Frank Wolf

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, if you were to listen to this debate, you would assume that this bill has zero in it for meth. I urge Members to turn to page 11. I know nobody reads the reports here, and it is pretty obvious, but in order to help Federal, State and local law enforcement address the meth epidemic, the recommendation provides $367 million for the Justice Assistance Grants which the administration proposed to eliminate, $99 million for meth specific grants, which is the authorized level, and $58 million above the budget request, $40,000 for drug core programs, an increase of $30 million with regard to that. You act as if we haven't done anything on meth. This amendment will devastate the census. I mean, no good deed goes unpunished in this institution sometimes. The administration zeros all this out. We met with every Member. Every Member that approached the committee, we tried to sit down and work it out with them to the best of it, to no avail. Then we just accepted the Reichert amendment. God bless Mr. Reichert for his efforts. He has probably forgotten more about this than most other Members, $25 million more that has just been accepted. Now we come out with another 50, 50, 50. Then, where does he get the money from? I think in the Constitution they talk about the census. It is my sense that that is in the census in the Constitution. At this stage, a reduction of this magnitude to the 2010 decennial census programs will impact fundamental missions of the Census Bureau, reapportionment, the funding that goes out to different localities. A complete and accurate count in 2010 will not be able to be achieved, particularly when they look for the dress rehearsal. The immediate ramifications are a disproportionate impact on vulnerable populations, irretrievable loss of testing opportunities to identify the problems. What can you say? Forget the census, blow it off, and put this in, even though the committee has increased it. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I tried, the committee tried. Every Member who spoke to me on either side, we really made a really sincere effort to address it. I went to Nebraska. I went out to Nebraska. The gentleman from Nebraska is right: they have a real, real problem. But if you would just kind of listen to this debate, you would automatically, if you were just tuning in in Dubuque or Des Moines, you would assume that there was nothing in here, that we had just been stone deaf, that we had not even listened. We added also, to keep in mind, we just added, under the Reichert amendment, $25 million. But in the committee report, on page 11, after really searching, I was very moved when I went out to Nebraska. I thought we want to do everything. And I have talked to Mr. Souder. And every time, I thought I have tried to do everything I could. Now, as Mr. Obey said, the budget resolutions come down, and the deficits are important and we talk. But here is what the conference report says: ``In order to help the Federal, State and local law enforcement address the meth epidemic, the recommendation provides $367 million for the Justice Assistance Grants program,'' they were wiped out, ``which the administration proposed to eliminate; $99 million for meth-specific grants, which is the authorized level, and $58 million plus above the budget request; $40,000 for Drug Court programs, which is $30 million above the current year, $5 million for State Prison Drug Treatment programs, which the administration proposed to eliminate, and also $15 million above the request for DEA.'' But if I had just listened to this debate, I would assume that this guy, Wolf, he was AWOL. He had no interest in meth. He was insensitive. Of course, my father was a policeman. I have five kids. I have 11 grandkids. I think the deficit is a problem. I sit in Republican conferences, and I even hear people talk about it. The Constitution requires that we do the census. It requires it. It isn't optional. We will use it to reapportion. And so I think what is taken here, you go to the weakest and the most vulnerable. There is not a lobby downtown for the Census Bureau. It just is not. It is an easy vote. I am going to call for a roll call vote. We will have a roll call vote. But there is no support for the census, except in the Constitution. This guy named Jefferson and Washington and Madison and Monroe, they thought it was important. But now we are going to take $50 million. I am sort of baffled. I guess it would have been almost easier to sometimes just not kind of go up anytime and try to listen, and then come down and take amendments on the floor that you were almost going to take. I think I am going to lose this amendment. But I believe that I am right. And I believe for us to take this money out of the Census Bureau, I think they could have probably found another spot. But one spot has a strong lobby downtown; probably a lot of registered lobbyists are working on that area. Another, are there any registered lobbyists for the Census Bureau? Zero. Zip.

Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman and his party have 5 additional minutes to make their case.

Mr. WOLF. Reclaiming my time, constitutional requirement, article I, section 2, we are required to take the decennial census. We ramp up to it. There has been controversy on this legislation. I say, God bless the Members that offered this. If you really feel so strong, vote for it. And I hope the money goes for the good. But I think when I look at this, I kind of feel, looking at this, as we work this bill through, I just don't understand. And I don't see how we can just take it from there. Patton, Boggs and Blow doesn't represent the census. Aiken Gump doesn't represent the census. They represent the Chinese, but not the census. So we are going to go to the weakest, most vulnerable. Article I, section 2 of the Constitution. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, though I am not in opposition since the gentlewoman has withdrawn the amendment.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I pledge to do everything we can in conference, and I know Mr. Mollohan feels the same way and we have had the conversation with other members, to keep the figure at this number. It is a 300 percent increase. Drug courts are very, very important. So I will do everything I can, and I know Mr. Mollohan will also agree, to keep this in. And I thank the gentlewoman. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee do now rise.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring the attention of the House to an article I recently read about Tiger Woods in The Stuttering Foundation's summer newsletter. I stuttered as a child and I think it's important for kids to know that they can overcome this complex disorder. Tiger Woods is an excellent example of the many people who have led successful productive lives despite struggling with stuttering as a child. Tiger Wins at Golf--and Stuttering Top-ranked golfer Tiger Woods tells CBS's 60 Minutes that it takes hard work and a competitive spirit to overcome childhood stuttering. ``The words got lost, you know, somewhere between the brain and the mouth. And it was very difficult, but I fought through it. I went to a school to try and get over that, and I just would work my tail off,'' Woods told the news program in April. ``The parallels between speech performance and sports performance are striking,'' said Jane Fraser, president of the Stuttering Foundation, ``and Tiger Woods is the latest example of how the many hours of practice and hard work to win in sports are no different from those long hours spent in therapy for stuttering.'' NBA Hall of Famer and sports commentator Bill Walton dealt with stuttering just like he did basketball. ``I thought about the fundamentals of the game and how to start with the basics like the ability to mechanically duplicate moves on a basketball court. And then I just applied that to speaking.'' Chicago Bulls' legend Bob Love notes that ``countless hours of work taught me to manage moments of difficult speech.'' In a recent interview, Denver Nuggets' star Kenyon Martin said of his stuttering, ``How I got through it was just by working hard at it.'' U.S. Open golf champion Ken Venturi adds, ``I have had to work through the years to overcome stuttering and to speak more easily and fluently.'' Venturi compares moving smoothly through speech to moving gracefully through a golf stroke. ``Tiger Woods is the perfect role model for all school-age children who struggle with this complex disorder,'' said Fraser. The Foundation offers free resources at www.stutteringhelp.org where Tiger joins a long list of celebrities who stutter.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. The war on terror and this whole thing began really in 1980 when our embassy was taken over in Iran and the bombing of the Marine barracks in 1983, Lebanon, embassy in 1983, USS Cole, Khobar Towers, Nairobi, Tanzania. I have so much that I want to say. I will just say this. If we were to set a date, the Mujahedin would say we defeated the Russians in Afghanistan, we defeated America in Iraq and the jihad would take place all over this world. This would be a very, very dangerous thing to say. So I rise in strong, strong support of this resolution and say we can and will win this war. I remember when I read the book by Whittaker Chambers. He was a witness. He said when I left the Communist Party, I believed I was leaving the winning side and joining the losing side. Whittaker Chambers was wrong because of people like Ronald Reagan. We must be resolute. I rise in support of the resolution. