Frank Wolf

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, as Congress considers how to provide Federal assistance to these victims of these hurricanes, it is critical that we make sure resources are focused on helping the poor and the needy rather than subsidizing certain self-sustaining industries like the gambling industry. The vast majority of the casinos on the gulf coast are owned and operated by entertainment companies that have been and are likely to continue record profits. Most gambling conglomerates have been named to the Fortune list of 100 fastest-growing companies for the fifth consecutive year. These conglomerates have vowed to rebuild bigger and better along the coast. With budget deficits growing to historic levels, we need to make sure that tax dollars for hurricane relief are going to those who truly need the government's help and not the gambling industry. The truth of the matter is, as Congress struggles to rein in the growth of mandatory spending, it just does not make any sense to give tax breaks to casinos. Mr. Speaker, I hope and trust that Congress will do the right thing and make sure our Federal resources go to the poor, the needy, the vulnerable and not the big gambling interests to rebuild the casinos.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, September 19, 2005, was an historic day for Warren County in Virginia's 10th District. On that Monday, the largest and last major building in the American Viscose (Avtex) plant complex on Kendrick Lane in Front Royal, next to the South Fork of the Shenandoah River, was imploded. The site is now being prepared for redevelopment as a 165-acre technology-oriented business park, 240-acre nature conservancy park, and 35-acre community soccer complex. The event marked the end of an era for the Front Royal and Warren County area which began over six decades ago. From 1940 to 1989, the Avtex plant was a hub for this community, employing more than 2,500 people manufacturing rayon, polyester and polypropylene fibers for the defense, space and commercial industries. But its closure in 1989, not only eliminated a great number of jobs, it left the site unsuitable for reuse. Following its closure, the facility was identified by the Environmental Protection Agency as a Superfund site. However, before the EPA could begin its work on cleaning up the site, asbestos and lead-contaminated buildings had to be removed. Since 2000, the Army Corp of Engineers has been partnering with the Environmental Protection Agency, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, the Economic Development Authority of Front Royal and Warren County and the FMC Corporation, a former owner of the site, in the Avtex cleanup efforts. These partners have done an amazing job of cleaning up this site and preparing for a new use. Clean-up can be very costly. That's why securing federal assistance for the effort has been a priority for Senator John Warner of Virginia and myself for many years. However, the initial funding of $12 million ended up being insufficient to cover the full cost of demolishing the buildings and removing the asbestos. In 2003, Senator Warner and I were able to help provide an additional $11 million in federal funds to finish the effort. It would have been unacceptable to leave the project half-done. Monday was a very emotional day for many who had dedicated years of service to our nation at the Avtex site. While the occasion was tinged with sadness for many former Avtex employees who were on hand for Monday's ceremony, they are hopeful that their former work site can once again be an economic center for the region. Former Avtex employees were recognized for their contributions over the years with yellow ribbons. Louise Bowers, an 83-year-old town resident, worked at the rayon plant for 46 years, over half of her life. Her father, the late Noah Martin, had a part in the history of this site having hauled sand used in the construction of the plant. Mrs. Bowers went to work there in 1940, one of 19 young women hired that day. During World War II, she wound motors for the spinning room. She ended up in the ``double-deck'' or the lower part of the plant, where the syrup-like viscose liquid was poured through platinum ``jets'' or thimbles, forming tiny filaments of rayon yam. She said the men worked upstairs and the women worked downstairs. It was through her job at Avtex that Louise met her husband, John C. Bowers. He worked at Avtex for 39 years. Much of his work was in the ``staple'' department, where sheets of fluffy rayon were baled. Like his wife, it was a bittersweet moment to see the boiler house imploded. For Lloyd W. Ebaugh Sr., 92, of Woodstock, his work at Avtex over 32 years provided a good living for him and his wife, Catherine, to raise their twin daughters. Avtex was the lifeblood for other communities from Winchester to Woodstock to Edinburg to Luray, across the mountain, all around. It was the major industry in the area. His wife was saddened by Monday's implosion noting that ``it represented the end of a lot of things, wonderful and good things.'' Also on hand for Monday's implosion was William K. Sine, 76, of Front Royal, who earned his living at Avtex for more than 29 years. His was the next to the last shift worked before the plant closed for good on November 9, 1989. ``It was a good experience,'' Mr. Sine said. ``I know a lot of the guys I worked with up there, most of them are dead now.'' The implosion of the last significant remaining building was a milestone for everyone involved--the town, the county, the Economic Development Authority, and all the federal partners. As the U.S. representative for this area, I was pleased be able to participate in this historic occasion--the end of the Avtex plant but the birth of a new economic generator for the people of Front Royal, Warren County and the surrounding areas. The people of Warren County are to be commended for their resolve to see this project through to its completion.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I recently returned from Iraq and Afghanistan and Qatar with my administrative assistant Dan Scandling, and I wanted to give a report on what I saw and some recommendations for the Bush administration. This was my third time to Iraq, second time to Afghanistan. This time we went to Baghdad, Tikrit, and Kirkuk. I have now been to all parts of Iraq except to Kurdish areas in the north. On previous trips we have been to Baghdad, Nasaria, Alkoot twice, and Basra. I want to begin by praising the military, both active duty, Reserve and National Guard and note their very, very positive attitude and great, great morale. I also want to publicly acknowledge and thank them and praise their families in noting the sacrifices that they and their families are making. I also want to offer condolences to the families who have lost loved ones. Before I go any further, Mr. Speaker, I want to read a passage from an online journal being kept by a chaplain I met from Gloucester, Virginia during my recent trip. We were in the Kirkuk area and he sat across the table from me and he told me this story. We then got this from his Web page. It is incredibly moving and describes the quality of the men and women serving in uniform. It is the hero mission from a trip report excerpted with permission from Army chaplain J.D. Morris, ``Chronicles of Pastor J.D., January 27, 2005.'' He begins by saying, ``I was abruptly caught off guard today by one of the administrative privates from flight operations. He told me that the flight operations battle captain was looking for me. When I arrived to see the battle captain, he told me that I was given a hero mission for a young soldier who had died in battle only hours before. ``I had about 20 minutes to ready myself and go back by Blackhawk with Specialist Tussant to recover the soldier's body from his unit and to escort the hero to another base where he would be sent home to his family. I found Specialist Tussant, gathered my gear, and made my way to the flight line to board the aircraft. When I arrived everyone was as sober as I. ``I prayed over the aircraft, received our mission briefing, and then we departed. Once arriving to the location of the unit, I found the fallen soldier's unit neatly and sharply in formation next to the landing zone. Their clothes were muddy, their faces were downcast, and immediately you could sense their pain. ``Tussant and I immediately departed the aircraft and hastily made our way to the chaplain of the unit who was standing with his soldiers like a good shepherd. In the chaplain's arm was a large red Bible embraced against his chest. ``The soldiers carefully opened the back of the vehicle and solemnly and with honor removed the fallen friend from the vehicle. The black body bag hung in the hands of his friends. ``Tussant and I stood next to the vehicle and rendered a slow salute. We slowly and reverently followed the soldiers and the fallen comrade to the aircraft. Once arriving to the helicopter with the blades still churning and whirling, we all carefully placed the hero in the aircraft. ``The crew chief in the aircraft gently situated the new crew member, our hero. We stopped and prayed. As I turned to my rear, I looked back to see the rest of America's sons. Their chaplain, Chaplain Fisher, came to me, embraced me tightly and with a shattered voice said, `Thank you for being here and escorting our friend part way home. Thank the unit for us for their help.' ``I could only return his embrace, pat his shoulder, and look into his face. I then boarded the aircraft. We began our assent. As the helicopter blades aggressively moved the air and we began to rise off the ground, I looked to my right out the window to see the unit being swayed by the turbulence but still saluting their fallen hero. ``As long as I could see the hero's unit standing at attention in the blowing turbulence, saluting their combat buddy, the soldiers remained standing steadfast, saluting and honoring our hero. ``I certainly will never forget this hero mission. I was very quiet back to Speicher, which was the base. I could only think of the pain a family back home was getting ready to experience. I prayed for the family.'' Why did I go to Iraq for the third time and Afghanistan for the second time? I have been hearing a constant drumbeat of negative stories all summer, so I wanted to assess the situation again with my own eyes. Not believe the administration, nor believe the media, but I wanted to see firsthand for myself. I saw a lot of positive things. Hospitals are being renovated. Schools are being built. Pipelines are being repaired. And the Iraqi Army is being trained. In the comparison of my first visit and my second visit and this visit 2 weeks ago, I could see the improvement that was being made. Security, however, is still the greatest challenge we face. Who did I meet with? I met with Lieutenant General Petraeus, Ambassador Khalilzad, members of Iraqi leadership including the President, Prime Minister, and the Speaker of the National Assembly, NBC officials, folks from the Department of Justice, Department of Transportation, Department of Energy, the USAID, and a lot of soldiers from privates to generals. What were my impressions? There is real progress being made, but there are still concerns. Security remains our greatest challenge. The country is far from being safe. Everywhere I went I was escorted by a full complement of heavily armed soldiers and security personnel; and even when riding in an armored vehicle we had to wear body armor and a helmet. Until we get security under control, our efforts to rebuild Iraq will continue to be a challenge. If embassy officials, USAID staff, NGOs, nongovernmental organizations, contractors and, yes, even the media cannot move around the country without the fear of being attacked, our efforts to bring peace to Iraq will be hampered. I was told that many contractors remain unwilling to bid on work because of the level of violence that still exists and those who take on projects spend enormous sums of money on private security. I was also told the World Bank, a critical element to rebuilding Iraq, had refused to send staff because of security concerns. But I saw improvement from when I was there the first time, an improvement from when I was there the second time. And this administration has failed to articulate the improvement that has been made in Iraq. To really understand what has happened in Iraq, you have to talk to the service men and women, God bless them, who are serving or who have served there. They are the fathers, the mothers, the sons, daughters who put their lives on the line in this war on terror. They are the neighbor down the street who has been called up for Reserve or Guard duty. They are the Federal employee who has volunteered for a temporary assignment. I was struck by the number of people saying the Iraq they see on TV every day is not the Iraq they know. In the mess halls, throughout the mess halls there are six to eight television sets that are on every day to CNN. One junior officer told me that he does not even watch the news anymore. Most soldiers said they were bewildered on what they were seeing on the news compared to what they know was taking place firsthand in Iraq. In speaking with our service personnel, I was troubled to learn our troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are well aware of the media coverage of anti-war protests in America. Especially the vigil of Cindy Sheehan. The televisions, as I said, in the mess hall and sleeping quarters are turned to CNN and MSNBC and Fox. I had several soldiers express wonderment on what is taking place back home. At one point, an enlisted soldier pulled me aside and asked if he could talk to me in private. He said that he had been watching the news about the protests and wanted to know if the American people were still behind the soldiers. I reassured him they were, but he just looked at me and asked me again, almost as if he did not hear me, when he said he did not believe me. Then he said that when some of his fellow soldiers learned about the antiwar vigil, their morale was impacted. I raise this point because I believe that it is important for the antiwar protesters to know how their actions may potentially be perceived by our soldiers on the front lines who are doing their jobs. Protest and dissent is the beauty of democracy, and it is important in a democracy, and everyone has the right to protest and dissent, but I think it is important that the antiwar demonstrators need to understand that our soldiers know about their actions. They need to realize that those actions can have a negative impact on the soldiers' spirits. Personally, I believe that President Bush should have met with Cindy Sheehan. I still believe that President Bush should meet with Cindy Sheehan. I have read news accounts of some of the President's meetings with families of soldiers who have been killed in action. You cannot help but get emotional reading the reports. The President's a compassionate man. He shares in the grief of those families who have lost a loved one, and I know that the burden on him as Commander in Chief is tremendous. So, therefore, I believe that he should include Cindy Sheehan in his next meeting with families of fallen or wounded soldiers. Some of my thoughts on return. There are good people on both sides of the decision to send U.S. forces to Iraq. We are now there. We cannot abandon the mission to bring peace and stability to Iraq and its people. We need to recognize the rebuilding of Iraq needs to be based on a different timetable and