Frank Wolf

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

Mr. WOLF. I would tell the gentleman that the President of the United States failed to do what he was elected to do--that was to lead this country--by rejecting the Simpson-Bowles commission recommendation. Mr. Chairman, President Obama supported and appointed the people to the Simpson-Bowles commission. Then we saw in the State of the Union message that none of the cuts that are being done tonight would have had to have been done had the President done what he should have done with regard to the Simpson-Bowles commission. If I had been appointed to the Simpson-Bowles commission, I would have been supportive of it. If Tom Coburn and Dick Durbin can be in support of it, hopefully we can come together in a bipartisan manner; but all of the opposition would not even have had to take place if the President had not failed to provide the leadership that he failed to provide. This bill makes deliberate choices within NASA to strike an appropriate balance between achieving budget savings, procurement support for NASA's $16 billion in annual contracts, and safety and mission assurance to prevent spaceflight accidents. To do this, you would almost guarantee that something could potentially happen. I teach security to prevent the Chinese from having cyber attacks. We had hearings the other day, and we learned that the Chinese have had cyber attacks against NASA's computers. This amendment would say that it's okay, that we can have the cyber attacks. We're going to put it somewhere else. In addition--and I see the gentlelady from Houston is here--this amendment will cost NASA's civil servants and contractors between 1,500 and 2,000 jobs. Had President Obama done what he should have done by appointing that commission, we wouldn't even have had any cuts here. We would have been doing what we had to do. Since we're talking about crime, Willie Sutton said he robbed banks. The reason he robbed banks is that that's where the money is. The money is in entitlements. Had we dealt with the Obama commission of Simpson-Bowles, we would not be where we are today. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman. It's my understanding that the gentleman is withdrawing the amendment. I want to thank the gentleman for raising some critically important points about the value of NASA's human exploration program and the need to fully support it. And no one is a stronger supporter of NASA than the gentleman from Texas, except maybe Mr. Culberson who is equally supportive. I share his concern with ensuring exploration is adequately funded and that NASA remains on a clear path to achieve the human space flight goals laid out in last year's authorization. I will be happy to work together as closely as we possibly can to finish FY 2011 and move forward into FY 2012 to maintain a robust human space flight program at NASA, just as Mr. Olson would like it to be. In doing so, I agree that it will be necessary to identify and eliminate duplicative, wasteful, or lower-priority activities in NASA's science programs or any other NASA account, for that matter, so that we can remain on a sustainable overall budget path. I look forward to working with the gentleman and our colleagues who support NASA and thank him for his continuing efforts in this area.

Mr. WOLF. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WOLF. I appreciate the gentleman's concern. He makes a very, very powerful point. I completely agree with him. These are important programs, as are many others in the bill, and we will ensure that as we review the FY 2011 spend plan that all NOAA's important activities are sufficiently funded. I also, I might say, have a large weather service presence in my district and appreciate their hard work, and it's one of the more important things that NOAA does with regard to the weather. I thank the gentleman for withdrawing his amendment, and I look forward and promise to work with him on these issues to resolve it, that we protect the issues that the gentleman's raising.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. WOLF. I continue to reserve my point of order.

Mr. WOLF. I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I must insist on my point of order. I wanted to just say, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) and the Members on the other side of the aisle. I share many of his concerns. However, as the gentleman knows, there is not an offset to this bill and the amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill. The amendment is not in order under section 3(j)(3) of House Resolution 5, 112th Congress, which states, ``It shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a general appropriations bill proposing a net increase in budget authority in the bill unless considered en bloc with another amendment or amendments proposing an equal or greater decrease in such budget authority pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI.'' The amendment proposes a net increase in the budget authority in the bill. Therefore, it is in violation of such section. I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. WOLF. I won't go into great length about it. The very fact that the President has failed to address the issue of entitlements, has walked away from his own commission, the Bowles-Simpson Commission that had the support of Senator Coburn and Senator Durbin, leads you to activity like this. Many times Members are frustrated to deal with this issue. We have $14 trillion of debt, and in the statement I gave on the floor several weeks ago, I said had I been a member of the commission, I would have voted for it. I think it was a missed opportunity. I also said that failure to address the issue of dealing with Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security will unfortunately result in many times the poor being hurt. In the Bible it says in Proverbs when you give to the poor, you loan to God, and I am sensitive to that. But the very fact that the administration, the President appoints the commission, comes out at a big press conference, and then walks away from it, leads you to some activity like this. This would wipe out Legal Services, so I strongly urge Members to oppose the amendment, and I urge Members to contact the White House and ask them to support entitlement reform in the Simpson-Bowles package.

Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. WOLF. Reclaiming my time, I believe that if President Reagan were President of the United States today, he would provide the leadership, because he did in saving Social Security. It was the Greenspan Commission, and he worked with them in a bipartisan way. I think if we had a President like Ronald Reagan, we would be resolving these issues. With that, I urge opposition to the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, last Sunday, February 6, marked the 100th year of Ronald Reagan's birth. I've always admired President Reagan, and as a Member elected in 1980 when his name was at the top of the ticket, my coming to Congress was described by some as ``riding Mr. Reagan's coattails.'' I have never considered that as a derogatory characterization. Just the opposite. I am grateful that I was serving in Congress during his Presidency and had a close-up view of his incredible influence not only in America, but on the world stage, especially in the area of human rights. As we reflect on Ronald Reagan's life and Presidency, I want to share a Wall Street Journal column by Peggy Noonan, a Reagan speechwriter who observed that ``being a good man helped him become a great one.'' [From the Wall Street Journal, Feb. 3, 2011] Ronald Reagan at 100 Being a good man helped him become a great one (By Peggy Noonan) Simi Valley, Calif.--At the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, in the foothills of the Santa Susana Mountain Range where old Hollywood directors shot Westerns, they will mark Sunday's centenary of Reagan's birth with events and speeches geared toward Monday's opening of a rethought and renovated museum aimed at making his presidency more accessible to scholars and vividly available to the public. Fifty percent of the artifacts, officials note, have never been shown before--essays and short stories Reagan wrote in high school and college, the suit he wore the day he was shot, the condolence book signed by world leaders at his funeral. (Margaret Thatcher: ``Well done, Thou good and faithful servant.'') Much recently has been written about who he was--a good man who became a great president--but recent conversations about Reagan have me pondering some things he was not. He wasn't, for instance, sentimental, though he's often thought of that way. His nature was marked by a characterological sweetness, and his impulse was to be kind and generous. (His daughter Patti Davis captured this last week in a beautifully remembered essay for Time.) But he wasn't sentimental about people and events, or about history. Underlying all was a deep and natural skepticism. That, in a way, is why he was conservative. ``If men were angels.'' They are not, so we must limit the governmental power they might wield. But his skepticism didn't leave him down. It left him laughing at the human condition, and at himself. Jim Baker, his first and great chief of staff, and his friend, remembered the other day the atmosphere of merriness around Reagan, the constant flow of humor. But there was often a genial blackness to it, a mordant edge. In a classic Reagan joke, a man says sympathetically to his friend, ``I'm so sorry your wife ran away with the gardener.'' The guy answers, ``It's OK, I was going to fire him anyway.'' Or: As winter began, the young teacher sought to impart to her third-graders the importance of dressing warmly. She told the heart-rending story of her little brother, a fun-loving boy who went out with his sled and stayed out too long, caught a cold, then pneumonia, and days later died. There was dead silence in the schoolroom as they took it