Frank Wolf

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. I thank the chairman for recognizing me. I appreciate it very much. I rise in strong support of the bill. It's very appropriate. The first person killed in Afghanistan was a civilian employee from my congressional district, a CIA employee, Michael Spann. I went to the funeral out at Arlington Cemetery. He was the very first person, and he was a civilian and gave his life there. I also, about 7 or 8 months ago, went out to the agency where they had a memorial service--the President was there, as was Director Panetta--to remember the seven who were killed at that base there. You could see the young families and just the pain and the agony and the suffering. Also, the DEA; we lost three DEA people in Afghanistan fighting the drug wars. And you can go on, the Border Patrol and all the others. So I want to thank Mr. Hanna for the bill, thank the chairman for it, and thank the ranking member. This is important, I think, to do. I want to thank the gentleman from New York, Mr. Hanna, for introducing this legislation, which authorizes the presentation of the United States flag to federal employees who have died in the line of duty. According to the Office of Personnel Management, since 1992, nearly 3,000 federal employees have paid the ultimate price while serving their country. Federal employees work side-by-side on the front lines with our military personnel to carry out 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. Imagine the dangers a CIA or State Department employee or DEA agent or an FBI agent working in Afghanistan with the U.S. military must encounter. When I traveled to Afghanistan, I visited with FBI agents serving side-by-side with our military in the fight against the Taliban. DEA agents are also in Afghanistan and working to eradicate the poppy, which the Taliban and al Qaeda use as a primary source of funding in their operations. Last year, three DEA agents were killed in Afghanistan. A year ago January, I attended funerals for some of the seven CIA agents who were killed by a Taliban suicide bomber at Forward Operative Base Chapman near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Federal employees also put their lives on the line here at home. The Border Patrol agent shot and killed in Arizona this past December who was working to stop the flow of illegal immigrants across our southern border was a federal employee. The three Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents who were attacked, including one who was killed, outside of Mexico City were federal employees. Each federal employee repeats 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.'' We fly the flag to demonstrate our support for the values and principals found in the Constitution and expressed by this oath. I believe it is appropriate to allow for the presentation of the flag if an employee is killed because they represent this oath, which is why I am a proud cosponsor of this measure. This legislation recognizes all unsung federal employees who work to ensure that our government is running as efficiently and effectively as possible to provide the services that taxpayers expect. I urge all members to support H.R. 2061.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I submit a letter that I have sent to National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration administrator Jane Lubchenco in response to inaccurate and unconstructive remarks about the House Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations Subcommittee recommended funding for the Joint Polar Satellite System. House of Representatives, Ocober 26, 2011. Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Undersecretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, Department of Commerce, Washington, DC. Dear Dr. Lubchenco: I was disappointed by your recent remarks to the Guardian newspaper accusing congressional Repub1icans of endangering the Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS). I want you to know that your reported accusations were neither accurate nor constructive. According to the article, ``Republican budget-cutting measures would knock out that critical capacity by delaying the launch of the next generation polar-orbiting satellites, said Jane Lubchenco.'' You are also quoted as saying, ``It is a disaster in the making. It's an expression of the dysfunction in our system.'' Your remarks mirror similar comments made by deputy administrator Kathryn Sullivan to the Washington Post earlier this summer. Perhaps you are unaware that the Republican-authored House FY 2011 bill recommended a higher level of funding for NOAA's satellite acquisition account than the Democrat-authored Senate bill despite the House having a lower allocation than the Senate. Further, for FY 2012, the House Commerce-Justice- Science Appropriations subcommittee recommended $901 million, a nearly $430 million increase--91%--above the FY 2011 level for JPSS. Despite having an allocation $2.5 billion higher than the House, the Senate recommended an amount only slightly above the House recommendation, $920 million. To my knowledge, you have never criticized Senate funding levels for JPSS. While the House did not provide the full $1 billion requested, the House level is a significant amount of funding given these austere budget times when other programs in the Commerce-Justice-Science bill were significantly reduced or eliminated altogether. Finally, I would call your attention to the fact that any gap in satellite data is not due to lack of funding, ``Republican budget-cutting measures'' or ``the dysfunction in our system,'' but rather years of poor interagency management that resulted in the cancellation of the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) satellite program after being more than five years behind schedule, twice as expensive with fewer satellites and less capability. The caution shown by the Congress with regard to funding the successor program, JPSS, is fully justified in light of this record of waste and mismanagement. I have noted below portions of September, 2011 GAO testimony to the Congress on NPOESS mismanagement, from GAO-11-945T: ``When its primary contract was awarded in August 2002, NPOESS was estimated to cost about $7 billion through 2026 and was considered critical to the United States' ability to maintain the continuity of data required for weather forecasting and global climate monitoring. However, in the years after the program was initiated, NPOESS encountered significant technical challenges in sensor development, program cost growth, and schedule delays. By November 2005, we estimated that the program's cost had grown to $10 billion, and the schedule for the first launch was delayed by almost 2 years. These issues led to a 2006 restructuring of the program which reduced the program's functionality by decreasing the number of planned satellites, orbits, and instruments. The restructuring also led agency executives to decide to mitigate potential data gaps by using NPP as an operational satellite. Even after the restructuring, however, the program continued to encounter technical issues in developing two sensors, significant tri-agency management challenges, schedule delays, and further cost increases. Faced with costs that were expected to exceed $14 billion and launch schedules that were delayed by over 5 years, in August 2009, the Executive Office of the President formed a task force, led by the Office of Science and Technology Policy, to investigate the management and acquisition options that would improve the NPOESS program. As a result of this review, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy announced in February 2010 that NOAA and DOD would no longer jointly procure the NPOESS satellite system; instead, each agency would plan and acquire its own satellite system.'' Your reported inaccurate and partisan comments are unhelpful. I urge you to publicly correct these inaccurate statements. I await your prompt response. Best wishes. Sincerely, Frank R. Wolf, Chairman, Commerce-Justice-Science Subcommittee, Appropriations Committee.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the record a copy of Chuck Colson's recent Breakpoint Commentary which movingly speaks of the worsening conditions facing Egypt's Coptic community. According to an October 25 Washington Post article, ``Attacks on Christians have significantly increased since the uprising. The violence on October 9 began when about 1,000 Christians tried to stage a peaceful sit-in outside the state television building.'' The Egyptian military forcefully broke up their protest leaving at least 21 Christians dead in the single deadliest incident since the end of the Mubarak regime. This carnage is evidence of an ancient faith community which is increasingly under siege. Not only are Coptic Christians not reaping the promise of the so-called ``Arab Spring'' but as Colson writes, ``It's getting clearer for parts of the Arab world, its going to be a long, cold winter.'' The Obama administration must press Egypt's ruling generals to uphold the rights of the country's vulnerable minority communities. Their sustained presence in the region is crucial. [Oct. 24, 2011] Ionic Coptic Winter: Democracy and Christians in Egypt On October 9, at least two dozen Christians were killed by Egyptian police. Their only ``crime'' was in insisting that they be treated in a manner consistent with what the ``Arab Spring'' was supposed to be about. It's getting clearer that for parts of the Arab world, it's going to be a long, cold winter. The killings happened during a march organized by Coptic leaders to protest a church-burning by Islamists. The military regime responded lackadaisically to this outrage, just as it has to other outrages perpetrated against Egypt's Christian minority. The junta's response to peaceful protest was a combination of tear gas, live ammunition, and armored vehicles ramming into the crowd. A few protestors threw rocks in response to the attacks, which gave state-controlled media a chance to claim that protestors started the violence and urge ``honorable,'' that is, Muslim, Egyptians to help the soldiers. While I expect that kind of deception from Egyptian state- run media, I am appalled by The New York Times' characterization of the killings as ``sectarian violence.'' For the Times, Christians are only victims if they endure violence without uttering the merest peep in protest. If they protest or try to defend themselves, however feebly, the Times paints them as the moral equivalent of their persecutors. The situation in Egypt has become so dire that one Coptic bishop compares it to a ``dark tunnel of violence.'' Quoting the Apostle Paul, he writes that he and his flock are ``hard pressed on every side, yet not crushed . . . perplexed but not lost, persecuted but not forsaken, struck down but not destroyed.'' While they pray for the victims and the offenders, it's our task to make sure they are not forsaken, which is what all the euphoria over the ``Arab Spring'' threatens to do. Lost in the buzz over democracy, Twitter, and Facebook, was any recognition that ousting dictators and establishing democracy are means, not ends. In other words, it doesn't matter if you replace the rule of dictators with popular rule if, in the end, Christians and other minorities become targets for persecution and violence. Our founding fathers, when they set out to ``establish justice, insure domestic tranquility . . . [and] promote the general welfare,'' knew the dangers of an unchecked majority. That's why our Constitution is filled with checks and balances--between the people and the government, and between branches of government. The ``Arab Spring'' has not resulted in greater justice and increased tranquility for Middle Eastern Christians. As John L. Allen wrote in the National Catholic Reporter, ``many analysts wonder whether Christianity will be the first victim of the new order taking shape'' in the Middle East. There's no reason, as writer Rod Dreher reminds us, to assume that democracy and religious tolerance go hand-in- hand. On the contrary, recent history suggests that what the so-called ``people'' often want is to mistreat the ``others'' in their midst. Now, there is little standing between them and what they want. If Christians resist, they are run over by armored vehicles and blamed for their fate. While God has not forsaken them, the world that cheered on the Arab crowds last Spring seems intent on doing so.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the record a copy of a letter I sent to all of the Board Members of the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) urging that Malawi immediately cease to be an MCC recipient in light of the government's decision to host Sudanese President Omar al-Bahsir--an internationally indicted war criminal. I also submit two news stories about the visit. I take no comfort in the fact that on July 26, MCC placed a hold on Malawi's compact activities ``due to concerns about the government's commitment to good governance, rule of law, and human rights.'' This decision was made prior to Bashir's visit. If anything, Malawi's recent red carpet welcome of Bashir is further evidence that they are ill- suited to receive MCC funding, especially in the face of economic challenges here at home. An October 20 BBC story reported that, ``Mr Bashir was welcomed by a military guard of honor when he arrived in the capital, Lilongwe, for a trade summit last weekend. . . .'' This is unconscionable--Bashir has blood on his hands from the genocide in Darfur as well as the unfolding atrocities in the Nuba Mountains. And yet, the administration has been publicly silent. If Malawi's actions don't prompt a response, I don't know what does. Martin Luther King famously said, ``In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.'' The long- suffering people of Sudan will not soon forget our silence. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, October 18, 2011. Hon. Ron Kirk, U.S. Trade Representative, Washington DC. Dear Mr. Kirk: I write today to share with you the enclosed letter I sent to President Obama, Secretary Clinton, and Mr. Yohannes last week. I am deeply concerned that the Malawi government welcomed Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir on Friday, essentially rolling out the red carpet for this internationally indicted war criminal. I believe this should be of concern to you, too. As I stated in my letter, Malawi should be dropped immediately from the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) compact. The MCC compact with Malawi should not just be put on an operational hold but should be cancelled indefinitely. The very thought of U.S. taxpayers providing money to a country that has opened its doors to a wanted war criminal should be reason enough to cancel both MCC and American foreign aid funding altogether for Malawi. As you know, Bashir is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Sudanese people. If funding for Malawi is not cancelled, the MCC will be complicit in aiding a country that has supported a genocidal government and would henceforth lack legitimacy and should be completely shutdown. The American people should expect nothing less. Bashir's warm welcome by the Malawian government is a clear demonstration of its lack of commitment to good governance--a core principle of MCC partnerships. Every time a country allows Bashir to enter, it provides this war criminal with credibility. The longer he is in office, the more people will be killed. Bashir is strikingly similar to Slobodan Milosevic, except that this tragedy is not taking place in Europe but rather among the poorest of the poor in Africa. As you may know, I was one of only 16 Republicans to vote against a 1999 resolution to try to cease military operations in Yugoslavia after President Clinton had intervened to end the genocide-- similar to that of what is taking place in Sudan today. I have enclosed several new photos that I received from a contact living in the Nuba Mountains. He continues to document the destruction and terror inflicted upon innocent people on a daily basis by Bashir's troops. I have only sent four out of the hundreds of pictures he has taken because many of them are too graphic to be shared. During these difficult economic times, we should not allow scarce American tax dollars to support countries that empower war criminals like Bashir. I look forward to your response and hope you will use this opportunity to demonstrate that the U.S. will stand up to those countries that help perpetuate Bashir's rule. Best wishes. Sincerely, Frank R. Wolf, Member of Congress.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I submit an opinion that I have received from the Government Accountability Office that White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, led by Dr. John Holdren, is in violation of the law and the Anti-Deficiency Act due to its continued dealings with the Chinese government. United States Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC, October 11, 2011. Hon. Frank R. Wolf, Chairman, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives. Subject: Office of Science and Technology Policy--Bilateral Activities with China This responds to your request for our opinion on the propriety of activities undertaken in May 2011 by the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) with representatives of the government of the People's Republic of China. Letter from Representative Wolf to the Comptroller General (May 11, 2011) (Request Letter). Specifically, you point to meetings with Chinese representatives during the U.S.-China Dialogue on Innovation Policy (Innovation Dialogue) and the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED) held in Washington, D.C., in May 2011. You ask whether OSTP violated section 1340 of the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011. Section 1340 prohibits the use of OSTP appropriations for bilateral activities between OSTP and China, or Chinese-owned companies, unless specifically authorized by laws enacted after the date of the appropriations act. Pub. L. No. 112-10, div. B, title III, 125 Stat. 38, 123 (Apr. 15, 2011). As explained below, we conclude that OSTP's use of appropriations to fund its participation in the Innovation Dialogue and the S&ED violated the prohibition in section 1340. In addition, because section 1340 prohibited the use of OSTP's appropriations for this purpose, OSTP's involvement in the Innovation Dialogue and the S&ED resulted in obligations in excess of appropriated funds available to OSTP; as such, OSTP violated the Antideficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. Sec. 1341(a)(1)(A). Our practice when rendering legal opinions is to obtain the views of the relevant agency to establish a factual record and to elicit the agency's legal position on the subject matter of the request. GAO, Procedures and Practices for Legal Decisions and Opinions, GAO-06-1064SP (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 2006), available at www.gao.gov/legal/resources .html. In this case, OSTP provided us with its legal views and relevant supporting materials. Letter from General Counsel, OSTP to Assistant General Counsel, GAO, Re: B- 321982, Office of Science and Technology Policy--Bilateral Activities with China (June 23, 2011) (OSTP Response). We also spoke by telephone with OSTP's General Counsel to ask questions about OSTP's June letter. Telephone Conversation with General Counsel, OSTP (Aug. 4, 2011) (August Conversation). See also Letter from General Counsel, OSTP to Senior Attorney, GAO, Re: Follow-up to August 4, 2011, Telephone Call (Aug. 29, 2011) (OSTP August Letter).

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. My conscience has compelled me to come to the floor today to voice concerns I have with the influence Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, has on the political process in Washington. My issue is not with ATR's goal of keeping taxes low. Like Ronald Reagan said, and I believe, ``The problem is not that the people are taxed too little; the problem is that government spends too much.'' I want to be perfectly clear: I do not support raising taxes on the American people. My concern is with the other individuals, groups and causes with whom Mr. Norquist is associated that have nothing to do with keeping taxes low. Among them: One, Mr. Norquist's relationship with Jack Abramoff. Mr. Abramoff essentially laundered money through ATR and Mr. Norquist knew it. Two, his association and representation of terrorist financier and vocal Hamas supporter Abdurahman Alamoudi. He also is associated with terrorist financier Sami al-Arian, who pled guilty in 2006 to conspiring to provide services to Palestinian Islamic jihad. Three, Mr. Norquist's lobbying on behalf of Fannie Mae. Fourth, Mr. Norquist's representation of the Internet gambling industry. Fifth, Mr. Norquist's advocacy of moving Guantanamo Bay detainees to the United States, including 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Simply put, I believe Mr. Norquist is connected with or has profited from a number of unsavory people and groups out of the mainstream. I also believe that Mr. Norquist has used the ATR ``pledge'' as leverage to advance other issues that many Americans would find inappropriate and, when taken as a whole, should give people pause. I raise these concerns today in the context of dealing with the future of our country. America is in trouble. Unemployment is over 9 percent. Housing values continue to decline. Retirement accounts are threatened. The American people are worried. Yet Washington is tragically shackled in ideological gridlock. Some are dead set against any change to entitlement programs, while others insist that any discussion of tax policy is off the table. We are at a point today that the tsunami of debt in America demands that every piece of the budget be scrutinized, and that means more than just cutting waste, fraud and abuse and discretionary programs. The real runaway spending is occurring in our out-of-control entitlement costs and the hundreds of billions in annual tax earmarks in our Tax Code. Until we reach an agreement that addresses those two drivers of our deficit and debt, we cannot right our fiscal ship of state. Everything must be on the table, and I believe how the ``pledge'' is interpreted and enforced by Mr. Norquist is a roadblock to realistically reforming our Tax Code. When Senator Tom Coburn recently called for eliminating the special interest ethanol tax subsidy, who led the opposition? Mr. Norquist. Have we already forgotten the battle over earmarks from last year? Unlike an earmark included in an annual appropriations bill, tax earmarks are far worse because, once enacted, they typically exist in perpetuity. Have we really reached a point where one person's demand for ideological purity is paralyzing Congress to the point that even a discussion of tax reform is viewed as breaking a no-tax pledge? I understand that some may not agree with what I say. I know many are not aware of Mr. Norquist's associations. But my conscience compels me to speak out today. Reasonable people can differ on the merits of pledges--and I respect those differences--but the issue is with the interpreter and the enforcer of a pledge. William Wilberforce, the British parliamentarian and abolitionist, famously told his colleagues: ``Having heard all of this, you may choose to look the other way, but you can never again say you did not know.'' I urge my colleagues to read my full statement in the Record, which will also be posted on my Web page, going into greater detail on the issues I have raised.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I submit my correspondence with the administration on my call for an Afghanistan/Pakistan Study Group. My letters to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta of August 31, 2011, and September 15, 2011, follow: Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, August 31, 2011. Hon. Leon Panetta, Secretary of Defense, The Pentagon, Washington, DC. Dear Secretary Panetta: I know you care deeply about the men and women in uniform fighting in Afghanistan. That's why I am disappointed that no one from your staff has contacted former Ambassador Peter Tomsen, an expert on Afghanistan, to meet with him, as I requested in my letter to you of August 1 (enclosed). Ambassador Tomsen's new book, The Wars of Afghanistan, is receiving positive reviews, including the enclosed review in the recent edition of Foreign Affairs. The review praises the book as providing an in depth description of the social structure of Afghanistan and the mistakes repeated by numerous foreign countries that have tried to help establish military and political cohesion in the country. The review states, ``Whether one agrees with Tomsen, however, there is no denying that his descriptions of Afghanistan's society and politics are a valuable foundation for any discussion of how the country should be governed. * * * Given Tomsen's track record, Americans should give a respectful hearing to his call for a thorough policy reformulation--something beyond tweaks to troop numbers and counterinsurgency tactics.'' I believe this book should be required reading for you and your team at the Pentagon. Ambassador Tomsen is ready and willing to lend his expertise to this important effort and I again ask that you or your staff meet with him. Leon, I renew my call that you use your discretion as secretary and create the Af/Pak Study Group. We owe it to the men and women serving and the families and spouses at home to ensure we have the correct strategy. After 10 years of fighting, it is time to have a fresh set of eyes examine U.S. strategy. Far from a sign of weakness, creating an independent Af/Pak study group would show the nation that we are doing everything possible to achieve our goals in this region. I would welcome the chance to speak with you on this matter. Best wishes, Sincerely, Frank R. Wolf, Member of Congress.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I submit correspondence regarding the Afghanistan/Pakistan Study Group and provide the following examples of support for this important initiative from David Abshire, president of the Center for the Study of the Presidency, and a moving letter from a constituent and mother whose children have served in the military in recent years. Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress, Washington, DC, June 1, 2011. Hon. Frank Wolf, House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Frank: To say that the May 2, 2011 targeted elimination of Osama bin Laden by a team of U.S. Navy SEALs was welcome news would be the understatement of the 21st century. The death of a terrorist icon that had directed the murder of thousands of American, European, and Muslim civilians has also caused almost immediate speculation as to what his demise will mean for the international mission in Afghanistan. Within hours of President Obama's announcement of bin Laden's death, pundits and politicians from both the Right and Left are calling for a speedier withdrawal in the wake of the al-Qaeda leader's demise. However, many are concerned that such a move would risk reversing the gains that have been made by our nearly ten-year military effort and could cause Afghanistan to once again remerge as a destabilizing pariah that violates human rights and threatens international security. As the country becomes increasingly divided over the issue of our involvement in Afghanistan, many questions have been raised regarding our relationship with Pakistan. Despite spending billions in aid and security assistance, America's approval rating in Pakistan is a mere 17%. Furthermore the discovery of Osama bin Laden in a compound located less than a mile from the Pakistan Military Academy has dramatically amplified concerns that elements of the Pakistani Inter- Services Intelligence service may be maintaining links with al-Qaeda and other violent extremist organizations. While many understand that cutting off or reducing aid to Pakistan would be risky, the American public is unlikely to tolerate continued perceived double-dealing on the part of the Pakistani security services. New creative and independent thinking is needed to overcome the current deadlock. As the country struggles to find the appropriate way forward in Afghanistan and Pakistan, I am heartened by your efforts to establish a bipartisan and independent Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group that will take a comprehensive look at America's current and future role in the region. I had the privilege of helping organize the Iraq Study Group (ISO), which the proposed Af-Pak Study Group would be modeled after, and feel that a similar such effort would be of great help today. Such a group can provide an effective unifying rallying point that will enable the country to come together in support of a comprehensive strategy that will guard our interests in the region and foster a more stable and secure world. With warm regards, Sincerely yours, David Abshire.