Frank Wolf

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. I want to thank Mr. Scott and Mr. Boucher for bringing this resolution up. Words are inadequate at this time. And our community and our State and the Nation have been devastated by what has taken place. Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today in support of this resolution offering the condolences of the House to the victims and their families of the horrific violence at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia, on Monday morning, and to the students, the faculty, administration, staff and their families who have forever been changed by this tragedy. My heart is heavy for the entire grieving Virginia Tech community and the families in the 10th District of Virginia who are mourning today because the young, promising lives of their children have ended. According to the morning news we have received, there are going to be at least five victims who call the 10th Congressional District, my district, home. There really are no words that can adequately express, and as a father of 5 children and a grandfather of 12, words you can say, that can express the sorrow we are feeling for the families today. But with this resolution, it is my hope that the families in my district and the families and loved ones of all the victims will know that this district, this Commonwealth of Virginia and indeed the entire Nation are with them in spirit, offering them our heartfelt sympathy and prayers. With my colleagues in the Virginia delegation, I attended the very moving and emotional convocation yesterday in Blacksburg. I was impressed with the Tech community, the students and staff, administration. President Bush did an outstanding job, as did Governor Kaine, in addressing the students and the administration. It was truly a feeling of family coming together to offer love and support to each other in their time of grief and loss. There is still a numbness and incredulity about what happened on the Virginia Tech campus just 2 days ago. The wounds in Blacksburg are deep, but with the unity of spirit and the deep faith I felt yesterday on the Tech campus, it is my hope that as the tomorrows come, this outstanding institution and all those who are associated with it will find hope and peace. May God bless all of us at this very, very difficult time.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I would like to share with our colleagues additional information on the new initiative for the Middle East that I announced at a press conference on March 22. I submit for the Record the remarks of former Ambassador David Abshire, who in his capacity at the Center for the Study of the Presidency will be administering this initiative. I also submit observations on the Middle East from Dr. Robert Cooley, President Emeritus of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. Remarks From Dr. David Abshire Before the March 22, 2007 Press Conference on New Middle East Initiative We are grateful to Congressman Wolf for his leadership, and encouragement of this initiative facilitated by the non- partisan Center for the Study of the Presidency. This initiative on Israel and Palestine is based on recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, which Congressman Wolf also helped launch: ``The United States will not be able to achieve its goals in the Middle East unless the United States deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict.'' The Secretary of State, when in Ramallah, said ``I have heard a clear call for deeper American engagement, and we are absolutely committed.'' The current effort that we are announcing today, which Secretary Rice supports, observes this recommendation, and we are honored that our Center, which examines the American Presidency, has been asked to contribute to such an important initiative. Eleven U.S. Presidents have had to deal with this challenge. We are therefore delighted that Ambassador Dennis Ross of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy will serve as a Senior Advisor at the Center, and bring his extensive experience to this endeavor. In terms of exchanges, health is essential to the economy, well-being, national security, and future of the Middle East region. The goal of this part of the initiative is to foster collaboration and facilitate interactions between medical and scientific experts in Israel and Palestine to improve health. Our Center has the advantage of the leadership and experience of Senior Advisor, Rear Admiral Susan Blumenthal, M.D., who is an expert on a broad range of public health and medical issues. She served as Assistant Surgeon General in the US Department of Health and Human Services, where her work in global health included fostering a Middle East health initiative with Israel, Palestine, Egypt and Jordan. We also will encourage more academic and scientific exchange and cooperative efforts in the model of the Israeli- Palestinian Science Organization--a non-political, nonprofit organization which is dedicated to nurturing and supporting cooperation between Israeli and Palestinian scientists and scholars in joint research ventures. In doing so, IPSO brings about dialogue between the two sides, even in these highly explosive times. On a separate track, we enthusiastically welcome the leadership of former Democratic Congressman Tony Hall, also former Ambassador to the UN Agencies for Food and Agriculture. Tony has written a truly remarkable book on his experiences here--Changing the Face of Hunger. Ambassador Hall and his team of diverse lay and religious leaders will seek to build better understanding between religious leaders. The Holy Land is common to the three religions that find their beginning in Abraham, and this initiative is indeed appropriate at the time when we seek peace and understanding throughout the Middle East. Remarks on the Middle East From Dr. Robert Cooley, President Emeritus, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary First, a little background on my experience in the Land and at home, as well. My doctoral studies were in the fields of the Ancient and Modern Near East with special interest in Hebrew Studies and Syro-Palestinian Archaeology. I have excavated at five buried sites in the three countries of Jordan, Egypt and Israel. During these past 48 years, I have had the privilege of working with Palestinian Moslems, Palestinian Christians and Israelis in a variety of roles, most notably as the director of 75 study tours and as an archaeologist. Further, I have served as the Annual Professor, William Foxwell Albright Institute of Archaeology and Visiting Professor at the Jerusalem University College. Many of the citizens of the Land have become personal friends over these many years and we continue to communicate and visit with each other. In all of these associations, I have sustained an apolitical stance, having personal values and feelings for all of the people based upon my own faith commitment and understanding of their own aspirations and vision. In the USA, I have been a professor at Wheaton College, Evangel University, Dropsie University, Missouri State University where I served as the Director of the Center for Archaeological Research. Most recently, I served as president of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary until my retirement in 1997. I join Congressman Wolf in underscoring the strategic role that people of faith have in creating the mood for meaningful dialog toward a lasting peace. It is time that such persons have a voice in framing the peace conversation and the solution that will allow all to have lives of dignity, freedom and tranquility. The roots of religion run very deep into the region's antiquity and cannot be separated from matters that we in the West would call secular or merely political. After all, the three major groups in the Land are Sons of Abraham and share a common understood relationship that serves as a basis for living together in harmony today. The past 50 years of failed politics have undermined communal harmony and allowed outside forces to enter and to modify relationships. Now, differences in a culture of hatred are about to fragment the greater society and turn the region into a quagmire of despair. An approach that takes seriously the Abrahamic factor can bring the parties back to his tent for conversation and where participants can look each in the eye and see each other's humanity and aspirations. The God of Abraham unifies through His promises and mercy. It is true that religion can divide a society. This is no more true than in the Holy Land and the Middle East. Religious differences are sharp and numerous. The majority of the people are Muslims. But, within Islam, there are at least 72 sects with the Sunni and the Shi'a being the most populated. Christians tend to be identified along four lines: Eastern Orthodox Churches, Oriental Churches, Roman Catholics, and Protestants. Judaism has its own deep divides--Orthodox, Conservative and Reformed, along with other lesser groups. Of course, there are several other religious groups, due to the history of the region and they represent a variety of mixtures, such as, The Druzes, The Yazidis, The Sabeans and The Bahais. Superimposed over these religious groups are the interests of politics and geo- economics. One cannot speak about peace on the political level without taking into account the religious roots of the people. The veneration of holy sites and places is fundamental to identities, and they are multiple. The only solution is an open and free society that must be the goal of peace.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I would like to share with our colleagues information on a new initiative for the Middle East that will combine economics and faith. Ambassador Dennis Ross, of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and former presidential negotiator in the Middle East, and Ambassador Tony Hall, who served in Congress from 1979 to 2002, will be key players in the initiative. The initiative will be coordinated by the Center for the Study of the Presidency and be supported by a grant from the U.S. Agency for International Development. I submit for the Record my remarks, as well as those of Ambassador Tony Hall, at a press conference on March 22 at which this initiative was announced. Frank Wolf's Remarks Before the March 22, 2007 Press Conference on New Middle East Initiative Thank you for coming today. I also want to thank and recognize Ambassador David Abshire and Ambassador Tony Hall for joining me today. Both will be speaking in a few minutes. I have known and worked with both David and Tony for a number of years and have great respect for them. And I can honestly say that Tony was my best friend in Congress and remains my best friend today. Today we are here to announce the launching of a new initiative in the Middle East that will combine economics and faith. It will be coordinated by the Center for the Study of the Presidency and be supported by a grant from USAID. We are deeply concerned that time is running out to find a peaceful solution to the issues that separate the people in the land so many call holy. In the Middle East, religion plays such an important role in people's lives. If you're Jewish, you have the Western Wall. If you're Christian, you have the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. If you're Muslim, you have the Dome of the Rock. We cannot work toward peace in the Middle East without taking into account the religious roots of its people. The U.S. government doesn't have the capacity to deal with this reality in the lives of those who live in that region. That is why I have put together an initiative that includes the faith component. The faith component of this initiative will be led by former Congressman Tony Hall. His depth of faith and experience in building bridges between people is critical to this initiative. The economic development component will be led by Ambassador Dennis Ross. Dennis is a seasoned diplomat who has maintained a significant role in shaping U.S. involvement in the Middle East peace process for many years. Dr. Bob Cooley, president emeritus of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, recently provided me some insightful observations about the faith dynamics in the Middle East. He has worked with Palestinian Muslims, Palestinian Christians, and Israelis during his 48 years of pursuing Hebrew Studies and Syro-Palestinian Archeology. He points out that the three major religious groups in the land are ``all Sons of Abraham, who share a common understood relationship that serves as a basis for living together in harmony today.'' It is largely the past 50 years of failed politics that have undermined communal harmony in the region and modified the relationships between these groups. A complete copy of Dr. Cooley's remarks about the relationships between these groups is attached to my statement. The faith dynamic in the region is critical to forming the most effective approach to the political situation. If you buy a young plant, you can't place it in the ground without tilling the soil first. The purpose of this initiative isn't to deal with boundaries, or questions of status. It is to build relationships; to prepare the soil in preparation for the diplomatic efforts of Secretary Rice and others to find a political solution for the region. Psalm 122:6 tells us to ``pray for the peace of Jerusalem.'' I do this every day. I believe that this initiative will bring the people of different faiths together and build bridges between them. Now I am going to turn the program over to Dr. Abshire and then Tony. We will take any questions after both of them speak. Thank you. Statement by Ambassador Tony Hall at Middle East Press Conference on March 22, 2007 I am very pleased to be part of this initiative headed by my friend, Frank Wolf, and supported by other members of the Congress and Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice. As His Majesty King Abdullah of Jordan so clearly spelled out two weeks ago to the Congress, the unresolved conflict between Israel and Palestine has resulted in tremendous pain in Israel, the Palestinian territories and other nations in the Middle East. This problem has fueled additional fires outside of the region that have brought fear, destruction and extremism to many countries and people, including our own. The situation is at such a point that it is no longer only an isolated regional conflict in which we can choose to be involved, it is a problem that directly affects the security of the United States. I have traveled a number of times to the Middle East, starting in 1979, and most recently having returned from there this past week. We did a lot of listening; and what I have seen and heard leads me to believe that there has not been a more urgent time for peace. There are a lot of people already working on multiple fronts in waging peace, and my role in the coming months will be to support them by fostering additional relationships, understanding, and cooperation among the various communities in the Holy Land. I want to clarify that my mission is not to distract from the political side of the peace process, but to lay additional groundwork for an eventual political outcome. However, one cannot speak about peace on the political level without taking into account the religious roots of the people involved--especially in the Holy Land. Our service is to support and encourage the people of faith who bear influence in the region. We are connecting with people of faith because as leaders of these communities they can either encourage the way of compassion, sacrifice, and grace in this process--which is necessary to support a political outcome--or they can incite their people in the hopeless path of the status quo. We want to help the Jewish, Muslim, and Christian communities who recognize and labor for peace by practicing the commandment to ``Love your neighbor.'' The Abrahamic faiths have been in conflict for so long, that most of us have forgotten that at the core of each of them lies that universal commandment: ``Love your neighbor.'' By going back to this fundamental starting point ourselves, and encouraging our friends in the region to do likewise, we believe that we can construct some good will that we hope may help support a political settlement. We are not under any illusion that we alone can solve the conflict. My good friend Cardinal Theodore McCarrick and other community, political, business and religious leaders are coming together to share in the work of preparing the way for peace in the Holy Land. Together we hope that our combined efforts can, in some small way, assist in paving the way for a just and lasting peace. It's worth a try.