in. She knew she'd gotten through. Then a voice came from the back: ``Where's the sled?'' The biggest misunderstanding about Reagan's political life is that he was inevitable. He was not. He had to fight for every inch, he had to make it happen. What Billy Herndon said of Abraham Lincoln was true of Reagan too: He had within him, always, a ceaseless little engine of ambition. He was good at not showing it, as was Lincoln, but it was there. He was knowingly in the greatness game, at least from 1976, when he tried to take down a sitting president of his own party. He was serious, and tough enough. Everyone who ever ran against him misunderstood this. He was an actor, they thought, a marshmallow. They'd flatten him. ``I'll wipe the smile off his face.'' Nothing could wipe the smile off his face. He was there to compete, he was aiming for the top. His unconscious knew it. He told me as he worked on his farewell address of a recurring dream he'd had through adulthood. He was going to live in a mansion with big rooms,``high ceilings, white walls.'' He would think to himself in the dream that it was ``a house that was as available at a price I could afford.'' He had the dream until he moved into the White House and never had it again. ``Not once.'' He ran for president four times and lost twice. His 1968 run was a flop--it was too early, as he later admitted, and when it's too early, it never ends well. In 1976 he took on an incumbent Republican president of his own party, and lost primaries in New Hampshire, Florida, Illinois (where he'd been born), Massachusetts and Vermont. It was hand-to-hand combat all the way to the convention, where he lost to Gerald Ford. People said he was finished. He roared back in 1980 only to lose Iowa and scramble back in New Hampshire while reorganizing his campaign and firing his top staff. He won the nomination and faced another incumbent president. In Reagan's candidacy the American people were being asked to choose a former movie star (never had one as president) who was divorced (ditto) and who looked like he might become the most conservative president since Calvin Coolidge. To vote for Reagan was not only to take a chance on an unusual man with an unusual biography, but also to break with New Deal-Great Society assumptions about the proper relationship between the individual and the state. Americans did, in a landslide--but only after Jimmy Carter's four years of shattering failure. None of it was inevitable. The political lesson of Ronald Reagan's life: Nothing is written. He didn't see himself as ``the great communicator.'' It was so famous a moniker that he could do nothing but graciously accept the compliment, but he well understood it was bestowed in part by foes and in part to undercut the seriousness of his philosophy: ``It's not what he says, it's how he says it'' He answered in his farewell address: ``I never thought it was my style or the words I used that made a difference: it was the content. I wasn't a great communicator, but I communicated great things.'' It wasn't his eloquence people supported, it was his stands--opposition to the too-big state, to its intrusions and demands, to Soviet communism. Voters weren't charmed, they were convinced. His most underestimated political achievement? In the spring of 1981 the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization called an illegal strike. It was early in Reagan's presidency. He'd been a union president. He didn't want to come across as an antiunion Republican. And Patco had been one of the few unions to support him in 1980. But the strike was illegal. He would not accept it. He gave them a grace period, two days, to come back. If they didn't, they'd be fired. They didn't believe him. Most didn't come back. So he fired them. It broke the union. Federal workers got the system back up. The Soviet Union, and others, were watching. They thought: This guy means business. It had deeply positive implications for U.S. foreign policy. But here's the thing: Reagan didn't know that would happen, didn't know the bounty he'd reap. He was just trying to do what was right. The least understood facet of Reagan's nuclear policies? He hated the rise of nuclear weapons, abhorred the long-accepted policy of mutually assured destruction. That's where the Strategic Defense Initiative came from, his desire to protect millions from potential annihilation. The genius of his program: When developed, America would share it with the Soviet Union. We'd share it with everybody. All would be protected from. doomsday. The Soviets opposed this; the Rejkavik summit broke up over it, and in the end the Soviets' arms spending helped bankrupt them and hasten their fall. Years later I would see Mikhail Gorbachev, who became Reagan's friend. He was still grumpy about Reagan's speeches. ``Ron--he loved show business!'' Mr. Gorbachev blustered. The losses of those years must have still rankled, and understandably. It's one thing to be outmaneuvered by a clever man, but to be outfoxed by a good one--oh, that would grate.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I want to share with our colleagues the sad news of the passing yesterday of Arthur W. ``Nick'' Arundel, founder of the Times Community newspapers and publisher of the Loudoun Times-Mirror and Fauquier Times-Democrat, at age 83 at his home at Merry Oak Farm near The Plains, Virginia, in the 10th Congressional District. I had the honor and pleasure of knowing Nick Arundel, a decorated Marine Corps officer, acclaimed local newspaper owner and publisher, community leader, land preservationist, animal conservationist, and philanthropist who leaves a legacy of accomplishment that may never be matched. On behalf of 10th District residents I offer sincere condolences to his wife, Peggy, their five children, and 11 grandchildren. Their son, Peter, is president and chairman of the board of Times Community newspapers. Mr. Speaker, I submit the obituary of Nick Arundel published in the Loudoun-Times Mirror of February 8. Arthur W. ``Nick'' Arundel, 1928-2011 On the eve of yet another honor in a long list of local, state, national and international acclaims, Loudoun Times- Mirror and Fauquier Times-Democrat publisher Arthur W. ``Nick'' Arundel died at his beloved Merry Oak Farm near The Plains, on Feb. 8. He was 83, and was to be named the Outstanding Virginian of 2011 by the Virginia General Assembly today. The son of Russell M. Arundel, a Pepsi-Cola executive and fox hunting enthusiast who once served as the chairman of the National Steeplechase and Hunt Association, and Marjorie Arundel, a renowned conservationist, Mr. Arundel took inspiration from both sides of the family. He played polo and raced steeplechase horses, was an avid rider and fox hunter and founded Great Meadow Field Events Center. Mr. Arundel raced Sugar Bee, the only Virginia-bred horse to win both the Maryland Hunt Cup and the Virginia Gold Cup at Great Meadow. In his career, Sugar Bee earned Timber Horse of the Year and National Stock Horse Association Horse of the Year honors. Mr. Arundel also was an early enthusiast and a lifelong energetic supporter of land conservation programs, helping launch and nurture conservation easement programs that have done much to preserve open space, agriculture and forestry in the northern Piedmont. Wildcat Mountain, site of Merry Oak Farm, was one of the first large tracts of land to be put in conservation easement in Fauquier County. Altogether, the Arundel family has put more than 5,000 acres under conservation easement. ``Growth over the years just ahead here will probably be greater than in all of the combined history of Fauquier County,'' Mr. Arundel wrote in a front-page statement of purpose in his first issue as owner of The Fauquier Democrat, which he bought in November 1974. ``It has the promise of creating opportunity for work and careers for young people here, which have not always been present. Growth must not and shall not happen at the price of destroying this county's beauty, natural heritage and its vital farm industry.'' Great Meadow perhaps is the Fauquier County crown jewel that perfectly aligns Mr. Arundel's interest in equestrian sport and land conservation. The 540-acre tract had been destined for houses on one-acre lots when Mr. Arundel purchased the boggy, low-lying property. ``In an increasingly crowded nation with such large pieces of land for these events gradually disappearing,'' Great Meadow Foundation trustees said in accepting Mr. Arundel's gift of the land, ``Great Meadow will provide a permanent, open-space green theater preserved from development to engage the graceful drama and color of these sports for the general public . . . For the community and legacy of these great sports, we are grateful for Mr. Arundel's characteristic thoughtfulness in making this possible.'' Born in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 12, 1928, Mr. Arundel grew up there and in Mason City, Iowa. He graduated from Harvard in 1951, a friend and classmate of Robert F. Kennedy, and served as a Marine Corps paratroop officer in Korea, where he was wounded, earning the Purple Heart. In 1954, Mr. Arundel parachuted behind the lines into Hanoi, leading a clandestine team to successfully destroy key installations there before Ho Chi Minh took over the city after the French loss at Dien Bien Phu. That would not be his last mission in southeast Asia. Mr. Arundel left the Marine Corps in 1955 with the rank of captain, but returned to serve his country as a paramilitary officer attached to the CIA in Vietnam. He was wounded there as well, earning a second Purple Heart. Mr. Arundel was fond of telling the story of convincing Edward R. Murrow that he had the skills and drive necessary to become a reporter. Murrow was apparently swayed by the young former Marine and sent Mr. Arundel to work as a Defense Department correspondent in the Washington bureau of CBS News. Mr. Arundel later joined United Press International, also covering the Defense Department. After a stint as a special assistant to the Secretary of Commerce, and with a bank loan of $75,000 and the courage of his convictions, Mr. Arundel purchased D.C.