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 861 and to show my support for our troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan who are on the front lines in the global war on terrorism. I commend our forces for the recent actions in targeting Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the insurgent leader killed in an airstrike June 7. I also commend President Bush for his visit earlier this week to Iraq to meet with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and encourage the work of the new Iraqi government. I share the deep concerns about the continuing violence in post-war Iraq, which is taking the lives of U.S. military personnel and civilians. I continue to pray for the protection of the men and women who are putting their lives on the line every day to help the Iraqi people as they build their own government, and also for their families here at home who continue to make tremendous sacrifices. I recognize there were good and reasonable people on both sides of the decision to send U.S. armed forces to Iraq. But whether or not you agreed with that decision, we are there now and cannot just walk away. Too much is at stake. The success of our efforts in Iraq and the success of the Iraqi people in establishing their own government are critical to the overall war against terror and to the security of our country and the world. Our efforts in Iraq, many believe, are an important campaign in the global war on terrorism. Our world is a dangerous place, and as we learned on September 11, 2001, terrorism is not something in a far away land. We did not seek this war. We were attacked on our own soil, and this war is a different kind than any our Nation has ever fought. But it is one we are fighting to make our own nation and the world more secure. It is critical that we remain resolute in this fight. I believe a case can be made that the war on terrorism really began more than 20 years ago with the attacks against America at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon. The bombing there in the spring of 1983 killed 63 and wounded 120. Later that year, 241 U.S. servicemen--220 Marines, 18 Navy members and three Army members--were killed when a truck bomb exploded at their barracks in Beirut. Those attacks were followed in 1993 by the first World Trade Center bombing in New York City, in 1996 by the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, in 1998 by the U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, and in 2000 in the attack in Yemen on the USS Cole. After the attacks on the two embassies in Africa in 1998, I became very concerned about the U.S. response to terrorism and authored the legislation creating the National Commission on Terrorism. On the cover of that report is a photo of the twin towers in New York on fire after the 1993 attack. The foreboding nature of that photo is now all too real as we relive the destruction of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Late last summer I returned to Iraq for a third time. I have now visited all but the Kurdish areas in northern Iraq. With each successive trip, I have seen improvements--renovated schools, cleaner water systems, new Iraqi army constituted. I also have seen the continuing and serious security problems and other challenges facing a liberated Iraq, and I have heard caution from varied sources about the potentially cataclysmic consequences of America withdrawing before our mission is complete. I had the opportunity to speak with our troops who are performing their duties with professionalism and dedication. They are positive about their mission and are doing an outstanding job in fulfilling it. One interesting comment I heard on that trip is that we can't expect to rebuild Iraq on our timetable, but rather it must be on Iraq's timetable. Life--and timetables--in Iraq are not the same as in the United States. This is a very key point, and one the Bush administration needs to do a better job of explaining. It also is important to remember that the United States had its share of growing pains. While our revolution was in 1776 it was 11 years before our forefathers began to draft a constitution and it wasn't ratified until 1789. Few remember that our constitution was debated in complete secrecy. Delegates knew that they would generate heated differences and did not want to advertise their own dissensions or put crippling arguments into the mouths of the opposition. We also had leaders like George Washington, Ben Franklin, George Mason and James Madison who had the benefit of understanding British history in addition to being exposed to the workings of the House of Commons. Democracy and an elected government is truly a foreign concept to the Iraqi people. The Bush administration also needs to do a better job of explaining what the consequences of ``failing'' in Iraq would mean to the average person in Chantilly, VA, Topeka, KS, or Portland, OR. I repeatedly asked people I met during the trip--from generals, to State Department officials, to members of the Iraqi government--what they thought ``failure'' would mean. The responses were frightening. I heard references to Somalia--think of the movie ``Black Hawk Down''--and the former Yugoslavia with all its ethnic cleansing. The images that flashed in my mind when I heard these countries were disturbing. I was in Somalia during the crisis in 1993. I traveled to Sarajevo and the Yugoslavia region several times in the early to mid- 1990s where so many were killed. In fact, all the people I met with in Vukovar, Croatia, in 1991 were killed several months later and are now buried in mass graves. Many speculated that civil war would break out in Iraq and even more foreign fighters from across the region would pour into Iraq in hopes of influencing the outcome. I was told almost all of the insurgents carrying out the suicide attacks are foreigners, most coming across the Syrian border from places like Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan and Afghanistan. I was told militias continue to fight each other on a regular basis in some parts of the country. If our mission fails and civil war comes, the country would almost certainly break into three parts: the Kurds in the north, the Sunnis in central Iraq, and the Shias in the south. It is believed the Kurds would most likely be able to keep from being drawn into the fighting and govern themselves. In the central region of the Sunni Triangle, warring factions would fight for control and most agree that there would be sheer chaos. Iran's presence was felt in the south as it tried to influence the recent elections and if civil war were to break out, elements in Iran may well involve themselves in the south. With civil war, almost everyone I asked said that Iraq would become a haven from which terrorist groups could launch attacks against the United States and other countries. No one has to be reminded of what happened on 9/11. Thirty people from my congressional district died that day among the 3,000 who perished. Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups would like nothing more than to have a new ``base'' from which to operate, much like Afghanistan in the 1990s after the Soviets were defeated. There is no denying that the terrorists have designs on the United States and, as one officer told me, ``We must win the war so we don't fight the next war in America.'' Terrorists are doing everything in their power to prevent the United States and its coalition partners from being successful in Iraq. They believe time is on their side and that they can ``wait out'' the United States. They will do anything--including blowing themselves up in busy marketplaces--to disrupt our progress and turn the Iraqi people against us. They believe that the war being fought in Iraq is not a ``military'' war but rather a ``political'' war and American public opinion will dictate when the United States leaves, not military success. There is a general belief among terrorism experts that the top priority of terrorists is to seek chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons. The video of two commercial airliners being flown into the World Trade Center is ingrained in every American's mind. I shudder to think what terrorists would do if they obtained a biological or chemical weapon. Many I spoke with also said failure in Iraq could destabilize the entire Gulf region and possibly lead to the downfall of the governments of Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Failure also could have serious impact on the world's economy. Japan gets more than 75 percent of its oil from the region, Western Europe, 30 percent, and the United States, 22 percent. We saw what happened in the wake of Hurricane Katrina as consumers feared gas shortages. Failure in Iraq would make oil costs even higher and have a major negative impact throughout our entire economy. Others said they believe the United States has a moral obligation to the people of Iraq to successfully complete what it started. They asked how the American public would feel if civil war were to break out and thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqis were slaughtered in the subsequent fighting? Finally, many believe the United States's credibility is at stake. In a piece in the Washington Post's Outlook section last September, Victor Davis Hanson, a military historian at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and the author of ``A War Like No Other,'' wrote: . . . If we fled precipitously, moderates in the Middle East could never again believe American