not necessarily on our timetable or what we think is going to take place today. The Bush administration needs to do a better job of explaining what failure to succeed in Iraq means to the average person in the United States. Let me state that again. The Bush administration needs to do a better job of explaining what failure to succeed in Iraq means to the American people. I asked everyone I met with, at every meeting I went to, and when I would get up in the morning and go into the mess hall by myself at 5:30 or 6 o'clock in the morning, I would sit down with the soldiers and ask them and ask everyone this question: What does failure mean if we fail in Iraq? The responses were chilling. Somalia, one person said. Have you seen the movie Black Hawk Down, he said. Another person said the former Yugoslavia, and I was in the former Yugoslavia during the fighting in Sarajevo and Vukovar, and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and I were in Vukovar before the slaughter took place. All the people that we met with in Vukovar all were later slaughtered when the Serbs came in and slaughtered them in Vukovar. Civil war. More foreign fighters pouring in across the border, the destabilization of the entire region. They said maybe the Kurdish area might make it. They said in the south the Iranians will come across the border for the Shiite and the Sunni triangle. Civil war, militia against militia. Killing and death and destruction. Foreign fighters coming in from Syria, pouring in, with more killing taking place. Others said the destabilization of the gulf region. Some said perhaps the overthrow of the Jordanian Government. Others said perhaps the overthrow of the Saudi Government. Another said perhaps the overthrow of the Egyptian Government. Oil exports. One person said, if you think oil's expensive now, if this region explodes, the price of oil in the West will be astronomical. The impact on the economy of the West. Others said that Iraq will turn into a haven, a haven for terrorists, similar to what happened when the West left Afghanistan on its own, and then the Taliban was able to constitute itself. Osama bin Laden moved to Afghanistan and Kandahar and Jalalabad and Kabul. We saw the pictures of gunning down women in burqas, and we saw what took place, and there will be a haven for terrorists to operate. Loss of American credibility. Danger, danger. We put in our report: danger to the American people. More emphasis with regard to the Jihadists in the West thinking that they can bring terror again. Thirty people from my congressional district died in the attack on the Pentagon, and we all know what took place with regard to the World Trade Center because we just went there and remembered on 9/11 what took place. The administration has failed to tell the American people the ramifications of failure in Iraq. If we were to pull out of Iraq and fail in Iraq, the ramifications on the war on terror are very, very bad for the average American. I want to take a few minutes to read what others are saying about the potential consequences of failure in Iraq. From Lawrence Kaplan, senior editor at New Republic, speaking at a recent conference by Notre Dame's Kroc Institute and Fordham University's Center on Religion and Culture, said the following: ``Preventing Iraq from coming apart at the seams means preventing the country from becoming what Afghanistan was until recently, a vacuum filled by terrorist organizations, which is what one National Intelligence Council report suggested Iraq is now fast becoming. ``Hence, Americans must ask themselves exactly what they owe Iraq. ``If U.S. policy truly has a moral component,'' and our policy must have a moral component, ``if U.S. policy truly has a moral component,'' he said, which I believe it does, ``the answer must be something better, or, at the very least, not worse, than what went before.'' From Kenneth Pollack, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute, a distinguished scholar in this region, in an op-ed that ran in the New York Times on July 1, said, ``No matter what one thinks of the invasion, it is clearly in our best interest, to say nothing of the Arab world's, that we succeed in Iraq.'' From Francis Fukuyama, professor of international political economy at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, in a New York Times op-ed piece on August 31, said the following: ``If the United States withdraws prematurely, Iraq will slide into greater chaos. That would set off a chain of unfortunate events that will further damage American credibility around the world.'' From Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute and author of, ``Making War on the Terror Masters,'' in a June 17 article in the Dallas Morning News said, ``A precipitous U.S. withdrawal would obviously encourage the terrorists and the countries that support them. It would probably encourage them to expand their activities because they, too, are fairly focused against us in Iraq right now. They'd probably be more inclined to attack us elsewhere.'' Keep in mind the two attacks, the London subway bombings not too long ago, that al Qaeda has now taken credit for. In the same article, Tony Cordesman, who is a distinguished military analyst for the Center for Strategic and International Studies said, ``A withdrawal that left an Iraqi Government unable to defend itself would shatter U.S. standing in the Middle East, making it harder for moderate Arabs to stand up to Islamic extremists who hope to overthrow their governments. ``Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan and other U.S. allies would find it very, very hard to hold together and deal with this problem without distancing themselves from the United States.'' Then he went on to say, ``And we need to remember that we are talking about a region in the gulf with about 40 percent of the world's proven oil resources.'' That is unbelievable. Now, why has the administration not laid out carefully to the American people what the ramifications are to our country and our citizens of failure? Time is not on the side of the administration. There is a sense that public support is waning in both the United States and Great Britain. No one believes we will lose the war in Iraq. If the war in Iraq is lost, it will not be lost in Iraq. It will be lost here at home. One general officer told me point blank: The center of gravity for our success in Iraq is the American public. The Bush administration also needs to do a better job of letting the American people know how they can participate in this effort. In World War II, my dad served in World War II. We had war bonds. We had victory gardens. We had scrap metal collections. The American public supports the troops and wants to do more. There ought to be more opportunities where the administration can let the American people know how they can participate to help the effort, to help the young men and women who are serving in the military and their families. For example, at a rest and relaxation facility in Qatar, there is a need for clothes for servicemen and -women after their activities, and they get 4 or 5 days off. They come to this center, and they have no shirts, and they have no shaving gear. There they have skirts and dresses and T-shirts and sweatshirts to wear. Well, the American people, if they knew it, would love to participate, would love to help. And the administration has to do a better job of telling the American people how they can participate and help, because there are many Americans wearing the uniform today and their families who are making a major sacrifice. Others would like to participate and be part of that. Some of the major recommendations: The Bush administration should select a group of capable and distinguished individuals, some with a military background and others with extensive foreign policy experience, to go to Iraq and other parts of the gulf region and Afghanistan to comprehensively review our efforts. All the individuals, and I can name who they would be but I think it would be inappropriate because they have to be picked by others, but all of the individuals selected would be known for their honesty, for their integrity, for their competence, for their patriotism. They would love their country more than they would love their political party. The group would essentially provide what I call fresh eyes on the target; the target, of course, being how we bring about success in Iraq and lead to whereby our young men and women can return home. Upon this group's return, they would report to the President and the Congress, but more importantly, they would report to the American people. The motive would not be to find fault. One can always go back and say there were mistakes. Quite frankly, I believe that we should have never disbanded the Iraqi Army. But it would be a forward-looking report, to see what we can do in the best interests of our servicemen and how we can bring about success. An independent, comprehensive review could help assure Americans, no matter what their position is on the war, that every effort is being made to protect our troops and realize their goal of a secure and peaceful Iraq, that it would look at what is going right and what is going wrong. I recognize that the Bush administration has sent other individuals to Iraq to assess the ongoing situation, but what I call ``fresh eyes review'' would be different, in that rather than just reporting back to the President or the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of State, this group would also report back to the Congress and to the American people. Frankly, I believe the administration has a moral obligation to the American people to do this and to provide this information. There are no downsides in such a review. In our daily lives, we regularly seek second opinions. As chairman of the House appropriations subcommittee with oversight of the State Department and the Justice Department, in addition to being the author of the National Commission on Terrorism, later known as the Bremer Commission, I am keenly aware of what is at stake if we fail to achieve our goals in Iraq. In September of 1998, when I returned from having been in Algeria, where terrorism has killed over 100,000 people, the bombing of our embassy in Kenya and in Tanzania took place, and I introduced a bill to create the National Commission on Terror. When I introduced the bill on the floor of this House, I said that Osama bin Laden lived in Sudan from 1991 to 1996. There was very little interest by the Clinton administration for this. Very few agencies wanted to participate and cooperate, but, finally, they did. This is the report of the Bremer Commission. It says, ``Countering the Changing Threat of International Terrorism,'' and it came out in the year 2000. And distinguished Members served on the commission, bipartisan members of the commission, Republican and Democratic members of the commission. In fact, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), who is the ranking Democrat on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence today was on the commission. The commission was made up of Paul Bremer; Maurice Sonnenberg; Richard Betts, Wayne Downing, who is a U.S. Army General, retired, with expertise; Jane Harman, a good Member of the House; Fred Ikle; Juliette Kayyem; John Lewis, Jr.; Gardner Peckham; and James Woolsey, who was the head of the CIA. On the cover of the commission report that they came out with is a picture of the World Trade Center on fire. Now, the World Trade Center bombing took place on September 11, 2001. This was the picture of the World Trade Center on fire from the attack that took place in 1993, and no one paid any attention to it. They neglected it. This group, this National Commission on Terror, could ensure that we are successful in this effort. They would travel to all parts of Iraq; the Shi'a south, the central Sunni Triangle, and the north, where the Kurds reside. They would have to go to the region for 7 to 10 days to 2 weeks. They would meet with general officers, junior officers, NCOs, specialists and privates in Iraq and in Afghanistan. They would meet with embassy officials and other Federal Government employees working in Baghdad. They would meet with civilian contractors and NGOs, nongovernmental organizations operating in the country. They would meet with Iraqi leaders and also ordinary Iraqis in country towns and villages. And to better educate the American public about our ongoing efforts in Iraq and the gulf region, perhaps a select group of media should also accompany this group during its visit, not as a tool for U.S. propaganda but to ensure transparency. This would give the media the opportunity to travel to all parts of the country and report on both the good and the bad. Because as many of my colleagues know, it is very difficult for the media to move around Iraq. The media has lost roughly 60-some people. Media have died. It is very difficult to get from point A to point B, from Baghdad to Kirkuk, or Baghdad to Nasaria, or Baghdad to Tikrit. This would give the media the opportunity to travel to all parts and to report on both the good and the bad. And the pool would include both broadcast and print media. This fresh-eyes review would assess answers to such questions as the following: How accurate a picture do we have of the insurgency? What is the realistic strength of the insurgency? Is the insurgency growing or diminishing in capability? What can we do to get better tactical intelligence on the enemy? And what will it take to get actionable intelligence? How reliable and effective is the growing Iraqi security establishment? What is its ethnic makeup? What is the power and effectiveness of local militias in the country, and how much of a problem do they pose in the longer term for the Iraqi Government? What role is Iran playing in the evolving political and security situation in Iraq? We heard that the Iranians have poured across the border and are a destabilizing influence in what is taking place in Iraq. They would take a look at that. What role is Syria playing? We have been told that the Syrians are allowing foreign fighters to pour across their border. This group could look at that and see if that is the case and see if there are ways of securing the Syrian border. They would look at what will it take in terms of resources and organization and time to effectively control the Iraqi borders. Is there an anti-sabotage strategy to protect the energy infrastructure? If so, why is it not working? Are there alternatives? They would look at what is the status of the efforts to organize the Iraqi ministries and get them up and running. Is progress being made? If not, what more needs to be done? What criteria should guide the pace of withdrawal of American and Coalition Forces? We owe it to the thousands of men and women who are in harm's way to test the process and ask the questions. We owe it to the American people. I urge the administration, having been there three times in Iraq, two times by myself, without anybody telling me where I could go or where I could not go, and two times in Afghanistan, where I led the first congressional delegation to Afghanistan with the gentleman from Lancaster, Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), and my best friend and former Congressman Tony Hall of Ohio. We owe it to the American public. So in closing, Mr. Speaker, I urge the administration to act quickly to put together this team to offer fresh eyes on the target. There is nothing to lose. And, lastly, Mr. Speaker, we owe it to the men and women who are mentioned