-area radio station WARL, a country music station, changing the name to WAVA. Arundel and his staff began reading wire service stories on the air when the popular morning announcer was killed in a car crash on his way to work. WAVA became, ``the first all-news station in the world,'' Mr. Arundel said. ``It's very pleasing to see that being carried on today . . . in television.'' Over the ensuing years, Mr. Arundel built Arundel Communications (ArCom, now Times Community Media), adding radio, television and, with the 1963 purchase of the Loudoun Times-Mirror, newspapers. ``I fell in love with print journalism and left broadcasting,'' Mr. Arundel said. ``I sold out of it. The money was in broadcasting, but the joy was in print. I was never in print journalism till I bought my first newspaper and walked in the door, sight unseen.'' Mr. Arundel bought what was then called the Fauquier Democrat in 1974. At the pinnacle of his career as a newspaper publisher, ArCom operated 17 weekly community newspapers in Fauquier, Culpeper, Prince William, Clarke, Loudoun and Fairfax counties. Politically active, Mr. Arundel was on a first-name basis with virtually every prominent Virginia politician and many others who walk the national stage. While still at Harvard, he served in an internship with then-U.S. Sen. Lyndon Johnson on Capitol Hill. He also ran the Virginia presidential campaign for Harvard classmate Robert F. Kennedy and threw his own hat into the ring for election to the Virginia Senate in the early '70s as a Democrat. Pragmatic and more concerned about leadership than party labels, Mr. Arundel endorsed a variety of candidates for public office on the editorial pages of his newspapers, including, most recently, Republican John McCain for president in 2008. ``In the first part of your life, you learn,'' Mr. Arundel said of the development of Great Meadow, which he donated to the nonprofit Great Meadow Foundation. ``In the second, you earn, and in the third, you give it all back.'' He remained in active pursuit of the last-named goal until the end of his life. Recent projects included the establishment of Morningside Training Farm, a 120-acre equestrian center at the very foot of the Merry Oak driveway. There, Mr. Arundel was building a training facility for every facet of equestrian sport. He also was actively engaged in the Journey Through Hallowed Ground, which he founded and for which he served as chairman. Mr. Arundel was a founder and president of Friends of the National Zoo; the first chairman of George Mason College (now George Mason University); a founder and president of Piedmont Environmental Council; founder of the U.S. Marine Corps Heritage Center in Quantico; co-founder of the National Press Foundation; co-founder of the Washington Journalism Center, co-founder and past president of the African Wildlife Foundation; and a member of the Board of Visitors of Harvard's Kennedy Center of Government, Duke University's Public Affairs Institute, the Monticello Founders Board, the Virginia Higher Education Business Council, National Sporting Library, National Military History Museum, Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, George Washington University, Waterford Foundation, Fresh Air/Full Call Campaign, the Virginia Racing Commission, and the Americans at War Foundation. He was inducted into the Hall of Fame of Virginia Communications in 2001. Mr. Arundel was married for 53 years to his wife Peggy, nee Margaret C. McElroy, of Philadelphia, who survives him. The couple had five children, all of whom also survive-- Mrs. Donald DeWees, of Wilmington, Del.; Peter W. Arundel, of McLean; Wendy Arundel, of Sherborn, Mass.; John Arundel, of Alexandria; Thomas B. Arundel, of Washington, D.C.; and 11 grandchildren. Peter Arundel is president and chairman of the board of Times Community Media, the parent company of the Loudoun Times-Mirror, as well as the Fauquier Times-Democrat, the Culpeper Times and the Gainesville Times.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. In the wake of the devastating attacks targeting Christians in Iraq and Egypt last year, it is clear that religious minorities in the Middle East are facing a grave threat. There are even reports of Christian women who, having fled Iraq, are living in ghettos in Syria and have been driven to prostitution in a desperate attempt to provide for their families. With the exception of Israel, the Bible contains more references to ancient Iraq than any other country: Abraham, Nineveh, Esther, Daniel, to name a few. Iraq and Egypt are not an anomaly. A Christian mother of five in Pakistan remains in prison charged with blasphemy. If found guilty, she faces the death penalty. In the face of these grim realities, I have introduced bipartisan legislation, H.R. 440, which would create a special envoy at the State Department to advocate on behalf of religious minorities in the Middle East and South Central Asia. I urge all colleagues who care about the persecution of Christians in Iraq and Pakistan and Egypt to cosponsor my bill.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw the attention of my colleagues to the plight of Christians and other religious minorities in the Near East and South and Central Asia and to announce that I am introducing legislation which would require the administration to appoint a special envoy for religious minorities in these regions to make this issue a foreign policy priority. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important legislation. 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. Less than two months later, extremists bombed the homes of more than a dozen Christian families throughout Baghdad. In a hearing before the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, an Iraqi nun testified that the current spate of violence against Christians is worse than anything experienced under the ruthless dictator Saddam Hussein. The U.S. has a moral imperative to ensure that these minorities are protected. On New Year's Eve, Miriam Fekry, a 22-year-old Egyptian woman posted on her Facebook page before leaving for mass that ``2010 is over. This year has the best memories of my life. Really enjoyed this year. I hope that 2011 is much better. Plz God stay beside me & help make it all true.'' Tragically, that evening Miriam and 22 other people were killed by a suicide bomber in Alexandria, Egypt while coming out of mass at St. Mark and St. Peter Coptic Church. It was the worst violence against the country's Christian minority in a decade. Just ten days after the attack in Alexandria, an off-duty police officer fatally shot a Coptic Christian man and wounded five others Copts on a train in Egypt. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, countries where the United States has invested its treasure and the lives of countless brave young American soldiers, persecution of Christians runs rampant. On November 7 last year, a Pakistani court sentenced Asia 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 remains unclear. Unfortunately this is symptomatic of a much larger problem in Pakistan. Pakistan's blasphemy laws are often used to victimize both religious minorities and Muslims. In fact, Punjab's governor, influential governor, Salman Taseer was shot and killed by his own body guard who reportedly told police, ``that he killed Mr. Taseer because of the governor's opposition to Pakistan's blasphemy law.'' In Afghanistan, a televised broadcast of Afghans being baptized resulted in the arrest of four Christians last August, who were eventually released due to international pressure. However, two Afghan converts to Christianity remain imprisoned on account of their faith. One of the Christian converts who is facing a possible death sentence reportedly said, ``Without my faith I would not be able to live.'' Other religious minorities including the Ahmadis, Baha'is, Zoroastrians and Jews are under increasing pressure in the region. Last May, militants in Pakistan attacked two Ahmadi mosques in Pakistan killing at least 80 people. While the Ahmadis consider themselves Muslim, Pakistani law does not recognize them as such and they have been the target of large-scale coordinated attacks by extremist groups. According to the Baha'i World News Service, some 335 Baha'is have been arrested in Iran on account of their religious beliefs. Seven leaders of the Baha'i faith in Iran have been imprisoned since their arrest in 2008. According to the State Department's 2010 International Religious Freedom Report, Zoroastrians living in Iran also face persecution and blatant discrimination. 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.'' In the wake of these devastating attacks on religious freedom, which in some cases are so severe that they literally threaten to wipe these ancient indigenous communities from the lands they've inhabited for centuries, it is clear that more must be done. Sadly, against the backdrop of these attacks, the post of Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom at the State Department has been vacant for two years. If the international community fails to speak out, the prospects for religious pluralism and tolerance in the region are bleak. President Ronald Reagan once said that the U.S. Constitution is a ``covenant that we have made not only with ourselves, but with all of mankind.'' I believe that the United States has an obligation to speak out for the voiceless around the world, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting my legislation calling for a special envoy dedicated to speaking out for religious minorities in the Near East and South and Central Asia and elevating this issue as a foreign policy priority for America.