assurances of support for reform and would have to retreat into the shadows--or find themselves at the mercy of fascist killers. Jihadists would swell their ranks as they hyped their defeat of the American infidels. Our forward strategy of hitting terrorists hard abroad would be discredited and replaced by a return to the pre-9/11 tactics of a few cruise missiles and writs. And loyal allies in Eastern Europe, the United Kingdom, Australia and Japan, along with new friends in India and the former Soviet republics, would find themselves leaderless in the global struggle against Islamic radicalism. Failure cannot be an option in Iraq nor can creating an arbitrary deadline for pulling out U.S. troops. The ramifications on our country and other countries in the West would be huge. Our withdrawal must be event driven and not artificially tied to a calendar. Many I talked to said we must set conditions for victory, not dates for withdrawal. The Bush administration needs to do a better job articulating just what is at stake and the potentially catastrophic consequences. No one believes we will lose the war on the ground in Iraq; it's here at home that there is a concern. I had one general officer say point blank that the ``center of gravity'' for our success in Iraq is the American public. That said, I strongly believe that it would be of great value to have an independent review of ongoing operations in Iraq. I call this effort ``fresh eyes on the target'' and offered this suggestion following my latest trip to Iraq. On March 15, I was pleased to attend the announcement of the formation of the 10-member bipartisan Iraq Study Group, being led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton, who co-chaired the 9/11 Commission. The members, as are their co-leaders, are among America's most honorable and venerable citizens: former CIA Director Robert Gates, former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese, former Clinton adviser Vernon Jordan, former Clinton Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, former Defense Secretary William Perry, former Virginia Senator Chuck Robb, former Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson, and former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. The study group was launched in partnership with the United States Institute of Peace, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Center for the Study of the Presidency, and the Baker Institute for Public Policy at Rice University. Its mission is to undertake a bipartisan, forward-looking assessment of the current and prospective situation on the ground in Iraq, its impact on the surrounding region, and its consequences on U.S. interests and it will focus on political, military, security and reconstruction in Iraq. The group will travel to Iraq and report to the American people. I understand they will meet with President Bush this week. It will assess what is working and what changes should be made in helping the Iraqi people to establish their own government and stop the terrorist insurgency which is continuing to foment the violence of the Saddam Hussein regime. One of the most critical jobs of this panel is to determine the ramifications of failure to accomplish our country's mission in Iraq and to explain that to the American people. In the 1930s, the world failed to stand up to fascism. When we--with our allies--did stand up and fight, we defeated fascism. It also took some time for the world to stand up to communism. But when we did, we defeated communism. Now we face al Qaeda and its leader Osama bin Laden, who in his own words has said he will use chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons against us. We must continue the determined effort now that we have had in the wars over the years as we fight terrorism. Standing together, I believe we can defeat this threat to the freedoms and liberties and way of life we have fought to maintain for well over two centuries.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I want to just, before I talk on this resolution, mention the one on Tiananmen. I want to be here and have the world know that I stood with the tank man and stood with those who are in prison in Tiananmen. Chris Smith and I were in Beijing Prison Number 1. I am sure he talked about it. But some of those young men and women are still in prison today, and some of you listening to this are wearing socks or underwear that have been made by them. So I want the world to know, Tiananmen Square demonstrators are still in prison, still in prison. Now, on this resolution, I want to express grave disappointment with the Bush administration. I wrote every member of the Bush administration after meeting with dissidents in China and over here, who said, please have the Bush administration come to our church services, the way that they did in the Reagan administration with regard to the Soviet Union. They said, please, we will stand with them. We want someone, someone from the Bush administration to come into a house church. We are tired of seeing the Bush administration going into the churches that are recognized by the Chinese government. So I wrote every high appointee in the Bush administration and I asked them would they call the individuals and stand with them, go to their apartments, as we used to do in the 1980s in Moscow with the Sakharovs and the Scharanksys, and in 3 months, not one Bush administration person has taken the time to pick up the telephone and to call the name and the telephone numbers of the individuals. What do you get out of the Bush administration? Silence. Silence. We should remember the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, who said, and I quote, ``In the end we will remember not the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends.'' And Dr. King's statement is so poignant. ``In times of trouble, the silence of an enemy is expected, but the silence of a friend is devastating.'' I ask the Bush administration to break the silence. Speak out for Riba Qadiri, speak out for the Catholic Church. Speak out for the Evangelical Church. Speak out for those in Tibet who are being persecuted. The young Buddhist nun who came to my office 2 weeks ago had been in the Drapchi prison for 15 years for doing nothing. This is a test. I am writing the Bush administration officials again, and I am giving the telephone number to call. I say now, with this opportunity, and I am going to give them the words of Dr. Martin Luther King. Silence should be over. It is now time for the Bush administration to adopt the policies of the Reagan administration, of Ronald Reagan, to stand with the dissidents because by standing next, it is like in government or politics. If somebody says they are really for you, but they don't want to be identified with you, how much are they really for you? How much is the Bush administration really for the Catholic Church in China? How much is the Bush administration really for the Evangelical house church who are putting their lives on the line? How much are they for those who are being persecuted in Tibet? How much are they for the Uighurs? How much for the Falun Gong? And keep in mind, this government is spying against our government much more aggressively than they did in the Soviet Union. I close again with the words of Dr. Martin Luther King. ``In the end we will remember not the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends.'' If the Bush administration wants to be the friends of the dissidents, the silence should be broken. And Clark Randt, our Ambassador in China, should be the first one to begin to break the silence.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. I heard Mr. English speaking and wanted to come over to add my support for this resolution. Frankly, this whole place ought to be packed with people speaking on behalf of this resolution. Today in China, the Catholic Church is being severely persecuted. Why has the administration been silent, and other than this resolution, why has the Congress been relatively silent? There are a number of Catholic bishops that are in jail today, as stated in the New York Times piece the other day. There is also the issue of what they have done to the Vatican with regard to the Chinese Communist Government. Evangelical church leaders are being persecuted. I just wanted to put my two cents in with regard to support of this. For Members who just think this is another political thing, this is a moral issue. Isaiah says, ``Learn to do right, seek justice, encourage the oppressed.'' By passing this resolution, we encourage the oppressed. Isaiah goes on to say in Isaiah 59, ``The Lord looked and was displeased there was no justice.'' When the Lord looks at China, he has got to be displeased that there is no justice. Isaiah goes on to say, ``He saw that there was no one, he was appalled that there was no one to intervene.'' Fortunately, Mr. English, Mr. Smith and Mr. Lantos are intervening. But this Congress has to do more, and this administration's silence is becoming deafening on this issue. The condition in China with regard to the Catholic Church, the Protestant Church, the Uighurs, the Buddhists is worse today after President Hu left than before President Hu came. I want to thank the gentlemen for cosponsoring this. We ought to have a roll call vote. Frankly, everybody ought to vote on this issue because this would send a message to the Chinese Communist Government that this Congress will become again like the Congress was during the 1980s during the Reagan administration and will not stand for it.