Frank Wolf

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Who did they say that to? Is that in writing somewhere?

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 538, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2862) making appropriations for Science, the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.

Mr. WOLF. But if it goes on one side does that not impact on the other side?

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I am pleased to bring to the floor today the conference report on H.R. 2862, the fiscal year 2006 Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), for his support throughout the process. Together, we were able to get a strong bill passed by the House with a vote of 418 to 7. Also, I want to thank our Senate counterparts, Chairman Shelby and Senator Mikulski, as well as Chairman McConnell and Senator Leahy. I also want to thank the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) for his help and cooperation with this, and also the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). Within a very tight allocation, we were able to provide funding for a variety of critical national priorities. The conference report provides $21.4 billion for the Department of Justice, $784 million above fiscal year 2005 and $1.1 billion over the budget request. The conference agreement includes $5.8 billion for the FBI, which is $15 million above the budget request. The bill will provide for additional agents, analysts, and support staff to address terrorism and espionage threats. And keep in mind that last week the stories broke about how the Chinese, that, unfortunately, this body gave the Most Favored Nation trading status to, has been spying aggressively against our country, and the latest spying episode dealt with the B-1 bomber. In addition, the bill provides funding to address deficiencies identified through external reviews, including a $20 million increase for the FBI Academy, a $20 million increase for additional secure space, and a $14 million increase to improve information technology program management, $5 million for retention and recruitment, a $26 million increase for translators, and a $70 million increase for the Terrorist Screening Center. The conference agreement includes $12 million above the request for the Marshals Service to enhance the protection of the Judiciary and fugitive apprehension programs. For DEA, Madam Speaker, the bill restores proposed cuts for Mobile Enforcement Teams and the Demand Reduction program, and directs these efforts to focus on meth enforcement. The conference report does not include the Combat Meth Act that was attached to the Senate bill. While I strongly support the bill's intent to address this destructive drug, there were some concerns raised about the Senate language. The Judiciary Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee, who are the committees of jurisdiction on this subject, are addressing these concerns. In fact, today I understand the House Judiciary Committee is marking up a meth bill. I look forward to voting for Chairmen Sensenbrenner and Barton's bill when it comes to the House floor. The conference report fully funds the ATF's request and includes a $20 million increase for Violent Crime Impact Teams to help those communities most impacted by gangs and violent criminals. There is a growing problem of gang and gang violence throughout the country. The conference agreement provides $2.7 billion for State and local law enforcement, $1.1 billion above the administration's request, including $416.5 million for Byrne Justice Assistance grants and $405 million for State Criminal Alien Assistance. And that funding really was due to Chairman Lewis, and also Mr. Dreier and Mr. Kolbe, when we dealt with that issue on the floor. That was a big issue. The bill also includes $109 million to address critical DNA backlogs, $387 for violence against women prevention and $343 million for juvenile justice. There is $16.5 billion included for NASA, including funding for the President's vision for space exploration. We have also restored funding for aeronautics research, which the administration had proposed to reduce. For the National Science Foundation, Madam Speaker, the bill includes $5.65 billion, which is $48 million above the request. This increase for basic scientific research and science education is critical to ensuring that we continue to lead in innovation and competitiveness, which is necessary if we are to retain our position in the world economy. Many people are concerned that with the test scores in math, science, physics, chemistry and biology, and the number of engineers we have, we are falling behind. So even in this tight period of the budget, we were able to dramatically increase that, and there will be a conference that was directed by the supplemental appropriations in December, chaired by Congressman Vern Ehlers and also Chairman Boehlert and others, with some of the best minds to come together to attempt to deal with this issue. Rather than just talking about it, they will constructively deal with it and get the administration on board. So I would hope and I pray that the President will address this issue in his State of the Union message next year. The conference report includes $888 million for the Securities and Exchange Commission to provide the necessary resources to protect investors from corporate fraud. For the State Department, we have provided $9.6 billion, including $1.6 billion, the full requested level for embassy security upgrades. It also includes $1.53 billion for public diplomacy programs including international broadcasting, focusing on expanded programs for the Arab and Muslim world. At the Department of Commerce, the conference report provides $6.6 billion for the Department of Commerce and other trade-related agencies. Increases will result in more accurate economic statistics, improved weather forecasting, and more accurate and timely census data. The bill also includes an increase for the Nation's trade agencies. This will help former Member Mr. Portman to negotiate, enforce and verify free and fair trade agreements. It also has an amendment offered by Congresswoman Northup, which is very, very important with regard to this whole issue of negotiating treaties. Overall, Mr. Speaker, the conference report agreement represents a sound and fair resolution to the many issues we faced in conference, and it does so in a fiscally responsible manner. I would urge my colleagues to support this conference. Before I reference some people, I want to say there is another issue we attempted to deal with and were not able to get agreement on, and that is to direct the Department of State in a period of 60 days to come up with a policy to deal with how we take care of the families of those who were lost in the bombing of the American Embassy in Beirut in 1983; the October bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks, where 241 Marines were killed; the Tanzania Embassy bombings; the Kenya Embassy bombings, and the USAID employees that were killed. It was a strange experience because we were operating in good faith, trying to get this, and some lawyers who got involved in this process really created a roadblock and a problem for this. Now, because of those lawyers, this is not being carried. So we are going to be doing a letter to Secretary Rice asking that the State Department come up with a program and a policy and deal with this. We have a moral obligation to the families, the families of those killed and those still alive with regard to the hostages in the Iranian Embassy. We have to deal with those issues and, hopefully, deal with them without the lawyers being involved. I think we have to help and work with the families. I also want to thank, Madam Speaker, at the end here, to thank the members of my subcommittee staff who have put in very long hours to produce the FY 2006 Science, State, Justice, and Commerce Appropriation bill. With the addition of Science to the subcommittee, the staff has had to work even harder this year to produce a bill that I believe will help the country. I want to particularly thank Mike Ringler, clerk of the subcommittee, who has led the subcommittee through the House appropriations process. I would also like to thank Christine Kojac, John Martens, Anne Marie Goldsmith, Joel Kaplan, and Clelia Alvarado for their tireless, and if I could underline in the Congressional Record the word ``tireless,'' if I could put a black line under it so people would see it, their tireless efforts. Their work is much appreciated. In my personal office I want to thank Dan Scandling, my Chief of Staff, and Jan Shaffron, who has been with me for 25 years, and J.T. Griffin, Samantha Stockman, and Courtney Schlieter for their efforts and working with the subcommittee. Also, there were many other subcommittee members' staffs who were very much involved in all of this. From the minority, I want to thank David Pomerantz, Michelle Burkett, and Rob Nabors for their insight and input on the bill. And also from Congressman Mollohan's personal office, I want to thank Sally Moorehead and Julie Aaronson. As in the past, we have worked in a bipartisan manner to draft this legislation. Madam Speaker, I ask for a ``yea'' vote on this bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. What do they do? What does Mexico do?