in this article that I opened up with in the excerpts by Army Chaplain J. D. Moore, ``Hero Mission.'' I am asking this administration to support this group. Mr. Speaker, I submit herewith for the Record the commission report I referred to earlier. [Report from the National Commission on Terrorism] Countering the Changing Threat of International Terrorism Appendix C: Commission Members and Staff Commissioners L. Paul Bremer III, Chairman, is the Managing Director of Kissinger Associates. During a 23-year career in the American diplomatic service, Ambassador Bremer served in Asia, Africa, Europe and Washington, D.C./ He was Ambassador to the Netherlands from 1983 to 1986. From 1986-1989, he served as Ambassador-at-Large for Counter-Terrorism, where he was responsible for developing and implementing America's global policies to combat terrorism. Maurice Sonnenberg, Vice Chairman, is the senior international advisor to the investment banking firm of Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. and the senior international advisor to the law firm of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP. He is a member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. He recently served as a member of the U.S. Commission on Reducing and Protecting Government Secrecy and as the senior advisor to the U.S. Commission on the Roles and Capabilities of the U.S. Intelligence Community. Richard K. Betts is Leo A. Shifrin Professor of War and Peace Studies in the political science department, Director of the Institute of War and Peace Studies, and Director of the International Security Policy program in the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University. He is also Director of National Security Studies and Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and author of ``Surprise Attack: Lesson for Defense Planning.'' Wayne A. Downing, General, U.S. Army, retired in 1996 after a 34-year career, where he served in a variety of command assignments in infantry, armored, special operations and joint units culminating in his appointment as the Commander- in-Chief of the U.S. Special Operations Command. Since retirement, he was appointed to assess the 1996 terrorist attack on the U.S. base at Khobar Towers, Saudi Arabia, and to make recommendations to protect people and facilities world wide from terrorist attack. General Downing serves on several boards and panels in both the private and government sectors. Jane Harman just completed a year as Regents Professor at U.C.L.A. where she taught at the Department of Political Science and Center for International Relations. Harman represented California's 36th Congressional District from 1992-1998 where she served on the National Security, Science and Intelligence Committees. Prior government experience includes Senate Counsel, White House Deputy Cabinet Secretary and DoD Special Counsel. Harman is currently seeking election to her former seat. Fred C. Ikle is a Distinguished Scholar, Center for Strategic & International Studies. Dr. Ikle is Chairman of the Board of Telos Corporation and a Director of the Zurich- American Insurance Companies and of CMC Energy Services. Prior to joining the Center, Dr. Ikle served as Undersecretary of Defense for Policy and Director for the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. Juliette N. Kayyem is an Associate of the Executive Session on Domestic Preparedness, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. She writes and teaches courses on counter-terrorism policy and the law. Ms. Kayyem has most recently served as a legal advisor to the Attorney General at the U.S. Department of Justice and as Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. John F. Lewis, Jr. is Director of Global Security for Goldman, Sachs & Co., New York. Previously, he was Assistant Director-in-Charge of the National Security Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Mr. Lewis managed the FBI's national counterintelligence and counterterrorism programs. Mr. Lewis has held a variety of positions, including an appointment as Director of Intelligence and CI Programs, National Security Staff and previous Chairman of the International Association of Chiefs of Police Committee on Terrorism. Gardner Peckham is Managing Director of the government relations firm of Black, Kelly, Scruggs & Healey with a practice focused on international trade, defense and foreign policy issues. Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Peckham served as Senior Policy Advisor to the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. He also held several other senior positions in Congress and during the Bush Administration served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs at the U.S. Department of State and Director for Legislative Affairs at the National Security Council Staff. R. James Woolsey is a partner at the law firm of Shea & Gardner with a practice in the fields of civil litigation, alternative dispute resolution, and corporate transactions; he also serves on several corporate boards. Previous to returning to the firm, Mr. Woolsey served as Director of Central Intelligence. His U.S. Government service includes Ambassador to the Negotiations on CFE, Under Secretary of the Navy, and General Counsel of the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services. He has served on many Presidential and Congressional delegations, boards, and commissions.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe the White House is planning to provide the gambling industry in the gulf region with special tax breaks as part of their economic recovery package. This is a disgrace. In the wake of devastation left by Hurricane Katrina, taxpayer dollars should be helping these, indeed, the poor and the vulnerable. In today's Washington Post, White House officials are quoted as saying they do not plan to exclude the gambling interests from receiving tax breaks. In Mississippi, the gambling interests do not even receive special economic development tax breaks. I am outraged. And probably more telling is the shock coming from the industry itself. A Harrah's spokesman in this morning's Post is quoted as saying, ``We're actually scratching our heads. We can't ever remember an instance of being offered a tax credit, ever!'' Economists in Mississippi say it is not needed. ``The casinos don't need this. If they are eligible, that would be a complete waste of money,'' from an economist from Ole Miss in The Washington Post today. It is outrageous with budget deficits growing to historic levels, tax breaks for the gambling industry does not make sense. The Bush administration, I will tell you, if this is in their package, this will be a disgrace and the American people will turn against this administration. Give the money to the poor, the needy, the vulnerable, and not to the gambling interests that already have special insurance policies for this.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, upon the 50th anniversary of the Communist government assault on the Roman Catholic Church in Shanghai, I wish to submit for the Record a letter from the Cardinal Kung Foundation to Chinese President Ju Hintao. The Cardinal Kung Foundation advocates on behalf of the persecuted underground Catholic church in China. September 1, 2005. President Hu Jintao, People's Republic of China, c/o Ambassador Yang Jiechi, Embassy of the People's Republic of China, Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC. Dear President Hu: September 8, 2005 will be remembered as your historical first visit to the United States and to Yale University as the President of the People's Republic of China. The world will be eagerly listening to your vision for China. However, September 8, 2005 is also being observed by 12 million Roman Catholics in China and millions more worldwide as the 50th anniversary of the unjust and brutal assault on the Roman Catholic Church in Shanghai when the Chinese government simultaneously arrested the late Bishop Ignatius Kung Pin-Mei, at the time the Roman Catholic Bishop of Shanghai, 21 priests, 2 nuns, and approximately 300 Roman Catholics for practicing their Roman Catholic religion. Today, fifty years later, we commemorate and weep silently about this gross injustice and tragedy that your government had inflicted upon these innocent Catholic religious and faithful. All of them were sentenced to 10-30 years and even to life imprisonment. In honor of these bloodless martyrdoms, the late Pope John Paul II secretly (in pectore) elevated Bishop Kung Pin-Mei to a Cardinal in 1979 while he was still in jail and publicly proclaimed him a cardinal in 1991 amidst a 7-minute standing ovation before an audience of 7,000 people. Since 1949 when your government took over China, literally tens of thousands of Roman Catholic bishops, priests, nuns, and their faithful have been imprisoned for 5, 10, 20, 30 or even 40 years. Many of them, such as Bishop Fan Xueyan of Baoding (34 years in solitary confinement), died in jail. Some of them are still in jail on this date or have vanished after they were arrested. Many of them were released after a very long period in jail. Some of those released are still living in China or in other parts of the world. Some, such as Cardinal Kung Pin-Mei, whom the late Pope John Paul II called ``this noble son of China and of the Church'' (30 years in solitary confinement and 2.5 years in house arrest), and Archbishop Dominic Tan Yee-Ming of Canton (24 years in jail without a trial), have since died. It does not matter if these prisoners are dead or living today. They are still considered criminals because the ``criminal'' charges against them were never erased by your government. There are thousands more like Cardinal Kung, Bishop Fan and Archbishop Tang. They are all loyal citizens of China and they love China. Mr. President, you have the power and the leadership to bring modern China into an era of true religious freedom. Mr. President, you also have the wisdom and historical acumen to realize that a country without religious freedom is never peaceful and constructive. You know the importance of changing the world's perception of China's human rights policy for the better and you can do it. And, we pray that you will do it. The Chinese government has justifiably exonerated numerous political prisoners in the past. On this 50th anniversary of the unjust and brutal assault of the Roman Catholic Church in Shanghai described above, the Cardinal Kung Foundation appeals to you once again, as we have appealed to your Ambassador Yang Jiechi on March 23, 2005, that all these prisoners, including Cardinal Kung, Bishop Fan and Archbishop Tang and many others, both living and dead, be officially and posthumously exonerated of so called crimes of which the Chinese government falsely and unjustly accused them, some as long as five decades ago. We also appeal to you to release all current religious prisoners from prison and labor camp as per the attached list. By your doing so, the reputation of these living and dead religious prisoners of conscience in China can be restored. Those who are still living can at least once again enjoy equal treatment in the society. To do so will be a powerful testimony to the Chinese government's respect for and adherence to human rights and liberty. To do so will also prove that China is honoring the spirit of the Olympic Games that you will have the honor of hosting in 2008. God love you. Thank you. Yours truly, Joseph Kung, President, Cardinal Kung Foundation.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I remain terribly concerned about the explosion of gambling outlets, particularly casinos, opening around our country. I am deeply concerned about the impact this is having on our society. Gambling destroys families and preys on the poor. According to the California Council on Problem Gambling, which operates a crisis hotline, 3,400 callers had lost an average of $32,000 each. That's $109 million of lost wealth, many who probably could least afford to lose it. Even more tragic is the fact that this statistic represents problem gamblers in only one state. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a copy of the article When Gambling Becomes Obsessive from the July 25 edition of Time magazine. I recently wrote President Bush urging his action on calling a halt to tribal gambling, which is now moving off reservations. Unfortunately, the administration responded that they do not have the authority to address this issue. If the administration believes it does not have authority to issue a moratorium to halt new tribal gambling operations, it should send Congress legislation so that we can take action to give it that authority. [From Time Magazine, July 25, 2005] When Gambling Becomes Obsessive (By Jeffrey Kluger) For a man who hasn't bet a nickel since 1989, Bruce Roberts spends a lot of time in casinos. He's rarely there alone, however. He usually has an escort walk him through--the better to ensure that he doesn't succumb to the sweet swish of the cards or the signature rattle of the dice. A onetime compulsive gambler, Roberts, 62, weathered his years of wagering better than many. He never lost his wife or his home--although he has refinanced the house nine times. ``Cards and Vegas were the two biggest things in my life,'' he says. ``I'm a helluva poker player, but I have one serious flaw: I can't get my ass off the chair.'' When Roberts visits a casino these days, it's as executive director of the California Council on Problem Gambling, an organization that helps gaming halls run responsible gambling programs. The rest of the time, he's back in the office, overseeing a crisis hotline. Last year his service took 3,400 calls from gamblers who had lost an average of $32,000 each. That's $109 million of evaporated wealth reported to just one hotline in just one year. And California is not alone. More than 50 million people describe themselves as at least occasional poker players. Millions turn on the TV each week to watch one of eight scheduled poker shows--to say nothing of the 1 million who will tune in to ESPN's broadcast of this year's WorId Series of Poker. Two hundred forty-seven Native American casinos dot tribal lands in 22 states; 84 riverboat or dockside casinos ply the waters or sit at berth in six states. And with local governments struggling to close budget gaps, slots and lotteries are booming. All told, 48 states have some form of legalized gambling--and none of that includes the wild frontier of the Internet. By 1996 the annual take for the U.S. gambling industry was over $47 billion, more than that from movies, music, cruise ships, spectator sports and live entertainment combined. In 2003 the figure jumped to over $72 billion. All that money is coming from someone's pockets, and it's not the winners'. According to Keith Whyte, executive director of the National Council on Problem Gambling, as many as 10 million U.S. adults meet the ``problem gambling'' criteria. Kids are hit even harder. Exact figures aren't easy to come by, but various studies place the rate of problem gambling among underage players somewhere between two and three times the rate for adults. Nobody thinks the gambling genie can be put back in the bottle. What health officials want to know is whether the damage can be curbed. What separates addictive gamblers from occasional ones? Is it personality, brain chemistry, environment? Can a behavior be a true addiction without a chemical driving it? ``People have seen gambling in moral terms for a thousand years,'' says Whyte. ``It's only recently that we've begun seeing it as a