming to your area. So when given the opportunity if you look at all the groups that support the Hinchey amendment, we strongly urge you to support the Hinchey amendment. On the current language, no environmental impact statement, no consideration of energy efficiency, no consideration of historic lands. The Hinchey amendment is good for the country.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 422, which calls upon the Government of the People's Republic of China to use its unique influence and economic leverage to stop the genocide in Darfur. The violence in Darfur grows more gruesome by the day. I led the first congressional delegation to Darfur in 2004 with Senator Sam Brownback, and I have personally witnessed the nightmare there with my own eyes. Every day that passes, more men are killed, more women are raped, and more children die of malnutrition. This is simply unacceptable. The people in Darfur have lost their homes, their livelihoods, their loved ones. They have seen unspeakable horrors, carried out by the genocidal National Islamic Front in Khartoum and their cruel compatriots, the Janjaweed militia. The U.S. and the international community have made strong efforts to halt the violence in Darfur, and have provided significant levels of humanitarian support to the victims of this genocide. However, these efforts have largely failed to stop the NIF's desire to complete their campaign in Darfur. The Chinese Government's destructive role in the region is partly to blame for the continuing violence in Darfur. A recent Amnesty International report showed that China is making the conflict worse by providing weapons to the Sudanese Government to carry out the genocide in Darfur. When President Hu visited Khartoum in February, instead of using his influence to persuade Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir to stop the violence in Darfur, he promised to build Bashir a brand new palace. When President Hu appointed a new special envoy to Darfur, the envoy came back from the region claiming that the ``final solution'' for Darfur lies with removing ``mistrust'' between the Sudanese Government and the United States. He said the violence in Darfur is limited to sporadic conflicts along the border with Chad. China has used its veto power on the U.N. Security Council to repeatedly obstruct efforts by the U.S. and the U.K. to introduce peacekeepers to curtail the slaughter. Beijing is uniquely positioned to put a stop to the slaughter, yet they have so far been unabashed in their refusal to do so. China, which is a major business partner of Sudan, should be using its influence with the Sudanese Government to bring an end to the violence in Darfur. China's role in extracting oil from Sudan and maintaining close business relations with this genocidal regime are clearly more important to the Chinese Government than saving human lives. This resolution calls on the Chinese Government to use its influence to stop the violence in Darfur. It urges China to push the Sudanese Government to accept a hybrid peacekeeping force, to disarm the Janjaweed militia, and to join the international community in imposing economic sanctions on Sudan if the government continues to support attacks on civilians. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this resolution. A critical part of our efforts on Darfur is pressing the Chinese Government to stop supporting the genocide there. China must begin playing a constructive role in the region.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Chairman, I oppose the amendment. But let me ask your side. I had an amendment to say that CIA station chiefs and people who were ambassadors cannot go out and work for the Khartoum government. Many on your side talk about the genocide in Darfur. I have been before the Rules Committee three times, and I have never had an amendment made in order. Now you give him an amendment, which may be a good amendment or maybe not, but I don't get any opportunity to offer my amendment. Many on your side say, we are concerned about Darfur. This would have done more. There was a CIA station chief who left the CIA, working for the Khartoum government, and you would not even allow us to offer an amendment. Yet you go to the rallies and you speak out against Darfur. I rise in opposition this amendment, and I rise against the activity of the Rules Committee. You all are pushing too much. And you are pushing people on this side.

Mr. WOLF. I am pointing at the Rules Committee. I am pointing at everybody on this side who would not give me an amendment to stop the genocide in Darfur. Madam Chairman, I continue to grow more and more frustrated that my side of the aisle is not being heard. I have been to the Rules Committee no less than three times this year--most recently last night--seeking amendments to bills coming before the House. Each time I have offered substantive changes, aimed at improving legislation. I have not been offering partisan amendments that would gut bills. The amendment I sought to have debated as part of this bill would have closed the revolving door on former ambassadors and CIA station chiefs from representing countries in which they served for five years. Currently, an ambassador can leave the service of the United States one day and be hired the very next as an agent of foreign nation where they had served. These officials see every decision the United States makes in relation to that country. They have access to intelligence, policy documents and other confidential information. But under today's rules, the day they leave they have every legal right to use that same information on behalf of a foreign nation. These are people who have been entrusted with great responsibility. And they don't always work in the most friendliest of countries, or countries who have the United States best interests at heart. My amendment would have ended this practice. Regrettably, it wasn't ruled in order, yet Mr. Abercrombie's amendment, which aimed at closing the revolving door for flag and general officers from going to work for huge defense companies, was. I don't understand. Your side talks about wanting to work in a bipartisan fashion. I don't see it. My amendment drives at the same thing as Mr. Abercrombie's, yet was roundly dismissed. This issue has nothing to do with Republican or Democrat. It has to do with what is right. Last year I learned that a former State Department official and former CIA station chief, trained at the expense of the American taxpayer, were lobbying on behalf of Sudan, the same government that is playing a role in the genocide in Darfur. No other government is a more established enemy of human dignity. Not only is the government widely linked to organizing and arming militias who have raped and killed innocent women, men and children, pillaged villages and displaced millions in Darfur, the Khartoum government gave safe haven to Osama bin Laden from 1991 to 1996 and allows the terrorist group Hamas to operate within its borders. We all say we want to end the genocide yet we have no problem with rogue govermnents hiring Washington-based lobbyists. Yet the Rules Committee won't allow an amendment barring former high ranking diplomats and CIA station chiefs from representing country's like Sudan. Don't even get me started on Saudi Arabia, where not just one, but several former ambassadors to Saudi Arabia have been on the Kingdom's payroll. Severe human rights abuses and religious persecution are status quo in Saudi Arabia. Our own State Department has flatly said religious freedom does not exist in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The Wahhabi doctrine, which is at the root of our global war on terror, is taught and encouraged by Saudi Arabia. Read the attached piece from CQ that ran in February of 2006 about former U.S. Ambassadors to Saudi Arabia--the home to 15 of the 19 al Qaeda hijackers--who have or are presently on retainer by the Saudi government. It is extremely troubling. During the Reagan Administration no lobbyist would have dared to even suggest representing a country like the Soviet Union. The clients signed up by some in the lobbying business today are among the world's most unsavory governments, including major human rights abusers and direct threats like China. It saddens me to learn that reputable Washington lobbying firms take up the mantle of a Chinese state-run entity in their efforts to ``merge'' with a private American company. Is there no consideration given to the fact that the Chinese government poses a national security threat to the United States, including an organized spy network, which I have heard described in great detail in FBI briefings? China blatantly disrespects free trade norms and intellectual property law. It persistently violates human rights, imprisoning and torturing Catholic priests, Protestant house church leaders, Tibetan Buddhists, Uyghur Muslims, and Falun Gong practitioners. China consistently stifles political dissent and free expression. Yet, big K Street firms don't think twice about representing them. Nor do they think twice about the fact that China is providing