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, few are willing to admit--much less discuss-- the looming financial crisis facing our country. However, the longer we put off fixing the problem, the worse the medicine will be and the greater the number of Americans who will be hurt. We need to begin this conversation with the American people today. That is why I am introducing legislation to establish a national 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. Many will say the problem is too big to be fixed. Some will view the proposal as too risky, particularly in an election year. Others will say it is an abdication of congressional responsibility. My response to such comments is that the problem is so great we can no longer look for excuses not to act. Nothing, I believe, is too big to undertake. 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. And it's been both sides of the aisle and in both Republican and Democrat administrations. The growing gap between money that has been promised to future generations in various entitlement programs and that which is available to pay these promised benefits is staggering. To meet the government's current unfunded promises for future spending, every American--including multimillionaires like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett--would have to hand over 90 percent of their personal net worth in today's dollars. This is unacceptable. I deeply believe there is a moral component 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. A month ago 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 than 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 recently 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. And with Memorial Day's recent passing, I 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 two short years, the baby boom generation will begin trickling into retirement. Five 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. 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 disaster 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 3 workers for each retiree and is expected to drop to just 2 workers for each retiree by 2030. The 2006 Social Security Trustees Report paints a grim picture with projections that the Social Security Trust Funds will begin running cash flow deficits in 2017 and be exhausted in 2040--one year sooner than last year's projection. That means that by the year 2040, the projected federal income will only be sufficient to pay 74 percent of scheduled benefits. 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, 12 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.'' As a father of five and grandfather of 11--soon to be 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 two 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? Before he left the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan gave a speech in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, where he echoed the significance of the coming baby boom retirement on our budget and economy. In stark language, he noted that because of lower fertility rates and longer life expectancies, we are faced with dramatic elderly dependency ratios that will pose ``substantial challenges to Social Security,'' which he noted is already in ``chronic deficit.'' 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 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. In fact, we have benefitted greatly from low long-term interest rates that have been kept low largely because of continued foreign purchases of our national debt. As our fiscal deficit grows, we can finance it in one of three ways: through foreign-held debt, through reduced domestic spending, or by selling U.S. goods abroad. In 2004, foreigners bought $900 billion of U.S. long-term bonds. I am told that we now need more than $2.6 billion a day of capital inflows to fund our savings shortfall. 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. 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. 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 introducing legislation to establish 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 six months in order to hear directly from the American people. The SAFE commission will be comprised of 15 voting members, three of which will be appointed by the president, three by the Senate Majority Leader, three by the Senate Minority Leader, three by the Speaker of the House, and three by the House Minority Leader. The director of 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 the chair from among the 15 voting members. To be successful, I believe the commission must include men and women who are more committed to their country than they are to their political party and committed to working in a bipartisan manner. Names such as former U.S. Treasury secretaries James Baker and Robert Rubin, former Federal Reserve Chairmen Alan Greenspan and Paul Volker, former Senators Phil Gramm and Bob Kerrey and former Congressmen John Kasich and Charlie Stenholm come to mind. Leading economists from both the public and private sectors must also be included on the panel. Bipartisanship is critical to the commission's success. I have heard criticism that such weighty decisions on the Nation's financial future are the responsibility of Congress. Because of the ever-increasing politically charged atmosphere that has come to characterize dealings in our capital city, I fear that partisan rather than national interest has become the order of the day. Congress is paralyzed. Our political system is polarized. Many now only think about ``red'' or ``blue'' ideology, which has led to paralysis and disregard of the common good. The American people deserve an honest assessment about the federal government's future saving's account and checkbook--a discussion driven not by politics, but by statesmanship and one which elevates the Nation's sights. Working together to find common ground, this 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. 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. 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. In looking at revenues, I believe any changes in 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. After spending six 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 two-thirds 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 60 additional days to develop actuarially equivalent proposals to achieve the same cost savings. Essentially, no later than 10 months from the organization of the commission, Congress would be required to vote--up or down--on each proposal. For example, if the interim report is delivered on January 1, then the commission's legislative package would be due by March 1 and any alternative developed by Congress or the Administration would have to be presented by May 1. 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. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor for me today to recognize the recent D.A.R.E. graduates from Mill Run Elementary School in Ashburn, Virginia. D.A.R.E.--Drug Abuse Resistance Education--has a long history of providing children with the information and skills they need to live drug-and-violence-free lives and I was pleased to recently visit the fifth graders at Mill Run as they completed this program. I would like to recognize Mill Run principal, Paul Vickers, and fifth grade teachers, Ms. Garofalo, Ms. Neely, Ms. Page, Ms. Sovereign, Ms. Williams, Ms. Wolff, and Mr. Wolslayer. Special acknowledgment also goes to D.A.R.E. officer, Deputy Lynette Ridgley, who is specially trained to work with students, answer their questions, and establish a positive relationship between students, law enforcement, and the community. The D.A.R.E. program, supported by dedicated school faculty, has helped to address the critical need to educate our youth on the consequences of involvement in drugs, gangs, and violence, and how to avoid risky behavior. Several students at Mill Run Elementary received special awards for poster and essay submissions. Poster winners include Krista Sanders-Mason, Manik Dayal, William Kim, Ryan Orr, Rob Kramer, Renato Mazzei, Ellie Ferguson, and Brigitte Ganzer. Essay winners include Rachael Williams, Brandon Greer, Francesca Beller, TJ Soroka, Nick Carroll, Emily Ready, and Colin Ceresa. I have inserted for the record these students' essays because I feel it is important to hear from the students themselves about how much of an impact the D.A.R.E program has made. One student, TJ Soroka, says it plain and simple, ``The information taught in the D.A.R.E. program has given me the knowledge to make good decisions in my life.'' (By T.J. Soroka) When you go to school, you take many subjects, but this year I took one program unlike any other. That was DARE which stands for Drug Abuse Resistance Education. It's not taught by any ordinary teacher, in fact, DARE is taught by a Deputy Sheriff who works in Loudoun County. When we started DARE, I thought it would only be about smoking and drugs. But we also learned about inhalants, making good decisions, friendship qualities, being confident, and much more. But I gained the most knowledge in DARE while learning about tobacco and the qualities of a good friend. Before you smoke a cigarette, think of all the bad things you're doing, such as putting 200 poisons in your body. Also, you aren't just hurting yourself, you're hurting the environment and the people around you. If you're under 18, it's against the law to smoke. I hope you don't smoke a cigarette, now knowing the affects of it. Do you think your friends have good traits? Do they treat you like a friend? True friends have these qualities. They are loyal to you and you can trust them. Also, they have a bright personality so they can cheer you up. Last, if your friend asks you to smoke, you should have a second thought about them being your friend, after making a bad decision. The Information taught In the DARE program has given me knowledge to make good decisions. DARE also teaches you how to say no to drugs and other substances. Next, DARE has taught me affects of drugs and everything else. DARE has gave me the knowledge to make good decisions in my life.