disease.'' Defining compulsive gambling is like defining compulsive drinking: it's not clear when you cross the line. But if there are enough signs that your behavior is starting to slip out of your control (see the self-test), chances are that you have a problem. It's a problem of special interest to researchers because it reveals a lot about addiction as a whole. One of the difficulties in understanding drug or alcohol abuse is that the minute you add a chemical to the body, you muddy the mental processes. ``It's hard to tease the connection out because you don't know how much is the drug and how much is the behavior,'' says Whyte. ``But gambling is a pure addiction.'' To see if that's true, scientists turn to such advanced diagnostic tools as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) machines to peer into the brains of gamblers while they play. In a 2001 study conducted at Harvard Medical School and elsewhere, researchers monitored subjects as they engaged in a wheel-of-fortune game. The investigators looked mainly at several areas of the brain known to be involved in processing dopamine, a pleasure-inducing chemical released during drug and alcohol use. Sure enough, the same areas lighted up when test subjects gambled, becoming active not only when they won but also when they merely expected to win--precisely the pattern of anticipation and reward that drug and alcohol users show. ``This put gambling on the map with other neurobiologic addictions,'' says Dr. Barry Kosofsky, a pediatric neurologist at Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York City. Surprising support for that work came earlier this month when researchers at Minnesota's Mayo Clinic reported that 11 Parkinson's disease patients being treated with dopamine- enhancing medications began gambling compulsively; one patient eventually lost $100,000. Six of the 11 also began engaging in compulsive eating, drinking, spending or sex. Only when the dopamine was discontinued did the patients return to normal. The dopamine cycle may not be the only thing that drives gamblers. Personality also plays a part. This month researchers in the U.S., Britain and New Zealand released the latest results from an ongoing, 30-year study of roughly 1,000 children born in the early 1970s. One purpose of the research was to determine which temperament types were most likely to lead to addictions. The just released results showed that compulsive gamblers, drinkers and drug users have high underlying levels of negative emotionality, a syndrome that includes nervousness, anger and a tendency to worry and feel victimized. Significantly, they also score lower in the so-called constraint category, meaning they are given to impulsiveness and thrill seeking. That's a bad combination, particularly when you throw drugs, drink or gambling into the mix. ``It's like picking your poison,'' says psychologist Avshalm Caspi of King's College in London, one of the researchers in the study. What makes people start gambling may also be a function of availability. A 1999 study ordered by the U.S. Congress found that people who live within 50 miles of a casino have two times as much risk of developing a gambling problem as those living farther away. And the growing popularity of electronic gambling only makes things worse. In one study, researchers at Brown University found that while gamblers take an average of 312 years to develop a problem when they're playing traditional games like cards, slot-machine players fast- forward their addiction, getting hooked in just over a year. So what can be done to get problem gamblers to quit? Medication, in theory, may help. Psychologists like G. Alan Marlatt of the University of Washington are interested in the potential of so-called opioid antagonists, drugs that might partially disrupt the neurochemistry that produces feelings of well-being, thus denying gamblers the kick they seek. More effective may be the 12 Step protocol used by Alcoholics Anonymous. Gamblers Anonymous groups meet all across the country, stressing abstinence and providing a community of ex-gamblers to offer support. Marlatt is worried that abstinence may be less effective with young gamblers and is exploring cognitive techniques that instead teach kids to recognize the triggers that get them to gamble too much. The states may also have a role to play. Illinois has instituted a self-exclusion program in which gamblers can put their names on a voluntary blacklist, allowing casinos to eject them from the premises, require them to donate their winnings to a gambling-treatment program and, in some cases, charge them with trespassing. Like Marlatt's moderation strategy, however, the Illinois program takes a measure of self-discipline that may be the very thing compulsive gamblers lack. ``In addiction, they call it chasing the high,'' says psychologist Carlos DiClemente of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. ``In gambling, it's called chasing the big win. And that's where self-regulation goes down the tubes.'' Better, say DiClemente and others, to simply to put down the cards or dice or cup of coins for good. As battle-scarred gamblers are fond of saying, the only way to be sure you come out ahead is to buy the casino. --With reporting by Melissa August/ Washington, Helen Gibson/ London, Noah Isackson/ Chicago, Coco Masters/ New York and Jeffrey Ressner/ Los Angeles

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, there are more than 40 million uninsured Americans today--nearly a million in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Throughout the country, medical professionals and countless others have responded to the need of those who are seriously ill and cannot pay for a doctor, medicine, and other health costs. In many places, this help has come in the form of community free clinics. Community free clinics, particularly in Virginia, have helped people in communities come together to care for those in need. The health care ``safety net'' for the poor, like the community free clinics in my congressional district, exists in communities across America, but often in widely varying degrees. I am pleased to introduce today ``Charity Care for the Uninsured Act.'' While this legislation alone will not solve the problem of the uninsured, I believe it will help strengthen community ``safety nets,'' like the community free clinics in Virginia, for those in need and will allow doctors recognition for their willingness to give back to their communities. The Charity Care for the Uninsured Act would provide a personal income tax credit of up to $2,000 for doctors who provide between 25 and 50 hours of uncompensated, pro bono charity care to the uninsured in a single calendar year. This legislation would encourage the many physicians who have treated patients who were not able to pay, either in their offices or in community clinics, to continue to do so. The Charity Care for the Uninsured Act also will help provide a valuable tool--a personal tax credit--to community clinics in recruiting physicians as well as helping motivate countless specialty doctors to take community clinic referrals. Free clinics have contributed to reduced emergency room (ER) utilization among the uninsured, helping save taxpayer dollars. A safety net in which the uninsured can access specialists and medications will improve their health and guard against catastrophic illnesses and trips to the ER. All of the cost savings and health benefits can be traced back to the commitment and the compassion of the doctors and community partners, and their concern for those who cannot afford insurance. The Charity Care for the Uninsured Act of 2005 recognizes and encourages these caring acts made to help those who need a helping hand. This legislation can be an important tool for communities as they seek to strengthen or build the health care safety net available to their uninsured residents.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, with consideration of H. Res. 376, which expressed the sense of the House of Representatives that the Federal Trade Commission Should Investigate the Publication of the Video Game ``Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas'' to determine if the publisher intentionally deceived the Entertainment Software Ratings Board to avoid an ``Adults-Only'' rating, I would like to enter a recent article from the Los Angeles Times into the Record. This article highlights the conflict of interest that is inherent in a voluntary rating system. The real question is: Can you trust this industry? [From the Los Angeles Times, July 21, 2005] Hidden Sex Scenes Spark Furor Over Video Game (By Alex Pham) The oversight board that puts parental ratings on video games took the unusual step Wednesday of slapping its strongest warning on a bestselling title as the game maker admitted putting explicit, interactive sex scenes on the disc. Retailers began pulling copies of ``Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas'' from their shelves after the Entertainment Software Ratings Board revoked the game's ``Mature'' rating and raised it to ``Adults Only.'' Publisher Take-Two Interactive Software Inc. said it planned to rework ``San Andreas''--the top-selling video game of 2004--and reissue it later this year. The ratings board is similar to the Motion Picture Assn. of America's rating board. A ``Mature'' rating is analogous to an R movie rating, and ``Adults Only'' is equivalent to NC- 17. Most retailers refuse to sell ``Adults Only'' games. Executives at New York-based Take-Two had denied for weeks that company programmers were responsible for the graphic sex scenes, which can be unlocked with software that was widely available on the Internet. But Wednesday they acknowledged that the game's designers had created the scenes, dubbed ``Hot Coffee.'' ``The editing of any game is a highly technical process,'' said Take-Two spokesman Rodney Walker. ``We liken it to a painter who paints one painting and paints over it on the same canvas.'' Walker's explanation did little to mollify critics, who point to the ``Grand Theft Auto'' series to highlight the issue of violence and sexuality in video games. The games celebrate nihilistic killing, and Take-Two has reveled in its image as the bad boy of a $25-billion global game industry that's trying to gain respectability to match its profits. ``It looks like Take-Two Interactive purposefully conned the video game industry rating board and parents across the country,'' said Washington state Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson. `` `San Andreas,' as a top-selling game in the country, now is in the hands of thousands of children who can practice interactive pornography. There should be legal consequences . . . so [the company doesn't] laugh all the way to the bank.'' ``San Andreas,'' which retails for about $50, has sold more than 12 million copies worldwide since its launch in October. ``Mature'' rated games are intended for players older than 17. Many retailers keep such games under lock and key and have policies requiring clerks to check the identification of buyers. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., which accounts for as much as 20% of video game sales in the United States, began removing ``San Andreas'' from its shelves Wednesday, as did Best Buy Co. ``Our policy is not to carry any adult titles on our shelves,'' said Wal-Mart spokeswoman Karen Burk, who said buyers ``can certainly bring the product back'' for a refund. Take-Two said it would make a patch available for downloading so that customers could block the sex scenes. Word of the scenes began spreading over the Internet last month after Dutch programmer Patrick Wildenbourg began distributing software that he said unlocked them. Many video games have secrets to which players gain access as they progress. They might, for instance, win extra powers or reach hidden levels. ``Hot Coffee,'' by contrast, is an interactive sex game, featuring oral sex and intercourse. Wildenbourg, who removed his software from the Internet on Wednesday, declined to comment. As late as last week, Take-Two had insisted that the sex scenes were ``the work of a determined group of hackers who have gone to significant trouble to alter scenes in the official version of the game.'' Hackers, the company said, created the scenes by ``disassembling and then combining, recompiling and altering the game's code.'' The scenes prompted an outcry from game critics, including Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who last week called for a federal investigation into ``Hot Coffee.'' The Entertainment Software Ratings Board began a review to determine whether the scenes were part of the game's original code and warranted a re-rating of ``San Andreas,'' versions of which play on Sony Corp.'s PlayStation 2, Microsoft Corp.'s Xbox and personal computers. ``After a thorough investigation, we have concluded that sexually explicit material exists in a fully rendered, unmodified form on the final discs of all three platform versions of the game,'' said Patricia Vance, president of the ratings board. ``Clearly the [original] rating was incorrect, and it needed to be corrected.'' Take-Two's Walker said Wednesday that the sex scenes were never meant to be seen by the public and that they were revealed only when an outside programmer, called a ``modder,'' wrote software to unlock them. ``The mod community scratched the painting, revealing the earlier work,'' he said. Analysts estimated that modifying and remarketing ``San Andreas'' would cost Take-Two about $40 million in lost sales. Shares of Take-Two fell 11% in after-hours trading. ``It was a very poor exercise of judgment and a very costly one,'' said Michael Pachter, a video game industry analyst at Wedbush Morgan Securities in Los Angeles. ``It's an embarrassment for management because obviously a maverick developer in their studios decided to put this stuff in there. I can only fault the management team for not putting systems in place to vet their games.'' Take-Two is no stranger to controversy. Previous installments of ``Grand Theft Auto'' have been adored by hard-core gamers but excoriated by parent groups and lawmakers for their depictions of violence and sex. In one, players could have sex with a prostitute and then beat her to death and take back their money. That game was rated ``Mature'' because players did not see the sex. Instead, they saw a parked car rock back and forth. Some lawmakers criticized the ratings board for failing to detect the sex scenes in its initial evaluation of ``San Andreas'' last year. Although the system is voluntary, most game publishers seek a rating from the organization, which evaluated more than 1,000 titles last year. ``It should not have taken this long,'' said Rep. Joe Baca (D-Rialto). ``This is evidence that the voluntary ratings system does not work.'' Video game industry executives tried to assure parents that the ``San Andreas'' incident was an anomaly. The ratings board ``has been in business for 11 years, and there has never yet been an incident of this kind,'' said Doug Lowenstein, head of the Entertainment Software Assn., the industry's trade group. ``You're looking at well over 10,000 games rated. If you look at that track record, you can say parents have every reason to be confident in the ratings system.'' Some consumers weren't completely reassured. ``As a parent I've lost some confidence in the [ratings board's] ability to police the industry,'' said Dennis McCauley, editor of GamePolitics.com. ``But [the board] did take a big step today, and I have to give them credit for that.''

