Frank Wolf

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, as one of four bipartisan co-chairs of the Congressional Vietnam Caucus I have witnessed a deteriorating human rights situation in Vietnam in recent years which has been met with a complete lack of urgency and priority on the part of the Obama administration. In fairness this posture is not unlike that of the previous administration which also preferred a bilateral relationship defined almost exclusively by trade--unmarred by thorny matters such as human rights and religious freedom abuses. I was critical then, too. I submit for the Record an April 2007 letter I sent to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, citing several recent arrests and assaults carried out by the government of Vietnam against the Vietnamese people in which I urged the State Department, a request which fell on deaf ears, to consider cancelling the planned visit to the United States of the Vietnamese president and prime minister if the situation did not improve. Sadly the situation in Vietnam has only worsened since that time. A July 8 ABC News story reported, ``Since the start of this year more than 50 people have been convicted and jailed in political trials.'' The government of Vietnam, which our own State Department describes as an ``authoritarian state ruled by a single party,'' continues to suppress political dissent and severely limit freedom of expression, association, and public assembly. Religious activists are subject to arbitrary arrest. On May 5th, police violently broke up peaceful ``human rights picnics'' in several different cities in Vietnam where young bloggers and activists were disseminating and discussing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other human rights documents. Human Rights Watch reported that, ``The police also employed other methods to prevent the human rights picnics from occurring. In Hanoi, youth delegations were sent to intimidate picnickers at Nghia Do Park, chanting slogans such as `Long Live the Glorious Communist Party of Vietnam' and `Long Live Ho Chi Minh.' '' On May 16, 2013, Nguyen Phuong Uyen, 21, and Dinh Nguyen Kha, 25, were sentenced to 6 years and 8 years in prison respectively simply for handing out pamphlets that were characterized by the court as ``propaganda against the state.'' Radio Free Asia reported that the pair were ``convicted under Article 88 of the penal code, a provision rights groups say the government has used to muzzle dissent, and both will serve three years of house arrest following their prison terms.'' Police also violently broke up anti-China protests in Hanoi on June 2, 2013 and arrested more than twenty people en masse. Last year, the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, which I co-chair, convened a hearing focused on human rights abuses in Vietnam. During the hearing Members of Congress heard testimony from Mrs. Mai Huong Ngo, the wife of Dr. Nguyen Quoc Quan, a Vietnamese-American democracy activist and U.S. citizen. Upon his arrival in Vietnam on April 17, 2012 he was arbitrarily detained and imprisoned. Then Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, Michael Posner testified at the Lantos Commission hearing and revealed that no one from the State Department had been in touch with Dr. Quan's wife since his detention. Only at my urging did U.S. ambassador to Vietnam David Shear initiate contact with Mrs. Ngo to update her on her husband's situation. This is but one of many examples of the U.S. embassy, under the leadership of Ambassador Shear, failing to serve as an island of freedom in a sea of repression. This was all the more troubling given that Dr. Quan is an American citizen. The lack of urgency in securing Dr. Quan's release was stunning. I spoke by phone multiple times with Ambassador Shear and expressed my deep concerns about the case broadly and the State Department's failure to bring about a swift resolution. I further urged the ambassador to host a July 4th celebration at the embassy and to invite prominent religious freedom and democracy activists in the country--as was frequently done under President Reagan during the dark days of the Cold War--thereby sending a strong message that America stands with those who stand for basic human rights. Ambassador Shear indicated his willingness to do so and the State Department confirmed this intention in subsequent correspondence. Shockingly, I learned weeks later that many of the most prominent democracy and human rights activists in Vietnam had never received an invitation. When confronted with the seeming inconsistency, Ambassador Shear claimed that he had invited a few civil society activists but that he needed to maintain a ``balance.'' When I repeatedly requested a copy of the guest list, to ascertain who specifically had been invited and if the members of Vietnamese civil society were mere token representatives the State Department repeatedly refused to provide it. Ultimately several other Members of Congress, upon learning of Ambassador Shear's posture and handling of the situation, joined me in calling for his removal and urged that an individual ``who will embrace the struggle of the Vietnamese people and advocate on their behalf' fill his spot. A July 2012 Wall Street Journal editorial headlined, ``State Fumbles in Hanoi,'' echoed this call. The Journal described the State Department's posture in Vietnam and throughout the region in this way: ``This is a classic State Department maneuver, practiced throughout Asia-Pacific but especially in repressive countries in which the U.S. has economic interests. Diplomats say they care about human rights, but not so much that it creates a political uproar that they'd have to work to resolve. Thus when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went to Vietnam this week, she made a generic statement about human rights and a `Senior State Department Official' gave journalists a briefing. Vietnam's Party bosses must be shaking in their boots.'' After languishing for nine months in a Vietnamese prison, Dr. Quan once again breathed the fresh air of freedom. A local CBS affiliate in California interviewed him after his return home and he attributed his release to Congressional pressure. Pressing authoritarian regimes and repressive governments to respect basic human rights can yield positive results, but inexplicably that is almost never the instinct of the State Department or this administration. Fast-forward to today. This week it had been expected that prominent Vietnamese dissident and lawyer Le Quoc Quan would face trial. A July 8 Wall Street Journal editorial highlighted that, ``Mr. Le was arrested after he wrote a column for the BBC's website in which he argued for a new constitution without a guarantee of a Communist Party monopoly on power . . . The supposed crime for which Mr. Le is being