Mr. WOLF. Well, we are going to do a letter. I would urge the gentleman to get a meeting to get the commission to come up to your office. We will have a staff person come by. Also get the State of Texas, also do not forget about Mexico, to get them to come by and try to bring it to a head. I think that is a more constructive way than just saying this bill is not very good. I thought we had with this language forced them to address the issue. We will send a letter. But if this were my congressional district, I would have them up here. I would ask the State Department to come down and walk with you. I would go to Mexico and be on the other side. I would have a letter to President Vicente Fox. I would have a letter to Secretary Rice. So there is a lot that you have to do.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include tabular and extraneous material on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2862.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I just had the chance to read the speech given in October by Tom Brokaw, television journalist and former NBC news anchorman and managing editor of ``NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw,'' at the Association of the United States Army, AUSA. He was presented with the association's highest award--the Marshall Medal, awarded annually to an individual who has exhibited ``selfless service to the United States of America,'' according to the association. The AUSA Council of Trustees chose Brokaw to receive the 2005 George Catlett Marshall Medal and recognize him for his lifetime contributions as a journalist, reporter, editor, broadcaster and author. I share his address here and commend to our colleagues the speech by Mr. Brokaw, the author of The Greatest Generation, the story of Americans who came of age during the Great Depression and fought World War II, and went on to build America. I call attention to Mr. Brokaw's observations of the common sacrifices of the Greatest Generation during World War II and the comparison with today, as our men and women in uniform are fighting to defend our freedoms, ``we ask too few sacrifices at the civilian level.'' You know in my business, I'm often in settings where they talk about stars. I'm seldom in a setting with so many stars, that have been earned, not just assigned to them by some gossip columnist, and it's a rare honor and a great privilege for me to be with all of you tonight here on the dais and in this great auditorium. So many people have come up to me to say, on this occasion and others, I love your book. When I set out to write it, I had no idea of the richness of the journey that I was about to embark on. It really began on the 40th anniversary of D- Day, when I went to Normandy for a week to do a documentary about that momentous military landing that really changed the course of history. I thought, we'll have a good time, we'll drink some wine, and maybe we'll drink a lot of wine, and we'll have some good meals, and we'll hear some war stories. And on the first day of filming, I walked down to the beach, with two men from Big Red One, one of whom went on to earn the Medal of Honor later. One was without legs that he lost in later action. And as I looked at them, I realized that Harry Garton and Gino Merli were the kinds of people that I had known all my life. They were my schoolteachers and ministers, the businessmen for whom I worked. Their wives looked like the mothers of all my friends; they looked like my parents' best friends. They were there in their windbreakers, and as we walked onto Omaha Beach, they paused at their first return and began very softly to remember what it had been like that day. And within about 20 minutes, I had undergone a transformational experience, the likes of which I had not known as a professional journalist. And their stories, and the stories that I began to collect after that, resonated not just with me, but with this country in a way that I could not have anticipated. Now there have been some who have challenged my declaration that this was the greatest generation. My answer to them is, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it. But I believe the generation that came of age in the Great Depression, when life was about sacrifice and deprivation, about dropping out of school, not to buy a video game or a car for yourself, but to put food on the table, when sharing meant sharing a pair of shoes or a shirt or a jacket. They didn't double date, they went three and four couples to a car, to a movie that cost a dime, and went back to someone's home at the end of the night to play the piano, and have coffee and cake. And they never gave up on their country, even though times were difficult, and just when they were beginning to emerge from those dark days economically, this country summoned them to distant battlefields, across the Atlantic and across the Pacific. And what the British military historian John Keegan has called the greatest single event in the history of mankind--World War II. They fought on six of the seven continents, all the skies, and on all the seas and beneath them as well, and won. Fifty million people had perished, and nations had been realigned, and we were forced to face harsh truths about the cruelties of mankind in the middle of the 20th century. But they came home from all of that, and they gave us new art and new science and new industry. A number of them continued in the military. Those who did not, did not just lay down their arms and say I've done by share. They went back to their hometowns and their states, and they ran for mayor and the school board and for the church board trustees. They ran for Senator and for Congress, and they ran for President of the United States, and they took their place in the front ranks of public service. And no one represented their leadership more profoundly, I believe, than the man that you honor here tonight--George Marshall--who I believe is the most single, underappreciated 20th century American, and one of the most underappreciated Americans of all time. A warrior, a diplomat, and a visionary. And so I am deeply humbled by this award. And for those of you who only know it from one side of the television screen, not the other, let me just confirm what you're thinking--it's not easy for an anchorman to express humility. Let me also say that I'm very pleasantly surprised to know that I'm the first journalist to receive this award. I have some good news and some bad news for you. Journalists and warriors come from the same DNA. I said this first at the War College, and I thought that the colonels in the audience were going to storm the stage. We like unconventional lives. We can deal with authority, but we know when to bristle about authority. We like living off the land. We like catching the bad guys and holding them up for appropriate punishment. And most of all, we're patriots, who love our country. And the definition of patriotism for me is love your country and always know that it can be better, and that it is the obligation of every citizen to try to make it better, every day. On these occasions, I like to remind people that I've had the privilege in the last two years, three years especially, of working side by side, night after night, day after day, both in this country and abroad, with three of your best-- General Wayne Downing, who is here tonight, General Monty Meigs and General Barry McCaffrey. And I must say as a full blown civilian, it gave me a certain amount of pleasure to say to these four stars, okay men, listen up. We're coming out in 30 seconds, we've got a minute 30 to go--McCaffrey, don't do all the talking, let Meigs in on this for awhile. And they were thoroughly professional, and it was not only a joy for me to work with them side by side, but it was a great service to this country to have their expertise and their candor and their truth-telling, as the war went on in the early stages, and then after that. Now it is sometimes an adjustment. During Operation Desert Storm, I was joined at the desk at NBC, night after night, hour after hour, by one of your great, great figures, the late Colonel Harry Summers, who was a real expert on infantry tactics, a plainspoken man, who kept his military bearing even in a television studio. But about the fifth night of the war, at about three o'clock in the morning, we were kind of operating on fumes at this point, and I refuse on those occasions to have a conventional meal; I said just keep sending out plates of fresh food of some kind, that will keep me going; I don't want to get bogged down with dinner; I've got too many other things to worry about. And finally about the 18th little dish of chopped fruit arrived on my desk, and I couldn't even bear to look at it, and I finally slid it across to Harry Summers. He looked down at it for a long moment and he said, ``I don't know what's happened to me. First I let them put hairspray and makeup on me--now I'm eating fresh fruit.'' But we found a way to get along. Let me just take a little bit of your time, if I can, to offer some adjurations on the profession that brings you here tonight and our collective place in this society. A few months ago, at a conference of billionaires, moguls, titans, movers and shakers, Monty Meigs arranged for a panel of U.S. Army battalion commanders from Iraq and Afghanistan to present their view of what is happening in their sectors. It was a dazzling performance by these best and brightest lieutenant colonels. They were energetic, they were articulate, funny, and fully at ease in a roomful of folks who represented a slightly higher pay grade than they did. They complained, mildly, that their good works and accomplishments had not received enough press attention, and then they engaged in a friendly but pointed exchange with three of us who represented the media at that conference. Their performance and their bearing represented what I have been encountering for some time in my dealings with the American military in distant battlefields and military bases in this country, away from the constraints of the Pentagon. The other guests, who represented enormous financial, industrial, social and political strength and power in America, were bedazzled to the point of full immersion infatuation. They rushed to the stage to express their enthusiasm for what they had just heard. They turned to me, and to Tom Friedman of The New York Times and Donald Graham, the publisher of The Washington Post, demanding to know why they had not heard these stories before, why they had not read of the brilliance and the character of line officers in the field. That night at dinner these four lieutenant colonels were rock stars among groupies, as everyone from Bill Gates at Microsoft and Warren Buffet and Phil Knight of Nike gathered around to continue their adulation, to suggest lecture tours across America, to participate in corporate motivation sessions and to commiserate with them as well about the absence of press coverage. I was at once amused and determined to use this as an opening to address what I believe is a growing problem in American life. The next day it turns out that I was the guest, the sole interview before the same collection of powerful elites. And I took that opportunity to remind the audience that what they heard the day before, had been, in fact, widely reported, often at great risk--day in and day out--for three years on all the print and electronic news outlets. Perhaps not exactly as the young officers would have liked, but reported nonetheless. And even the officers gave me a sly smile and said you're right on that. Moreover, for those in the audience who believed that these young battalion commanders were some kind of an elite all- star team handpicked by the Pentagon, I was happy to correct that impression. I told that gathering of moguls and titans, I've met hundreds more like them. They are exceptional officers, but they're not the exception. Furthermore what they're doing in their commands in Iraq and Afghanistan may be news to you, but it's not news to communities and neighbors of mine in Big Timber, Montana, or in hamlets in South Carolina, or barrios in East Los Angeles or the working