Frank Wolf

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, what are we doing? The bill before us today, which would extend the expiring payroll holiday for 10 more months, exemplifies all that is wrong with Washington. No wonder the American peoples' faith in Congress is at an all-time low. First, the agreement steals $93 billion from the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for a 10- month extension of a temporary program that was supposed to expire two months ago. Second, there is no offset for this new spending. It adds $93 billion to the deficit this year--money we will have to borrow from countries like China, which is spying on us, taking our jobs and has terrible record on human rights. Third, this bill only asks for sacrifice from a small number of Americans--federal employees and postal workers--to pay for the unemployment insurance extension and the Medicare ``doc fix.'' Fourth, this ``holiday'' has proven to have little impact on economic growth and job creation, while significantly growing our deficit. Finally, the House Appropriations Committee led efforts to cut $95 billion in spending in the 2011 and 2012 fiscal year appropriations bills. This bill undoes all of the discretionary spending cuts achieved by the House in one fell swoop. As chairman of the Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations subcommittee, I have cut $11 billion from the budgets of the Commerce and Justice departments since Republicans reclaimed the majority. These were difficult cuts, but necessary to start reining in our unsustainable deficit and debt. And they will be completely undone after today's vote. Have we already forgotten the debates over the deficit last year? A year ago, we hoped to consider $4 trillion in debt reduction under the Bowles-Simpson Commission and the ``Gang of Six'' proposals. By the summer, we were voting on the Budget Control Act, which established a supercommittee charged with finding an additional $1.2 trillion in savings over 10 years. Now, the White House and Congress are going in the other direction and choosing to spend away the $95 billion in deficit reduction actually achieved last year. This is shameful. The American people are right to be disappointed that the President and the Congress have walked away from every serious deficit reduction effort. They should be appalled that both sides have joined together to spend more money and weaken Social Security. This agreement is giving away the store. And for what? A payroll ``holiday'' that most Americans haven't even noticed, according to a recent nationwide poll. Our country is going broke. The national debt is over $15 trillion and is projected to reach $17 trillion by the end of this year and $21 trillion in 2021. We have annual deficits of over $1 trillion. We have unfunded obligations and liabilities of $65 trillion. We are going the way of Greece. Why are we voting to extend a policy that does nothing more than steal from the Social Security Trust Fund, which is already going broke? Social Security is unique because it is paid for through a dedicated tax on workers who will receive future benefits. The money paid today funds benefits for existing retirees, and ensures future benefits. Because you pay now, a future worker will pay your benefits. That is why, until December 2010, this revenue stream was considered sacrosanct by both political parties. Social Security is already on an unsustainable path. Today's medical breakthroughs simply were not envisioned when the system was created in 1935. For example, in 1950, the average American lived for 68 years and 16 workers supported one retiree. Today, the average life expectancy is 78 and three workers support one retiree. Three and a half million people received Social Security in 1950; 55 million receive it today. Every day since January 1, 2011, over 10,000 baby-boomers turned 65. This trend will continue every day for the next 19 years. Do these numbers sound sustainable to anyone? The Social Security Actuary has said that by 2036 the trust fund will be unable to pay full benefits. This means that everyone will receive an across-the-board cut of 22 percent, regardless of how much money they paid into the system. Does it make sense that everyone, regardless of income, will get money from this ``stimulus?'' Does anyone think that Warren Buffet or Jimmy Buffet changed their buying habits as a result of this temporary suspension? Or did General Electric's CEO, Jeffery Immelt, the head of President Obama's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness who recently shipped GE's medical imaging division from Wisconsin to China, really benefit from this ``holiday?'' We all know what needs to be done to address the deficit and debt and that is why I have supported every serious effort to resolve this crisis, including the Bowles-Simpson recommendations, the Ryan Budget, the ``Gang of Six,'' the ``Cut, Cap and Balance'' plan and the Budget Control Act. I also was among the bipartisan group of 103 members of Congress who urged the supercommittee to ``go big'' and identify $4 trillion in savings. I continue to work with my colleagues to advance the Bowles- Simpson report. I voted for the Balanced Budget Amendment. Since 2006, when George Bush was in office, I have introduced my bipartisan legislation, the SAFE Commission, multiple times in hopes of dealing with this problem. While none of these solutions were perfect, they all took the necessary steps to rebuild and protect our economy. In order to solve this problem, everything must be on the table for consideration: all entitlement spending; all domestic discretionary spending, including defense spending; and tax reform, particularly changes to make the tax code more simple and fair and to end the practice of tax earmarks and loopholes that cost hundreds of billions of dollars annually. Some of the pay-fors in today's bill could be better used to address our deficit, such as the profits from the spectrum auction. Another pay-for that was previously proposed, and signed into law last December, raised the rates that mortgage lenders can charge on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loans. This 10 basis point increase makes a home loan more expensive for thousands of individuals looking to buy a house, while doing nothing to further reform these two lending entities. But rather than putting these offsets to good use, we're spending them away for a 10 month extension of this ``holiday.'' But the bill before us now is even worse than what was previously considered because the biggest portion, the $93 billion cost of the payroll holiday, is not being offset. Once again, only a small segment of our society--federal employees and postal workers--are being used to pay for the other measures wrapped into this proposal. While there are many federal employees in the Capital region, it is worth noting that more than 85 percent of the workforce is outside of Washington. Eighty five percent. More than 65 percent of all federal employees work in agencies that support our national defense capabilities as we continue to fight the War on Terror. Has anyone fully considered the impact that this legislation will have on our ability to recruit qualified individuals to the CIA, the NSA, the National Reconnaissance Office and the National Counter Terrorism Center? Or the impact it will have on the FBI, which has, since 9/11, disrupted scores of terrorist plots against our country? Or the impact on our military, which is supported by federal employees every day on military bases across the Nation? Or the impact on VA hospitals across the country, which are treating veterans from World War II to today? Or the impact on the Border Patrol? Or the impact on NASA, its astronauts, engineers and scientists? Or the impact on NIH, and other federal researchers, scientists and doctors? Federal employees are currently working under President Obama's two- year pay freeze as they do their part to address our deficit. But to ask them to spend the rest of their careers paying for a 10 month policy? That doesn't make sense. Leadership from both parties has said that extending this payroll ``holiday'' is paramount. I see what has happened. We all know that the President has used the power of his bully pulpit to push for the policy. Just look at the headline of this morning's National Journal Daily: ``Payroll Deal Hands Victory to Obama.'' But he missed the opportunity to support his own Bowles-Simpson Commission to seriously deal with the deficit. The fiscal tsunami that is coming demands that we make tough decisions. Should laws be passed just because they are perceived as popular? I regret that months have been spent on this flawed policy instead of tackling the difficult choices to address our nation's massive unfunded spending obligations. There is never a convenient time to make hard decisions. The longer we put off fixing the problem, the worse the medicine will be and the greater the number of Americans who will be hurt. I understand that many feel they need help. But, as many have said, ``there's no such thing as a free lunch.'' America is living on borrowed dollars and borrowed time. We must stop leaving piles of debt to our children and grandchildren. We can't afford this debt financed spending. I voted no on this policy in 2010. I voted no on this policy on December 13. I voted no on December 20. And I vote no today.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I submit a piece authored by Chinese dissident Yu Jie which ran in yesterday's Washington Post. His words are deeply alarming about the extent of China's reach in the U.S. He rightly laments the lack of ``visionary politicians, such as Ronald Reagan, to stand up to this threat.'' I couldn't agree more. [From the Washington Post, Feb. 13, 2012] The Myth of China as a Harmless Tiger (By Yu Jie) Chinese dissident writers exiled to the West today get a very different response than Soviet writers received not so long ago. In 1975, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger advised President Ford not to meet with writer Alexander Solzhenitsyn, warning in a memorandum that doing so would offend the Soviet Union. Now, similar views are held not only by pragmatic politicians but also by multinational corporations with large investments in China as well as universities and foundations with inextricable links to China. The Chinese communist regime's penetration of the West far exceeds that of the former Soviet Union. In the Cold War era, the Soviet Union was blocked behind the Iron Curtain; there were few links between Soviet and Western economies. An average American family would not be using products ``made in the USSR.'' Today, China is deeply embedded within the globalized system. An American recently wrote an interesting book detailing a year of her refusal to buy products that were ``made in China'' and the many difficulties she encountered as a result of this decision. On the surface, the West has profited from its trade with China. Western consumers can buy vast amounts of cheap Chinese products. However, fundamental values of the West are quietly being eroded: Who knows whether the American flag flying outside your home was manufactured by inmates in Chinese prisons or by child labor? I arrived in the United States a month ago, thinking I had escaped the reach of Beijing, only to realize that the Chinese government's shadow continues to be omnipresent. Several U.S. universities that I have contacted dare not invite me for a lecture, as they cooperate with China on many projects. If you are a scholar of Chinese studies who has criticized the Communist Party, it would be impossible for you to be involved in research projects with the Chinese- funded Confucius Institute, and you may even be denied a Chinese visa. Conversely, if you praise the Communist Party, not only would you receive ample research funding but you might also be invited to visit China and even received by high-level officials. Western academic freedom has been distorted by invisible hands. I believe that China is a far greater threat than the former Soviet Union ever was; unfortunately, the West lacks visionary politicians, such as Ronald Reagan, to stand up to this threat. President Obama might perceive the Chinese Communist Party as a tiger that does not bite and, hence, is looking forward to Vice President Xi Jinping's visit this week. Will Obama, a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, openly request that China release Liu Xiaobo, a Nobel Peace laureate imprisoned by the Communist Party? Why did Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton have the courage to meet with Burma's Aung San Suu Kyi but not to meet with Liu? Is it because Burma is weak, while China is strong? The Chinese Communist Party remains a tiger that will bite. For working on human rights with Liu Xiaobo, after he was awarded the Nobel Prize, I was tortured by the country's secret police and nearly lost my life. Since then, dozens of lawyers and writers have been subjected to brutal torture; some contracted severe pneumonia after being held in front of fans blowing cold air and then being baked by an electric furnace. The secret police threatened me, saying that they had a list of 200 anticommunist party intellectuals whom they were ready to arrest and bury alive. Over the past year, the number of political prisoners in China has increased, and the jail sentences have become longer--yet Western voices of protest have become weaker. Harsh internal repression and unrestrained external expansion are two sides of the same coin. The Chinese Communist Party recently vetoed the U.N. Security Council's resolution on Syria because killings not unlike those committed by Damascus continue in Tibet. More than a century ago, Westerners described China as a ``sleeping lion''; today, it is the West that has fallen asleep. As an independent writer and a Christian member of a ``house church,'' I have the responsibility to tell the truth: The Chinese Communist Party is still a man-eating tiger.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, as a Penn State graduate, I would like to add to this evening's special order on the career of Joe Paterno by sharing a column by Bill Kline that ran in newspapers across the country following Paterno's death. [From the Tribune, Jan. 23, 2012] Paterno Built Penn State On, Off the Field (By Bill Kline) Every great man has a flaw. Critics of Joe Paterno, who died Sunday at 85, will cite at least one flaw of the legendary Penn State football coach-- what they will call his poor moral judgment in the Jerry Sandusky sex-abuse scandal involving the Second Mile charity and Penn State. That assertion might be argued for decades, as JoePa's proponents will say that he did nothing wrong and did what he was supposed to do a decade ago when he received information about his former assistant coach Sandusky--Paterno told his superiors and asked them to look into it. But whatever side of the argument you support, know this about Joseph Vincent Paterno: No one did more for Penn State University and, in turn, its hundreds of thousands of students--not just for the athletes--over the past six decades. And likely no one ever did more for Penn State in the 157-year history of the institution built on former farmland in rural central Pennsylvania. You see, rightly or wrongly, Penn State had an image of an agricultural college when Paterno arrived on campus in 1950-- and even to some degree when he became head coach in 1966. Paterno not only raised the profile of the Penn State program, he raised the profile of the university itself. And it was not just wins on the football field that helped Penn State become the national university it is today. Paterno helped in many other ways, too, most notably leading the charge to raise money for Penn State's library, its endowment, to pay for professors, to pay for academic scholarships, to pay for new buildings and just in general for academic purposes. And Joe and his wife Sue donated their own money, too, having given more than $5 million to Penn State over the years. JoePa's support of academics and the success of his team combined to make Penn State a desirable place for students-- not just athletes. Penn State's enrollment has exploded over the years to 85,000, including those at its satellite campuses. Some years, 70,000 or more high school seniors apply for the 7,000 or so freshman-class openings at Penn State's University Park campus. Penn State has become a strong academic institution--not just a strong football program--in large part because of Joe Paterno. For example: Since 1966, when Paterno became head coach, Penn State's endowment has grown from practically nothing to $1.67 billion as of 2007. Paterno's fund-raising efforts have resulted in about $2 billion for Penn State. The University Park campus has nearly doubled in size since 1966. He probably was the most underpaid coach, relatively speaking, in the history of big-time college football, last fall making less than all but one other coach in the Big Ten Conference. He won the National Heritage Award of the Anti-Defamation League for his role as humanitarian and philanthropist. Paterno was named Sportsman of the Year by Sports illustrated. He has produced 74 Academic All-Americans, and Penn State football consistently is a national leader in the percentage of its players who graduate--and that includes high graduation rates for minorities, too. He measured the success of his teams not in wins and losses, but how those players later influenced society as teachers and surgeons and engineers and leaders. And through it all, Penn State remained a force on the football field and was doing just fine. Two of Paterno's last three recruiting classes were ranked in the top 11 nationally, according to the recruiting site scout.com. Since 2005 Penn State's winning percentage under Paterno was better than his all-time winning percentage. He captured two Big Ten titles since then and was unbeaten in conference play and in first place in the Big Ten's Leaders Division when he was ousted in November because of the Sandusky scandal. And Paterno, of course, set yet another record last fall with his 409th career victory. But victories and championships--and flaws--should not be how we remember Joe Paterno. He would not want that. Joe Paterno should be remembered as an educator who truly placed academics before athletics. He should be remembered for building 18-year-old boys into men and productive members of society. And he should be remembered for building a university that benefits all.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize National Marriage Week, which begins today and concludes on Valentine's Day. I am a strong supporter of traditional marriage, which is the basis of the American family. The purpose of National Marriage Week is to encourage spouses to rededicate themselves to each other and towards strengthening their marriages. Strong marriages allow children to flourish and provide a safe structured environment for emotional, spiritual, personal and professional development. The family is the cornerstone of our society and I encourage all Americans to take this week to focus on their spouse and commit to strengthening their marriage.