guns and ammunition to the government of Sudan, which is complicit in the genocide that is taking place in Dafur. More than 450,000 people have died and China has done nothing to stop the violence. The PRC, in fact, is helping fuel the violence. Sadly, we didn't get to debate this today. I hope in the future that the Rules Committee, and your side, will look at the aim of the amendment before just dismissing them out of hand. American Diplomats Tend To Become Saudi Lobbyists--But Maybe Not for Much Longer (By Jeff Stein, National Security Editor) Back in August 2002, a congressional delegation was traveling around Saudi Arabia, home to 15 of the 19 al Qaeda hijackers who less than a year earlier had launched the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States. On one leg of the trip, in a big, white embassy van, Republican Representative Mike Rogers of Michigan, a former FBI agent, turned to the U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Robert Jordan. He asked Jordan, in light of how the Sept. 11 attacks had revealed the Saudis' role in nurturing al Qaeda- connected charities and religious schools, whether Jordan, a big-time Houston oil and gas lawyer, would be the first U.S. ambassador to not go to work for the Saudis after leaving his post. Jordan, who had George W. Bush as a client before he went to the White House, considered Rogers' question for a moment, and then politely declined to ``take the pledge,'' according to a witness who recalled the episode. Not that it mattered: Jordan's firm, Baker Botts LLP--that would be James A. Baker III, secretary of State in the first Bush administration and lawyer for the second Bush in the 2000 Florida election deadlock--already had a host of business clients in the royal kingdom, with offices in Riyadh and Dubai. In any event, Jordan in 2003 joined the long list of U.S. ambassadors and other former American officials working directly or indirectly for the Saudi royal family. Rogers last week introduced a bill that would bar federal employees from representing foreign governments for four years after they leave public service. Also last week, the House overwhelmingly approved a resolution (H. Res. 648) that sharply curtails lobbyists by foreign agents on the House floor. Representative Frank R. Wolf, R-Va., plans similar legislation, but more narrowly targeted diplomatic and intelligence officials. He called the practice of ambassadors--and former CIA officials--representing the Saudis, or other governments where they had worked, ``scandalous.'' ``It's a great honor to be an American ambassador, to represent the United States,'' Wolf said by telephone. ``And we have some great ambassadors. But with that, to whom much is given, much is required.'' Reached in Houston, Jordan said he doesn't remember ``all the details of that conversation,'' but added: ``At that time I certainly didn't have any intention of representing Saudi interests. It was premature in any event, because I was still pretty much in office.'' Pressed further, he said, ``I remember someone bringing it up, and it may well have been Congressman Rogers.'' Rogers declined to comment on the matter. Actually, it would be big news if a senior U.S. diplomat in the Middle East did not accept the warm embrace of the Saudis or other despots upon leaving the region. They are sprinkled all over Washington, particularly in such well-known Saudi-supported think tanks as the Middle East Institute (MEI). Two former American ambassadors to Saudi Arabia lead the MEI--Wyche Fowler Jr. (chairman) and Edward Walker (president). Former ambassador to the United Arab Emirates and deputy assistant secretary for the Near East David Mack is MEI's vice president. Also at MEI is Richard Parker, former ambassador to Algeria, Lebanon, and Morocco, and Michael Sterner, former ambassador to UAE and deputy assistant secretary of Near Eastern Affairs. Chas. W. Freeman Jr., another former U.S. ambassador to the kingdom, is president of the Saudi-backed Middle East Policy Council. Another ambassador, Walter Cutler, leads the Saudi- backed Meridian International Center. From the Saudi point of view, all this is a good thing. The legendary former Saudi ambassador to Washington Prince Bandar bin Sultan was quoted in The Washington Post a few years back as saying, ``If the reputation then builds that the Saudis take care of friends when they leave office, you'd be surprised how much better friends you have who are just coming into office.'' Rogers' bill would prohibit U.S. officials from leaving office and lobbying ``on behalf of any foreign entity.'' Wolf's bill ``will be much more narrow, focused primarily on ambassadors and [CIA] station chiefs,'' said an aide. Wolf is concerned about Saudi Arabia's influence. But he's also watching China. Last July he sent a blistering letter to the Washington powerhouse firm of Akin Gump, which represented the China National Offshore Oil Corp. during some of its aggressive takeover bids here last year. One of its partners was a member of the president's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. ``That's just not appropriate,'' Wolf said.

Mr. WOLF. We don't have a vote on it, and it was not made in order. I can't bring it up. And the genocide continues.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I rise today to bring the attention of the House to the exceptional work of Eleni P. Kalisch at the Federal Bureau of Investigation. It has come to my attention that she will stepping down as assistant director of the Office of Congressional Affairs and I want to take this opportunity to recognize her leadership within the FBI, and dedication to her work with the Science-State-Justice-Commerce (SSJC) Appropriations subcommittee, which I chaired during the 109th Congress. FBI Director Robert Mueller recently stated that Eleni ``has been directly involved in every issue facing the FBI over the past five years. . .'' and that ``as an advocate for the FBI and its mission, Eleni's abilities and professionalism have earned her the respect of both lawmakers and colleagues.'' I could not agree more with Director Mueller. Eleni worked with the SSJC subcommittee not only to increase resources for the FBI, but to help transform the FBI from an organization focused on arresting criminals to one focused on terrorism prevention after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that forever changed America. Eleni's public service deserves to be recognized. During her tenure as assistant director of Congressional Affairs the FBI received funding from Congress to establish more than 100 joint terrorism task forces; increase the number of translators by 82 percent, including a 284 percent increase in Arabic translators since FY 2001; enhance the FBI's capability to communicate classified information with the intelligence community and state and local law enforcement; increase the number of legal attache offices from 44 to 57; increase training for new agents to include classes on terrorism investigate techniques; establish field intelligence groups in every field office, and hire thousands of new agents and analysts. While I was chairman, we also conducted vigorous oversight of the FBI and Eleni was cooperative and essential in preparatory work to help facilitate FBI transformation hearings each year in addition to the annual budget hearings. Her professionalism and willingness to ensure that the committee had all appropriate information was superior. I also want to recognize Eleni's work with Congress to help enact the PATRIOT Act Reauthorization and Intelligence Reform acts. In short, Eleni has been a great asset to the FBI, has served the director well, and been an excellent resource for Congress. I wish Eleni the best in her future endeavors and ask that my colleagues join me in thanking Eleni for her hard work and dedication.