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, there are legitimate and important emergency funding needs for the troops and our Federal civilian corps on the ground in Iraq and elsewhere. The President requested $93.4 billion in emergency supplemental appropriations to continue the fight against terrorism, and that is what we should be doing. Unfortunately, this bill offers, I think, a way of not doing that in an appropriate way. It is bloated with $124.3 billion in spending, $21 billion over what was requested. It is true we have provided funding for emergency supplementals before, but it would be hard pressed to convince the American people that $25 million for spinach producers, which may be important to do, but in the regular order; $74 million for peanut storage may be appropriate, but in regular order. It should not be done here. At the same time it does that, it restricts the civilian spending for the provincial reconstruction teams, which helps us do some of the civilian things that we should be doing in Iraq. The larger issue, however, is this legislation before us has become a vehicle, unfortunately, for polarization on the fight to stabilize Iraq. I have been there three times. I believe tying the hands of our military commanders to adapt to the changing circumstances can only hurt our mission and our troops. I don't believe it is a good policy to criticize the administration's strategy as failing, while at the same time cutting the very funding necessary for the administration and the troops to succeed, and then putting conditions on releasing the funding provided. They just don't all fit together. We have to look no further than the report of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group to find ``the way forward, a new approach for Iraq.'' Just last months when we debated the Iraq war resolution, 106 Members from both sides of the aisle mentioned the importance of the Iraq Study Group and how they supported it. Last night Mr. Shays asked the Rules Committee to make in order an amendment that I was cosponsoring to do exactly that, and it was turned down, and just at the very time the diplomatic engagement that most of us wanted to see take place begins to take place. The meeting 2 weeks ago had us engaging with the Syrians and the Iranians. We accepted Mr. Moran's amendment in the full committee, which was good, to really put the Congress on record in support of that diplomatic effort. But Mr. Shays was turned down again, as I was turned down several weeks ago. The Iraq Study Group's Cochairmen Baker and Hamilton said in the group report, ``The U.S. foreign policy is doomed to failure, as is any course in action in Iraq, if not supported by a broad, sustained consensus.'' This bill is not a broad, sustained consensus. The recommendation of the Iraq Study Group could have brought us, and still may very well bring us, to a consensus that unites the Congress and the nation on Iraq. That is the policy both the Congress and the administration should embrace. This bill does not do it, and I urge a ``no'' vote on it. There are some legitimate and important emergency funding needs for our troops and our Federal civilian corps on the ground in Iraq and elsewhere. The President requested some $93.4 billion in emergency supplemental appropriations to continue the fight against terrorism. That's what this bill should be addressing. Unfortunately, this bill fails to offer a reasonable way forward in supporting our troops, and I cannot vote for it. This is a bloated $124.3 billion spending bill--over $21 billion than what was requested. It's true we've provided funding for emergencies in other supplementals, for example hurricane relief and planning for a flu pandemic. But I think we would be hard pressed to convince the people we represent that $25 million for spinach producers or $74 million for peanut storage costs qualify as emergency spending needed today. The debate on that kind of spending should be part of the fiscal year 2008 appropriations process where it belongs. The larger issue, however, is that this legislation before us has become the vehicle for polarization on the fight to stabilize Iraq. It does not offer an alternative. Instead, it would ultimately mandate a retreat. I have been to Iraq three times, and my concern for our troops has never been stronger. If I thought that this bill was in their best interests, I would support it. Tying the hands of our military commanders to adapt to changing circumstances can only hurt our mission and our troops. Within the State-Foreign Operations portion, it cuts funding necessary to support projects such as the Provincial Reconstruction Teams. PRTs are joint civilian-military teams living in the provinces among the Iraqi people. They work side-by-side with the Iraqis to identify development and governance programs and offer our best bet for improving stability and governance. Cutting funding for these teams is cutting them off at their knees before they get a chance to stand up. These funds are essential for improving safety and stability--the very safety and stability which will enable our troops to withdraw more quickly. I just don't believe it is good policy to criticize the administration's strategy as failing while at the same time cutting the very funding necessary for it to succeed and then putting conditions on releasing funds provided. We have to look no further than the report of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group to find ``the way forward--a new approach'' for Iraq. They worked for more than 8 months, supported by expert working groups and senior military advisers in the areas of economy and reconstruction, military and security, political development, and strategic environment. The study group's report released last December 6 was hailed as an important opportunity to chart a new course for Iraq. That is what we should be considering today. Just last month when we debated the Iraq war resolution, 106 Members from both sides of the aisle mentioned the importance of the Iraq Study Group's recommendations as the way forward in Iraq. Last night, Mr. Shays asked the Rules Committee to make in order an amendment, offered in partnership with me, to support the findings of the Iraq Study Group. By doing so, we believed the House would be working to meet our responsibility as political leaders to build bipartisan consensus on the issues of war and peace. But his request was turned down. That was the second time in a month that the Rules Committee has not allowed an amendment on the Iraq Study Group's report. Instead, we have before us a political statement that pulls us farther apart. The ramifications of this polarization reach far beyond Washington; all the way to Baghdad and the Iraqi provinces. I want to read from the letter Secretary Baker and Congressman Hamilton wrote as the prelude to the Iraq Study Group's recommendations: Many Americans are dissatisfied, not just with the situation in Iraq but with the state of our political debate regarding Iraq. Our political leaders must build a bipartisan approach to bring a responsible conclusion to what is now a lengthy and costly war. Our country deserves a debate that prizes substance over rhetoric, and a policy that is adequately funded and sustainable. The President and Congress must work together. Our leaders must be candid and forthright with the American people in order to win their support. And it goes on to say: . . . U.S. foreign policy is doomed to failure--as is any course of action in Iraq--if it is not supported by a broad, sustained consensus. The aim of our report is to move our country toward such a consensus. The bill before us does not move the country toward a consensus. The country must come back together. We must be united. That is the only way we will be successful. The recommendations of this distinguished group could have brought us to consensus and united the Congress and the Nation on Iraq. That is the policy both the Congress and the President should embrace. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, as a nation we are moving closer and closer to the edge of the financial cliff. A few steps forward and we will start a free fall into a canyon of debt which will be base for our country. Is that what we want for our children and grandchildren? Of course not. The baby boomers start retiring at the end of this year. That will bring unprecedented levels of entitlement and other program spending. If left unchanged, in just a few decades there will be little money for transportation, education, health care, medical research, cancer research, veterans, the environment, and all the programs our constituents depend on us to provide. We cannot continue to keep borrowing and mortgaging our future to countries like China that carry our debt. Young people should be clamoring for Congress to act. They have the most to lose from inaction. It's their future that is being mortgaged. Everyday we don't act, we increase the debt burden they must repay in future years. I have a bill which offers an opportunity to change the current course. Senator Voinovich and I first introduced the SAFE Commission last summer. And we reintroduced it in January. Our country is in trouble--and we can't afford to wait much longer to take action. The bipartisan SAFE Commission will put everything on the table-- entitlements, other federal spending, and tax policies--as it comes up with recommendations. It will hold town hall meetings across the country to explain the financial crisis we face and discuss this issue with the American people. We need to listen to them. I believe that the American people, given the hard facts from a bipartisan panel, will understand that solving this problem will take sacrifice from everyone. The commission's recommendations would then come to Congress and we would take an up or down vote on the proposals in their entirety, similar to the BRAC process. Mandating congressional action on the panel's recommendations is what makes this commission unique. There also is the opportunity for Congress to put forward an alternative proposal to reach the same goal at the same time the SAFE Commission recommendations are voted on. Holding out some hope that Congress could act on its own, the legislation also has a provision that if Congress were to pass a measure making substantive changes in entitlement spending and taking other action to get our financial house in order before the SAFE Commission acts, then the commission would cease to exist. But if Congress doesn't act, no later than 17 months from the organization of the commission, it would be required to vote--up or down--on the SAFE Commission's legislative proposal. I have written a number of Dear Colleagues and personally talked with a number of my House colleagues about joining this effort--more than once. While 20 Republicans have signed on, including the Minority Leader John Boehner, this effort has fallen on deaf ears on the other side of the aisle. I have sent a personal letter to each of the Blue Dog Coalition members appealing to them to step forward and join me in focusing national attention on this critical issue. I have also written to the media and public opinion leaders a number of times over the last year. While there have been a few columnists who have written op-eds, overall I have been disappointed that there hasn't been more reporting about the grave consequences of inaction. I certainly understand how this issue is competing with other national priorities, including the war in Iraq and the larger war on terrorism. But I fear that if we can't get Congress to move this year, there will not be another opportunity for a couple years with the 2008 presidential campaign already heating up. As the father of five and grandfather of 12, the fiscal challenges facing the nation with the baby boomers' retiring strike me as much more than a routine policy discussion. Without action, just what kind of future are we leaving to our children and grandchildren? In a word--bleak. We owe a debt to previous generations--our parents and grandparents-- for the sacrifices they made to make our country what it is today. Likewise, our generation must find the resolve so that generations to come will have a secure economic future. America needs our help and I welcome your support.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, as a nation, we are moving closer and closer to the edge of the financial cliff. A few steps forward and we will start the free fall into a canyon of debt which is bad for our country. The baby boomers start retiring at the end of this year, and that will bring unprecedented levels of entitlement and other program spending. If left unchanged, in just a few decades there will be little money left for transportation, education, health care, medical research, cancer research, veterans, the environment, and all the other important programs. We cannot continue to keep borrowing and mortgaging our future to countries like China that carry our debt. Young people should be clamoring for Congress to act; they have the most to lose from our inaction. It is their future that is being mortgaged, and every day we don't act we increase the debt burden they must repay in the future. I have a bill which offers an opportunity to change the current course. Senator Voinovich and I first introduced the SAFE Commission last summer, and we reintroduced it in January. Our country is in trouble, and we cannot afford to wait much longer. The bipartisan SAFE Commission will put everything on the table, entitlements and other Federal spending and tax policies, as it comes up with recommendations. It will hold town hall meetings across the country to explain the financial crisis we face and discuss the issue with the American people. I believe the American people, given the hard facts from a bipartisan panel, will understand that solving this problem will take some sacrifice from everyone. The commission's recommendations would then come to Congress and we would take an up or down vote on the proposals in their entirety, similar to the BRAC process. Mandating congressional action on the panel's recommendations is what makes this unique. There is also an opportunity for Congress to put forward an alternative proposal to reach the same goals at the same time the SAFE Commission recommendations are voted on. Holding out some hope that Congress would act on its own, the legislation also has a provision that if Congress were to pass a measure making substantive changes in entitlement spending and taking other action to get our financial house in order, the commission would cease to exist. But if Congress doesn't act no later than 17 months from the organization of the commission, it would be required to vote up or down on the SAFE Commission. I have written a number of Dear Colleagues and personally talked with a number of my House colleagues about joining this effort. While 20 Republicans have signed on, including minority leader John Boehner, this effort has fallen on deaf ears on the other side of the aisle. I have personally sent a letter to each Blue Dog Coalition member appealing to them to step forward and join me in focusing national attention on this critical crisis. I have a history of working in a bipartisan way in this panel, and yet I hear absolutely no support or interest from the other side of the aisle. I have also written to media and public opinions and leaders about this issue over the year. I certainly understand how the issue is competing with other national priorities, including the war in Iraq, but I fear that if we can't get Congress to move this year, there will not be another opportunity for a couple of years, with the 2008 presidential campaign heating up. This is a moral issue that this Congress is not addressing. As a father of five children and a grandfather of 12, the fiscal challenges facing the Nation with the baby boomers retiring strike me as much more than a routine policy discussion. Without action, what kind of future are we leaving to our children and our grandchildren? In a word, ``bleak.'' We owe a debt to previous generations, to our parents and our grandparents for the sacrifices that they made for our country to make our country so great. Likewise, our generation, those who serve in this Congress and serve in the administration, must find the resolve so that generations to come will have the same type of financial future that our parents and grandparents gave to us. I ask Members of Congress to look at this and join in a bipartisan way to deal with this issue in this Congress. And I also urge the administration, which has been silent on this issue, to stop, to break the silence. And for Rob Portman and the Secretary of Treasury and others to come up here and support this so we can make sure that we give our children and our grandchildren the same opportunities that our mothers and fathers gave to us.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure today to recognize Mr. David Mabie, of Nokesville, Virginia, on the occasion of his retirement after over four decades of public service. After serving three years in the U.S. Army, Dave and his wife Copper moved to Waynesboro, Virginia, in 1967 where Dave joined the Waynesboro Police Department. Then in 1970 he became a police officer in Manassas, Virginia, and served as one of the original members of this newly formed Prince William County department. Dave served as a detective and eventually was assigned to the Commonwealth Attorney's Office where he specialized in trial preparation for capital murder cases. In 1992 Dave was elected to serve as clerk of the Circuit Court in Prince William County, from where he will be retiring on April 1, 2007. Through the years Dave has been an active member of several organizations including the United Way, Regional Jail Board, and Chamber of Commerce. Dave has dedicated his professional life to public service and will be sorely missed by Prince William County and the northern Virginia community as a whole. I cannot say enough about Dave and how honored I am to have worked with him throughout his career. I would be remiss today in didn't also recognize Dave's dedication to his wife Copper, and how proud he is of their children, Andrew, Meredith, and Christopher, and their many grandchildren. I suspect that as Dave prepares for retirement he is looking forward to spending more time with his family. We wish him the best and thank him for his dedicated service to the people.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, earlier this year I reintroduced legislation in the House of Representatives aimed at addressing the looming financial crisis facing the Nation, the Securing America's Future Economy (SAFE) Commission Act. The bill would establish a national bipartisan commission that will put everything--entitlement spending as well as all other Federal programs and our Nation's tax policies--on the table and require Congress to vote up or down on its recommendations in their entirety, similar to the process set in 1988 to close military bases. Mandating congressional action on the panel's recommendations is what differentiates this commission from previous ones. I submit for the Record an op-ed by Dr. Ed Feulner, President of the Heritage Foundation. Dr. Feulner believes that the SAFE Commission provides an opportunity to address this looming crisis. This legislation can provide a path toward a safe and secure economy for generations to come--a renaissance for America. This legislation will be good for the future of America. [From the Sun Times, Feb. 28, 2007] We Need a New Commission To Tackle Entitlement Programs (By Ed Feulner) In any policy battle, it helps to have allies. So it's good that AARP seems finally ready to help press for reform of entitlements such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. AARP's shift can be seen in its latest TV ad, ``Future Champions.'' It shows children stressing the need to ``find real long-term solutions to some of America's most pressing issues--health care and long-term financial security.'' The ad is misleading in some ways. Speaking about entitlements, one boy asks, ``Will we keep those promises?'' when, of course, this child has made no promises. In fact, the big three entitlement programs are promises made by older generations--to give themselves benefits that younger workers will have to pay for through ever-rising payroll taxes. But the overall message of the ad is that we need to make some big changes to fix entitlements. That's a refreshing change from two years ago. Back then, when President Bush was urging the creation of individual retirement accounts within Social Security, AARP's ads insisted, ``If you had a problem with the kitchen sink, you wouldn't tear down the entire house,'' hinting that entitlement problems weren't all that bad. But the organization now seems to understand that the country's on the verge of a fiscal catastrophe. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that spending on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will soar from just over 8 percent of GDP today to almost 19 percent in 2050, when the cute children in today's TV ads will be middle-aged parents. Their bill will be gigantic: $38 trillion to pay for the Social Security and Medicare benefits their parents have promised themselves--but not arranged to pay for. Add in the national debt and other entitlements, and it works out to $440,000 for every household in the United States today-- enough to buy each of those families a new home. Or two. So how can we fix things? Well, as we learned in the debate over Social Security, we can't simply take on one problem at a time. If we try to reform just one of the big programs, some group will always fight for the status quo. We need to fix all three at once. Also, we need to give lawmakers some cover. To accomplish that, Congress should form a commission such as the one Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) proposed last year. Wolf would label it ``SAFE,'' for ``Securing America's Future Economy.'' It would have 16 voting members, including at least four members of Congress, the director of the Office of Management and Budget and the secretary of the Treasury. The commission would be bipartisan and have one year to develop plans to: Fix the imbalance between long-term federal spending promises and projected revenues. Boost national savings to spur domestic investment and economic growth. Simplify the budget process to place greater emphasis on long-term fiscal issues. The first thing the commission would do is leave Washington and discuss reform options with Americans. That should help it avoid the temptation to hatch some scheme behind closed committee-room doors. Plus, the members would surely find, as the Heritage Foundation has with our ongoing Fiscal Wake-Up Tour, a real desire out there to fix entitlement programs. Once it reports to Congress, lawmakers would be required to hold a simple up-or-down vote on each of its recommendations. This should help break the legislative logjam. Just as base- closing commissions enabled lawmakers to shutter obsolete military bases (even those in their own districts or states), a SAFE Commission would help lawmakers make necessary changes without being accused of ``destroying'' entitlement programs. Many of us over 50 realize that our generation, however inadvertently, created the coming entitlement crisis, and we understand it's up to us to solve it. AARP will be a welcome ally--if we can believe their ads. Establishing a SAFE Commission should help us find out.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I rise today to bring the attention of the House to the passing of Virginia State Senator Abe Brault on February 13, 2007. Senator Brault served in the Virginia General Assembly for 18 years, including a term as majority leader from 1976 to 1980. A Navy veteran who served during WWII, Abe opened a law practice in Fairfax County during the 1950s and dedicated his life to serving those in Fairfax and the surrounding area. He was a good man who served Virginia well and I was honored to know him. A family man and true Virginia gentleman, Abe died at the age of 97 and is survived by his wife, three children, and nine grandchildren, and 14 great- grandchildren. Madam Speaker, I insert for the Record an obituary published in The Washington Post which details the many accomplishments of Senator Brault. [From Washingtonpost.com, Feb. 14, 2007] Adelard L. `Abe' Brault, 97; Influential N. Va. Senator (By Adam Bernstein) Adelard L. ``Abe'' Brault, 97, a feisty Fairfax County Democrat who retired in 1983 after 18 years in the Virginia Senate, including a term as majority leader, died Feb. 13 at his home in Front Royal, Va. He had pneumonia. For years, Mr. Brault was considered dean of the Northern Virginia delegation, and he used his authority to push through funding for the Metro system, George Mason University and Northern Virginia Community College. He and Sen. Omer L. Hirst (D-Fairfax-Falls Church) helped shape legislation and financing for the 13-mile Dulles Toll Road, built in 1984 to link Interstate 66 and the Capital Beltway with Dulles International Airport. Mr. Brault was the majority leader from 1976 to 1980, largely because of a moderate-liberal coalition that successfully challenged the more conservative elements of the Senate. A conservative faction led by Hunter B. Andrews (D- Hampton) eventually removed Mr. Brault from the leadership. He described his loss as a ``power play'' meant to weaken Northern Virginia's influence. Mr. Brault was known for blunt and critical commentary that he regarded as honesty and others sometimes found uncollegial. As a result, then-Gov. Charles S. Robb (D) appointed Mr. Brault to the State Board of Education in 1985, a year later than expected. The delay was attributed to Mr. Brault's criticism of the leadership ability of Sen. Clive L. DuVal II (D-Fairfax). Adelard Lionel Brault was born in Winsted, Conn., on April 6, 1909. He grew up in Washington, where he was a 1927 graduate of Gonzaga College High School and a 1933 graduate of Columbus Law School, now part of Catholic University. He served in the Navy in the North Atlantic during World War II. He had a private law practice in Washington before the war and opened a practice in Fairfax County in the early 1950s, where he specialized in representing insurance companies. He was president of the Fairfax County Bar Association when he was appointed to the county Board of Supervisors in 1962 to fill the unexpired term of James Keith, who years later became a Virginia Circuit Court judge. Mr. Brault did not seek reelection to the Senate in 1983, saying at the time, ``Y'all can do what you want to next year. I'll be in Florida.'' In 1991, state legislators renamed the Dulles Toll Road the Omer L. Hirst-Adelard L. Brault Expressway, which, having met the fate of many other such renamings of roads, bridges and buildings, has not readily been adopted by commuters. Survivors include his wife, Clarice Covington ``Percy'' Brault of Front Royal; 3 children, Adelard L. Brault, Jr., of Fairfax County, Nancy Supples of Front Royal and Mary Lynn Coleman of Moscow; 9 grandchildren; and 14 great- grandchildren.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, last night I testified before the Rules Committee asking that the Iraq Study Group report be made in order for debate today. The Iraq Study Group offers the way forward, a new approach, and is authored by former Secretary of State Baker and former chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Lee Hamilton. Yet there has been no vote allowed. The American people have been shut out with regard to having a vote on the Iraq Study Group report. You cannot pick and choose with regard to the Iraq Study Group. Let me read you some of the comments that have been made by the members who served on the Iraq Study Group. Lee Hamilton, Jim Baker: ``There is no magic formula to solve the problems of Iraq. However, there are actions that can be taken to improve the situation. ``Our political leaders must build a bipartisan approach to bring a responsible conclusion to what is now a lengthy and costly war. Our country deserves a debate that prizes substance over rhetoric, and a policy that is adequately funded and sustainable.'' That is the Iraq Study Group. Members on both sides have said they support the Iraq Study Group, and yet there is no vote allowed on the Iraq Study Group. ``In this consensus report,'' Hamilton and Baker go on to say, ``the 10 members of the Iraq Study Group,'' bipartisan, five and five, ``present a new approach because we believe there is a better way forward.'' The better way forward, and the gentleman who just spoke mentioned the Iraq Study Group, is the Iraq Study Group, and yet the Rules Committee last night foreclosed a vote on the Iraq Study Group which is bipartisan. Lee Hamilton, Jim Baker, Leon Panetta, Bill Perry, Ed Meese. Ed Meese's son is one of the colonels with General Petraeus. Leon Panetta, who served here in the Congress, but yet for some reason the American people are not to be given an opportunity whereby their Congress can vote on the Iraq Study Group. There are good people on both sides. Every resolution should be in order. God bless you, what you are offering is fine, but give the country, give the American people, give us an opportunity to vote on the Iraq Study Group. You cannot pick and choose. I urge a defeat of the resolution and urge that we allow this to be voted on whereby we can have a successful policy to bring this country together. Mr. Speaker, I rise against this rule and against the underlying resolution. I've been to Iraq three times since the United States sent Armed Forces there. I continue to be deeply concerned about the violence that continues to take the lives of U.S. personnel as well as innocent Iraqi citizens. That's why, upon my return from my third trip in 2005, I worked to promote an independent, bipartisan review of ongoing operations in Iraq--what I called ``fresh eyes on the target. `` I initiated the legislation authorizing and funding the Iraq Study Group, which was set up through the U.S. Institute of Peace. The 10- member group--5 Republicans and 5 Democrats--was led by cochairs James A. Baker III, the Nation's 61st Secretary of State and honorary chairman of the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University, and Lee H. Hamilton, our former colleague in this House and director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, who also cochaired the 9/11 Commission. The other members of the study group included: Lawrence S. Eagleburger, former Secretary of State; Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., former advisor to President Clinton; Edwin Meese III, former Attorney General; Sandra Day O'Connor, retired Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court; Leon E. Panetta, former White House chief of staff for President Clinton; William J. Perry, former secretary of Defense; Charles S. Robb, former Governor and Senator of Virginia, and Alan K. Simpson, former Senator from Wyoming. After more than 8 months of work, the panel presented its report last December 6. The Iraq Study Group was a truly bipartisan group who came together--like this body should be coming together--and offered the way forward in Iraq. I believe the group's work provides an important framework to move forward in Iraq and on January 24 I introduced H. Con. Res. 45, expressing the sense of Congress that all the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group become the new baseline strategy for dealing with Iraq. That's the resolution we should be advancing today. In my car coming to the Capitol this morning I heard a member of this body on a radio interview say he's voting for H. Con. Res. 63 because what we're looking for is a new solution for Iraq. We have that. It's the Iraq Study Group report. Look at the cover of the report--``The way forward--A new approach.'' The Iraq situation has created a bitter divide in our country. We all want to see an end to the fighting in Iraq and stability there, as well as an end to violence perpetrated by terrorists around the world. I continue to pray for the protection of the American service men and women and civilians who are putting their lives on the line every day and also for their families here at home who continue to make tremendous sacrifices. The Iraq Study Group met the test of developing a bipartisan consensus on how to succeed in Iraq. When our country is divided we are weak. When we are together we are strong. I want to read from the letter penned by Secretary Baker and Congressman Hamilton as the prelude to the Iraq Study Group's recommendations: There is no magic formula to solve the problems of Iraq. However, there are actions that can be taken to improve the situation and protect American interests. Many Americans are dissatisfied, not just with the situation in Iraq but with the state of our political debate regarding Iraq. Our political leaders must build a bipartisan approach to bring a responsible conclusion to what is now a lengthy and costly war. Our country deserves a debate that prizes substance over rhetoric, and a policy that is adequately funded and sustainable. The President and Congress must work together. Our leaders must be candid and forthright with the American people in order to win their support. No one can guarantee that any course of action in Iraq at this point will stop sectarian warfare, growing violence, or a slide toward chaos. If current trends continue, the potential consequences are severe. Because of the role and responsibility of the United States in Iraq, and the commitments our government has made, the United States has special obligations. Our country must address as best it can Iraq's many problems. The United States has long-term relationships and interests at stake in the Middle East, and needs to stay engaged. In this consensus report, the ten members of the Iraq Study Group present a new approach because we believe there is a better way forward. All options have not been exhausted. We believe it is still possible to pursue different policies that can give Iraq an opportunity for a better future, combat terrorism, stabilize a critical region of the world, and protect America's credibility, interests, and values. Our report makes it clear that the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people also must act to achieve a stable and hopeful future. What we recommend in this report demands a tremendous amount of political will and cooperation by the executive and legislative branches of the U.S. government. It demands skillful implementation. It demands unity of effort by government agencies. And its success depends on the unity of the American people in a time of political polarization. Americans can and must enjoy the right of robust debate within a democracy. Yet U.S. foreign policy is doomed to failure--as is any course of action in Iraq--if it is not supported by a broad, sustained consensus. The aim of our report is to move our country toward such a consensus. This last sentence is the essence of what we should be addressing this week. The recommendations of the Iraq Study Group provide the blueprint for a consensus. The work has been done. The recommendations have been made. Now is the time for implementation.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, we are a coequal branch of government. We do not work for the President or the administration; our job is to thoughtfully consider the issues before us, and to work with the President and with the administration. When we agree, it is our responsibility to work together for the best interests of our country; and where we cannot agree, however, we have an equal responsibility to make the case of why we disagree, and offer responsible and thoughtful alternatives. This resolution does not meet that test. Some may say that is what we are doing in the House this week, disagreeing with the President and offering alternatives to the plan. This resolution fails. There is no plan offered. Certainly the resolution before us includes a statement on which we all unequivocally agree: support for our brave men and women in the Armed Forces who are serving or who have served in Iraq. Yet it also includes a statement of disapproval on the plan for Iraq offered by the President, a statement of disagreement to which, again, no alternative is offered. If we disagree with the President's plan, we should be offered reasoned, responsible alternatives. Instead of speaking today as Democrats or Republicans, we should come together, speaking as Americans who are seeking to answer the questions of how to move forward with success in Iraq. Under the process today, we have only one option from the other side of the aisle. Is that what the American people expect from this House? No. The American people expect more. What is so amazing to me and in this Congress, you voted, this Congress voted and passed legislation last year that set our country on a course to find our way forward in Iraq. We have to look no farther than the report of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group to find a way forward, a new approach for Iraq, an approach that can bring us victory. That is what we should be considering today. The recommendations of this distinguished group can bring us to a consensus and unite the Congress and the Nation on Iraq. I have been to Iraq three times, and since there, I continue to be deeply concerned. So when I came back from my third trip, I offered this idea of an independent bipartisan commission we called fresh eyes on the target, and many Members on your side have been hailing it, yet you would not permit this to come up for a vote. Why would the Rules Committee shut down something that many of you ask for over and over? And there are Members on my side who don't like it, but it is the only balanced plan. This legislation was set up, the 10 Members, bipartisan, five Republicans, five Democrats, Jim Baker, former Secretary of State; Lee Hamilton, who served here and has probably, quite frankly, forgotten more about this issue than any Members on your side or any Members on my side. A 10-0 decision, Leon Panetta, Ed Meese, whose son will serve with General Petraeus, they came up with this idea. Yet the Rules Committee has shut this down not to permit a vote. They worked for more than 8 months supported by expert working groups, and senior military advisors in the areas of the economy, reconstruction, military, security and political development. The study's report was issued on December 6 and was hailed, but yet it is not permitted to come up for a vote. Because of the importance of this group, I introduced a sense of Congress resolution in support of the recommendations. I asked the Rules Committee late last night to make my resolution in order to be considered during the debate. By doing so, I believe the House will be working to meet our responsibility as political leaders to seek a bipartisan consensus on the issue of war and peace. But the request, not on my behalf, but on behalf of the American people, was turned down by the Rules Committee. Believe me, just for a second, maybe our side at times treated you wrong; but, believe me, you are getting to be a fast learner, because every time you seem to speak over here, the Republican side of the aisle is shut down from offering anything. This is the major issue of war and peace. Can you imagine if this were 1937 or 1938 or 1939 in the House of Parliament, and it was a resolution like this with Nazi Germany pouring over Europe, there would be some resolution, and everyone else, Churchill would have been shut out because he wanted to offer something constructive to make a difference. Let me read from a letter penned by Jim Baker and Congressman Hamilton. There is no magic formula, they said, to solve the problem of Iraq. They basically say there are actions to take. The political leaders need to establish a bipartisan approach. They go on to make the report, the consensus report as to work that they have done. We recommend their report, and then they end by saying, ``Yet, U.S. foreign policy is doomed to failure--as is any course of action in Iraq--if not supported by a broad, sustained consensus.'' Then they go on to say how dangerous this is. I ask you, why? Why couldn't we get a vote? Why couldn't the American people get a vote on something that many on your side may not like, but most do, and some on my side may not like, but most do, and I ask, this body ought to be voting on the Iraq Study Group to show the American people that we can be successful