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, in 1994 I was part of a delegation, organized by Christian Solidarity International, that visited Nagorno-Karabakh, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. In Nagorno-Karabakh, I saw horrible conditions: doctors operating without anesthesia using only a stiff dose of cognac; land mines planted by the retreating Azeri army which resulted in injury and amputation of limbs of women and children as well as soldiers and people living in hazardous partially bombed-out apartment buildings in the cities and in lean-tos among the debris of demolished villages. Upon my return, I urged Congress not to forget the long-suffering people of Nagorno-Karabakh. And I rise today to do the same. In 1921, Joseph Stalin, then the comissar for nationality affairs in the Transcaucasia Bureau of the Communist Party, declared Nagorno- Karabakh to be an autonomous region controlled by Azerbaijan as part of his divide and rule strategy. Historically, the majority of the population in Nagorno-Karabakh has been Armenian and the people have always had close ethnic, religious and familial ties with Armenia. In the years leading to the breakup of the Soviet Union, the Karabakh Armenians petitioned in 1987 for inclusion of Nagorno-Karabakh in the state of Armenia. In 1991, they petitioned for independent state status. To date, the situation remains unresolved. Shortly after the break-up of the Soviet Union, Armenians in Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh endured great hardship, including pogroms in Sumgait (February 1998), in Kirovabad (November 1988) and in Baku (January 1990). A January 19, 1990, New York Times article described the Baku pogrom as a ``massacre.'' That same article also pointed to the violence in 1988, when, ``armed Azerbaijanis rampaged through the town of Sumgait and slaughtered 32 people, mostly Armenians.'' These horrific acts of targeted violence are as deplorable today as they were more than two decades ago. Tragically, tensions remain high in the region. A January 16 Bloomberg article reported that, ``Azerbaijan is buying up modern weaponry to be able to regain control of the breakaway Nagorno-Karabakh region quickly and with few losses should peace talks with neighboring Armenia fail, President Ilham Aliyev said.'' Such acts of aggression would have a devastating impact. It is critical that the U.S. works toward a lasting, peaceful and democratic solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I do not believe that Members of Congress should receive a pay raise, and that is why I am voting for this bill. However, today's bill isn't just a vote on whether or not to freeze salaries for Members of Congress. The second part of this legislation extends the pay freeze for federal employees for a third consecutive year. This gives me serious pause. These issues should not be tied together. There should be one vote on Member salaries and a separate vote on extending the pay freeze for federal employees. I am concerned that the language in this bill pertaining to federal employees' pay has not been considered through the normal process. I'm not arguing that freezing Members' salaries needs a hearing. That's obvious. Freezing our pay doesn't need to be vetted. Federal employees are the issue. This bill has been rushed to the floor less than a week after being introduced. No hearings have been held. Only 40 minutes of debate are being allowed. No amendments are permitted. Has anyone fully considered the impact that a three-year pay freeze will have on the CIA, the NSA, the National Reconnaissance Office and the National Counter Terrorism Center? Or the impact on the FBI, which has, since 9/11, disrupted scores of terrorist plots against our country? Or the impact on our military, which is supported by federal employees every day on military bases across the Nation? Or the impact on VA hospitals across the country, which are treating military veterans from World War II to today? Or the impact on the Border Patrol? Or the impact on NASA, its astronauts, engineers and scientists, especially on the nine-year anniversary of the tragic loss of the Columbia crew and a week after the 45th anniversary of the loss of the Apollo 1 crew? Or the impact on NIH, and other federal researchers, scientists and doctors? Clearly, federal employees don't just sit behind desks. They are members of our communities who are out in the field, often in harm's way, protecting our Nation. Just here in northern Virginia, residents recently mourned the loss of two federal employees who died in the line of duty--U.S. Park Police Sergeant Michael Andrew Boehm of Burke, and National Park Service Ranger Margaret Anderson, who previously worshipped in Lovettsville. Their sacrifices remind us that many federal employees are often put in dangerous situations. Since 1992, nearly 3,000 federal employees have paid the ultimate price while serving their country, according to the Office of Personnel Management. The first American killed in Afghanistan, Mike Spann, was a CIA agent and a constituent of mine from Manassas Park. I attended his funeral. Over 100,000 CIA, FBI, DEA agents, and State Department employees have served side-by-side with our military to carry out the War on Terror in locations such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Two years ago, I attended funerals for some of the seven CIA agents who were killed by a suicide bomber at Forward Operating Base Chapman near Khost on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. And we should not forget that the CIA agents who planned and helped execute the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden are federal employees. Every day, Border Patrol agents and ICE agents are working to stop the flow of illegal immigrants and drugs across our borders. Federal firefighters work to protect federal lands and mitigate the spread of deadly fires. Immediately following the December 2011 shooting at Virginia Tech, some of the first law enforcement officers on the scene were ATF agents. These are but a few examples of the vital jobs performed by federal employees. Federal employees who are not in harm's way on a daily basis are also dedicated public servants. The medical researchers at the National Institutes of Health working to develop cures for cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's and autism are all federal employees. Dr. Francis Collins, the physician who mapped the human genome and serves as director of the NIH, is a federal employee. The National Weather Service meteorologists who track tornadoes and hurricanes, as well as the FDA inspectors working to stop a salmonella outbreak, are federal employees. It is cheap grace to claim that today's legislation will in any way address our Nation's fiscal obligations. The national debt is over $15 trillion. It is projected to reach $17 trillion next year and $21 trillion in 2021. We have annual deficits of more than $1 trillion. We have unfunded obligations and liabilities of $65 trillion. This bill does not even direct the Congress to use the ``savings'' from today's bill to be used for deficit reduction or any other particular purpose. I am concerned that this vote is merely an attempt to position the House to use federal employees as a ``pay-for'' to fund the further extension of the payroll ``holiday'' legislation that is currently before a conference committee. This is wrong. And my vote today to freeze Members' salaries should not be construed in any way to indicate that I would support such a position from the conference committee. Let me be clear, the payroll ``holiday'' should expire on schedule at the end of this month. It does nothing more than steal from the Social Security Trust Fund, which is already going broke. And, according to recent polling reported by The Hill, most Americans haven't noticed any benefit from this ``holiday.'' Social Security is unique because it is paid for through a dedicated tax on workers who will receive future benefits. The money paid today funds benefits for existing retirees, and ensures future benefits. Because you pay now, a future worker will pay your benefits. That is why, until last year, this revenue stream was considered sacrosanct by both political parties. Social Security is on an unsustainable path. Today's medical breakthroughs were simply not envisioned when the system was created in 1935. For example, in 1950, the average American lived for 68 years and 16 workers supported one retiree. Today, the average life expectancy is 78 and three workers support one retiree. Three and a half million people received Social Security in 1950; 55 million receive it today. Every day since January 1, 2011, over 10,000 baby-boomers turned 65. This trend will continue every day for the next 19 years. Do these numbers sound sustainable to anyone? The Social Security Actuary has said that by 2036 the trust fund will be unable to pay full benefits. This means that everyone will receive an across-the-board cut of 22 percent, regardless of how much money they paid into the system. After months of passionately debating the importance of reducing the deficit, the president and Congress are now continuing to advocate for a payroll ``holiday'' that's barely, if at all, improved our economic outlook and further contributes to our crushing debt burden. And does it make sense that everyone, regardless of income, will get money from this ``stimulus?'' Does anyone think that Warren Buffet changed his buying habits as a result of this temporary suspension? Or did General Electric's CEO, Jeffery Immelt, the head of President Obama's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness who recently shipped GE's medical imaging division from Wisconsin to China, benefit from this ``holiday?'' Leadership from both parties have stated that extending this policy is paramount. I regret that time is being spent on a flawed policy instead of tackling the difficult choices to address our nation's unfunded spending obligations. We all know what needs to be done to address the deficit and debt and that is why I have supported every serious effort to resolve this crisis, including the Bowles-Simpson recommendations, the Ryan Budget, the ``Gang of Six,'' the ``Cut, Cap and Balance'' plan and the Budget Control Act. I also was among the bipartisan group of 103 members of Congress who urged the supercommittee to ``go big'' and identify $4 trillion in savings. I voted for the Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, which would have established critical institutional reforms to ensure that the federal government lives within its means. In addition, since 2006, I have introduced my own bipartisan legislation, the SAFE Commission, multiple times. While none of these solutions were perfect, they all took the necessary steps to rebuild and protect our economy. In order to solve this problem, everything must be on the table for consideration--all entitlement spending, all domestic discretionary spending, including defense spending, and tax reform, particularly changes to make the tax code more simple and fair and to end the practice of tax earmarks and loopholes that cost hundreds of billions of dollars annually. Yet on the floor today, the Congress won't even, at a minimum, commit the savings from this bill towards deficit reduction. There is something fundamentally wrong with this scenario. I've always had a policy where my staff in Washington, Herndon and Winchester were treated the same as federal employees. They work hard. But when federal employees faced furloughs, so did my staff. And because federal employees work under a pay freeze, my staff is working under a pay freeze. I have always felt that federal employees, and congressional staff, committee and leadership staff, should be treated equally. I feel that the moral choice has always been to treat everyone equally. Above all, we should not let today's vote distract us from having the difficult conversations that are necessary to ensure that programs and services are reduced in a manner that responsibly lowers the deficit. There is never a convenient time to make hard decisions, but the longer we put off fixing the problem, the worse the medicine will be and the greater the number of Americans who will be hurt. America is living on borrowed dollars and borrowed time. We must stop leaving piles of debt to our children and grandchildren. It was disappointing to hear the president deliver a campaign speech from the floor of this House during the State of the Union. It is disappointing that this House is now following his lead. Federal employees live, work, pay taxes, liaise with contractors and businesses, and spend the money that is driving the private sector growth here in Virginia. We shouldn't use them as offsets for a failed policy that steals from Social Security. Voting to freeze member pay is the easy thing to do. Let's be sure that today's actions don't distract us from the tough choices ahead. We should let the payroll ``holiday'' expire on schedule. We should put everything on the table--including discretionary spending, tax earmarks and loopholes, defense spending, and entitlements to address our nation's debt. We should be balancing our books to eliminate the need for sequestration. It's time to get to work. Let's not continue to kick the can down the road as we wait for a better political moment. I stand ready to continue to work with my colleagues to find real, comprehensive reforms to our spending, tax, and entitlement systems to ensure that these programs exist. Our children and grandchildren deserve nothing less.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I submit a copy of a letter I received from the assistant secretary for legislative affairs at the State Department in response to a December 13, 2011, letter to President Obama expressing my disbelief that the administration had granted the necessary waiver for the genocidal government of Sudan to obtain legal representation from Mr. Bart Fisher, a lawyer in Washington. I also submit the December 13 letter to the president. I have written various administration officials at the State Department, Treasury and the White House since I learned of this indefensible development. Every response I have received to date attempts, unsuccessfully, to put my mind at ease by assuring me that the U.S. government has a ``firm policy of denying authorization to U.S. persons who seek to lobby or provide public relations services on behalf of the Government of Sudan for the lifting of sanctions or for any other purposes.'' However, the administration argues that ``Our system allows even the worse actors to receive legal advice on how to comply with our laws and to challenge sanction enforcement actions in court.'' I don't agree with their analysis. But even if I did, the restrictions on representation that the administration claims to have in place are inconsistent with what Mr. Fisher is actually being permitted to do. Mr. Fisher wrote me a letter claiming, ``Although the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has granted my law office a license, that license does not authorize any lobbying activities, and my office will engage in none. We will respond (emphasis added), however, to requests, for information from Members of Congress or the Obama Administration.'' As I pointed out in a December 15, 2011 letter to Treasury Secretary Geithner, I never requested information from Mr. Fisher. And yet, in the letter to my office, he tries to convince me, as a member of Congress, not anyone involved in court proceedings with the Government of Sudan, that the current sanctions regime should be altered. How can this not be understood to be lobbying? Meanwhile, on Monday, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations (UN) Susan Rice sent a strongly worded letter to the president of the UN Security Council about the tragedy presently unfolding in Sudan-- specifically in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile. Rice wrote, ``It is clear that the Government of Sudan has instituted a deliberate policy to prevent humanitarian agencies from reaching vulnerable civilians impacted by the conflict. She said that the people of these regions have been pushed to the ``brink of a major humanitarian crisis.'' She warned of ``famine conditions'' and concluded, ``A humanitarian disaster of this magnitude is unacceptable in any circumstance. It is particularly shameful when the path to averting large-scale loss of innocent lives is so clear. Mr. President, this crisis can be addressed by the Government of Sudan, if it were to allow the United Nations and other relied organizations immediate and unimpeded access to vulnerable civilians across Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile.'' I would argue that that is not the only thing that is shameful. This administration is splitting hairs. It is blind to its own inconsistency. I agree wholeheartedly with Ambassador Rice's analysis. And yet, the administration, in the face of past crimes against humanity and genocide and present actions which jeopardize the lives of thousands of people, has given the Government of Sudan the privilege a legal representation in our nation's capital--representation which constitutes lobbying. The administration must reverse course and revoke Mr. Fisher's license lest Secretary Clinton, Secretary Geithner and President Obama be complicit in aiding a genocidal government. U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC, January 12, 2012. Hon. Frank R. Wolf, House of Representatives. Dear Mr. Wolf: Thank you for your letter of December 13, 2011, to President Obama and your subsequent call to Secretary Clinton concerning reports that the Government of Sudan has attempted to retain a lobbyist to represent its interests in the United States. While we cannot comment on specific cases, the United States government has a firm policy of denying authorization to U.S. persons who seek to lobby or provide public relations services on behalf of the Government of Sudan for the lifting of sanctions or for any other purpose. There are no current Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) licenses allowing U.S. persons to lobby or provide public relations services on behalf of the Government of Sudan. We also recognize the importance of due process and opportunity for redress under the Sudan sanctions regime. Our system allows even the worst actors to receive legal advice on how to comply with our laws and to challenge sanction enforcement actions in court. However, such legal services do not include lobbying activities. There are investigation and enforcement mechanisms in place to ensure compliance with U.S. sanctions, which include the possibility of civil and criminal penalties for violations of sanctions regulations. We hope this information is helpful in addressing your concerns. Please feel free to contact us further on this or any matter of concern to you. Sincerely, David S. Adams, Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, every federal employee has repeated the following oath: ``I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.'' Within the past month, northern Virginia residents have attended services for two federal law enforcement officers who have died in the line of duty: U.S. Park Police Sergeant Michael Andrew Boehm of Burke, Virginia, and National Park Service Ranger Margaret Anderson, who previously lived in Lovettsville, Virginia, before her post in Washington State. I urge all members to read Washington Post columnist Joe Davidson's piece entitled ``Park ranger's death highlight the risks in federal law enforcement,'' which I am submitting for the Record. This piece highlights the sacrifices made in 2011 by 13 federal law enforcement officers who died in the line of duty, including: Senior Special Agent John Capano, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; Special Agent Daniel ``Danny'' Lee Knapp, Federal Bureau of Investigations; Officer Bart Child, Fort Huachuca Police Department; Special Agent Timothy S. Briggs, Federal Bureau of Investigations; Border Patrol Agent Eduardo Rojas, Jr., Customs and Border Protection; Border Patrol Agent Hector R. Clark, Customs and Border Protection; Senior Officer Specialist Christopher Cooper, Bureau of Prisons; Deputy Marshal John Perry, U.S. Marshals Service; Park Ranger Julie Weir, National Park Service; Deputy Marshal Derek Hotsinpiller, U.S. Marshals Service; Special Agent Jamie Zapata, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and Park Ranger Chris Nickel, National Park Service. Their sacrifices remind us that many federal employees are repeatedly put in dangerous situations. According to the Office of Personnel Management, since 1992, nearly 3,000 federal employees have paid the ultimate price while serving their country. The first American killed in Afghanistan, Mike Spann, was a CIA agent and a constituent from my congressional district. CIA, FBI, DEA agents, and State Department employees are serving side-by-side with our military in the fight against the Taliban. Customs and Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents are working to stop the flow of illegal immigrants and drugs across our borders. Federal firefighters work to protect federal lands and mitigate the spread of deadly fires. Federal employees who are not in harm's way on a daily basis are also dedicated civil servants. The medical researchers at the National Institutes of Health working to develop cures for cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's and autism are all dedicated federal employees. Dr. Francis Collins, the physician who mapped the human genome and serves as director of the NIH, is a federal employee. The National Weather Service meteorologist who tracks hurricanes, and the FDA inspector working to stop a salmonella outbreak, are federal employees. The ATF agents who were in Blacksburg, Virginia, immediately following last month's shooting are federal employees. These are but a few examples of the vital jobs performed by federal employees. I thank all federal employees for their service to our nation, and know that all my colleagues are grateful to the families of those who have died while working to ensure that our country is a safer and better place. [From the Washington Post, Jan. 4, 2012] Park Ranger's Death Highlights the Risks in Federal Law Enforcement (By Joe Davidson) In a stark reminder of how dangerous working for Uncle Sam can be, 13 federal law enforcement officers died in 2011. Then the new year began with the murder of an officer in an otherwise peaceful park. Margaret Anderson, a ranger with the National Park Service, was gunned down in Washington state's Mount Rainier National Park on New Year's Day. The day before, John Capano, an agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agent, was killed in Seaford, N.Y., as he tried to stop a pharmacy thief. Capano, 51, who was off-duty at the time, apparently was mistakenly shot by another law enforcement officer, according to the Associated Press and New York media reports. Last Thursday, Daniel Knapp, a 43-year-old FBI agent, drowned in Puerto Rico while trying to assist a distressed swimmer. A day earlier, U.S. Park Police Sgt. Mike Boehm was buried. Boehm suffered a heart attack while on duty Dec. 16, trying to assist a man who plummeted from the Key Bridge in Georgetown. Kevin Bacher, a ranger who served with Anderson at Mount Rainier, said she ``always had a smile and always had a kind word and would bend over backward if you needed something.'' Anderson, a 34-year-old mother of two girls who was married to another ranger, probably would have been more than willing to assist even the likes of Benjamin Colton Barnes. But the 24-year-old Iraq war veteran allegedly shot her before she could even get out of her car. He then fled into the woods, where he developed hypothermia and drowned in a creek. Before transferring to Mount Rainier in 2008, Anderson was assigned to the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park in Hagerstown. ``When I think of Margaret's tenure here, I think of her big smile. But she also was a no-nonsense law enforcement officer,'' said Kevin Brandt, the park's superintendent. Unlike many officers, she became an emergency medical technician ``to provide that important service to visitors,'' he added. ``She had a real love of nature. . . . She was a consummate ranger. She was everything that you'd want a ranger to be.'' Anderson's death points to the perils that rangers face. ``This tragedy serves as a reminder of the risks undertaken by the men and women of the National Park Service and law enforcement officers across the Department every