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I rise today to bring the attention of the House to the retirement of State Senator Vincent F. Callahan, Jr., who has represented Virginia's 34th District in the Virginia General Assembly for nearly 4 decades. I want to take this opportunity to salute Vince for his dedication to a lifetime of public service representing those in the McLean area of Fairfax County. A native of Washington, D.C., and McLean resident since 1960, Vince holds a B.S. degree from Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service and by profession is an editor, publisher, and author. He served as a Marine in the Korean War from 1950-52 and later as a reserve officer in the U.S. Coast Guard. Elected to the House of Delegates in 1967, Vince is the longest serving Republican in the Virginia General Assembly and dean of the Northern Virginia Delegation. As chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Vince can point to a long list of legislative achievements in service to the Commonwealth of Virginia. He will be sorely missed. In honor of his work for higher education, Vince was awarded an Honorary Degree in the Humane Letters from the Northern Virginia Community College and the Lord Botetourt Award from the College of William and Mary. I have inserted for The Record a recent Sun Gazette article which details his unparalleled career. Perhaps more important than the well deserved awards and recognitions Vince has accrued over the years is the way he conducts himself. He is a man of his convictions, and of the highest moral character, a true Virginia gentleman, family man, and loyal friend. Vince and his wife Yvonne have eight children and 19 grandchildren between them and I suspect that Vince is looking forward to spending more time with family as he retires. I ask that my colleagues in the House rise today and join with me in recognizing the outstanding public service career of Vincent F. Callahan, Jr. After 40 Years in Public Life, Del. Callahan To Retire (By Brian Trompeter) Forty years is enough: Del. Vincent Callahan (R-34th), a McLean resident who is the second-longest serving member of the Virginia House of Delegates, announced March 5 that he would not seek reelection in November. ``You get to a certain stage in life where you've done what you want to do,'' he said. ``It gets old after a while.'' Callahan, 75, entered politics early in life. After being defeated in a 1965 bid for lieutenant governor, he first was elected to the House of Delegates in 1967. He was one of only 14 Republicans in that body then, versus 86 Democrats. Unlike today, when legislators have offices and a professional staff to help them, delegates then operated out of hotel rooms or their desks in the House of Delegates during General Assembly sessions, he said. Callahan credited former House of Delegates Speaker John Warren Cooke (D-Mathews) for teaching him proper legislative decorum. ``He was born in 1915 and his father was an officer in the Confederate Army'' who was in his 70s when Cooke was born, Callahan said. ``You talk about somebody from the old school. He was the epitome of a Virginia gentleman.'' Republicans achieved parity in the House of Delegates in 1998 and Callahan was named co-chair of the powerful House Appropriations Committee. When Republicans became the majority in 2000, he became the committee's sole chairman. Callahan, who lost a bid for Congress in 1976, has seen Virginia's biennial budget grow from $3 billion when he first joined the General Assembly to $75 billion today. Gov. Kaine called Callahan on Monday to congratulate him on the latest budget, which passed unanimously. Callahan said his key accomplishments in office include strongly supporting George Mason University, Northern Virginia Community College and other higher-education institutions; securing $500 million to help clean up the Chesapeake Bay; and bolstering mental-health services around the state. He's also ``tilted at a few windmills,'' championing a higher minimum wage and a ban on smoking in public places. These bills have been defeated so far but likely will pass in the near future, he predicted. Virginia has tremendous colleges, enjoys a AAA bond rating and consistently is ranked one of the best-managed states in the nation, he said. Only Del. Lacey Putney (I-Bedford), who has served since 1962, has spent longer than Callahan in the House of Delegates. Callahan's tenure has not always been smooth. Legislators have had to go into special sessions several times in recent years because of budget disagreements. And in 1998, he apologized after making remarks that some female legislators found offensive. ``They jumped on me and I haven't done it since,'' he said. ``It wasn't meant to be demeaning to women.'' Democrats already were actively targeting Callahan's seat, with candidates Margi Vanderhye and Rip Sullivan contending for the nomination in the June primary. Callahan has about $85,000 in unspent campaign moneys and will use them to pay office expenses for the remainder of his term. Leftover funds will be given to other political campaigns or donated to charity, he said. The 34th District always has been a swing district and has been represented for many years by a Democratic state senator, Callahan said. The district's voters sided with U.S. Senate candidate James Webb (D) during his victorious campaign in November 2006, but also re-elected longtime U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf (R-10th), he said. A Republican candidate seeking the district's seat must take a moderate approach on issues, Callahan said. ``Moderation is the essence of conservatism,'' he said. ``I think there's two sides to every issue. You don't do immigrant or gay bashing to get headlines. You have to look at the whole picture.'' Callahan will spend the rest of his term overseeing 400th-anniversary celebrations of the Jamestown Colony's founding. He will be among dignitaries who will greet Queen Elizabeth II on May 3 when she visits Richmond and addresses a joint General Assembly session. Callahan was born in Washington, D.C., and served in the U.S. Marine Corps during the Korean War. He also served in the U.S. Coast Guard Reserve from 1959 to 1963, retiring as a lieutenant. Callahan has been a staple of Veterans Day celebrations at McLean High School, where he traditionally recites from memory John McCrae's World War I poem, ``In Flanders Fields.'' Fairfax County Supervisor Joan DuBois (R-Dranesville) credited Callahan with championing Wolf Trap National Park for the Performing Arts, trails in Great Falls, sound barriers along Interstate 495 in McLean and the status of Georgetown Pike as a Scenic Byway. ``He was a gentleman of the `old school' who knew that partisanship had no place in efforts to improve his community,'' DuBois said in a statement released Monday. ``He will be greatly missed by many of us who knew him as a go-to leader in the General Assembly for longer than I have lived in Northern Virginia.'' Vienna Town Council member Michael Polychrones said Callahan's departure will mark the end of an era in state politics and a loss for Northern Virginia. ``It will be a big blow to the area,'' Polychrones said. ``Vince has definitely done a yeoman's job over the years.''

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentlelady. I want Members to see an editorial that was in the Wall Street Journal by Ronan Farrow and Mia Farrow entitled ``The Genocide Olympics.'' It deals with the issue that there was a full page ad today in The Washington Post with regard to the genocide that is taking place in Sudan, and the one country that has the opportunity to really make a difference to stop the genocide in Sudan is the country of China. Mia Farrow says in this editorial, ``One World, One Dream is China's slogan for the 2008 Olympics. But there is one nightmare that China shouldn't be allowed to sweep under the rug. That nightmare is Darfur, where more than 400,000 people have been killed and more than 2\1/2\ million driven from flaming villages by the Chinese-backed government of Sudan.'' I have seen those villages and the burning of the villages and we know that the genocide could be stopped by China. Mia Farrow goes on to say, ``That so many corporate sponsors want the world to look away from that atrocity during the games is bad enough. But equally disappointing is the decision of artists like director Steven Spielberg, who quietly visited China this month as he prepares to help stage the Olympic ceremonies, to sanitize Beijing's image.'' Steven Spielberg, who produced Schindler's List, is now going to try to turn the 2008 Olympics in China to look like a wonderful, wonderful thing. China is involved in Sudan where they have Antonov bombers bombing the people, helicopters coming in and killing the people, and the Janjaweed who come in and do all sorts of bad things--kill, rape and maim. And China has used its veto power, Mia Farrow says, on the U.N. Security Council to repeatedly obstruct efforts by the U.S. and the U.K. to introduce peacekeepers to curtail the slaughter. Beijing, she says, is uniquely positioned to put a stop to the slaughter, yet they have so far been unabashed in their refusal to do so. Now, there are some people saying that maybe--maybe--the 2008 Olympics ought to be boycotted. Now, how will you feel, watching or going to the 2008 Olympics and knowing that the country that is doing that could stop the genocide in Darfur? And so I would urge that if China does not deal with the issue, then the sponsors, but also the people from the West, certainly ought not encourage China to say that we don't care, therefore, we're going to go to your Olympics when Mia Farrow calls it ``the Genocide Olympics.'' And then she says some other very tough things about Spielberg. Does he really want to be this? I mean, the Chinese are in essence doing what the Nazis did in the Olympics in the thirties, cleaning the streets and changing things. China has the ability to stop the genocide that is taking place in Sudan, and I think everyone should do everything they can. This administration should do more and everyone in the Congress should do more, that if China doesn't use its leverage in the U.N. and allow the Security Council to pass a resolution allowing the end to come out with regard to U.N. peacekeepers in Darfur, then I believe that Mia Farrow and those who are concerned and are considering