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, there are more than 40 million uninsured Americans today-- nearly a million in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Throughout the country, medical professionals and countless others have responded to the need of those who are seriously ill and cannot pay for a doctor, medicine, and other health costs. In many places, this help has come in the form of community free clinics. Community free clinics, particularly in Virginia, have helped people in communities come together to care for those in need. The health care ``safety net'' for the poor, like the community free clinics in my congressional district, exists in communities across America, but often in widely varying degrees. I am pleased to introduce today the Charity Care for the Uninsured Act. While this legislation alone will not solve the problem of the uninsured. I believe it will help strengthen community ``safety nets,'' like the community free clinics in Virginia, for those in need and will allow doctors recognition for their willingness to give back to their communities. The Charity Care for the Uninsured Act would provide a personal income tax credit of up to $2,000 for doctors who provide between 25 and 50 hours of uncompensated, pro bono charity care to the uninsured in a single calendar year. This legislation would encourage the many physicians who have treated patients who were not able to pay, either in their offices or in community clinics, to continue to do so. The Charity Care for the Uninsured Act also will help provide a valuable tool--a personal tax credit--to community clinics in recruiting physicians as well as helping motivate countless specialty doctors to take community clinic referrals. Free clinics have contributed to reduced emergency room, ER, utilization among the uninsured, helping save taxpayer dollars. A safety net in which the uninsured can access specialists and medications will improve their health and guard against catastrophic illnesses and trips to the ER. All of the cost savings and health benefits can be traced back to the commitment and the compassion of the doctors and community partners, and their concern for those who cannot afford insurance. The Charity Care for the Uninsured Act of 2007 recognizes and encourages these caring acts made to help those who need a helping hand. This legislation can be an important tool for communities as they seek to strengthen or build the health care safety net available their uninsured residents.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would also like to second what the Speaker said with regard to Leo McCarthy. He was also a member of the National Commission on Gambling, which I was the author of. And he came by my office a number times. And I was actually going to put his bio in the Congressional Record. So I thank the Speaker for that comment, and second it. Madam Speaker, I was the author of the amendment to set up the Iraq Study Group. I felt that more should be done to look at what we were doing in Iraq, and so we put together a group and picked 10 people. It was chaired by former Secretary of State Jim Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton, head of the 9/11 Commission. Also serving on it was former Secretary of State Larry Eagleberger; former prominent lawyer, Vernon Jordan; former Justice of the Supreme Court Sandra Day O'Connor; former Member of the House and Chief of Staff, in the Clinton administration, Leon Panetta; former Secretary of Defense, in the Clinton administration, Bill Perry; former Senator, and Governor from my State, Chuck Robb; and at one time, up until the end, a month before, current Secretary of Defense Gates, former head of the CIA. This group was provided the opportunity to, in depth, to take a look at what was going on in Iraq and to develop some recommendations. The resolution that I have introduced as House Con. Res., that puts the Congress on record in support of the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. Now, here's a group that has taken 9 months to analyze extensive hearings. Also there were 45 military and diplomatic experts, retired and active duty, of all political persuasions, along with key congressional leaders that came up with these recommendations. So I am asking Members to support my resolution when it comes up next week in support of this. Secondly, it makes a major effort and encourages the administration to adopt also a diplomatic effort in addition to what it is doing. We urge the administration to engage Syria the same way that President Reagan during the 1980s, when we were defeating communism, President Reagan, God bless him, one of the greatest presidents we have ever had, gave the famous speech in Orlando about the evil empires. But he was also having his administration engage with the Soviet Union. And when Ronald Reagan then gave his speech, saying, ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall,'' Reagan also had emissaries going to Moscow to engage. Those of us in the Congress, when we used to go behind the Soviet Union, the Berlin Wall in the Soviet Union, during the 1980s would always meet with the dissidents, would always attempt to meet with the leadership of the government on behalf of freedom, on behalf of liberty. President Reagan was self-confident in what he believed. He believed that to engage the Soviets was not a sign of weakness. It was a sign of strength. Madam Speaker, I would like to put in the Record an article from the Wall Street Journal by Abraham D. Sofaer, who was counselor to Secretary of State Schultz, who also explains how Reagan engaged with the Soviets and how it is appropriate now how he would engage with Syria. I am hopeful and I ask all Members to support the resolution when it comes up. [From the Wall Street Journal, Dec. 20, 2006] A Reagan Strategy for Iran and Syria (By Abraham D. Sofaer) The Iraq Study Group's recommendation that the Bush administration drop its preconditions and negotiate with Syria and Iran has been praised as a ``no-brainer''--and condemned as an improper effort to reward rogue regimes. Neither reaction is correct. Negotiating with enemies can be a useful aspect of effective diplomacy. But successful negotiations with enemies result not from the talks themselves but from the diplomatic strategy that accompanies them. The Group's recommendations deserve support, but must be effectively integrated into President Bush's strategy of ending state-sponsored terror. The arguments against negotiating with Syria and Iran were also made against negotiating with the Soviet Union, and by some of the same people. Soviet misconduct easily matches that of Syria or Iran in aggression, oppression, murder, support for terrorist groups and mendacity. President Reagan challenged Soviet behavior by supporting groups fighting communist intervention, building the military, strengthening NATO, condemning human-rights violations, commencing a missile-defense program, and conveying the message of freedom in every way possible. George Shultz supported these efforts but sought to negotiate with the Soviets in an attempt to increase stability, reduce nuclear weapons, attain freedom for oppressed groups, and enhance understanding. To make negotiations possible the U.S. adopted specific policies, including: Regime acceptance. The U.S. refrained from activities aimed at destroying the Soviet regime it was seeking to influence, while vigorously denouncing its political and moral legitimacy. Limited linkage. Negotiations on human rights, arms control, regional issues and bilateral relations were pursued without linkage to Soviet conduct, enabling negotiations to proceed while the U.S. responded firmly through deeds. Rhetorical restraint. Reagan vigorously criticized the Soviet system and its behavior, but promised not to ``crow'' when the Soviets agreed to U.S. proposals, enabling Soviet leaders to avoid being seen as capitulating to U.S. demands. Self-Interest. U.S. negotiating policy was based on convincing the Soviets to act in their own best interests. The Study Group's ``external'' strategy for Iraq contains several elements necessary for successful diplomacy: the need for both incentives and ``disincentives''; negotiations ``without preconditions''; and negotiations that are ``extensive and substantive,'' requiring a balancing of interests. The general incentives identified by the Group are unlikely, however, to lead to constructive discussions. While Syria and Iran should realize that preventing a breakdown in Iraq is in their interests, they see great advantages in having the U.S. lose strength and credibility in a costly effort to help a state they are relieved to see powerless. The notion that they will help in order to have ``enhanced diplomatic relations'' with the U.S. assumes that states, will do what they know the U.S. wants simply because Washington will not otherwise talk to them. The pronouncements that accompany this Bush policy exemplify the sort of rhetoric that discourages cooperation. The possibility of obtaining U.S. assistance in joining the WTO would be a real incentive in an ongoing negotiation, but it is not a credible incentive in the context of hostile confrontation and proliferating sanctions. The incentives proposed for negotiating with Syria are, by contrast, concrete and substantial. Syria are, by contrast, concrete and substantial. Syria would benefit economically from a stable Iraq, and getting back the Golan Heights would give President Bashar Assad's standing a much needed boost. Syria has no deep commitment to Hezbollah or Hamas to prevent it from accepting peace and with Israel and increased cooperation in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian areas, in exchange for the Golan and a constructive role in the area. But the Study Group too casually assumes that the U.S. can secure ``Syria's full cooperation with all investigations into political assassinations in Lebanon.'' The ``full cooperation'' of a sovereign state in such situations must be negotiated, rather than made a precondition. Convincing Israel to give up the Golan Heights will also be difficult, and Syria's help in securing the release of Israeli soldiers seized by Hamas and Hezbollah is a good place to start. While the security threat posed by returning the Golan has largely been worked out in prior negotiations, the challenge posed by Syria's claim to access to the Sea of Galilee, and the meaning of a ``full and secure peace agreement'' will require great of forts. Still, bringing Syria into a responsible nation-hood is an objective well worth pursuing. The anger and scorn heaped on the Study Group for advocating negotiations with Syria echo the opposition to negotiating with the Soviet Union. But Syrian behavior must be addressed, not just condemned. Egypt, too, wrongfully supported terrorism against Israel after the 1967 war, and launched the 1973 war, to get back the Sinai. Yet, the U.S. properly urged Israel to negotiate with Egypt, and the peace between them serves the interests of both countries. Similarly an agreement to return the Golan in exchange for peace would have the support of most Israelis and the current Israeli government, and would be consistent with governing Security Council resolutions and the principle that precludes acquiring territory by force. The Study Group is probably right that Iran is unlikely to agree to negotiate with the U.S. to bring stability to Iraq. The distrust between the U.S. and Iran suggests that negotiations between them should commence on limited issues, in a noncontroversial forum. The U.S./Iran Tribunal in The Hague might well work. Iran resents that many of its significant claims against the U.S. remain unresolved there after over 20 years. The U.S. should offer to negotiate these claims on an expedited basis. As progress is made, the dialogue would likely expand to include such issues as Afghanistan, Iraq, commercial matters and human-rights concerns. (During my negotiations with Iran as legal adviser between 1985 and 1990, we resolved many cases and discussed other issues; my interlocutor eventually agreed, for example, that the fatwa against Salman Rushdie could not be enforced in any state outside Iran.) A successful negotiation will include Iranian demands, such as an end to efforts at regime change. Major change in Iran is in fact more likely to result from normalization and internal activities, than by opposition groups seeking to overthrow the regime. Finally, any effort to negotiate with Syria or Iran will fail if based only on incentives. The Study Group's proposal lacks a program of sufficient pressure to make diplomacy potentially successful. James Baker was able to convene the Madrid Conference in 1991 only after the U.S. had expelled Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. The effort to impose sanctions on Iran for its nuclear program should continue as forcefully as possible. Multilateral sanctions helped get Libya to abandon its quest for nuclear weapons. A clear warning that Syria and Iran must end all forms of state-sponsored terrorism, as now required by Security Council resolutions, must be a central element of U.S. negotiating policy, backed with meaningful preparations for action. The power of the U.S. to inflict damage on its enemies remains substantial, despite current difficulties in Iraq. While it is now difficult to contemplate military action against Syria or Iran, continued sponsorship of terror against other states will eventually provoke the American people, if not the international community, to exercise their right of self-defense through affordable wars of destruction instead of costly nation- building exercises. No one can convey this message more effectively than George Bush, who remains determined to prevent a future of state- sponsored terror. He should accept the Study Group's sound message on negotiating with enemies but supplement it with the toughness that effective diplomacy demands.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I rise today to bring the attention of the House to the passing of Virginia State Senator William A. Truban on Saturday, February 3, 2007. Senator Truban represented Virginia's 27th district in the Virginia General Assembly for over 20 years. A veterinarian and father of six from Shenandoah County, Senator Truban was a leader in his community and dedicated his life to helping those in Winchester and the surrounding area. Inserted for the Record is the obituary published in the Winchester Star which details the many accomplishments of Senator Truban. [From the Winchester Star, Feb. 5, 2007] Former State Sen. Truban Dies (By Suzanne E. Wilder) Winchester.--William A Truban, a longtime Virginia state senator who represented Winchester and the surrounding region for more than two decades, died on Saturday. The resident of Shenandoah County and retired veterinarian was 82. Truban represented the state's 27th District--which then included Shenandoah, Frederick, Clarke, and Warren counties and the city of Winchester--from 1971 through his 1992 retirement from politics. His family and friends are mourning the loss of a man who was well known in the Shenandoah Valley as ``Senator Truban,'' ``Doc,'' or--to his loved ones--``Pap,'' according to a statement from one of his sons, John W. Truban. Born in 1924 in Garrett County, Md., Truban served during World War II as a member of the U.S. Army Air Force. After his service, he attended West Virginia Wesleyan College, where he met his future wife, Mildred Hayes. He then attended the University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine. John Truban, one of Truban's six children, said his parents selected Woodstock and the Shenandoah Valley for their home after visiting Winchester, where one of William Truban's sisters lived. Truban became the only licensed veterinarian in Shenandoah County, John Truban said. He worked all over the Valley and cared for animals from Woodstock to Haymarket to Stephens City. His veterinary practice, Shenandoah Animal Hospital, is still in business though Truban retired several years ago. His son, Thomas, continues to run the clinic. In 1970, Truban was elected to the Virginia State Senate. He had been urged to run by several prominent Republicans, including then-Gov. A. Linwood Holton Jr. ``I met him when he was under a cow,'' Holton said in a telephone interview on Sunday. Their first phone conversation, Holton recalled, had been after someone informed him that Truban was caring for a sick cow. Holton had heard that Truban would make ``an excellent candidate for state Senate,'' he said. ``And he became a strong leader in the Senate.'' ``You need good people to represent the area. He was well known and well liked,'' said Warren B. French, a former chairman of the state Republican party who lives in Woodstock. ``And he made a great senator.'' ``He'll be missed, but he made a valuable contribution in many ways to his community,'' said French, who is a former chairman at Shentel and knew Truban from the Woodstock United Methodist Church. Many of the people who worked with him politically remember Truban as a person with ``strong integrity,'' in Holton's words. I. Clinton Miller served in the General Assembly for much of the time Truban was a state senator. Miller represented Shenandoah County and Woodstock in the House of Delegates and was also a Republican. At the time, the GOP was in the minority in Virginia politics. ``We shared a lot of time on the road, and we shared a lot of discussions,'' Miller said. Truban ``was especially well-repected by both sides of the aisle,'' Miller said. ``He was always concerned with whatever was best for Virginia.'' John Truban said his father instilled the value of hard work in his children. ``He loved working,'' he said. ``His hobby was working.'' That diligent attitude likely came from growing up during the Great Depression, the son said. ``His era, they had no safety net.'' ``I think what we all probably got from his is a sense of working hard and . . . trying to help others,'' John Truban said. But that was not the only trait Truban passed to his kids. John Truban said his dad, who was Italian by blood, loved to cook and passed the same interest to his five sons and one daughter. ``My dad always would cook and help out in the kitchen,'' he said. Truban had health problems in recent years, including congestive heart failure. He died as a result of those illnesses, John Truban said. Truban is survived by his wife, six children, 25 grandchildren, seven great-grandchildren, and one brother. Truban's two sisters and a brother are deceased. A memorial service will be at 1 p.m. Saturday at the Woodstock United Methodist Church. Dellinger Funeral Home in Woodstock is in charge of arrangements. Memorials may be made to the Woodstock United Methodist Church, the Virginia Maryland Regional College of Veterinary Medicine at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, and the Shenandoah County Animal Shelter.