day,'' said Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. Rangers are far more than park tour guides in peculiar hats. Particularly in remote parks, they carry out a variety of critical duties, including fighting fires, saving lives and being the cops many of them are authorized to be. There are two types of rangers, those with law enforcement powers such as Anderson, and interpretive rangers who have some of the same responsibilities but don't carry guns, wear body armor or confront killers. Generally, guns and bulletproof vests are not necessary, because national parks are safe places. ``Margaret Anderson's case was incredibly tragic for us, but it was very rare at the same time,'' said National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis. Like Anderson, many park service employees have a strong sense of mission and devote their careers to protecting America's natural resources. ``The Park Service . . . is a big family,'' said Jarvis, himself a 35-year Park Service veteran. ``To lose one of the family is devastating to us.'' While its people are devastated, he said, the Park Service ``also will evaluate the situation in extraordinary detail to see if there is anything we can do to prevent this from happening in the future.'' The 13 officers who died in the line of duty, including deaths from job-related illness and accidents, compares with just four in 2000 and 17 in 2007, according to the Officer Down Memorial Page, a nonprofit organization. ``These officers selflessly put themselves in harm's way to protect their fellow Americans,'' said Office of Personnel Management Director John Berry. ``All Americans are saddened by their loss, and grateful for the courage every Federal law enforcement officer shows daily as they keep our nation safe.'' For all of the sadness the deaths bring, the killings of officers also generate understandable anger. When Jaime J. Zapata, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent, was killed in Mexico in February, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano did not mince words: ``Let me be clear: Any act of violence against our ICE personnel--or any DHS personnel--is an attack against all those who serve our nation and put their lives at risk for our safety.'' Officers lost in the line of duty last year Thirteen federal law enforcement officers died in the line of duty in 2011, according to the Officer Down Memorial Page, a nonprofit organization. In addition to officers who were killed by gunfire, as National Park Service Ranger Margaret Anderson was on Sunday, the list includes officers who died because of job-related illnesses, such as heart attacks, or in vehicle and other accidents. Senior Special Agent John Capano, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Dec. 31, New York. Special Agent Daniel ``Danny'' Lee Knapp, FBI, Dec. 29, Puerto Rico. Sgt. Michael Andrew Boehm, U.S. Park Police, Dec. 16, District of Columbia. Officer Bart Child, Fort Huachuca Police Department, Aug. 18, Arizona. Special Agent Timothy S. Briggs, FBI, May 31, Kentucky. Border Patrol Agent Eduardo Rojas, Jr., Customs and Border Protection, May 12, Arizona. Border Patrol Agent Hector R. Clark, Customs and Border Protection, May 12, Arizona. Senior Officer Specialist Christopher Cooper, Bureau of Prisons, April 7, Kansas. Deputy Marshal John Perry, U.S. Marshals Service, March 8, Missouri. Park Ranger Julie Weir, National Park Service, Feb. 24, Nebraska. Deputy Marshal Derek Hotsinpiller, U.S. Marshals Service, Feb. 16, West Virginia. Special Agent Jaime J. Zapata, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Feb. 15, Mexico. Park Ranger Chris Nickel, National Park Service, Jan. 29, Utah.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize and pay tribute to former Czech president and play-wright Vaclav Havel. He began as one of Czechoslovakia's best-known dissidents as he pushed for democratic change during the dark days of the Soviet Union. He went on to become the first president of the Czech Republic. I submit for the Record an article from Monday's Washington Post where post columnist Michael Gerson, recalled Havel's message to a joint session of Congress in which he urged Americans to put ``morality ahead of politics'' and to foster ``responsibility--responsibility to something higher than my family, my country, my company, my success.'' This same message could not come at a more timely moment. I commend it to my colleagues. [From the Washington Post, Dec. 19, 2011] Havel's Revolution of Truth (By Michael Gerson) As the heroes of the Cold War walk off into the mist-- Ronald Reagan, then John Paul II, now Vaclav Havel--each departure makes that world more distant and foreign. But it is too early for forgetfulness, which would also be ingratitude. Once in a nightmare, European dissidents lived in prison, in whole nations that were prisons. They were confirmed to mental hospitals by governments sustained through the promotion of mass delusion. They were forced to make confessions of imagined crimes by regimes that were criminal enterprises. And then the government of Czechoslovakia went a step too far. In 1976, it arrested a band called The Plastic People of the Universe for offenses against cultural conformity. This was a perfect symbol of communism: a system that could not tolerate the unauthorized singing of songs. The regime's stupidity undermined its capacity to intimidate. Havel--a countercultural intellectual and rock fan--co-founded the Charter 77 human rights movement. Never has bad popular music been put to better use. In history's great refutation of historical pessimism, Europe's nightmare turned out to be a ``fairy tale''--a phrase Havel used to describe his experience. On Oct. 27, 1989, Havel was sent to prison for the fourth time. That December, 300,000 Czechs turned out in Wenceslas Square to chant, ``Havel to the Castle!'' By New Year's Day, Havel could declare, ``People, your government has returned to you!'' In February, he addressed a joint session of Congress as the leader of a free Czechoslovakia. It was four months from prisoner to visiting president. Havel helped overthrow communism by discrediting its central tenet. Scientific socialism taught that history is the outworking of massive economic and social forces that the individual could not hope to budge. Ideals, Marx sniffed, were ``phantoms formed in the human brain.'' As Winston Churchill might have said of Havel: Some phantom. Some brain. Havel relentlessly exposed communist ideology as a confidence game, a Ponzi scheme, dependent on broad deference to obvious lies. One ideal--a commitment to truth--proved to be a lever long enough to move the world. Reading back over Havel's landmark 1978 essay, ``The Power of the Powerless,'' is like wading through molasses scattered with diamonds. The intellectual jargon is thick--and then comes a crystalline phrase, a perfectly polished insight. Communist regimes require people to ``live within a lie,'' demanding dehumanizing rituals of loyalty. He describes his country as plastered with slogans but lacking in genuine belief. ``Each person,'' he says, ``somehow succumbs to a profane trivialization of his inherent humanity.'' They drift together ``down the river of pseudolife.'' Yet in a society ruled by lies, truth gains a ``singular, explosive, incalculable political power.'' The desire to live authentically is the equivalent of a fifth column--a revolution hidden in a whole society. Truth advances in a political speech, in a hunger strike, in a play, in a song. ``It is a bacteriological weapon, so to speak,'' says Havel, ``utilized when conditions are ripe by a single civilian to disarm an entire division.'' Havel was a historical prophet of the first order--and the fulfillment of his own prophesy. ``Living within the truth,'' according to Havel, is an inherently moral enterprise. It requires sacrifice, which presupposes a ``sense of responsibility'' for others--a belief in love, friendship and compassion. In the company of John Paul II and Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Havel believed that political renewal starts in moral and personal renewal. In one letter from prison he wrote, ``But who should begin? Who should break this vicious circle? The only possible place to begin is with myself . . . . Whether all is really lost or not depends entirely on whether or not I am lost.'' Uncomfortably, Havel also applied this moral vision to the prosperous nations of the West. He criticized ``a selfish cult of material success'' and ``the absence of faith in a higher order of things.'' Consumerism and relativism, he warned, could also strip people of humanity and responsibility. Even the wealthy and powerful can live within the lie. In his speech to Congress, Havel urged Americans to put ``morality ahead of politics'' and to foster ``responsibility--responsibility to something higher than my family, my country, my company, my success.'' American intellectual Noam Chomsky called Havel's speech an ``embarrassingly silly and morally repugnant Sunday School sermon''--itself a statement both silly and repugnant. The Czech Republic had this rare advantage: Its leading intellectual believed in the ideals of Western civilization. And by his faith in civilization, he helped to save it.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I oppose motions regarding a conference because I do not support any of the costly proposals to extend the temporary payroll ``holiday,'' which destabilizes the Social Security Trust Fund and does nothing to enact the needed long-term structural reforms necessary to right our fiscal state of ship. Our country is going broke. The national debt is over $15 trillion. It is projected to reach $17 trillion next year and $21 trillion in 2021. We have annual deficits of approximately $1 trillion. We have unfunded obligations and liabilities of $62 trillion. The Social Security Actuary has said that by 2037 the trust fund will be unable to pay full benefits. This means that everyone will receive an across the board cut of 22 percent, regardless of how much money they paid into the system. Washington is dysfunctional. After months of passionately debating the importance of reducing the deficit, the President and Congress are now advocating for a policy that's barely, if at all, improved our economic outlook and further contributes to our crushing debt burden. My floor statement from December 13, which I have reposted on my Web site, further explains my opposition to the underlying legislation. During his 1796 farewell address, George Washington admonished his fellow countrymen: ``We should avoid ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden of which we ourselves ought to bear.'' The Congress should heed his advice. I voted ``no'' on this policy last December. I voted ``no'' on this policy last week. And I vote ``no'' today.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. I thank the chair very much for yielding. I want to thank Representative Ros-Lehtinen and her staff for, really, being very dogged and persistent, and I want them to know how grateful I am. As people are for this bill, they should know that had it not been for them, we would not be here. I also want to thank Mr. Berman and his staff. I want to thank Mr. Cantor and his staff for scheduling this. I want to single out Speaker Boehner and his staff because they were a part of this effort for the last several months, and they were very faithful, so I want to thank them. I also want to thank my staff for being involved in this for well over a year. The Coptic Christians are going through a very difficult time. The Iraqi Christians are being killed, and difficult things are happening to them. In Tibet, the Buddhists are setting themselves aflame because of the persecution of the Chinese Government. The Catholic Church in China is under stress: 25 bishops are under house arrest. The Protestant House Church in China is being squeezed and persecuted. The Christians in Sudan, in the Blue Nile area, are going through genocide and are being killed because of their faith. Interestingly enough, the original bill passed on the very last day of Congress a number of years ago, and history is repeating itself. The Commission has been a beacon of hope. With that, I just want to, again, thank all those who helped us get here.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, the conference report accompanying H.R. 2055 clearly states that Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has the ability to create the Afghanistan/Pakistan Study Group. I worked closely with members of the House and Senate to include the funding for this important panel and I am extremely pleased that it is now possible for it to become a reality. Despite numerous requests for Secretary Panetta to create this panel using his existing authority, he has steadfastly refused to do so. His letter of November 3, 2011, which I include for the Record, states that he believes ``fresh eyes'' have already been put on our mission and strategy in Afghanistan. He neglects to mention whether his definition of ``fresh eyes'' includes those who devised and implemented the current U.S. strategy. It is clear that his strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan has not yet been successful--and the American people are concerned about the outcome. I also include for the Record my initial letter to President Obama outlining the importance of the Af/Pak Study Group, as well as letters of support from prominent foreign policy experts. This panel presents the Obama Administration with the opportunity to engage the brightest minds outside of government in reviewing current strategy in South Asia and bring their considerable experience to bear to ensure that we have the best possible strategy going forward in this vitally important region. Mr. Speaker, Secretary Panetta now has clear ability and funding to create the Afghanistan/Pakistan Study Group. I believe we owe it to our servicemembers and their families to consider all opinions on how to achieve success in Afghanistan in Pakistan. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, August 4, 2010. Hon. Barack H. Obama, The President, The White House, Washington DC. Dear Mr. President: On September 14, 2001, following the catastrophic and deliberate terrorist attack on our country, I voted to go to war in Afghanistan. I stand by that decision and have the utmost confidence in General Petraeus's proven leadership. I also remain unequivocally committed to the success of our mission there and to the more than 100,000 American troops sacrificing toward that end. In fact, it is this commitment which has led me to write to you. While I have been a consistent supporter of the war effort in both Afghanistan and Iraq, I believe that with this support comes a responsibility. This was true during a Republican administration in the midst of the wars, and it remains true today. In 2005, I returned from my third trip to Iraq where I saw firsthand the deteriorating security situation. I was deeply concerned that Congress was failing to exercise the necessary oversight of the war effort. Against this backdrop I authored the legislation that created the Iraq Study Group (ISG). The ISG was a 10-member bipartisan group of well-respected, nationally known figures who were brought together with the help of four reputable organizations--the U.S. Institute for Peace, the Center for the Study of the Presidency, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and the Baker Institute for Public Policy at Rice University--and charged with undertaking a comprehensive review of U.S. efforts there. This panel was intended to serve as ``fresh eyes on the target''--the target being success in Iraq. While reticent at first, to their credit President Bush, State Secretary Rice and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld came to support the ISG, ably led by bipartisan co-chairs, former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton. Two members of your national security team, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and CIA Director Leon Panetta, saw the merit of the ISG and, in fact, served on the panel. Vice President Biden, too, then serving in the Senate, was supportive and saw it as a means to unite the Congress at a critical time. A number of the ISG's recommendations and ideas were adopted. Retired General Jack Keane, senior military adviser to the ISG, was a lead proponent of ``the surge,'' and the ISG referenced the possibility on page 73. Aside from the specific policy recommendations of the panel, the ISG helped force a moment of truth in our national conversation about the war effort. I believe our nation is again facing such a moment in the Afghanistan war effort, and that a similar model is needed. In recent days I have spoken with a number of knowledgeable individuals including former senior diplomats, public policy experts and retired and active military. Many believe our Afghanistan policy is adrift, and all agreed that there is an urgent need for what I call an Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group (APSG): We must examine our efforts in the region holistically, given Pakistan's strategic significance to our efforts in Afghanistan and the Taliban's presence in that country as well, especially in the border areas. This likely will not come as a surprise to you as commander in chief. You are well acquainted with the sobering statistics of the past several weeks--notably that July surpassed June as the deadliest month for U.S. troops. There is a palpable shift in the nation's mood and in the halls of Congress. A July 2010 CBS news poll found that 62 percent of Americans say the war is going badly in Afghanistan, up from 49 percent in May. Further, last week, 102 Democrats voted against the war spending bill, which is 70 more than last year, and they were joined by 12 members of my own party. Senator Lindsay Graham, speaking last Sunday on CNN's ``State of the Union,'' candidly expressed concern about an ``unholy alliance'' emerging of anti-war Democrats and Republicans. I have heard it said that Vietnam was not lost in Saigon; rather, it was lost in Washington. While the Vietnam and Afghanistan parallels are imperfect at best, the shadow of history looms large. Eroding political will has consequences--and in the case of Afghanistan, the stakes could not be higher. A year ago, speaking before the Veterans of Foreign War National Convention, you rightly said, ``Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting . . . this is fundamental to the defense of our people.'' Indeed it is fundamental. We must soberly consider the implications of failure in Afghanistan. Those that we know for certain are chilling--namely an emboldened al-Qaeda, a reconstituted Taliban with an open staging ground for future worldwide attacks, and a destabilized, nuclear-armed Pakistan. Given these realities and wavering public and political support, I urge you to act immediately, through executive order, to convene an Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group modeled after the Iraq Study Group. The participation of nationally known and respected individuals is of paramount importance. Among the names that surfaced in my discussions with others, all of whom more than meet the criteria described above, are ISG co-chairs Baker and Hamilton; former Senators Chuck Robb, Bob Kerrey and Sam Nunn; former Congressman Duncan Hunter; former U.S. ambassador Ryan Crocker, former Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger, and General Keane. These names are simply suggestions among a cadre of capable men and women, as evidenced by the make-up of the ISG, who would be more than up to the task. I firmly believe that an Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group could reinvigorate national confidence in how America can be successful and move toward a shared mission in Afghanistan. This is a crucial task. On the Sunday morning news shows this past weekend, it was unsettling to hear conflicting statements from within the leadership of the administration that revealed a lack of clarity about the end game in Afghanistan. How much more so is this true for the rest of the country? An APSG is necessary for precisely that reason. We are nine years into our nation's longest running war and the American people and their elected representatives do not have a clear sense of what we are aiming to achieve, why it is necessary and how far we are from attaining that goal. Further, an APSG could strengthen many of our NATO allies in Afghanistan who are also facing dwindling public support, as evidenced by the recent Dutch troop withdrawal, and would give them a tangible vision to which to commit. Just as was true at the time of the Iraq Study Group, I believe that Americans of all political viewpoints, liberals and conservatives alike, and varied opinions on the war will embrace this ``fresh eyes'' approach. Like the previous administration's support of the Iraq Study Group, which involved taking the group's members to Iraq and providing high-level access to policy and decision makers, I urge you to embrace an Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group. It is always in our national interest to openly assess the challenges before us and to chart a clear course to success. As you know, the full Congress comes back in session in mid-September--days after Americans around the country will once again pause and remember that horrific morning nine years ago when passenger airlines became weapons, when the skyline of one of America's greatest cities was forever changed, when a symbol of America's military might was left with a gaping hole. The experts with whom I have spoken in recent days believe that time is of the essence in moving forward with a study panel, and waiting for Congress to reconvene is too long to wait. As such, I am hopeful you will use an executive order and the power of the bully pulpit to convene this group in short order, and explain to the American people why it is both necessary and timely. Should you choose not to take this path, respectfully, I intend to offer an amendment by whatever vehicle necessary to mandate the group's creation at the earliest possible opportunity. The ISG's report opened with a letter from the co-chairs that read, ``There is no magic formula to solve the problems of Iraq. However, there are actions that can be taken to improve the situation and protect American interests.'' The same can be said of Afghanistan. I understand that you are a great admirer of Abraham Lincoln. He, too, governed during a time of war, albeit a war that pitted brother against brother, and father against son. In the midst of that epic struggle, he relied on a cabinet with strong, often times opposing viewpoints. Historians assert this served to develop his thinking on complex matters, Similarly, while total agreement may not emerge from a study group for Afghanistan and Pakistan, I believe that vigorous, thoughtful and principled debate and discussion among some of our nation's greatest minds on these matters will only serve the national interest. The biblical admonition that iron sharpens iron rings true. Best wishes. Sincerely, Frank R. Wolf, Member of Congress. P.S. We as a nation must be successful in Afghanistan. We owe this to our men and women in the military serving in harm's way and to the American people.