class neighborhoods of Detroit, or the small towns of the Great Plains. In those communities, they pay attention, because it is their sons and daughters, and fathers and mothers, who are in harm's way in those distant places. General Meigs performed an important public service that week in Sun Valley by reminding that audience of the place of the military, not just in our national security considerations, but also in our social and political construct as a nation. Indisputably, this country has the finest military in the history of mankind. It is a superior force at every measurable level, made up entirely by volunteers, fully integrated ethnically and in terms of gender. Unfortunately, it's also a military that in too many families, in too many communities and especially in too many corporate suites and boardrooms, country clubs and other gathering places for the elite, it is a military that is out of sight and out of mind. It is separate and distinct from the day-to-day concerns of too many Americans, especially to the elites with their hands on the power. That's not just inappropriate; it is unacceptable and even dangerous to a democratic society. One of the enduring lessons I have learned from my interest in and association with what I call the greatest generation, is the long-term beneficial effect of an organic relationship between a civilian society and its military. World War II was obviously a unique undertaking, requiring millions of people in uniform, a re-ordering its civilian priorities and common sacrifices for a common commitment. I have come to believe that one of the unheralded dividends at the end of the war for America was the maturation, the discipline, the ethos of teamwork young men and women in their 20s brought back to their civilian lives. Now young Americans who are not in uniform like to say, they're ``finding themselves'' in their 20s, or they're ``exploring other options'' in life. The greatest generation found themselves in distant battlefields or in great sea battles, or in dogfights in the air--they found themselves on factory floors or in shipyards, in the daily rationing of meat and gasoline and luxury items. What they learned in those life-altering experiences, they applied to the building of this country, to the expansion of freedom, and most of all, to the ordering of priority for the common good. And because their experience had been so shared at every level, there was a common appreciation of the place of the military. Now we ask too few sacrifices at the civilian level. There are the yellow ribbons and the welcome home signs, but for too many Americans those are more ornamental than organic to their own daily lives. A distinguished American historian wrote recently of our mercenary military conjuring up images of young warriors who are motivated only by paychecks, in effect, contract killers. That's a profoundly erroneous conclusion. It is more widely shared, however, than we may care to acknowledge. So who's to blame for this schism in our national definition? Ladies and gentlemen I would suggest that we all are. Our political leaders in both parties are not sufficiently addressing the gap with their constituents. They're not asking their constituents to make even token sacrifices, as a reminder that there is a war underway. They're not encouraging their financial patrons--the special interests that help elect them to office--to take a more active role in implementing a better understanding of the place of the military in our lives and in the world. Now it's just as well that our military establishment needs to no longer confine itself, by-and-large, to its own culture. It no longer should be as defensive as it can be, when it finds itself under fire. The media have been too focused on the triumphs and shortcomings on the battlefield, too unimaginative in dealing with the complexities of the military/political structure, as well as the manpower, the financial and the policy issues. No institution in America is as representative of this great immigrant nation with all our varied parts as the military, and we need to be reminded of that on a daily basis. Too many citizens are willing to assume that defending the country is an assignment best left to someone else, that it's not a personal or family obligation or calling. In the modern culture there are too few people around to challenge that. No one wants to return to a World War to reclaim a continuing relationship between the civilian population and the military. But neither is it in our national interest to have two populations--one in uniform and one not--with little or no connectivity. The greatest accomplishment of the greatest generation was not just on the battlefield. It was in the post-war continuation of a commitment to a whole nation, civilian and military, each respectful and mindful of their relationship and role assigned them in advancing the national interests. It is time for a new generation to re-activate that greatness--in uniform and out. Then perhaps, when my great, great granddaughter is ready to write her book about our generation, she will be able to say, ``They, too, met the test.''

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. My father was a Philadelphia policeman, and so I know your area very, very well; and I am glad you offered this. However, on the other segment of it, and I am going to urge Members to just support this, on the 7(a) subsidy, I really do not think that is a very good idea. The program is running strong. We do not need to provide the subsidy and take critically needed funds that could be used to combat terrorism, espionage, drugs, gangs, secure our State Department embassies, consulates overseas, providing funding to invest in NASA and sciences. Members from your side who have asked and been approaching us, if we were to do this, we would take away from almost every one of these programs and many of the programs your Members have come and we have in a good spirit of bipartisan tried to work to help them. The 7(a) program has been operating at record levels without a subsidy appropriation since the beginning of fiscal year 2005. The SBA administrator continues to assure us that the program is running strong. I have a letter from him confirming the success of redesigning the 7(a) program so that it does not require a subsidy appropriation. Media reports all over the country have touted the recent success of the 7(a) lending program. Headlines from the Chicago Tribune and the Cincinnati Business Carrier state: the SBA program looks sound and stable. Funding turns banks on to SBA lending. The SBA guaranteed 88,912 loans in fiscal year 2005, an increase of 22 percent increase over the previous year. In fact, lending at every segment of the population, including women and minorities, is up from last year's levels. Lending to minorities is up 23 percent, lending to women is up 42 percent, lending in rural areas is up 10 percent. In summary, Mr. Speaker, it is not necessary to provide a subsidy appropriation for the 7(a) loans program. With everyone expressing their interest in the deficit, and while I want to commend the gentlewoman for the first part of this motion to instruct with regard to the gasoline price, on the other one, and I know this is not the intention of the author of it, this is a subsidy for banks. Here we are in one half of the amendment we want to do what is good by looking at the oil companies. Now, on the other half of the amendment, we want to give the banking lobby a victory. Why would we want to give the banking lobby, and I have seen some of the memos that have gone back and forth with regard to the banking lobby, why would we want to give the banking lobby, who have record profits at this time, a subsidy of 79 some million dollars? I just do not understand it. Lending to minorities is up by 23 percent, lending to women is up by 42 percent, and lending to rural areas is up by 10 percent. People are talking about the deficit, and we are talking about going after it to make sure the gouging stops, and now we are going to help the bankers to do this. I wish we could have split these off. I would have been excited about your first one, would have spoken for it, would have put my name down for it if you would have had me as a cosponsor, but on subsidies to bankers, I just do not understand it in these days of high deficits. Just look at the profits. Why would we give the banks this subsidy? So, with that, I urge my colleagues, particularly because of the gentlewoman's first part of the amendment, to support the motion; and I will vote for it. But I just wanted the Record to show that, on the second part, wow, not a good idea. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I support a study on gas price gouging and want to thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for offering this motion to instruct. I am very concerned, as I know every Member is over here, with regard to high gas prices and their impact on the country; and I believe that the Congress needs to address this issue. So I thank the gentlewoman from Montgomery County, actually I used to live in Montgomery County, Ardmore. Do you know where Ardmore is?

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXII and by direction of the Committee on Appropriations, I move to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2862) making appropriations for Science, the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I work with your ranking member. We are good friends. Ask the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) if we have been fair. The next time you see him, ask him. The next time you see him, ask him; and ask him if the two ought to meet. We would not be able to deal with this issue. We would have to cut FBI, embassy security, NSF, NASA, NIST, NOAA. That is where we would get it from, and we would get it to give it to the bankers. [From the Business Courier, May 27, 2005] Stable Funding Turns Banks on to SBA Lending (By Steve Watkins) The news is getting better for small businesses looking for financing. The Small Business Administration's federal funding is on more stable footing this year than it was last year. That gives lenders more confidence in making SBA loans, said Michael Shepherd, Fifth Third Bancorp's SBA national manager. ``We're not afraid the program will be pulled out from under us,'' Shepherd said. ``Borrowers are in a much better position than they have been in the past.'' That's good news for small-business borrowers, who are reaping the benefits of more activity. Fifth Third's SBA loan volume is up 20 percent to 25 percent so far this year compared with last year, Shepherd said. National City Bank's entry into the market should heat up the SBA loan business. National City was the top SBA lender in both Ohio and Kentucky for the third straight year in the SBA's 2004 fiscal year ending in September. National City Corp. bought Cincinnati-based Provident Financial Group Inc. in July 2004, marking its first entry to the local retail banking market. Small business has been a big push. ``Mike Price (CEO of National City's Greater Cincinnati market) started the small-business program at National City some seven years ago,'' said Joe Chasteen, National City's area manager of small business banking for Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky. National City already has boosted its local small-business banking unit by 50 percent, to 12 bankers, since July, Chasteen said. U.S. Bank, PNC, Bank One, Huntington Bank and KeyBank also play a big role in making SBA loans. ``It's always a competitive market,'' Shepherd said.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the record just has to show, again, SBA guaranteed 88,912 loans in fiscal year 2005, an increase of 22 percent over the previous year. Mr. Speaker, let me stipulate that I know the gentlewoman is a strong supporter of small business. But where will you take the money from? Will you take it from NSF, education, National Science Foundation, will you take it from math, will you take it from science, or would you just take it from the air? We just cannot take things from the air, and the end result is we will cut embassy security.

Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take a lot of time, but I think it is important for the Record to demonstrate I think Members should vote ``aye'' on this instruction. There were $2 billion more in loans, though, this year than last year. The Record has to demonstrate this. It was $12 billion, then to $14 billion. It went from $12 billion to $14 billion. When we say it is not for the banks, and I am not saying that is your intention, let me just stipulate, I do not believe it is your intention. But let me just read you what it is saying here. This is an article from the Chicago Tribune. ``Clearly there were Members of Congress that felt this program was worthy of receiving an appropriation,'' said James Ballentine, Director of Community and Economic Development of the American Bankers Association. It was the bankers. You did not get any letter from small businesses asking for this. It is the bankers. It is the bankers. And the inconsistency of dealing with the one thing which I honor you and say great, but this was the bankers. The loans are up. So I think truth has to demonstrate that the loans are really up. It is $2 billion more. We are always talking about lowering the deficit and reducing spending. Last year, the Congress reconfigured and the chairman of the committee, Mr. Manzullo, supported this. So why would we want to turn our backs on successful reform? We have a stable program. I would like to submit, if I may, for the Record, the articles from the Business Courier and also the Chicago Tribune saying that the Small Business Administration's Federal funding is on more stable footing this year than it was last year. ``That gives lenders more confidence in making SBA loans,'' said Michael Shepherd, Fifth Third Bancorp's SBA national manager. So they are up, and it has worked. Members on both sides want to deal with the deficit. I think the gentlewoman from Montgomery County has a good thing. With regard to the oil prices on the 7(a) and what we have been doing about that, I would just say, working with the minority on your side on the money that we have saved from this, we have helped you on other things. And there is, as my mother used to say, there is not a money tree; it just reaches a certain point. So with the money that we have saved from this with additional loans, $2 billion, not just $1 million, $2 billion more, we have actually helped programs that you all are interested in. We have increased the National Science Foundation. Do you want to take away from the National Science Foundation? Hello. Go back to Montgomery County and tell them you are cutting funding for sciences, for math, for chemistry, for biology. Tell them that. They would not want to cut that out. That is what we did with this. We put it in NSF loans. We put it in NASA with regard to education. We put it into the Jason program that Dr. Bell, who discovered the Titanic, is able to teach young kids math and science and physics and chemistry by learning that. That is what we did. If we were to take this $79 million and give it back to the bankers, the big bankers, we would be taking money from education. You could not explain that. I do not care what district it is, you cannot explain why you were taking money from the NSF. You cannot explain why you were taking money from embassy security. Thirty people from my district died in the attack on the Pentagon. You cannot explain, whether it be New York City where two of my children live, or Philadelphia where I am from, and my district, why you are taking money from the FBI to give money to bankers so we do not have money for the FBI to do what they are doing. So I was going to ask, can we split these things out and give you an opportunity to offer both? I understand that we cannot. I do not think you want it down on the record that you supported taking $79 million out of the National Science Foundation or out of the FBI or out of embassy security so we can give money to the banking lobby. That is just not a good vote.

Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

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 motion to instruct on H.R. 2862.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Congressional Record an article from Harper's Magazine titled ``Spin Doctors without borders: how one Washington lobbyist administers to dictatorships.'' Robert Cabelly, managing director of C/R International, was recently hired to represent the Government of Sudan. As disturbing as this is, the Harper's article below reveals the lengths that lobbyists will go to represent some of Africa's most repressive regimes. The U.S. Congress has not forgotten that genocide is still taking place in Sudan. The administration should not allow an American citizen to represent a government guilty of genocide. I call on the State Department to immediately revoke the waiver allowing this lobbying to continue. [From Harper's Magazine, Mar. 1, 2004] Spin Doctors Without Borders: How One Washington Lobbyist Administers to Dictatorship (By Elisabeth Eaves) Lobbyists in Washington, D.C., don't just serve such U.S. interests as the oil industry and the tobacco corporations; they also solicit work from foreign governments. In an extreme, though not uncommon scenario, Americans, many of them former diplomats and public servants, make their fortunes by advancing the interests of dictatorships against those of their own nation. Take Robert Cabelly, managing director of the lobbying and P.R. from C/R International, who last August signed a contract with the small African nation of Equatorial Guinea. Cabelly has every reason to expect that he will succeed in preventing any sanctions the U.S. Congress might wish to impose on Equatorial Guinea and in other ways shaping American policy to the liking of this repressive regime. Equatorial Guinea, governed by President Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, might seem like a public-relations problem. In 2002 more than 150 of the president's political opponents were arrested for allegedly plotting a coup. Blindfolded for long periods, some of the prisoners were hung in positions designed to break their bones, and at least two died. A democracy only in name (the president ``won'' 97 percent of the vote in 2002), Equatorial Guinea did little to improve its human-rights record in 2003, during which a journalist was detained for reporting rumors of a coup, an outspoken pastor was arrested without charges, and an opposition-party member was moved to solitary confinement, chained to a wall, and denied badly needed medical care. But Washington, as well as ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco, now has an interest in trade with Equatorial Guinea: oil was discovered offshore there in 1995, making it the third largest petroleum producer in Africa. Cabelly's firm, C/R International, may have won its contract with Equatorial Guinea because of its service to African nations with even more oil. In 1995, after Sani Abacba, then dictator of Nigeria, executed nine prominent political activists, members of the U.S. House and Senate introduced bills laying the groundwork for an international oil embargo. Africa's top oil producer fought back by hiring nine U.S. lobbying and P.R. firms, including C/R (to which Base Petroleum, owned by Abachals son, paid an estimated $1 million). The bills died, and only trifling penalties against the regime--limiting sales of military equipment and restricting visas for senior officials--were enacted. From 1996 to 2002, C/R received $6 million from Angola. In 2001 the United States gave Angola $2.8 million in military assistance, a marked increase from $0 in the previous three years and a total of $200,000 between 1962 and 1997. While C/ R served Angola, the government's troops beat and raped civilians, and killed suspected rebel sympathizers. Because of its sudden oil wealth, Equatorial Guinea has the world's fastest-growing economy, but the nation qualifies as ``stable'' only in that President Obiang has ruled since 1979, when he overthrew and executed his even more despotic uncle. While most of its citizens earn about $1 a day, President Obiang neglects infrastructure and misappropriates oil revenue in favor of lavish personal expenditures. (He recently paid $2.6 million in cash for a mansion near Washington, D.C.) As the United States tries to reduce its dependence on the Middle East, African oil has taken on greater geopolitical significance. Because of work by C/R and others, Washington will likely continue to ignore the fact that Africa's oil producers are ruled by dictatorships that continually violate human rights. For Cabelly, daily contact with U.S. officials includes talking to old colleagues from his years at the State, Department, where he helped to negotiate the 1994 peace agreement between Angola and its UNITA rebels. Many lobbyists have worked previously in public service: in 1997, Burma hired Jefferson Waterman International, a firm run by former assistant secretary of state far international narcotics Ann Wrobleski in an unsuccessful attempt to end U.S. trade sanctions. (Since 1997, Burma has been one of the top two producers of opium in the world.) With his connections, Cabelly may urge the Bush Administration to grant Equatorial Guinea preferential trade status and will likely lobby the State Department to issue MPRI, a Virginia-based military contractor, the license it has been seeking to train the Equatoguinean military. His work for the country began on a promising note: in October, two months after the deal between Equatorial Guinea and C/R, the U.S. embassy in Malabo reopened after being shuttered far eight years. C/R's fee of $300,000 is a small price to pay far favorable U.S. policy. In 2002, payments to the lobbyists and P.R. firms registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act--a total of $408 million--covered a range of projects, from touting Caribbean beaches to urging the removal of sanctions against pariah nations. Oil-industry insiders and excited energy experts have nicknamed Equatorial Guinea ``the Kuwait of Africa'' for its tiny population (500,000) and its vast oil reserves (1.1 billion barrels). Perhaps Cabelly will be so successful as to further the parallel. In 1990 and 1991, Citizens for a Free Kuwait, funded by the emir's government, paid Hill & Knowlton a record $10.8 million over six months to create a media and lobbying campaign widely credited with convincing the U.S. public that its soldiers should defend the tiny, distant monarchy. As long as the dictatorship in Equatorial Guinea finds lobbyists to take its oil money, it has every reason to expect preferential trade policies, if not, one day, U.S. troops to defend it.