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, today I introduced with Congressmen Ehlers the Math and Science Incentive Act of 2005. This legislation would pay--over the life of the loan up to $10,000--the interest on the undergraduate student loans of math, science or engineering majors who agree to work 5 years in their respective fields. The idea for this legislation came from the book Winning the Future, by my friend and our former colleague Newt Gingrich. America's dominance in science and innovation is slipping, but this legislation can help combat this trend. We are facing today a critical shortage of science and engineering students in the United States. Unfortunately, there is little public awareness of this trend or its implications for jobs, industry or national security in America's future. We need to make sure we have people who can fill these science and engineering positions. In an era in which students are graduating college with record levels of debt, I am hopeful that this incentive will be a significant motivator in attracting or retaining math, science and engineering students. How do we know that our Nation is slipping in the areas of math, science, engineering and technology? Americans, for decades, led the world in patents. But we can no longer claim that lead. The percentage of U.S. patents has been steadily declining as foreigners, especially Asians, have become more active and in some fields have seized the innovation lead. The United States share of its own industrial patents now stands at only 52 percent. Foreign advances in basic science now often rival or even exceed America's. Published research by Americans is lagging. Physical Review, a series of top physics journals, last year tracked a reversal in which American scientific papers, in two decades, dropped from the most published to minority status. In 2003--the most recent year statistics are available--the total number of American papers published was just 29 percent, down from 61 percent in 1983. Another measuring stick: Nobel prizes. From the 1960s through the 1990s, American scientists dominated. Now the rest of the world has caught up. Our scientists win now about half of the Nobel prizes, the rest go to Britain, Japan, Russia, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland and New Zealand. According to the National Science Foundation, the United States has a smaller share of the worldwide total of science and engineering doctoral degrees awarded than both Asia and Europe. This is a real problem. In 2000, Asian universities accounted for almost 1.2 million of the world's science and engineering degrees. European universities--including Russia and eastern Europe accounted for 850,000. North American universities accounted for only about 500,000. Since 1980, science and engineering positions in the U.S. have grown at five times the rate of positions in the civilian workforce as a whole. The Math and Science Incentive Act augments the recently approved National Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent grants-- National SMART grants. National SMART grants provide grants of up to $4,000 to Pell Grant-eligible students in their third and fourth academic year of undergraduate education at a 4-year, degree-granting institution of higher education. The student must be pursuing a major in the physical, life, or computer sciences, math, technology, or engineering or a foreign language. The student must also have a grade- point average of at least 3.0. SMART grants are an important tool for attracting and retaining lower-income students in the critical areas of math, science and engineering. The Math and Science Incentive Act will build on the SMART grants by providing a direct incentive to middle class students who may not meet Pell grant eligibility. We critically need to attract and retain the best and brightest to study these challenging fields and this loan forgiveness may just make the difference for some. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation to help America continue to be the innovation leader of the world.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I am introducing legislation today to clarify provisions in Section 1221 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 regarding the designation of National Interest Energy Transmission Corridors (NIETC). As the Department of Energy and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) begin implementation of Section 1221, concerns have arisen in my state and in other states about this section of the new law. Specifically, those concerns include how the designation of these corridors could work to usurp the state decisionmaking process, override merit-based decisions by state siting authorities, destroy protected lands, ignore alternative energy solutions, and fail to provide compensation for landowners adjacent to new transmission lines. My legislation attempts to clarify Section 1221 to ensure that the necessity of building interstate energy transmission lines is balanced with other important national interests. Building transmission lines that use 200-feet rights-of-way and rise up to 270 feet into the air have a tremendous and permanent impact on the surrounding landscape and property values. Patterning the electric transmission line process after current gas line siting regulations does not take into consideration the far reaching visual impact of power lines. Above ground facilities for gas lines are generally a maximum of eight feet high, therefore the viewshed affected is minimal. But power lines towering over 100 feet can be seen for miles around. It is traditionally understood that local and state governments are best equipped to properly consider and evaluate land use needs for local communities. Federal siting processes for transmission lines must be carefully tailored to allow greater protections to both local landowners and to the state decisionmaking process. Currently, Section 1221 provides that state regulatory authorities can have their jurisdiction to approve or disapprove an application for new transmission lines in the state usurped by the federal government after one year in the application process. Additionally, the FERC can simply override disapproval by the state regardless of how sound the rationale for disapproval might have been. This is unacceptable. Under my legislation, if the state entity denies an application, any subsequent application to FERC would first have to prove that the state decision was arbitrary and capricious. Furthermore, if the state goes beyond a year to act, the applicant must show that the state had no valid reason for delaying action. Additionally, in order to ensure that lands that have been protected by the federal or state governments through conservation easements, ownership and similar preservation initiatives will not be impacted, the legislation prohibits these lands from being included in a NIETC and requires that the Department of Energy consider the national interests in protecting these resources. I fully support investment in alternative energy sources and conservation, yet current law requires no assessment of alternative energy solutions before action is taken to designate a NIETC. My legislation would require the Department of Energy to consider all energy use alternatives to building new transmission lines before designating a NIETC. Furthermore, the Department of Energy will be required to solicit public comments on the analysis. Finally, under current law landowners are compensated only for the portion of their property actually taken for a NIETC right-of-way. There is no compensation for any reduction in the value of the remainder of a landowner's property or for adjacent landowners whose property is devalued. This legislation would allow all landowners who are able to prove a 10 percent diminution in property value because of the construction of the transmission lines a cause of action to recover those damages from the energy company. The fact is that transmission lines that tower 270 feet into the air have an impact far beyond the footprint required for construction and maintenance and this must be acknowledged. Madam Speaker, I invite our colleagues to join with me in support of this legislation.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Lewis for yielding. I rise in opposition to the resolution. And let me just stipulate it probably has a lot of very good things in it. But when I was chairman of two different subcommittees, we always had complete consultation, and if what I am saying is not accurate, those Members should come down here and attack me for it, complete consultation before we sent the bills out. And what I am concerned about is the precedent that we are establishing. I have a resolution to put the Congress on record in support of the Iraq Study Group. Now, am I going to be foreclosed from offering that resolution? Here is a group of men and women, Baker and Hamilton, who spent 8 months. It was one of these evil earmarks that you hear all about it. Am I going to be foreclosed from offering the Baker-Hamilton solution to the problem? The administration doesn't like it. Probably Members on both sides of the aisle don't like it. But am I going to be foreclosed? Here is a group that spent 8 months looking at this. And Jim Baker is a good man and Lee Hamilton is a good man. They were bipartisan. Chuck Robb; Bill Perry; Leon Panetta, who served over here; and Ed Meese. Based on what we are seeing here now, I will be foreclosed. Any resolution that comes from this side of the aisle is automatically foreclosed. We have watched it for the whole month of January. So let me just say I am sure, Mr. Obey, this is probably a lot of good stuff. But we on the minority side have to be treated the way we should be. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Now, the test will be with my resolution, and there are only two of us on it, Gilchrest and myself. Will I be foreclosed by the Rules Committee in 2 weeks from my resolution that puts the Congress on record in support of the Baker-Hamilton Commission? Ten people, five Republicans, five Democrats, spent more time looking at this issue of Iraq than this Congress has, than the Republican Party has and the Democratic Party has. And based on what is taking place so far today, I will be foreclosed. And I hope I am not foreclosed because when you are in the minority and you don't have that opportunity to offer amendments, then, frankly, you are being cut out of the process. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. This is a continuing resolution like no other that I have seen before. It is an omnibus appropriations bill that will fund nearly one- half of the federal government for fiscal year 2007. When I was Chairman of the Science, State, Justice Subcommittee, we had in-depth discussions and consultations with our Ranking and minority members. On our committee we worked in a bi-partisan manner. The precedent that this CR is setting troubles me. I have a resolution supporting the recommendations of the recently released Iraq Study Group, also known as the Baker-Hamilton report. Based on this CR process with its closed rule and no committee debate, does this mean that I am going to be foreclosed from offering the resolution? The chairman of the Appropriations Committee has been quoted saying that most of the negotiations on the CR were conducted by staff. While we have terrific staff on both sides of the aisle, this is not the way this institution is supposed to operate. The resolution before the House includes $31.2 billion for the State, Foreign Operations accounts. This is an increase of $1 billion dollars over the Fiscal Year 2006 level. I am in no way criticizing the Gentlelady from New York, but I did not meet with the chairwoman of the subcommittee to discuss the CR. I know she is fair and reaches out across the aisle, and perhaps her hands were tied in this unfair process. To be candid, there are some positive aspects of the State, Foreign Operations chapter. One is the full funding of the president's request for Global HIV/AIDS. This funding will provide life saving drugs to thousands of people infected with HIV/AIDS and will meet President Bush's goal of treating 2 million people, preventing 7 million new infections, and caring for 10 million people by 2009. In addition, another $50 million is provided for the African Union's Mission in Sudan, and another $113 million for United Nations' international peacekeeping. But, these funding increases had to result in decreases elsewhere. The president's 2007 Budget request included $3.2 billion for the Economic Support Fund, the continuing resolution cuts $746 million from the request, and is $148 million below the 2006 enacted level. A reduction of this magnitude will affect the Administration's ability to carry out critical foreign policy priorities, including democracy, infrastructure, and economic development programs in Iraq. The president's 2007 Request included an increase of $709 million for stability and reconstruction programs in Iraq, these programs are essential to improving the safety of our troops in the country. Yet, the majority directed that there be no mention of funding for anything related to Iraq in the resolution. This process is not the way the House's business should be conducted. I urge members to vote against this measure to make a statement about the way this entire process has been handled.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, earlier today I was in my congressional district at a hearing held by the Virginia State Corporation Commission presenting testimony in opposition to a proposed major increase in tolls on the Dulles Greenway, a commuter route for many of my constituents. Had I been present and voting, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 61, H. Res. 90, congratulating Lovie Smith of the Chicago Bears and Tony Dungy of the Indianapolis Colts on becoming the first African- American head coaches of National Football League teams to qualify for the Super Bowl; rollcall 62, H. Res. 24, establishing the House Democracy Assistance Commission for the 110th Congress, and rollcall 63, H. Res. 20, calling on the Government of the United Kingdom to immediately establish a full, independent, and public judicial inquiry into the murder of Northern Ireland defense attorney Patrick Finucane, as recommended by Judge Peter Cory as part of the Weston Park Agreement, in order to move forward on the Northern Ireland peace process.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, earlier this week I reintroduced legislation in the House of Representatives aimed at addressing the looming financial crisis facing the Nation, the Securing America's Future Economy (SAFE) Commission Act. The bill would establish a national bipartisan commission that will put everything--entitlement spending as well as all other federal programs and our Nation's tax policies--on the table and require Congress to vote up or down on its recommendations in their entirety, similar to the process set in 1988 to close military bases. Mandating congressional action on the panel's recommendations is what differentiates this commission from previous ones. Support for the bill is coming from both sides of the aisle. I submit for the Record letters from several former Members. This legislation will be good for the future of America. The Blackstone Group, New York, NY, June 28, 2006. Hon. Frank Wolf, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Wolf: Thank you for sending me a summary of your bill creating a bipartisan commission on long-term fiscal policy and for the excellent statement you made in introducing the bill. I read both with great interest and I wholeheartedly approve of what you are trying to do. I understand that George Voinovich has introduced a similar bill in the Senate. While I would like to think that the economic and moral case for serious reform is compelling enough to spur action without resort to another commission, I fear that the reality is otherwise. Given the harsh partisan environment you note in your letter, I have come to believe that a new commission could serve a very useful trust-building purpose--so long as it is truly bipartisan and all policy options are on the table. You clearly agree with these principles, which is one reason I think your bill could help break the political gridlock. It is an added bonus, in my view, that your bill would require the commission to hold public hearings around the country and compel congressional consideration of the commission's recommendations. As one who has sat on many commissions, including the Kerrey-Danforth entitlement and tax reform commission more than 10 years ago, I think all of these special attributes bode well for the success of a commission formed pursuant to your bill. As you may know, I serve as President of The Concord Coalition. Former Senators Warren Rudman (who I know you have spoken to about this) and Bob Kerrey are co-chairs of The Concord Coalition. We have been urging bipartisan action to bring about a more sustainable and generationally equitable fiscal policy for many years. Our executive director, Bob Bixby, has sent you a letter with our approval on behalf of The Concord Coalition expressing our appreciation and commending you for your leadership in drawing attention to one of the nation's most daunting challenges. To that, let me add my personal thanks and encouragement. Sincerely, Peter G. Peterson.