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I was pleased this morning that The Washington Post did a story on a shameful development here in Washington; namely, that Bart Fisher, a Washington lawyer, was granted a license by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, OFAC, at Treasury, to represent the genocidal government of Sudan. I submit a copy of the Post article for the record. The Sudanese people have long been brutalized, marginalized, and terrorized by their own government. Yet, unbelievably, it seems the same regime has been afforded the privilege of legal representation in Washington by the Obama administration. According to a news report earlier this week in Africa Intelligence, Mr. Fisher was hired with the express purpose of trying to ``lift American sanctions against it.'' In documentation posted on the Department of Justice Web site, it appears that Mr. Fisher was granted a license by the Office of Foreign Assets Control at Treasury to provide this representation, and that he plans to engage in political activities, among them ``representations, including petitions to U.S. government agencies regarding sanctions.'' I'm appalled that this has been permitted and someone or Mr. Fisher's political contributions were a factor. The administration should reverse this approval. Martin Luther King famously said, ``In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.'' The Obama administration should remember the words ``the silence of our friends.'' What must the people of Sudan be thinking at this particular juncture when the administration struggles to find its voice on their behalf, while at the same time seemingly empowering the voice of their oppressors? Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir's crimes are well known and documented. This is the same man that is accused by the International Criminal Court of five counts of crimes against humanity, including murder, rape, torture, extermination, and two counts of war crimes. I've been to Sudan five times, including in July of 2004, when Senator Sam Brownback and I were the first congressional delegation to go to Darfur. We spoke with women who had been raped just days earlier. The Arab Janjaweed militias, armed by Khartoum, the government of Khartoum of Sudan, told these women that they wanted to make ``lighter- skinned babies.'' In addition to horrific human rights abuses and crimes committed by Bashir and his National Congress Party, Sudan remains on the State Department's list of State sponsors of terrorism. It is well known that the same people currently in control in Khartoum gave safe haven to Osama bin Laden in the early 1990s. Moreover, Khartoum was a revolving door for Hamas and other designated terrorist groups. But Bashir's crimes are not merely a thing of the past. At the recent Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission hearing on the crisis in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile states in Sudan, a former Member of Congress and President of United to End Genocide, Tom Andrews, spoke about his experiences while visiting the region. He said there were reports of ``Sudanese armed forces and their allied militias going door to door targeting people based upon their religion and based upon the color of their skin.'' And yet the Obama administration gives them the right to have somebody in this town represent them. A recent delegation from the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom visited Sudan and met with refugees in Yida camp. They returned with similar reports. All of the pastors with whom they spoke said they fled southern Kordofan after learning that the Sudanese military was undertaking house searches for Christians and SPLM-North supporters. We stand just blocks from a museum that cries out, ``Never again.'' Meanwhile, it appears that this administration is complicit in allowing a genocidal government to have an advocate in Washington. The people who have the authority and the power to stop this from happening are President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, Secretary of the Treasury Geithner, Adam Szubin, who is the head of the office of OFAC, and David Cohen, the Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence at Treasury. History will be the judge if they fail to act. [From the Washington Post, Dec. 15, 2011] Sudan Hires Washington Lawyer (By Dan Eggen) The Obama administration has allowed the Republic of Sudan to hire its first U.S. lawyer in years, prompting strong objections from human rights groups and some members of Congress. Bart S. Fisher, a veteran international trade lawyer, is being paid $20,000 a month by Sudan to help the strife-torn African nation in its attempts to have U.S. economic sanctions lifted and be removed from the State Department's list of terrorism-sponsoring governments, according to federal registration documents. The hiring has angered U.S. human rights activists and some lawmakers because of the Sudanese regime's history of alleged genocide and other atrocities against its citizens during a decades-long civil war. Fighting has flared again this year along the border with newly independent South Sudan, displacing an estimated 400,000 people and prompting new accusations of indiscriminate bombing and illegal killings by the Khartoum government. Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.), a longtime critic of the Sudanese regime, attacked Fisher in the House and during a news conference this week for agreeing to work for ``a genocidal government'' that ``has blood on its hands.'' He also said he suspected the administration may have issued a license to Fisher because of the lawyer's past campaign contributions to President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and other Democrats. ``I don't know how Mr. Fisher sleeps at night,'' Wolf said on the House floor Tuesday, adding later: ``If he has received one penny from the government of Sudan, he should return it immediately.'' An alliance of activists, Act for Sudan, plans to picket Fisher's Washington offices on Friday. ``Our government should not be seeing this as the time to reward the government of Sudan,'' said Act for Sudan spokesman Eric Cohen. Fisher said in an interview Wednesday that the objections are misplaced and based on the erroneous idea that he is working as a lobbyist. Under the terms of the license issued by the Treasury Department, which enforces sanctions against Sudan, Fisher may only represent the Khartoum government in legal matters and is forbidden from lobbying or engaging in public relations, records show. ``I am not a lobbyist,'' Fisher said. ``I am a lawyer, and the Embassy of the Republic of Sudan is my client.'' The State Department has designated Sudan a state sponsor of terrorism since 1993, when the United States imposed sanctions on the country for harboring terrorists such as Osama bin Laden. The restrictions remained amid persistent allegations of genocide and other crimes during a 20-year civil war. A fragile peace agreement in 2005 led to the formation this year of the new nation of South Sudan. The Khartoum regime has long sought ways to persuade the U.S. government to lift its restrictions, including the hiring of a Washington lobbyist in 2005, who was later prosecuted for working on behalf of the country in violation of sanctions. The Washington Post reported in 2009 that the regime had worked through the nation of Qatar to enlist the help of former Reagan administration official Robert ``Bud'' McFarlane, who is now an adviser to Newt Gingiich's presidential campaign. Documents filed with the Justice Department under the Foreign Agents Registration Act show that Fisher was hired Nov. 1 to ``counsel and assist the Republic of the Sudan in satisfying appropriate U.S. conditions to reduce and eliminate the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations and related U.S. laws.'' A license allowing the deal was issued by Treasury on Nov. 16, records show. The fee is $20,000 per month, paid quarterly. Fisher's wife also received a gift of a purse and two candlestick holders from the republic on Nov. 2, disclosure records show. A Treasury official, speaking on background, said that the agreement adheres to sanction guidelines because legal representation, but not lobbying or public relations, is allowed. ``Recognizing the importance of due process and opportunity for redress, our regulations ensure that even the worst actors have the opportunity to challenge the blocking of their property before U.S. government agencies and courts,'' the official said in a statement. Fisher said Sudan's government needs legal representation to continue implementing the 2005 peace accord, which includes complex negotiations over transportation and other infrastructure issues with South Sudan. ``Is it controversial? Yes. But is it improper to have counsel under the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution? I don't think so,'' Fisher said. ``Why would they not have a right to counsel like anyone else?''

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I submit remarks I delivered at a Sudan press conference today hosted by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. Sudan Press Conference, 1 p.m., December 14, 2011, Rayburn Foyer We are surrounded today by photos which convey a dark but familiar story--Sudanese people, brutalized, marginalized and terrorized by their own government. And yet, it seems this same regime has been afforded the privilege of legal representation in Washington by the Obama administration. Earlier this week, I was outraged to learn that the genocidal government of Sudan led by Omar Hassan Bashir--an internationally indicted war criminal--now has a lawyer, Mr. Bart Fisher, on retainer in Washington. According to a news report in Africa Intelligence, Mr. Fisher was hired with the express purpose of trying ``to lift American sanctions against it.'' In documentation posted on the Department of Justice Web site, it appears that Mr. Fisher was granted a license by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) at Treasury to provide this representation and that he plans to engage in political activities, among them, ``Representations (including petitions) . . . to U.S. government agencies regarding sanctions . . .'' If true, I am appalled that this has been permitted and can't help but wonder if Mr. Fisher's political contributions were a factor. The administration should reverse this approval. Martin Luther King famously said, ``In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.'' I can't help but wonder what the people of Sudan are thinking at this particular juncture when the administration struggles to find its voice on their behalf, while at the same time seemingly empowering the voice of their oppressors. Would we even dream of allowing Milosevic, Karadzic or Gaddafi to have representation in the nation's capital? Bashir's crimes are well-known and documented. This is the same man that is accused by the International Criminal Court of five counts of crimes against humanity, including murder, rape, torture, extermination, and two counts of war crimes. I've been to Sudan five times, including in July 2004 when Senator Sam Brownback and I were the first congressional delegation to go to Darfur. We spoke with women who had been raped just days earlier. The Arab janjaweed militias, armed by Khartoum, told these women that they wanted to make ``lighter skinned babies.'' In addition to horrific human rights abuses and crimes committed by Bashir and his National Congress Party (NCP), Sudan remains on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism. It is well known that the same people currently in control in Khartoum gave safe haven to Osama bin Laden in the early 1990s. Moreover, Khartoum was a revolving door for Hamas and other designated terrorist groups. But Bashir's crimes are not merely at thing of the past as we will hear in greater detail today. At a recent Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission hearing on the crisis in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile states in Sudan, former Member of Congress and President of United to End Genocide, Tom Andrews, spoke about his experiences while visiting the region. He said that there were reports of, ``Sudanese armed forces and their allied militias going door to door targeting people based upon their religion, and based upon the color of their skin.'' Let me repeat that . . . people were being targeted for killing based upon their religion and the color of their skin. According to the USCIRF delegation that recently visited Sudan and met with refugees in Yida camp, all of the pastors with whom they spoke said they fled Southern Kordofan after learning that the Sudanese military was undertaking house searches for Christians and SPLM-N supporters. If this were happening in southern France, the world would be outraged. The world would take action. And yet, this story rarely features above the fold. We stand just blocks from a museum that cries out ``Never Again.'' Meanwhile, it appears that this administration is complicit in allowing the genocidaire Bashir an advocate in Washington. Which begs the question, who lobbies for the people whose faces are represented in this room? Yesterday I wrote the president along with the Departments of State Treasury and Justice requesting immediate clarification about this matter and will continue to press them--just as I have done during previous administrations. I am submitting this correspondence and relevant information into the Congressional Record for all to see. We must not be silent in the face of this injustice. If President Obama, Secretary Clinton and Secretary Geithner stand by and allow this to happen, history will be their judge.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I was appalled and outraged to learn yesterday that the genocidal government of Khartoum has hired a lobbyist to represent its interests here in Washington. On December 10, a publication called ``Africa Intelligence'' reported that the Sudanese Government has put a lobbyist on retainer with the express purpose of trying ``to lift American sanctions against it.'' The article further reported that the law office of Bart S. Fisher would be paid $20,000 a month plus expenses to represent this genocidal government, a government which literally has blood on its hands. I don't know how Mr. Fisher sleeps at night. Considering the follow: Sudan's president, Omar Hassan Bashir, is an internationally indicted war criminal. Bashir is accused by the International Criminal Court of five counts of crimes against humanity--including murder, rape, torture, and extermination--and two counts of war crimes. But Khartoum's crimes are not simply a thing of the past. In a recent hearing before the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, a witness with the NGO Human Rights Watch testified about the situation on the ground in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile states in Sudan, saying: ``According to witnesses we interviewed and other sources, government forces shelled civilian areas, shot people in the streets and carried out house-to-house searches and arrests based on lists of names of known Sudan People's Liberation Movement supporters in the first weeks of fighting.'' My office has received regular, reliable reports from individuals on the ground echoing these claims. We have learned of ongoing aerial bombardments in Blue Nile and Southern Kordofan states. We have heard of nightmarish accounts of extrajudicial killings, illegal detention, disappearances, and indiscriminate attacks against civilians. Furthermore, evidence gathered through satellite imagery by the Satellite Sentinel Project shows at least eight mass graves found in and around Kadugli, the capital of Southern Kordofan. Literally thousands have fled the violence, which begs the question, Who is their lobbyist? They are in desperate straits having left behind their entire lives. Who is their lobbyist? They are facing malnutrition and prolonged displacement. Who is their lobbyist? To put a human face on these questions, consider this picture taken by a Voice of America photographer of a malnourished child with a feeding tube inserted in his nose in an attempt to get him the sustenance he so desperately needs. He is one of roughly 25,000 people in the Yida refugee camp that have fled the fighting in Sudan and crossed the border in South Sudan. I ask Mr. Fisher, the lobbyist: Where is the child's lobbyist, the lobbyist for this child? Today I am sending a letter to President Obama, the State Department, the Justice Department, and the Treasury Department seeking immediate clarification on what appears to be an indefensible situation. According to news report and the Foreign Agents Registration page of the Department of Justice Web site, Mr. Bart Fisher is representing the Government of Sudan. Was he granted a license from the Office of Foreign Assets Control at Treasury, as is required to represent the genocidal country of Sudan given the U.S. sanctions which are in place against it? If not, is his representation a violation of law? If so, why would the Obama administration allow this to move forward? There are many questions which demand answers. But one thing is clear: it appears that Mr. Fisher's contract with the Government of Sudan went into effect in November. If he has received one penny from the Government of Sudan, he should return it immediately; or better yet, he should donate it to one of the NGOs seeking to serve the suffering Sudanese people in Yida refugee camp who have been brutalized by their own government, i.e., Mr. Fisher's client. [From the Africa Intelligence, Dec. 10, 2011] Khartoum Hires a Lobbyist in U.S. The Sudanese government has just taken on a lobbyist in Washington, United States to try to lift American sanctions against it. The Law Office of Bart S. Fisher summarised the contract in a letter to the Sudanese embassy in Washington dated November 1, stating that its work would be carried out within the limits of the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations, for a fee of $20,000 a month plus expenses. Bart Fisher is a longstanding lobbyist for China and for Chinese companies, combining the legal defence of its clients and lobby activity. In the case of Sudan, he will advise Khartoum on how to obtain the reduction or cessation of U.S. sanctions and the removal of the country from the State Department list of State Sponsors of Terror. It will also aid the Sudanese Embassy in Washington in the requisite legal procedures. Fisher will have work to do, since the contract was signed on 10 November just as military tension is growing on the border with Southern Sudan and a coalition of 66 organisations in the United States, Act for Sudan, recently asked President Barack Obama to impose a no fly zone over Darfur, South Kordofan and Blue Nile, to prevent Khartoum from attacking the civilian population.