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor for me today to recognize the recent DARE graduates from Mill Run Elementary School in Centreville, VA. DARE--Drug Abuse Resistance Education--has a long history of providing children with the information and skills they need to live drug-and-violence-free lives and I was pleased to recently visit the fifth graders at Mill Run as they completed this program. I would like to recognize Mill Run Principal Paul Vickers and fifth grade teachers, Ms. Garofalo, Ms. Neely, Ms. Page, Ms. Sovereign, Ms. Williams, Ms. Wolff, and Mr. Wolslayer. Special acknowledgment also goes to DARE officer, Deputy Lynette Ridgley, who is specially trained to work with students, answer their questions, and establish a positive relationship between students, law enforcement, and the community. The DARE program, supported by dedicated school faculty, has helped to address the critical need to educate our youth on the consequences of involvement in drugs, gangs, and violence, and how to avoid risky behavior. Several students at Mill Run Elementary received special awards for poster and essay submissions. Poster winners include Krista Sanders- Mason, Manik Dayal, William Kim, Ryan Orr, Rob Kramer, Renato Mazzei, Ellie Ferguson, and Brigitte Ganzer. Essay winners include Rachael Williams, Brandon Greer, Francesca Beller, T.J. Soroka, Nick Carroll, Emily Ready, and Colin Ceresa. I have inserted for the Record these students' essays because I feel it is important to hear from the students themselves about how much of an impact the DARE program has made. One student, T.J. Soroka, says it plain and simple, ``The information taught in the DARE program has given me the knowledge to make good decisions in my life.'' (By T.J. Soroka) When you go to school, you take many subjects, but this year I took one program unlike any other. That was DARE which stands for Drug Abuse Resistance Education. It's not taught by any ordinary teacher, in fact, DARE is taught by a Deputy Sheriff who works in Loudoun County. When we started DARE, I thought it would only be about smoking and drugs. But we also learned about inhalants, making good decisions, friendship qualities, being confident, and much more. But I gained the most knowledge in DARE while learning about tobacco and the qualities of a good friend. Before you smoke a cigarette, think of all the bad things you're doing, such as putting 200 poisons in your body. Also, you aren't just hurting yourself, you're hurting the environment and the people around you. If you're under 18, it's against the law to smoke. I hope you don't smoke a cigarette, now knowing the affects of it. Do you think your friends have good traits? Do they treat you like a friend? True friends have these qualities. They are loyal to you and you can trust them. Also, they have a bright personality so they can cheer you up. Last, if your friend asks you to smoke, you should have a second thought about them being your friend, after making a bad decision. The information taught in the DARE program has given me knowledge to make good decisions. DARE also teaches you how to say no to drugs and other substances. Next, DARE has taught me affects of drugs and everything else. DARE has gave me the knowledge to make good decisions in my life.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the Chantilly High School National Economics Challenge Team for their tremendous success in this year's competition. The Chantilly High team, comprised of students Adriana Medina, Natalie Mutchler, Alex Pepper and Sam Perkins, and their teacher/adviser, Joseph Clement, should be extremely proud of being named runner-up in the David Ricardo Division of the National Economics Challenge. The students from Chantilly High School have the distinction of being one of the top four teams in a national competition involving more than 1000 teams. The National Council on Economic Education and the Goldman Sachs Foundation established the Challenge in 2000 to provide a competitive format to test the knowledge of the best economics students in the country. The NCEE's mission is to improve economics education in grades K-12 through teacher training and development of instructional materials. I ask that my colleagues join me in recognizing the Chantilly High School Economics Challenge Team for their outstanding accomplishment.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, many of our colleagues and staff who are on the Hill today may not remember Marvin ``Lucky'' Mondres, but those of us who have been around for a while will recall Lucky ran Representative Burke's Washington office for several years. Our paths first crossed when I served at the Interior Department and Lucky was my counterpart as the congressional liaison officer for the Commerce Department in the early 1970s. He served with distinction at Commerce and in several other Departments in both the Nixon and Ford administrations. Members on both sides of the aisle came to know that if they needed information or assistance, they could depend on Lucky to be forthright and diligent in providing it. I want to share the news that Lucky is battling the final stages of cancer. But as those who know him would guess, he is not dwelling on that but is focused on living each day to the fullest, just as he has done his entire life. In his retirement years in Massanutten in Virginia's Shenandoah Valley, he has devoted his time to his children and his grandchildren, with some charity work along the way, and always some time for golf. We want to thank Lucky for his public service and his contributions to our country and ask the Good Lord to bless him.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, last week the Nation lost a giant in the field of journalism when A.M. ``Abe'' Rosenthal passed away at age 84. He was a Pulitzer Prize-winning foreign correspondent and executive editor of the New York Times. After his days directing the newsroom were over, he penned the op-ed column, ``On My Mind,'' for the Times and later the New York Daily News, a forum from which he championed the cause of freedom and human rights. As Nicholas Kristof, who won a Pulitzer Prize last month as a Times op-ed columnist, said at Mr. Rosenthal's funeral, Abe Rosenthal used his column to make matters like human rights violations in China and Sudan ``recognizable as issues.'' ``Abe fought to cure our blind spots, and it worked,'' Mr. Kristof said. ``He did indeed teach us to see.'' Mr. Speaker, I insert for the Record an obituary from The Washington Post and an op-ed column by Mr. Rosenthal's son Andrew, a New York Times deputy editorial page editor, remembering Abe Rosenthal. [From the New York Times, May 17, 2006] I Never Wrote for My Father (By Andrew Rosenthal) Funerals have a way of reframing memories. After the burial of my father, A. M. Rosenthal, who ran The Times for nearly 20 years and wrote a column for 13 more, I recalled the day I met President George H. W. Bush, not long after I became a White House correspondent. I was allowed to sit in on an interview that two of my colleagues, Maureen Dowd and Thomas L. Friedman, were doing for a magazine article. The White House told me not to ask questions, but after a while, Mr. Bush said to me, ``You've been quiet.'' I said the interview was supposed to be strictly about the magazine article, but as long as he'd asked, what did he think about the latest development on Lithuania? He was angry and would not answer. He said he was ``not gonna be sandbagged in the Oval Office.'' On the way out, Marlin Fitzwater, Mr. Bush's spokesman, helpfully noted that my introduction to Mr. Bush had gone badly. He explained that Mr. Bush was unhappy with my father for writing in his column that Mr. Bush had appeased the Communists on China and (oh, great!) on Lithuania. ``The president doesn't differentiate between you and your father,'' he said. I sputtered that the White House owed me for five years' psychotherapy. I'd only just begun convincing myself I was my own man in my father's field, and now I learned that The Leader of the Free World could not tell us apart? It was naive, of course, to think I could hide that little coincidence of a last name. Dad was not just seen as the embodiment of The Times; he saw himself that way. During the tumultuous year 1968, my father said I could not wear an Army fatigue jacket because anti-Vietnam protesters wore them. ``When you go out,'' he said, not for the first or last time, ``you're representing The Times.'' I was 12 years old at the time. Still, I tried to walk around as if I were not really Abe's son, first at The Associated Press, where I was a national and foreign correspondent for nine years, and then at The Times. (I even left the middle initial, M., out of my byline because my father's initials were so famous.) I started to get the point that hiding in plain sight was not working when I noticed that I hadn't received any checks from WQXR, the Times radio station, for a weekly radio spot. It turns out that WQXR was sending the $70 checks to A. M. Rosenthal, instead of Andrew Rosenthal. I