boycotting the Olympics will be right. This is a test for China. Now, the Chinese Embassy is working this Hill aggressively. The Chinese Embassy will be working the administration. The Chinese Embassy will be working powerful governments around the world. But as long as the genocide continues in Darfur where 400,000 people have died, 2.1 million are living in refugee camps, knowing that China has the ability to stop what it mentions on page A-18 in the Washington Post today in this editorial to stop this, then if China is not prepared to use their leverage to stop the genocide, then quite frankly I think Mia Farrow's title of calling this ``the Genocide Olympics'' will be true and no one should attend those Olympics. The ``Genocide Olympics'' (By Ronan Farrow and Mia Farrow) ``One World, One Dream'' is China's slogan for its 2008 Olympics. But there is one nightmare that China shouldn't be allowed to sweep under the rug. That nightmare is Darfur, where more than 400,000 people have been killed and more than two-and-a-half million driven from flaming villages by the Chinese-backed government of Sudan. That so many corporate sponsors want the world to look away from that atrocity during the games is bad enough. But equally disappointing is the decision of artists like director Steven Spielberg--who quietly visited China this month as he prepares to help stage the Olympic ceremonies--to sanitize Beijing's image. Is Mr. Spielberg, who in 1994 founded the Shoah Foundation to record the testimony of survivors of the holocaust, aware that China is bankrolling Darfur's genocide? China is pouring billions of dollars into Sudan. Beijing purchases an overwhelming majority of Sudan's annual oil exports and state-owned China National Petroleum Corp.--an official partner of the upcoming Olympic Games--owns the largest shares in each of Sudan's two major oil consortia. The Sudanese government uses as much as 80% of proceeds from those sales to fund its brutal Janjaweed proxy militia and purchase their instruments of destruction: bombers, assault helicopters, armored vehicles and small arms, most of them of Chinese manufacture. Airstrips constructed and operated by the Chinese have been used to launch bombing campaigns on villages. And China has used its veto power on the U.N. Security Council to repeatedly obstruct efforts by the U.S. and the U.K. to introduce peacekeepers to curtail the slaughter. As one of the few players whose support is indispensable to Sudan, China has the power to, at the very least, insist that Khartoum accept a robust international peacekeeping force to protect defenseless civilians in Darfur. Beijing is uniquely positioned to put a stop to the slaughter, yet they have so far been unabashed in their refusal to do so. But there is now one thing that China may hold more dear than their unfettered access to Sudanese oil: their successful staging of the 2008 Summer Olympics. that desire may provide a lone point of leverage with a country that has otherwise been impervious to all criticism. Whether that opportunity goes unexploited lies in the hands of the high-profile supporters of these Olympic Games. Corporate sponsors like Johnson & Johnson, Coca-Cola, General Electric and McDonalds, and key collaborators like Mr. Spielberg, should be put on notice. For there is another slogan afoot, one that is fast becoming viral amongst advocacy groups; rather than ``One World, One Dream,'' people are beginning to speak of the coming ``Genocide Olympics.'' Does Mr. Spielberg really want to go down in history as the Leni Riefenstahl of the Beijing Games? Do the various television sponsors around the world want to share in that shame? Because they will. Unless, of course, all of them add their singularly well-positioned voices to the growing calls for Chinese action to end the slaughter in Darfur. Imagine if such calls were to succeed in pushing the Chinese government to use its leverage over Sudan to protect civilians in Darfur. The 2008 Beijing Olympics really could become an occasion for pride and celebration, a truly international honoring of the authentic spirit of ``one world'' and ``one dream.''

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to vote for this bill because I believe it represents a significant step forward in ensuring that the Commonwealth's interests are safeguarded when it comes to preventing casino-style gambling from coming to the state while providing full Federal recognition to these six Virginia Tribes. However, I hope the Senate will take a very careful look at it before proceeding because I have already begun hearing rumors that attorneys are being consulted about ways to overturn the limitation on tribal gambling included in the legislation. I believe the tribes when they say they aren't interested in pursuing gambling. Nevertheless, I would be extremely disappointed if there is any merit to the chatter I am hearing already--even before the bill gets out of the House--about their interest in a court challenge of the bill's gambling limitation. I certainly hope that's not true, and that what I am hearing is simply rumor. I also must admit that I am troubled by the fact the tribes have been paying a lobbyist at least $80,000 for the past several years to advance this legislation. I certainly hope that this bill isn't the first step down the slippery slope we've been down before relating to lobbying and tribal gambling. In moving forward with approval of this legislation, I believe it is important to underscore Congress' basis for this gambling limitation. Under the bill, no Virginia Indian tribe or tribal member, if granted Federal recognition by H.R. 1294, would have any greater rights to gamble or conduct gambling operations under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia than any other citizen of Virginia. Further, it is the expectation of Congress that the language restricting gambling operations by Indian tribes will be upheld if it is ever challenged in court, just as similar language was upheld in Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo v. the State of Texas, 69 Fed. App. 659. The Natural Resources Committee testimony demonstrates Congress' basis for including this limitation in the tribes' ability to engage in gambling. In Narragansett Indian Tribe v. National Indian Gaming Commission, 332 U.S. App. D.C. 429, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit applied the Supreme Court's rational basis test from Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (1947), to determine that the denial of gambling opportunities under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to the Narragansett Tribe under the Rhode Island Indian Claims Settlement Act did not violate the equal protection standards of the Fifth Amendment. If the legislation before us today, H.R. 1294, is ever challenged in court, a court should similarly find a rational basis for this limitation. Again, my concern is not with the Federal recognition of Virginia's Indian tribes. It has always been with the explosive spread of gambling and the potential for casino gambling to come to Virginia. No bill should become law unless it protects the interests of the Commonwealth. If casino gambling were to come to Virginia, it would open the door to the myriad of financial and socials ills associated with gambling. Virginia's tourism sector, its economy and its communities are some of the strongest in the country. Places such as the Shenandoah Valley, Williamsburg and Jamestown are national treasures which draw visitors from all over the world. Small businesses thrive in Virginia. The Commonwealth's reputation would be tarnished if it allowed casino-style gambling within its borders. As the author of legislation which created the National Gambling Impact Study Commission that released its 2-year study in 1999, I know firsthand about the devastating social and financial costs of gambling. Crime. Prostitution. Corruption. Suicide. Destroyed families. Child and spouse abuse. Bankruptcy. This legislation, I believe, does shut the door on the opportunity for these tribes to acquire land and eventually establish tribal casinos. As I said, I know that the current tribal leadership has indicated that they do not want to pursue gambling--and I believe they are sincere. But what the leaders today say doesn't lock in the leaders of tomorrow. I have already started to worry that future leadership of the tribes will pursue establishing tribal casinos. I hope I am wrong.