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I would like to call to the attention of the House the following assessment of the current human rights situation in China. Harry Wu, a renowned human rights activists who survived 19 years in China's notorious laogai labor camps, has detailed in this assessment the current level of human rights abuses by China's brutal dictatorship. As we approach the 2008 Olympics in Beijing, and China continues to grow as an economic and political powerhouse, we must remind ourselves of China's abusive and oppressive treatment of innocent civilians, and fight against the tyranny of the communist regime in Beijing. The Current Human Rights Situation in China, January 2007 (By Harry Wu) The People's Republic of China (PRC) continues to awe the world with its rapid economic development attracting foreign investment from all over the world. Recently, China's power and influence in international politics has also grown. China has been extolled for taking the lead in negotiations with North Korea, and the world looks forward to the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing. However the international community has overlooked the most important fact--the Chinese government is still a ruthless dictatorship. China may be involved in the Six-Party talks with North Korea but it is still the nation's closest ally and biggest supplier. China is embracing capitalism but that does not equal freedom and democracy. This memo provides a brief description of human rights violations in China that are occurring on a large scale. China's brutal system of forced labor camps is thriving and remains a tool for repression and economic profit. Religious freedom is nonexistent without government approval, and independent trade unions are forbidden. The government refuses to reveal how many prisoners are executed each year, and organs are harvested from prisoners for money. Women and their families are being persecuted for violating the national one-child policy, and are subject to forced abortions and sterilization, detention and other punishments. Internet access is censored and cyber-dissidents are frequently monitored and arrested with the help of American companies. The number of political prisoners is on the rise as the Chinese people speak out against freedom of speech, press, and religion, the one-child policy, labor conditions, and property rights. The truth is that a more democratic and free China that respects human rights and the rule of law would lead to a more stable region, and ultimately would be better for US interests and national security. The Laogai System The Laogai is a vast system of prison camps in the PRC consisting of a network of more than 1,045 prisons, labor camps, and mental institutions. The fundamental role of the Laogai is the same as it was during Chairman Mao Zedong's reign--reform through labor. Labor camps are used as a mechanism to suppress political dissent, human rights activists, religious and spiritual believers, ethnic minorities, and common law offenders. The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture has confirmed that prisoners are frequently tortured to extract false confessions to be used to convict in court. Although some judicial reforms have been made, China's legal system is still rule by law not rule of law. The administrative detention system that the rest of the world has deemed a violation of international law, is still used. Laojiao (re-education through labor) allows individuals to be held for up to 3 years without legal proceedings. Anyone who speaks out against the Chinese Communist Party is falsely arrested and charged with the vague crimes of ``endangering state security'' or `revealing state secrets', and 99 percent of those who are charged with these crimes are convicted. The Laogai is an integral sector of the PRC's export economy and its forced labor products are frequently sold in U.S., European and world markets. Despite the 1992 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) safeguarding against the export of prison labor goods between the U.S. and China, little has been done to enforce this policy. U.S. customs stated that it could not conduct independent investigations in China because the Chinese government refuses to comply. Yet the U.S. has done nothing to encourage compliance. American businesses often claim to be unaware that their subcontractors are using prison labor, but this should no longer be an excuse. Religion The PRC does not permit religious freedom. Roman Catholicism is still outlawed and the Chinese government continues to defy the Vatican by ordaining church officials without its permission. In late November 2006 the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association ordained Bishop Wang in Jiangsu province, the third incident of this kind in a year. The government controls all religious activities and any new groups must apply for permission to practice and to publish literature. The spiritual practice of Falun gong is banned as a cult. Falun Gong followers and underground ``house church'' Christians are persecuted daily. They are put under house arrest, detained without public trial, and imprisoned and tortured for their beliefs under the auspices of various government campaigns. The Uyghur Muslim minority in Xinjiang province has been targeted and arrested according to an ``anti-terrorism'' campaign, while Tibetans monks and nuns have been forced to sign declarations denouncing the Dalai Lama as a dangerous separatist or face arrest according to a ``patriotic education'' campaign. Trade Unions The PRC outlaws all independent trade unions, forcing its workers to join the statesponsored All China Federation Trade Union (ACFTU), which by international standards is useless and only serves the Communist Party's needs. Most recently Wal-mart, a company that has opened 62 stores in China, capitulated to ACFTU demands and agreed to let the union set up branches in its stores. This fact is alarming because Wal- mart does not allow its employees to unionize in any other country. This is a vivid example that disproves the common theory that economic development is a catalyst for democratization in China. In contrast, the more companies that cooperate with the Communist Party's demands, such as Wal-mart, Cisco. Google. and Yahoo, the more the totalitarian regime is strengthened. Death Penalty and Organ Harvesting China executes anywhere from 3,500-10,000 people per year, more than the combined total of all the countries in the entire world. The true number is impossible to ascertain because this information is not made public, making it difficult for NGOs such as Amnesty International to keep records. After decades of organ harvesting, the PRC's Vice Minister of Health, Mr. Huang Jiefu, in November 2005 officially admitted that organs are taken from executed prisoners, but still insists that the prisoner or his family always gives informed consent. However, this usually never occurs. Families are often not notified when their relative will be executed and afterwards they are given the cremated remains to cover up any signs of organ removal, or are not given the body at all Whether or not consent is actually given by the prisoner is irrelevant because even if death row prisoners give permission they are coerced and threatened by prison officials to comply. Although government legislation to regulate organ trade went into force in July 2006 prisoners' organs are still sold to wealthy Chinese nationals and foreigners with the profits going directly to the Chinese government. Multi- lingual websites boast about the ease of receiving an organ transplant in China. Population Control The PRC government continues to implement the inhumane one- child policy that began in 1976. No other country has such a draconian family planning policy that is offensive to all religions and all cultural backgrounds, and affects all of China's 1.3 billion members. Despite other social reforms, China's population policy still does not conform to international human rights standards. With few exceptions, only married couples that obtain pre-approval, i.e. a birth permit, may legally have a child even if it is their first child. A majority of Chinese women are required to use intrauterine devices (IUDs), and in villages women's menstrual cycles are monitored. Violators, if discovered to be pregnant, are coerced into having an abortion and to undergo sterilization. Occasionally the men are sterilized as well. Doctors who do not perform IUD insertion or sterilization. or who fake these operations, are jailed. Family members of violators are often imprisoned if they do not reveal their relative's whereabouts. Despite relaxation of certain aspects of China's family planning regulations, enforcement of the one-child policy continues to be coercive. Internet Censorship The crackdown of Internet dissidents remains widespread. American software companies such as Cisco, Microsoft, Google, and Yahoo continue to cooperate with the Chinese government to censor Internet use. These companies have agreed to restrict access to certain websites and terms, and to reveal the identities of users. As a result of these policies, according to Amnesty International at least 57 people have been arrested for discussing democracy on the Internet. Journalist Shi Tao was sentenced to 10 years in prison for writing an e-mail on Yahoo to a China pro-democracy group in the U.S. Cisco in particular has funded over us $700 million telecom ventures in China including selling software to the Chinese police who use it to arrest dissenters. Directly after the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989, the US government banned the export of crime control and detection products to China, such as guns and handcuffs. However these sanctions are out of date. Today these restrictions must be expanded to include software and technology products that are used to censor the Internet. Dissidents and Political Prisoners Human rights activists in China are frequently imprisoned for various reasons. Some recent examples include Sun Xiaodi, who has petitioned authorities to stop radioactive contamination in Gansu province Three Gorges activist Fu Xiancai who was assaulted and paralyzed after being questioned at a police station, numerous journalists such as New York Times researcher Zhao Yan, and religious practitioners and ethnic minorities. Not only are dissidents imprisoned for criticizing China's totalitarian regime, but the lawyers who defend them are being persecuted as well. For instance blind lawyer Chen Guangcheng is imprisoned for defending victims of forced abortions and sterilizations, as is Gao Zhisheng for sending a letter to the government condemning its practices. Moreover, these cases are only the ones of which the international community is aware; the reality is that unknown numbers are currently being harassed, arrested, tortured and imprisoned. The Chinese government will continue to quell political and civil unrest to maintain power and control. conclusion The U.S. Congress should send a strong signal to the Chinese government that the world will not accept the human rights violations that are occurring in China. The Chinese people deserve the fundamental rights to a just legal system, to practice religion, to unionize, to plan their families, and to freely express themselves. While economic improvements have been made, China continues to deny its people dignity and basic rights. The U.S. must not remain silent any longer.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, today I reintroduced legislation in the House of Representatives aimed at addressing the looming financial crisis facing the Nation, the Securing America's Future Economy (SAFE) Commission Act. The bill would establish a national bipartisan commission that will put everything--entitlement spending as well as all other Federal programs and our Nation's tax policies--on the table and require Congress to vote up or down on its recommendations in their entirety, similar to the process set in 1988 to close military bases. Mandating congressional action on the panel's recommendations is what differentiates this commission from previous ones. Support for the bill is coming from both sides of the aisle. I submit for the Record an op-ed by former Senators Bob Kerrey and Warren Rudman that ran in the Washington Post, an op-ed by former Congressman Tim Penny that ran in the Washington Times, columns by David Broder and Robert Samuelson, and editorials from the Dallas Morning News, and the Orlando Sentinel on the topic of entitlement reform. This legislation will be good for the future of America. [From the Washington Post, Aug. 28, 2006] Securing Future Fiscal Health [By Bob Kerrey and Warren B. Rudman] The economic and moral case for long-term reform of fiscal policy is clear. Yet politicians refuse to act. If this stalemate persists, it could end in catastrophe. Over the next 30 years, spending on federal programs is on track to go up by 50 percent as a share of the economy. If revenues remain at their historical level, the resulting deficits will approach 20 percent of gross domestic product by 2036--almost 10 times the current size. The debt will surge to 200 percent of GDP--twice what it was at the end of World War II. Political realities explain why nothing has been done about this. Changing course would require substantial spending cuts from projected levels or equivalent tax increases. Neither party wants to be the first to propose these tough choices out of fear that the other side would attack it. Similarly, neither side wants to discuss possible compromises of its own priorities, out of fear that the other side will take the concessions and run. Unfortunately, these fears are justified. Since the regular legislative process seems incapable of dealing with the impending crisis, some alternative has to be found. President Bush has suggested a commission. Having served on many commissions, we understand their potential value. We also understand how they can go wrong. In our view, a new commission could be very useful, but only if it recognizes fiscal and political realities. It needs five elements to succeed. First, it has to be truly bipartisan. Any perception that the commission's purpose is to facilitate swift enactment of a partisan agenda would doom it to failure. It must have bipartisan co-chairs and equal representation. Doing otherwise in the current partisan environment would be a waste of time and money. Second, it must have a broad mandate. While it is critical to control the growth of entitlements, particularly Medicare and Social Security, the commission should examine all aspects of fiscal policy. Third, all options must be on the table. If either side sets conditions, the other won't participate. Republicans cannot take tax increases off the table, and Democrats cannot take benefit reductions off the table. Fourth, the commission needs to engage the public in a genuine dialogue about the trade-offs inherent in realistic solutions. When people are armed with the facts and given the opportunity for honest dialogue, they are willing to set priorities and make hard choices. Fifth, the commission's recommendations should be given an up-or-down vote in Congress, allowing for amendments that would not reduce the total savings. Absent that, the report would likely join many others on a shelf. Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) and Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) have put forward a proposal that satisfies most of these elements. They would create a bipartisan commission with a broad mandate to examine long-term fiscal challenges. All policy options would be on the table. The commission would solicit input from the public and develop legislation that Congress and the president would be required to act on. Its work would address four key concerns: the unsustainable gap between projected spending and revenue, the need to increase national savings, the implications of foreign ownership of U.S. government debt and the lack of emphasis on long-term planning in the budget process. A commission with these attributes could give all parties the political cover they need to tackle the tough choices and develop a bipartisan consensus for solutions. This would be invaluable regardless of who controls Congress or the White House. In the end, of course, elected representatives, not a commission, will have to make the hard decisions. But a commission that produced solutions with meaningful bipartisan support would provide a catalyst for action. If Congress were required to vote on the commission's recommendations, opponents would be challenged to produce solutions of their own. Advocates of extending tax cuts would be challenged to say how they would restrain spending enough to avoid cascading debt once the baby boomers begin to retire in large numbers. Those who oppose reductions in current entitlement promises would be challenged to say how they would fund those promises without squeezing out other priorities or raising taxes to unacceptable levels that could damage the economy. The Wolf-Voinovich proposal has been greeted with silence or outright hostility. It deserves better. This is a serious proposal by two leaders who regard the debt burden and draconian policy options we are leaving to future generations as a moral stain on our nation's character. To be sure, their proposal has shortcomings that must be corrected. Two improvements that are critical to the success of a commission are providing for bipartisan co-chairs and dividing the membership more evenly between parties than the current 9-6 split in favor of Republican appointments. These problems are not minor technicalities, but they could be fixed in negotiations with potential Democratic co-sponsors. Time is running out to enact reforms. Wolf and Voinovich have come up with a credible way to get the process started. Any takers?