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, while I support comprehensive tax reform, I do not support the flawed legislation presently before us. I have repeatedly said it is long past time to close tax loopholes, end the practice of tax earmarks and lower tax rates on American families and employers. I support a long-term ``doc fix'' to ensure that doctors continue to accept Medicare patients. I support the Keystone XL pipeline and efforts to reform unemployment insurance, all of which are included in this bill. However, these are not the central issues of the legislation we are considering today. The issue today, as defined by both political parties and the president, is whether or not a temporary--and costly--one-year payroll tax ``holiday'' should expire at the end of the month. The real issue is whether it is responsible for Washington to further shortchange the Social Security Trust Fund at a time when it is already on an unsustainable path. This ``holiday'' is a raid on Social Security, which is already going broke. Social Security is unique because it is paid for through a dedicated tax on workers who will receive future benefits. The money paid today funds benefits for existing retirees, and ensures future benefits. Because you pay now, a future retiree will pay your benefits. That is why, until last year, this revenue stream was considered sacrosanct by both political parties. Raw facts demonstrate that Social Security is on an unsustainable path. Today's medical breakthroughs were simply not envisioned when the system was created in 1935. For example, in 1950, the average American lived for 68 years and 16 workers supported one retiree. Today, the average life expectancy is 78 and three workers support one retiree. Three and a half million people received Social Security in 1950; 55 million receive it today. Every day since January 1, 2011, over 10,000 baby-boomers turned 65. This trend will continue every day for the next 19 years. Do these numbers sound sustainable to anyone? I recently asked a group of McLean High School students and a group of young James Madison University alumni whether they believed that they would receive Social Security benefits when they retire. Not one hand was raised. Not a single one. The Social Security Actuary has said that by 2037 the trust fund will be unable to pay full benefits. When this time is reached, everyone will receive an across the board cut of 22 percent, regardless of how much money they paid into the system. Let me repeat. Under our current path, within 15 years all Social Security benefits will be cut by 22 percent. Granting another tax holiday is unwise. It puts the existing benefits of those 55 million Americans who currently receive Social Security at risk to continue a failed ``stimulus'' policy. Last December, when unemployment stood at 9.4 percent, the president touted the ``holiday'' as a one-year measure that would help cure our economic ills and would spur economic growth. Yet here we are again. After spending most of the year above 9 percent, unemployment has dropped to 8.6 percent. But that belies the primary driver of this change: 315,000 Americans simply stopped looking for work. Nobody can say with a straight face that the payroll tax ``holiday'' has had a meaningful impact on the unemployment rate, nor would it if extended for another year. Does it make sense that everyone, regardless of income, will get money from this ``stimulus?'' Does anyone think that Warren Buffet changed his buying habits as a result of this temporary suspension? Or General Electric's CEO, Jeffery Immelt, who is also head of President Obama's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness? I opposed the legislation creating the Social Security tax ``holiday'' last year for similar reasons. I just cannot support an extension that further compromises the stability of the Social Security Trust Fund. Real structural reforms are needed to stabilize Social Security. Past experience shows that Congress will spend the next 10 years figuring out how to spend the money designated as offsets for today's bill on other projects. It won't be used to pay for the bill. Knowing this, I cannot in good faith support a measure to raid the trust fund without comprehensive reform to the system. The expiring payroll tax ``holiday'' is costing Americans $112 billion. To pay for it, we are borrowing money from nations such as China, which is spying on us, where human rights are an afterthought, and Catholic bishops, Protestant ministers and Tibetan monks are jailed for practicing their faith, and oil-exporting countries such as Saudi Arabia, which funded the radical madrasahs on the Afghan-Pakistan border resulting in the rise of the Taliban and al Qaeda. Our national debt is over $15 trillion. It is projected to reach $17 trillion next year and $21 trillion in 2021. We have annual deficits of approximately $1 trillion. We have unfunded obligations and liabilities of $62 trillion. We all know what needs to be done and that is why I have supported every serious effort to resolve this crisis, including the Bowles- Simpson recommendations, the Ryan Budget, the ``Gang of Six,'' the ``Cut, Cap and Balance'' plan and the Budget Control Act. I also was among the bipartisan group of 103 members of Congress who urged the supercommittee to ``go big'' and identify $4 trillion in savings. I voted for the Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, which would have established critical institutional reforms to ensure that the Federal Government lives within its means. In addition, since 2006, I have introduced my own bipartisan legislation, the SAFE Commission, multiple times. While none of these solutions were perfect, they all took the necessary steps to rebuild and protect our economy. In order to solve this problem, everything must be on the table for consideration--all entitlement spending, all domestic discretionary spending, including defense spending, and tax reform, particularly changes to make the tax code more simple and fair and to end the practice of tax earmarks that cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Because the extension of the payroll tax ``holiday'' is not part of a comprehensive tax and entitlement reform package, it ignores the bigger picture: everything must be on the table to enact sweeping reforms to right our fiscal ship of state. Does anyone really think that this will only be a one-year extension? I suspect that at this time next year Congress will once again be considering another costly extension. And what will happen the year after that? If past precedent holds, the 10-year price tag of this ``holiday'' will come to about $1.2 trillion. The supercommittee was unable to agree to any deficit reduction plan, let alone their $1.2 trillion goal. The consequences of this failure will be severe. Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz said that the coming across-the-board cuts to our defense capabilities, as a result of the supercommittee's failure, are akin to having major surgery performed by a plumber. The Commonwealth of Virginia will feel particular pain from these defense cuts. Bloomberg Government reported that Virginia is the number one recipient of defense spending. How will the Congress pay for this extended tax cut and still make the needed cuts to our deficit and debt? I feel as if Washington exists in a parallel universe. After months of passionately debating the importance of reducing the debt, the president and Congress are now using all the ``easy'' and ``quick'' offsets to extend a one-year temporary tax break that's barely, if at all, improved the economic indicators. Senator Tom Coburn recently said that ``the question the American people ought to ask is where is the backbone in Washington to actually pay for these extensions in the year the money's spent.'' I think it's clear that the backbone doesn't exist. Leadership starts at the top, and the president has repeatedly failed to address our Nation's deficit. Earlier this month, the president drew a line in the sand and said Congress shouldn't go home until the payroll holiday is extended. He has not drawn that line for the doc fix, which is necessary to ensure that doctors will accept Medicare patients. He has not done that for unemployment benefits. He has done the opposite on the Keystone XL pipeline, postponing the decision for yet another year, until after the next election. Above all, he has not drawn a line in the sand for a comprehensive deficit reduction plan. In fact, he has spent most of the year running from serious deficit reduction efforts, including the one proposed by his own fiscal commission. He has not proposed significant changes to entitlement programs or embraced comprehensive tax reform. We need look no further than the riots in Europe to see the destructive impact that results from the crushing reality of a government unable to deliver promised entitlements to its citizens. There have been riots in Belgium, Spain, France, Ireland, England, Italy, Latvia, and Greece. And yet we are considering a proposal that moves us closer to Europe's instability. Instead of using these bipartisan offsets to pay down our deficit, we're increasing spending and using these offsets to maintain our unacceptable levels of debt. The American people should be deeply troubled that Congress and the president cannot find any bipartisan agreement to save our country, but they can still come together to increase spending and shortchange Social Security. There is something fundamentally wrong with this picture. Compounding my belief that the tax ``holiday'' will not be fully paid for, I do not agree with some of the offset measures that have been included, absent comprehensive reform. Some would have the one-year tax ``holiday'' financed through a long- term, structural attack on federal employees. Federal employees work side-by-side on the front lines with our military personnel fighting the Global War on Terror in locations such as Iraq and Afghanistan. They put their lives at risk daily to defend our national interests. The first American killed in Afghanistan, Mike Spann, was a CIA agent and a constituent from my congressional district. CIA, FBI, DEA agents, and State Department employees are serving side-by-side with our military in the fight against the Taliban. Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents are working to stop the flow of illegal immigrants and drugs across our borders. The medical researchers at NIH working to develop cures for cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's and autism are all dedicated federal employees. Dr. Francis Collins, the physician who mapped the human genome and serves as director of the National Institutes of Health, is a federal employee. The National Weather Service meteorologist, who tracks hurricanes, and the FDA inspector working to stop a salmonella outbreak, are federal employees. The ATF agents who were in Blacksburg immediately following last week's shooting are federal employees. These are but a few examples of the vital jobs performed by federal employees. We can't balance the budget through discretionary cuts alone. We have to address the spiraling costs of entitlements, because, to paraphrase the infamous bank robber Willie Sutton, that's where the money is. If you care about cancer research, if you care about national defense, if you care about road improvements or if you care about the poor, you should care about entitlement reform. We must reform these programs to preserve them for future generations. Otherwise, they will be made unrecognizable through forced, significant cuts or eliminated altogether. Last December, the leaders of the president's bipartisan fiscal commission, Erskine Bowles and former Senator Alan Simpson, wrote to the president and leaders of Congress, ``Our growing national debt poses a dire threat to this nation's future. Ever since the economic downturn, Americans have had to make tough choices about how to make ends meet. Now it's time for leaders in Washington to do the same.'' Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this measure and will vote ``no'' as I did last December. Let's put these offsets towards real deficit reduction and move forward with serious efforts to deal with our unsustainable spending.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the following law enforcement officers who have been honored by the Horse Shoe Curve Benevolent Association for their service to their communities and continued willingness to put their lives on the line to protect public safety. Virginia State Police Trooper Pamela M. Neff serves the citizens of Clarke, Frederick, and Warren counties. Trooper Neff has done an outstanding job of removing intoxicated drivers from the road during her tenure with the force and has receive much notoriety for her efforts. Trooper Neff has also provided invaluable guidance and instruction to newer troopers and has consistently made sound decisions with regard to violations enforcement. Furthermore, her excellent investigative skills and her knowledge of the laws of Virginia enhance her ability to effectively communicate with the community. Virginia State Police Trooper Daniel J. Scott serves the citizens of Frederick County. Trooper Scott has served the Virginia Department of State Police as a trooper, breach alcohol operator and field training officer. Trooper Scott provides critical guidance to less seasoned troopers. In addition, his investigative skills have also been recognized by his fellow officers. Trooper Scott's service to the community is a true testament to his dedication to this important work. Correctional Officer Franklin D. Garris Jr. serves as a housing unit security officer with the Northwestern Regional Adult Detention Center. Officer Garris is responsible for more than 50 inmates on a regular basis. Over the past several years, Officer Garris has demonstrated himself to be among the most disciplined and conscientious officers on the staff and has been serving as a field training officer. Officer Garris has performed superbly and is recognized by his peers as an exceptional officer whose dedication is unmatched. Officer Stephen Hossack serves the Mount Weather Police Department. Officer Hossack is a knowledgeable and professional police officer, displaying a strong dedication to the mission. Officer Hossak's contributions to the department's explosive K-9 program have enabled its teams to improve critical training. Officer Hossack is well informed and has the knowledge and skill to handle this complex work. Edgar Allen Sibert serves as a lieutenant in the Frederick County Sheriff's Office. Lt. Sibert also serves as the north end team leader of the Northeast Regional Drug and Gang Task Force, where he supervises undercover investigators assigned from Winchester, Frederick, and Clarke counties. A majority of Lt. ``Big Al'' Sibert's career has involved working with drug investigations. Lt. Sibert has shown outstanding dedication to the citizens he serves. These qualities make him an outstanding officer. Detective Lisa Hyde serves the Winchester Police Department. Detective Hyde has been instrumental in the development, implementation and successful completion of the Winchester Police Department's Timbrook Youth Reporting Center. Detective Hyde has designed and implemented the standard operating procedures for the programs. Detective Hyde has an undeniable love for the community's youth and this is reflected in her ability to carry out such a long and painstaking process as the development of the Timbrook Youth Reporting Center. In addition to maintaining this program, Detective Hyde also manages a criminal case load as a Winchester Police Department Detective and serves as a team leader on the Winchester Police Department's Crisis Intervention Team. Deputy Allen Mason serves the Clarke County Sheriff's Office. Deputy Mason began working for the sheriff's office in communications and has advanced to the rank of deputy. Deputy Mason has also worked as a school resource officer. Recently, Deputy Mason responded to a call regarding an elderly lady wandering around a rural area of the county. He was able to find and return the lady to the safety of her family who expressed deep appreciation for Deputy Mason's kindness and professionalism. Corporal Tim Bristol serves the Berryville Police Department. Corporal Bristol has taken an active leadership role within the department and constantly looks for ways to improve and motivate members of the department. Corporal Bristol has been involved in the reorganization of the department's field training program and worked tirelessly to make sure those coming into the department are professionally mentored and equipped with the tools and resources necessary. Deputy Steve Alger serves the Winchester Sheriff's Office. In August 2010 Deputy Alger was assisting mall security apprehend several subjects who had repeatedly stolen comforters and home furnishings when a fight began. The subject was able to climb into a vehicle and when Deputy Alger continued his pursuit, he was struck by the van driven by the suspects. Although his injuries were minor, this incident demonstrated that Deputy Alger was determined to prevent the escape of these criminals, who were apprehended the next day. Deputy Alger goes above and beyond what is required of his job duties. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor and privilege to recognize these officers for their courage, strength and service to their local communities.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I submit a copy of Jay Nordlinger's recent piece in National Review highlighting the plight of Chinese dissident Chen Guangcheng. Nordlinger writes, ``Many people in the world regard Chen as one of the greatest men we have known in the last decade.'' His courageous exposure of China's brutal one-child policy earned him the ire of the communist government. He and his family have suffered immensely. His current fate is unknown. Nordlinger rightly calls a Chen a hero and reminds us that Chen is but one of countless other dissidents languishing in Chinese prisons. Their names may not be known to us, but their struggle is no less real. The United States must boldly and consistently stand with men and women like Chen who yearn for the basic human liberty and dignity that is our birthright as Americans. [From the National Review, Nov. 28, 2011] A Hero of Us All (By Jay Nordlinger) Last month, there were reports that Chen Guangcheng was dead. That they had at last killed him. ``They''? China's ruling Communists, who have tormented Chen for years. Other reports said, No, he is not dead: just in very bad shape. Any report about Chen is now impossible to confirm or deny. The authorities are not letting anyone from the outside see or talk to him. Many people in the world regard Chen as one of the greatest men we have known in the last decade. These admirers work on the assumption that Chen is alive. A furious international campaign is under way to save him. Chen was born on Nov. 12, 1971, in the Linyi area of Shandong Province. When a year old, he contracted a fever, which left him blind. Just a peasant, he educated himself, including in the law. He was ready and available to help people. Jianli Yang, a dissident now in America, calls him a ``born leader,'' someone who has always cared for others and whom others respond to. To the extent he could, Chen helped the disabled petition for their rights. He helped farmers, too. In the worldwide press, he has been known as ``the blind lawyer,'' or ``the barefoot lawyer,'' or ``the blind rural activist.'' Many Chinese throughout the country know him simply as ``the blind man.'' What gained him his fame, and torment, was his exposure of one fact: In the year 2005 alone, in just the Linyi area, there were 130,000 forced abortions and sterilizations. These procedures are brutal. Moreover, relatives of those who escaped the procedures were detained and tortured. Harry Wu, a long-famous dissident working in America, says that few outside China really understand the consequences of the one- child policy. Jing Zhang, another dissident, associated with the Boston-based group All Girls Allowed, points out that Chen touched one of China's most sensitive nerves. He organized a class-action suit against local Party officials. At first, the government in Beijing seemed pleased with him. In China, believe it or not, forced abortion and forced sterilization are illegal, officially. Beijing signaled that it would punish the guilty locals. But Chen was getting attention in the international press, celebrated as a whistleblower, and a blind peasant, at that. This displeased Beijing, which left Chen to the mercies of the local officials. They seized him in March 2006. They harassed, detained, and beat members of his family and his lawyers. To him, they did worse. Eventually, they gave him a trial, but it was the usual sham. For example, his lawyers were forbidden to attend. Chen's wife, Yuan Weijing, said, ``There isn't much hope. . . . We live in a nation without law, a nation without morality.'' He was sentenced to four years and three months in prison. There, he faced what political prisoners can be expected to face. He was beaten over and over. He went on hunger strikes. He was denied medicine. His wife, sometimes under house arrest, sometimes not, did all she could to help him. The months before the Beijing Olympics in 2008 were especially bad for dissidents and other ``troublemakers,'' although Western supporters of those Olympics had said the Games would do wonders for China's liberalization. The guard around Yuan increased from ten men to 40. She wrote a letter to Chinese president Hu Jintao, calling herself ``nothing but a rights defender's wife.'' She told of the humiliations she and her family endured. The West protested too, in various ways. At the U.N., there were ``working groups'' and ``special rapporteurs.'' The State Department and the EU uttered their peeps. Organizations were good enough to give Chen awards, in absentia. Nothing moved the Chinese government. He was released from prison in September 2010 and confined to his home in the village of Dongshigu. This sort of confinement is known as ruanjin, or soft detention, but it has been very hard. Chen and his family have been watched constantly and subjected to escalating abuses. In February, he managed to have a video smuggled out to the West. It was publicized by a group in Texas called the China Aid Association, which said that the video had come courtesy of a ``sympathetic government source.'' In the video, Chen described the circumstances in which he and his family were being kept, and he said, ``The thing we need to do now is conquer terror'' and expose practices that are ``lacking in human conscience.'' He said he was ``fully prepared'' to be tortured after the video's release, but was ``not afraid.'' Yuan Weijing spoke too, saying that her family was in danger. With a breaking voice, she expressed the hope that friends would take care of their children, Kerui and Kesi, if something happened to them, the parents. What happened immediately is that Chen and Yuan were beaten to a pulp. A letter from Yuan, made available in June, told us the following: More than ten men covered me totally with a blanket and kicked my ribs and all over my body. After half an hour's nonstop torture, I finally squeezed my head out of the blanket. I saw more than ten men surrounding Chen Guangcheng, torturing him. Some of them twisted his arms forcefully while the others pushed his head down and lifted