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, last week the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission held a hearing on the plight of Christian minorities in Iraq and Egypt. In the wake of the devastating attacks targeting Christians in both countries, it is clear that religious minorities in the Middle East are facing a serious threat that must be addressed. This recent spate of violence has driven many Christians and other religious minorities to flee the lands they have inhabited for centuries and attempt to emigrate to the West. If the international community fails to speak out, the prospects for religious pluralism and tolerance in the region are bleak. President Reagan once said that the U.S. Constitution is ``a covenant that we have made not only with ourselves, but with all of mankind.'' I believe the United States has an obligation to speak out for the voiceless around the world. This week I will introduce, with other Members, a bill which would require the administration to appoint a Special Envoy for religious minorities in the Middle East and South Central Asia in order to make this issue a foreign policy priority, and I ask my colleagues to join me.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, ``On a blistering evening in Phoenix recently, a group of prominent civic leaders met to talk about America. It didn't take long for the conversation to get around to the fall of the Ottoman Empire. ``That's what happens when smart Americans get to talking about politics these days. ``Topic A is the growing sense that our best days as a Nation are behind us, that our kids won't live as well as we did, that China is in the driver's seat.'' Those were the opening words of an October 2010 Time magazine piece, authored by veteran reporter Joe Klein, who canvassed the country during the height of the campaign season. Klein's assessment of the national mood was underscored by New York Times columnist David Brooks, who recently wrote: ``The current sour mood is not just caused by high unemployment. It emerges from the fear that America's best days are behind it.'' I believe this foreboding national anxiety is born of certain realities--exploding debts and deficits, shuttered factories, rising unemployment, bloated government, and an acrimonious tenor to our national discourse. People fear that America's influence is waning and our ``shining city on a hill'' is dimming. I must admit to sharing these same anxieties as a father of five and grandfather of 15. I have never been more concerned about my country's future. Yet I do not believe that the realization of these fears is inevitable. We can walk back from the precipice. We have options. Sober-minded people believe that we must dramatically change course, especially as it relates to our ballooning national debt and deficit-- and I agree. Yet, are America and her leaders willing to make the tough decisions that are necessary? The lyrics in Simon and Garfunkel's song ``The Boxer''--``Man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest''--aptly describe the mood in Washington when it comes to addressing Federal spending. Within days of the President's fiscal commission report on the dire consequences of the failure to address growing mandatory spending, it was business as usual with Congress passing and the Obama administration supporting a tax and spending bill with an $857 billion price tag that included a yearlong ``payroll tax holiday,'' raiding the Social Security trust fund at a cost of $112 billion, without paying for it, thereby increasing the national debt. So the question before us is: Will Washington summon the courage and the fortitude to make the tough decisions, to govern based on principle and not politics, to lead the country toward a brighter tomorrow even if it means sacrificing in the short term? Historically, Americans are willing to sacrifice. Many of our countrymen have made the ultimate sacrifice on our own shores and in distant lands, in places like Antietam, Normandy, Saigon, Kandahar, and Baghdad. It is on their shoulders we stand--wobbly at times, but stand nonetheless. The Nation's future now falls to us. Will we step up to the plate or will we fail to act? For too long, routinely increasing the amount of money that government can borrow without taking any action to stem the country's growing debt has been standard operating procedure; but the storm warning signs have been posted, and I am heeding their ominous call. When Congress is asked to increase the statutory debt limit, which will likely happen in the next few months, I will vote ``no'' unless-- and let me be completely clear here--there is a firm commitment to deal with the larger issue or the vote itself is tied to a plan to put America on a path to financial responsibility. I have come to this decision based on a multitude of factors that I will explore in the remaining time. Consider these grim realities: Our Nation is now more than $14 trillion in debt. We have accumulated a $1 trillion deficit every year. Just last Thursday, both Moody's Investment Service and Standard & Poor's again cautioned the U.S. that its coveted AAA credit rating is at risk if the country's deteriorating fiscal situation is not corrected. The practical implications of a downgraded credit rating are severe. The cost to borrow money will rise. Everything from a home loan to a car loan to a student loan will increase. Interest on the debt was $202 billion in 2010. That's nearly $4 billion a week. In 2021, interest on the debt is projected to be $1 trillion a year, or roughly $2.7 billion a day. Unsustainable debt in Europe and the resulting economic woes and austerity measures led to riots in the streets. Is it just a matter of time before we see that at home? If we are on the same trajectory as these countries, their unemployment numbers should give us pause. Spain was at a whopping 19.8 percent in December. Noted historian Niall Ferguson authored a piece in the April 2010 Foreign Affairs, exploring the theory that great empires often decline swiftly. From Rome to the Ming Dynasty to the British Empire, history is rife with examples of seemingly invincible world powers that collapse in a short period of time. Ferguson adds that, while there are varied theories about why each of these empires declined in such short order, he said, ``Most imperial falls are associated with fiscal crises.'' If paying $202 billion a year in interest alone isn't a fiscal crisis, I don't know what is. Is America heading off a cliff? Consider that last year a report from the Congressional Budget Office revealed that for the first time in 25 years Social Security was taking in less in taxes than it was spending on benefits. In addition, recent reports found that as 2011 opens, the first of the baby boomers will turn 65 at the rate of 10,000 a day for the next 19 years. Or consider that just over the past decade foreign ownership of U.S. debt has increased significantly from 5 percent 40 years ago to 46 percent today. If the U.S. does not begin to rein in spending, every penny of the Federal budget will go to interest on the debt and entitlement spending by 2028. This has grave implications for a host of national priorities. Ferguson is not alone in his warnings. In 2007, then-U.S. Comptroller General David Walker warned of ``striking similarities'' between America's current situation and the fall of the Roman Empire. Respected business leader Norm Augustine, who chaired a National Academies' Commission on American Competitiveness that resulted in the landmark ``Gathering Storm'' report, captured well the situation in which America now finds itself when he said, ``In the technology-driven economy in which we live, Americans have come to accept leadership as the natural and enduring state of affairs; but leadership is highly perishable. It must be constantly re-earned.'' He went on to say, ``Unless we do things dramatically different, including strengthening our investments in research and education, the 21st century will belong to China and India.'' As America sinks deeper into debt, we seem satisfied to live utterly in the moment with no concern for the future. And as our own investments in the future lag, China is forging ahead, making critical gains in education while our children are left in the wake. One woman in Arizona who spoke to Klein during his heartland travel said pointedly, ``We seem to be mired in mediocrity while China is steaming ahead.'' Do we really want the 21st century, this century, to be the Chinese century? Do we really want to leave our children a country mired in mediocrity? Last year, a 5-year followup report titled ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm, Revisited'' noted that ``Almost one-third of U.S. manufacturing companies responding to a recent survey say they are suffering from some level of skills shortages.'' This failure to train the next generation of engineers and scientists has a direct bearing on our economy. The U.S. graduates only half the number--half the number-- of physicists today than we did in 1956. The Gathering Storm report determined that, for the first time in our Nation's history, the younger generation of Americans is less well educated than its parents, and warned that ``the United States appears to be on a course that will lead to a declining standard of living for our children and our grandchildren.'' Against this backdrop, roughly half of America's outstanding publicly held debt is now foreign owned, with China and Saudi Arabia among the largest holders. Saudi Arabia was home to many of the 9/11 terrorists. Saudi Arabia's radical Wahhabism is taught in some of the most extremist mosques and madrassas, including up on the Afghan-Pakistan border. Their textbooks are filled with hateful messages about minority faiths, including Christians and Jews. A recent New York Times story reported that, ``Saudi donors remain the chief financiers of Sunni militant groups like al Qaeda.'' Is this a country we want to be beholden to financially? Or what about Communist China? It is well documented by the U.S. intelligence community that China's attempt to spy on U.S. agencies and