called my father, outraged. He had been happily cashing the checks. He said he hadn't known why WQXR was paying him, but ``when someone gives me a check, baby, I cash it.'' I should have found the whole thing funny, but I didn't. Then about a year later, I got a check for a reprint of my father's classic 1958 essay, ``There Is No News From Auschwitz.'' I sent him a copy of the check stub with a note: ``When someone gives me a check, baby, I cash it.'' Dad thought it was hilarious. And I've long since realized that I overreacted on the ``Abe's kid'' front. But since my father died, I've realized something else. When I read his obituary to my children, their amazement at his accomplishments was matched by my amazement at how much I had forgotten, even discounted. Then colleagues began sharing their experiences of my father. They said what I knew, that he could be stubborn, unreasonable and prone to anger. But what they held on was how sure he was in his vision for the paper, how filled with exuberance and a certainty about journalism that he freely bestowed. I received dozens of stories about how he'd shaped a reporter's career, how he'd traveled around the world to get a correspondent out of trouble, how he'd stood up equally to K.G.B. generals and to U.S. officials, how he'd helped young people become better journalists, how he'd changed The Times and the newspaper business. Jose Lopez, a photographer and photo editor, said the first time they met, Abe Rosenthal told him, ``Always be the hawk; never be the blackbird that sits on the wire.'' David Sanger said when he'd been a news clerk laboring to become a reporter, he'd come to his desk one day to find Champagne and a note: ``For an explanation, see the executive editor.'' Abe had promoted David, and wanted to celebrate with him. ``I wouldn't argue that he was always the easiest boss,'' David wrote. But, he said, my father ``knew how to infuse you with his sheer joy of reporting and experiencing the world.'' Alan Cowell recalled how Abe Rosenthal flew to South Africa in 1986 to argue the authorities out of expelling him. John Burns, whose courage is endless, said Abe ``set the trajectory of my life.'' Maureen Dowd reminded me that her mother had kept letters from my father framed in her home until the day she died. In an era when journalism is commoditized, digitized and endlessly televised, I feel the loss of that passion, drive, emotion and energy. I also feel regret--not for sometimes pushing my father away as I tried to be independent. I know I was right to wait until he'd retired as executive editor before joining The Times. But I missed something big. I never got to work for Abe.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I rise today because we must find ways to effectively address the rising gas prices the citizens of the Nation are paying at the pump. Last week the House passed new legislation to address price gouging at the pump and set Federal penalties for price manipulation. The major oil companies say there are many factors in gas pricing, including basic economics of supply and demand, the switch to ethanol from MTBE as a clean fuel additive, and lack of refining capacity, among others, and that they have no control over the spiking gas prices. But my constituents, especially working people raising families and those on fixed incomes whose wallets are being pinched tighter and tighter, tell me they are not satisfied with those answers. Madam Speaker, it is time for the President to use the bully pulpit to get to the bottom of this issue the way that Teddy Roosevelt did. He should call to the Oval Office every chief executive of the major oil companies and let them explain to the American people why the average price for a gallon of unleaded gasoline in the United States today is nearly $3, and in some areas at least a dime over that. There is another area of the energy market that also needs attention. Recent news accounts have theorized that the commodity futures trading market could be partly responsible for the rapid jumps in gasoline prices over the past couple of months. This past weekend, television investigative reports pointed to the energy trading industry as an area in need of investigation to see if fraud or manipulation is occurring. I learned yesterday that bipartisan legislation was introduced in the Senate on this matter. Senators Feinstein and Snowe have a bill that would increase transparency and accountability in the energy markets. Madam Speaker, according to our colleagues, energy trades are often made using an electronic trading platform where no records are kept, so there is no audit trail for the Government to monitor. Currently, most energy exchanges occur on the New York Mercantile Exchange or on electronic exchanges such as the InterContinental Exchange. I was surprised to learn that while the New York Mercantile Exchange is regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the electronic exchanges like the InterContinental Exchange are largely unregulated, even though it is estimated that up to 80 percent of our energy commodities are traded on the InterContinental Exchange. Under CFTC regulations, traders using the New York Mercantile Exchange must keep records for 5 years and report large trading positions to the commission. But traders using the InterContinental Exchange keep no records. Additionally, traders using the New York exchange are subject to other Federal regulations, like limits on how much of a given commodity can be traded in one day. Traders using the InterContinental Exchange are not. Where is the transparency? Where is the accountability? Who are these speculators? The American people need to know their government is leaving no stone unturned in investigating this issue. After Hurricane Katrina, we saw prices jump. Many Americans certainly understood Katrina's wrath, but there were questions raised then about the almost overnight jump of gasoline prices. To find out if indeed there was gouging at the pump, this Congress ordered an investigation in last year's commerce spending bill. The FTC will report on May 22. Can markets really be manipulated? Think back to the electricity market manipulation by Enron. As a result, last year's energy bill gave more authority to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in the regulation of natural gas and electricity markets including more transparency. In closing, there is no similar process for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in the unregulated energy markets. Who is to say whether investment firms, commercial bankers or hedge funds could actually be driving up oil prices through futures trading? Madam Speaker, as I mentioned at the beginning, a good place to start would be for the President to have an Oval Office chat with the big oil executives. It would also be important to have the heads of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Chris Cox, our former colleague who is running the SEC; and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in that meeting. We owe it to our constituents to find the answers, to bring everybody together. And so I urge the administration to do exactly what Teddy Roosevelt would have done, bring all the parties together to hammer this out, look at all of the trading to show and demonstrate we are doing everything we can to get to the bottom of this to begin to reduce these prices.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise to welcome the news of the signing of the Darfur peace agreement. It is important to recognize the hard work that our international partners and the administration have done on this issue. Specifically, President Bush has done an outstanding job, as have Secretary Rice, Deputy Secretary Zoellick and Roger Winter; and there should be special gratitude expressed to Secretary Zoellick who went out there and spent 5 days to bring this to fruition. Their efforts have moved the parties to an agreement, and the United States now must remain steadfast in this effort. It is my hope this agreement will be a stepping stone toward achieving lasting peace and security for the people of Darfur. The international community and the American people now have an opportunity to take meaningful steps to improve the lives of the people of Darfur. Most of the food in Darfur where I visited is coming from the United States Government and from the American people as a result of what the Bush administration has done. However, we must remember that women and children are still dying in the camps. Men are still being killed, and the genocide is still taking place. We must build on that momentum. But the efforts of the administration are to be commended. And although the road ahead is long, this administration and Bob Zoellick have done an outstanding job. And the people who rallied on the Mall last week ought to be congratulated, too.