charged is tax evasion, an alibi Hanoi has used in the past to incarcerate dissidents. A tax-law conviction would allow Hanoi to jail this inconvenient man for up to seven years while claiming he is not a political prisoner. Hanoi may be particularly sensitive about preserving that fiction because Mr. Le also has a connection to Washington.'' That connection came in the form of a National Endowment for Democracy fellowship in 2006-07. Mr. Le was arrested just four days after he returned to Vietnam and released only after intense U.S. pressure. He was rearrested late last year while taking one of his three children to school and has been jailed ever since. Tuesday afternoon, Radio Free Asia reported that his trial had been abruptly postponed less than 24 hours before it was to get underway. RFA further reported that, ``According to Quan's relatives and fellow dissidents, hundreds of supporters--including Catholics--had planned to gather outside the court at the trial, which comes amid a wave of jailings in recent weeks of bloggers and activists speaking critically of Vietnam's one-party government.'' Indeed, amidst this wave of political repression, in the face of growing popular dissent is Vietnam, rather than being buoyed by strong statements of support and solidarity from Washington, and the U.S. embassy, has been met with virtual silence. In the realm of religious freedom, the situation also remains dire. In its recently released report, the bipartisan U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) found that, ``The government of Vietnam continues to expand control over all religious activities, severely restrict independent religious practice, and repress individuals and religious groups it views as challenging its authority.'' Later in the report the Commission characterized the government's repression in the following way: ``The Vietnamese government continues to imprison individuals for religious activity or religious freedom advocacy. It uses a specialized religious police force (cong an ton giao) and vague national security laws to suppress independent Buddhist, Protestant, Hoa Hao, and Cao Dai activities, and seeks to stop the growth of ethnic minority Protestantism and Catholicism via discrimination, violence and forced renunciations of their faith.'' Despite repeated congressional calls, including in House-passed legislation, and the recommendation of USCIRF to place Vietnam on the Countries of Particular Concern (CPC) list for ongoing, egregious violations of religious freedom, this administration has failed to do so. In fact the administration has not designated any CPC countries since August 2011--nearly two years ago--despite the Congressional mandate included in the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 to annually make such designations. This is but a snap shot of a deteriorating human rights situation in Vietnam--a situation which merits bold U.S. leadership, not mere lip- service. I have repeatedly said that it would be fitting for a Vietnamese- American to serve as U.S. ambassador to Vietnam--someone who understands the country, the language and the oppressive nature of the government having experienced it themselves before coming to the U.S. Such an individual would not be tempted to maintain smooth bilateral relations at all costs. Such an individual would embrace, without apology, the cause of freedom. The Vietnamese people and frankly millions of Vietnamese-Americans deserve better than what Ambassador Shear and this administration have given them. The Obama administration has failed every citizen of Vietnam and every Vietnamese-American who cares about human rights and religious freedom. April 18, 2007. Hon. Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State, U.S. Department of State, Washington DC. Dear Secretary Rice: I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the worsening human rights situation in Vietnam in recent months. After joining the World Trade Organization in January 2007, the politburo of the Vietnamese Communist Party (VCP) has carried out a large-scale brutal campaign of arrest against the nascent movement for democracy in Vietnam. Ignoring all international criticism and strenuous protests of the Vietnamese people, inside Vietnam and abroad, the communist regime in Hanoi has shamefully pushed ahead with its crackdown. The following events were particularly disconcerting to me: On February 18, 2007, the second day of the Lunar New Year, which is the most sacred time in Vietnamese culture, the communist security forces raided Father Nguyen Van Ly's office within the Communal Residence of the Hue Archdiocese. Father Ly was later banished to a remote, secluded area in Hue. On March 5, 2007, security forces in Saigon told Mrs. Bui Ngoc Yen that they had an order to arrest her husband, Professor Nguyen Chinh Kiet, who is a leading member of the Alliance for Democracy and Human Rights in Vietnam. Professor Kiet was in Europe at the time campaigning for democracy and human rights in Vietnam. On March 8, 2007, Reverend Nguyen Cong Chinch and his wife were brutally assaulted by security forces of Gia Lai Province in the Central Highlands, who then arrested Reverend Chinch on undisclosed charges. Also on March 8, 2007, two prominent human rights activists and lawyers, Mr. Nguyen Van Dai and Ms. Le Thi Cong Nhan, were arrested in Hanoi and were told that they would be detained for four months as part of an undisclosed investigation. On March 9, 2007, Mr. Tran Van Hoa, a member of the People's Democracy Party in Quang Ninh Province, and Mr. Pham Van Troi, a member of the Committee for Human Rights in Ha Tay, were summoned by security forces and threatened with ``immeasurable consequences'' if they do not stop their advocacy for human rights in Vietnam. On March 10, 2007, Do Nam Hai, an engineer writing under the pen name Phuong Nam and one of the leading members of the Alliance for Democracy and Human Rights in Vietnam, was told by security forces that he could be indicted at any time for activity against the State. Also on March 10, 2007, state security forces also raided the home of Ms. Tran Khai Thanh Thuy, a writer, on the grounds that she advocated for ``people with grievances'' against the government. They took away two computers, two cell phones, and hundreds of appeals that she had prepared for victims of the government's abuses. On March 12, 2007, lawyer Le Quoc Quan, a consultant on local governance for the World Bank, Asian Development Bank, UNDP, and Swedish International Development Agency, was arrested in his hometown, Nghe An, less than a week after he returned from a fellowship at the National Endowment for Democracy in Washington, D.C. His whereabouts are unknown at this time. On April 5, 2007, the Vietnamese authorities in Hanoi rudely prevented Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) from