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, every American was touched by stories of the people of the gulf region who lost so much as a result of the recent hurricanes. The American people have responded with overwhelming compassion with record donations of cash, food and clothing, and Congress, too, has a role in helping the people and the region to rebuild. However, as Congress begins its work on the hurricane tax incentive package to help the gulf region rebuild, it needs to recall its long history of limiting the benefits of redevelopment tax breaks to certain businesses. Regardless what section of the Tax Code is used to spur reinvestment and revitalization in the gulf region, Congress has limited the businesses that receive certain tax benefits. The history of targeting Federal tax breaks to certain businesses ought to continue. This limitation makes sense, particularly in light of the tight budgets facing our Nation today. Congress's history of limiting Federal redevelopment tax benefits goes back more than 20 years. Federal law pertaining to tax exempt benefits of small bonds prohibits tax benefits from being extended to ``any private or commercial golf course, country club, massage parlor, tennis club, skating facility, including roller skating, skateboard, and ice skating, racquet sports facility, including any handball or racquetball court, hot tub facility, suntan facility or racetrack.'' Congress does not want to give money to the gambling industry to rebuild when we should be doing it to help the poor and the needy. In the accompanying Senate committee report, the committee expressed concern with ``the use of small issue industrial development bonds, IDBs, to finance a variety of types of facilities, from private recreational facilities to fast food restaurants, that generally may be less deserving of a Federal credit subsidy than other types of facilities.'' A few years later, in Public Law 99-514, Congress qualified redevelopment bonds and expanded the list of businesses that would be prohibited from receiving tax benefits to include any private or commercial golf course, country club, massage parlor, hot tub facility, suntan facility, racetrack or other facility used for gambling, or any store the principal business of which is the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption off premises. When the Enterprise Zone tax structure was enacted, Congress once again prohibited the benefits from being extended to certain businesses following the limits laid out in 26 U.S.C. Sec. 144, which I will include for the Record. Just as Congress expressed concern about allowing Federal tax benefits to flow to less deserving businesses more than 20 years ago, Congress today should again be concerned about the same issue as it works to assemble the Gulf Opportunity Zone tax package. As Congress considers cuts to Medicaid, food stamps, the student loan program, foster care, child support, and other programs to offset the cost of hurricane recovery, we must be sure that tax incentives only go to worthy businesses. Federal tax dollars need to be focused on those who truly need the government's help like the poor, vulnerable, and elderly. I believe fair-minded Americans would support tax incentives to spur business reinvestment along the hurricane-ravaged gulf coast to help victims there rebuild their lives; but I also believe the American people would draw the line, as Congress has historically done, in using taxpayer dollars to assist businesses such massage parlors, casinos, golf courses, and liquor stores. Allowing gambling conglomerates, for example, which are reporting billion-dollar record profits to take advantage of tax breaks does not make sense. Gambling operators do not need any incentive to rebuild and according to press reports, have already vowed to come back ``bigger and better'' than before the hurricane. Particularly when faced with tough budget choices, Congress ought not abandon its history of limiting tax benefits to more deserving businesses. Regardless of what section of the Tax Code is used to spur business investment in the region, bonds, Enterprise Zone tax credit zone, expensing and depreciation or any other tax incentive, Congress should target the limited Federal resources available to more deserving businesses. Mr. Speaker, giving tax breaks to massage parlors, casinos, liquor stores and golf courses while we cut Federal programs for the less fortunate cannot be explained to the American people. Congress must be sure these tax benefits of the gulf rebuilding package do not go to massage parlors, casinos, liquor stores, and golf courses. Every American was touched by stories of the people of the Gulf region who lost so much as a result of the recent hurricanes. The American people have responded with overwhelming compassion with record donations of cash, food and clothing. Congress, too, has a role in helping the people and region rebuild. However, as Congress begins its work on the hurricane tax incentive package to help the Gulf region rebuild, it needs to recall its long history of limiting the benefits of redevelopment tax breaks to certain businesses. Regardless what section of the tax code is used to spur reinvestment and revitalization in the Gulf region, Congress has limited the businesses that receive certain tax benefits. This history of targeting federal tax breaks to certain businesses ought to continue. This limitation makes sense, particularly in light of the tight budgets facing our nation today. Congress's history of limiting federal redevelopment tax benefits goes back more than 20 years. Federal law pertaining to tax exempt benefits of small bonds prohibits tax benefits from being extended to any private or commercial golf course, country club, massage parlor, tennis club, skating facility (including roller skating, skateboard, and ice skating), racquet sports facility (including any handball or racquetball court), hot tub facility, suntan facility, or racetrack. (26 USC Sec. 144(a)(8)(B)) In the accompanying Senate committee report, the committee expressed concern with ``the use of small issue industrial development bonds (IDBs) to finance a variety of types of facilities, from private recreational facilities to fast food restaurants, that generally may be less deserving of a federal credit subsidy than other types of facilities.'' (Page 169 of Senate Report No. 97-494 for P.L. 97-248) A few years later, in P.L. 99-514 Congress created qualified redevelopment bonds and expanded the list of businesses that would be prohibited from receiving tax benefits to include any private or commercial golf course, country club, massage parlor, hot tub facility, suntan facility, racetrack or other facility used for gambling, or any store the principal business of which is the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption off premises. (26 USC Sec. 144( c)( 6)(B)) When the Enterprise Zone tax structure was enacted, Congress once again prohibited the benefits from being extended to certain businesses following the limits laid out in 26 USC Sec. 144(c)(6)(B). (26 USC Sec. 1397C) Just as Congress expressed concern about allowing federal tax benefits to flow to less deserving businesses more than 20 years ago, Congress today should again be concerned about the same issue as it works to assemble the Gulf Opportunity Zone tax package. As Congress considers cuts to Medicaid, food stamps, the student loan program, foster care, child support, and other social programs to offset the costs of hurricane recovery, we must be sure that tax incentives only go to worthy businesses. Federal tax dollars need to be focused on those who truly need the government's help, like the poor, vulnerable and elderly. I believe fair-minded Americans would support tax incentives to spur business reinvestment along the hurricane-ravaged Gulf coast to help victims there rebuild their lives. But I also believe they would draw the line--as Congress has historically done--in using taxpayer dollars to assist businesses such as massage parlors, casinos, golf courses and liquor stores. Allowing gambling conglomerates, for example,--which are reporting billion dollar profits--to take advantage of tax breaks doesn't make sense. Gambling operators don't need any incentive to rebuild and, according to press reports, have already vowed to come back ``bigger and better'' than before the hurricanes struck. Particularly while faced with tough budget choices, Congress ought not abandon its history of limiting tax benefits to more deserving businesses. Regardless of what section of the tax code is used to spur business investment in the region--bonds, enterprise zone tax credits, expensing and depreciation or any other tax incentive--Congress should target the limited federal resources available to more deserving businesses. Giving tax breaks to massage parlors, casinos, liquor stores and golf courses while we cut federal programs for the less fortunate cannot be explained to the American people. Congress must be sure these tax benefits of the Gulf rebuilding package do not go to the massage parlors, casinos, liquor stores and golf courses.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I recall with great irony the heated annual debates in Congress surrounding Most Favored Nation trade status and ultimately Permanent Normal Trade Relations for China. The coalition that battled granting China this privilege faced an almost certain perennial loss. Even so, it served as a valuable forum in which to highlight just what kind of a country we are dealing with in China. The list of egregious actions laid at the feet of the communist government of the People's Republic of China is long and spans decades--human rights abuses, religious persecution including torture and imprisonment, slave labor practices, forced sterilization, espionage operations against U.S. businesses, software piracy and intellectual property theft, military spying. At the time many argued with tremendous passion, business interests foremost among them, that trade with China would change China, not the other way around. It strikes me that those may have been hollow promises--that little has changed in China. Rather it appears that some American companies are increasingly honoring repressive Chinese laws so that they might keep their seat at the table and with it the promise of great profit. Shi Tao, a freelance journalist for Internet publications, was recently sentenced in China, to 10 years in prison for ``leaking state secrets abroad.'' Tao was arrested in November 2004 after Yahoo, an American company, cooperated with Chinese government authorities to grant them access to Tao's personal e-mail account. Tao simply e-mailed portions of a directive issued by China's Propaganda Department that instructed the Chinese media as to how to cover the 15th anniversary of the military crackdown in Tiananmen Square. Incidentally, even today it is still impermissible to use the term ``4 June,'' the date of the brutal government crackdown on pro-democracy activists, student leaders and workers in Tiananmen Square, in the press or online. Yahoo justified their actions by claiming that to do business in China, they had to follow Chinese laws--a morally bankrupt argument which excuses doing business with the worst actors on the world scene, under the guise of respect for the law. But even if one subscribed to that argument, it is noteworthy that the information that Yahoo turned over to government authorities was stored in Hong Kong, outside of the jurisdiction of the mainland police. Yahoo's chairman and chief executive officer Terry Semel, after vigorously defending his company's decision, is reported to have said, ``on a personal level, I wince.'' I would say to Mr. Semel, I too wince. And I would venture to guess that Mr. Tao's family winced when police grabbed him on a street, searched his house and confiscated his computer and other items, thus launching the ordeal that culminated his eventual prosecution and imprisonment. During the dark days of the Cold War the vast majority of those living behind the Iron Curtain saw America as a friend--we represented their hopes and aspirations. But today in China some are complicity with the oppressors. Mr. Semel and the company he leads is a beneficiary, as we all are, of this great experiment in self-governance, free enterprise and individual liberty that we call America. When faced with a choice between the bottom line, and betraying the very tenets that underpin this nation, Yahoo chose profit. They should be ashamed.