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I have just read the very disturbing cover story from the most recent edition of Fortune magazine. The cover headline reads: ``America the 97 Lbs. Weakling?'' The cover shows a picture of a strong China punching a weak Uncle Sam. The facts in the article should sound the alarm across our country. America is falling behind. As chairman of the appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over NASA, NSF, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy, I have had the opportunity to meet with leading groups of people who represent the science and technology sector in our nation. Many will tell you that America is in a stall, and even more will tell you that America is in a decline, when it comes to global competition in science and technology. None of these groups will tell you that America is doing well in this critical area. The Fortune article points out that U.S. students have fallen behind. America currently ranks 28th in the world in mathematical achievement among 15-year-olds. The U.S. is graduating fewer and fewer engineers, with an estimated 70,000 this year, while China will graduate 600,000 and India 350,000. This is the generation we will look to to create a newer and better Internet, develop energy saving automobiles, or build a better i-Pod. This is an issue directly tied to America's economy, and could well determine how--dare I say if--we maintain our quality of life and our very way of life. Let me share with you a few more statistics: Patents awarded to U.S. companies/scientists--Down; Nobel prizes won by U.S. scientists--Down; scientific papers published by U.S. scientists--Down. U.S. investment in research and development has stayed flat for the last three decades while growing significantly in places like China, India, Brazil and Israel. U.S. students are behind their counterparts in other countries in math and science, and some Asian countries are graduating more than four times as many engineers. U.S. 12th-graders ranked near the bottom of math and science testing scores, according to the third International Math and Science Study. The proportion of U.S. graduates in science and engineering has declined 10 percent from 1994 to 2001 while the total number of undergraduate degrees awarded in the U.S. has increased 14 percentage points. The U.S. now awards more MBAs than math, science and engineering degrees. Ten years ago, Boeing produced nearly 60 percent of the world's commercial aircraft. Today, Boeing produces less than 40 percent. This news should be the wake-up call to spur us into action to help America get back on track to keep our country as the world's innovation leader. investment in innovation We must invest in innovation. Our Nation needs a commitment to fund its ``Innovation Budget.'' I have written the president about this issue and asked him to work to triple the Nation's innovation budget for Federal basic research and development over the next decade. America needs to be mobilized, much like it was after Sputnik in the late 1950s. The White House has to provide leadership. I believe Congress will support the effort. Congress two years ago fulfilled the commitment to double NIH budget to jump-start work on medical research to help find cures to debilitating and fatal diseases. A similar commitment for the innovation budget should be made. national conference on science and innovation Congress has laid the groundwork for addressing the innovation deficit through a provision in the supplemental appropriations bill passed in May that directs the Department of Commerce to work with business and industry groups to hold a conference this fall in Washington on science and innovation, and where the United States is headed. Among the participants will be the Council on Competitiveness, the Business Roundtable, the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Electronics Association. Education Is Key Education is key to our Nation's commitment to innovation and technology prominence. I have been pleased to work with Representatives Boehlert and Ehlers--two members who have been leaders in Congress on promoting science and technology issues--on legislative solutions. My proposal to forgive interest on student loans for math, engineering and physical science majors is in the higher education reauthorization bill now moving through the House. Education and the Workforce Chairman Boehner and Representative McKeon of the committee have been very supportive of efforts to advance the loan interest provision, and I thank them for their work. The genesis for this legislation was from the book, Winning the Future, by former Speaker Newt Gingrich, who has done a good job of outlining America's challenge to remain the world's leader in innovation and technology. I am hopeful that this legislation will attract more students into the science and engineering fields by offering to forgive the interest on their college loans. We must fill the critical shortage of math, science and engineering students in the United States. The provision allows up to $5,000 in interest to be forgiven on federally backed government loans if science majors agree to work in their field for five years upon graduating. Research Is Also Key The House, through passage of the FY 2006 Science-State-Justice- Commerce bill, has supported funding for science education and research: $4.38 billion for National Science Foundation (NSF) research and related activities, an increase of $44 million above the president's request. This is the Nation's largest resource pool for basic scientific research across all fields: $807 million for NSF's education programs, which is $70 million above the request; $169 million for NASA education programs, which is $2 million above the request; $28.9 million for a new consolidated education program for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The measure also encourages the National Science Board to establish a commission to present recommendations for broad Federal action to address the crisis in science and math education. Mr. Speaker, it is critical that administration's FY 2007 budget include a significant investment to respond to this crisis and I urge members to make their support known. I also urge members to read the latest article in Fortune if they have not done so. All is not lost, but America is at a crossroad. It's time to roll up our sleeves and get to work on this issue, and respond to this challenge through the commitment of the administration and Congress and the American people. America's future is at stake.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with my colleagues the attached statement by our former colleague Tony Hall, who now serves as U.S. ambassador to the World Food Programme. Ambassador Hall is concerned about the future of world food aid in light of current negotiations at the World Trade Organization. In the past year, the world has been broadsided by tragedy. Mother Nature wreaked havoc in Indonesia, destroying lives and impairing the ability of tens of thousands of survivors to feed themselves. In Darfur, the constant need for food aid will not subside until people can safely return to their homes and begin to plant seeds. Ethiopia has once again found itself on the brink of famine. There, the causes are complex, but the need is simple. Food aid is helping Ethiopians stay alive. I want to discuss another looming tragedy. But we can prevent this one. I'm talking about negotiations happening right now in Geneva at the World Trade Organization. Some European members of the WTO are working to eliminate most in-kind food donations to humanitarian situations. There is a belief among some countries that the best way to insure minimal impact is to move to a cash only system for donations. The U.S. is adamantly opposed to any proposal that would RESTRICT and therefore REDUCE the amount of donations to the world's hungry. There are 850 million people who don't have enough food to eat. And yet we are reaching only about 100 million of them with assistance. We need to be increasing our volumes of food aid worldwide but some of the wealthy WTO member states are pushing positions that will inevitably cut food aid back. Eliminating in-kind assistance results in smaller amounts of food aid to the hungry of the world. For example, WFP'S own research found ``a clear decline in European Union food aid after the EC and other European member nations moved from in-kind to cash.'' It is inconceivable to me that a group of our colleagues meeting in Geneva would put already fragile lives at risk. Why is this conversation even happening, considering the humanitarian emergencies in the world today? The U.S. has given $1.6 billion in 2005--that's half of total food aid--and emergency needs are still not being met. The WTO should not be even be discussing food aid reform. FAO and WFP are the experts. The discussions of improving food aid deliveries should be taking place in Rome, not Geneva. The United States urges WTO to rely on UN food agencies for their expertise. We have a moral obligation to the people of Darfur, Panda Aceh and Ethiopia and many more to protect the flexibility of our assistance programs. It would be costly mistake to limit our food aid. We are talking about people's lives--those with children, parents, sisters and brothers. People who are needed on farms, in schools, factories and churches. We have a moral obligation to do the right thing. Food aid saves lives.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor two outstanding constituents and educators from the 10th Congressional District of Virginia. Melissa Fye and Jim Jenkins are to be commended for their extraordinary efforts to bring real scientific research to the classroom. Melissa Fye, elementary school teacher at Ashburn Elementary School in Ashburn, VA, and Jim Jenkins, elementary school teacher at Mountain View Elementary School in Purcellville, VA, were chosen by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to participate in the Teacher at Sea Program. This three-week-long research program involved a trip to sea in the Pacific Ocean this spring. As Teachers at Sea, Ms. Fye participated in coral reef research and Mr. Jenkins participated in fisheries and ocean current research. Ms. Fye embarked on NOAA Ship HI'IALAKAI in Honolulu, Hawaii, and cruised in the waters of the south Pacific. Mr. Jenkins's cruise, on the other hand, explored cold Alaskan waters, where he embarked on NOAA Ship MILLER FREEMAN in Kodiak, Alaska, and disembarked in Dutch Harbor, Alaska. While onboard, Ms. Fye and Mr. Jenkins wrote lesson plans, maintained daily logs, took photographs, interviewed scientists, and engaged in dialogue with their students, other teachers and students, and the general public. Ms. Fye and Mr. Jenkins participated in the Teacher at Sea experience in order to enrich their curriculum and excite their students about the sciences. In her final log, Ms. Fye wrote that she ``. . . wants [her] students to know that life is not a collection of things, but a collection of experiences . . . [and hopes] this trip--the resources and anecdotal stories [she] brings back to the classroom--encourages them to explore opportunities as they arise in their own lives.'' Mr. Jenkins engaged his students each day in daily e-mail messages. In one message, Mr. Jenkins told his students that he has ``. . . been impressed by the cooperative spirit of everyone on [NOAA ship] MILLER FREEMAN,'' and, in turn, encouraged his students to work together as a team while he was at sea. Both Ms. Fye and Mr. Jenkins were supported by a partnership between the Loudoun Education Foundation and the NOAA Teacher at Sea Program. I commend the Loudoun Education Foundation, and also the Loudoun County school district, for supporting the efforts of these two teachers to promote scientific education in the classroom. I congratulate Ms. Fye and Mr. Jenkins on their spirit of adventure in the name of education, their willingness to try new things, and their ability to bring this experience back into the classroom.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the members of the Committee on International Relations for their work in bringing this legislation to the floor today. I want to express my gratitude to the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for working with us on an important issue included as a new title, ``Advanced Democracy,'' in the bill, and I thank all of them. I want to also give commendation of thanks to the staff, the majority and minority staff. They have been very good, and I want to personally thank them. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation reaffirms that the promotion of democracy, freedom, and fundamental rights constitutes an essential element of U.S. foreign policy. It strengthens the ability of the State Department to promote democracy with respect particularly to nondemocratic countries. Through the cooperation and work of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), much of that legislation has been included in the State Department authorization bill. With these provisions, we are ensuring that the democratic principles that are the foundation of America are intentionally and purposely promoted worldwide. This legislation makes critical structural changes at the State Department that reflect our Nation's commitment to the spread of democracy. Additionally, it increases the number of Foreign Service officers assigned to the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor and creates two regional democracy hubs. The Secretary of State is also directed to prepare an annual report on democracy which will designate countries as ``nondemocratic'' or ``democratic transition countries.'' There is so much else in this bill, but before I run out of time, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) again and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), and I want to give my special thanks to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) not just for his work on this legislation and for his support for our Advance Democracy effort, but I want to thank him for his dedication to preserving freedom and protecting the innocent throughout his many years in public service. Mr. Chairman, I can remember being on the floor late at night during the situation with regard to the Contras down in Nicaragua and following the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) on all of these issues. He has been the voice and conscience of this House for years and years. I want him to know that I personally have followed him on many of these issues. I have listened and asked, What is Henry Hyde saying? How is Henry Hyde voting? It has been an honor and a privilege to serve with you.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a letter I sent on July 13 to the law firm Akin Gump outlining my concerns with regard to the firm's representation of China National Offshore Oil Corporation Ltd. (CNOOC) in its takeover bid for Unocal Corp. of California. A critical element that has been absent in much of the discussion surrounding free trade is the fact that CNOOC is not a private foreign company. It is a Chinese state-run entity--70 percent state-owned. Lest there be any confusion about who we are dealing with when we speak of the Chinese Communist government, I want to highlight a quote from a July 13 Washington Post article. An adviser to the Chinese central government, who spoke on the condition of anonymity fearing government disciplinary action, said, ``No matter if it's rogue or a friend's oil, we don't care. Human rights? We don't care. We care about oil. Whether Iran would have nuclear weapons or not is not our business. America cares, but Iran is not our neighbor. Anyone who helps China with energy is a friend.'' Is there no bright line to separate who the lobbyists in Washington will or will not represent? Mr. R. Bruce McLean, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, New Hampshire Ave NW., Washington DC. Dear Mr. McLean: I write today in response to a packet of information I received in late June, which included a letter from the chief executive officer of China National Offshore Oil Corporation Ltd. (CNOOC) peppered with assurances, aimed at easing growing congressional concern, that CNOOC's bid to ``merge'' with Unocal Corp. of California was in fact friendly. I must say in all candor that I was shocked that the packet arrived courtesy of Akin Gump--one of Washington's most distinguished and reputable lobbying and law firms. Having worked in Washington for over three decades, I understand that lobbying is part and parcel of everyday life in the nation's capital. Every day, good people walk the halls of Congress making the case for their constituency, advocating on any number of issues and causes with great passion and insight. That said, when I noted that CNOOC was one of your newest clients, I immediately thought, ``Is there no bright line to separate who the lobbyists in Washington will or will not represent?'' A critical part of the discussion recently surrounding the free market, charges of protectionism and the politicization of trade within the context of CNOOC's takeover bid for Unocal is that CNOOC is not a private foreign company. CNOOC is a Chinese state-run entity--70 percent state-owned. At the end of the day, it has to be obvious that any decisions on the issues of energy, economic and ultimately national security regarding the operations of this company will be based on what is advantageous to the Chinese Communist government. It is noteworthy that a Pentagon report released in January by the Office of Net Assessment has warned that China's need for oil, gas and other energy resources appears to be driving the country toward becoming an expansionist power. As Irwin Stelzer with the Hudson Institute recently wrote, ``China has decided to use its state resources to convert its major companies into important multi-nationals--part of an aggressive policy of projecting Chinese power on a global basis. If that's not political, nothing is . . . That policy is most noticeable in oil markets. China's acquisition of Unocal's substantial Asian assets will increase its political influence in that part of the world.'' But we need not look to ``inside the Beltway'' policy analysts for insight into China's global ambitions. Chen Yonglin, the high ranking Chinese defector with intimate knowledge of China's worldwide intelligence gathering efforts, has said, ``The United States is considered by the Chinese Communist Party as the largest enemy, the major strategic rival.'' 