businesses are the most aggressive of all foreign intelligence organizations and, according to the FBI, ``pose a significant threat to the national security'' and compromise U.S. critical national assets. China also routinely violates the basic human rights of its own people. Even this week, as Chinese President Hu Jintao is afforded the pomp and circumstance of a White House state dinner, Catholic bishops, Protestant pastors, and Tibetan monks are in Chinese jails for practicing their faith. I've seen how China plundered Tibet. China's abuses do not stop at home. They are a significant arms supplier to the genocidal regime in Khartoum, Sudan. Do we really want China to be our banker? All of these realities must prompt some soul-searching on the part of our Nation's leadership. Almost 5 years ago, during the last Republican majority, I came to the floor of the House proposing an independent bipartisan commission to address unsustainable Federal spending. It would put everything on the table--entitlements, all other spending, and tax policy. The SAFE Commission--short for Securing America's Future Economy--would operate in a transparent way, holding public meetings across the country to hear from the American people and give them a vested interest in the outcome. Further, it would require Congress to vote on its recommendations. I reintroduced this legislation with Congressman Jim Cooper in the 110th and 111th Congresses. Senators Kent Conrad and Judd Gregg introduced a similar bill calling for a deficit commission that became the blueprint for the President's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, or the Simpson-Bowles Commission. I give credit to the deficit commission. I certainly didn't agree with every part of its report, but the commission's work was an important step in moving the national conversation forward. It put forth serious ideas rather than just kicking the can down the road. And had I been appointed to the commission, while supporting some changes, I would have voted for its final report. I commend its members who voted yes, such as Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, a champion of low taxes, for having the courage to do so. The plan set forth by the Simpson-Bowles Commission--supported by a majority of the commission's 18 members--makes it clear that addressing the debt and the deficit isn't just a simple exercise in rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse. It is all well and good to eliminate earmarks, fraud, waste, and abuse and rein in discretionary spending, but these things alone do not come close to solving the debt and the deficit. The infamous bank robber Willie Sutton reportedly said he robbed banks ``because that's where the money is.'' In our government, the money is in entitlements--Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Let me say it again: If we do not deal with Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, we cannot solve this problem. We need to do it in a way that really fixes the problem for us and for the next generation. We need to do it in a way that strengthens America, creating economic growth and jobs. This will be difficult and at times controversial, but the longer we wait we can be certain that it will become more difficult and more controversial. The commission's forthright assessment about what is necessary to put us in good fiscal standing was a step in the right direction. The success of any endeavor, however, is predicated on actively involving the American people and must require an up-or-down vote in Congress. The President's commission came up short in that regard. We have a divided government, which necessitates a bipartisan solution, something that can be passed and be enacted into law, and the sooner the better. If we neglect to do this, America will decline, and it will decline on our watch. We will have failed our children and grandchildren. We will have broken faith with the Founding Fathers and past generations who have sacrificed greatly to make this Nation, our Nation, a shining city on a hill. We can no longer ignore the albatross of debt around our collective necks. That is why, unless there is a firm commitment to deal with the larger financial crisis or the vote itself is tied to a possible debt solution, I will vote against the debt limit increase. And again, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to consider doing the same. I don't say this lightly. I am fully aware of the implications. In a recent letter to congressional leadership, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner spoke in near apocalyptic terms about the consequences of default. Even if just a fraction of his analysis is accurate, it is clear that this isn't a decision to be made casually. It is precisely because the stakes are so high that I believe the debt limit vote can serve as a trigger to force congressional action that otherwise will not be taken. The country does not currently have a credit card limit, and we need one in order to stop the mortgaging of our country's future. Failure to act now on fiscal problems will ensure that in the future there will be tax increases and drastic entitlement reductions, and no money for important discretionary spending such as infrastructure, national security, medical research, and education. The longer it takes to address this issue, the more draconian the options will be when the Nation is forced to change course, as it most assuredly will be. If you are on Social Security or Medicare, you should insist that the Congress and the administration act. If you are a young adult, you should be worried that your generation will be significantly less well off than your parents' generation. If you care about America's global leadership, if you yearn for our country to have the resources to combat global scourges, if you hope for the day when there is a cure for cancer and Alzheimer's, you should press Congress and the administration to step up to the plate now. We must all ask ourselves: Do we want to make a point or do we want to make a difference? If the answer is the latter, then it is clear that this is a conversation we need to be having today. We must not put it off. At his 1796 farewell address, George Washington admonished his fellow countrymen, ``We should avoid ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden of which we ourselves ought to bear.'' An apt charge for today's political leadership. A brief word to America's faith community, who should be intimately concerned with the moral component of this crisis. If we say we care about the poor, we must speak up, for they will be the hardest hit if we fail to act. If we say we are passionate about justice, then we must not be complicit in committing a massive generational injustice. Not only is our current course immoral, it is un-American. Generations past have always passed the torch of the American Dream to their children and their grandchildren. Presently, we're poised to hand off the struggling flicker of a flame. The implications of an America on decline also has ripple effects the world over. In a December 5 Washington Post Outlook piece, author Robert Kaplan hauntingly writes, ``America's ability to bring a modicum of order to the world is simply fading in slow motion.'' A look at the daily headlines and we are reminded that the world is a much more dangerous place when our Nation is perceived as weak, or worse yet, when that perception becomes a reality. Surely we can agree on the enormity of what is at stake. The precise blueprint for how to move forward may seem blurry at times, but the implications of doing nothing must propel us onward. If we summon the courage to act, I believe we can see a rebirth in America marked by grand innovations in science and technology that are the wonders of the world, advances in medical research that save millions of lives, and further exploration into the remaining frontier of space and much more. Columnist Tony Blankley wrote recently, ``America has become a great Nation because we have been an optimistic people who insist on both success and liberty. America's can-do spirit has been the wonder of the ages. It has raised us from a handful of farmers to the colossus of the planet. And if we can regain that spirit, there is not a reason in the world that the 21st century will not be the American century--just as the 20th century was.'' I was reminded once again of that unique American spirit on Election Day when I stopped by the Snow White Grill in Winchester, Virginia. While I was there, one man said to me, ``We are ready! We are prepared to sacrifice. We're ready to do what's right.'' And several others at the lunch counter echoed the same. But the question remains: Are America's leaders prepared to sacrifice? Are America's leaders prepared to do what's right? Battle lines have been drawn on both sides. The MoveOn.orgs of the left and the Americans for Tax Reform of the right have wielded their political influence with remarkable effect, only to paralyze the Congress and the Obama administration on arguably the most important issue of our time. I am not prepared to continue to let that happen. In 1787, on the final day of the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was said to have wept when he signed the document. James Madison wrote in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, ``Whilst the last members were signing it,'' he said, ``Dr. Franklin, looking towards the President's chair, at the back of which a rising sun happened to be painted, observed to a few members near him that painters had found it difficult to distinguish in their art a rising sun from a setting sun.'' And then Dr. Franklin remarked that during the course of the session, ``I have often looked at that picture . . . without being able to tell whether it was a rising or setting sun.'' And then Franklin continues, ``Now . . . I have the happiness to know that it is indeed a rising, not a setting sun.'' Every politician loves to say that the sun has barely begun to rise on America and that America's best days are yet ahead. If we steel ourselves for tough decisions and commit to doing the right thing, if we work for economic and moral rebirth, then we will honestly be able to join the chorus of voices reaching back to our Nation's founding and echoing across the ages which enjoin us to believe that the sun has indeed barely begun to rise on our country and that America's best days are yet to come. This is a call to action. We are Americans, and we can prevail.