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the 23rd annual Public Service Recognition Week. I am proud to be a co-chair of the Congressional Public Service Caucus, proud to have been a federal employee, and proud to represent in Congress a large number of my constituents who are federal employees. These employees are a national asset who work hard day after day with professionalism and dedication. Federal employees are the backbone of our government. They can be found working to find cures for diseases at the National Institutes of Health, helping seniors with their Social Security benefits, representing our interests overseas in the State Department, serving as stewards of America's natural resources in the National Park Service, helping our country defend the homeland at the Department of Defense and at the Department of Homeland Security. These are but a few examples of the many areas in which federal employees are serving our country. We must not forget those federal employees who are risking their lives in the war against terrorism. The first combat death in Afghanistan in the wake of September 11 was CIA officer Johnny Micheal Spann, one of my constituents. And today, Federal employees can be found throughout the globe fighting the war against terrorism in many different ways. The sacrifice and hard work of our federal employees, whether abroad or at home, should never be forgotten. Federal employees deserve fair pay--which is why I have been pleased to support pay parity for federal employees since I have been in Congress. They deserve adequate health care--which is why I have supported legislation to make sure federal employees get quality health benefits. And retired Federal employees must not be forgotten--which is why I have supported legislation to aid Federal employees who have retired from active service. Federal employees deserve to be honored during Public Service Recognition Week. But we must always remember the they are serving our country every day of the year.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I rise today to bring the attention of the House to the retirement of Virginia State Senator Russ Potts. In February, Russ announced that he will not seek reelection in November and it is my pleasure today to recognize his hard work and dedication to the people of the 27th District of Virginia. Born and raised in Winchester, Russ had a paper route and delivered milk as a young boy to help contribute to his family's income. Self- made, Russ majored in journalism at the University of Maryland before returning to Winchester to take a job as the sports editor of The Winchester Star. A homegrown Republican, Russ eventually went on to a career in sports promotion before running for State Senate 1991. As chairman of the Senate Education and Health Committee and member of the Commerce and Labor, Finance, Privileges and Elections and Rules committees, Russ has made a lasting contribution during the four terms he has served the Commonwealth of Virginia. Russ has dedicated a large portion of his career to public service and will be sorely missed. Russ is a man of high moral character, a true Virginia gentleman, family man, and loyal friend. I would be remiss today if I didn't also recognize Russ's unwavering dedication to his wife Emily, three daughters, and grandchildren. I ask that my colleagues in the House rise today and join with me in recognizing the outstanding career of Russ Potts.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I rise today to bring the attention of the House to the retirement of Fairfax County chief prosecutor Robert F. Horan Jr. Having served 10 terms, he is the longest serving prosecutor in the history of the Commonwealth of Virginia and one of the very best in America. His dedicated service to law enforcement in northern Virginia is without equal. I am sure the decision to step down after 40 years was extremely difficult given his dedication to public service and to the people of Fairfax County. I have had the pleasure to call Bob my friend for many, many years. When Bob was first elected as the county's Commonwealth's attorney in 1967, he and his wife Monica made the decision to raise their family right here in northern Virginia, they have watched Fairfax County grow from a rural farm county into a bustling suburb and the most populous county in Virginia. Bob and Monica's three boys, Robert F. Horan III, Kevin, and Timothy all reside locally and are a testament to their father's fondness for the northern Virginia area. Bob's accomplishments as chief prosecutor are legendary. He has tried and won several high profile cases including the 1993 sniper shooting at CIA headquarters as well as the Washington sniper case against Lee Boyd Malvo. Bob has received numerous awards and recognitions, and rightfully so. I have inserted for the Record a recent Washington Post article which details his unparalleled career. Perhaps more important than all of his courtroom successes is the way that Bob conducts himself both inside and outside of the courtroom. Bob is a man of the highest moral character, a true Virginia gentleman, a family man, and loyal friend. Bob is a legend in the law enforcement and with Bob's retirement, an era is truly coming to an end in Fairfax County. I suspect that as Bob prepares for retirement he is looking forward to spending more time with his wife, 3 children, and grandchildren, T.J., Maggie, and Jennifer. We wish him the best and thank him for his dedicated service to the people. I ask that my colleagues in the House join with me in recognizing the outstanding career of Robert F. Horan, Jr. [From Washington Post, Apr. 15, 2007] After 40 Years Prosecuting Crimes, Retirement Is Scary Prospect (By Tom Jackman) It's hard to picture Robert F. Horan Jr. as a defense attorney. But there was a time, in the mid-1960s, when the man who would become Fairfax County's chief prosecutor for 40 years worked on the other side of the courtroom. Then, in 1966, while he was representing a man charged with sexual assault, the Supreme Court ruled that suspects must be advised of their rights, a precursor to the Miranda case. Horan argued that his client's confession was illegal, a judge threw it out and the man ultimately was acquitted. ``Which kind of soured me on the system,'' Horan said. ``For the police to have taken an honest statement from the guy, and it gets thrown out, that didn't sit well.'' A year later, the chief judge of Fairfax asked him to be the commonwealth's attorney. And he has been ever since. Last week, Horan (D) announced that he will not seek an 11th term. Horan said he will resign in late summer or early fall rather than serve out his term, clearing the way for his chief deputy, Raymond F. Morrogh (D), to run as the acting commonwealth's attorney in the November general election. Horan agonized over his decision to step down when he would have been unopposed. He said his declining hearing has troubled him, particularly in whispered bench conferences, and he noted that he would be 75 at election time. But still, even after he decided to retire, he was ambivalent about leaving a job he clearly loves. ``I'm not totally happy with it, I concede that,'' he said. ``My wife is happy with it.'' His wife, Monica, also played a role in keeping the New Jersey native in Northern Virginia in the early 1960s, paving the way for him to become the longest-serving prosecutor in the state and an institution among prosecutors nationwide. After Horan graduated from Georgetown's law school in 1961, he was faced with the decision of staying in the area or returning to New Jersey. But to obtain a law license in New Jersey, a six-month clerkship was required. Horan and his wife had one child and a second on the way. ``I couldn't afford to be a clerk for six months,'' he said. ``So we stayed in Virginia and never regretted it.'' Horan spent two years as a Fairfax assistant prosecutor and two years in private practice. He was appointed the county's top prosecutor in March 1967, when Ralph G. Louk stepped down. He faced opposition in 1967, 1971 and 1975 but not again until 1995. And not since. In 1967, the county was still partly rural, with vast undeveloped stretches and some large cattle farms. ``There were no stoplights in Seven Corners,'' he recalled of the now complicated intersection near Falls Church. Horan had five assistant prosecutors that year. Today, he has 22, still a low number compared with surrounding counties. But remarkably, ``the assistants' caseloads are roughly what they were when I had five,'' Horan said. As the county's population exploded from about 450,000 in the late 1960s to more than a million today, the crime rate has steadily fallen. Homicides now number between 12 and 20 annually, the same as in the 1970s. Burglaries and larcenies, which totaled 24,000 in 1980, are down to about 15,000 annually. Horan has a couple of theories. One is that older, more marginal neighborhoods such as Blevinstown, just outside Fairfax City, where local feuds tended to erupt into violence, have been bulldozed and replaced by communities of higher incomes and education. Another is that ambulance service is faster and better equipped, as are the teams in local emergency rooms. ``Many more people survive gunshots now,'' Horan said. One thing that hasn't changed in Horan's four decades is how he runs his office. He keeps the number of prosecutors to a minimum. He doesn't share police reports, witness statements or witness lists with defense attorneys. And he's not afraid to make tough decisions. ``His office could use many more assistant prosecutors,'' said Robert C. Whitestone, an experienced Fairfax defense attorney. He said the low number of prosecutors sometimes keeps them too busy and pushes them into courtrooms unprepared. Loudoun