Frank Wolf

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, this amendment simply gives the permissive authority to the Secretary of State to access these and other previously appropriated funds to cover the evacuation of Lebanon.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, they have been in discussion with the staff as to some ideas. But their priority was to get this legislation passed because there are going to be more evacuations taking place. So as of now I cannot tell you the exact places.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, no, there are not. It would merely ensure that the State Department could use the existing funds to get American citizens out of harm's way and to pay the debts that they have obligated both for cruises, for ships and for other things whereby they are taking people to Cypress and other points of safety, so they can pay their bills.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Federal Employee Combat Zone Tax Parity Act, which would provide parity by extending the tax credit currently received by military personnel to the civilian Federal employees working along side them. Just the other day I received an e-mail from a constituent who is currently stationed in Afghanistan. She said: ``I am completing a one year tour with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Kabul, Afghanistan. I work with the U.S. military and I live in the same residences with the U.S. military. During the riots on Memorial Day, I listened to the same gunfire as the U.S. military and I wore the same 30 pounds of Individual Body Armor and the Kevlar Helmet as the U.S. military.'' It is only equitable that both military and civilian employees who are serving side by side receive the same tax treatment. In fact, even contract employees can get a tax break through the foreign earned investment tax credit, but Federal employees are specifically exempted from that tax credit. As a former Federal employee, I am keenly aware of the invaluable contributions Federal employees make to our country. I believe we must ensure that our Federal workforce is treated with fairness and respect. The Pentagon stated in the proposed regulations for the new National Security Personnel System that ``NSPS is essential to the department's efforts to create an environment in which the total force, uniformed personnel and civilians, think and operates as one cohesive unit.'' What kind of message does it send to civilian employees if they receive disparate tax status from their military colleagues? Just as military personnel, Federal employees serving in combat zones must leave their families behind and this can increase the financial burdens on families. Families with two working parents suddenly have only one parent able to care for the needs of the family. Military personnel in combat zones were given a tax credit back in 1913 to help alleviate their tax burden, but Federal employees were left out. Since 9/11 it has become ever more vital to have a thriving civil service participating in our efforts to fight the war on terrorism. Now more than ever in our nation's history we must take action that reflects the contributions both our civilian and military employees are making--in the war on terrorism and as well as the daily operations of the Federal Government in providing the services upon which every American relies. Federal employees are on the front lines of the war against terror. The first American to die in Afghanistan was a CIA agent from my district. Federal employees are in Iraq helping the Iraqi people to build a free nation. Throughout the world, America's civil servants are serving our government and our people, often in dangerous locations. How can we tell them we will not give them a fair and equitable tax credit that recognizes their hard work, dedication, and sacrifice? We are asking Federal employees to take on more and more responsibility every day. They are on the ground in the war on terrorism taking over new roles to relieve military personnel of tasks civilian employees can perform. They are all playing a vital role in keeping us safe and deserve to be treated with respect and fairness. We have a long tradition in the Congress of recognizing the valuable contributions of our federal employees in both the military service and in the civil service by providing fair and equitable treatment. This is not the time to shirk our duty to the civil service. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the Federal Employee Combat Zone Tax Parity Act.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I recently introduced legislation in the House of Representatives aimed at addressing the looming financial crisis facing the Nation, H.R. 5552--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 a recent analysis by the Heritage Foundation; a letter of support from the Concord Coalition; a letter from Douglas Holt- Eakin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, and letters from several former Members. I also am pleased to submit today the names of 20 of my colleagues who are co-sponsoring the SAFE Commission measure and urge the remainder of my colleagues to join as well. This legislation will be good for the future of America. The Concord 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 long-term 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 propoal 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 substanive 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, I rise in support of the bill. The bill brings accountability. I have a note here and I quote, ``CBO expects that the proposed amendment would not authorize any additional appropriations.'' I would read that one more time: ``CBO expects that the proposed amendment would not authorize any additional appropriations.'' I rise in support of the bill, H.R. 3496, the National Capital Transportation Amendments Act. The legislation would ensure, and what Mr. Davis is trying to do, accountability for the Federal funding that is provided to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, or, as they call it, Metro. The bill would require an IG office to be established and to provide oversight of the system. You would have thought that the system would have had an IG, but it requires Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia to identify dedicated funding sources to the Metro system. The bill also adds Federal members to the Metro board of directors, and I think these are good ideas. The Metro system in Washington, as Mr. Davis has said, is known as the Nation's subway system. Visitors from all over the country and the world use the system daily when visiting our Nation's Capital, and Metro's highest ridership, as Mr. Davis said, occurs when national events are taking place, such as Presidential inaugurations when people come from all over the country. The Metro system also supports the Federal workforce. Federal employees rely on the system. Many people up here on Capitol Hill and other agencies, FBI, CIA, DIA, DEA, all the other ones, commute back and forth to work every day. During peak times, over half of Metro's riders are Federal employees. Finally, this system is vital to the emergency needs of the region. During the terrorist attack of 9/11, Metro was a reliable way to ensure that thousands of people were able to safely and quickly evacuate the city. In order to help hold Metro accountable, which Mr. Davis's bill has done, is accountability for Metro for the use of its Federal funds. I urge adoption of this measure.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to begin by thanking Mr. Leach and Mr. Goodlatte for staying in there when the outside lobbyists were trying to control this institution. And people must know, if you go back and look at history, this institution, this institution, was manipulated by outside lobbyists. So there is a test today whether that outside lobby, outside influence will continue to take place. With the guilty plea of lobbyist Jack Abramoff and the information revealed about his role in the defeat of the Internet gambling ban a number of years ago, it is time to strengthen the law enforcement tools to crack down on illegal gambling. With online gambling, people can do it in their bathrobes, as Mr. Leach said. They can do it when they are standing in line. This is a test. Quite frankly, this is a test for this institution about outside influences, ones that all you have to do is read The Washington Post and the New York Times over and over and over to see what they have done. They have manipulated this place. And today, with Mr. Leach and Mr. Goodlatte and others, you have an opportunity to reverse the manipulation and pass this bill without amendment. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the legislation offered by my colleagues Jim Leach and Bob Goodlatte. I want to take this opportunity to commend them for working together and really sticking with it so that we could have a strong bill on the floor today that takes the strengths of each of their measures to comprehensively address Internet gambling. As the author of the legislation which established the National Gambling Impact Commission, I have long been concerned about the predatory nature of gambling and the corruption that is often associated with it. It seems as though every day in the news there is a new scandal related to gambling. Without this important legislation, there is no way to regulate Internet gambling. Today, gambling is legal in almost every State in the Union and more than 400 tribal casinos operate in over 30 States. Sadly, Internet gambling is a growing problem in America, particularly for our young people. You may recall that last December, Greg Hogan--a Lehigh University sophomore--made headlines when he robbed a bank in order to pay his online poker debt of more than $5,000. According to a PBS NewsHour report last spring, recent studies indicate that more than 70 percent of youth between the ages of 10 and 17 gambled in the past year, up from 45 percent in 1988. And of those who gamble online, an Annenberg Public Policy Center study released last fall indicates that almost 15 percent of our young people aged 14-22 gamble online at least once a month. While 15 percent may not set off alarm bells, consider that more than 50 percent of those who gamble once a week show signs of problem gambling. Gambling--and particularly online gambling--is a growing problem around the country. According to a Sports Illustrated article from last summer, more than 1.8 million online poker players gamble each month. They wager an average of $200 million a day. And the industry generates more than $2.2 billion, that's with a ``B,'' in gross revenue annually. I am pleased to support the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act that will improve law enforcement tools to address this problem. Additionally, I think we have momentum on our side to address the explosion of gambling. With the guilty plea of lobbyist Jack Abramoff and the information revealed about his role in the defeat of the Internet gambling ban a number of years ago, it's time to strengthen law enforcement's tools to crack down on illegal Internet gambling. With online gambling, people can do it in their bathrobes, in their family rooms, in fact they could even do it on their cell phones walking down the street. It's literally available everywhere at any time. The prevalence of online gambling and its explosive growth is a national disgrace that hurts young people. How will the Congress explain to the American people if it fails to address this issue? Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this legislation.

Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman. I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. It will gut the bill. If you want to kill this bill, hurt this bill, this amendment will do it. This is a poison pill. Mr. Goodlatte was right. God bless Mr. Goodlatte for staying in there. He is right. Members have been manipulated in the past. The question is, and I think the answer is, this Congress is not made up of people who are so stupid and able to be manipulated, and so my sense is that this Congress, when given an opportunity, will not allow this outside lobbyist, the outside groups to manipulate it again. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Conyers amendment and an ``aye'' vote and passage of the bill.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 5672, the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections and conforming changes to the bill.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the further consideration of H.R. 5672, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from Nevada.

Mr. WOLF. Reclaiming my time, I understand the gentleman's concerns, and I am glad the Judiciary Committee has agreed to work with him on this matter. The subcommittee will keep his concerns in mind.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, the subcommittee accepts the amendment.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment, because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill. It, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part, ``an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment requires a new determination. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment to cut $598 million from the bill. As the gentleman can see from the debate, and the other amendments offered on the bill, many Members feel the funding for a whole host of programs in this bill is already inadequate. The budget resolution passed by the Congress has imposed upon us a very restrictive spending climate. This amendment constitutes attempts to reopen the decisions we have already made in the budget resolution. The bill we are considering today stays within the budget resolution framework and represents a lot of hard work and hard decisions to match limited funds to competing national priorities. A number of accounts in the bill are funded very close to the bone. A reduction of 1 percent, many salaries and expenses would have a fairly dramatic and highly negative impact. I would ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I just want to thank the Chair for presiding very, very fairly and for correcting me on mistakes that I made without people knowing that I made the mistakes. But I think it was always very good to look up there and see your fair face, and you were very, very fair, I think, on both sides. I personally want to thank you very, very much on this bill but on many others that I have watched, but seeing you all day yesterday. So thank you. Also thank the staff on both sides of the aisle for the great job that they have done and the Members, and again, Congressman Hastings, I thank you very much.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).