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the important work of Loudoun Cares, an innovative organization in Virginia's 10th District that promotes the sharing of community services under one roof to save on the overall costs to other nonprofits in the surrounding community. Loudoun Cares is a leader in the local effort to develop a multi-tenant nonprofit center which provides affordable and stable office space and shared services for Loudoun County charities serving families in need. On October 1, 2010, Loudoun Cares celebrated the completion of renovations to its facility. This innovative collaboration promotes efficiencies and enhances service delivery to citizens in need. It also serves as a model for other communities seeking to develop nonprofit infrastructure that will improve, streamline and consolidate human service deployment. The ongoing success of the 6-year-old Loudoun Cares is a direct result of a collaboration that includes nonprofits, faith communities, business partners and government. I would like to recognize and thank Loudoun Cares and its board of directors, staff, volunteers and contributors for their work on behalf of the Loudoun community, especially Andy Johnston, the executive director, and Jennifer Montgomery, director of operations.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I join with my colleagues today to honor the 6 who died and the 14 who were wounded, including our own colleague Gabrielle Giffords, in the horror which unfolded last Saturday morning in Tucson, Arizona. I was at home Saturday checking my iPhone when I saw the shocking news of the shootings and that Congresswoman Giffords and her staff were among the victims. What I read was hard to comprehend. She and her staff were doing their jobs, back in her district on a weekend, meeting with constituents in the finest example of representative government. And in a split second, the lives of those there were forever changed, and in a larger context, all of our lives have changed. My heart and prayers go out to those who lost their lives and to their families. There was 9-year-old Christina Taylor Green, there to meet her representative because she wanted to become involved in government; Dorothy Morris, there with her husband of over 50 years, George, who was critically injured trying to shield his wife from the shooting; federal district Judge John Roll, who had just come from Mass, which he attended daily; Phyllis Schneck, age 79, who was spending the winter in Arizona; and Dorwan Stoddard, a 76-year-old retired construction worker, who shielded his wife Mavy, who sustained injuries in the shooting. And also slain was Gabe Zimmerman, the 30- year-old community outreach director for Congresswoman Giffords, a congressional staffer like the thousands of dedicated public servants we have the privilege of working with in this House. Just there doing a job he loved serving the people. I haven't had the privilege of getting to know Gabby as well as some have, but she and I shared an interest in keeping the space program strong. I pray for her full recovery and look forward to working with her again when she returns to this House. From what I know of her through other colleagues, Gabby Giffords epitomizes what every member of this body aspires to be: a dedicated, courageous public servant with a heart of service and an optimism about America that is infectious. Madam Speaker, we honor the memory of those whose lives were taken last Saturday and express our heartfelt condolences to their families and friends, and we pray for those who were wounded that they will recover quickly, including our colleague, Gabby Giffords.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I was deeply saddened and outraged by North Korea's recent attack on Yeonpyeong island which killed four South Koreans and wounded 20. Officials estimated that the North had fired roughly 200 artillery shells onto Yeonpyeong. The November 23 attack was the first on civilian-populated areas since the Korean War. This is just the latest provocation on the part of Pyongyang--a regime infamous for its deplorable human rights record and Soviet style gulags. Recently North Korea showed Dr. Siegfried Hecker, the former head of the U.S. Los Alamos National Laboratory, a new modern uranium enrichment facility with 2,000 centrifuges. The North Koreans claimed it is producing low enriched uranium destined for fuel for a new light- water nuclear reactor. According to the Congressional Research Service, ``Although Dr. Hecker has said that the centrifuge plant and the new reactor appear to be designed primarily for civilian nuclear power, the uranium facilities could also be used to produce fissile material suitable for nuclear weapons.'' These are deeply troubling developments. During this time of heightened tensions in the Korean Peninsula we must actively work with our long-term ally South Korea to ensure a lasting peace in the region and continue to expose the true nature of the North Korea regime which the international community can no longer deny.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chair, I support extending the 2001 and 2003 income tax cuts for all taxpayers, reducing or even eliminating the estate tax, and limiting the impact of the alternative minimum tax. If those were the only issues before us today, I would vote for that package to reduce the tax burden on Americans. But this package is a bridge too far and I will vote no. With this package we are saying ``charge it.'' We aren't even making an attempt to pay for it. We are voting to add over $857 billion to our Nation's already massive, nearly $14 trillion debt. This is less than two weeks after the president's debt commission issued its a report called ``A Moment of Truth,'' which outlined the looming financial crisis that threatens the future of our country. We're accumulating a trillion dollar deficit every year. This year, we are paying $202 billion a year in interest on our debt. That's nearly $4 billion a week. By 2021, we will pay nearly $1 trillion a year solely to service the debt. One trillion. That's nearly $19 billion a week or $2.7 billion a day. Two point seven billion dollars a day just to pay the interest. That is utterly unsustainable. And money that goes to paying off the interest, let alone the principle, on the debt is money that will not be invested in road construction, or cancer research, or homeland security, or math and science education. Over four years ago I came to the House floor to propose an independent bipartisan commission to address unsustainable federal spending. It would put everything on the table--entitlements, all other spending and tax policy. The SAFE Commission--short for Securing America's Future Economy--would operate in an authentic and transparent way, holding a series of public meetings across the country to hear from the American people. The commission would send its recommendations for a way forward to a sustainable economy to Congress, which would be required to vote up or down. Senator George Voinovich, who is retiring this year and who has been a champion of fiscal integrity throughout his career in public service, was my partner in the Senate as sponsor of the SAFE bill. Congressman Jim Cooper and I also teamed in the 110th and this Congress to push the SAFE bill, garnering 118 cosponsors. Joining the effort in the Senate with Senator Voinovich were Senators Lieberman, Conrad and Gregg. Senators Conrad and Gregg introduced a similar bill calling for a deficit commission that became the blueprint for the President's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform and on which both senators served. On December 3, a bipartisan majority of 11 of the 18 commission members voted to recommend a bold plan to Congress that would address our Nation's fiscal imbalance by cutting $4 trillion from the federal budget over the next decade. I commend Senators Coburn, Conrad, Crapo, Durbin, Gregg, and Representative Spratt for voting to advance the proposal. They recognize the seriousness of our fiscal situation and that the Congress needs to develop a plan for action. The leaders of the bipartisan fiscal commission, Erskine Bowles and former Senator Alan Simpson, wrote to the president and leaders of Congress: ``Our growing national debt poses a dire threat to this Nation's future. Ever since the economic downturn, Americans have had to make tough choices about how to make ends meet. Now it's time for leaders in Washington to do the same.'' Yet today, we see that once again, Washington is punting. Less than 80 hours after the commission's 11 to 7 bipartisan vote, ``this compromise'' was unveiled at a cost of nearly $1 trillion in borrowed money. The commission's chairmen told us that ``the era of debt denial is over.'' Yet the legislation before us today clearly demonstrates that that is simply not the case. To quote Senator Coburn's floor statement of December 8: ``What we need to do, Democrats and Republicans and our Independent colleagues, is recognize the depth and magnitude of our problem right now. There needs to be a great big time out. Who cares who is in charge if there is no country to run that can be salvaged? It doesn't matter. ``Economists worldwide and some of the brightest people at Harvard and MIT, the University of Texas, Pennsylvania, they don't sleep at night right now. They know we are on the razor-thin edge of falling over a cliff. ``The fact is, both parties have laid a trap for