County, with a population about one- fourth of Fairfax's, has 16 assistant prosecutors. Horan said the state Compensation Board determines how many are allocated across the state and sets a starting salary of about $43,000, which Fairfax supplements to about $50,000. ``Virginia does criminal prosecution on the cheap,'' Horan said. He said that when he first took office, ``it had become trendy to have your own investigators. I said I don't believe that's the way to do it,'' and he hasn't. Instead, he relies on Fairfax police. The officers closely follow Horan's lead, guarding their information more tightly than virtually any other police department in the region, because Horan has insisted they not provide defense attorneys with any ammunition. Those who violate his instructions are prone to severe tongue-lashings. Horan said the county police force has maintained high standards and excellent performance throughout his tenure. ``The Washington Post always wants to criticize me because I've never charged an officer with murder,'' Horan said. ``I'm proud of the fact they haven't been charged. It means they're doing their jobs.'' In recent years, pickets stood outside the Fairfax courthouse to protest Horan's decision not to charge a Prince George's County officer with a fatal shooting, and the family of a slain Fairfax man denounced Horan's refusal to charge a Fairfax officer with his death. But it's nothing new to Horan. He cited controversial cases dating to the early 1970s, when an officer fatally shot a man in a 7-Eleven in Herndon, sparking riots, and another when an officer killed a teenage burglar. In both, there were no charges, to loud complaints by some. ``It's part of the job,'' he said with a shrug. Another part of the job is successfully taking on a case when the county, or the world, is watching. No one has questioned his skill there, even defense attorneys. ``He's a brilliant prosecutor,'' Whitestone said. Said defense attorney Peter D. Greenspun: ``My clients will be glad he's not around to prosecute them.'' U.S. Attorney General John D. Ashcroft chose Horan to prosecute one of the first sniper cases, against Lee Boyd Malvo, and Horan brought home a capital murder conviction without any witnesses identifying the shooter, although the jury did not impose the death sentence. In 1997, he obtained a death sentence against Mir Aimal Kasi, who killed two people outside the CIA in 1993. Horan said his most satisfying case was the prosecution of Caleb D. Hughes for abducting 5-year-old Melissa Brannen in 1989. Hughes was convicted of abduction with intent to defile; Melissa has not been found. ``That was a really tough case to try,'' Horan said. ``It stayed with me for a lot of years.'' Of those that have not been solved, the one that bothers him the most is the death of Gwen Ames, 17, who was found strangled near Lake Anne Plaza in Reston in 1972. Horan noted some interesting changes in the courts over 40 years. The arrival of Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court ruling requiring police to inform suspects of their rights, changed the tenor of pretrial complaints from police beatings to police failure to ``Mirandize.'' And the introduction of sentencing guidelines, giving defendants a better idea of how much jail time they might face, has reduced the amount of cases that go to trial to perhaps 10 percent, Horan said. Horan reduced his own caseload from about 20 a year, mostly homicides that he often began working on the day they occurred, to three or four annually. In recent years, with the increase in guilty pleas, he had no trials. But he clearly still loves the courtroom. He will handle the double-murder death penalty trial of Alfredo R. Prieto, set for late May. He's leaving reluctantly. ``My only fear is I've known guys who loved what they were doing,'' Horan said. ``They hung it up and they were dead in a year.'' He loves playing golf; he drives a Mercedes-Benz 240 sedan he won in a charity event in 2002 when he nailed a hole-in- one. But he doesn't think golf can fill his time, and ``there's not a job in the world as interesting as this one.'' ``I haven't even given any thought to what's next,'' Horan said. ``I'm sure I'll find something to do.''

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure today to recognize Frederick County Commonwealth's Attorney Lawrence R. Ambrogi on the occasion of his retirement after nearly four decades of public service. It has come to my attention that Larry will not be seeking re- election in November and I want to take this opportunity to recognize his decorated career. A graduate of American University Law and Randolph Macon College, Larry was appointed as the county commonwealth attorney in 1969 and elected in 1971. As the third longest serving attorney in the history of the Commonwealth, Larry is highly respected member of the law enforcement community and has received numerous awards and recognition for his work. Larry has dedicated his professional life to public service and will be sorely missed by Frederick County and the Shenandoah Valley community as a whole. Larry is a man of high moral character, a true Virginia gentleman, family man, and loyal friend. I would be remiss today in didn't also recognize Larry's dedication to his wife, Carole, and how proud he is of their children, Lawrence and Elaine, and their many grandchildren. I suspect that as Larry prepares for retirement he is looking forward to spending more time with his family. I ask that my colleagues in the House rise today and join with me in recognizing the outstanding career of Lawrence Ambrogi.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Smith, and for Mr. Smith's faithfulness to be over here. This institution is frankly changing. It is changing before our eyes. This institution, on both sides of the aisle, almost doesn't seem to care anymore on these issues of fundamental human rights. This institution needs a little bit of Ronald Reagan. Many of you voted to give this government PNTR. Read the letter. The conditions have changed dramatically. They're worse today than when you gave them PNTR. And yet this place is almost empty. Nobody seems to care anymore. Father Ly is in jail. The American Ambassador ought to be fired. This administration has done a horrible job. Let me just read some of the things that have gone on since we gave them PNTR and the President went over there. February 18, 2007, the second day of Lunar, Father Ly was banished to a remote secluded area. Does the Congress care? Does the administration care? March 5, 2007, security forces in Saigon told Mrs. Bui Ngoc Yen that they had an order to arrest her husband. March 8, 2007, Reverend Nguyen Cong Chinch were brutally assaulted by the security forces. March 8, 2007, two prominent human rights activists and lawyers, Mr. Nguyen Van Dai and Ms. Le Thi Cong Nhan were arrested in Hanoi, told they would be detained for 4 months. March 9, 2007 Mr. Tran Van Hoa, a member of the People's Democracy Committee, summoned by the security forces and threatened with ``immeasurable consequences,'' that's in quotes. March 10, 2007, Do Nam Hai, an engineer writing under the pen name Phuong Nam, one of the leading members of the Alliance for Democracy told by security forces he could be indicted any time. March 10, the same day, state security forces raided the home of Ms. Tran Khai Thanh, a writer. March 12, 2007, do you get a pattern here? Can anyone see a pattern sort of developing here? The Congress gave them MFN. Probably a majority on both sides gave them MFN. But do you see a pattern here? March 10, state security forces. March 12, lawyer Le Quoc Quan, a consultant on local government for the World Bank was arrested in his hometown. April 5, 2007 the Vietnamese authorities in Hanoi rudely prevented Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez, from your side of the aisle, from meeting with several dissidents' wives at a gathering organized at the Ambassador's house. Now this Ambassador, frankly, and Mr. Lantos, and we have a bill that's coming up, this Ambassador has failed to turn the American Embassy into an island of freedom. During the days of Ronald Reagan, one of the greatest presidents we have ever had, not only in modern times, but in all times, turned the American Embassy in Moscow into an island of freedom that dissidents felt comfortable coming, and they were invited. This Ambassador is just the opposite. He's silent. Dr. Martin Luther King said silence is the real danger. You expect the silence of your enemies, but you don't expect the silence of our friends. Furthermore, the Hanoi government still has a large number of dissidents that are in jail. Lastly, and I'm going to read a letter that I'm going to put in the Record that we sent to Secretary Rice the other day. The Vietnamese American community, a young but energetic group comprised of more than 1 million citizens, should be included in future dialogues with U.S. government officials. They know the history, the culture and the values of Vietnam. They also scrutinize the history and the tactics of communism and the Communist government's habits at the negotiating table. I sincerely believe that the history of Vietnam must inform our approach to this and all other aspects of foreign policy. And the Vietnamese American community is a tremendous asset in this regard. Quite frankly, this administration, when Ambassador Marine leaves, ought to put a Vietnamese American in who understands these issues. So I'm going to submit this in the Record. But these are important issues. This Congress just can't give these people human rights. And frankly, there is a whole shift taking place. I saw the other day, and if I'm wrong, I'll correct it for the record, that Steven Spielberg is now representing the Chinese government for the Olympics. One of Spielberg's greatest movies was the movie that he did with regard to what took place by Nazi Germany, Schindler's List. Well, now there's a Schindler's list operation going on in China. There are 42 Catholic bishops that are in jail with China, with priests. And for those who might think it might be amusing, China is the one that's trying to do nothing with regard to the genocide in Darfur. 