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to my colleagues' attention a powerful hearing that the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission--of which I am a co-chair--held on September 22, 2011 to discuss the humanitarian atrocities that are taking place in Sudan, including Darfur. I submit for the record the moving testimonies of two of the panelists--former member of Congress, the Honorable Thomas H. Andrews, and Ms. Jehanne Henry of Human Rights Watch. I hope that my colleagues will take a moment to read these testimonies and realize that the atrocities mentioned are taking place and continue to take place today. The United States must not turn a blind eye to this part of the world. [Human Rights Watch, Sept. 22, 2011] Testimony to the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission regarding Sudan (By Jehanne Henry) Good morning, Chairman McGovern, Chairman Wolf and distinguished Members of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission. Thank you for inviting me to this important hearing on Sudan, particularly in view of new conflict and human rights abuses occurring in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile states as we speak. I was asked to speak on my recent visit to Southern Kordofan. I will keep my comments brief and ask that our August 30 report on the situation in Southern Kordofan be submitted for the record. As you are aware, South Sudan seceded from Sudan on July 9, following a January referendum under the terms of the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement. While these events transpired relatively smoothly, new conflicts erupted in key areas north of the border, where the reforms envisioned in the peace agreement never occurred. Weeks after Sudan militarily overtook the disputed border area of Abyei in late May, in violation of the CPA, fighting between government and SPLA forces broke out in neighboring Southern Kordofan, home to large ethnic Nuba populations with longstanding ties to the SPLM. The fighting broke out amid growing tensions over disputed state elections, in which Ahmed Haroun--who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur--claimed a narrow victory for governor. The two parties also disagreed over the terms of troop withdrawals under the security arrangements in the CPA. 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 SPLM supporters in the first weeks of fighting. Many people I interviewed saw dead bodies and evidence of looting and burning as they escaped the town. The witness accounts are consistent with many of the findings in an August 15 report by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, which documents unlawful killings and attacks on civilians and other serious human rights violations that could amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity. In late August, I visited Southern Kordofan. Although government restrictions prevented us from visiting Kadugli itself and other government-controlled areas, we visited many towns and villages deep in the Nuba Mountains, where hundreds of thousands of people have taken refuge from fighting and ongoing indiscriminate bombing by the Sudanese government. While I was there, I saw government planes circling overhead on a near-daily basis, sometimes multiple times per day. I also saw three bombs falling out of an aircraft, and heard them explode a few kilometers away. We investigated 13 air separate strikes in Kauda, Delami, and Kurchi areas--a small fraction of the total number of air strikes in Nuba Mountains--in which bomb fragments brutally killed at least 26 people, including women and children, and injured 45 others, maiming many for life. According to those we interviewed, there were no military targets in areas where bombs fell. None of the incidents we investigated occurred close to front lines or in areas of active combat. The type of munitions used and the manner in which they were delivered--unguided, dropped from high altitudes--are further evidence that the bombings were indiscriminate and therefore unlawful. The bombing is ongoing, and has a devastating impact on the Nuba population. People forced out of their homes now live in harsh conditions under boulders, in caves, on mountaintops, under trees, and in the bush far from towns where they fear being struck by bombs. They lacked sufficient food, medicine, and shelter from the rains--many are now eating berries and leaves, and their children are suffering from diarrhea and malaria. Many we met were separated from family members living in government controlled areas. Humanitarian groups estimate that more than 200,000 people have been displaced, either by the outbreak of fighting in early June, by ongoing fighting along several front lines, and by the ongoing bombing campaign. The number may be higher, as heavy rains and lack of fuel for vehicles and security concerns restricted access to many SPLM-North- controlled areas. Yet the Sudanese government has blocked humanitarian assistance to opposition areas as well as many government- held areas. On August 20, aid groups tried to carry out an assessment but were allowed only to Kadugli town. On August 23, President Al-Bashir publicly stated that no international groups would be allowed in. Indeed, Sudan has done everything possible to ensure there are no ``eyes and ears'' on the ground. It has prevented journalists, researchers, diplomats and UN staff from visiting the area, and forced the UN peacekeepers to leave. In recent weeks, this conflict has spread to neighboring Blue Nile state and the government has clamped down on SPLM- North across the country, arresting more than 100 suspected supporters, banning political parties, and restricting media coverage of the conflicts. We have credible reports that the government is bombing civilian areas in Blue Nile also. Tens of thousands of people fled their homes. Sudan faces many political challenges: growing dissent from marginalized populations in its peripheries; active conflicts in two border states and in Darfur, for eight years running; and it has lost one-third of its territory and faces serious economic challenges. Unfortunately, its leaders have chosen to respond to these challenges through repression and armed conflict rather than by upholding rights, opening political space, pursuing democratic reforms. The United States has shown leadership. Ambassador Rice condemned the violence early on and requested UN reporting on human rights violations. The state department has also condemned the continued aerial bombing. This continued leadership is critical. The United Nations Security Council and the Africa Union have yet to even condemn the violations, despite the evidence of indiscriminate bombing and despite the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights warning that war crimes and crimes against humanity may have occurred in Southern Kordofan. We urge the US to press for: a strong condemnation of the ongoing violations in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile; an international monitoring presence, with a requirement for continued human rights monitoring; and a full and independent investigation into violations of international human rights and humanitarian law. Finally, the US needs to remain steadfast in making no concessions to Sudan given these ongoing and serious violations. Thank you.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I submit my correspondence with the administration on my call for an Afghanistan/Pakistan Study Group. My letters to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta of July 19, 2011; August 1, 2011; and August 8, 2011 follow: House of Representatives, July 19, 2011. Hon. Leon Panetta, Secretary of Defense, The Pentagon, Washington, DC. Dear Leon: I write today concerning the U.S. mission in Afghanistan and Pakistan. My amendment, which gives the Secretary of Defense the authority to establish an Afghanistan/Pakistan (Af/Pak) Study Group, was included in the House-passed FY 2012 Defense Appropriations bill. I pressed for the amendment because I believe fresh eyes are needed now to examine the situation on the ground and the overall U.S. mission. I envision the Af/Pak Study Group being modeled after the Iraq Study Group (ISG). Both you and your predecessor Bob Gates served on the ISG and know better than most the benefits it provided after three years of fighting in Iraq. Now that the U.S. is in its 10th year in Afghanistan, I believe a similar effort is necessary. Before he was appointed as ambassador to Afghanistan, Ryan Crocker supported creating an Af/Pak Study Group, along with Ambassador Ronald Neumann and Jim Dobbins from the RAND Corporation. American men and women are fighting and dying in Afghanistan. If we are asking them to put their lives on the line daily, I believe we have an obligation to provide an independent evaluation of the U.S. mission. We owe our military forces nothing less. I do not have the answers. But as you know, there is a movement building in Congress in favor of pulling troops out of Afghanistan. An amendment offered by Rep. Jim McGovern earlier this year to the National Defense Authorization Act to accelerate U.S. departure from Afghanistan was narrowly defeated 204-215. If six members had changed their vote, the amendment would have passed. I have talked to several members who voted against the McGovern amendment who are seriously concerned about the war in Afghanistan and could change their vote if the situation on the ground does not improve rapidly. I also believe it is critical that Afghanistan be examined in tandem with the facts on the ground in Pakistan. It is clear that in order to be successful in Afghanistan, we must have a clear understanding of how Pakistan is influencing U.S. operations. Just look at the recent news from the region. Hamid Karzai's half-brother was murdered and his funeral bombed, Karai advisor Jan Mohammed Kahn was murdered, and militants attacked and laid siege to the Intercontinental Hotel in Kabul. The enclosed article printed recently in the Washington Post states, ``. . . optimism and energy vanished long ago, gradually replaced by cynicism and fear. The trappings of democracy remained in place . . . but the politics of ethnic dog fights, tribal feuds and personal patronage continued to prevail.'' The men and women serving in Afghanistan deserve to have fresh eyes look at this region as soon as possible. With House passage of the A/Pak amendment, I ask that you use your authority as secretary and move quickly to create this study group. I have discussed my amendment with John Hamre at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and he has offered to coordinate the group with professionals with a wide range of expertise. I would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you to discuss this important initiative and look forward to working with you to ensure we are successful in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Best wishes. Sincerely, Frank R. Wolf, Member of Congress.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong support of H.R. 2608, to provide the continuing resolution for the initial weeks. And I want to be sure that we keep the government open. And by passing this bill, we will keep the government open. This bill is needed to keep vital government services and programs operating past the end of the fiscal year on September 30. As the gentleman from Kentucky has stated, the Committee on Appropriations has made great progress in moving 11 of the 12 annual bills. However, additional time is needed for the consideration of the other. This continuing resolution, for anyone who questions it, conforms to the spending reduction targets that were agreed to by the House, the Senate, and the White House. It's exactly the same number, and so no reason to vote against it. Specifically, the bill sets an annual rate that reduces overall discretionary spending by 1.5 percent from fiscal year 2011. In addition, the bill provides disaster funding to provide much- needed assistance to individuals and communities suffering from hurricane and flood damage. The State of Virginia has been hit, as many others. I urge all my colleagues to vote for this bill. By voting for the bill, we will keep the government open. The American people sometimes think this institution and this town is dysfunctional. We can ensure that we can do our work. Pass this bill.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I have been writing President Obama and administration officials since August 2010 outlining my concerns about the progress of the war in Afghanistan and asking that an Afghanistan/ Pakistan Study Group be established to engage outside experts to bring fresh eyes to U.S. strategy in South Asia. It's now over a year later and the administration continues to balk at any suggestion for such a panel to be formed. Yet we continue to read headlines every week reporting about casualties among our brave troops and stepped up attacks by the Taliban, including assassinations of Afghan leaders. I firmly believe that success in South Asia requires a complete reexamination of U.S. policy with both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Establishing the Af/Pak Stud Group will demonstrate that U.S. political leaders and government officials are willing to take whatever steps necessary to ensure we have the best strategy for long-term success in South Asia. I will begin today to insert in the Record my correspondence with the administration on this matter. My letter of August 4, 2010, to the president follows: 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 Afgahnistan 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 (APG). 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 Wars 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 implication 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 ISO 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 endgame 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 ISO'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, oftentimes 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. 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 submit a letter that I sent to Attorney General Holder on the report by the Office of Inspector General on the ``extravagant and wasteful'' spending on conference planning and refreshments. House of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC, September 20, 2011. Hon. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Dear Attorney General Holder: I was deeply concerned to read the Audit of Department of Justice Conference Planning and Food and Beverage Costs, which was released today by the Office of the Inspector General. This report details the Acting Inspector General's finding that DOJ spent more than $120 million on 1,832 conferences over two years, including ``extravagant and wasteful'' spending on food and beverages. In one egregious example that occurred during your tenure as Attorney General, the Department spent $16 on each of 250 muffins served at an Executive Office for Immigration Review conference. In another case, the audit found that neither the Office of Justice Programs nor the Office on Violence Against Women required event planners to track and report salary and benefit costs on contracts totaling more than half a million dollars. As Chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee that funds the Justice Department, I am troubled about the financial mismanagement that has taken place at the Department during the same period in which this country has weathered a severe recession and a tenuous economic recovery. It is clear that while American taxpayers were tightening their belts and making difficult financial decisions, the Department was splurging on wasteful snacks and drinks as well as unnecessary event planning ``consultants.'' Over the last year, the House Appropriations Committee has had to make difficult choices about deep spending reductions to reflect the austere budget environment. Appropriations for the Department were reduced by 2.8% overall in fiscal year 2011, and are reduced by another 3.4% in the House-reported bill for fiscal year 2012, a total reduction of more than $1.7 billion over two years. Clearly there is still more work to be done to address wasteful spending at the Department. I expect you and other Department officials to immediately address the OIG's recommendations, and renew efforts to root out and eliminate wasteful spending practices such as those detailed in this report. Sincerely, Frank R. Wolf, Chairman, House Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I submit a letter that I sent to Attorney General Holder on the closure of additional Federal Prison Industries factories and warn of the gradual collapse of this important work program for prison inmates. I urge the attorney general to take immediate action to bolster the program. House of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC, September 20, 2011. Hon. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Dear Attorney General Holder: As you know, on September 13, 2011, the Federal Bureau of Prisons announced the closure of UNICOR operations at eleven institutions and the reduction of personnel at two other institutions. These actions are expected to result in the elimination of 74 staff positions and 325 inmate jobs. Unfortunately, this is a result of the UNICOR Board of Directors' projection that the corporation would suffer losses of $23 million in FY 2012 unless changes were made. These drastic reductions lead me to believe that you are presiding over the collapse of Federal Prison Industries (FPI). While I have worked to include language in the Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations bill to bolster FPI, it takes more than Congressional leadership to ensure that this institution will weather the challenging economic climate. What is needed is strong executive leadership to encourage other Federal agencies to purchase goods manufactured in UNICOR facilities. Therefore, I ask that you lead a corresponding effort to reverse this trend of downsizing at FPI. In prisons, work is dignity, and it is essential for prisoners' rehabilitation and successful reentry into society. Inmates need to learn skills and behavior that will enable them to succeed in a job outside of prison. There is no excuse for not ensuring that every Federal prisoner has a job. By working with OMB and other agencies, DOJ can assist in finding new or expanded opportunities for FPI in Federal contracts. Restoring FPI should be at the center of any plan to improve reentry programs for Federal prisoners. I would appreciate hearing from you promptly about ways you and the Department can exercise leadership within the Executive Branch to restore FPI and create more meaningful work opportunities for Federal inmates.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, before I begin, I want to thank Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ros-Lehtinen; ranking member, Mr. Berman; the Human Rights Committee chairman, Mr. Smith, who's been a champion on all of these issues from the very first day he got in here; and their staffs. The staffs have made all the difference in the world. I want to particularly thank the chairman's staff, Yleem Poblete and Doug Anderson, for their help, and also the leadership on both sides and my side, and the leadership staff who have really tried to work this and get this thing through. I'm going to say some things that hopefully are not too controversial, but I do want to thank them for getting this thing out and getting it moving because, if it didn't move today, it may very well come to an end. I rise in support of this critical legislation to reauthorize and reform the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. The sad truth, though, Madam Speaker, this bill has been held hostage by the other body--and keep the word ``hostage'' out there as we think in terms of what this bill would do and what's taking place around the world. And if we do not pass this bill in this form today, the likelihood of this Commission shutting down is very, very high. I wish I could name--I know the House rule--and I would name the members over there if anyone asks me, but it's being held hostage. Some in the other body are now saying that even these are not the changes that they would like to see to the Commission. And, quite frankly, I believe that some over there and this very administration would not mind seeing this Commission shut its doors. This was a bipartisan issue for years. Scoop Jackson, the leader, Jackson-Vanik, President Reagan. To my side, Reagan said the words in the Constitution were a covenant to the entire world, not just to the people in Philadelphia in 1787 but to the entire world. And yet religious freedom, often referred to as the first freedom, is central to our American values and should be featured prominently in foreign policy. But, sadly, the constituency for human rights and religious freedom issues is growing smaller and smaller in Washington and in this Congress. These issues have become second-class citizens in this Congress and in this town. There are no big law firms downtown. They're representing the Saudis. They're representing the Chinese. They're representing filth and garbage in certain cases, but no one represents human rights and religious freedom. So there are all the Members who have agonized and pushed and pulled and want to kill this. I'm concerned because as we stand here today and debate, and you've got to know this, Iraqi Christians are being killed. People who speak the same language as Jesus, the Aramaic language, and more biblical activity took place in Iraq than almost any other country other than Israel, they're being killed; and Iraqi women are being forced to do terrible things in order to keep their families. And there are some who don't want this bill to pass. They never talk about the Iraqi Christians. Yet many of them supported the Iraqi war and yet they say nothing. The Baha'is in Iran and Egypt are being marginalized, and I never hear a word said. Chinese Bishops. I can remember Congressman Smith took Holy Communion from Bishop Su. Bishop Su was arrested and has never been seen since, maybe once being forced into a public security police car and taken away. Protestant pastors are being arrested today as we speak in China, and yet this doesn't really seem to bother this place. It's almost like, Well, you know, what are we going do? You know, man does not live by bread alone. These are important issues. Go back to Scoop Jackson. Go back to Ronald Reagan. Go back to the Constitution. Go back to the Declaration of Independence. Shabaz Bhatti, the Christian minister in the government, was gunned down because of his faith, because he was a Christian. The Ahmadiyya Muslims in Pakistan are being persecuted. They're going through a very, very difficult time. There are the Coptic Christians. I was in Egypt in July, and the Coptic Christians--8.5 million--are going through a very difficult time. As Mr. Smith just said, anti-Semitism is running rampant. Anti- Semitism is running rampant in this world, and yet there are some who are trying to kill this Commission, for some reason, over in the other body. We're having such a hard time. The Buddhists in Tibet, they can't even have a picture of the Dalai Lama. Hu Jintao, who is the current President of China, was the one who cracked down on Tibet and raided all those monasteries, and yet, with this bill, some are just saying, Well, you know, I don't know, and I don't know, and I don't know. Though this bill is not what we originally planned, the Commission has said they can live with these provisions so that the Commission may remain a reliable voice for the world's persecuted people. As Mr. Smith said, there probably is not a time that you do need this Commission more than now. Since the passage of this legislation, religious freedom has been elevated at times in U.S. foreign policy, but it still does not enjoy the preeminence it deserves. Sadly, a strong U.S. voice on these critical issues has arguably never been more needed. The Commission faces extinction at the end of the month. Members of Congress know, if you knock this bill down, if you want to kill this Commission and if they vote ``no,'' it will go out of business by the end of this month if the Congress fails to pass it. Just yesterday, as Mr. Smith said, the State Department released its annual International Religious Freedom Report. In the report, several challenges to religious freedom were pinpointed. People around the world continue to face violent extremist attacks, apostasy and blasphemy laws, repression, and anti-Semitism. According to a Pew Research Study released in 2009, one-third of all nations, containing 70 percent of the world's population, severely restrict religious freedom. I want to thank again Ms. Ros-Lehtinen and Mr. Berman and my good friend Mr. Smith and their staffs. I don't know what we would say to the Christian community around the world and to the Baha'is and to those concerned about anti-Semitism and the Buddhist community in Tibet and the Uyghurs in China if this thing fails to pass. They would say, What's taking place in Washington? Why is this no longer an issue that this Congress and this administration care about? So I would hope we should pass it. I think we should have a roll call vote. Every Member should stand up and explain what they're going to do. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ros-Lehtinen, Ranking Member Berman, Human Rights Subcommittee Chairman Smith, and their staffs for working tirelessly in a bipartisan manner to continue to fight for those who are persecuted for their religious beliefs. I would like to particularly thank the chairman's staffers, Yleem Poblete and Doug Anderson, for their help. Thank you also to our leadership for bringing this bill to the floor. I rise in support of this critical legislation to reauthorize and reform the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF). The sad truth is that this bill has been held hostage in the other body, and if we do not pass this bill in the form it is in today, the commission will shut down. Some in the other body are now saying that even these are not the changes they would like to see to the commission, and quite frankly, I believe that some over there and this very administration would not mind if the commission were to shut its doors. Religious freedom, often referred to as the first freedom, is central to our American values and should be featured prominently in U.S. foreign policy. Sadly, the constituency for human rights and religious freedom issues is growing smaller and smaller in Washington and in Congress. These issues have become second class citizens in this Congress. I am deeply concerned because, as we stand here and debate this bill, Iraqi Christians are being killed, Baha'is are being marginalized in Iran, Chinese bishops and Protestants pastors sit in jail, Christian and Ahmadis continue to be repressed in Pakistan, Coptic Christians are having a difficult time in Egypt, and anti-Semitism is growing around the world. Though this bill is not what we originally planned, the commission has said they can live with these provisions so that the commission may remain a reliable voice for the world's persecuted people. Recognizing that this critical issue and other human rights related issues are often relegated to the sidelines within the State Department, I authored legislation more than 10 years ago, in 1998, to establish the International Religious Freedom Office at the State Department, headed by an ambassador at-large, and to create the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF)--an independent, bipartisan Federal Government commission, charged with monitoring the status of freedom of religion or belief abroad and providing policy recommendations to the President, Secretary of State, and Congress. Since the passage of this legislation religious freedom has been elevated within U.S. foreign policy. But it still does not enjoy the preeminence it deserves. And sadly, a strong U.S. voice on this critical issue has arguably never been more needed. USCIRF faces extinction at the end of this month if Congress fails to pass the bill before us today and it is not signed into law. Just yesterday, the State Department released its annual International Religious Freedom Report. In the report, several challenges to religious freedom were pinpointed. People around the world continue to face violent extremist attacks, apostasy and blasphemy laws, repression, and anti-Semitism. According to a Pew Research Study released in December 2009, one-third of all nations, containing 70 percent of the world's population, severely restrict religious freedom. This legislation will reauthorize the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom until September 30, 2013. USCIRF, unlike the State Department, is unencumbered by the impulse to maintain good bilateral relations above all else . . . an impulse which sadly can result in critical issues of religious freedom being sidelined in the pursuit of broader foreign policy goals. USCIRF regularly holds briefings and hearings on and off the Hill and is frequently called upon to provide expert witness testimony to Congress. Just in the last year the commission has taken a leadership role on a series of key issues. It was quick to recognize the strategic importance and courageous voice of the late Shabaz Bhatti, Pakistan's federal minister of Minorities Affairs, an outspoken critic of his nation's draconian blasphemy laws. During a critical time for the people of Sudan, the USCIRF issued special recommendations on the implementation of the historic Comprehensive Peace Agreement. It made a series of policy recommendations aimed at preserving and protecting Iraq's besieged religious minorities. It has actively worked with dozens of Hill offices on combating the ``defamation of religions'' resolution before the United Nations. In short, ensuring that the commission is reauthorized is of paramount importance. In a Constitution Day speech, President Ronald Reagan famously described the United States constitution as ``a covenant we have made not only with ourselves, but with all of mankind.'' Passage of this legislation will go a long way in helping us keep that covenant. I urge my colleagues' support. We must let the world know that the U.S. Congress continues to believe in the importance of protecting the first freedom for every person in this world.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. I have a modification at the desk, and I ask unanimous consent for its consideration.