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. But recent reports have painted a grim picture of the purported ``information age'' in China. Chinese bloggers who have the audacity to type in words like ``freedom,'' ``democracy,'' or ``human rights'' receive a message, courtesy of Microsoft software, that says, ``Prohibited language in text, please delete.'' It seems China is changing us after all. And the change is perhaps no where more apparent than in the willingness of American companies and lobbyists to do the bidding of the Chinese government--a government which despite increased ``engagement'' over the last several years continues to pose a national security threat, blatantly disrespects free trade norms, persistently violates human rights, consistently stifles political dissent and is indiscriminate in its repression, arrest and torture of varied faiths targeting the Uygher Muslim population, the underground Protestant and Catholic house churches, the Tibetan Buddhists and the Falun Gong spiritual movement. I am left to wonder if it was Akin Gump which counseled CNOOC, and ultimately the Chinese government, to first caution President Bush not to politicize the Unocal takeover bid, and then warn Congress to ``correct its mistaken ways of politicizing economic and trade issues and stop interfering in the normal commercial exchanges between enterprises of the two countries.'' Ultimately, I question the appropriateness of an American firm advising and being on the payroll of the Chinese government. In my opinion, their interests, and all which that encompasses, are simply not deserving of your representation and only serve to degrade the strong reputation for integrity your firm has enjoyed over the years. Sincerely, Frank R. Wolf, Member of Congress. P.S. During the presidency of Ronald Reagan, no major law firm or lobbying organization would have represented the Soviet Union if it had tried to take over an American oil company.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, gambling is exploding throughout our country. Tribal casinos have been propagating at an alarming rate. I am deeply concerned about the impact this is having on our society. Gambling destroys families and preys on the poor. The number of tribes now actively ``reservation shopping'' is extremely troubling. The cover story of the May 9, 2005, issue of CQ Weekly reports on the explosive growth of tribal casinos and cites eight states--Oregon, Kansas, Minnesota, Florida, California, Illinois, New York and Ohio--where off- reservation gambling is being proposed. Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record a copy of the letter I recently sent to President Bush urging his action on this matter, a May 9 memorandum prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) of the Library of Congress at my request detailing options the Bush Administration could take to address this issue, and the CQ Weekly sidebar article detailing the explosive growth of tribal casinos. If the administration believes it does not have authority to issue a moratorium to halt new tribal gambling operations, it should send Congress legislation so that we can take action. House of Representatives, May 19, 2005. Hon. George W. Bush, The President, The White House, Washington DC. Dear Mr. President: Many in America, myself included, are deeply concerned by the explosive growth of tribal casinos. There are now more than 400 tribal casinos in 30 states. Tribes also are now aggressively seeking off-reservation land--commonly referred to as ``reservation shopping''--to build even more facilities. This rapid expansion of casino gambling is spiraling out of control, with devastating consequences for our country. This is not a Republican or a Democrat issue; nor is it a conservative or a liberal issue. It is a matter that calls for action in the best interest of every American. Casino gambling, once limited to places like Las Vegas and Atlantic City, is now coming to cities--and even small towns--across America and bringing with it all its social ills, like higher crime and suicide rates, increased personal bankruptcies and the breakup of families. I write today asking that you issue an executive order placing an immediate two-year moratorium on the opening of any more tribal casinos until Congress can thoroughly review the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) of 1988. Congress, with the help of your administration, must examine the unintended consequences of this legislation and address the gaping loopholes in the law. The moratorium also should apply to the federal recognition process of tribes, which is completely broken. As you know, I have long been calling for reforms of the tribal recognition process. I repeatedly asked former President Clinton and his administration to take action and have written your administration on several occasions asking for a top-to- bottom review of the process. To date, no steps have been taken to address the issue. Something also needs to be done to address the issue of senior level staff leaving the Bureau of Indian Affairs and then immediately going out and representing tribes seeking federal recognition. Tougher restrictions must be put in place. Native Americans have become mere pawns in what is now a billion dollar battleground as outside interests--and investors, some from outside the country--have worked behind the scenes to spur the growth of tribal casinos. In September 2001, the then General Accounting Office issued a scathing report saying the process was fraught with problems and needed improvement. The report concluded by saying because of weaknesses in the process, ``the end result could be that the resolution of tribal recognition cases will have less to do with the attributes and qualities of a group as an independent political entity deserving of a government- to-government relationship with the United States and more to do with the resources that petitioners and third parties can marshal to develop a successful and political strategy.'' The number of tribes now actively ``reservation shopping'' is extremely troubling. The cover story of the May 9, 2005 issue of CQ Weekly reports on the explosive growth of tribal casinos and cites eight states--Oregon, Kansas, Minnesota, Florida, California, Illinois, New York and Ohio--where off-reservation gambling is being proposed. The sidebar article detailing the battles being waged in these states over this issue is enclosed. Also enclosed is a May 9, 2005, Congressional Research Service memorandum, which I requested, detailing options your administration can take to address this issue, including ``(1) withdrawing authority to recognize new tribes; (2) directing that regulations be issued for land acquisition for gaming purposes and that regulations be rescinded for issuing procedures for class III gaming in the absence of a tribal- state compact; and (3) directing the Attorney General to take certain steps to enforce laws against illegal Indian gaming operations.'' The unintended consequences of IGRA have not been positive, either for the overwhelming majority of Native Americans who still live in poverty or for the hundreds of communities across America that are now home to tribal casinos. As long as reliance on gambling continues, the welfare of most Native Americans will be in jeopardy. At the same time, the victims of the gambling industry will continue to mount in community after community after community and the economic and socials costs to those communities will only increase. I implore you to involve your administration in this issue before it brings even more harm to the American people. Congress has begun to take steps to address some of these issues--legislation has been introduced in the House to prevent ``reservation shopping''--but an executive order will have an immediate impact and is the right thing to do until the myriad of problems that have come with this explosive growth are addressed. Sincerely, Frank R. Wolf, Member of Congress.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the rapid spread of gambling in the United States, now largely through the dramatic expansion of tribal casinos, which are devastating America's communities and families. Gambling ruins families. It ruins communities. It ruins businesses. Gamblers often neglect their families and lose their jobs, careers and marriages to the habit. Gambling preys on the weak and gambling exploits the poor. Study after study shows that when a casino opens in a community, crime and suicide and bankruptcies rise. As if our Nation is not saturated enough with gambling operations, now comes news of plans to open a casino two miles from the historic Gettysburg battlefield. Yes, Gettysburg. Thousands of Americans from the north and the south died at Gettysburg. It is hallowed ground. Its place in our history is sacred. Is there no place in America immune from the lure of gambling? I recently wrote President Bush urging him to issue an Executive Order to halt the explosion of gambling with a 2-year moratorium on new tribal casinos. Why will the Bush administration not act?

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I held a news conference today to provide an update on actions taken by the Science-State-Justice-Commerce, SSJC, Appropriations subcommittee, which I chair, in assisting the FBI in its transformation efforts since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. I submit for the record my press statement as well as a white paper which outlines in detail the SSJC subcommittee's work: Press Statement (By Representative Frank R. Wolf) Good morning. Thank you for coming. As chairman of the subcommittee with oversight of the FBI, I wanted to provide you with an update of the Science-State- Judiciary-Commerce subcommittee's role in the transformation of the FBI since 9/11 now that our bill has cleared the House. 9/11 changed America forever. Terrorism is no longer just something you read about happening somewhere else in the world. Terrorism came to our shores on 9/11. Everyone always will remember where they were and what they were doing on 9/ 11. More than 30 people from my congressional district were killed on 9/11; the pilot of the plane flown into the Pentagon lived just a short distance from my house. Sadly, several more of my constituents have made the ultimate sacrifice fighting the war on terror. The servicemen and women from across the country serving in harm's way in Afghanistan and Iraq deserve our deepest gratitude. They are doing an incredible job. It is also important that we recognize those people protecting us here at home. The FBI along with other federal, state and local law enforcement agencies are doing good work to ensure that terrorists don't strike again on American soil. They all have tough jobs and are all making great sacrifices. I have the highest respect for the thousands of FBI agents serving their country. I know many of them. They are extremely dedicated and work incredibly long hours to protect our country and their fellow citizens. The price they and their families are paying is enormous. Prior 9/11, the FBI's primary charge was solving crimes. Now, preventing crimes--more specifically, acts of terrorism--is priority one. This is a monumental shift, and runs counter to everything almost every FBI agent in the past was trained to do. While the FBI is making progress adapting to its new role, it also has made some missteps. Director Mueller deserves a lot of the credit for the changes that already have been made at the bureau. He also would be the first to admit there is still a long way to go. Change is never easy. We all resist it. But the changes being asked of the FBI are critical to the safety of every American. Some believe an MI-5 approach would be better. But both the 9/11 Commission and the WMD Commission recommended against implementing such a plan. The Bush Administration also is opposed to the idea. That debate is over. It's time to move forward. The task at hand is not easy, and I know FBI agents are working round-the-clock--and around the globe--to ensure our safety. We have to remember that transforming the FBI is an ongoing process, and is not going to happen overnight. I take my role as chairman of the SSJC subcommittee very seriously. I have worked hard to learn everything I can about the FBI and the other law enforcement agencies under the jurisdiction of the subcommittee. I am also deeply committed to ensuring that Congress provide the proper--and necessary-- oversight of the transformation of the bureau. I, and the subcommittee staff--both majority and minority-- have spent countless hours with Director Mueller and the leadership of the FBI over the last 3\1/2\ years. We have pushed the bureau, the Justice Department and the Bush Administration to do the very best job possible--and more. As you will recall, it was the SSJC subcommittee that asked for the full House Appropriations Committee's Surveys and Investigations staff to study the failure of the bureau's Virtual Case Files program, including the FBI's contracting procedures and management procedures related to the computer system. When Director Mueller began submitting his plans to reorganize the bureau in the spring of 2002, I wanted to be confident that the path being pursued was the correct one. Toward that end, I put together what I call the ``FBI Transformation Task Force'' Made up of staff from the Government Accountability Office, the National Academy of Public Administration, the Congressional Research Service, the FBI, the Justice Department and majority and minority staff of the House Appropriations Committee, the task force regularly reviews the bureau's progress. We also have consulted with staff from both the 9/11 Commission and WMD Commission as well as staff from the Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General. In June of 2002, the subcommittee held the first of what have now become annual hearings to review the FBI's restructuring. Director Mueller testified at that first hearing and appeared again in 2003 and 2004. This year's hearing is slated for September. These hearings are different from the annual budget hearings held each spring where agency heads come up to the Hill and layout their spending priorities. These hearings have focused solely on the transformation of the bureau. The assessments of task force members such as GAO's David Walker and NAPA's Dick Thornburgh--the attorney general under President George H. W. Bush--have been candid and often times pointed. Not only has the task force served as a ``review'' board for the FBI, it has developed a number of proposals that ultimately have been incorporated into the annual spending bills that fund the bureau. I should note that the subcommittee has provided the bureau with a significant increase in funding, from $3.2 billion in FY 2001 to $5.2 billion in FY 2005, to help meet the new challenges it faces. That is an increase of 61 percent. Attached to the copy of my remarks you have is a white paper that breakdown the FBI changes by categories--such as ``Organizational Change,'' ``Training,'' and ``Interagency Counterterrorism Task Forces''--to help you better grasp the scope and breadth of these reforms. I won't go through every one of the reforms listed on the white paper, but I do want to highlight some, such as: Creating a Directorate of Intelligence (Service-within-a- Service) to specifically focus on intelligence analysis; Funding a portion of the National Counterterrorism Center to bring agencies from throughout the government to work together to combat terrorism; Creating the Science and Technology Advisory Board made up of former senior-level intelligence and DOD staff to provide independent advice to the director on emerging issues; Among the members of the advisory board: 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. John Hamre, president of CSIS and former deputy secretary of defense. Providing new personnel authorities and increased funding to attract and retain agents, analysts and support staff; Mandating joint training between agents and analysts and with other members of the intelligence community; Transferring more than 500 agents from working drug cases to terrorism; Creating the College of Analytical Studies to train intelligence analysts; Enhancing the FBI's capability to communicate classified information with the intelligence community and state and local law enforcement; Increasing the number of translators by 79 percent, including a 269 percent increase in Arabic translators from the levels funded in fiscal year 2001; Creating the University Education Program, the Sabbatical Program, and the Fellows Program to enhance opportunities for employees to receive advanced degrees, and Changing the FBI's budget structure to match its