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, few are willing to admit--much less discuss--the looming financial crisis facing our country, but there is less than 1 year until the first baby boomer is eligible to retire. On Wednesday, January 10, the Washington Post included an op-ed by Robert Samuelson which paints a poignant picture of the generational conflict approaching on the horizon. He makes a compelling case for why it is critical that Congress take action now to address the financial emergency facing the Nation with the retirement of the baby boomers. That is why on Tuesday, Senator George Voinovich and I will reintroduce identical legislation to establish a national bipartisan commission that will put everything--entitlement benefits and all other Federal programs as well as our tax policies--on the table and require Congress to vote up or down on its recommendations in their entirety, similar to the Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) first created by former Rep. Dick Armey in 1988. This commission would be called the SAFE Commission, to secure America's future economy. I first introduced the idea of the SAFE Commission last summer. Since that time, the proposal has received strong support from across the political spectrum including the Heritage Foundation; the Concord Coalition; former congressional members from both sides of the aisle; and former Congressional Budget Office directors. It has been favorably endorsed by newspapers across the country, including the Dallas Morning News, the Orlando Sentinel and syndicated columnist David Broder. There is near universal agreement that the longer we wait to deal with this problem, the tougher the medicine will be to swallow. As a father of five and grandfather of 12, the challenge posed by the pending retirement of baby boomers strikes me as much more than a routine policy discussion. Without action, just what kind of future are we leaving to our children and grandchildren? My youngest grandchild is just 10 months old. By the time she is 15 years old, 29 cents out of every dollar paid in income taxes will be required to cover the needs of Social Security and Medicare to pay for my retirement. That's not including payroll taxes of almost 15 percent. By the time she completes her undergraduate degree, more than 45 cents out of every dollar of income taxes then will be needed to cover the shortfall of Social Security and Medicare, rising to 62 cents out of every dollar if she decides to get her doctorate 10 years later. Again, this is on top of payroll taxes. Sadly, before she retires--and looks into the eyes of her own grandchildren--retired baby boomers will be consuming 88 percent of every income tax dollar. With the baby boomers consuming so much, there will be little money left to meet the needs and challenges of her generation. Not only is this unacceptable, it raises serious moral questions. Is it right for one generation to live very well knowing that its debts will be left to be paid for by their children and grandchildren? Abraham Lincoln, one of our Nation's greatest presidents, once said, ``You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today.'' Yet that is precisely what we have been doing--avoiding our responsibility to future generations of Americans by passing on a broken system in the form of unfunded Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid obligations. I deeply believe there is a moral component to this issue that goes to the heart of who we are as Americans. By that I mean, I wonder if we have lost the national will to make tough decisions that may require sacrifice? Moreover, have we lost the political courage to reject the partisan and special interest demands and do what is best for our country? If we remember the legacy we have inherited, the debt we owe to previous generations--our grandparents and our parents and the sacrifices they made to make our country what it is today--we all will be moved to do our duty. The SAFE Commission should be embraced by both sides of the aisle. I am open to suggestions about the legislation from members of both parties. This is a national issue; not a Republican issue or a Democrat issue. Last spring I took a trip to Antietam National Battlefield. As I walked along ``Bloody Lane,'' the site of one of the most vicious battles of the Civil War, I was struck by how many individuals made the ultimate sacrifice. September 18, 1862, was the bloodiest single day in American history. There were more than 23,000 casualties, nine times as many Americans killed or wounded in World War II's D-Day on June 6, 1944. More soldiers were killed and wounded at the Battle of Antietam than the deaths of all Americans in the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican War and Spanish-American War combined. I also visited the site of George Washington's crossing of the Delaware River in anticipation of the Battle of Trenton. Washington was down to only 3,000 soldiers and the war was almost lost. Yet, with great courage--and sacrifice--Washington and his forces were successful in changing the direction of the American Revolution. I often think of the tremendous sacrifice being made by the thousands of men and women serving today not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, but around the globe. Their families here at home are also making great sacrifices. These examples of sacrifice for country are what led me to ask just what are we passing on to those who are coming after us? In less than a year, the baby boom generation will begin trickling into retirement. A few years later, that trickle will become a flood that within five more years will become a tsunami that will begin to wreak havoc on our Social Security and Medicare systems. Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security consume 40 percent of the budget in 2006, but will consume 51 percent by 2016--and that is just the tip of the demographic iceberg. As we tragically learned the lesson of Katrina in New Orleans, the best time to deal with a damaged flood wall is before the rains begin. Make no mistake; the levies that are our country's entitlement systems can only be plugged for so long. Without major repair and a long-term fix, we are facing a financial perfect storm like never before. There is near unanimous agreement by all who have looked at this issue: Social Security and Medicare are amassing huge deficits and are ill-prepared for the coming flood of new baby boom retirees. When our retirement security programs like Social Security and Medicare were established, the ratio of workers supporting each retiree was more than 10 times the number supporting retirees today. In 1945, there were 42 workers for each retiree. Last year, the ratio dropped to three workers for each retiree and is expected to drop to just two workers for each retiree by 2030. Perhaps even more troubling than the Social Security projections are those for Medicare. By 2010, the trust fund expenditures are projected to exceed annual income from all sources and the reserves will be depleted by 2018, 11 short years from now. According to the trustees, ``Medicare's financial outlook has deteriorated dramatically over the past five years and is now much worse than Social Security's.'' This coming crisis demands our immediate attention. While there is never a convenient time to make hard decisions, the longer we wait, the more dramatic the required remedy will be. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), balancing the budget in 2040 necessitates one of two alternatives: cutting total federal spending by 60 percent or raising federal taxes by two and a half times today's level. Either of these options would devastate our economy. But if we can summon the resolve to begin these difficult conversations now--and make some hard choices on the front end--we can change our current course. Basic economics underscore the dangers inherent in our current national trends. America is living on borrowed dollars and borrowed time. U.S. spending is outpacing income growth and personal savings rates have dropped to negative 1.3 percent in the first quarter, meaning that U.S. consumers are spending more than 100 percent of their monthly after-tax income. In spite of this, our economy has remained strong, in large part because other countries have been willing to buy our debt. But borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from countries like China, Saudi Arabia, Japan, South Korea, and others puts not only our future economy, but also our national security, at risk. More than $2.6 billion a day is needed to fund our savings shortfall, which has left us with nearly 40 percent of our domestic economy in foreign hands. As our fiscal deficit balloons, our current account deficit is projected to hit historically unprecedented highs, and our country's net investment position abroad is eroding rapidly. While the Asian Central Banks and petrodollar countries like those in the Middle East have no doubt contributed to our country's growth (the housing boom and the ability of U.S. consumers to spend), the purchase of U.S. securities by foreigners has, at the same time, enabled us to live way beyond our means. This makes our country--and our children and grandchildren--much more vulnerable in the future. Will a geopolitical dispute with a major oil exporter cause it to stop funding our deficit, resulting in a sharp drop in the dollar, a spike in interest rates and a market meltdown? If foreigners lose faith in the U.S. and our ability to put our own fiscal house in order, their investment decisions could send shock waves through our financial markets and even result in a collapse of U.S. real estate prices. If we don't address this issue, higher interest rates and inflation are inevitable. It would be only a matter of when and how high. If we don't change our current unsustainable path, our future economic growth, standard of living, and even our national security may be at risk. Our children and grandchildren deserve a future that will allow them to respond to the challenges of their generation. Who could have predicted, even 10 years ago, that today our Nation would be engaged in a global war on terror. Each generation faces its own international threats, and we have an obligation to ensure that future generations have the flexibility to respond to the challenges of their time. If current policies are left unchanged, in as few as 33 years and in no more than 40 years, there would be no discretionary money left for defense spending. All federal revenue would have to go to only four sources: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and interest on past debt. In addition to international considerations there are domestic factors. Getting our financial house in order will allow us to prioritize spending in areas such as cutting edge medical research for cancer, Alzheimer's and autism, and for education, particularly in mathematics and science, which are critically important to America's remaining the world's leader in innovation and technology. It is with the hope of building consensus on this very difficult issue that I am offering legislation to set up a bipartisan commission charged with evaluating the scope of our fiscal problem and recommending tangible solutions. One of the most critical responsibilities of this panel will be explaining the crisis we face and listening to the American people about how to get the country back on sound financial footing. It will also develop a strategic plan for the future. It will look beyond the Beltway for solutions, holding at least 12 town meetings--one in each of the Nation's Federal Reserve districts--over the span of 12 months in order to hear directly from the American people. The SAFE Commission will be truly bipartisan--comprised of 16 voting members, four appointed by the Senate Majority Leader, three by the Senate Minority Leader, four by the Speaker of the House, and three by the House Minority Leader. Four of the 14 congressional appointments must be sitting members of Congress. Additionally, the director of the Office of Management and Budget as well as the secretary of the Treasury will serve as voting ex-officio members. The Congressional Budget Office and the Comptroller General of the United States will be appointed as non-voting ex-officio members of the commission to lend their expertise. The president will appoint bipartisan co-chairs from among the 14 voting members appointed by Congress. I have heard criticism that such weighty decisions on the Nation's financial future are the responsibility of Congress. I couldn't agree more. The SAFE Commission has two provisions to protect congressional prerogatives. First, of the 14 members appointed to the commission, four must be sitting members of Congress. Second, if Congress takes on the task and enacts significant legislation aimed at addressing this looming crisis, the SAFE Commission would terminate and cease to exist. The group will comprehensively review entitlement benefits, patterns in savings and insurance for retirement, tax policies and the long-term implications of increasing foreign ownership of the U.S. Treasury. But given the enormity of the challenge, the commission needs to be able to look at every component of our fiscal policy to fairly assess where we stand and how we can best move toward a sound fiscal future. Everything must be on the table. As a fiscal conservative, I believe that the economy grows when people keep more of their hard-earned money, and my voting record reflects this belief. The SAFE Commission is tasked with addressing tax issues as well as spending policies because current law puts us on a track to sharply higher taxes as well as spending. If the current tax cuts are sunset, then beginning in 2011, taxes as a percent of GDP will jump and then rise each and every year to nearly 20 percent of GDP in 2016, less than 10 years from now. After that they will keep on growing to record levels, hitting over 23 percent in 2046. This happens because rising incomes push Americans into both higher brackets and into the alternative minimum tax (AMT). Yet even extending the tax cuts will shave only one percentage point off these rising numbers. Americans need to understand all the numbers to avoid the grim default of a rising burden of taxes and spending that will damage our economy. I believe that having revenues as part of the discussion, as one of the areas of reform for the SAFE Commission, will help us paint the full picture and help us confront the tax increases that the country faces in the coming years under current law. In looking at revenues, I believe reform of the tax code must help simplify the system and stimulate increased economic growth and thereby tax revenue. The late William Simon, who served as Treasury secretary under presidents Nixon and Ford, believed ``the United States should have a tax system, which looks like someone designed it on purpose.'' The IRS estimates Americans spend 6.6 billion hours per year filling out tax forms including 1.6 billion hours on the 1040 form alone and nearly $200 billion on tax compliance. That amounts to 20 cents of compliance cost for every dollar collected by the tax system. Shouldn't we have a system that people understand? One that encourages faster growth in business formation, jobs, family income and tax revenue? A simplified tax code also could help increase the personal savings rate, which went negative for the first time since the Great Depression earlier this year. The SAFE Commission legislation provides an opportunity to simultaneously address the likely tax increases that middle class Americans are projected to face and the explosion in entitlement programs. It does this by focusing on reform. The legislation provides an opportunity to reform the tax code in ways that generate more rapid growth. We know from the recent revenue figures that tax policies that spur growth also bring in needed revenue. And the legislation also tasks the commission with exploring entitlement reforms that protect safety net programs while reining in total costs. After spending 12 months conducting town meetings around the country to determine the scope of the problem and consider solutions, the commission will present to Congress a report describing the long-term fiscal problems, public suggestions and views expressed during the town meetings and policy options available to ensure federal programs and entitlements are available for future generations. With a bipartisan three-fourths majority vote, the commission will send to Congress a legislative package to implement the commission recommendations no later than 60 days after the interim report. The administration and Congress will have 90 additional days to develop actuarially equivalent proposals to achieve the same cost savings. Essentially, no later than 16 months from the organization of the commission, Congress would be required to vote--up or down--on each proposal. For example, if the commission's report is delivered on January 1, 2008, then the commission's legislative package would be due by March 1, 2008, and any alternative developed by Congress or the Administration would have to be presented by June 1, 2008. All proposals must include a 50-year CBO score in addition to disclosing any impact on future federal liabilities. If more than one proposal receives a majority, the one garnering the greatest number of votes would prevail. I have put in the legislation procedures for expedited consideration of the commission's legislation to ensure that the Congress acts. I do not want this to simply be another blue-ribbon commission whose findings end up on a bookshelf somewhere only to collect dust and never be acted upon. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this legislation. I also welcome a forthright national dialogue. Only by working together in a truly bipartisan manner will we be able to secure America's future economy. I believe most Americans will welcome it as well, especially considering we all want what is best for our children and grandchildren. I will close with the cautionary words of George Washington's 1796 farewell address: ``We should avoid ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden of which we ourselves ought to bear.''