Mr. WOLF. I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WOLF. I want to personally thank Mr. Rogers and his staff for helping with regard to this amendment with regard to radicalization, and I also want to thank Mr. Ruppersberger. Also, as somebody who has served here for a number of years, I want to say that I don't think there have been two finer chairmen and ranking members of the Intelligence Committee since I've been here. I think it's very impressive to see that, and I just want everyone up here, particularly in the country, to know that. Very briefly, Madam Chair, this amendment deals with radicalization. I won't go into the whole statement, but I will just read several examples of radicalization that have taken place in northern Virginia. In October 2010, Farooque Ahmed from Ashburn, in my congressional district of Vienna, was arrested for allegedly plotting attacks on the Washington Metro system, targeting Metro stations to find optimal times to kill as many innocent people as possible. In July 2010, Zachary Chesser, a graduate of nearby Oakton High School, which is very close to where I live, was arrested in New York en route to join al Shabaab in Somalia. Late last year, Chesser pled guilty to charges of providing material support to terrorists, communicating threats and soliciting crimes of violence, and was sentenced to 30 years in prison. In November 2009, five American teenagers from Fairfax County, Virginia, were arrested in Pakistan, attempting to join militant Islamist organizations. They have been sentenced to 10 years in a Pakistan prison. In November 2009, Virginia native Army Major Nidal Hassan attacked Fort Hood in Texas and was charged with the shooting deaths of 13 service men and women and civilians. Hassan was a graduate of Virginia Tech and grew up in Arlington County and Roanoke, Virginia. In 2004, Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi from Falls Church, Virginia, was convicted on three charges of terrorist financing and conspiring to assassinate Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah and was sentenced to 23 years in jail. In 2003, Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, a northern Virginia resident and the Islamic Saudi Academy's 1999 valedictorian, was arrested in Saudi Arabia and was later convicted in Federal District Court in Alexandria of conspiracy to commit terrorism, including a plot to assassinate President Bush. He was sentenced to life in prison. Probably the number one terrorist threat today is Aulaqi, who is an American citizen and who went to college on American taxpayers' money. He was with a mosque in northern Virginia, in Falls Church, which used to be in my old congressional district. So this issue of radicalization is very important. Again, I want to thank the chairman and his staff and Mr. Ruppersberger and his staff. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Colonel Francis H. Dillon, Jr., a constituent of mine from Great Falls, Virginia, for his 31 years of service to our nation as he approaches his 90th birthday on September 10. I also want to call attention to the fact that his entire family has followed his example of service. Colonel Dillon served in the United States Army and began his service in 1943 during World War II in the 17th Airborne Division in which he saw combat action during the Battle of the Bulge, Operation Varsity, and the Allied invasion of Germany. He answered his nation's call a second time in 1950, recalled to active duty as an Intelligence Officer during the Korean War. Before retiring from the Army in 1974, he again served his country from 1968-1969 as he commanded the 525th Military Intelligence Group in Vietnam. In 1947, Colonel Dillon married Martha Getz and together they raised seven sons. Through his example of selfless service, each one of Colonel Dillon's seven sons served in the Armed Forces of the United States. Four of his sons served as career Army officers; Major Francis H. Dillon III (ret.) 20 years, Colonel Peter J. Dillon (ret.) 28 years, LTC Dan P. Dillon (ret.) 26 years and LTC James R. Dillon (ret.) 20 years. Colonel Dillon's second son, Thomas C. Dillon, is a 1975 graduate of the United States Naval Academy and served on active duty in the Navy for nine years. Two of Colonel Dillon's sons served in the National Guard and United States Army Reserve. Sergeant Timothy D. Dillon served in the Connecticut National Guard for four years and the youngest of the seven sons, Major Douglas M. Dillon continues to serve in the United States Army Reserve as a Civil Affairs Officer. Colonel Dillon's sons have served in numerous overseas contingency operations including Operation Desert Shield/Storm, Kosovo, Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan) and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Colonel Dillon has four grandchildren who are also current members of Armed Forces. Captain Peter J. Dillon Jr. serves as an Army doctor and is currently deployed to Afghanistan. Duncan Dillon is in his third year at the United States Air Force Academy, Timothy Dillon Jr. is a Private First Class in the Idaho National Guard and enrolled in the University of Idaho Reserve Officer Training Course program and granddaughter, Julie Dillon, just entered her first year at the United States Military Academy at West Point. Two of Colonel Dillon's daughters-in-law have also served in the United States Army. Captain Patricia Dillon served for six years and LTC Maryanne Dillon (ret.) served for 20 years. Mr. Speaker, I salute Colonel Francis H. Dillon, Jr. and offer the appreciation of a grateful nation to him and his family for their dedicated service to America.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to thank Chairman Ros- Lehtinen for her support, Mr. Berman for his support, and Mr. Smith for his help. I also want to thank some key staff members whose hard work and efforts on the bill have not gone unnoticed: Elyse Anderson, Kalinda Stephenson, Yleem Poblete, Steve Stombres, and also Kyle Nevins with the majority leader's office. They have been very, very helpful, and I am grateful for their help. This past January, in the wake of increasing violence, targeted attacks, and heightened discrimination against Christians and other religious minorities in Iraq and Egypt, and persistent concerns in Afghanistan and Pakistan, among other nations, I introduced bipartisan legislation, H.R. 440, which would require the administration to appoint a special envoy to advocate for religious minorities in the Middle East and South Central Asia in order to make this issue a foreign policy priority. Since introduction, this legislation has garnered widespread bipartisan support with nearly 80 cosponsors. I want to thank Anna Eshoo, the lead Democrat in the House, for her work on this. Also, companion legislation has been introduced now by Senators Roy Blunt and Carl Levin. The legislation has also been championed by a host of faith-based organizations and diaspora communities, who recognize the importance of ensuring that the vulnerable communities have an advocate within the U.S. Government and around the world. Shortly before introducing this legislation, I chaired a hearing at the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission on the recent spate of attacks and the ongoing persecution of Christians in Iraq and Egypt. Commission members heard testimony about the increasing sectarian tensions in the two countries and the need for greater U.S. attention to the plight of religious minorities. The hearing was held prior to recent events in the Middle East which have, in some cases, created a political vacuum that have left religious minorities particularly vulnerable. I heard this fear expressed time and again during a recent trip to Egypt. Religious minorities throughout the region, including those who are Jewish, Ahmadis, Baha'is, are under increasing pressure. In fact, many of these ancient faith communities have been forced to flee the lands that they have inhabited for centuries. Consider some of the following: Last October, at least 70 people were killed during a siege on Our Lady of Salvation Church in Baghdad, making it the worst massacre of Iraqi Christians since 2003. Iraq's once vibrant Christian community population has been reduced by at least half since 2003. This would be tragic under any circumstances, but it is especially so given the rich ancestral heritage of this indigenous community. Apart from Israel, the lands and peoples of modern-day Iraq are mentioned with greater frequency in the Bible than any other country. Abraham, Jonah, Nineveh, Esther, and Daniel all hail from Iraq. The Christians of Iraq today still speak Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, countries where the United States has invested its treasure and the lives of countless brave American soldiers, persecution of Christians runs rampant. On November 7 last year, a Pakistani court sentenced Aasia Bibi, a Christian mother of five, to death for the crime of blasphemy. Only after intervention by the international community was her execution delayed. Her fate still remains, at this moment, unclear. Pakistan's blasphemy laws are often used to victimize both religious minorities and Muslims. Earlier this year, Punjab's influential Governor, Salman Taseer, was shot and killed by his own bodyguard, who reportedly told police that he, quote, killed Mr. Taseer because of the Governor's opposition to Pakistan's blasphemy law. In April, Pakistan's Federal Minister for Minority Affairs, Shahbaz Bhatti, a heroic man of faith whose courageous and outspoken leadership against his nation's draconian blasphemy law made him a prime target of extremist Islamist elements in his country, was assassinated. Bhatti was the only Christian member of the Pakistani Cabinet. In an interview with The Washington Post's Fred Hiatt, Shahbaz Bhatti ``urged Americans not to forsake or forget'' Pakistan's suffering religious minority community. Members of the Jewish faith continue to experience discrimination and persecution throughout the region. The Special Envoy for Anti-Semitism, Hannah Rosenthal, has noted that Holocaust glorification ``is especially virulent in the Middle East media.'' If the international community fails to speak out, the prospects for religious pluralism and tolerance in the region are bleak. I urge my colleagues' support for this bill, and again thank the leadership on both sides for making this legislation a priority. I am hopeful that this bill will overwhelmingly pass the House and send a clear and unequivocal message to both the persecutors and the persecuted that the United States of America stands with those whose most basic freedom-- the right to worship according to the dictates of conscience--is under assault.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I submit additional concerns about the President's nomination of Matthew Olsen to lead the National Counterterrorism Center. During a May 7, 2009, Senate hearing, Attorney General Eric Holder said,``With regard to those you would describe as terrorists, we would not bring them into this country and release them, anyone we would consider to be a terrorist.'' It is now well known from numerous press accounts, including Newsweek, The Washington Post, and National Journal, that the Obama Administration's Guantanamo Review Task Force, led by Matthew Olsen, recommended the transfer and release of at least two Uyghur detainees, who were members of a recognized terrorist group, to the United States in April 2009. The secret transfer was to take place on or around May 1, 2009. The Uyghur detainees held at Guantanamo Bay are trained terrorists and members or associates of the Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM), a designated terrorist group affiliated with al Qaeda, as designated by both the U.S. government and the United Nations. Whether their intended victims were Chinese or Americans, a trained terrorist is a terrorist, under U.S. immigration law. According to testimony and government documents, many of the Uyghur detainees have admitted to training at ETIM camps in Tora Bora under the direction of ETIM leader Abdul Haq prior to their capture by Pakistani authorities in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan. By recommendation of the task force led by Mr. Olsen, the Uyghur detainees were to be secretly settled in an apartment in northern Virginia under an unknown immigration statute. The immigration status of these detainees remains one of the critical unknown questions surrounding this failed effort. A careful reading of U.S. immigration law shows a broad and strict ban on the entry of any member of a terrorist organization. As a former special counselor to the attorney general, Mr. Olsen should have been well aware of the strict statutory restrictions that would bar the admission of any alien who is affiliated with a recognized terrorist organization into the U.S. As the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence considers Mr. Olsen's nomination to lead the National Counterterrorism Center, they should carefully consider his judgment in recommending the legally-questionable secret release of the Uyghur detainees into the U.S. Under Title 8, Chapter 12 of U.S. Code on ``Inadmissible Aliens,'' the law clearly and unconditionally bars a member, representative or associate of a recognized terrorist organization from receiving any sort of visa, refugee or asylum to the U.S. The law prohibits entry to the U.S. for any individual who has ``engaged in a terrorist activity'' or is ``a representative of a terrorist organization,'' ``a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity,'' ``is a member of a terrorist organization,'' ``endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization,'' or ``has received military-type training from or on behalf of any organization that, at the