his collar up tightly. . . . Guangcheng was not able to resist and passed out after more than two hours. The letter details a great deal more. Infuriated by the video, the authorities did their best to ensure that nothing could get in or out of the Chen home. They removed the family's electronics and sealed the windows with metal sheets. They installed surveillance cameras. They plundered the house of almost everything, down to family photos, toys, and Chen's white cane. The goal was to isolate the family completely. Over the months, a stream of visitors have trekked to Dongshigu, hoping to see Chen. These include writers, lawyers, advocates for the disabled, and ordinary citizens. They also include foreign diplomats and journalists. All have been repulsed by teams of thugs at the four entrances to the village. These thugs--a mixture of policemen and their hirees--have detained, beaten, robbed, and shot at the would- be visitors. Many of these incidents are meticulously documented. Impossible to document, of course, is Chen's condition at the moment. But we know for sure that beatings, malnutrition, and illness have taken their toll. The question is, To what degree? Chen's supporters in China and around the world are redoubling their efforts in his behalf. Some people are risking a journey to Dongshigu on November 12, Chen's 40th birthday. There is also a ``sunglasses campaign.'' Chen, like many blind people, wears sunglasses, and supporters are donning their own sunglasses and having their picture taken, to be posted on the Internet. It is a gesture of solidarity, a way of getting Beijing's attention. There is also pressure on an American movie company. Relativity Media has just started filming 21 and Over in, of all places, Linyi. They must be within shouting distance of Dongshigu. The company is working in cooperation with the same Party officials who are brutalizing Chen. The movie, according to publicity, is a ``hilarious comedy'' about ``two childhood friends who drag their straight-arrow buddy out to celebrate his twenty-first birthday the night before an all- important medical school interview.'' And ``when one beer leads to another, the evening spirals into a wild epic misadventure of debauchery and mayhem that none of them will ever forget.'' The same press release quotes Zhang Shajun, a key Party official. He welcomes his ``good friend Ryan Kavanaugh and his great company Relativity'' and promises to ``provide the best service possible in order to help make the movie successful worldwide.'' Naturally, human-rights groups have asked Relativity Media to use whatever leverage it has to help Chen Guangcheng, or at least inquire into him. The company has so far seemed disinclined. On another front, Jianli Yang has written the State Department, asking it to bar from entering the United States a Party official named Li Qun. Li studied at the University of New Haven in Connecticut, and even served as an assistant to New Haven's mayor. Now, according to Yang, he is the Party official chiefly responsible for Chen's ordeal. Have international protests done any good at all? Reggie Littlejohn, president of Women's Rights Without Frontiers, says yes: ``I believe Chen would be dead by now but for people in the West speaking out for him.'' Across China, Chen is a symbol of human rights, like Gao Zhisheng, another lawyer, who has been ``disappeared,'' and Liu Xiaobo, the political prisoner who is also the 2010 Nobel peace laureate. But Sharon Hom of Human Rights in China makes a point that is depressing and inspiring at the same time: There are many, many like Chen, Gao, and Liu, but whose names are unknown to us. They languish in prisons, ``black jails,'' psychiatric wards, and other dark places. They have stuck their necks out for their rights and all people's. Why do they do it? Why do they risk, or guarantee, the full wrath and murderous power of a dictatorship? Of Chen Guangcheng, Harry Wu says, ``He had to tell the truth. Simple. He had no choice but to tell the truth. That is why people appreciate him, and why the government hates him.'' Perhaps Chen's blindness gave him an extra dose of compassion and courage. Perhaps not. In any case, there is someone much like him in Cuba, the blind lawyer and activist Juan Carlos Gonzalez Leiva. The bravery of such people is hard to account for. But it can be admired. In that video, released earlier this year, Chen said, ``A society that is not built on a foundation of fairness and equality, but instead relies on bullying and violence, cannot possibly maintain lasting stability.'' He is probably right about that. Yet think how many suffer and die in the meantime.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, the Fiscal Year 2012 Consolidated and Continuing Appropriations Act contains important changes to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, MWAA, board. I have been concerned with the actions of the board and have proposed several changes to the structure and function to increase transparency and accountability. Under the new law, members of the MWAA board will no longer be able to serve past the end of their term and all could be replaced for ``cause.'' The changes also increases the size of the board from 13 to 17, with Virginia getting two new appointments and Maryland and the District of Columbia each getting one additional board member. The changes are fair, providing the governors of Virginia and Maryland and the mayor of the District of Columbia the same authority the president already has under existing law to replace members of the board. The changes will improve accountability. Until now, board members served until their replacement takes office. There was an incident earlier this year where a board member whose term expired in January 2009 and had not been replaced was voting by proxy from Africa. He was finally replaced in April 2011, more than two years after his term expired. A replacement has yet to be named for a board member whose term expired in May 2010. A third board member's term ends at the end of November and it is unclear if the replacement process has begun. Board members need to be replaced when their terms end. It's not their fault that they aren't being replaced but if the officials making the appointments know that the seat is going to be vacant, this reform will provide more of an incentive to make appointments in a more timely fashion. These airports are the economic engine for the region. With MWAA responsible for the Dulles rail project, ensuring that Virginia has more say and that board members are more accountable is more important than ever. Everything possible must be done to keep the rail project on budget to keep the tolls as low as possible. Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell wrote Representative Tom Latham and Representative John Mica in strong support of these changes. I submit Governor McDonnell's letter for the Record as well. Some interested parties have stated that the original 1986 law that established MWAA is a compact between Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia and that any changes to the structure of the board must be approved by all three localities. I want to state clearly that this is not true. The independent and well-respected Congressional Research Service has told my office that the MWAA statute has been amended twice in 1991 and in 1996, specifically in response to court decisions involving the Board of Review. It is my understanding that neither change required the consent of MD or DC. The Practitioner's Guide to The Evolving Use and the Changing Role of Interstate Compacts provides everything else necessary regarding the authority of Congress to enact subsequent legislation that has an effect on approved interstate compacts. Sections of this publication support the claim that Congress remains free to change federal laws, even if those laws have adverse effects on compacts that Congress has specifically consented to. The relevant sections of the Practitioner's Guide to The Evolving Use and the Changing Role of Interstate Compacts are too long to include here today, but can be found on pages 43-47. These changes to the MWAA board will improve its function, governance, accountability and transparency and provide greater input for those with a large stake in the successful completion of the Dulles Rail project. Washington Dulles International Airport and Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport drive economic growth in northern Virginia and the entire Capital region. The MWAA board must operate successfully to ensure the success of both Dulles International and Reagan National Airports and the Dulles Rail, ensuring tolls on local drivers are kept to a minimum. Commonwealth of Virginia, Office of the Governor, Richmond, VA, August 8, 2011. Hon. Tom Latham, House of Representatives, Rayburn Building, Washington, DC. Hon. John Mica, House of Representatives, Rayburn Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairmen Latham and Mica: I write you today to respectfully ask for your endorsement and support for changes to the Washington Metropolitan Airports Authority Board of Directors being proposed by Congressman Frank Wolf. As you are aware, MWAA, which was created through an interstate compact between Virginia and D.C., as authorized by Congress, maintains and operates Reagan National Airport and Dulles International Airport pursuant to a lease agreement with the federal government. MWAA is also responsible for maintaining and operating the Dulles Toll Road and the Dulles Greenway and construction of the Dulles Corridor Metrorail Extension Project. These facilities are all located within the Commonwealth of Virginia and have a tremendous impact on our economy and transportation network. All funding for the airports, and the current metrorail to Dulles project, is provided by the Commonwealth or its subdivisions, and the federal government. Despite this fact, as chief executive I have no effective mechanism for effectuating a change or providing oversight when the MWAA Board takes action which may be adverse to the interests of the Commonwealth and its citizens. Neither do the other stakeholders in the District of Colombia, Maryland or the federal government. Each appointee to the MWAA Board serves for a period of six years and remains on the Board until a successor is chosen. Neither the federal statutes, nor the respective jurisdictional statutes enabling the interstate compact provide a mechanism for removing a Board member, since they do not currently serve at the pleasure of the Governor. This lack of oversight essentially allows members of the Board to potentially act in accordance with their own goals and directives for MWAA without consultation with or allegiance to the leaders and taxpayers in the Commonwealth and the other member jurisdictions. Congressman Wolf is seeking changes to rectify this lack of oversight by providing the Chief Executives of each of the member jurisdictions and the President with greater authority in appointing and removing members to the Board. Specifically, members would serve at the pleasure of the appointing executive, and the appointing executive would be provided the authority to remove a board member at any time with or without cause. Furthermore, as referenced above, all of the facilities under MWAA's control are located within the Commonwealth of Virginia. Currently, however, Virginia only has five of the thirteen seats on the board. As such, the Commonwealth should be granted three additional seats on the MWAA Board, increasing the number of Board members representing Virginia and its interests from five to eight. These changes would provide me and future governors the ability to ensure that MWAA's policies and directives are in accordance with the best interests of Virginia's citizens. I wholeheartedly support the changes proposed by Congressman Wolf, and, again, I respectfully urge you to do so as well. Should you have any questions or wish to further discuss this matter, please do not hesitate to contact either myself or Virginia Secretary of Transportation Sean T. Connaughton at your convenience. Sincerely, Robert F. McDonnell, Governor.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share testimony that I gave earlier this month to the House Foreign Affairs Committee's subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations regarding the economic, security and moral consequences of sharing advanced technology with China. House Foreign Affairs Committee--``Efforts to Transfer America's Leading Edge Science to China''--Testimony of Congressman Frank R. Wolf (R-VA), Wednesday, November 2, 2010 Thank you Chairman Rohrabacher for calling this important hearing on China's espionage and the violation of the law by the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). I have been very troubled by this administration's apparent eagerness to work with China on its space program and willingness to share other sensitive technologies. I want to be clear: the United States has no business cooperating with the Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) to help develop its space program. We should also be wary of any agreements that involve the transfer of technology or sensitive information to Chinese institutions or companies--many of which are controlled by the government and the PLA. Space is the ultimate ``high ground'' that has provided the U.S. with countless security and economic advantages over the last 40 years. As the victor of the Cold War ``space race'' with the Soviet Union, the U.S. has held an enormous advantage in space technology, defense capabilities, and advanced sciences--generating entirely new sectors of our economy and creating thousands of private sector jobs. China has developed its own space program at a surprising pace, having gone from launching their first manned spacecraft to launching components for an advanced space station in just ten years. But the Chinese space program is being led by the People's Liberation Army (PLA)--and to state the obvious, the PLA is not our friend as evidenced by their recent military posture and aggressive espionage against U.S. agencies and firms. That is why I was troubled to learn from the press last fall about NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden's imminent departure for a weeklong visit to China to discuss areas of cooperation between NASA and the PLA space program. I was equally concerned to learn that Dr. John Holdren, head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), had spent 21 days in China on 3 separate trips in one year-- more than any other country. Very little information about these cooperative agreements with China were being provided to Congress and the American people. So, I included language in section 1340 of the Fiscal Year 2011 Continuing Resolution preventing NASA and OSTP from using federal funds ``to develop, design, plan, promulgate, implement or execute a bilateral policy, program, order, or contract of any kind to participate, collaborate, or coordinate bilaterally in any way with China or any Chinese- owned company.'' The provision in the omnibus appropriations bill was agreed to by Republican and Democrat conferees. It passed both houses with bipartisan support and was signed into law by President Obama in April. The provision was clear, unambiguous and noncontroversial. However, less than one month after its enactment, I learned that Dr. Holdren and OSTP had defied the provision. Even more troubling is that he withheld information about his intention to do so during his appearance before the House Commerce- Justice Science Appropriations Subcommittee when we discussed, among other things, the implementation of section 1340, and Dr. Holdren's participation in the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue, from May 6-10. That is why I asked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to investigate this violation and issue an opinion. I also asked GAO to determine whether the Office of Legal Counsel opinion provided by the Justice Department to justify this violation was legitimate. In its October 11 opinion, GAO found, ``The plain meaning of section 1340 is clear. OSTP may not use its appropriations to participate, collaborate, or coordinate bilaterally in any way with China or any Chinese-owned companies.'' Further, GAO found that, ``OSTP's participation in the Innovation Dialogue and S&ED contravened the appropriations restriction,'' and added that, ``OSTP does not deny that it engaged in activities prohibited by section 1340.'' The GAO finding also rebuts a September 19 memorandum prepared by the Justice Department's OLC on the constitutionality of the provision. GAO stated, ``In our view, legislation that was passed by Congress and signed by the President, thereby satisfying the Constitution's bicameralism and presentment requirements, is entitled to a heavy presumption in favor of constitutionality.'' GAO continued, ``Determining the constitutionality of legislation is a province of the courts,''--not, I would add, the White House counsel's office or the Department of Justice. Finally, the GAO finding clearly notes, ``As a consequence of using its appropriations in violation of section 1340, OSTP violated the Antideficiency Act. . . By using its fiscal year 2011 appropriation in a manner specifically prohibited, OSTP violated the Antideficiency Act. Accordingly, OSTP should report the violation as required by the act.'' I also wrote Attorney General Eric Holder asking him to hold Dr. Holdren to full account for his violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act by ensuring that he complies with all reporting requirements and other provisions of that law. I take the GAO findings very seriously. Following the law is not voluntary for Administration officials. That is why Dr. Holdren should commit today to full compliance with section 1340 and publicly acknowledge his error in participating in the bilateral conference with the Chinese government. Now I'd like to take a few minutes to put the administration's posture toward China in the broader context of the Chinese government's grave human rights abuses, espionage efforts and detrimental economic policies. In June 1989 peaceful pro-democracy demonstrators gathered in Tiananmen Square. They were met with a brutal crackdown. As events unfolded, the world was captivated with the now famous image of the ``Tank Man'' . . . a lone student protestor who stood his ground in the face of an advancing Chinese tank. To this day his fate is unknown. During my first trip to China in 1991, with Congressman Chris Smith, we visited Beijing Prison Number One where authorities informed us that approximately 40 Tiananmen Square protestors were behind bars. We left with a pair of socks, made by the prisoners, for export to the West. Tellingly, the image of the ``Tank Man'', while famous around the globe, is virtually unknown within China thanks to the Great Firewall which censors so-called ``offensive'' speech. It is estimated that China employs between 30,000 and 50,000 special Internet police. Shockingly, the country has a thriving business of harvesting and selling for transplant kidneys, corneas and other human organs from executed prisoners. An August 27, 2009 Los Angeles Times article reported, ``In a rare acknowledgment of a practice that has until recently been shrouded in secrecy, the state-run newspaper said 65% of organ donors were executed prisoners . . .'' The image here, from a 1994 BBC story, is of PLA officers preparing to execute prisoners--China leads the world in executions. Later footage from the same story captures an unmarked van driving toward the prison to harvest the organs from the executed prisoners and transport them to a local hospital. Like many repressive regimes throughout history, the Chinese government maintains a brutal system of labor camps. The State Department's annual human rights report found that, ``Forced labor remained a serious problem . . .'' Famed Chinese dissident Harry Wu spent nearly 20 years in Chinese gulags. In Congressional testimony earlier this year, Wu said, ``When I finally came to the U.S. in 1985, although I was already 48 years old, that was the first time in my life that I felt truly free.'' He concluded by urging ``President Obama and the U.S. Congress to be bold and take a firm stand against China's human rights abuses.'' But boldness is hardly the order of the day when it comes to U.S. policy. The same could be said of some U.S. companies. In 2006, Congressman Chris Smith and the late Congressman Tom Lantos, himself a Holocaust survivor, convened a hearing in which they publicly challenged the Internet giant Yahoo! to look beyond the bottom line, and consider the moral implications of their complicity in imprisoning Chinese dissidents. New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof authored a piece after the hearing writing, ``Suppose that Anne Frank had maintained an e-mail account while in hiding in 1944, and that the Nazis had asked Yahoo for cooperation in tracking her down. It seems, based on Yahoo's behavior in China, that it might have complied.'' Yahoo isn't the only U.S. company to come under fire for pursuing business interests at the expense of human rights. A May 22 New York Times article, reported that Cisco, ``customized its technology to help China track members of the Falun Gong spiritual movement . . .'' There are multiple suits pending against Cisco. These allegations reflect a worrying trend. American companies ought to represent American values. Instead, it seems that time and again major U.S. corporations are embracing Chinese government policies that are completely at odds with what America represents. China, in turn, exports its repressive technologies to likeminded governments. An October 27, Wall Street Journal piece reported that the Chinese telecom giant Huawei ``now dominates Iran's government-controlled mobile-phone industry . . . , it plays a role in enabling