400,000 people have died. The head of China goes to Khartoum 2 months ago with a bold announcement. The announcement is they are going to build a new palace for the Sudanese that are bringing about genocide. Genocide in Darfur. There are 46,000 house church leaders, leaders, committed leaders, house church leaders that are in jail in China today. In Tibet, it's against the law to have a picture of the Dalai Lama, and the Chinese public security police sent three public security police to my district spying on Rebiya Kadeer. If you read the Washington Post editorial last week, spying on Rebiya Kadeer in Fairfax County. Her three kids have been arrested. She's a Muslim. Her three kids have been arrested. So I just see, and I want to thank Mr. Smith for doing this, but frankly, for the Congress just to grant MFN to this fundamentally evil government, and for us to just sort of move on and just kind of not care anymore, it just is really troubling. When we fail to speak out for the least, we fundamentally fail to speak out for everyone. And so let me just say, I didn't know this was coming up, and I just caught it and came over here. I want to thank Mr. Smith for his faithfulness in being involved. And frankly, any Member that voted to give these guys PNTR, on both sides of the aisle, man, you've got a great responsibility now to really do something on these people. These are dissidents that are in jail. They are being suffered. And frankly, I end by saying we ought to do more the way that Ronald Reagan did in the 1980s. Speak out on human rights, religious freedom and those values. And with that, you ought to call a role call vote on this because, frankly, this government is so dense that if they see a voice vote they won't even think it it's important. There ought to be a roll call vote so we can send a message on behalf of Father Ly, a Catholic bishop, a Catholic priest who's done nothing, and all these other people. And frankly, this ambassador ought to be shown the door. And we ought to put somebody in who represents the values of this country. Quite frankly, it ought to be a Vietnamese American who can go over there and advocate on behalf of those who are being persecuted. Dear Secretary Rice: I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the worsening human rights situation in Vietnam in recent months. After joining the World Trade Organization in January 2007, the politburo of the Vietnamese Communist Party (VCP) has carried out a large-scale brutal campaign of arrest against the nascent movement for democracy in Vietnam. Ignoring all international criticism and strenuous protests of the Vietnamese people, inside Vietnam and abroad, the communist regime in Hanoi has shamefully pushed ahead with its crackdown. The following events were particularly disconcerting to me: On February 18, 2007, the second day of the Lunar New Year, which is the most sacred time in Vietnamese culture, the communist security forces raided Father Nguyen Van Ly's office within the Communal Residence of the Hue Archdiocese. Father Ly was later banished to a remote, secluded area in Hue. On March 5, 2007, security forces in Saigon told Mrs. Bui Ngoc Yen that they had an order to arrest her husband, Professor Nguyen Chinh Kiet, who is a leading member of the Alliance for Democracy and Human Rights in Vietnam. Professor Kiet was in Europe at the time campaigning for democracy and human rights in Vietnam. On March 8, 2007, Reverend Nguyen Cong Chinch and his wife were brutally assaulted by security forces of Gia Lai Province in the Central Highlands, who then arrested Reverend Chinch on undisclosed charges. Also on March 8, 2007, two prominent human rights activists and lawyers, Mr. Nguyen Van Dai and Ms. Le Thi Cong Nhan, were arrested in Hanoi and were told that they would be detained for four months as part of an undisclosed investigation. On March 9, 2007, Mr. Tran Van Hoa, a member of the People's Democracy Party in Quang Ninh Province, and Mr. Pham Van Troi, a member of the Committee for Human Rights in Ha Tay, were summoned by security forces and threatened with ``immeasurable consequences'' if they do not stop their advocacy for human rights in Vietnam. On March 10, 2007, Do Nam Hai, an engineer writing under the pen name Phuong Nam and one of the leading members of the Alliance for Democracy and Human Rights in Vietnam, was told by security forces that he could be indicted at any time for activity against the State. Also on March 10, 2007, state security forces also raided the home of Ms. Tran Khai Thanh Thuy, a writer, on the grounds that she advocated for ``people with grievances'' against the government. They took away two computers, two cell phones, and hundreds of appeals that she had prepared for victims of the government's abuses. March 12, 2007, lawyer Le Quoc Quan, a consultant on local governance for the World Bank, Asian Development Bank, UNDP, and Swedish International Development Agency, was arrested in his hometown, Nghe An, less than a week after he returned from a fellowship at the National Endowment for Democracy in Washington, D.C. His whereabouts are unknown at this time. On April 5, 2007, the Vietnamese authorities in Hanoi rudely prevented Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) from meeting with several dissidents' wives at a gathering organized at the U.S. Ambassador's home. The police reportedly used very hostile and undignified manners to intervene in the meeting. Furthermore, the Hanoi communist regime is still imprisoning many political dissidents and labor advocates such as Nguyen Vu Binh, Huynh Nguyen Dao, Truong Quoc Huy, Nguyen Hoang Long, Nguyen Tan Hoanh, Doan Huy Chuong, the religious leaders of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, Cao Dai, Hoa Hoa, and more than 350 lay people of the Protestant churches in the Central Highland. The Vietnamese-Americans in my district, as well as all across the country, are very angered and distressed by what they perceive as a new and aggressive plan of the Hanoi government to reverse the progress of human rights in Vietnam. They believe that Ambassador Marine and his staff are not doing enough to stop these blatant violations of human rights. It seems to me that the Vietnamese government is conducting this crackdown on advocates of human rights and religious freedom because it believes that the U.S. has no further leverage in the region. Now that Vietnam has been admitted to the WTO, and met with the Holy See, they believe they can respond in this brutal fashion to supporters of democracy and freedom and we will not respond. I hope that you will make clear to the Vietnamese authorities that we will not stand by while this violence and intimidation continues. I believe the State Department should consider putting Vietnam back on the list of Countries of Particular Concern, and perhaps also consider canceling the planned visit of the Vietnamese president and prime minister later this year if the human rights situation in Vietnam has not improved. I appreciate the recent comments by Sean McCormack at Voice of America expressing deep concern about the March 30 trial and sentencing of Father Ly. I ask that you continue pressing these issues with the Vietnamese government, including the need to respect the basic human rights of all Vietnamese citizens, especially the freedom of information, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion. The Vietnamese people should be able to choose their own leaders through free and fair elections and to use the Internet freely without any censures or restrictions. I also ask that you encourage the Vietnamese authorities to release all political prisoners and religious leaders who are currently imprisoned because of their peaceful expression of their ideas or to fight for their religious beliefs. Among these prisoners are Father Nguyen Van Ly, Pastors Nguyen Cong Chinh and Hong Trung, lawyers Nguyen Van Dai, Le thi Cong Nhan, Le Quoc Quan, Messiers Truong Quoc Huy, and Nguyen Hoang Lon. Lastly, I believe the Vietnamese-American community, a young but energetic group comprised of more than one million citizens, should be included in future dialogues with U.S. government officials. They know the history, culture and values of Vietnam. They also have scrutinized the history and tactics of communism and the communist government's habits at the negotiating table. I sincerely believe that the history of Vietnam must inform our approach to this and all other aspects of foreign policy, and the Vietnamese-American community is a tremendous asset in this regard. I respectfully request that you invite a small representation of the Vietnamese-American community to join the U.S. delegation in next month's human rights dialogue. Best wishes. Sincerely, Frank R. Wolf, Member of Congress.