time the training was received, was a terrorist organization.'' The only limited exception to this strict ban is for the attorney general to exercise ``parole'' status into the U.S. for a limited amount of time in the case of ``significant public benefit.'' If this option were to be exercised, it would conflict with the administration's stated intent to permanently settle the Uyghur detainees in the U.S. It also would raise serious questions about whether the task force, led by Mr. Olsen, recommended the settlement of terrorist detainees would have ``significant public benefit.'' The ETIM is a terrorist group that uses violence against civilians for the creation of an independent, Islamic state--in the image of the Taliban's Afghanistan--in the Xinjiang region of China. The group is linked to a number of terrorist attacks in China during the mid-1990s, including several bus bombings that killed dozens and injured hundreds of innocent civilians, as well as threats of attacks against the 2008 Olympics in Beijing. Over the past decade, the group has predominantly operated out of Afghanistan and Pakistan and has developed close links with al Qaeda and the Taliban. On August 19, 2002, then Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage designated the ETIM as ``a terrorist group that committed acts of violence against unarmed civilians.'' The group was designated by the State Department under Executive Order 13224, ``Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism,'' which defines terrorist as ``activity that (1) involves a violent act or act dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure; and (2) appears to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, kidnapping, or hostage-taking.'' In 2004, the State Department further added the ETIM to the ``Terrorist Exclusion List'' (TEL) under section 411 of the USA Patriot Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-56), which prohibits members of designated terrorist groups from entering into the U.S. Later in 2002, the U.S. Embassy in Beijing reported that two members of the ETIM were deported from Kyrgyzstan after allegedly plotting to attack the U.S. embassy there. Following the attempted attack, the U.S., Peoples Republic of China, Afghanistan, and Kyrgyzstan asked the United Nations to designate the ETIM as a terrorist group under Security Council resolutions 1267 and 1390, which provide for the freezing of the group's assets. In April 2009--the same month the release of the Uyghur detainees was being planned--the Obama Administration added the current leader of the ETIM (also recognized as the ETIP), Abdul Hag, to terrorist lists under Executive Order 13224, following U.N. recognition of Haq, under Security Council Resolution 1267, as an individual affiliated with Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, or the Taliban. According to Stuart Levey, Treasury under secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, ``Abdul Haq commands a terror group that sought to sow violence and fracture international unity at the 2008 Olympic Games in China.'' The ETIM's relationship with al Qaeda has grown since it was invited by the Taliban to conduct training in Afghanistan in the late 1990s, followed by the move of the ETIM headquarters from the Xianjang region to Kabul in September 1998.9 By 2005, Abdul Haq had been admitted to al Qaeda's ``Shura Council and on November 16, 2008, an al Qaeda spokesman ``stated that a Chinese citizen named `Abdul Haq Turkistani' was appointed by Osama bin Laden as the leader of two organizations--`al Qaeda in China' and `Hizbul Islam Li-Turkistan.'' This appointment was also confirmed by Abu Sulieman, a member of al Qaeda. It is abundantly clear that the Uyghur detainees held at Guantanamo Bay are affiliated with the ETIM and trained under Abdul Haq in 2001. According to the detainees' sworn statement to U.S. authorities, many acknowledged that they had trained in an ETIM training camp in Tora Bora from June to November 2001 and at least one confirmed, ``The person running the camp was named Abdul Haq.'' Following the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in fall 2001 cooperation between the ETIM and the Taliban increased. It is reported that the ETIM's leader prior to Abdul Hag, Hasan Mahsum, ``led his men to support Taliban and fight alongside them against U.S. and the coalition forces. On 2 October 2003, Hasan Mahsum was killed, along with 8 other Islamic militants, by a Pakistani army raid on an al Qaeda hideout in South Waziristan area in Parkistan.'' Additionally, a January 2008 al Qaeda in Afghanistan publication, ``Martyrs in Time of Alienation,'' identified 120 ``martyrs''-- including five Uyghurs from Xianjiang and who trained in Tora Bora--who fought with the Taliban in Afghanistan against U.S. troops. One is reported to have been killed fighting U.S. forces during the invasion in 2001. Hasan Mahsum confirmed, prior to his death in 2003, that ETIM members trained and fought with al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan. In addition to their affiliation in a designated terrorist organization and association with al Qaeda leader Abdul Hag, these detainees fervently believe in the creation of a Taliban-style Islamist state in northwestern China and do not share American values of respect, tolerance, and religious pluralism. In fact, one recent press account stated that, ``Not long after being granted access to TV [at Guantanamo], some of the [Uighurs] were watching a soccer game. When a woman with bare arms was shown on the screen, one of the group grabbed the television and threw it to the ground, according to the officials.'' Reports indicate that the ETIM's philosophy has dramatically evolved as a result of their training and cooperation with al Qaeda and the Taliban over the last decade. According to two experts, Rohan Gunaratna and Arabinda Acharya, ``In the post-9/11 era, ETIM began to believe in the global jihad agenda. Today, the group follows the philosophy of al- Qaeda and respects Osama bin Laden. Such groups that believe in the global jihad do not confine their targets to the territories that they seek to control . . . [The ETIM] is presenting a threat to Chinese as well as Western targets worldwide.'' Although the Uyghur detainees may not have been considered ``enemy combatants'' by the Obama Administration, U.S. immigration law clearly bars the admission of members of recognized terrorist groups. The Senate should carefully consider the legal steps that Mr. Olsen and his task force recommended be used to bring the ETIM detainees into the U.S. for permanent settlement. If his task force advocated exploiting limited ``parole'' entry for the detainees with the intended goal of permanent settlement, it would go against the letter and spirit of the law.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, America is in crisis mode today. We are up against a deadline to increase our nation's $14.3 trillion debt limit to meet its financial obligations. There was initial hope some weeks ago that with the president finally leading the talks with Republican and Democratic leaders in the House and Senate, we would see a plan to reverse the spending spiral. But we've been waiting and waiting and watching and watching for that puff of white smoke to come over the White House to signal to the American people that their government leaders have come together and agreed on a plan and disaster has been averted. Regrettably, we still wait as the debt clock ticks toward the nation's default. What has been so frustrating to me to watch over the past months is that everyone knows that our country is awash in red ink, everyone knows that our country is spending and borrowing too much, everyone knows that entitlement spending is unsustainable, everyone knows that job creation is stagnant with unemployment today hovering around 9 percent. I've been sounding this alarm for five years. Everyone knows all this and yet here we are today without the president, who has been leading the debt negotiations, putting pen to paper on a plan for all to see. But the House today is saying to the American people that we can't continue to sit around and wait as our debt grows and the risk of national decline and a downgrading of our nation's credit rating become visible over the horizon. The House today has a plan before it. The majority Republicans are offering the Cut, Cap and Balance plan. It reduces spending now, caps future spending and says we must balance our budget. Is it a perfect plan? No. I don't agree with all the numbers and the priorities. There are changes I would make and different policies I would include. But we are at the point today that we cannot allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good. We have to lay down a marker, move the process forward and continue to work for a balanced plan to put America on a path to financial responsibility. As we listen to some call for a plan that includes more ``revenue,'' I want to be clear that I don't support raising taxes on American families. I believe any responsible plan must take a look at reforming and simplifying the tax code to allow hard-working Americans to keep more of their own money and to spur individual savings and small business job creation. A balanced plan also must look at the reasons that have allowed the ethanol industry to become one of the most subsidized industries in the United States and other businesses to flourish because of direct spending through earmarks in the tax code. We must also look at certain tax earmarks and expenditures on the books which allow entities, such as General Electric, to not only owe no federal taxes, but to also claim a multimillion dollar tax benefit. I also believe a balanced plan must include a mechanism to force Congress and the president to live within our nation's means. That's why I have long supported a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. As I mentioned earlier, I have been trying to get the attention of Congress and past and present administrations on the debt crisis facing our country. My message has been simple: If America continues on its debt and deficit track, we edge closer and closer to the financial cliff and cede our standing as the world's leading nation. I have called for a bipartisan solution that puts all options on the table and fully addresses ways to reverse our current deficit spending track and also our nation's unfunded obligations, which are the real drivers of our debt. This includes all entitlements--Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--and other mandatory spending, defense spending, discretionary spending, and tax policy, namely the closing of tax loopholes and tax earmarks. The Bowles-Simpson commission offered a plan with everything on the table, and I was anxious to have the chance to vote on it, but the president, as did the Congress, walked away from the report last December of the very group he created. I was pleased to see the ``Gang of Six'' senators pick up the broad outlines of Bowles-Simpson and continue to work together this year on a comprehensive deficit reduction plan. The news earlier today that the Gang of Six has offered a path forward and that a large group of senators from both sides of the aisle is reacting positively to the plan is very encouraging. I do not want the United States to default from a failure to raise the debt limit. The full faith and credit of the United States is on the line. Without an agreement, the cost to every American to borrow will rise, from home loans to car loans to student loans; the checks the Treasury writes will pick winners and losers. It is precisely because the stakes are so high that I vote today for H.R. 2560 with the fervent hope that it will force the president and the House and Senate to come together and embrace a realistic and balanced deficit and debt reduction plan like the one recommended by Bowles-Simpson and the Gang of Six that puts our nation on sound financial footing for not only today, but for our children and grandchildren's generations.