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4975 because I do not believe it is truly reform. I had looked forward to the day on the floor when the House by its actions could demonstrate to the American people that we take seriously the call for bold reforms in the wake of recent lobbying and ethics scandals. In reviewing H.R. 4975, the Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act, I am disappointed to say that today is not that day. Last week I read in The Washington Post that some members are saying people don't care about lobby reform. Well, I care and I believe the American people care, too. A Washington Post-ABC News poll last month showed that 63 percent of Americans called ``corruption in Washington'' important to them. Having worked in Washington for over three decades, I understand that lobbying is a part of everyday life in the nation's capital. Every day, good people walk the halls of Congress making the case for their constituency, advocating on any number of issues and causes with great passion and insight from cancer research to education reform to human rights awareness to environmental protection. Yet something has gone terribly wrong with the general culture of Washington. Standards of conduct have shifted. What is acceptable today would not have been tolerated 20 years ago. We must break the cycle of ``Washington business as usual'' which has impugned the honor and integrity of this institution. The American people demand honesty and integrity in their government--as they should. Cosmetic changes will not suffice. Bold, sweeping reforms must be enacted. Sadly, the bill before us today fails to meet that test, and I cannot support it. I was encouraged when we began this process in early January and members were urged by the House leadership to provide ideas and suggestions on changes in lobby and gift rules. I sent a three-page letter with several recommendations which I believe should be a part of this debate. Several committees were then given the opportunity to come up with reforms under their jurisdiction. But tinkering around the edges is not real reform. I believe this bill fails to fully acknowledge that the current system is broken, and it fails to offer genuine reform. It pains me to say that we have reached the point where the ethics process in Congress has become paralyzed and unworkable. Bipartisanship and comity which used to be the norm have been replaced with partisanship and animosity. Rules with no enforcement are useless. We had the opportunity through this legislation to establish an independent, non-partisan Office of Public Integrity to provide credibility in the ethics process and ensure fairness for every member on both sides of the aisle. But this bill has no provision to create that office. While this legislation offers some increased lobbying disclosure reporting requirements and penalties for noncompliance, it doesn't go far enough. With regard to the revolving door between congressional service and lobbying Congress, current law is a one-year cooling off period, and as I read it, this bill keeps the status quo, opening the door after a one-year ban--albeit with some added notification and disclosure requirements. To show real reform, we should be debating keeping the door closed for a much longer period of time, similar to the Senate bill which I understand is a two-year ban. And it's not just Congress where the revolving door should be shut longer. I believe the executive branch needs scrutiny. My amendment was made in order to restrict former ambassadors and CIA station chiefs from lobbying on behalf of the foreign nations where they have been stationed. Currently, an ambassador can leave the service of the United States one day and be hired the very next day as an agent of foreign nation where they had served. These officials see every decision the United States makes in relation to that country. They have access to intelligence, policy documents and other confidential information. But under today's rules, the day they leave they have every legal right to use that same information on behalf of a foreign nation. Being an ambassador or CIA station chief is a high honor. That person becomes the face of our nation in the country where they are serving. We must safeguard the integrity of these positions. Yet how can we debate subjecting certain executive branch officials to a five-year revolving door statute when this bill fails to extend the cooling off period for members leaving Congress or even allow debate on this matter? Therefore, I am withdrawing my amendment. We also are supposedly here today considering legislation to tighten lobbying regulations in large part because of the lobbying scandal associated with former lobbyist Jack Abramoff and the information revealed about his ties to tribal casinos. The corruption which has been associated with the explosion of tribal gambling and political contribution is an issue I've been concerned about for nearly 10 years and one I have raised on this House floor numerous times. These revelations have focused renewed attention on the need for Congress to thoroughly review the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988. We should have a provision in this bill to close the tribal contribution loophole that allows funneling of millions of dollars into campaign coffers. How can we even begin to call this the Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act without addressing the issues that initially fueled this debate? Then we come to the issue of so-called earmark reform. True reform and transparency in the process of identifying how taxpayer dollars are being spent must be comprehensive reform. The spotlight has to shine on every committee--appropriating and authorizing including the tax writing committee. Lobbyists don't limit their work to appropriations issues. They lobby year round advocating for a myriad of issues across the committees of Congress--tax credits, defense programs, transportation projects. The narrow focus on only the appropriations process in the bill as written is not real reform. Real earmark reform must include projects in authorization bills like the ``Bridge to Nowhere.'' We had an opportunity today to make true, fundamental, substantive reforms in the way business is done in Washington and restore the confidence of the American people in this institution. This legislation before us and the few amendments allowed under the rule fail this institution and the American people. More amendments should have been allowed from members of both parties. In a 1799 letter to Patrick Henry, George Washington said, ``The views of Men can only be known, or guessed at, by their words or actions.'' Would our Founding Fathers think our actions today are the best we can do to restore integrity to this institution? I think they would say we can and we must do better.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to honor the legacy of the Honorable Harry J. Parrish by introducing legislation which would name the Manassas Post Office at 8801 Sudley Road, Manassas, VA 20110 the ``Harry J. Parrish Post Office Building.'' Mr. Parrish was a member of the Virginia General Assembly and decorated WorId War II pilot from Manassas, Virginia, who passed away on March 28 at the age of 84. Harry Parrish served over 50 years in elected office, including 13 terms in the Virginia House of Delegates and chairman of the Finance Committee since 2000, Manassas council member and mayor. At the time of his passing, he was the oldest serving member of the House of Delegates. During his 12 years as town councilman and 18 years as mayor, Harry helped guide the transformation of Manassas from a small Virginia town to a thriving, lively suburb. As a member of the House of Delegates, he was known for conducting himself in a bipartisan manner, putting Virginia first. I was proud to call Harry my friend. He was a true Virginia gentleman. As a decorated World War II pilot, Harry was part of the British Royal Air Force. He flew C-47s over the Himalayas delivering supplies, weapons and other cargo, from India to China. He received the Distinguished Flying Cross and the Air Medal for his valiant efforts. He served as a reservist in the Korean and Vietnam wars before retiring as a colonel. Naming the post office on Sudley Road in Manassas in his honor is an appropriate reminder to the people of Manassas of Harry's dedication to public service.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to create the Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area. Senator Allen is introducing companion legislation in the Senate. We remember the words of Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address: We cannot dedicate--we cannot consecrate--we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have hallowed it far above our poor power to add or detract. The Journey Through Hallowed Ground winds its way along U.S. Route 15 from Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, to Jefferson's home of Monticello, in Charlottesville, Virginia. Starting as a trail used by the Susquehannock and Iroquois, America's early history can literally be traced along this corridor. Jefferson's Monticello, Madison's Montpellier, Monroe's Oak Hill and Ashlawn Highland, Zachary Taylor's homes, Eisenhower's Cottage, Teddy Roosevelt's Cabin, John Marshall's home, General George Marshall's home, and Camp David are situated along this route also dotted with numerous Civil War battlefields and sites from the underground railroad. Designation of this historic route as a National Heritage Area will create a partnership between the Federal, State, and local governments as well as local civic organizations to commemorate, conserve and promote the history and resources along the Route 15 corridor between Gettysburg and Monticello. It will help link national parks to historical sites, package tourism opportunities, and provide financial and technical support for sites in the corridor. This historic corridor includes a significant part of the 10th District of Virginia, which I am proud to represent. I echo the sentiments of author and historian David McCullough when he said that ``[t]his is the ground of our Founding Fathers. These are the landscapes that speak volumes--small towns, churches, fields, mountains, creeks and rivers with names