future generations by our inaction, our laziness, our arrogance, and a crass desire for power. We are waterboarding the next generation with debt. We are drowning them in obligations because we don't have the courage to come together and address or even debate a real solution. . . . The problem is so big and so urgent and so necessary that we ought to have [a] debate. We ought to make sure the American people know the significance of the problems facing us.'' I couldn't agree more. On Monday, Moody's Investment Service warned that this legislation jeopardizes America's coveted AAA credit rating, and could lead to a negative outlook in as little as two years. For the record, I am inserting its report. If our credit rating is downgraded, the cost to borrow money will rise. Everything, from a home loan to a car loan to tuition for college to a credit card bill to interest payments on the debt, will increase. We will be paying more to sustain, not to improve, our existing quality of life. We need look no farther than Europe to see the destructive impact that results after a nation's financial crisis. There have been riots in Belgium, Spain, France, Ireland, England, Italy, and Latvia. Just Monday, Moody's threatened to further downgrade Spain's credit ratings. Will there be rioting in the streets here like we are now seeing abroad? This House, and the Senate before us, is continuing on its profligate ways of adding billions of dollars to the nation's credit card, which has been issued by the banks of China and Saudi Arabia, among others. More than 46 percent of the U.S. debt held by the public is in foreign hands. Saudi Arabia was home to the 9/11 terrorists. Saudi Arabia's Wahhabi brand of Islam is taught in some of the most radical mosques and madrassas around the world, including along the Pakistan/ Afghanistan border. Saudi Arabia represses women and persecutes Christians and Jews. Their textbooks are filled with hateful messages about minority faiths. Just last month a BBC expose' reveled that Saudi textbooks used for weekend education programs to teach about 5,000 Muslim children in Britain, contained claims that ``some Jews were transformed into pigs and apes . . .'' Further, the books, which again are Saudi national curriculum, contain ``text and pictures showing the correct way to chop off the hands and feet of thieves.'' Is this a country we want to be beholden to? Or what about communist China, our largest banker, which routinely violates the basic human rights and religious freedom of its own people where Catholic bishops, Protestant ministers and Tibetan monks are jailed for practicing their faith? I've seen how they plundered Tibet with my own eyes. China was once again in the spotlight recently when famed dissident Liu Xiaobo was awarded the Nobel Peace prize. China's response? Place Liu's wife under house arrest, stop other dissidents from attending the award ceremony in Oslo and place them under tight surveillance, and indefinitely postpone trade talks with Norway. The U.S. intelligence community notes that China's attempts to penetrate U.S. agencies are the most aggressive of all foreign intelligence organizations. According to the FBI, Chinese intelligence services ``pose a significant threat both to the national security and to the compromise of U.S. critical national assets.'' Weapons that entities of the People's Republic of China supplied to Iran were ``found to have been transferred to terrorist organizations in Iraq and Afghanistan.'' China is a significant arms supplier and source of economic strength to the genocidal regime in Sudan. Do we really want China to be our banker? In a February 2010 piece, Wall Street Journal columnist Gerald Seib wrote, ``the Federal budget deficit has long since graduated from nuisance to headache to pressing national concern. Now, however, it has become so large and persistent that it is time to start thinking of it as something else entirely: A national security threat.'' These foreign countries, with vastly different aims than our own, could end up negatively influencing U.S. foreign policy by threatening to dump our currency in the world market. Such actions would not be a historical anomaly. Recall 1956 in the Suez Canal crisis, which some believed signaled the end of Britain and France as world powers. Egypt announced that it was going to nationalize the canal, which outraged the British and French, who then devised a plan to use military force to keep control. The U.S. wanted to avert conflict at any cost. And President Eisenhower threatened to sell the U.S. reserves of the British pound, which would essentially result in the collapse of the British currency. The British changed course, demonstrating the power, the impact, that economic manipulation can have on foreign policy. Is it conceivable to imagine the Saudis threatening to dump our currency if we don't withdraw from the region? Is it conceivable to imagine China threatening to dump our currency if we don't stop pressing nuclear-armed North Korea? Simply put, we are presently borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from countries which pursue aims that are at odds with our national interest and values, both directly and indirectly. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has pointed to our nation's debt as a national security risk. It is expected that, as early as 2014, our nation will spend more on interest payments than was spent on the 2010 defense budget. In case you missed that, we will pay more to borrow money than we will pay to defend our freedom. This is a package full of numerous perks to sweeten the deal. As the Wall Street Journal editorial, ``The Hawkeye Handouts,'' noted on December 13, Republicans ``should worry that the tax bill is turning into a special interest spectacle. The bill revives a $1 a gallon biodiesel tax credit at a cost of nearly $2 billion, and there's $202 million for `incentives for alternative fuel,' $331 million for a 50% tax credit for maintaining railroad tracks, and so on. These credits are a form of special interest spending via the tax code, which is precisely the business as usual behavior that Republicans told tea party voters they wouldn't engage in.'' Dan Eggen of the Washington Post reported yesterday that ``. . . the ethanol provision . . . has cost taxpayers more than $21 billion since 2006. The Government Accountability Office recently concluded that the credit has had little impact in encouraging ethanol use or production, especially since the government already mandates rising levels of ethanol in gasoline and protects the corn ethanol industry through tariffs.'' From farmers producing ethanol to Puerto Ricans making rum to film producers in Hollywood, there's something for everyone. Even worse, the payroll tax holiday raids, for the first time in our history, the Social Security trust fund, which is already going broke. No one comes away empty handed. This is, as Charles Krauthammer wrote in the Washington Post on December 10, nothing more than a stimulus by another name--an unfunded stimulus that costs considerably more than the President's stimulus of 2009 that so many on my side of the aisle opposed. Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, hit the nail on the head in an October 2009 National Journal article when she said, ``It's like fiscal jenga, where people are piling on more and more debt, and finally, something's going to be the cause of it collapsing, but no one believes their thing is going to be the tipping point.'' This package could be the ``thing'' that takes us closer to the tipping point. Candidly, I have never been more concerned about our country's future. We see a nation whose young people are lagging behind their peers globally. We see a Senate debating a $1.1 trillion omnibus spending measure containing over 6,000 earmarks representing over $8 billion worth of spending. We see a Congress and a president embracing a tax package that risks our nation's highly valued AAA bond rating. All the while we see young men and women in uniform, in distant places like Afghanistan and Iraq, modeling the sort of sacrifice that few Americans even expect from their elected leaders any more. Only through shared sacrifice can we hope to walk back from the precipice. But instead of asking for sacrifice, the measure before us today provides something for everyone. Maybe not as much as everyone wanted, but what was truly sacrificed? The word compromise implies that both sides in the negotiation give up something. No one gave up anything. Legislation of this magnitude must be balanced by reforms. But instead of reforms we see recklessness. This legislation walks us further down the path to greater and greater deficits and debt that can only lead to a place none of us wants to go--a bankrupt America. I cannot in good conscience leave that type of country to my children and grandchildren. At his 1796 farewell address, George Washington admonished his fellow countrymen: ``We should avoid ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden of which we ourselves ought to bear.'' Enough is enough. I vote ``no.'' [From Moody's Weekly Credit Outlook, Dec. 13, 2010] US Tax Package Is Negative for US Credit, but Positive for Economic Growth If the tax and unemployment-benefit package agreed to on 6 December by President Obama and congressional Republican leaders becomes law, it will boost economic growth in the next two years, but adversely affect the federal government budget deficit and debt level. From a credit perspective, the negative effects on government finance are likely to outweigh the positive effects of higher economic growth. Unless there are offsetting measures, the package will be credit negative for the US and increase the likelihood of a negative outlook on the US government's Aaa rating during the next two years One motivation for the two-year extension of the current personal income tax rates (put in place in 2001 and 2003 and referred to as the ``Bush tax cuts'') is to prevent