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I submit a letter I sent to Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Dianne Feinstein opposing the President's nomination of Mr. Matthew Olsen to lead the National Counterterrorism Center. House of Representatives July 14, 2011. Hon. Dianne Feinstein, Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Feinstein: I write in opposition to Mr. Matthew Olsen's nomination to serve as director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), which is located in my congressional district. I believe Mr. Olsen exercised questionable judgment and made misleading statements while serving as the special counselor to the attorney general and executive director of the Obama Administration's Guantanamo Review Task Force, where he led the interagency process to implement the president's executive order that led to the release of a number of dangerous terrorist detainees held at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. Dozens of high risk terrorist detainees recommended for release by the task force led by Mr. Olsen were released abroad to dangerously unstable countries, including Yemen, Somalia and Afghanistan. As then-ranking member and now chairman of the House Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations subcommittee--which funds the Justice Department, Federal Bureau of Investigations, Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Marshals Service and which helped fund the NCTC's predecessor, the Terrorist Threat Integration Center--I was disturbed by decisions and statements made by Mr. Olsen in 2009 while he led the task force. These concerns have deepened based on new information that has come to light in recent articles from Newsweek, The Washington Post, The National Journal and The Weekly Standard. These reports have raised troubling questions about Mr. Olsen's leadership of the task force and his actions in response to White House influence. Additionally, my personal interactions with Mr. Olsen, as well as these subsequent news reports, lead me to conclude that he was not forthright with the Congress and may have changed detainee assessments under political pressure from administration officials. I believe these are troubling concerns which deserve a thorough investigation and should give the Senate serious pause as it considers who should lead the NCTC. I have visited the NCTC on several occasions and have met with a number of its former directors, as well as the former and current directors of National Intelligence. I have seen firsthand the critical work that is done by the center and fully understand the need for an independent, capable and principled director to lead the operation. There are three concerns that have led me to oppose Mr. Olsen's nomination. First, it is clear to me that in order to achieve the president's promise to close Guantanamo Bay during his first year in office, Mr. Olsen may have been susceptible to the immense political pressure placed on the interagency task force to re-classify detainee threat levels. Second, it has become clear that Mr. Olsen's task force may have altered some detainee assessments--overturning Department of Defense assessments--in order to clear and expedite the release of a large number of detainees. Third, I have recently learned that Mr. Olsen was not forthright with me and my staff about the effort to release a number of Uighur detainees to northern Virginia in 2009. Attached is a white paper that addresses these concerns in greater detail. Leading the NCTC is a serious responsibility and requires a director that is exceptionally experienced, forthcoming, trustworthy and has good judgment. The analyses and recommendations provided by the NCTC have direct bearing on the safety of the American people. The director must be able to withstand political pressure from all sides, facilitate the complete and straightforward sharing of information and ensure unbiased analysis. I do not question Mr. Olsen's professional qualifications for this position, but from my observations of his recent leadership positions, I believe that he lacks the judgment to lead the NCTC. I am willing to testify about my concerns during your committee's upcoming confirmation hearing for Mr. Olsen. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 202-225-5136 to discuss any of this information. Best wishes. Sincerely, Frank R. Wolf, Chairman, Commerce-Justice-Science Subcommittee, House Appropriations Committee. Summary of Concerns Regarding Mr. Olsen's Leadership and Actions as Executive Director of the Obama Administration's Guantanamo Review Task Force 1. Questionable altering of Guantanamo Bay detainee assessments I am concerned about new information reported by The Weekly Standard about the assessments of detainees who were transferred abroad in 2009. Throughout that year, I repeatedly wrote the president and attorney general expressing concern over the release of certain detainees believed to be threats by the Department of Defense (DOD). I was also deeply concerned that detainees were being released to dangerously unstable countries, such as Yemen, Somalia and Afghanistan. Despite my warnings in the fall of 2009, detainees continued to be released to these countries until the administration was forced to halt releases to Yemen following the attempted attack by the Christmas Day bomber, who trained in Yemen with al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. According to a July 13, 2011, article in The Weekly Standard, ``[Olsen's] task force approved most of the detainees remaining at Guantanamo for transfer, clearing the way for the Obama administration to empty most of the detention facility's cells. But a review of leaked detainee threat assessments reveals that many of the detainees approved for transfer [by Olsen's task force] were deemed ``high'' risks by Joint Task Force Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO), which oversees the detention and interrogation of detainees. Moreover. JTF-GTMO recommended that most of these detainees be retained in U.S. custody--precisely the opposite of the task force's recommendations.'' The article continues, ``In its final report, dated January 22, 2010, Olsen's task force reported that 126 detainees, out of a total of 240, were 'approved for transfer.' Olsen's task force approved roughly 2 out of every 3 (65 percent) Guantanamo detainees for transfer, JTF-GTMO recommended that approximately 1 out of every 4 (25 percent) be transferred.'' There is one case in particular that serves as a good example of the troubling discrepancy between Olsen's recommend release of a detainee that JTF-GTMO considered to be ``high'' risk. In early 2010, I wrote White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan about one detainee, Ayman Batarfi, whom the DOD believed to be closely connected to al Qaeda's anthrax program. Brennan forcefully rejected my concerns about Batarfi. However, as a recent Weekly Standard article notes: ``A recently leaked threat assessment prepared at Guantanamo draws into question the Obama administration's analysis of a detainee [Batarfi] who was transferred to Yemen shortly before all future transfers to the unstable nation were suspended.'' ``Brennan decided to answer Wolf's challenge by sending a letter on White House stationery to then-House speaker Nancy Pelosi on February 1, 2010. ABC News obtained a copy of the letter and published it online. Brennan wrote: `During the briefing on January 13, Representative Wolf made allegations that one detainee repatriated to Yemen had been involved in weapons of mass destruction. As it has done in every case, the task force thoroughly reviewed all information available to the government about this individual and concluded that there is no basis for the assertions Representative Wolf made during this session. I am attaching a classified addendum to this letter that addresses these concerns directly.' ``But a recently leaked April 29, 2008, threat assessment prepared by Joint Task Force Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO) contains numerous references to Batarfi's ties to al Qaeda's anthrax program. These connections were made through a known al Qaeda front named al Wafa, which employed Batarfi and provided cover for al Qaeda's pre-9/11 pursuit of an anthrax capability . . . ``For all of these reasons, and more. Batarfi was deemed a `high risk' who is `likely to pose a threat to the U.S.. its interests, and allies' by the JTF-GTMO team. Batarfi was also considered to be of `high intelligence value.' '' This newly leaked 2008 assessment raises serious questions about why Olsen's task force didn't include the DOD's information about Batarfi's ties to the al Qaeda anthrax program as well as their judgment that Batarfi was, in fact, ``likely to pose a threat to the U.S.'' This information raises questions about the integrity of the task force's review and whether undue political pressure to release more detainees led task force members to doctor detainee assessments. The Weekly Standard's Thomas Jocelyn succinctly posits in the July 13, 2011, article, ``It is clear that the Guantanamo Review Task Force, headed by Matthew Olsen, approved a large number of `high' risk transfers. The senators presiding over Olsen's confirmation hearing may want to ask: Why?'' 2. Political pressure on the Guantanamo Bay Detainee Task Force I am concerned about political pressure placed on Olsen and the task force by administration officials. Although the administration asserts that the task force was independent, it is clear that the task force reported directly to the White House and participated in meetings led by White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. According to the April 23, 2011, Washington Post article: ``In late April [2009], Obama heard some jarring news during a Situation Room meeting with the interagency task force reviewing the case of every detainee at Guantanamo. ``The president asked Matthew G. Olsen, the Justice Department lawyer heading the task force, approximately how many Guantanamo detainees could be prosecuted, according to administration officials. ``Probably fewer than 20, Olsen said. ``The president seemed peeved that the number was so small, in contrast with the optimistic predictions during his election campaign that nearly all of the remaining detainees could face trial or be transferred. The number would eventually rise to 36.'' I am concerned that pressure from White House officials may have led Olsen and his task force to inflate the number of cases eligible for prosecution from ``fewer than 20'' to the 36 that were ultimately provided to the administration. The nearly 100 percent increase in the number of cases brought forward for prosecution following the president's comment merits a serious review of whether political pressure led the task force to alter its independent assessment of detainees. The recent Weekly Standard analysis notes, ``[Olsen's] task force approved only 35 percent of the detainees for indefinite detention or prosecution, whereas JTF-GTMO recommended that roughly 75 percent be retained in DoD custody.'' This dramatic shift in the number of cases recommended by Mr. Olsen raise serious questions about whether pressure from the president and other administration officials led him to inflate the number of detainees recommended for trial. 3. Misleading Congress about the transfer of Uighur detainees to the United States It has become clear that the administration was directing Mr. Olsen to intentionally withhold information from members of Congress and he willingly complied with their inappropriate direction. According to Newsweek The Washington Post and The National Journal, the administration was planning a secret transfer and settlement of at least two Uighur detainees to northern Virginia in April 2009. Each of these reports indicates the degree to which the White House attempted to hide this effort from the Congress and the public. According to a May 2009, article in Newsweek, White House officials are alleged to have been particularly concerned about Republican members of Congress being made aware of the secret transfer. Newsweek reported, ``As part of their efforts to shut down the Guantanamo Bay detention center, Obama Administration officials were poised in late April to make a bold, stealthy move: they instructed the U.S. Marshals Service to prepare an aircraft and a Special Ops group to fly two Chinese Uighurs, and up to five more on subsequent flights, from Gitmo to northern Virginia for resettlement. In a conference call overseen by the National Security Council, Justice and Pentagon officials had been warned that any public statements about Gitmo transfers would inflame congressional Republicans, according to a law-enforcement official who asked not to be named discussing internal deliberations.'' (This operation appears similar to the administration's secret transfer of Somali terrorist Ahmed Abdulkadir Warsame to New York City for civilian trial on July 5 after spending two months on a U.S. Navy ship). It has recently come to my attention that I was misled about the status of the transfer of the Uighur detainees in April 2009. This information confirms the Newsweek report that career federal employees were explicitly directed to hide this information from members of Congress, especially Republican members. During an April 22, 2009, meeting in my office with members of the Guantanamo Bay Detainee Review Task Force, including Mr. Olsen, I inquired about the status of the potential transfer of Uighur detainees to the United States. Mr. Olsen indicated that a decision had not yet been reached on the transfer of the detainees. None of the other career or political officials in the meeting countered Mr. Olsen's assertion. That is why I was deeply concerned to learn in an April 2011, Washington Post article, that the final decision on the transfer of the Uighur detainees had been made during a White House meeting eight days before my meeting with Mr. Olsen. According to The Washington Post article, ``The first concrete step toward closing the detention center was agreed upon during an April 14, 2009, session at the White House. `It was to be a stealth move . . . They were going to show up here, and we were going to announce it,' said one senior official, describing the swift, secretive operation that was designed by the administration to preempt any political outcry that could prevent the transfer.'' Following the publication of this article in April, I personally called Mr. Olsen to ask whether he was aware at the time of my meeting with him on April 22, 2009, that a decision had already been made on the transfer of the detainees. He told me that he had been aware of the decision prior to our meeting. I believe that I was intentionally misled by Mr. Olsen and other administration officials during my April 22 meeting with the task force. I also am concerned that the attorney general did not acknowledge that a decision had been made when he appeared before the House Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations subcommittee the following day. That is why I was surprised when my office was notified by a career federal employee that the administration was misleading the Congress and planned to secretly transfer the detainees around May 1, 2009. As Newsweek reported, ``Then on May 1, Virginia GOP Rep. Frank Wolf got tipped off. Furious, he fired off a public letter to President Obama, charging that the release of the Uighurs--Muslim separatists opposed to the Chinese government--could `directly threaten the security of the American people.' White House officials were not happy . . . The flight never took off.''