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I am planning to reintroduced legislation in the House of Representatives aimed at addressing the looming financial crisis facing the Nation, the Securing America's Future Economy, SAFE, Commission Act. The bill would establish a national bipartisan commission that will put everything--entitlement spending as well as all other Federal programs and our Nation's tax policies--on the table and require Congress to vote up or down on its recommendations in their entirety, similar to the process set in 1988 to close military bases. Mandating congressional action on the panel's recommendations is what differentiates this commission from previous ones. Support for the bill is coming from both sides of the aisle. I submit for the record an analysis by the Heritage Foundation and a letter of support from the Concord Coalition. This legislation will be good for the future of America. The Heritage Foundation, Washington, DC, July 14, 2006. The Wolf SAFE Commission Act: A Chance To Get the Budget Back on Track (By Stuart Butler) The recent Mid-Session Review by the Office of Management and Budget underscores the facts that sensible tax reform stimulates the economy and that faster growth swells revenue to the government as a byproduct of new jobs and extra income for Americans. The review also confirms the overall, disturbing long-term budget picture indicated in the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) long-term forecast. Under current law, both taxes and spending will rise rapidly during future decades towards European levels, with an ever-growing government taking a larger and larger proportion of the nation's income and threatening America's future economic growth. Decisive action is needed. But faced with this threat, Washington is paralyzed. Rather than seriously tackling the tsunami of entitlement spending that will hit the budget after the baby boomers begin to retire, Congress actually made the situation far worse by enacting the huge Medicare prescription drug benefit. And while the Bush tax reforms have significantly helped in the short term, even if made permanent they would shave only about one percentage point from the future growth in taxes. Absent any additional reforms, the CBO forecasts that, with the Bush tax cuts extended, federal taxes will top 20 percent of GDP by about 2025 and approach 23 percent of GDP by 2045. The historical average, and today's level, is just over 18 percent of GDP With Congress polarized and paralyzed, some Members of Congress, along with President Bush, are exploring the idea of a bipartisan commission as a way to break away from the path of rapidly rising spending and taxes. President Bush pressed for an entitlements commission in his State of the Union address. Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) has sponsored legislation (S. 3521) that includes a commission to review the long-term solvency of Social Security and Medicare. Meanwhile, Representative Frank Wolf (R-VA) has crafted a commission bill (``The SAFE Commission Act,'' H.R. 5552) specifically intended to win bipartisan support for bold action to secure the country's fiscal and economic future. Senator George Voinovich (R-OH) has introduced that bill in the Senate (S. 3491). Commissions can help break a political logjam. They can also become vehicles for action that achieves a short-term political fix and yet does little in the long term or even makes things worse. So the political dynamics and mandate of a commission are critical. Fortunately, the Wolf commission bill recognizes these facts of political life and offers real hope for sensible action. A reason for this is that in its instructions to the commission, the bill wisely combines reform with fiscal changes in a manner that could achieve a breakthrough. The core of the fiscal problem is the sharp projected rise in future entitlement spending, especially spending on programs for middle-class retirees. Contrary to many people's perception, taxes are not falling--as noted, taxes are projected to rise steadily to record levels under current law, in real terms and as a percentage of GDP. Still, in today's political deadlock many lawmakers maintain that tax revenue must be part of the equation if they are to have the political ``cover'' to accept curbs on popular entitlements. But for good reasons, conservatives strongly resist the idea of raising taxes. For one thing, taxes are not the problem--spending is. Moreover, raising tax rates or instituting new taxes would threaten economic growth, compounding the economic harm associated with government spending. Further, raising taxes likely would reduce the pressure on Congress to curb spending or, worse still, encourage lawmakers to increase their spending promises. The Wolf bill seeks a solution to this political equation. It creates a bipartisan commission intended to address the unsustainable imbalance between federal commitments and revenues while increasing national savings and making the budget process give greater emphasis to long-term fiscal issues. While the commission could consider a range of approaches, the bill places emphasis on two: reforms that would limit the growth of entitlements while strengthening the safety net and tax reforms that would make the tax system more economically efficient and improve economic growth. The commission would hold public hearings around the country to discuss the long-term fiscal problem, and its recommendations would receive fast-track consideration by Congress. By combining a slowdown in entitlement spending with reforms to strengthen assistance to the needy, a commission proposal could win support of liberals and others who worry that surging middle-class retiree spending in the future will crowd out safety net spending. And by placing an emphasis on pro-growth tax reform, a commission proposal could also lead to some additional revenues not by raising taxes but thanks instead to faster economic growth--just as the Bush tax reforms produced the recent sharp increase in federal revenues. Combining these features in a commission proposal could lead to a package that conservatives, liberals, and moderates all believe would advance their agendas--a necessary result for an economically sound agreement to succeed in a polarized Congress. Some might argue that appointing a commission to address the long-term fiscal situation is an abrogation of responsibility by Congress. In an obvious sense, it is. But the Wolf bill also shows that lawmakers recognize that America's budgeting system is broken and in the current environment cannot lead to a responsible long-term federal budget. Representative Wolf's commission proposal seeks to alter those destructive dynamics in order to secure a sound economy for future generations. The Concorde Coalition, Arlington, VA, June 28, 2006. Hon. Frank Wolf, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Wolf: On behalf of The Concord Coalition, I am writing to express our deep appreciation for your leadership in sponsoring the Securing America's Future Economy, SAFE, Act, which would establish a bipartisan commission to recommend legislation addressing our Nation's unsustainable long-term fiscal outlook. We strongly agree with you that the need for serious action is not just an economic imperative but a moral one as well. We also share your view that partisan divisions in Washington have become so wide that a commission may now be the only way forward on this issue. By establishing a fiscal policy commission with a broad mandate, meaningful public engagement, and the ability to consider all policy options, your legislation represents a very constructive step toward bringing about consensus solutions. The demographic and fiscal challenges facing the budget in the years ahead are well known. Analysts of diverse ideological perspectives and nonpartisan officials at the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) have all warned that current fiscal policy is unsustainable over the long-term. What is needed now is a clear commitment to address these issues in a straightforward, generationally equitable and bipartisan manner. Achieving consensus around the hard choices that must eventually be made will require open minds and bipartisan cooperation. Your legislation would establish a process to do just that. Recently, The Concord Coalition organized a forum with experts from across the political spectrum to discuss the possibility of establishing a bipartisan commission to deal with our longterm fiscal outlook. Three conclusions from the forum stand out: The commission must have meaningful participation and input from a broad range of views. Bipartisan support is essential to enacting and maintaining policies that will put the budget on a fiscally sustainable course. The commission should have a broad mandate with no limitations on what policy options the commission can consider or preconditions on what must be included--or not included--in a proposal. Everything must be on the table, including revenues as well as entitlements and other spending. The commission should engage the public in a dialogue about the long-term fiscal challenges and the tradeoffs that will be necessary to bring about a more secure and sustainable economic future. The Concord Coalition commends your proposal because it recognizes each of these conclusions. The SAFE Act would establish a bipartisan commission of experts and legislators appointed by the President and Congressional leaders of both parties. The Commission would be directed to hold hearings across the country and incorporate the input from the public in its report. This is a very welcome provision. The public should be treated as if it were, in effect, a member of the commission. Doing so will enhance the commission's credibility and help build acceptance for its recommendations. Our experience hosting meetings around the nation on this issue has demonstrated that when the American people are armed with the facts and given the opportunity for honest dialogue, they are willing to set priorities and make the hard choices that often are not made in Washington. Most importantly, the Commission would be allowed to consider all policy options to address the imbalance between long-term spending commitments and projected revenues, including reforms of entitlement programs and tax laws. In our view, this is an essential prerequisite for attracting well-respected individuals to serve on the commission and for finding solutions that are both substantive and politically viable. We particularly commend you for your willingness to consider constructive suggestions for changes to achieve broader bipartisan support and increase the prospect that the commission will produce a balanced proposal that can be enacted into law. In that regard, we would suggest a few changes that we believe would strengthen the bill and help ensure the commission receives the bipartisan support essential to its success. We believe the commission would have greater credibility if the appointees were more evenly divided between parties, potentially with some commission members appointed jointly or as a result of bipartisan consultation. Further, we would suggest that the commission have bipartisan co-chairs. We would also encourage you to consider a more expansive legislative process, which would allow for greater debate of policy tradeoffs by allowing the consideration of budget neutral amendments. Those who oppose the priorities and tradeoffs recommended by the commission should be challenged to say what they would do instead and given the opportunity to put forward alternative policies to address the problem. A commission isn't a silver bullet that will solve our fiscal problems by itself. It will still take action by Members of Congress and the administration to adopt the tough choices. But a commission with credibility and bipartisan support could provide the leadership necessary to ensure that these issues receive the attention and serious consideration they deserve. You deserve great credit for your willingness to undertake the difficult but absolutely essential task of focusing attention on the tough choices our nation faces. The Concord Coalition stands ready to assist in any way that we can. Sincerely, Robert L. Bixby, Executive Director.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, last spring I took a trip to Antietam National Battlefield. As I walked along Bloody Lane, the site of one of the most vicious battles of the Civil War, I was struck by how many individuals made the ultimate sacrifice. September 18, 1862, was the bloodiest day in American history. There were more than 23,000 casualties, nine times as many Americans killed or wounded in World War II's D-day on June 6, 1944. More soldiers were killed and wounded at the Battle of Antietam than the deaths of all Americans in the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican War and the Spanish-American war combined. I also visited the site of the George Washington's crossing of the Delaware in anticipation of the Battle of Trenton. Washington was down to only 3,000 soldiers and the war was almost lost. Yet with great courage and sacrifice, Washington and his forces were successful in changing the direction of the American Revolution. I also think of the tremendous sacrifice being made by thousands of men and women serving today not only in Iraq and Afghanistan but around the globe. Their families at home are also making great sacrifices. After those visits and the lessons in history they brought, I began reading about the looming financial crisis on the Nation's horizon with the impending retirement of the baby boom generation. That information was chilling. In less than a year, the baby boom generation will begin trickling into retirement. A few years later, that trickle will become a flood. And within 5 more years, it will become a tsunami that will begin to wreak havoc on the Social Security and Medicare systems. Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security consume 40 percent of the budget in 2006, but will consume 51 percent in 2016, which is just the tip of the Democratic iceberg. There is near unanimous consent by all who have looked at this issue. Social Security and Medicare are amassing huge deficits, and we are ill prepared for the coming flood of new baby boom retirees. When our retirement security programs like Social Security and Medicare were established, the ratio of workers supporting each retiree was more than 10 times the number supporting retirees today. In 1945, there were 42 workers for each retiree. Last year, the ratio dropped to three workers for each retiree and is expected to drop to just two workers for each retiree in 2030. In reading about the coming financial emergency, my mind kept going back to Antietam and Washington's crossing and all the substantive examples of sacrifice for country by Americans. I asked myself, what kind of financial security as a Nation are we passing on to those who are coming after us? While there never is a convenient time to make hard decisions, the longer we wait, the more dramatic the remedy will be that is required. According to the Government Accountability Office, balancing the budget in 2040 necessitates one of two alternatives: Cutting total Federal spending by 60 percent, and this place will never do that; or raising Federal taxes by two-and-a-half times today's level. Either of these options would devastate our economy. But if we can summon the resolve to begin these difficult conversations now, and make hard choices on the front end, we can change the current course. Abraham Lincoln, one of our greatest Presidents, said ``you cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today,'' yet that is precisely what we are doing in avoiding our responsibility to future generations by passing on a broken system in the form of unfunded Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. That is why next week Senator George Voinovich in the Senate and I in the House will join to introduce identical legislation to establish a national commission that will put everything, everything, entitlement benefits and all other Federal programs, as well as our tax policies, on the table and to require, require Congress to vote up or down on its recommendations in their entirety, similar to the base realignment and base closure commission, BRAC. This commission would be called the SAFE Commission, to secure America's future economy. We first introduced the SAFE Commission last summer. Since that time, the proposal has received strong support from across the political spectrum, including the Heritage Foundation, the Concord Coalition, former Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, and former Congressional Budget Office directors. It is being endorsed by major newspapers across the country, including the Dallas Morning News, the Orlando Sentinel and syndicated columnist David Broder. It is in the hope of building a consensus on this very difficult issue that we will again offer this legislation. One of the most critical responsibilities of the Commission will be explaining the crisis we face and listening to the American people about how to get the country back on sound financial footing. It will also develop a strategic plan for the future. It will look beyond the beltway for solutions, holding at least 12 hearings, one in each Federal Reserve district, over the span of 12 months in order to hear directly from the American people. After its 12-month listening tour, the commission will present to Congress a report describing the long-term fiscal problems, public suggestions and views expressed during the town meetings and policy options available to ensure Federal programs and entitlements are available for future generations. With a bipartisan three-fourths majority vote, the commission will send to Congress a legislative package to implement the commission recommendations no later than 60 days after the interim report. The administration and Congress will have 90 additional days to develop actuarially equivalent proposals to achieve the same cost savings. Essentially, no later than 16 months from the organization of the commission, Congress would be required to vote--up or down--on each proposal. We have put in the legislation procedures for expedited consideration of the commission's legislation to ensure that the Congress acts. I do not want this to simply be another blue-ribbon commission whose findings end up on a bookshelf somewhere only to collect dust and never be acted upon. The SAFE Commission will be comprised of 16 voting members, four appointed by the Senate Majority Leader, three by the Senate Minority Leader, four by the Speaker of the House, and three by the House Minority Leader. Four of the 14 Congressional appointments must be sitting Members of Congress. Additionally, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget as well as the Secretary of the Treasury will serve as voting ex-officio members. The Congressional Budget Office and the Comptroller General of the United States will be appointed as non-voting ex-officio members of the commission to lend their expertise. The President will have the ability to appoint bipartisan co-chairs from among the 10 voting members appointed by Congress. As a father of five and grandfather of 12, the challenge posed by the pending retirement of baby boomers strikes me as much more than a routine policy discussion. Without action, just what kind of future are we leaving to our children and grandchildren? I also deeply believe there is a moral component to this issue that goes to the heart of who we are as Americans. By that I mean, I wonder if we have lost the national will to make tough decisions that may require sacrifice? Moreover, have we lost the political courage to reject the partisan and special interest demands and do what is best for our country? If we remember the legacy we have inherited--the sacrifices of Washington's crossing and Antietam and so many other examples from the over two centuries of our Nation's history--and the debt we owe to previous generations--our grandparents and our parents and the sacrifices they made to make our country what it is today--I believe we all will be moved to do our duty. I have heard criticism that such weighty decisions on the Nation's financial future are the responsibility of Congress. I couldn't agree more. The SAFE Commission has two provisions to protect congressional prerogatives. First, of the 14 members appointed to the commission, four must be sitting Members of Congress. Second, if Congress enacts significant legislation aimed at addressing this looming crisis, the SAFE Commission would terminate and cease to exist. The SAFE Commission should be embraced by both sides of the aisle. This is a national issue; not a Republican issue or a Democrat issue. I am open to suggestions about the legislation from members of both parties. We also welcome a forthright national dialogue. Only by working together in a truly bipartisan manner will we be able to secure America's future economy. I believe most Americans will welcome it as well, especially considering we all want what is best for our children and grandchildren. We must heed the cautionary words of George Washington's 1796 farewell address: ``We should avoid ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden of which we ourselves ought to bear.'' I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this legislation.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Why would you give the United Nations any impact when, in Rwanda, 700,000 people died, and the U.N. did nothing? In Srebrenica, the U.N. stood by as 700 Muslims were led to their death by the Serbs. In Darfur, where I have been, I led the first delegation, 450,000 people have died, and this House has called it genocide, and genocide continues today. Why would you give the U.N. any authority when it couldn't stop genocide in Darfur, genocide in Srebrenica, and genocide in Darfur today? I strongly support the amendment.