new mission. There are more reforms proposed in the FY 2006 bill, which the House approved on June 16. Among them: The creation of an associate deputy director for national security to oversee and coordinate the activities of the executive assistant director for counterterrorism and counterintelligence and the national security activities of the Directorate of Intelligence, as recommended by the WMD Commission and accepted by President Bush yesterday. The FY 2006 bill also requires the U.S. attorney general to submit a report to the subcommittee on its actions to implement the recommendations of the WMD Commission. I should note that in a recent speech before the First Circuit Judicial Conference, Judge Silberman, the co-chair of the WMD Commission, clearly advocated the need for the attorney general to exercise more authority over the FBI. As former deputy attorney general himself, Judge Silberman told the conference ``attorneys general in my view have exercised far too little management supervision over the bureau. I actually think the DNI's (Director of National Intelligence) influence will enable the attorney general to have greater visibility into the bureau's operations.'' I agree that the attorney general has to be seriously engaged in the transformation of the FBI. In addition, the bill provides the FBI with additional resources to improve information technology oversight and program management and requires the DOJ inspector general to provide regular reports to the subcommittee on the FBI's progress in replacing its case management system. I wanted to take this opportunity to point out what is happening at the FBI because sometimes the `good' things are not considered news and are often overlooked. I think that once you look at the attached white paper you will agree that a great number of positive, forward-leaning steps are being taken at the FBI. Yet, more still needs to be accomplished. Some other ideas that should be considered: Creating a DARPA-like organization for the FBI. Creating a Chief Operating Officer who would be responsible for overseeing the day-to-day management of the FBI, thereby freeing up the director and deputy director to focus on investigations and long-term strategic management issues. This is one of the recommendations of the Science and Technology Advisory Board. Pushing to expand the FBI's ``bench'' when it comes to information technology. The Science and Technology Advisory Board believes the FBI is making progress but can go even further if it has the ability to go after the best and the brightest and provide them the same career opportunities as other branches in the bureau. The FY 2006 House-passed bill provides a $17 million increase for this, which is $10 million above the request. Change is not going to happen overnight nor will it be totally embraced by every agent in the field. It is going to take time. Unfortunately, time is not completely on our side. That is why the subcommittee pushes so hard and is why we continue to have these annual `review' hearings. I am committed to working to make the FBI better. This is all part of a process. It's long and it's involved. Strides have been made, but more still needs to be done. With the action of the subcommittee, the 9/11 Commission, the WMD Commission and the White House's recent decision to embrace nearly all of the recommendations of the WMD Commission, the key will be having the commitment to carry this out. Thank you.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of our colleagues a two-part series that ran in the Washington Times this week, which gives an eye-opening account of the growing military and intelligence threat posed by China. As this series makes clear, we are naive to view China as simply a trading partner, when in fact they are a global superpower with military ambitions directly at odds with the United States. [From the Washington Times, June 26, 2005] Chinese Dragon Awakens (By Bill Gertz) China is building its military forces faster than U.S. intelligence and military analysts expected, prompting fears that Beijing will attack Taiwan in the next 2 years, according to Pentagon officials. U.S. defense and intelligence officials say all the signs point in one troubling direction: Beijing then will be forced to go to war with the United States, which has vowed to defend Taiwan against a Chinese attack. China's military buildup includes an array of new high- technology weapons, such as warships, submarines, missiles and a maneuverable warhead designed to defeat U.S. missile defenses. Recent intelligence reports also show that China has stepped up military exercises involving amphibious assaults, viewed as another sign that it is preparing for an attack on Taiwan. ``There's a growing consensus that at some point in the mid-to-late '90s, there was a fundamental shift in the sophistication, breadth and re-sorting of Chinese defense planning,'' said Richard Lawless, a senior China-policy maker in the Pentagon. ``And what we're seeing now is a manifestation of that change in the number of new systems that are being deployed, the sophistication of those systems and the interoperability of the systems.'' China's economy has been growing at a rate of at least 10 percent for each of the past 10 years, providing the country's military with the needed funds for modernization. The combination of a vibrant centralized economy, growing military and increasingly fervent nationalism has transformed China into what many defense officials view as a fascist state. ``We may be seeing in China the first true fascist society on the model of Nazi Germany, where you have this incredible resource base in a commercial economy with strong nationalism, which the military was able to reach into and ramp up incredible production,'' a senior defense official said. For Pentagon officials, alarm bells have been going off for the past two years as China's military began rapidly building and buying new troop- and weapon-carrying ships and submarines. The release of an official Chinese government report in December called the situation on the Taiwan Strait ``grim'' and said the country's military could ``crush'' Taiwan. Earlier this year, Beijing passed an anti-secession law, a unilateral measure that upset the fragile political status quo across the Taiwan Strait. The law gives Chinese leaders a legal basis they previously did not have to conduct a military attack on Taiwan, U.S. officials said: The war fears come despite the fact that China is hosting the Olympic Games in 2008 and, therefore, some officials say, would be reluctant to invoke the international condemnation that a military attack on Taiwan would cause. Army of the future In the past, some defense specialists insisted a Chinese attack on Taiwan would be a ``million-man swim'' across the Taiwan Strait because of the country's lack of troop-carrying ships. ``We left the million-man swim behind in about 1998, 1999,'' the senior Pentagon official said. ``And in fact, what people are saying now, whether or not that construct was ever useful, is that it's a moot point, because in just amphibious lift alone, the Chinese are doubling or even quadrupling their capability on an annual basis.'' Asked about a possible Chinese attack on Taiwan, the official put it bluntly: ``In the '07-'08 time frame, a capability will be there that a year ago we would have said was very, very unlikely. We now assess that as being very likely to be there.'' Air Force Gen. Paul V. Hester, head of the Pacific Air Forces, said the U.S. military has been watching China's military buildup but has found it difficult to penetrate Beijing's ``veil'' of secrecy over it. While military modernization itself is not a major worry, ``what does provide you a pause for interest and concern is the amount of modernization, the kind of modernization and the size of the modernization,'' he said during a recent breakfast meeting with reporters. China is building capabilities such as aerial refueling and airborne warning and control aircraft that can be used for regional defense and long-range power projection, Gen. Hester said. It also is developing a maneuverable re-entry vehicle, or MARV, for its nuclear warheads. The weapon is designed to counter U.S. strategic-missile defenses, according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The warhead would be used on China's new DF-31 long-range missiles and its new submarine missile, the JL-2. Work being done on China's weapons and reconnaissance systems will give its military the capability to reach 1,000 miles into the sea, ``which gives them the visibility on the movement of not only our airplanes in the air, but also our forces at sea,'' Gen. Hester said. Beijing also has built a new tank for its large armed forces. It is known as the Type 99 and appears similar in design to Germany's Leopard 2 main battle tank. The tank is outfitted with new artillery, anti-aircraft and machine guns, advanced fire-control systems and improved engines. The country's air power is growing through the purchase of new fighters from Russia, such as Su-30 fighter-bombers, as well as the development of its own fighter jets, such as the

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, gambling is no longer just limited to the casinos in Las Vegas and Atlantic City. There are now more than 400 tribal casinos in 30 States, online gambling is booming and ESPN and other cable networks bring high-stakes poker tournaments into our living rooms on a regular basis. I am deeply concerned about the impact this is having on our society. Gambling destroys families and preys on the poor. More and more youth are also being seduced by gambling. According to a recent PBS NewsHour report, recent studies indicate that more than 70 percent of youth between the ages of 10 and 17 gambled in the past year, up from 45 percent in 1988. The promotion of gambling is not a proper role of government. I share the concerns of National Coalition Against Gambling Expansion, NCAGE, that as a school of government, Harvard ought to use more discretion in allowing of its credentials to support gambling, which corrupts and addicts government at all levels. As you may know, Harvard Medical School Division of Addictions, Institute for Research on Pathological Gambling and Related Disorders, sits on the board of the National Center for Responsible Gaming, part of the American Gaming Association. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share a recent letter from the NCAGE to the Harvard University leadership outlining the coalition's concerns about what many might regard as an inappropriate relationship between the university and the gambling industry. The National Coalition Against Gambling Expansion, Washington, DC, June 23, 2005. President Lawrence H. Summers, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. Harvard Alumni Association, University Place, Cambridge, MA. Harvard Medical School, Division on Addictions, The Landmark Center, Boston, MA. Dear Sirs and Madams: It is with considerable disappointment that, after much study and thought, we come to the point where we must challenge the integrity of your work and the great name of Harvard. We have listened and tried hard over the last few years to understand the logic and scientific protocols cited in the protestations of your scholars as they defend their ``neutrality'' on the subject of gambling. Frankly, we have never believed that Harvard should be ``neutral'' on issues that threaten public health. More importantly, we have come to the earnestly considered opinion that even this professed ``neutrality'' has been widely breached and replaced by academic activism for and in behalf of gambling interests. In support of our charge, we cite the attitudes and activities of the Business School, Addictions Department and School of Government. The Harvard Business Review lauds and publishes the success of business school faculty expatriate Gary Loveman who has guided Harrah's to its position as the Nation's largest casino business--by utilizing loyalty-marketing techniques to promote an addictive substance. It is as if the philosophy and ethics departments have been buried at the far end of the campus from the School of Business. Is there no duty to customers ever mentioned in the MBA programs of this generation at Harvard? Are our future CEOs being taught that the highest ``loyalty'' to the market is to sacrifice humanity on the altar of corporate expansion? If not, then why does Harvard continue to celebrate such behavior? If the business classes have no feeling for humanity, one would think a division of the medical school might. Not so. The head of the Harvard Medical School Division of Addictions, Institute for Research on Pathological Gambling and Related Disorders, now sits on the Board of Directors of the American Gaming Association's ``responsible gaming'' team. This AGA front organization, titled the National Center for Responsible Gaming, has been so pleased with Harvard's industry apologetics that it now exclusively funds ``research'' through the Harvard facility. The AGA repeatedly proffers the assumption that only ``peer reviewed'' materials filtered through this new association can be considered ``valid.'' The veracity of that notion is irrelevant. The relevance is that the AGA is counting on Harvard to deliver its good name. Their reliance is sadly valid. We see the Harvard journal espousing its own self- aggrandized superiority as it smugly chides other scholars, pontificating, ``The Wild West had its snake oil salesmen and the field of gambling studies is no different. . . Unfortunately, some contemporary authorities fail to adequately understand the principles of scientific inquiry and sustain conventional myths and unfounded casual relationships. . . Unpublished evidence that has not been subject to peer review has been presented as definitive. Preliminary evidence has been summarized in public testimony or press releases without necessary documentation, including methodological details that must be available for scrutiny. In each instance, this public behavior violates professional standards of conduct and tarnished the work of legitimate scientists. The assumed antidote, of course, is to publish only through Harvard's brand of ``peer review.'' The AGA uses that language to bolster its own propaganda. ``Over the last five years, a small group of anti-gaming university professors have created, out of whole cloth, a series of economic models which purport to show that any economic benefits from gaming will be exceeded by the social costs caused by the industry. These professors, whose theories cannot stand the test of academic peer review, have created a circle of disinformation wherein they continually cite each other as sources to validate their erroneous theories. Three of the professors are from the University of Illinois and have testified before the National Gambling Impact Study Commission (NGISC) in Chicago. They are: Earl Grinols, Richard Gaze (now with the Federal Reserve Bank but formerly was Grinols' assistant) and John Kindt. Curiously, it is Harvard's scholars who have been promulgating the self-citing circle of obfuscation. Despite editorial insistence on notational integrity and peer review, Shaffer and Korn, writing for Shaffer and Korn and repeatedly citing Shaffer, Korn and others in the Harvard sanctum, come to completely undocumented hypothesis that ``Until Korn and Shaffer formally introduced the idea of healthy gambling, health care, addictions and public health officials professionals had not considered the possibility of positive health benefits.'' Their paper, ``Gambling and Public Health,'' draws lines between dissociated dots arriving at the hypothesis that gambling is healthy for individuals and communities. ``Like going to a movie, sitting in a pub, or participating in physical activity, going to a casino or horse race may provide a healthy change and respite from everyday demands or social isolation. This may be particularly important for older adults . . . (not annotated--but then where would one find a footnote to show feeding a slot machine is equal to physical activity). ``Gambling is a form of adult play. While importance of play has been recognized for the healthy development of children (annotated), play also is important for adults (annotated). For example, whereas children play card, board and video games, adults play blackjack, bingo and video slot machines. In addition to providing fun and excitement, some forms of gambling can enhance coping strategies by building skills and competencies such as memory enhancement, problem solving through game tactics, mathematical proficiency, concentration and hand-to-eye physical coordination. (Note how annotated concepts of play being good for children and adults proceed to the unannotated suggestion that gambling must be good as well. Good for adults, good for children? (Shaffer, et al, eschew logic in favor of empiricism as a basis for scientific inquiry. Given their command of logic, this is self-explanatory. (Play is good. Gambling can be called play. Gambling is good.