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I submit a copy of my Egypt trip report. Purpose On June 26-28 I visited Egypt to meet with U.S. and host government officials and key civil society actors, specifically to address human rights and religious freedom concerns, especially during this critical time of transition. Meetings I met with U.S. Ambassador Margaret Scobey and received a modified country team brief from embassy staff. I spoke with U.S./Western print correspondents and saw Tahrir Square--site of recent pro-democracy protests. I met with nearly a dozen Christian, Muslim, Baha'i, and youth activists, including a leading evangelical minister, Coptic youth leader and prominent Baha'i blogger. I also discussed the country's transition with political activists, including 2005 presidential candidate and former political prisoner Ayman Nour, who is again seeking the presidency. I discussed interfaith dialogue with Sheikh Al-Azhar Ahmed Al-Tayyeb, the leading scholar in Sunni Islam, and met with Muslim Brotherhood official Essam El-Errian to caution the group to respect religious freedom. I worshiped in a Coptic Orthodox Church and visited St. Mary's Church in Imbaba (a Cairo suburb) which had been destroyed by radical Islamists on May 7. I also met with a woman who runs an orphanage and social services organization for the Christian ``zabaleen'' (trash collectors) in Cairo. I met with Deputy Foreign Minister Wafaa Bassim and other representatives of the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and raised concerns about human rights and the prospects of a transition to a true democracy. In my meetings with Egyptian government officials, I mentioned that this year I had introduced bipartisan legislation, H.R. 440, (which now has 75 cosponsors) that would create a Special Envoy position at the State Department to focus specifically on the challenges faced by religious minorities in key countries in the Middle East, including Egypt. The legislation was introduced in January, prior to the political unrest in Egypt, but has arguably never been more needed. Ancient religious minority communities, among them Coptic Christians, are important moderating influences and are critical to the future of a democratic and pluralistic Egypt. I met with representatives of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) including the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and International Republican Institute (IRI). Human Rights and Religious Freedom Coptic Orthodox and other Christians told me that they feared sectarian violence in the current political vacuum, and were concerned about continued discrimination in government hiring and building churches. They said that they welcomed the Government of Egypt's announced intention to draft a Unified Places of Worship Law, but cautioned that the few details that had emerged thus far indicate that the draft needs much work before it genuinely puts mosques and churches on equal footing. In my meetings with Baha'i leaders we discussed the community's continued difficulties in securing government documents like birth and marriage certificates. I intend to pursue this matter further with the Egyptian Government, pressing them to rescind the 1960 decree that closed Baha'i assemblies and seized their assets. In my meetings with Christian and secular Muslim democracy activists, I was informed that Islamist elements in Egypt seek an Iran-like theocratic state. Some interlocutors worried that the Egyptian Army favors Muslim Brothers and Salafists. Many agreed that if Islamists were to win in the upcoming elections they would allow ``one man, one vote, one time,'' thereby making their electoral victory irreversible. While meeting with senior representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) I sought to press them on their intentions. I raised concerned about the application of shariah law, especially as it relates to the rights of minorities, and made it clear that my concerns were shared by many in Washington. Freedom-loving people the world over should be very concerned if the MB comes to power in Egypt. We must not close our eyes to their stated plans. Democratic Transition Some Egyptian activists and most religious freedom advocates were pessimistic about the transition to date and prospects for a free, tolerant, and democratic government after elections. Several of these activists stressed that the best way to counter Islamists in the short run is to first draft a constitution and delay elections until democratic parties have formed and become operational. One activist went so far as to say that he was 80 percent sure Egypt would become an Islamist state akin to Iran unless the current transition process and timeline is altered. Activists also said that secular, pro-democracy parties need to take additional steps to get organized and build support across the sectarian divide. One human rights activist underscored the long-term importance of secular education and more interaction between Christian and Muslim youth. Recommendations In light of the meetings I had and the insights I gained, I came away with a number of broad-based policy recommendations: The U.S. Government should encourage the Egyptian Government to temporarily delay parliamentary elections, currently scheduled for September. Under the Mubarak regime free speech and freedom of assembly were curtailed, sectarian divisions were stoked and the press was restricted--some of these issues remain under the current transitional government and are not conducive to a healthy electoral process. In fact, at present, the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) and remnants of the former ruling party are best positioned for victory, in part because they are better organized and funded. We must recognize that elections are but a component of a true democracy and guard against the impulse to move too swiftly in a direction that would likely guarantee an MB victory. When the elections are held, independent international election monitors must be present and must be granted unfettered access to polling stations, etc. In my meetings with the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs I stressed that the credibility of any future election, whenever it takes place, would hinge on the involvement and presence of international observers. The importance of independent monitors and observers was underscored during my meetings with NDI and IRI. Their insight and election expertise is invaluable. The United States must seriously consider conditioning U.S. foreign assistance, specifically military assistance, to Egypt. Since the Camp David Peace Accords, Egypt has received over $60 billion in U.S. foreign assistance--the second largest overall recipient of such funding. Given the Mubarak regime's human rights and religious freedom abuses, I have long believed this assistance should be conditioned on improvements in these areas. I understand that Egypt is a proud country with a rich history. However, at this time of historic transition in Egypt and tight budgetary times at home, U.S. taxpayer dollars ought not be given to a government that will persecute its own people. Aid to Egypt should be conditioned upon the government respecting and upholding universally recognized human rights norms. This is especially important as Egypt moves toward crafting a new constitution. It is imperative that this constitution is fully secular and include, among other things, religious freedom protections. Ultimately, foreign assistance, especially of this magnitude, is a key leverage point and should be used accordingly, particularly with the Supreme Council of the Egyptian Armed Forces (SCAF). Acknowledgements I would like to thank the U.S. embassy personnel, outgoing Ambassador Margaret Scobey, Peter Shea, my control officer, and Liz Colton for their assistance in making this trip possible and for their dedicated service to their country. I would also like to acknowledge the good work of the press in Egypt, some of whom I had the opportunity to meet. At a time of such monumental and rapid change they clearly had a read on the national pulse and their reporting of events in real time is critical. I would also like to thank the many civil society representatives I met, but for security reasons have opted not to mention by name, who gave a candid and courageous assessment of the challenges facing their country. Conclusion The Egyptian people have endured much over the years. The State Department's annual human rights report released in April found the following: The government limited citizens' right to change their government and extended a state of emergency that has been in place almost continuously since 1967. Security forces used unwarranted lethal force and tortured and abused prisoners and detainees, in most cases with impunity. Prison and detention center conditions were poor. Security forces arbitrarily arrested and detained individuals, in some cases for political purposes, and kept them in prolonged pretrial detention. The executive branch exercised control over and pressured the judiciary. The government partially restricted freedom of expression. The government's respect for freedoms of assembly, association, and religion was poor, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) continued to face restrictions. In the face of decades of human rights and religious freedom abuses under the Mubarak regime, successive U.S. administrations, including the Obama administration, failed to advocate for those whose voices were being silenced. Many pro-democracy activists and religious minorities that I spoke with while in Egypt felt abandoned by the West. At this historic time of transition, we must not make that mistake again. While there is a palpable sense of anticipation and even hope about what the future might hold for the Egyptian people, the outcome is far from guaranteed. There are reliable reports of human rights abuses and political repression following Mubarak's resignation. For example, a recently released Congressional Research Service report indicated that: The SCAF has warned news organizations that it is illegal to criticize the military in the press. A military court sentenced a blogger (Maikel Nabil) to three years in prison for insulting the military. Others have criticized the SCAF over press reports that female detainees in military custody were subject to ``virginity tests'' by doctors. Given the nature and extent of U.S. assistance to Egypt over the years, the U.S. military has developed good relations with the Egyptian military and we should leverage those ties as Egypt looks to transition from military to civilian rule. It will be critical for Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, among others, to engage with the SCAF. Ultimately, I believe that the majority of Egyptians of all faiths want democracy. The question is will it be taken away from them after a single election? Their yearning for true freedom and democracy must not be underestimated. We have a responsibility to stand with them and help them realize their aspirations.