Iran's state security network.'' It seems that not only is the U.S. failing to change China, but rather, China is changing us. Is it any surprise considering what China is spending on high-powered lobbying firms in this town? According to a January 9 Washington Post story, in recent years China has, ``tripled the amount it spends on lobbying firms . . .'' But well-heeled lobbyists can't explain away China's abysmal human rights record. Thousands of political and religious prisoners languish in prison. According to the Cardinal Kung Foundation, currently every one of the approximately 25 underground bishops of the Catholic Church is either in jail, under house arrest, under strict surveillance, or in hiding. Protestant house church pastors are routinely intimidated and imprisoned. The recently released annual report of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China found the government placed 500 members of the Shouwang Church under ``soft detention'' between the fall of 2010 and the fall of 2011. David Aikman, former Beijing bureau chief for TIME magazine, authored a piece noting: ``The crackdown on Christians is part of a rising tide of repression against dissent that's often accompanied by interrogations and torture.'' Since March, 10 Tibetan Buddhist monks and nuns have set themselves aflame in desperation at the abuses suffered by their people. One such nun is pictured here. Recently cameramen smuggled out video footage, still frame shot here, of Chinese police in full riot gear carrying automatic rifles and iron bars outside of the monastery where several of the self-immolations occurred. Rebiya Kadeer--a fearless advocate for the Uyghur Muslims in China--spent two years in solitary confinement before being exiled to the U.S. in 2005. Following her release, two of her sons were unjustly arrested and subsequently sentenced to lengthy prison terms. Chinese authorities continue to use Rebiya's children and grandchildren as pawns in an effort to silence her. We have seen that the Chinese government is unmoved and in fact emboldened in its ongoing repression while at the same time experiencing explosive economic growth. We have seen our own short-sightedness in making the protection of basic liberties and the advancement of rule of law secondary to unfettered market access and normal trade relations. These flawed policies have strengthened the oppressors and enabled China to advance economically at our expense. Every Member here represents constituents whose very livelihood has been negatively affected by China's blatant economic espionage and predatory, protectionist and illegal practices. Meanwhile, U.S. companies are increasingly sending American jobs to China. General Electric's health-care unit recently announced it was moving the headquarters of 115-year-old X- ray business to Beijing. Ironically, the head of President Obama's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness is GE Chairman Jeffrey Immelt. According to a March 24 New York Times article, GE paid zero taxes in the U.S. in 2010. Meanwhile, the Congressional Research Service found that the Chinese State Tax Administration and China Tax magazine jointly released a number of lists of the top taxpayers in 2007 and GE featured prominently. The Beijing subsidiary of GE was number 32 on the top 100 taxpaying firms in the commercial services sector. It is noteworthy that GE, which pays no federal taxes in its home country, is honored for being a significant source of tax revenue to China. Our engagement with China has not only empowered the government, failed to change their political system and undermined our economic security it has fueled China's military apparatus. Again, the president's ``jobs czar,'' Jeffrey Immelt, is at the center of these concerns. An October 28 Defense News piece reported that, ``U.S. aerospace companies may unknowingly be helping China's military, according to a rough draft of the annual report on China's military modernization by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, to be released in November.'' Specifically the article pointed to, ``last January's announcement by General Electric and the Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC) that they would launch a joint venture for integrated avionics'' and cited the Commission's soon to be released report which indicated that China, ``has a robust, largely military space program..'' with all but 13 of its roughly 70 satellites in orbit controlled by the military. A May 17 article in Wired.com reported that Chinese troops have begun using a first-person-shooter video game, ``Glorious Mission,'' backed by the PLA, which stimulates basic training in which the enemy is apparently the U.S. military. An April 11, Aviation Week article reported, ``The PLA has made great strides toward implementing a strategy . . . to deter or defeat U.S. forces in the Western Pacific.'' The 2010 annual Pentagon report cited earlier, found `` . . . In the case of key national security technologies, controlled equipment, and other materials not readily obtainable through commercial means or academia, the PRC resorts to more focused efforts, including the use of its intelligence services and other-than legal means, in violation of U.S. laws and export controls.'' Let's be perfectly clear about how China is advancing militarily: they are utilizing ``other than legal means.'' The report also highlighted China's cyber-espionage efforts. The U.S. intelligence community notes that China's attempts to penetrate U.S. agencies are the most aggressive of all foreign intelligence organizations. According to a 2008 FBI statement, Chinese intelligence services ``pose a significant threat both to the national security and to the compromise of U.S. critical national assets.'' Their espionage isn't limited to government agencies. In an October 4 Washington Post article, Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, remarked, ``When you talk to these companies behind closed doors . . . they describe attacks that originate in China, and have a level of sophistication and are clearly supported by a level of resources that can only be a nation-state entity.'' These breaches in our national security infrastructure are rampant and pose a very real threat. A May 14 Reuters story indicated that, ``North Korea and Iran appear to have been regularly exchanging ballistic missile technology in violation of U.N. sanctions, according to a confidential U.N. report . . . The report said the illicit technology transfers had `trans-shipment through a neighboring third country.' That country was China, several diplomats told Reuters on condition of anonymity.'' China is also a major arms supplier and source of economic strength to the regime in Khartoum. According to Human Rights First, during the years of the worst violence in Darfur ``. . . China sold over $55 million worth of small arms to Khartoum.'' I was part of the first Congressional delegation to Darfur. I heard the stories of rape, killing and displacement. America provided humanitarian supplies to the victims, while China provided arms to the perpetrators. Meanwhile, Beijing rolled out the red carpet this year for Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, an internationally indicted war criminal. Bashir's crimes are not just a thing of the past. The current assault by northern Sudanese forces in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile states has displaced thousands. There are credible news reports of targeted ethnic killings and satellite images of what appear to be mass graves. Speaking of red carpet, President Obama, the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner, welcomed Chinese President Hu Jintao with a State Dinner in January at the same time that 2010 Nobel Peace Prize winner, Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo, languished behind bars. Meanwhile, the Dalai Lama was initially denied a meeting with President Obama and then in February 2010 was made to leave the White House through the back door to avoid press. In closing, there will come a day when the Chinese communist government will fall--repressive, totalitarian regimes always do. And when that day comes, books will be written about who helped sustain this government in their final days. Will U.S. companies feature in that narrative? Will the U.S. government? In 2001, a book was published titled, ``IBM and the Holocaust.'' A New York Times book review describes how IBM had ``global control of a technology that was enormously helpful, indeed indispensable, to the Nazi machinery of war and annihilation.'' The Times review quotes the author of the book as saying that many companies did what IBM did. They ``refused to walk away from the extraordinary profits obtainable from trading with a pariah state . . .'' Arguably that assessment rings true today. Only the pariah state has changed. Those in positions of leadership, be they in the private sector or in government, do our country a disservice when they gloss over or ignore the actions of the Chinese government. They put us squarely on the wrong side of history. The Chinese government brutally represses its own people. It persecutes people of faith. It censors the Internet. It maintains labor camps. The Chinese government actively engages in cyber-espionage. It steals state secrets. It aligns itself with countries directly at odds with U.S. interests. It supports genocidal governments and buttresses rogue regimes. There's a legal term, ``willful blindness,'' that aptly described our dealings to date with China. Faced with these painful truths, blindness is no longer an option. In the words of British abolitionist, William Wilberforce, ``Having heard all of this, you may choose to look the other way, but you can never again say that you did not know.''

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this conference report, which includes the fiscal year 2012 Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. I want to thank my colleague and ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), for his support throughout this process. I also want to thank Senate counterparts, Senators Mikulski and Hutchison, and I also want to particularly thank Chairman Rogers of the full committee and Ranking Member Mr. Dicks. This was a very, very open process. Also I want to thank the CJS subcommittee staff, including Mike Ringler, Leslie Albright, Stephanie Meyers, Diana Simpson, Colin Samples and Scott Sammis, as well as Todd Culligan in my office, and Darek Newby and Bob Bonner on the minority staff. Working together, we were able to produce a conference report that reduces discretionary spending in line with the Budget Control Act, while the supercommittee works to control entitlement spending which is the primary driver of our unsustainable debt and reform the Tax Code. The final CJS bill before the House is $583 million below--below-- fiscal year 2011 and $4.9 billion, 8.5 percent, below the President's request. Since Republicans assumed the majority, we have reduced spending by more than $11 billion for agencies funded in the CJS appropriations bill. At the same time, the bill also provides funding for a variety of critical national priorities. The conference report fully funds the FBI at $8.1 billion to protect the Nation from further terrorist attacks. The bill includes important increases for FBI national security programs and the investigation of cyberintrusions. The bill also makes important progress in the fight against the horrible and pervasive crime of human trafficking. Human trafficking is spreading through this Nation, and this funding bill will also support State and local human trafficking task force activities and victim assistance services. The conference agreement will require--will require--each U.S. Attorney to establish a human trafficking task force. In the Department of Commerce, the conference agreement includes new initiatives to bring jobs back to America, including a job repatriation task force and a new grant program to enable U.S. companies to bring off-shored activities back to economically distressed regions of this Nation. It is time for these American companies who have gone to China and Mexico to return home, particularly, I may say, GE, who just moved their health care facilities from Wisconsin to Beijing. They should come back to Wisconsin. The bill also includes important increases for fundamental scientific research. $7 billion is included for the NSF, an increase of $173 million. NIST research activities receive an increase of over 10 percent--math, science, physics, chemistry and biology, doing the things that make a difference to create jobs. Research is a primary driver of innovation, growth and job creation, and these investments must be preserved, even in times of budgetary austerity. The conference agreement includes $17.8 billion for NASA, including funding above the request for America's next generation space exploration system and for cutting-edge technology. In closing, as other countries are challenging U.S. leadership in space, this conference report includes funding for a comprehensive independent assessment of NASA's strategic direction and agency management to chart a future course that is bold and achievable. I urge support for the bill.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. ``General Electric, the Nation's largest corporation, had a very good year in 2010.'' These were the opening words of a March 24 New York Times article. The article continued to explain that GE paid zero taxes in the U.S. in 2010. Meanwhile, the Congressional Research Service found that the October 2008 issue of China Taxation magazine published top corporate taxpayers in the commercial services sector. The Beijing subsidiary of GE was No. 32. While we don't yet have the data regarding GE's tax payments in China for 2010, it is noteworthy that GE, an American company, paid no Federal taxes in its home country last year while being honored for being a significant source of tax revenue to China--China with its horrific human rights abuses, persecution of people of faith, censorship of the press, cyberespionage, support of rogue regimes--like President Bashir of Sudan, where there is genocide taking place--and its increasingly aggressive military posture. This should give the Congress pause. It is particularly alarming in the midst of economic troubles at home, but my concern does not end there. U.S. companies like GE are increasingly sending American jobs to China. General Electric's health care unit recently announced it was moving the headquarters of its 115-year-old x-ray business from Wisconsin to Beijing. Ironically, the head of President Obama's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness is GE chairman Jeffrey Immelt. Meanwhile, half of GE's workforce is overseas. He is creating jobs, but he is creating jobs in China. In addition to national security ramifications, GE's posture toward China has economic implications here at home. This week I wrote Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, urging him to conduct a national security review of the recently announced joint venture between General Electric, GE, and the Chinese firm AVIC to develop avionics systems for jets. This partnership is troubling for a number of reasons, including the rapid advances in Chinese aeronautics and space programs and the unprecedented Chinese threat from cyberattacks and espionage. Yet according to an August Washington Post article, GE has dismissed concerns about providing the People's Liberation Army with advanced avionics technology. Lorraine Bolsinger, chief executive of GE Aviation Systems, said, ``We are all in, and we don't want it back.'' Wow. Is this true? They don't want it back? They want to give technology to the People's Liberation Army? Statements like this fail to acknowledge reality. According to a November 4 article from The Washington Post, the administration's Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive has issued a warning that, ``Chinese actors are the world's most active and persistent perpetrators of economic espionage.'' Prolific Chinese espionage is having a real and corrosive effect on job creation. Given the breadth and scope of this espionage, which is well documented by the U.S. intelligence community, GE's public assertion that they will be able to fully protect sensitive technology lacks credibility. Should the GE-AVIC joint venture proceed, there is no question that the sensitive technology involved will be completely compromised by the People's Liberation Army. GE has a proud tradition as an American company, and it's past time for companies like GE to bring the jobs back to America. To date, there have been no plans from this administration to do just that; but when the House takes up the mini-bus appropriations bill later this week, that will change. I've worked to include provisions to help bring back manufacturing jobs to the U.S. from China and other countries. This can help State and local governments better compete for these jobs. American workers are among the most skilled in the world. American ingenuity is our greatest strength. We can and must compete. It is time to bring the jobs home.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I submit an October 27 Wall Street Journal article that summarizes Chinese telecom firm Huawei's role in enabling Iran's state security network. At the same time that the U.S. and its allies are increasing efforts to support pro-democracy and human rights activists, Huawei is empowering the Iranian regime to suppress these groups. [From the Wall Street Journal, Oct. 27, 2011] Chinese Tech Giant Aids Iran (By Steve Stecklow, Farnaz Fassihi and Loretta Chao) When Western companies pulled back from Iran after the government's bloody crackdown on its citizens two years ago, a Chinese telecom giant filled the vacuum. Huawei Technologies Co. now dominates Iran's government- controlled mobile-phone industry. In doing so, it plays a role in enabling Iran's state security network. Huawei recently signed a contract to install equipment for a system at Iran's largest mobile-phone operator that allows police to track people based on the locations of their cellphones, according to interviews with telecom employees both in Iran and abroad, and corporate bidding documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. It also has provided support for similar services at Iran's second-largest mobile- phone provider. Huawei notes that nearly all countries require police access to cell networks, including the U.S. Huawei's role in Iran demonstrates the ease with which countries can obtain foreign technology that can be used to stifle dissent through censorship or surveillance. Many of the technologies Huawei supports in Iran--such as location services--are available on Western networks as well. The difference is that, in the hands of repressive regimes, it can be a critical tool in helping to quash dissent. Last year, Egyptian state security intercepted conversations among pro-democracy activists over Skype using a system provided by a British company. In Libya, agents working for Moammar Gadhafi spied on emails and chat messages using technology from a French firm. Unlike in Egypt and Libya, where the governments this year were overthrown, Iran's sophisticated spying network remains intact. In Iran, three student activists described in interviews being arrested shortly after turning on their phones. Iran's government didn't respond to requests for comment. Iran beefed up surveillance of its citizens after a controversial 2009 election spawned the nation's broadest antigovernment uprising in decades. Authorities launched a major crackdown on personal freedom and dissent. More than 6,000 people have been arrested and hundreds remain in jail, according to Iranian human-rights organizations. This year Huawei made a pitch to Iranian government officials to sell equipment for a mobile news service on Iran's second-largest mobile-phone operator, MTN Irancell. According to a person who attended the meeting, Huawei representatives emphasized that, being from China, they had expertise censoring the news. The company won the contract and the operator rolled out the service, according to this person. MTN Irancell made no reference to censorship in its announcement about its ``mobile newspaper'' service. But Iran routinely censors the Internet using sophisticated filtering technology. The Journal reported in June that Iran was planning to create its own domestic Internet to combat Western ideas, culture and influence. In winning Iranian contracts, Huawei has sometimes partnered with Zaeim Electronic Industries Co., an Iranian electronics firm whose website says its clients include the intelligence and defense ministries, as well as the country's elite special-forces unit, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. This month the U.S. accused a branch of the Revolutionary Guards of plotting to kill Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the U.S. Iran denies the claim. Huawei's chief spokesman, Ross Gan, said, ``It is our corporate commitment to comply strictly with all U.N. economic sanctions, Chinese regulations and applicable national regulations on export control. We believe our business operations in Iran fully meet all of these relevant regulations.'' William Plummer, Huawei's vice president of external affairs in Washington, said the company's location-based- service offerings comply with ``global specifications'' that require lawful-interception capabilities. ``What we're doing in Iran is the same as what we're doing in any market,'' he said. ``Our goal is to enrich people's lives through communications.'' Huawei has about 1,000 employees in Iran, according to people familiar with its Iran operations. In an interview in China, a Huawei executive played down the company's activities in Iran's mobile-phone industry, saying its technicians only service Huawei equipment, primarily routers. But