such as Bull Run and Rappahannock. They are the real thing, and what shame we will bring upon ourselves if we destroy them.'' This bill is modeled after the legislation Senator Warner and I introduced which created the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District in the Shenandoah Valley in 1996, Through that legislation, the Civil War battlefield sites in the Valley are being preserved, As with that bill, local, State and Federal officials, working along with landowners and business leaders will be able to better promote the history of the Journey Through Hallowed Ground attracting tourism and an appreciation for the unique history of this area. I would like to thank the Journey Through Hollowed Ground Partnership which has been working to forge partnerships that span the four States that fall within the proposed boundaries of the heritage area. This group has laid the groundwork in identifying the significant historical properties within such a concentrated area along U.S. Route 15. Dozens of towns and counties along the corridor have offered letters of support as have local civic groups. The Virginia General Assembly also has approved a resolution of support. Thomas Jefferson in his Notes of the State of Virginia said: You stand on a very high point of land. On your right comes up the Shenandoah, having ranged along the foot of the mountain a hundred miles to seek a vent. On your left approaches the Potomac, in quest of a passage also. In the moment of their junction, they rush together against the mountain, rend it asunder, and pass off to the sea. The first glance of this scene hurries our senses into the opinion that this earth has been created in time, that the mountains were formed first, that the rivers began to flow afterwards, that in this place, particularly, they have been dammed up by the Blue Ridge of mountains, and have formed an ocean which filed the whole valley; that continuing to rise they have at length broken over this spot, and have torn the mountains down from its summit to its base. The piles of rocks on each hand, but particularly on the Shenandoah, the evident marks of their disrupture and avulsion from their beds by the most powerful agents of nature, corroborate the impression. But the distant finishing, which nature has given to the picture, is of a very different character. It is a true contrast to the foreground. It is as placid and delightful as that is wild and tremendous. For the mountain being cloven asunder, she presents to your eye, through the cleft, a small catch of smooth, blue horizon, at an infinite distance in the plain country, inviting you, as it were, from the riot and tumult roaring around, to pass through the breach and participate in the calm below. The landscape Jefferson depicts has been inspirational to American leaders for hundreds of years. From Susquehannock Indian trading routes and to Revolutionary War battles; from the homes of the founding fathers to the first brave pioneers to make a home beyond the Blue Ridge Mountains; from the Civil War battles which threatened to divide the union to the underground railroad, our Nation was forged along this route. From Blue Ridge Mountains to the west and the fertile Piedmont to the east of the corridor the route in many ways exhibits the birth and development of our Nation's economy, social movements and political landscape. Perhaps even more significant than the battlefields that cluster along the route are the documents penned in the homes along the corridor. The Declaration of Independence, the Monroe Doctrine and the Marshall plan have influenced not only this Nation, but the entire world. Every American citizen should take a trip along this route so that they know not only from where our Nation has come, but also to where we are going. As we come upon the 400th anniversary of America's birthplace at Jamestown, I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by my colleagues Representatives Kirk and Larsen. They are to be commended for drawing attention to the importance of student exchange and language education programs, particularly related to Chinese and Arabic. In the 21st century world, China and the Middle East are critically important. I share their support for language and culture education programs to help equip today's young people for the global marketplace. I was pleased to be able to help bring Japanese and Chinese language programs to the Fairfax County Public School system in northern Virginia. During the early 1980s Japan was the primary United States competitor. In an effort to understand how to help United States businesses remain competitive in an expanding global economy, especially with Japan, I wrote to the top 500 U.S. companies asking for their feedback. The overwhelming response was that U.S. businesses were having difficulty finding qualified people who spoke Japanese and understood that culture. It became clear that the younger generation of Americans who would be the business leaders of tomorrow needed the training to compete with Japan. To help enlarge the pool of fluent Japanese speakers and broaden understanding of the Japanese culture, I worked with the U.S. Department of Education to establish language immersion programs in northern Virginia in 1988. As a result, Floris, Fox Mill and Great Falls Elementary schools, all in the Fairfax County Public School system, began offering Japanese immersion programs. In these programs, students spend half the school day in their subjects learning to converse in Japanese and the other half in English. I insert for the Record excerpts from my congressional newsletters from 1988 announcing the launch of the Japanese language immersion program. Today, the United States' main global competitor is no longer Japan. China has assumed that position. As we did in the 1980s with Japanese language immersion, we need to replicate today with the Chinese language. The Chinese program will expand and build upon the success of the Japanese immersion program, which helped America counter the serious competition it faced from Japan. In addition to having the opportunity to improve academic performance, students also will have the chance to learn a language that will equip them to compete in the global economy. With one-quarter of the world's population living in China, it is imperative that America's rising business leaders learn the Chinese language and culture. Studies have shown that students who participate in language immersion programs do well academically. This amendment highlights a critical area in preparing our young people--as Tom Friedman so aptly put it in his best-selling book ``The World is Flat''--to develop language skills to help our country meet the challenge being posed by China and India. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Kirk/Larsen amendment and thank the gentlemen for their good work on highlighting this important issue. Foreign Language Study Key to Competitiveness Our national trade deficit has caused deserved concern. We must not only make sure that American companies are on a level playing field with their foreign competitors, but also provide that American companies are equipped to compete in the international marketplace. The key to this is the education and training of our young people. We must educate our young people in the languages and cultures of other nations, so that in the future American businesses are able to market products abroad and negotiate with foreign counterparts. I have been pleased to work with our local school systems to expand the foreign language courses offered. The language of Japan, which has the largest trade surplus with the United States of any of our trading partners, is now offered at many of our area high schools. In addition, if a recently submitted grant application to the Department of Education is approved, Japanese, Spanish, and French may soon be taught to kindergarten students in some local schools. These youngsters who are able to study the languages and cultures of other peoples of the world will be the business leaders of tomorrow, negotiating and devising strategies to sell American products all over the world.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, because of a previously scheduled event which required my attendance at a high school in my congressional district this evening, I missed the three rollcall votes under suspension of the rules today. In conjunction with the Loudoun County Public Schools' Academy of Science, I had invited Dr. Robert Ballard, founder of the JASON project, to speak to students and parents at Dominion High School in Loudoun County about the importance of science education in our Nation's schools. JASON is funded through the Science-State-Justice- Commerce appropriations subcommittee which I chair. Dr. Ballard also is the explorer-in residence at the National Geographic Society and discoverer of the RMS Titanic shipwreck. Had I been present and voting, I would have voted ``yes'' on H.J. Res. 81, providing for the appointment of Phillip Frost as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution; H. Res. 703, recognizing the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster and supporting continued efforts to control radiation and mitigate the adverse health consequences related to the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, and H. Res. 744, expression support for the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 as the blueprint for lasting peace in Northern Ireland and support for continued police reform in Northern Ireland as a critical element in the peace process.