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to recognize Deborah Cohn, deputy commissioner for Trademark Operations at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), for her leadership in promoting government telework. With her creativity and perseverance, Deborah Cohn pioneered the development of the USPTO's first telework program at a time when telework was far from the norm. Convincing reluctant agency executives, Ms. Cohn forged coalitions with managers, IT personnel, and the employee union to create an innovative, award-winning telework program at the USPTO. This month, the Trademark Work at Home (TWAH) program celebrates its 10th anniversary. Established in 1997, TWAH began as a feasibility pilot of 18 teleworkers. Today, TWAH is the most innovative and progressive program in the entire Federal Government involving more than 220 employees, or 85 percent of eligible examining attorneys, who spend the vast majority of their workweek at home. The lesson learned from Hurricane Katrina is that governments and private sector businesses must continue to operate if our Nation is faced with similar disasters in the future. Telecommuting has proven benefits, not only for continuity of operations, but also energy savings, air quality, employee productivity, and employee cost savings. In short, telework is a winner all around. As the Nation's largest employer, the Federal Government should be the leader in telework policy. The USPTO is the gold standard for the Federal Government thanks to the efforts of my constituent, Deborah Cohn. Ms. Cohn began her career at the USPTO as a trademark examining attorney in 1983. In 2001, she joined the Senior Executive Service as a Trademark Group director. She became deputy commissioner for Trademark Operations in 2005 and currently oversees the examination and processing of applications throughout the trademark operation. Throughout her legal career at the USPTO, Ms. Cohn has been involved in work-life improvement initiatives. She is a former Council of Excellence in Government fellow where she first developed the seeds of the trademark work-at-home program. Ms. Cohn is a graduate of The American University and George Mason University School of Law. Ms. Cohn is a sought after resource and speaker as an expert on the development and management of telework programs. I ask that my colleagues join me in recognizing Ms. Cohn's efforts in making the USPTO the most successful telework program within the Federal Government. I also ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the 10th anniversary of the Trademark Office's award-winning telework program.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I rise today to bring the attention of the House to Robert Walter Dingman, a decorated veteran of World War II who was wounded in combat 62 years ago today, on April 20, 1945. Private Dingman was seriously wounded as he crossed an open field and laid paralyzed until a heroic medic rescued him under enemy fire. Bob Dingman had just turned 18 when he was drafted into the Army in 1944. After basic training at Camp Blanding, Florida, he was soon aboard a troop ship to Liverpool, England and then on to LeHarve, France, in early 1945. The French rail road took him and his fellow soldiers to Verviers, Belgium, where he was issued an M-1 rifle. He was soon taken across the Rhine River where he was assigned to Comp B of the 83rd Armored Reconnaissance Battalion of the 3rd Armored Division. As a young soldier with a strong faith in God, Private Dingman was determined he would not hate his enemy and had occasions to show kindness toward captives, while carrying out his duties. Since those dark days 62 years ago, Bob Dingman has led a successful, active, inspiring and selfless life. After graduating from Houghton College in New York state, he began his career here in Washington as an employee of the U.S. Navy. He later went into the executive recruiting business and formed his own executive recruiting firm in California in 1978. He rose professionally and is recognized as one of the nation's top executive recruiters. During his recruiting career, he repeatedly went out of his way to assist faith-based organizations in their searches for competent leadership, in addition to his broad array of commercial clients. Over the years he led the search projects for leaders of such organizations as World Vision International, Mission Aviation Fellowship, Young Life, numerous Christian Colleges, and many other church-related organizations. He also gave generously of his time and abilities by serving on the national boards of such organizations as the Salvation Army and Mission Aviation Fellowship and the local boards of Hospice and Whitworth College. As a disabled veteran of World War II, he was awarded a 50 percent disability in 1951. As one who has experienced the physical and emotional pain of rehabilitation, Mr. Dingman is currently turning his attention to finding ways to help newly disabled veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I ask that the House join me today in recognizing Bob Dingman for a lifetime of service to his country and others, and for his example of determination, hard work and commitment to his faith.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, today I am reintroducing the Federal Employee Combat Zone Tax Parity Act, which would provide parity by extending the tax credit currently received by military personnel to the civilian federal employees working alongside them. It is only fair that both military and civilian employees who are serving side by side receive the same tax treatment. In fact, even contract employees can get a tax break through the foreign earned investment tax credit, but federal employees are specifically exempted from that tax credit. As a former federal employee, I am keenly aware of the invaluable contributions federal employees make to our country. I believe we must ensure that our federal workforce is treated with fairness and respect. The Pentagon stated in the proposed regulations for the new National Security Personnel System that ``NSPS is essential to the department's efforts to create an environment in which the total force, uniformed personnel and civilians, think and operates as one cohesive unit.'' What kind of message does it send to civilian employees if they receive disparate tax status from their military colleagues? Just as military personnel, federal employees serving in combat zones must leave their families behind and this can increase the financial burdens on families. Families with two working parents suddenly have only one parent able to care for the needs of the family. Military personnel in combat zones were given a tax credit back in 1913 to help alleviate their tax burden, but federal employees were left out. Since 9/11 it has become ever more vital to have a thriving civil service participating in our efforts to fight the war on terrorism. Now more than ever in our nation's history we must take action that reflects the contributions both our civilian and military employees are making--in the war on terrorism and as well as the daily operations of the federal government in providing the services upon which every American relies. Federal employees are on the front lines of the war against terror. The first American to die in Afghanistan was a CIA agent from my district. Federal employees are in Iraq helping the Iraqi people to build a free nation. Throughout the world, America's civil servants are serving our government and our people, often in dangerous locations. How can we tell them we will not give them a fair and equitable tax credit that recognizes their hard work, dedication, and sacrifice? We are asking federal employees to take on more and more responsibility every day. They are on the ground in the war on terrorism taking over new roles to relieve military personnel of tasks civilian employees can perform. They are all playing a vital role in keeping us safe and deserve to be treated with respect and fairness. We have a long tradition in the Congress of recognizing the valuable contributions of our federal employees in both the military service and in the civil service by providing fair and equitable treatment. This is not the time to shirk our duty to the civil service. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the Federal Employee Combat Zone Tax Parity Act.