a person familiar with Huawei's Mideast operations says the company's role is considerably greater, and includes a contract for ``managed services''--overseeing parts of the network--at MTN Irancell, which is majority owned by the government. During 2009's demonstrations, this person said, Huawei carried out government orders on behalf of its client, MTN Irancell, that MTN and other carriers had received to suspend text messaging and block the Internet phone service, Skype, which is popular among dissidents. Huawei's Mr. Plummer disputed that the company blocked such services. Huawei, one of the world's top makers of telecom equipment, has been trying to expand in the U.S. It has met resistance because of concerns it could be tied to the Chinese government and military, which the company denies. Last month the U.S. Commerce Department barred Huawei from participating in the development of a national wireless emergency network for police, fire and medical personnel because of ``national security concerns.'' A Commerce Department official declined to elaborate. In February, Huawei withdrew its attempt to win U.S. approval for acquiring assets and server technology from 3Leaf Systems Inc. of California, citing opposition by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. The panel reviews U.S. acquisitions by foreign companies that may have national-security implications. Last year, Sprint Nextel Corp. excluded Huawei from a multibillion-dollar contract because of national-security concerns in Washington, according to people familiar with the matter. Huawei has operated in Iran's telecommunications industry since 1999, according to China's embassy in Tehran. Prior to Iran's political unrest in 2009, Huawei was already a major supplier to Iran's mobile-phone networks, along with Telefon AB L.M. Ericsson and Nokia Siemens Networks, a joint venture between Nokia Corp. and Siemens AG, according to MTN Irancell documents. Iran's telecom market, which generated an estimated $9.1 billion in revenue last year, has been growing significantly, especially its mobile-phone business. As of last year, Iran had about 66 million mobile-phone subscribers covering about 70% of the population, according to Pyramid Research in Cambridge, Mass. In contrast, about 36% of Iranians had fixed-line phones. As a result, mobile phones provide Iran's police network with far more opportunity for monitoring and tracking people. Iranian human-rights organizations outside Iran say there are dozens of documented cases in which dissidents were traced and arrested through the government's ability to track the location of their cellphones. Many dissidents in Iran believe they are being tracked by their cellphones. Abbas Hakimzadeh, a 27-year-old student activist on a committee that published an article questioning the actions of Iran's president, said he expected to be arrested in late 2009 after several of his friends were jailed. Worried he could be tracked by his mobile phone, he says he turned it off, removed the battery and left Tehran to hide at his father's house in the northeastern city of Mashhad. A month later, he turned his cellphone back on. Within 24 hours, he says, authorities arrested him at his father's house. ``The interrogators were holding my phone records, SMS and emails,'' he said. He eventually was released and later fled to Turkey where he is seeking asylum. In interviews with the Journal, two other student activists who were arrested said they also believe authorities found them in hiding via the location of their cellphones. In early 2009, Siemens disclosed that its joint venture with Nokia, NSN, had provided Iran's largest telecom, government-owned Telecommunications Company of Iran, with a monitoring center capable of intercepting and recording voice calls on its mobile networks. It wasn't capable of location tracking. NSN also had provided network equipment to TCI's mobile-phone operator, as well as MTN Irancell, that permitted interception. Like most countries, Iran requires phone networks to allow police to monitor conversations for crime prevention. NSN sold its global monitoring-center business in March 2009. The company says it hasn't sought new business in Iran and has established a human-rights policy to reduce the potential for abuse of its products. A spokesman for Ericsson said it delivered ``standard'' equipment to Iranian telecom companies until 2008, which included built-in lawful-interception capabilities. ``Products can be used in a way that was not the intention of the manufacturer,'' the spokesman said. He said Ericsson began decreasing its business in Iran as a result of the 2009 political upheaval and now doesn't seek any new contracts. As NSN and Ericsson pulled back, Huawei's business grew. In August 2009, two months after mass protests began, the website of China's embassy in Tehran reprinted a local article under the headline, ``Huawei Plans Takeover of Iran's Telecom Market.'' The article said the company ``has gained the trust and alliance of Major governmental and private entities within a short period,'' and that its clients included ``military industries.'' The same month the Chinese embassy posted the article, Creativity Software, a British company that specializes in ``location-based services,'' announced it had won a contract to supply a system to MTN Irancell. ``Creativity Software has worked in partnership with Huawei, where they will provide first and second level support to the operator,'' the company said. The announcement said the system would enable ``Home Zone Billing''--which encourages people to use their cellphones at home (and give up their land lines) by offering low rates--as well as other consumer and business applications that track user locations. In a description of the service, Creativity Software says its technology also enables mobile-phone operators to ``comply with lawful-intercept government legislation,'' which gives police access to communications and location information. A former telecommunications engineer at MTN Irancell said the company grew more interested in location-based services during the antigovernment protests. He said a team from the government's telecom-monitoring center routinely visited the operator to verify the government had access to people's location data. The engineer said location tracking has expanded greatly since the system first was installed. An official with Creativity Software confirmed that MTN Irancell is a customer and said the company couldn't comment because of ``contractual confidentiality.'' A spokesman for MTN Group Ltd., a South African company that owns 49% of the Iranian operator, declined to answer questions, writing in an email, ``The majority of MTN Irancell is owned by the government of Iran.'' He referred questions to the telecommunications regulator, which didn't respond. In 2008, the Iranian government began soliciting bids for location-based services for the largest mobile operator, TCI's Mobile Communication Co. of Iran, or MCCI. A copy of the bidding requirements, reviewed by the Journal, says the contractor ``shall support and deliver offline and real-time lawful interception.'' It also states that for ``public security,'' the service must allow ``tracking a specified phone/subscriber on map.'' Ericsson participated in the early stages of the bidding process, a spokesman said. Internal company documents reviewed by the Journal show Ericsson was partnering with an Estonian company, Reach-U, to provide a ``security solution'' that included ``Monitor Security--application for security agencies for locating and tracking suspects.'' The Ericsson spokesman says its offering didn't meet the operator's requirements so it dropped out. An executive with Reach-U said, ``Yes, we made an offer but this ended nowhere.'' One of the ultimate winners: Huawei. According to a Huawei manager in Tehran, the company signed a contract this year to provide equipment for location-based services to MCCI in the south of Iran and is now ramping up hiring for the project. One local Iranian company Huawei has done considerable business with is Zaeim Electronic Industries. ``Zaeim is the security and intelligence wing of every telecom bid,'' said an engineer who worked on several projects with Zaeim inside the telecom ministry. Internal Ericsson records show that Zaeim was handling the ``security part'' of the lawful- interception capabilities of the location-based services contract for MCCI. On its Persian-language website, Zaeim says it launched its telecommunications division in 2000 in partnership with Huawei, and that they have completed 46 telecommunications projects together. It says they now are working on the country's largest fiber-optic transfer network for Iran's telecom ministry, which will enable simultaneous data, voice and video services. Zaeim's website lists clients including major government branches such as the ministries of intelligence and defense. Also listed are the Revolutionary Guard and the president's office. Mr. Gan, the Huawei spokesman, said: ``We provide Zaeim with commercial public use products and services.'' Zaeim didn't respond to requests for comment.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I share with the House today the sad news of the passing of iconic Winchester, Virginia, native, Benjamin Dutton, Jr., 86. Known as ``Mr. Winchester,'' Ben died November 9 at his home with his wife Jean, fondly called ``Whip,'' at his side. A man of honor and the highest moral character, Ben was one of the finest Virginia gentlemen that I have ever known. After Whip and their three daughters and their families, Ben's lifelong love was Winchester and especially the annual Shenandoah Apple Blossom Festival. He was one of the festival's longest serving contributors, holding positions of executive director, president, and board member. Ben continued to be involved in ``the Bloom'' up until his passing. The son of the late Dr. Benjamin and Ann Dutton, Ben attended Winchester public schools, graduating from Handley High School in 1943. He served his country in the U.S. Army infantry from 1943-46 and afterward attended the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, receiving an A.B. degree in 1950. After college, he began a career in the insurance industry, serving as an agent in Louisiana and Roanoke, Virginia, from 1951-63. But the tug of his native city brought him back to Winchester in 1963 and he became associated with J.V. Arthur Inc. as a vice president and partner, retiring from there in 1987. Never one to sit idly, Ben soon found a second career as a public servant. He first served as the field representative in the Winchester office of our former colleague, the late D. French Slaughter Jr., who represented Winchester and Frederick and Clarke counties until 1991 when the area was part of the 7th Congressional District, and later served in the same position for George Allen, who succeeded Congressman Slaughter for a year before his successful election as governor of Virginia. When redistricting in 1992 brought that area of Virginia into the 10th District, I was proud that Ben became a member of my constituent services staff in my Winchester office, serving for 15 years until his retirement in 2010. Ben was a ``people'' person. When you met Ben, you became his friend for life. He had a warm and infectious smile and always made time for anyone who crossed his path. His foremost motivation in life was helping people and thousands of residents of Winchester and the surrounding area can attest to his servant's heart. Ben also was a ``doer.'' He was involved throughout his long life in city government and numerous civic and community organizations. Among his citations of public recognition were the Outstanding Citizen Award from the Winchester-Frederick County Chamber of Commerce and the President's Award for Community Service from Shenandoah University. I will submit for the Record, Ben's obituary from the Winchester Star, which includes greater detail on Ben's illustrious life. Ben truly fulfilled in his life the biblical praise: ``Well done, good and faithful servant.'' We are all better for having had the honor of knowing Ben and calling him our friend. To Whip, his wife of 59 years, and their daughters Fay, Virginia, and Whipple, and their families, I express on behalf of the people of the 10th District our heartfelt sympathy and also our gratitude to you for sharing Ben with us. Benjamin Blanton Dutton, Jr. Benjamin Blanton Dutton, Jr., 86, died on Wednesday. November 9, 2011, in his home in Winchester, Virginia. Mr. Dutton was born in 1925, in Winchester, Virginia, the son of the late Dr. Benjamin and Ann Dutton. He attended Winchester Public Schools and graduated from Handley High School, Class of 1943. Mr. Dutton served in the United States Army, in the Infantry, from 1943-1946 achieving the rank of Sergeant. He attended University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Virginia where he received, an A.B. Degree in 1950. He was employed by Hartford Fires Insurance Company from 1951-1963 and served as Special Agent for The Hartford in Louisiana and Roanoke, Virginia. Mr. Dutton returned to Winchester in 1963 to become associated with J. V. Arthur, Inc., as a Vice President and partner, remaining in that position until his retirement in June 1987. He was employed by Congressman D. French Slaughter, Jr., as Field Representative in the Winchester, Virginia office and served in that capacity until Mr. Slaughter's resignation in November 1991. Mr. Dutton continued as a Field Representative for Congressman George Allen during his tenure In congress, from November 1991 until December 1992. Mr. Dutton then became the Field Representative for Congressman Frank R. Wolf from January, 1993 until April, 1995. He served as Executive Director of the Shenandoah Apple Blossom Festival from April 1995 until July 1997 and was then rehired by Congressman Wolf as a Field Representative in July, 1997 until his retirement in 2010. Mr. Dutton was a member of Christ Episcopal Church in Winchester, a member of the Winchester Rotary from 1963 to present and served on the Board of Directors several times as well as Secretary and Treasurer. He was active in the Shenandoah Apple Blossom Festival since childhood and was President of the festival in 1970, 1971, and 1972. He volunteered as Executive Director in 1972 and currently is on the Festival Board of Directors. Mr. Dutton was a two term President of the Winchester-Frederick County Chamber of Commerce, member of the Winchester Common Council for three terms, from 1966-1978, Winchester Parking Authority from 1966-1990 and Chairman 1980-1990; Winchester Transportation Safety Commission from 1968-1988. In addition he was a member of and Secretary-Treasurer of the Winchester Regional Airport Authority from 1987-1994; and served as Past Chairman of the Salvation Army Advisory Board. Mr. Dutton was an Honorary member of the Winchester Medical Center Board; a licensed Amateur Radio operator and was licensed as a Glider Pilot. His Virginia State activities include past chairman, State Insurance Board, Commonwealth of Virginia; past member, State Fire Services Commission, Commonwealth of Virginia; Past President, Independent Insurance Agents of Virginia, Inc.; past member, Board of Directors, Virginia Financial Services Corporation and past member, Regional Economic Development Advisory Council for District 5, Commonwealth of Virginia. He was Past President of the Independent Insurance Agents of Winchester, Inc.; a member of the Board of Directors Emeritus and the Wayside Theatre, Middletown, Virginia from 1976-1979; and currently a member of the Corporation of Valley Health System, Inc and current member of the Advisory Committee of the Institute for Government and Public Policy at Shenandoah University. Mr. Dutton was awarded the Honorable Order of Kentucky Colonels in 1970; Outstanding Citizen Award, Winchester- Frederick County Chamber of Commerce, 1975; Rotary International Paul Harris Fellow; Winchester-Frederick County Chamber of Commerce Transportation Award, 1992, and Presidents Award for Community Service (Shenandoah University), 2002. He married Jean Rogers Whipple on June 14, 1952, in Vienna, Georgia. Surviving with his wife of 59 years, are three daughters, Fay Dutton and her husband, Jim Moyer, Virginia Dutton, and Whipple Rickman and her husband, Glen; and one grandson, Benjamin Rickman. A graveside service will be conducted at 11 a.m. on Saturday, in Mount Hebron Cemetery, Winchester, Virginia, with Reverend Webster Gibson officiating. Memorial contributions may be made to Blue Edge Hospice, 333 West Cork Street, Suite 405, Winchester, Virginia 22601. Arrangements are being handled by Omps Funeral Home, Amherst Chapel, Winchester, Virginia. Please view obituaries and tribute wall at www.ompsfuneralhome.com.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I submit New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof's recent piece highlighting the courageous work of Ryan Boyette in the Nuba Mountains of Sudan. I had the privilege of meeting with Ryan when he was recently in town. At a time when few outside groups or media have access to the region, he has been an eye-witness to some of the atrocities presently occurring in that country. Ryan has issued a compelling clarion call to action. Will we answer the call? [From the New York Times, Oct. 22, 2011] The Man Who Stayed Behind (By Nicholas D. Kristof) In the last few months, as you and I have been fretting about the economy or moaning about the weather, Ryan Boyette has been living in a mud-wall hut and dodging bombs in his underwear. Some humanitarian catastrophes--Congo, Somalia, Sudan-- linger because the killing unfolds without witnesses. So Ryan, a 30-year-old from Florida, has made the perilous decision to bear witness to atrocities in the Nuba Mountains of Sudan, secretly staying behind when other foreigners were evacuated. I met Ryan a few years ago in Sudan, and even then he was a compelling figure who spoke the local languages of Otoro and Sudanese Arabic. An evangelical Christian deeply motivated by his faith, Ryan moved to the Nuba Mountains in 2003 and worked for Samaritan's Purse, an aid group led by the Rev. Franklin Graham. Early this year, Ryan married a local woman, Jazira, a health worker--and 6,000 joyous Nubans celebrated at the wedding, along with Ryan's parents, who flew in from Florida. It was clear that war was brewing in the Nuba Mountains. The region had sided with South Sudan in the country's long civil war, but now South Sudan was separating while the Nuba Mountains would remain in the north. The people--mostly Muslim but with a large Christian minority--supported a local rebel army left over from the civil war. In June, fighting erupted. The Sudanese government moved in to destroy the rebel army and depopulate areas that supported it. Aid organizations pulled out their workers. Ryan decided that he could not flee, so when Samaritan's Purse ordered him to evacuate, he resigned and stayed behind. ``A lot of people tried to convince me to leave,'' Ryan remembers. ``But this is where my wife is from, this is where I've lived for eight years. It's hard to get on a plane and say, `Bye, I hope to see you when this ends.' '' Ryan organized a network of 15 people to gather information and take photos and videos, documenting atrocities. He used a solar-powered laptop and a satellite phone to transmit them to the West, typically to the Enough Project, a Washington- based anti-genocide organization. He also supplied eyewitness interviews that helped the Enough Project and the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative find evidence of atrocities, including eight mass graves, on satellite images. And he helped journalists understand what was going on. ``He's irreplaceable,'' said Jonathan Hutson of the Enough Project. ``There's no substitute for someone on the ground.'' Ryan tried to keep his presence in the region a secret, at least from the Sudanese government, for fear that it might seek to eliminate a witness. Once, a bombing seemed to target his hut, but he heard the plane approaching and ran out in his skivvies and took cover; the bombs missed, and he was unhurt. After the first few weeks, the killings on the ground abated. But the government has continued the bombings. ``It's terrifying when they bomb,'' Ryan told me. ``You don't feel safe at any time of day or night.'' The bombs typically miss and have killed fewer than 200 people, he says, but they prevent people from farming their fields. Several hundred thousand people have been driven from their homes in the surrounding state of South Kordofan, Ryan says, and a famine may be looming. ``It's not a good time to have kids,'' Ryan quoted Jazira as telling him. ``If we have kids, they'll just starve.'' Frustrated by the lack of attention for the Nubans' plight, Ryan decided to return to the United States this month and tell his story. He couldn't get a visa for Jazira in time-- obtaining an American visa for a spouse is a long and complex process--so she is in a refugee camp for 15,000 Nubans in South Sudan, struggling to address health needs there. Meanwhile, in Washington, Ryan has testified before Congress and met with White House officials. Soon, he'll go back, rejoining Jazira and sneaking back with her into the Nuba Mountains. It'll be more dangerous than ever now that he has gone public, but he is determined to give voice to the voiceless--and Nubans will do everything to protect him. In a world where leaders often pretend not to notice mass atrocities, for fear that they might be called Upon to do something, I find Ryan an inspiration. His eyewitness accounts make it more difficult for the world to neglect a humanitarian crisis in the Nuba Mountains--even if he does need to brush up on his tech skills. I asked Ryan if he planned to use Twitter. ``Twitter?'' he asked. ``I've been in the bush for nine years, so I don't know how to use it.'' But he's planning to learn.