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, two years ago, at the urging of the House Appropriations Committee, FBI Director Robert Mueller established the Director's Science and Technology Board made up of former senior-level intelligence and Department of Defense staff to provide independent advice to the director on emerging issues. Among the members of the advisory board are: Arthur Money, former assistant secretary of defense for command, control, communications and intelligence and DOD's former chief information officer. Craig Fields, former chairman of the Defense Science Board, and John Hamre, president of CSIS and former deputy secretary of defense. I want to congratulate Director Mueller for his recent announcement that he is expanding the membership of the board to include: Lee Hamilton, member of the President's Homeland Security Advisory Council, former vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, and former Congressman from Indiana. Charles Robb, former co-chair of the WMD Commission, former U.S. senator and former governor of Virginia. Richard Thornburgh, former U.S. attorney general, and former governor of Pennsylvania; and James Q. Wilson, who is the Ronald Reagan Professor of Public Policy at Pepperdine University in California, a professor emeritus at UCLA, and chairman of the Council of Academic Advisors of the American Enterprise Institute. Along with expanding the membership of the board, Director Mueller has expanded its mission from focusing on science and technology to providing advice and counsel on overall management and the FBI's transformation since the September 11 terrorist attacks. I commend Director Mueller for establishing this board and seeking the input from these distinguished and experienced experts in order to improve the FBI. FBI Advisory Board ARTHUR L. MONEY, chairman. Arthur L. Money, a former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense and Defense Department CIO. Mr. Money was confirmed by the Senate and served as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence from 1999 to 2001 and was also the Chief Information Officer for the Department of Defense from 1998 until 2001. He prior served as the Senior Civilian Official, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, from 1998 to 1999 and was earlier confirmed by the Senate as Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Research, Development and Acquisition and was their Chief Information Officer, from 1996 to 1998. Mr. Money, who has more than 40 years of management and engineering experience with the defense electronics and intelligence industry, currently serves as a member of the advisory board of several corporations including the Boeing Company (NYSE: BA). He also serves on the Board of Directors of numerous companies including Silicon Graphics, Inc. (NYSE: SGI) and CACI International (NYSE: CAI) and has been recognized for his vision, leadership and commitment to excellence in systems and process re- engineering. Mr. Money, who holds a Master of Science Degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Santa Clara (California) and a Bachelor of Science Degree in Mechanical Engineering from San Jose (California) State University also currently serves on several U.S. Government Boards and Panels such as NIMA Advisory Board, Defense Science Board, US Air Force AC21SR Center Advisory Board and the US Navy ``DSAP'' Special Advisory Panel and is the recipient of numerous awards and honors including the Intelligence Community Seal Medallion and Defense Intelligence Agency Director's Award in 2001. Mr. Money, prior to his government service, had a distinguished business career, having served as President of ESL Inc., a subsidiary of TRW, Inc., from 1990 to 1994 prior to its consolidation with its Avionics and Surveillance Group when he became Vice President and Deputy General Manager of the Group. fLOYD I. CLARKE Mr. Clarke was born in Phoenix, Arizona, and spent his early life there. After attending George Washington University, Mr. Clarke joined the FBI in 1964. As a Special Agent, Mr. Clarke worked in the Birmingham, Boston, Philadelphia, and Kansas City Divisions. He also served in many Headquarters Divisions as well. During his career in the Bureau, Mr. Clarke held the position of Supervisor, Assistant Special Agent in Charge, Special Agent in Charge, Assistant Director, Executive Assistant Director, Deputy Director and, last, Acting Director from July 19 through September 1, 1993. Mr. Clarke currently serves as a corporate vice president for a large holding company.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. First it was Patton, Boggs trying to polish the image of Saudi Arabia. Then we had Akin, Gump trying to assist China in buying a U.S. oil company. Now comes the shocking news that a Washington lobby shop has landed the Government of the Republic of Sudan as a client. Where will the lobbying wheel of fortune stop next? The Government of Sudan has hired Mr. Robert J. Cabelly, managing director, C/R International, to lobby on its behalf. How can an American company use such bad judgment and represent a country whose leaders are suspected of organizing and arming militias to commit genocide? And why did the United States State Department sign-off on such a plan? While shocking to some, it may not be all that surprising for anyone familiar with Mr. Cabelly's history. After working at the State Department for more than a decade where he developed hundreds of contacts in Africa, Mr. Cabelly went on to found C/R International. This international consulting firm received $6 million from Angola from 1996 to 2002 in order to successfully defeat a series of bills for an international oil embargo, according to a Harper's magazine article from March 2004. ``While [Mr. Cabelly's firm] served Angola, the government's troops beat and raped civilians, and killed suspected rebel sympathizers,'' wrote Harpers' magazine. On August 12 of this year, Mr. Cabelly filed with the Foreign Agents Registration Unit at the Department of Justice, reporting a contract with the Government of the Republic of Sudan for $530,000 per year. The contract lists the agreed representation by Mr. Cabelly for the Government of Sudan as providing ``public relations, government relations and strategic counsel as they would relate to implementing the North-South peace agreement, cooperating in the war on terrorism, and addressing other issues.'' But make no mistake, Sudan is hiring this firm to help counteract the ongoing worldwide campaign against the government's policy in the Darfur region of the country. This American company is taking money to wage a lobbying war against the hundreds of organizations and more than 130 million Americans who have voiced their concern about the situation in Sudan. While coalition groups work every day to call the world's attention to the regime in Khartoum and its condoning of the action of a violent militia which is raping and killing innocent women, men and children and pillaging villages in Darfur, they might be surprised to learn that one of the Government of Sudan's contract employees is working against it right here in Washington. Just last week there were new reports that the violence in Darfur is growing worse. The Sudan government has not reined in the janjaweed militia. There is no question about what is occurring in Sudan. Last year the United States clearly stated that genocide is occurring in Darfur. This Congress passed a resolution affirming it. President Bush has called the actions in Darfur as genocide on repeated occasions. The United Nations has referred the case to an international tribunal to investigate war crimes. I have been involved on Sudan issues for over 15 years. I have traveled to Sudan five times since 1989 with my most recent trip last summer to Darfur. I talked with women who had been raped and families whose members had been murdered. I saw emaciated children, dying from hunger and disease. I have seen with my own eyes bombed schools in Yei and horrific scenes of devastation inflicted upon the people of Sudan by government forces. The war between the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Army claimed the lives of over two million people and has left the country in despair. Although the fighting is over in the South and a Comprehensive Peace Agreement awaits implementation, death and destruction at the hands of the government and its proxy militia in Darfur continues unabated. The United States Government and the United States Congress stands united with the people of Sudan and any lobbyist who walks these halls on behalf of the Government of Sudan is not welcome. The Sudan regime should be spending its money reining in the Janjaweed, and turning over criminals to the International Criminal Court, not hiring lobbyists to try to improve their image. We are all aware of the actions of the Government of Sudan and no amount of lobbying will change that.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, particularly in light of the availability of video games like ``Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas,'' I would like to highlight a recent publication from the American Psychological Association regarding violent video game content and the resultant influences of these games on the behavior of children and adolescents. Violence in Video Games: A Review of the Empirical Literature discusses the strong correlation between video games and increases in aggressive behavior. I am surprised that lawsuits haven't been brought holding game manufacturers responsible for the havoc they are wreaking on society. Violence in Video Games: A Review of the Empirical Literature (By Jessica M. Nicoll and Kevin M. Kieffer) One area of research that has received increasing attention involves the violent content of video games and the resultant influences of these games on the behavior of children and adolescents. No clear consensus has arisen as to whether violent video game content is harmful to players or predictive of future aggressive behavior, but there are some common themes in the empirical research literature. These common themes include: (a) demonstration of short term effects on player behavior following a violent video game participation; (b) gender differences as regards the player's aggressive reaction to the game; and (c) variations in the types of players who are at greater risk of being adversely affected by the violent content. The purpose of the present paper was to explore the general themes that have emerged in the research literature on violent video games and posit recommendations for future research on the relationship between violent video games and player behavior. Violent content in video games is a particularly virulent topic among consumers and lawmakers alike. This issue has been contentiously debated from U.S. Superior Courts to the ``Dr. Phil'' show. Regardless of the positive and negative press generated by these violent video games, it seems that newly released games with extremely violent content