--Communists wear red. Santa wears red. Santa is a Communist)). This tome further suggests, ``Health benefits can accrue to communities through gambling-related economic development . . .'' and suggests without annotation that gambling created jobs and economic development accrue to the benefit of collective mental health.) (Jobs and money make people happy, so gambling makes people happy. Sadly, no footnotes elucidate the chasms between these dots either.) Since co-morbidity is a generally accepted feature of addiction, this paper even suggests gambling addiction may ``catch'' people from progressing to a more serious addiction, like heroin. (Gambling addiction may preclude a worse addiction and is therefore a ``benefit.'' Within a handful of lines, this same paper sneers, ``. . . An unsupported but commonly cited estimate for the annual cost to society of each pathological gambler is $13,200.'' Like numbers have been meticulously recalculated and duplicated, but because they weren't published in the proper Harvard-edited journal, apparently they are ``unsupported.'' Because they did not emanate through halls funded by the American Gaming Association, they have not been appropriately ``peer reviewed.'' In this context, ``Peer reviewed'' has come to mean ``gambling lackeys vouching for gambling apologists.'' If the addictions group's advocacy of, or at least affinity for, the gambling industry is transparent, then the gambling industry association with Harvard's Kennedy School of Government is vivid. Our attached comments speak plainly to deliberate and blatant examples of that school's use of Harvard credentials to support gambling, specifically through Indian tribes. It is shameful for an institution upholding itself a ``school of government'' to endorse a phenomenon which corrupts and addicts government at all levels. To my knowledge, no heroic figure or revered writer on the subject of American democracy has ever suggested that the promulgation of gambling is a proper role of government. We believe the good name of ``Harvard'' has been co-opted by the gambling industry. It is apparent to any serious observer that ``Harvard'' is the brand of choice for those seeking to buy credibility for a product that ruins lives. If this was a car, or a drug that damaged, ruined or ended the lives of one of each 100 Americans, we suggest you would not be ``neutral,'' and certainly you would not be advocates. Because your performance is tainted and your reputation threatened, we respectfully ask your institution to stand down from this debate, and let it be carried forward by unsullied hands. We ask for your support for a regeneration of the activities of the National Gambling Impact Study Commission to assess the costs and benefits of legalized gambling in America from a less biased platform. Sincerely, Dr. Guy C. Clark, Chairman. Attached: Our bulletin article. ``Harvard''--The Best Name Money Can Buy Harvard, the venerable institution founded in 1636, is among America's most recognizable academic ``Brands''. Its public reputation is among the highest of America's institutions. Through association, the phrase ``Harvard says,'' becomes powerful validation, even when followed by statements Harvard didn't really make, or, perhaps, was paid to say. Thus it follows that when one of America's least reputable institutions--gambling--went shopping for a spokesman, they determined ``Harvard'' was the best name money could buy. The American Gaming Association (AGA) opened shop in Washington, D.C. in 1995 to promote, in their own words, ``better understanding of the gaming entertainment industry by bringing facts about the industry to the general public, elected officials, other decision makers and the media through education and advocacy.'' The AGA became the propaganda machine for the commercial casino companies that funded it. The casinos faced tough questions from politicians and anti-gambling groups as gambling proliferated across the nation in the early 1990s. Those questions intensified in 1996, when Congress funded the National Gambling Impact Study Commission (NGISC). Despite gambling's expensive attempts to stack the commission and its success in stripping it of subpoena power, the commission's final report in 1999 posted strong warnings about gambling expansion. It called for a ``pause'' in the expansion of gambling until more information on addiction, bankruptcy, crime, job cannibalization and other topics could be studied. But gambling proponents were already staging their response. The same year the NGISC started its research, casinos founded their own ``gambling research'' organization, the National Center for Responsible Gambling (NCRG). Boyd Gaming Corporation provided the start-up funds for the NCRG and made a 10-year pledge of $875,000. Other leading gaming companies, including Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., International Game Technology, Mandalay Resort Group, MGM Mirage and Park Place Entertainment Corporation were ``early and generous supporters,'' according to NCRG's own web site. The site notes, ``Today, with the contributions of the casino gaming industry, equipment manufacturers, vendors, related organizations and individuals, more than $13 million has been committed to the NCRG, an unprecedented level of funding for gambling research. This financial support has enabled the NCRG to attract the best minds from the most prestigious institutions to conduct research in this uncharted field,'' (Emphasis added.) They boast the group is run by scholars and health care professionals, but it is chaired by professional lobbyist and former Congressman Dennis E. Eckart, with William Boyd, chairman of Boyd Gaming, serving as president, and the AGA's senior vice president and executive director, Judy Patterson as secretary-treasurer. Only five of the 21 remaining directors represent health care or academic organizations. The rest are all gambling executives or lobbyists. Among the five is Howard J. Shaffer, Ph.D. Director, Division on Addictions, Harvard Medical School, which is funded by the gambling industry through NCRG. Gambling interests funded the NCRG with, according to their own accounts, $13 million. Of that they have contributed $6 million to ``research,'' with that funding now going exclusively to the Harvard Project. Harvard insists the NCRG board exercises no control over its research, but at least two noted treatment experts left the NCRG board because of their concerns about just such problems. Both indicated the NCRG would not likely allow researchers to tackle the big issues of proximity, high-speed addiction of machines and other factors that could be damaging to the industry. Clinical psychiatrist Dr. Henry Lesieur from the Rhode Island Hospital's gambling treatment program and UCLA's Dr. Richard Rosenthal resigned from the NCRG board three years ago after concluding that the gambling industry wielded too much influence over the research. Still, Harvard's addiction department continues to disburse grants to other research applications. With Shaffer as editor and other Harvard staff on the editorial board, The Journal of Gambling Studies, served as a prestigious gathering point and filter for research. Harvard editors in turn spent considerable ink ``debunking'' other contributed research. As an adjunct to its publishing efforts, Harvard distributed the WAGER, an online review of current topics between 2004 and 2005. The typical WAGER review comprised an outline of a study's premise, followed by the study's findings. Typically the last WAGER paragraphs were dedicated to a repetitive disclaimer that results were not conclusive because of sample size or some other weakness. A classic example was the August, 2002 examination of suicides and their relationship to gambling. ``Do Casinos have Casualties? Mixed Evidence for a Gambling-Suicide Link.'' Why Harvard would choose to review this study, which it concluded was inconclusive and flawed in many regards, is unclear. The Harvard editor dismissed the study's results for a number of reasons, including, ``relationships between gambling settings and suicide rates could potentially be due to common features that influence suicide other than casino presence. For example, Nevada is home to a great number of retirees, a population which has demonstrated higher suicide rates.'' That would be interesting if it were true. Nevada ranks 44th in the nation for population over 65, Nevada has ranked first in the nation in suicide rates for 10 of the last 14 years, never coming in lower than fourth. In suicides per capita it was surpassed recently by Montana, which has more video lottery terminals and Gamblers Anonymous chapters per capita than any other state in the nation. Still, AGA spokesman Frank Fahrenkopf traverses the country announcing that ``peer reviewed'' studies have ``failed to prove'' a relationship between gambling and suicide. In AGA logic, having ``failed to prove'' an assertion is equal to a ``proof' of its antithesis.'' Fahrenkopf and his peers have deceived numerous legislators with illusions of ``peer reviewed'' studies that ``prove'' there is no correlation between gambling and crime, no correlation between casino proximity and addiction, and that gambling takes money away from other businesses. Harvard's addiction department is not the only tool of the gambling industry. The university's renowned Kennedy School of Government is deeply connected to Native American organizations dedicated to the economic and political development of Indian reservations. Unfortunately, those organizations have adopted the NIGA mantra of gambling as the ``New Buffalo'' which will elevate the reservations to the status of economically and politically independent nations. Again, the ``Harvard'' brand is a deliberate purchase of the gambling tribes. In 2003, just after Time Magazine published a blistering expose on the status of Indian casino development, NIGA commissioned Harvard to produce a study deliberately designed to show the benefits of Indian gambling. News reports at the time quoted Deron Marquez, chairman of the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians saying, ``NIGA's fellow trade organization, the AGA, constantly produces numbers to help its cause. The data bolsters policy decisions and helps make problems go away. Our study would allow the same to take place.'' The study was to be headed by Katherine Spilde, a former Director of Research for the NIGA, and an ardent proponent of gambling expansion. Spilde told reporters the study would help reverse ``a bona fide public relations crisis,'' for Indian gambling. NIGA's Marguez said the study would be ``the centerpiece of a public relations campaign'' to promote Indian gambling. ``The PR and the research go hand in hand. The study will provide the necessary data, and the campaign the necessary visibility.'' The study was funded to support an intended finding, with an advertising campaign as the intended result. Spilde also played the ``peer reviewed'' card, noting the study would be ``validated'' by other academics. ``A peer- reviewed report will have the highest integrity possible and insulate us from critics who may try to imply that funding from Indian Country has influenced the results,'' she said. ``Gambling industry lackies vouching for gambling industry apologists,'' fumes NCALG/NCAGE chairman Dr. Guy C. Clark. A dentist by trade, Clark said, ``It reminds me of a mouthwash introduced some years ago with a claim that its in-house studies showed the product was highly effective at removing plaque. Later independent studies showed the product was 'slightly less effective than water.' ``Harvard's motives look about as transparent as water too, no matter what they claim for intentions. I would think they would want to be more protective of the school's heritage,'' Clark concluded. ``These so-called studies are no more than gambling industry in-house advocacy dressed up as academics.''

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, earlier today I was at Walter Reed Army Medical Center visiting Army Specialist Matt James, a constituent from Virginia's 10th District, who was wounded while serving in Iraq, and I missed the vote on rollcall 326. Had I been present and voting, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall 326, the Pitts amendment to H.R. 3057, Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. He is in prison. One other question. How old is he?

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want my comments to be separated. One, I want to commend and thank the minority leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), for her strong support on human rights. Particularly, she has been very good in China. She was there from the Tiananmen Square times and all the time. So I just want the record, we want to separate these out, but I want the record to show that I admire her and respect very much her support for human rights in China. It has been outstanding. The second point I want to make is to separate back to the debate that my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), was just talking about. I favor family planning. I am speaking for myself. I favor family planning. But this is a government that still has Tiananmen Square demonstrators in prison. In 1991 the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and I were in Beijing Prison Number 1, and we are the only two Members of the Congress that have been in a Chinese gulag, and we saw Tiananmen Square demonstrators making socks. Some of you may be wearing the socks, socks for export to the United States. God bless him, Senator Moynihan got the socks, when I came back, held the socks up on the Senate floor with regard to how bad China was. And I will get that, what Senator Moynihan said, and put it in the Record. Mr. Moynihan. Mr. President, here are products of prison labor, sold in international trade by the Chinese. You can buy these: socks with a panda with the word ``boxing'' and a little boxer; this fellow is playing golf, whatever. Representative Wolf was in Beijing Prison No. 1, and not recognizing him as a Member of the House of Representatives, they thought he was a buyer. They started showing him the goods for sale. They have stopped that. We have ratified that treaty at long last. Surely we ought to indicate that we mean it, that we intend to help enforce this international labor standard. This is a fundamentally evil government that you cannot trust. Many Tiananmen Square demonstrators that we lament about and talk about are still in prison. Now, they moved them out of Beijing Prison Number 1, but they are still in prison. And if you do not think there is coercion, call Harry Wu. Harry Wu lives out in Fairfax County, in the district of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran). And Harry will tell the gentleman about the forced abortions and the policies and the abuse of this government. If you need a new kidney, they will go in the prisons, they will find somebody with your blood type, they will shoot them, maybe a Catholic priest, maybe Buddhist monk, maybe a Protestant pastor, or maybe a pickpocket. But you can get a new kidney for $50,000. This is the government that you basically want to give money to. Now, many of you saw it. I think I did a Dear Colleague letter. Soon after the death of Pope John Paul, they arrested two elderly Catholic priests. And I say to my friend, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), talk to the Cardinal Kung Foundation and let them tell you of all the persecution. I believe they are now 11 Catholic bishops. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) took holy communion from Bishop Su. Mr. Chairman, I would ask if I could yield to the gentleman just for two words. Where is Bishop Su now?

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Lancaster, Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I urge a ``no'' vote on this. The gentlewoman probably would have been prohibited from offering the amendment. We said fine. The amendment was changed. In fact, the title was there and then the amendment changed. I do not think anybody truly here knows, I do not care where they went to law school, what it truly does and what it truly means. They could have gone to UVA, Georgetown, Harvard, or Timbuktu. Secondly, if I could have the gentlewoman's attention, I offered to her to let us sit down and talk about this. Nobody is opposing necessarily what she is trying to do. Let us sit down. Let us talk about it. Let us work it. No, we are going to go ahead and do it. So this institution has to have some definition, or else we just take any amendment that comes along. So all the amendments, I counted them up. The gentleman from Washington wanted to take money from the bill to put it in State and local law enforcement. This takes money from State and local law enforcement and puts it somewhere else. The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) wanted to take money from the rest of the bill and put it into State and local law enforcement. This takes it from State and local law enforcement and puts it somewhere else. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell) wanted to take money from another part of the bill, and God bless him, he had a good amendment, and put it in State and local law enforcement. This takes it from State and local law enforcement and puts it somewhere else; for what, we are not even sure. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) wanted to take money from the rest of the bill to put it where? In State and local law enforcement. This takes money from State and local law enforcement and puts it not even completely where people even know it is. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) had a great debate here. I think he wanted to take $126 million from NSF to put it in State and local law enforcement. This takes money from State and local law enforcement and puts it somewhere else. The beat goes on. The beat goes on. So, because not knowing what this does, we are going to go ahead and oppose this. I just think if Members want to vote on something they do not understand, I think they ought to come down here and vote on something that they do not understand. I think that is part of their right to being here, but I do not understand it.