meeting with several dissidents' wives at a gathering organized at the U.S. Ambassador's home. The police reportedly used very hostile and undignified manners to intervene in the meeting. Furthermore, the Hanoi communist regime is still imprisoning many political dissidents and labor advocates such as Nguyen Vu Binh, Huynh Nguyen Dao, Truong Quoc Huy, Nguyen Hoang Long, Nguyen Tan Hoanh, Doan Huy Chuong, the religious leaders of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, Cao Dai, Hoa Hao, and more than 350 lay people of the Protestant churches in the Central Highland. The Vietnamese-Americans in my district, as well as all across the country, are very angered and distressed by what they perceive as a new and aggressive plan of the Hanoi government to reverse the progress of human rights in Vietnam. They believe that Ambassador Marine and his staff are not doing enough to stop these blatant violations of human rights. It seems to me that the Vietnamese government is conducting this crackdown on advocates of human rights and religious freedom because it believes that the U.S. has no further leverage in the region. Now that Vietnam has been admitted to the WTO, and met with the Holy See, they believe they can respond in this brutal fashion to supporters of democracy and freedom and we will not respond. I hope that you will make clear to the Vietnamese authorities that we will not stand by while this violence and intimidation continues. I believe the State Department should consider putting Vietnam back on the list of Countries of Particular Concern, and perhaps also consider canceling the planned visit of the Vietnamese president and prime minister later this year if the human rights situation in Vietnam has not improved. I appreciate the recent comments by Sean McCormack at Voice of America expressing deep concern about the March 30 trial and sentencing of Father Ly. I ask that you continue pressing these issues with the Vietnamese government, including the need to respect the basic human rights of all Vietnamese citizens, especially the freedom of information, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion. The Vietnamese people should be able to choose their own leaders through free and fair elections and to use the Internet freely without any censures or restrictions. I also ask that you encourage the Vietnamese authorities to release all political prisoners and religious leaders who are currently imprisoned because of their peaceful expression of their ideas or to fight for their religious beliefs. Among these prisoners are Father Nguyen Van Ly, Pastors Nguyen Cong Chinh and Hong Trung, lawyers Nguyen Van Dai, Le thi Cong Nhan, Le Quoc Quan, Messiers Truong Quoc Huy, and Nguyen Hoang Lon. Lastly, I believe the Vietnamese-American community, a young but energetic group comprised of more than one million citizens, should be included in future dialogues with U.S. government officials. They know the history, culture and values of Vietnam. They also have scrutinized the history and tactics of communism and the communist government's habits at the negotiating table. I sincerely believe that the history of Vietnam must inform our approach to this and all other aspects of foreign policy, and the Vietnamese-American community is a tremendous asset in this regard. I respectfully request that you invite a small representation of the Vietnamese-American community to join the U.S. delegation in next month's human rights dialogue. Best wishes. Sincerely, Frank R. Wolf, Member of Congress.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. When President Obama was awarded the Nobel Prize for his commitment to human rights, the decision was based on a misplaced hope rather than actual record. In fact, the Obama administration has been silent or inept in country after country when it comes to advocating for the oppressed, the marginalized, and the vulnerable. On Obama's watch, more than 118 Tibetans have set themselves aflame, and yet human rights was barely mentioned at the recent U.S.-China summit. On Obama's watch, genocide persists in Darfur, and thousands are starving in the Nuba Mountains, and yet the Sudan special envoy position has been vacant for nearly 4 months. On Obama's watch, Christians, including Egypt's ancient Coptic Christian community, have experienced escalating persecution throughout the Middle East, and yet religious freedom is relegated to the back burner in our dealings with Islamist governments. In the days ahead, I will highlight this administration's abject failure to champion human rights and religious freedom around the world.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I submit a copy of my June 19, 2013 letter again urging the creation of a bipartisan Select Committee to investigate the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate and annex in Benghazi last September. There are only five legislative weeks left before the one-year anniversary of the attacks. Yet there remain too many unanswered questions resulting from too few public hearings with key witnesses who were present the night of the attack. That's why 158 Members have cosponsored H. Res. 36 to create a Select Committee to conduct a full investigation with public hearings. The Select Committee has also been endorsed by family members of the Benghazi victims, more than 700 retired Special Operations officials and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association. I urge the prompt creation of a Select Committee to ensure the American people learn the truth. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, June 19, 2013. Hon. John A. Boehner, Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, The Capitol. Dear Mr. Speaker: The American people are losing confidence in their government. The tragedy in Benghazi, along with a stream of recent controversies, including the IRS and the Justice Department's targeting of reporters at Fox News and the Associated Press, as well as the ambiguity about recently disclosed programs at the National Security Agency, are eroding public trust in the institutions of government. This diminishing of public confidence isn't limited to the Executive Branch. Congress' approval rating is at an all-time low. A June 14 National Journal article said, ``Nearly 8 in 10 Americans told Gallup pollsters this month that they disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job, the 45th consecutive month that more than two-thirds of Americans graded Congress poorly. The problem isn't as much what Congress is doing as what it is not getting done.'' I believe most Americans would agree that one of the items ``not getting done'' is a thorough, comprehensive and ultimately definitive investigation into the response to the Benghazi attacks. That is why I have been pushing so hard for a bipartisan