a setback to economic and employment growth that would result from higher taxes beginning on 1 January, the expiration date of the earlier tax cuts. Keeping the existing tax rates would not provide an impetus to growth, but raising them would have a negative effect. However, the package also includes, among other things, an extension of unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed through 2011 and a two-percentage-point cut in the Social Security payroll tax. The latter two measures will give a boost to economic and employment growth in the coming two years, with some forecasters significantly raising their GDP growth numbers in 2011 and 2012. Higher economic growth should have a positive effect on government revenues and reduce payments related to unemployment. However, the magnitude of this positive effect will be considerably less than the foregone revenue and increased benefit expenditure, resulting in substantially higher budget deficits than would have otherwise been the case. The Congressional Budget Office's most recent estimate of the deficit for fiscal year 2011 was $1.1 trillion, or 7% of GDP, assuming no expiration of the tax cuts, and $665 billion (4.2%) in fiscal year 2012. These deficits would raise the ratio of government debt to GDP to 68.5% by the end of fiscal year 2012, compared with 61.6% two years earlier. The net cost of the proposed package of tax-cut extensions, payroll-tax reductions, unemployment benefits, and some other measures may be $700-$900 billion, raising the debt ratio to 72%-73%, depending on the effects on nominal economic growth. The government's ratio of debt to revenue, instead of declining rather steeply over the two years from about 420% at the end of fiscal year 2010, would decline considerably less to somewhere just under 400%. This is a very high ratio compared with both history and other highly rated sovereigns. Thus, while higher growth and lower unemployment are clearly good for the economy, the package is negative for US government debt metrics. In addition, there is a risk that the two-year extension may be renewed at the end of 2012, given that that period coincides with a presidential election. A permanent extension of the tax cuts alone (without other measures) could result in a considerable increase in deficits and debt levels unless other measures to reduce deficits are adopted. The exhibit below illustrates that the fiscal balance in the coming decade would be considerably higher under such a scenario, all other things being equal, and this would result in a worsening of the government's debt position. A package of options put forth by the fiscal commission at the beginning of this month provides a menu of such measures that would reverse these trends, but their adoption remains uncertain.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I submit for the Record a letter I received from the Chaldean Assyrian Syriac Council of America regarding the plight of Iraq's ancient Christian community, which is increasingly under assault and facing near extinction from the lands they have inhabited for centuries. The Wall Street Journal just yesterday noted on its editorial page that ``some still speak the Aramaic, the ancient language of Jesus Christ.'' The Journal further noted that of ``the 100,000 Christians who once lived in Mosul, Iraq, only some 5,000 are still there.'' While the situation in Iraq is perhaps the most glaring, it is but representative of a larger trend in the Middle East where religious minorities face growing discrimination, repression and outright persecution. The Journal continued, ``In Egypt, Coptic Christians have been brutalized. Assaults on churches increase around Easter or Christmas, as worshipers attempt to observe holy days.'' During this season of Advent as millions around the world anticipate Christmas, let us be mindful of the fear gripping these communities and commit ourselves to prioritizing their protection and preservation throughout the Middle East. We have a moral obligation to do nothing less. For as the famed abolitionist William Wilberforce once said, ``Having heard all this, you may choose to look the other way, but you can never again say that you did not know.'' I close with the solemn warning of the Chaldean Assyrian Syriac Council of America to President Obama, in a letter sent this November, in which they noted that the current situation in Iraq ``promises more innocent Christian blood in Iraq, more turmoil in that country, and more shame for America.'' Chaldean Assyrian Syriac Council of America, Southfield, MI, December 6, 2010. Congressman Frank Wolf, House of Representatives, Cannon Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Wolf: We are witnessing a tragic and historic event: The end of Iraq's native Christian community. And, even more tragically, this has happened due in part because of failed U.S. Policy, with the majority of congressional members taking little or no notice of the destruction of an ethnic and religious identity few know about. The Christians of Iraq are also known as Assyrians, Chaldeans, Syriacs or Arameans (or even ChaldoAssyrians or Chaldean Syriac Assyrians). They are the heirs of the ancient and pre-Christian civilization of Mesopotamia, the descents of the Assyrians and Babylonians of old. They are also the descents of the first Semitic-speaking Christians, whose churches spanned the entire Middle East and reached China and Japan. At one time, what is today known as the Assyrian Church of the East had more adherents than the Catholic and Protestant Churches combined. Their language is Aramaic, the language of Jesus Christ. Mesopotamia holds a special place in Biblical history. It is the land from which Abraham left his home, `Ur of the Chaldees;' where the Hebrew people lived their captivity and survived into the modern era; where the fall of Nineveh was foreseen by the Prophet Nahum, whose grave lies in Alqush, in Nineveh, the ancient capital of Assyria visited by the Prophet Jonah; where Nebuchadnezzar rebuilt the glorious Babylon where the Prophet Daniel lived. During the Abbasid Caliphate in Baghdad (758-1258 AD), Mesopotamia's Christians contributed greatly to the advancement of Islamic civilization through their literary and scientific accomplishments, including the translations of important Greek works into Syriac (Aramaic) and Arabic. It was through such accomplishments that the West came to know of the ``Golden Age'' of Islamic civilization and the Caliphate of Baghdad. Indeed, the very existence of the ``House of Wisdom,'' an institution dedicated to the translation and documentation of all knowledge on philosophy, mathematics, astronomy, and other sciences into Arabic at the time owes itself to the Christians of Iraq. As a result of the turbulence caused by a pattern of religious persecution and ethnic intolerance, the Christians of Iraq maintained themselves in the area of northern Mesopotamia or Assyria, also known as the Nineveh Plain. Here, and in the surrounding areas, they maintained their religious and ethnic identity and lived in hundreds of villages that dotted the landscape around the Tigris River until the coming modernity, at which time they suffered massacres and genocides at the hands of the Ottomans and their supporters. The First World War saw the uprooting and destruction of hundreds of Aramaic-speaking Christian villages in what is today Southeastern Turkey, Northwestern Iran, and Northern Iraq. Still, the Christian population survived, with its ethnic and religious identity intact. The formation of the Kingdom Iraq resulted in further tragedy for Christians, with the most infamous being the Semele Massacre; where thousands of women, children, and unarmed men were slaughtered in cold blood, after being given assurances of protection by the Iraqi government. Crowds in Baghdad streets jubilantly welcomed Iraqi soldiers in what may be one of the most shameful displays in Iraqi history. Despite the tragedies, the Christian population recovered and helped usher in an age of education and enlightenment for Iraq. Christians made up the most prominent doctors, engineers and scientists in Iraq. As any knowledgeable Iraqi would attest, they constituted, as a group, the most valuable human asset Iraq had. And despite the regime of Saddam Hussein, though politically repressed, Christians excelled in business and science. Today, this minority may not be so lucky. The massacre that took place in the Lady of Salvation Church on Sunday, October 31, 2010, and the subsequent targeted killings afterwards, has many Christian leaders speaking of leaving Iraq for good. Recently, Archbishop Athanasios Dawood of the Syriac Orthodox Church is saying. ``I say clearly and now--the Christian people should leave their beloved land of our ancestors and escape the premeditated ethnic cleansing,'' he told BBC. ``This is better than having them killed one by one.'' Scholars Eden Naby and Jamsheed Chosky recently wrote in Foreign Policy that the end of Christianity in Iraq is near. In a letter to President Obama, the Chaldean Assyrian Syriac Council of America, an organization serving this community in the United States, noted that the current situation ``promises more innocent Christian blood in Iraq, more turmoil in that country, and more shame for America.'' As members of the world community, and as Americans, we bear a responsibility not to allow the disintegration and destruction of this community. Clearly, our entry into Iraq has caused consequences that we cannot walk away from. Iraq's Christians have a unique heritage whose loss will be mourned by not only Iraq, but the United States and the World. Some have proposed a wholesale evacuation of this community in order to save it. Yet, there are other viable options; such as the recognition of an autonomous zone to be protected and monitored by the United Nations and the United States. It is time to consider the plight of this community seriously and propose action. Regards, Ismat Karmo, Chairman.