are in no short supply and, in some cases, actually contain more graphic displays of violence than previous games. Mounting concern about the effects that violent video games have on young children and minors in general has led to the initiation of legislation that seeks to ban the sale or rental of video games deemed violent or sexually explicit. Concerned parents and lobbyists alike have insisted that industry regulations be made and, more importantly, enforced as regards the sale of violent video games to minors. Recently, Michigan legislators attempted to change the current law which allowed children to buy and rent video games that depict graphic violence, sexually explicit content, and the glorification of illegal activity. Illinois officials have called for similar legislation and currently require the labeling of violent and sexually explicit video games by manufacturers. Supporters of legislation limiting the dissemination of these video games believe that the video game industry has not been regulating itself stringently enough and that legislation of this type is both beneficial for American youth as well as society as a whole. Conversely, dissidents of this legislation maintain that these bans violate the first amendment rights of children and should not be allowed or enforced. Recent court cases have placed violent video game content in the public eye. One such example, American Amusement Machine Association v. Kendrick (2001), alleged the legality of banning the sale of violent video games to persons under the age of 18. One of the issues discussed in the proceedings was that the ordinance was based on the belief, not compelling evidence, that violent video games cause an increase in aggression that may lead to actual violence. According to Judge Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit who ruled on the case, studies on video game violence have not indicated evidence that violent video games evoke violent actions or cause an increase in the average level of violence among players. Thus, the ordinance banning the sale of violent video games was struck down. Despite contentions from the legal community that convincing evidence demonstrating the harmful effects of video games on youth does not exist or is inconclusive, research has consistently demonstrated correlations between aggressive video game play and aggressive behavior. Thus, violent media has been shown to have effects on those who view violent programs with some past research suggesting that viewing violent content affects viewers in both explicit and implicit ways (Anderson & Dill, 2000; Huesman, Titus, Poldaski, and Eron 2003). Other researchers have reported that short term exposure to violent video games can have an impact on players self concept, even on an automatic level (Wood, Wong, & Chachere, 1991). Themes in the Video Game Violence Research Literature Indeed, violence is a reoccurring theme in most television programming, movies, television commercials, and video games, and it has been proposed that media violence is currently at an all time high with no appreciable decreases in violent content in the foreseeable future. Given the volume of violent material to which viewers are exposed, research that clearly documents the enduring behavioral changes on viewers is sorely needed to quell any misconceptions or misbeliefs that aggressive behavior can result from viewing violent content or playing violent video games. Previous disparity in the research literature as to the effects of violent content on viewers has spurred an impressive debate among scholars as to whether violent media broadcasting and game play actually incites aggressive behavior in those who view it (Wood, Wong, & Chachere, 1991). Our review of the literature has resulted in the identification of three general themes: (a) demonstration of short term effects on player behavior following a violent video game participation; (b) gender differences as regards the player's aggressive reaction to the game; and (c) variations in the types of players who are at greater risk of being adversely affected by the violent content. Short Term Effects on Player Behavior One of the most documented findings in the research literature is the short term effects of playing violent video games on resultant player behavior. Bartholow and Anderson (2001) found that participants who played a violent video game for a short time experienced an increase in aggressive behavior following the video game. Uhlmann and Swanson (2004) found that participants who played a violent game for as few as 10 minutes associated themselves with aggressive traits and aggressive actions on a self rating scale. These results led the researchers to contend that even short-term exposure to violent video games can have an effect on the player's self-concept, primarily at some unconscious, ``automatic'' level. Uhlmann and Swanson extrapolated these findings to suggest that repeated priming of the self as being more aggressive through violent video game play may lead to the actual self being more aggressive in daily life. Other research by Graybill, Kirsch, and Esselman (1985) found that short-term exposure to violent video games had effects on children's aggression fantasies. These researchers reported that children who played the violent games were less defensive and more assertive or aggressive in their fantasies than children who played a similar non-violent game. Similarly, Anderson and Ford, (1987) measured both the short- term effects of violent video games on players and the degree of violence viewed and the resulting effects on players. They found that aggressive video games did indeed have an effect on the player's emotional state with players of the highly aggressive game exhibiting an increase in hostility and anxiety when compared to the non-game control group. Players of a mildly aggressive game, however, only exhibited an increase in hostility without an increase in anxiety. Gentile, Lynch, and Walsh (2004) conducted a study of over six hundred 8th and 9th grade school children and found that children who reported playing greater amounts of violent video games were rated more hostile than the other children in the study. In addition these children also reported a greater number of arguments with authority figures such as teachers and also were more likely to be involved in physical altercations with other students. The children who reported greater exposure to violent video games were also more likely to perform more poorly on academic tasks. Barthlow and Anderson (2002) designed a study that examined the duration and intensity of aggressive behavior following participation in aggressive game play. Immediately after playing either a violent or non-violent game, the participants participated in a mock retaliation time task which used blasts of noise as punishment to the opponent. Players were informed that they had complete liberty to select both the intensity and duration of the punishment on their opponent. Researchers found that the participants who had played the violent game displayed more aggression against their opponents in the retaliation portion of the study than those participants who played the nonviolent game. Further, the participants who played the violent video game administered a greater number of high intensity sound blasts than those participants who played the nonviolent games. Empirical research has also suggested that violent video game players tend to imitate the moves that they have just ``acted-out'' in the game. Irwin and Gross (1995) found that participants who played an aggressive video game displayed moves similar in free play to those in the violent game they had played. Players of the violent video game also exhibited more verbal and physical aggression toward a confederate during a competitive situation than those who played the nonviolent game. Schutte, Maloff, Post-Gordon, and Rodasta (1988) concluded that children who played a violent karate game displayed that type of behavior in free play with other children after playing the game. Children in the same study who played video games imitated the moves of the video game character in the video game they had just played. In an effort to clarify the cognitive, behavioral, and affective experiences of children during exposure to aggressive stimuli, Anderson and Ford (1986) found a somewhat divergent relationship between short-term exposure to violent video games and subsequent behavior. These researchers did not find a relationship between aggressive behavior and exposure to violent video game play in all groups, as short term increases in aggression were only demonstrated in those who played the most violent games. Anderson and Ford also reported that participants who played violent video games were more anxious than those who had played either a mildly violent or non-violent game. Further, those who played the violent or mildly violent game were more hostile than the nonviolent controls. Violent video game play has also demonstrated decrements in children's willingness to engage in short-term pro-social behavior. Chambers and Ascione (1985) found that children who played violent games displayed engaged in less helpful peer behavior than those who played a pro-social game. A similar study by Lin and Lepper (1987) reported a noteworthy correlation between teacher rated student competence and prosocial video game play. Gender Differences to Violent Video Game Content A second general theme in the research literature is that gender differences play a role in how the player reacts to the violent content in a game. Cooper and Mackie (1986) found that girls who played a violent video game had an increase in the likelihood of playing with an aggressive toy. It was reported that girls who played the violent game also changed activities more and exhibited more aggressive play than those playing a passive videogame. In contrast, girls who reported less outside violent game play were more aroused when presented with the violent game than boys. Cooper and Mackie suggested that arousal was the precursor to aggressive behavior and subsequently caused the girls in the study to play more aggressively than the boys. Fling, Smith, Rodriguez, Thornton, Atkins, and Nixon (1992) suggested that the aggressive effects demonstrated in psychological studies following exposure to violent video game content could be a function of the quantity of video games typically played by participants in the study. They reported that because young men typically play more video games, and especially more violent video games, than their female counterparts that there is a natural proclivity for male participants to demonstrate more aggressive play in psychological studies. This notion has been supported by other research by Funk and Buchman (1996) which found that boys tend to play video games for longer periods of time than girls. One hypothesis offered for the temporal disparity in game play is that it is more socially acceptable for boys to engage in this play than for girls. Yet another explication for gender differences in the quantity of game play is that video games often portray women in subordinate roles resulting in less incentive for young women to play. Regardless of the factors, research has indicated that young men tended to be more aggressive overall than young women (Bartholow & Anderson, 2001) thus predisposing them to engage in violent video