Select Committee to investigate the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi. The response among most of our colleagues and the public has been overwhelming. Since January, when I proposed including the Select Committee in the House Rules package for the 113th Congress, more than two-thirds of House Republicans--a majority of the majority-- have cosponsored my bill, H. Res. 36, to create the Select Committee. Since that time, there has been a growing chorus of support. The bill has been endorsed by the parents of some of the victims, by more than 700 retired Special Operations officials, by the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Associations, which represents the State Department security officers who were on the ground in Benghazi, and by The Wall Street Journal editorial page in addition to dozens of other commentators, former diplomats and military officials. I believe this broad support speaks to the public's hunger for clear answers on Benghazi--answers which to date have been elusive. That is why more than nine months after the devastating attack, my resolution continues to add new cosponsors; it now has the support of 158 Republicans. I recognize that ``regular order'' has made some progress over the last six months; most notably Chairman Issa's constructive hearing with several State Department whistleblowers. I also understand that Chairman McKeon has planned a hearing with Gen. Carter Ham for next week, but like so many of these hearings, this, too, will be held behind closed doors. There is no reason Gen. Ham's testimony shouldn't be public. This latest classified hearing is symptomatic of a broader problem with respect to the current congressional approach to investigating Benghazi: Too much has been done in a piecemeal fashion, behind closed doors, thereby robbing the American people of clear answers to important questions surrounding the murder of a sitting U.S. ambassador and three civilian employees, and the grievous injury of untold others. Deuteronomy 16:20 tells us, ``Justice, justice shalt thou pursue.'' As we quietly marked the nine-month anniversary of the attacks last week, I know many people wondered if there will ever be any clear resolution to this investigation, let alone justice. Writing about Benghazi in The Wall Street Journal last month, columnist Peggy Noonan pondered, ``Was all this incompetence? Or was it politics disguised as the fog of war? Who called these shots and made these decisions? Who decided to do nothing?'' More than nine months later, the Congress still cannot answer these questions. No one has been held responsible for the failure to respond that night. A few mid-level career officials have been penalized, but ultimately those senior officials who were in the position to actually say the buck stops here--cabinet secretaries and political appointees at the White House, State Department, Defense Department and CIA--have emerged unscathed, and in some cases, seemingly the better for it. Consider that former Secretary Clinton now earns hundreds of thousands of dollars for every speech she gives, former Secretary Panetta just signed a $3 million book deal and former CIA Director Petraeus recently joined an investment firm in New York. Similarly, several other administration officials associated with the Benghazi response to the attack have been promoted. Ambassador Rice has been promoted to national security advisor, then-deputy national security advisor Dennis McDonough has been promoted to White House chief of staff, and then-White House chief of staff Jack Lew has been promoted to Treasury Secretary. If all responsible for the government's response to Benghazi have been rewarded with lucrative contracts or promotions within the administration, what signal does this send to the American people about accountability? Mr. Speaker, we're fast approaching the Independence Day recess. We will only have four legislative weeks in July before the August recess. When we return in September we will be just days away from the one-year anniversary of the Benghazi attacks. We must not wait until the second year of this investigation to commit the focused resources of a Select Committee in pursuit of government accountability and, ultimately, truth. Sources are disappearing and leads are drying up. The Select Committee legislation needs to be Swiftly brought to the floor for a vote, so the House can hold public hearings over the summer--focused exclusively on the core issues about why no assistance was sent to the Americans under fire in Benghazi--and attempt to provide a final public report by the first anniversary of this attack. You have a number of committee chairman who would be excellent at leading the Select Committee. Chairman Issa has shown in his hearing with the State Department whistleblowers that he would be a good chairman. Similarly, Chairman Royce, Chairman Rogers, Chairman McKeon, Chairman Goodlatte and Chairman McCaul are all strong leaders and would ably chair a Select Committee. Further, we have a lot of talent in our conference to draw from. There are a number of newer members who have proven themselves to be capable and insightful investigators. You could consider appointing some of them to the Select Committee, too. As I mentioned earlier, a number of new controversies involving the Obama Administration have surfaced in recent months that demand the committees' full attention. This is all the more reason to take the best of the best under a Select Committee to build, at no additional cost, on the work that has already been done through regular order. There would be no need to start over, as some have tried to say. Nor would there be additional costs--the resolution specifically states that we should use existing resources. We owe it to the families of the Benghazi victims and to the not yet named survivors, whose lives will be indelibly marked by the wounds they endured protecting the annex, to honor their sacrifice and their service. Harkening back to Deuteronomy, we must pursue justice on their behalf, recognizing their heroism and an accounting for the failures in leadership that left them exposed and vulnerable. We also owe it to the men and women who serve our country now and in the years ahead to restore confidence that if they come under fire, we will make every effort to come to their defense. For these reasons alone, we should not give up on this issue. I am afraid that if we don't move on a Select Committee, we'll never find out the truth. Just as The Wall Street Journal editorial page in May said, ``A Select Committee is the only means available now for the U.S. political system to extricate itself from the labyrinth called Benghazi.'' The need for a Select Committee is underscored by the difficulty we're having getting answers on a number of current investigations. Consider that in the case of the IRS scandal, both the Ways and Means Committee and the Oversight and Government Reform Committee have opened up independent investigations that will likely take significant resources for months to come. It is important that they investigate, and they are doing an excellent job. But despite these efforts, much remains unknown about the IRS scandal--which involves only a single agency and does not have to deal with sensitive, classified information--including whether the political targeting of groups was confined to the Cincinnati office or was actually directed by Washington. We still don't have a clear answer. In comparison, the Benghazi case cuts across multiple national security agencies and the White House involving sensitive information, thereby putting it in a league of its own among the various scandal investigations. Also of great interest is the increasing concern that the FBI is being used by various agencies as an excuse to avoid answering questions on Benghazi, especially as this investigation drags on longer. The American people should be troubled by the anemic pace of the FBI's investigation of those responsible for the attacks. Nearly a year later, the U.S. does not have a single suspect in custody. The Tunisians released one suspect earlier this year, after making the FBI wait for months to interview him. Another person of significant interest has been held since last fall by the Egyptian government, a recipient of billions of dollars in U.S. foreign assistance, but they will not allow the FBI to interview him. Even more concerning, last month the Associated Press reported that the FBI allegedly has identified five men believed to be responsible for the Benghazi attacks, but won't detain them because it does not have enough evidence to try them in a U.S. civilian court. For the U.S. to know the identities and possible locations of those who killed four Americans and fail to take action immediately because the administration insists on an Article III trial is shameful. For these reasons, any worthwhile Benghazi investigation must also consider how the Justice Department has managed its investigation into the terrorists over the last year. Despite these serious issues, much of the House's investigation on Benghazi to date has centered on secondary discussions like the ``talking points'' and the Accountability Review Board process, to the detriment of more fundamental issues like the administration's apparent abandonment of Americans who were facing a deadly siege. On the issues that matter most, there is nothing that happened that deadly night in Benghazi that can't be addressed in a public hearing and accompanying report of findings. There are ways to protect classified information while still allowing the public to learn what actually happened that night. There is no legitimate reason that the public shouldn't know what calls for help were made from Benghazi, who received those calls and, most importantly, why no support was sent to the Americans under siege. There is no reason that officials in the chain of command at various agencies shouldn't be asked to answer publicly why no effort was made to rescue those in Benghazi. It has been repeated often that there were no military assets in the region that could have responded in time to stop the initial attack on the consulate. But when the attacks started, no one could have known whether it would last eight minutes, eight hours, or eight days, or longer. It appears that not even a single plane was scrambled. We can't help but draw the deeply troubling conclusion that within minutes of the attack, the decision was made that the battle was lost and the Americans left there would be collateral damage in the greater War on Terror. If our government never sent a plane to help defend the annex, it begs the question: Did they even send an American plane to get the bodies and survivors out of Benghazi after the attacks? There's no reason the public should not learn the answer to this question, too. As Lt. Gen. William. G. Boykin (ret.) and other former Special Operations officials have noted, a bedrock American ethos--that our nation never leaves anyone behind on the battlefield--was shattered that night in Benghazi. No one came to rescue them despite pleas for help. More than nine months later, too many questions remain unanswered: Who took the call that night? What were they told and how did they respond? Why was the determination made not to intervene in a horrific assault on a U.S. diplomat and his brave support staff? In the dangerous world in which we live there are undoubtedly hard fought battles where American blood is spilled, and lives lost--our nation is painfully aware of this reality through our experience in distant lands like Iraq and Afghanistan. But Benghazi was an unanticipated battlefield where terrorist elements seized on the occasion of the anniversary of 9/11 to strike at an American outpost abroad. They did so with deadly consequence, and their attack was met with silence from a superpower. This is a black mark on our national history. It emboldens others with similarly gruesome aims. It leaves vulnerable Americans serving in dangerous posts. And ultimately, the lack of transparency from the various government agencies and entities involved undermines the faith of the American people in their government. This is a less obvious ``casualty'' of that dark day, but it has lasting implications which we as public servants know well. For in a functioning democracy there is a sacred trust that must exist between the government and the governed and that trust is precipitously eroding. As the Wall Street Journal noted in its May editorial, ``Let Benghazi's chips fall. The House should appoint a Select Committee.'' Best wishes. Sincerely, Frank R. Wolf, Member of Congress.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I delivered the following remarks at a Wilson Center event focused on the future of religious minorities in the Middle East. I'd like to begin by thanking my former colleague, Congresswoman Jane Harman, and the Wilson Center for hosting this discussion on such a timely issue. I have long been focused on international religious freedom--specifically on the plight of persecuted people of faith wherever they may be. Martin Luther King Jr. famously said, `In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.' America has always been a friend to the oppressed, the persecuted, the forgotten. But sadly today, that allegiance is in question as religious freedom and human rights abuses around the globe increasingly go unaddressed and unanswered. Looking to the Middle East there is often societal and communal violence and repression against religious communities which specifically targets religious minorities. Too often the governments of these lands foster an atmosphere of