game play more frequently. characteristics of players influenced by violent video game play A third general theme in the research literature involves the identification of characteristics of players who are likely to be influenced by violent video games. Slater, Henry, Swim, and Anderson (2003) proposed a ``downward spiral model'' that implied that the media perpetually reinforces the antisocial tendencies and behaviors of aggressive youths thus predisposing them to act in somewhat aggressive manners. Individuals who are attracted to violent content in media or games are likely to be more vulnerable to the effects of that exposure. In addition, those at risk often face mutual reinforcement of negative or aggressive behavior. Funk and Bushman (1996) identified at ``risk players'' as those who spend the greatest amount of time playing these games and concomitantly have low self-concept. Researchers have been quick to point out that there is no evidence that suggests playing these videogames will lead to adjustment problems. The fact remains, however, that those individuals most at risk may share common characteristics, thus suggesting the need to monitor the playing habits of these types of games among children. summary and conclusions Research on the effects of violent video games on subsequent aggressive behavior has served as an important catalyst for change, in that rules and regulations have been developed to make it increasingly difficult for young children to obtain video games laden with violent or sexually explicit content. However, disparity in the present research literature and the absence of clear and compelling scientific evidence from the psychological community demonstrating the harmful and lasting effects of violent games on behavior has signaled the need for novel studies in this area. Future research may need to focus on the issue of free choice and the reasons why some children and adolescents would rather play video games than engage in some other type of stimulating activity. One avenue might involve the greater examination of personality variables in an effort to determine what factors may precipitate the purchase and subsequent use of violent video games. Because of the noted gender differences in past research, future research should continue to examine the role of player gender in the proclivity to exhibit aggressive behavior following video game playing. Lastly, due to the need to determine if exposure to violent content has any lasting detrimental effects on children, longitudinal studies are needed to ascertain what effects, if any, children are likely to experience. In sum, past empirical studies have found that even short term exposure to violent video games influences subsequent player behavior and can result in an increase in outward aggressiveness both verbally and physically, a more negative self-concept, a decrease in helping behavior, an increase in arousal, and an increase in anxiety. Although no one study has conclusively demonstrated a cause and effect relationship between exposure and behavior, based on the results presented here, it is difficult to argue that there is no relationship between violent game play and subsequent aggressive behavior. And given the amount of violent content in the media and in current video games, it appears that this is an issue psychologists will be dealing with for quite some time.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, Hurricane Katrina may not only have been one of the most destructive natural disasters in our nation's history, the argument could be made that Katrina was the perfect storm in exposing our nation's vulnerabilities in supplying oil and gas to meet our energy needs. There is absolutely no doubt that our country must become energy independent. Today we rely on foreign sources of oil to supply 60 percent of our energy needs. We are at the mercy of the Oil Producing Export Countries. Disruption in our energy supply--whether through OPEC polices to reduce production, disruption in domestic drilling and shipping caused by hurricanes, or limited refining capacity--energy security is a matter of national security. I understand the serious impact that rising fuel prices have on the everyday lives of people and the strength of our economy. It is an issue which impacts everyone who drives or uses oil and every sector of our economy. We must find ways to improve conservation of oil resources, increase domestic production and oil refining capacity. Progress also needs to be made in developing alternative fuels as well as making the machines we use more energy efficient. The argument has been made that our nation's ability to refine both imported and domestic sources of oil is limited because no new oil refineries have opened in the United States in almost 30 years. Additionally, just under half our refinery capacity or 47 percent is concentrated in the Gulf of Mexico. If every refinery is operating at full capacity, 17 million barrels per day are refined, however, demand averages at 21 million barrels a day. The legislation before the House today, H.R. 3893, the Gasoline for America's Security Act of 2005, attempts to increase refining capacity through provisions to encourage new refinery construction and streamline the regulatory path to build new refineries, among other provisions. Mr. Speaker, I am giving the benefit of the doubt to Chairman Barton and the Energy and Commerce Committee on this bill and I will vote for it, albeit reluctantly, to help move the process forward. But I believe we need more debate, especially on the issue of making certain we maintain strong environmental protections for clean air and water and endangered species when siting refineries, and I am hopeful that the House can negotiate with the Senate to come up with a more balanced bill. I am glad to see that the provisions modifying the New Source Review Program and the New Source Performance Standards Programs, which would reduce protections against pollutants, were removed from the final version of the bill. I also am pleased that the bill authorizes the president to have a refinery permitted, constructed and operated for the sole consumption of the United States Armed Forces. It is absolutely necessary that we do everything possible to ensure that our ability to defend our citizens is inhibited by a simple lack of oil and refined gas. If our nation ever hopes to reduce its dependence on imported oil, we also must increase automobile fuel economy standards. I was very disappointed that the Rules Committee failed to make in order an amendment to H.R. 3893 to increase Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. I enclose for the record a copy of the text of the letter I signed with Representatives Boehlert, Shays, Gilchrest and others to the Rules Committee. We must have fuel efficient automobiles that do not waste gasoline. I support boosting CAFE standards for U.S. auto makers to 33 mpg over 10 years (by 2015), consistent with the findings of the National Academy of Sciences, in order to save 10 percent of the gasoline the nation would otherwise consume by 2015. The current standard of 27.5 miles per gallon has been in effect for nearly two decades despite proven technology that promises to stretch engine efficiency to much higher levels. I believe such a reasonable approach is needed to put U.S. auto makers on notice that they must work to produce more fuel efficient vehicles. I am also disappointed that, although the bill establishes a program to encourage the use of carpooling and vanpooling to save energy, there is absolutely no mention of telework. Ridesharing is important, but telework is the most efficient way to reduce gasoline consumption and reduce pollutants by taking commuters off the roads and allowing them to work at home or at a telework center close to home. Allowing all eligible federal employees to telework is the law of the land. Why is telework not included in this bill? I also believe we must have tough penalties on price gouging. I am very concerned when I hear from my constituents who don't understand how the price of gasoline at the pump can jump 25 cents in one day or how the same brand of gasoline can be selling at widely different prices at gas stations only a few miles apart. Then we hear the major oil companies reporting record profits while consumers deal with skyrocketing gas prices. This is far from a perfect bill. In the wake of the perfect storm that Katrina brought to our nation, we need to take action to both increase our energy supply and to become more energy and fuel efficient. Congress has an opportunity to craft a fair and balanced bill. I hope the legislation that is brought to the House after conference with the Senate is a bill that protects consumers, protects the environment and moves our nation to energy efficiency and is a final bill that I can support. Hon. David Dreier, Chairman, House Committee on Rules, The Capitol, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: We are writing to urge that the Rules Committee make in order Congressman Boehlert's amendment to increase Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards when it reports out a rule for the consideration of H.R. 3893, the ``Gasoline for America's Security Act of 2005.'' The amendment, a version of which has been made in order in each of the last three Energy Bill debates in the House, is germane to H.R. 3893. Indeed, it is difficult to see how the House could be seen to have a complete debate on the availability of gasoline without a discussion of fuel economy standards. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina and $3 per gallon gasoline prices, more Americans are becoming aware of the need to address the demand, as well as the supply side of our gasoline crisis--to protect their own family pocketbooks, as well as to enhance the nation's energy security. Indeed one recent poll found that 86 percent of Americans favor higher fuel economy standards, more than the percentage favoring any other approach to the current energy pinch. At this time when both the public and their representatives are becoming more open to toughening fuel economy standards, fairness dictates that a serious amendment on fuel economy standards be part of the debate about how the nation will ensure that gasoline remains affordable and accessible. The transportation sector is the nation's single largest consumer of oil, yet it is also the only sector of the economy that is less fuel efficient than it was 20 years ago. A debate on gasoline needs to include measures that will address that fact, especially when the National Academy of Sciences concluded four years ago that the technology exists to accomplish fuel economy goals cost-effectively and safely. And the study did not even consider three important technologies that automakers have since begun to introduce in the marketplace that can achieve even greater fuel economies: hybrid engine technologies, clean diesel technologies and high-strength, lightweight composites and steels. The House needs and deserves to have a discrete debate on fuel economy, just as it has had during the debate on past energy bills. The issue must not get lost in disputes about other aspects of H.R. 3893, which deals with a wide variety of legal and regulatory issues. We urge you to allow a clear, full and open debate on the single measure that would do the most to reduce the U.S. demand for oil. Sincerely, ------