intolerance or in some cases such as Iran, outright criminality as it relates to different faith traditions like the Baha'is. Tragically, Since 1979, the Iranian government has killed more than 200 Baha'i leaders and dismissed over 10,000 from government and university jobs. Further, throughout the region, there is impunity surrounding acts of religiously targeted violence, onerous registration requirements for houses of worship, and a general climate of fear which isolates and too often drives out religious minorities. These realities have been exasperated by the so-called Arab Spring--a Spring which has devolved into Winter for many of the most vulnerable in these societies--foremost among them the ancient Christian communities. The future of religious minorities in the Middle East is of course the focus of our discussion today. I would argue that if the current trajectory holds true, the future of these communities--communities which are woven into the very fabric of the region--is uncertain at best. In February I travelled to the Middle East--specifically to Lebanon and Egypt. One of the main purposes of the trip was to spend time with the Syrian Christian community--a community with ancient roots dating back to the 1st century. We read in the Bible about Paul on the road to Damascus. According to the latest estimates the brutal civil war, which continues to rage, has taken nearly 93,000 lives. With the Syrian crisis entering its third year, the eventual outcome, including how many will perish in or be displaced by the continued violence and who will step into the power vacuum, is far from certain. Moreover, what that will mean for the Christian community in Syria is largely unknown and, unfortunately, rarely addressed by Western media. I wanted to hear firsthand from Syrian Christians about their concerns and to put this issue in the larger context of an imperiled Christian community in the broader Middle East, specifically in Egypt and Iraq. Coptic Christians and other minorities in Egypt have increasingly been marginalized with the ascendancy of the Muslim Brotherhood. The recently drafted constitution, which made blasphemy a criminal offense, is highly problematic. A February 5 Associated Press article reported, `[p]rovisions in the document allow for a far stricter implementation of Islamic Shariah law than in the past, raising opponents' fears that it could bring restrictions on many civil liberties and the rights of women and Christians.' Increasingly these fears are being born out. Just last month, a young Christian teacher in Egypt was accused of insulting Islam while teaching a social studies class. In a Christian Science Monitor article about this case and the trend more broadly, a local human rights activist reportedly said, `All Coptic teachers are scared here now that any child who fights with them could accuse them of blasphemy and drag them to court.' The issues I've just outlined must be viewed not simply as today's news but rather through the lens of history. A phrase not often heard outside the majority Muslim world is `First the Saturday people, then the Sunday people.' The `Saturday people' are, of course, the Jews. Except for Israel, their once vibrant communities in countries throughout the region are now decimated. In 1948 there were roughly 150,000 Jews in Iraq; today 4 remain. In Egypt, there were once as many as 80,000 Jews; now roughly 20 remain. It appears a similar fate may await the ancient Christian community in these same lands. Consider this observation by author and adjunct fellow at the Center for Religious Freedom, Lela Gilbert, who recently wrote in the Huffington Post: ``Between 1948 and 1970, between 80,000 and 100,000 Jews were expelled from Egypt-- their properties and funds confiscated, their passports seized and destroyed. They left, stateless, with little more than the shirts on their backs to show for centuries of Egyptian citizenship. . . .'' One of my last meetings in Egypt was with 86-year-old Carmen Weinstein, the president of the Jewish Community of Cairo (JCC). She was born and raised in Egypt and had lived her entire life there--a life set against the backdrop of a great Jewish emigration out of Egypt, namely the departure of thousands of Egyptian Jews from the 1940s--60s. She led a small community of mostly elderly Jewish women in Cairo, who with their sister community in Alexandria, represent Egypt's remaining Jews. There are 12 synagogues left in Cairo. Some, along with a landmark synagogue in Alexandria, have been refurbished by the government of Egypt and/or US. Agency for International Development (USAID) and have received protection as cultural and religious landmarks--many have not. Further, the 900 year old Bassatine Jewish Cemetery is half overrun with squatters and sewage. Ms. Weinstein sought to preserve these historic landmarks as well as the patrimony records of the Egyptian Jewish community. Not long after my return to the US., Ms. Weinstein passed away and is now buried in the very cemetery she sought to protect. Meanwhile, with the fall of Hosni Mubarak, Coptic Christians, numbering roughly 8-10 million, are leaving in droves in the face of increased repression, persecution and violence. A January 8 National Public Radio (NPR) story reported `Coptic Christians will celebrate Christmas on Monday, and many will do so outside their native Egypt. Since the revolution there, their future in the country has looked uncertain and many are resettling in the United States.' A May 15 New York Times piece with the headline, `Christians Uneasy in Morsi's Egypt,' reported that, `Since the ouster of Mr. Mubarak in February 2011, a growing number of Copts, including some of the most successful businessmen, have left Egypt or are preparing to do so, fearing persecution by an Islamist-controlled government as much as the stagnant economy that is smothering their industries.' And yet our government continues to give increasingly scarce U.S. foreign assistance to the Egyptian government without a single string attached. Just last month, weeks before an Egyptian court sentenced more than 40 pro-democracy NGO workers, several of whom are American, including Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood's son, to jail, Secretary Kerry quietly waived the law that would have prevented the $1.3 billion, BILLION, in U.S. taxpayer money from going to Egypt absent concrete steps toward true democracy and respect for basic human rights and religious freedom. Similarly, Iraq's Christian population has fallen from as many as 1.4 million in 2003 to roughly 500,000 today. Churches have been targeted, believers kidnapped for ransom and families threatened with violence if they stay. In October 2010, Islamist extremists laid siege on Our Lady of Salvation Catholic Church in Baghdad, killing over 50 hostages and police, and wounding dozens more. The head of the Chaldean Catholic Church in Iraq reportedly told MidEast Christian News that the number of Christian church declined precipitously in the last decade. There are roughly 60 Christian churches in the entire country, down from more than 300 as recently as 2003. Of course other, much smaller but no less vulnerable, religious minorities have also suffered greatly in Iraq. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, in its recently release annual report found that, `Large percentages of the country's smallest religious minorities--which include Chaldo-Assyrian and other Christians, Sabean Mandaeans, and Yezidis--have fled the country in recent years, threatening these communities' continued existence in Iraq.' And yet, last year, the General Accounting Office (GAO) released a report titled, `U.S. Assistance to Iraq's Minority Groups in Response to Congressional Directive,' which it had conducted at the request of several Members of Congress, including Congresswoman Anna Eshoo and myself after hearing from representatives of the Iraqi Diaspora community that despite targeted congressional funding intended to assist these religious communities, little tangible proof or impact was being seen on the ground. Over multiple years, Congress directed the State Department and USAID to dedicate certain funds to help Iraq's minority populations. But GAO found that these agencies couldn't prove they spent the funds as Congress intended. Perhaps this failure to follow a clear congressional directive was attributable in part to a refusal on the part of this administration, and frankly the previous administration, to acknowledge that minorities were being targeted, rather than merely victims of generalized violence in Iraq. In short, over the span of a few decades, the Middle East, with the exception of Israel, has virtually been emptied of Jews. In my conversations with Syrian Christian refugees, Lebanese Christians and Coptic Christians in Egypt, a resounding theme emerged: a similar fate may await the `Sunday People.' While it remains to be seen whether the historic exodus of Christians from the region will prove to be as dramatic as what has already happened to the Jewish community, it is without question devastating, as it threatens to erase Christianity from its very roots. Consider Iraq. With the exception of Israel, the Bible contains more references to the cities, regions and nations of ancient Iraq than any other country. The patriarch Abraham came from a city in Iraq called Ur. Isaac's bride, Rebekah, came from northwest Iraq. Jacob spent 20 years in Iraq, and his sons (the 12 tribes of Israel) were born in northwest Iraq. A remarkable spiritual revival as told in the book of Jonah occurred in Nineveh. The events of the book of Esther took place in Iraq as did the account of Daniel in the Lion's Den. Furthermore, many of Iraq's Christians still speak Aramaic the language of Jesus. In fact a February 2013 Smithsonian Magazine story noted `[a]s Jesus died on the cross, he cried in Aramaic, ``My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?'' Further, in Egypt, some 2,000 years ago, Mary, Joseph and Jesus sought refuge in this land from the murderous aims of King Herod. Egypt's Coptic community traces its origins to the apostle Mark. lf, as appears to be happening, the Middle East is effectively emptied of the Christian faith, this will have grave geopolitical implications and does not bode well for the prospects of pluralism and democracy in the region. These developments demand our attention as policymakers. But rather than being met with urgency, vision or creativity, our government's response, both Executive and Congressional, has been anemic and at times outright baffling especially to the communities most impacted by the changing Middle East landscape. We would do well to recall the words of Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel, ``We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.'' Prior to February, I was last in Egypt in June 2011 four months after Hosni Mubarak stepped down as president and turned over power to the military. 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 during that trip felt abandoned by the West. Their disillusionment with the U.S. and general trepidation about the rise of Islamists in the lead up to the elections was tempered by a palpable sense of anticipation, and in some cases, even hope about what the future might hold for the Egyptian people. That hope has long since faded and fear has taken up residence. In conversation after conversation Coptic Christians, reformers, secularist, women and others told me that the U.S. was perceived as the largest supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood-led government. Further, there was a widely held perception that the U.S. was either disengaged or simply uninterested in advocating for religious freedom and other basic human rights. This is a perception informed by reality. Briefly turning from the Middle East for a moment consider the following: Genocide persists in Darfur; the Sudan Special Envoy position has been vacant for 3 month; an internationally indicted war criminal, Sudanese president Bashir, travels the globe with impunity; meanwhile the administration actively worked to undermine congressional attempts to isolate Bashir by cutting off non-humanitarian aid to countries who host him, and then in April rewarded a notorious Sudanese government official, accused of torturing enemies and seeking to block U.N. peacekeepers in Darfur, with an invitation to Washington for high-level meetings. In China, human rights issues are consistently relegated to the back-burner as seen in the recent summit. This administration and the previous administration have ignored bipartisan Congressional calls to place Vietnam on the State Department's list of the most egregious religious freedom violators, despite crackdowns on people of faith and an overall deteriorating human rights situation, preferring instead a policy defined simply by trade. Consecutive administrations have been silent about the brutal gulags enslaving thousands in North Korea and can barely muster an objection when the Chinese government flouts its international obligations to North Korean refugees by deporting them to an almost certain death sentence. The examples are too numerous to cite. In 1998 I authored the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA) which created a dedicated office at the State Department headed by an Ambassador-at-Large who was intended to serve as the primary advisor to the Secretary of State on matters of religious freedom. It also created the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), an independent, bipartisan advisory body distinct from the State Department which can make clear-eyed policy recommendations unfettered by other diplomatic or bureaucratic considerations. The legislation created the ``Countries of Particular Concern'' designation, reserved for those countries with the most severe systematic, ongoing and egregious violations. A designation which has been grossly under-utilized--this administration has failed to even designate ANY CPC's since 2011. At the time of introduction, as is their institutional inclination, the State Department was adamantly opposed to the legislation and sought to undermine it at every turn. Just last week, the National Security subcommittee of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee held a hearing which examined the government's record on implementing IRFA, at which panelist Chris Seiple testified. There was near unanimity that over the course of successive administrations, both Republican and Democrat, IRFA had not been implemented as Congress intended. The IRE office is presently buried in the bureaucracy. The ambassador, a fine person, is marginalized. The issue itself America's first freedom, is viewed as periphery. Fast forward to 2011. I worked with Congresswoman Anna Eshoo to introduce bipartisan legislation to create a high- level special envoy charged with advocating on behalf of religious minorities in the Middle East and South Central Asia. At the time of introduction, the IRE ambassador post had been vacant for two years, sending a clear message globally that this issue simply was not a priority. The legislation overwhelmingly passed the House last Congress only to stall in the Senate. Then Senators Webb and Kerry blocked it from moving forward largely at the request of the State Department. Congresswoman Eshoo and myself along with Senators Roy Blunt and and Carl Levin have reintroduced the legislation this year. The legislation mandates that the envoy would have a priority focus on Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan--countries where Christians, Baha'is, Ahdmadiya Muslims, Jews and more face incredible repression, persecution, violence and even death. There is a historic precedent for effective special envoys advancing seemingly intractable issues. Consider former Sudan Special Envoy John Danforth. His laser beam focus on the peace process, high-level access to the White House and undivided attention to his mission was incredibly effective. I don't pretend to think that a special envoy will single- handedly solve the problem, but it certainly can't hurt to have a high-level person within the State Department bureaucracy who is exclusively focused on the protection and preservation of these ancient communities. This will send an important message to both our own foreign policy establishment and to suffering communities in the Middle East and elsewhere that religious freedom is a priority--that America will be a voice for the voiceless. Let me conclude by sharing the quote of a Coptic priest who was recently interviewed about the blasphemy charges facing the young Coptic teacher I mentioned earlier. He said, ``Today, despite this repression, we can live. But tomorrow, what will we do? The coming days will be much worse.'' This much is clear: absent strong, principled U.S. leadership on this fundamental human right, the future for religious minorities in the Middle East will indeed be much worse. In a Constitution Day speech, President Ronald Reagan described the United States Constitution as ``a covenant we have made not only with ourselves, but with all of mankind.'' We have an obligation to keep that covenant for it is a covenant that transcends time and place--it is a covenant with the beleaguered Coptic Christian in Egypt, the imprisoned Baha'i in Iran, the fearful Chaldean nun in Iraq. We would do well to remember that repressive governments the world over fear the words of the Constitution and the promise they hold as much as they fear the aspirations of their own people.''

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, more than three months since the departure of Sudan Special Envoy Princeton Lyman, this administration has yet to fill his position. A June 11 UPI story covered a recently released Amnesty International report which underscored that, ``Indiscriminate bombing has been the Sudanese government's signature tactic in Blue Nile state, to devastating effect.'' Amnesty reported on the desperate humanitarian situation facing the people of the region--including acute food shortages and virtually non- existent access to medical care. The report underscored the fact that an internationally indicted war criminal, Sudanese President Omar Bashir, continues to evade justice and concludes: ``With no accountability for past crimes, there is little deterrence for those of the present.'' I couldn't agree more which is why I attempted to restrict non- humanitarian foreign assistance to countries that diplomatically welcomed an architect of genocide in an effort to isolate a man who undoubtedly has blood on his hands. I offered an amendment to that effect to last year's appropriations bill--an amendment which the Obama Administration sought to defeat as the appropriations process moved forward. These realities beg certain questions: What is this administration's policy on Sudan? Is it to isolate Bashir? Apparently not. Is it to pursue justice for the Sudanese people? Not if it risks ruffling diplomatic feathers. Is it to elevate the issue within our own foreign policy establishment? Not really--how else to explain a prolonged vacancy of the Special Envoy post?

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was unavoidably detained due to a long-standing commitment and missed rollcall vote 192, on consideration of a motion to recommit with instructions for H.R. 2216, and rollcall vote 193, on passage of H.R. 2216, the Military Construction, Department of Veterans Affairs and Other Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2014. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall 192 and ``aye'' on rollcall 193.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, on Memorial Day I had the privilege of attending a ceremony in Great Falls, Virginia, honoring those who have fought for our great Nation. I was joined at the service with dozens of Great Falls residents, along with other community leaders, to pay tribute to the 25 men and women of Great Falls who died in battle or from attacks on America. The service began with a friendly welcome from Mr. Bruce Ellis Fein, a member of Friends of the Great Falls Freedom Memorial. In 2002, Friends of the Great Falls Freedom Memorial was created with the goal of building a memorial site in Great Falls dedicated to those residents who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom. The highlight of the service was the keynote speech by Lt. Gen. Norman H. Smith who served our country in the Marine Corps for over 35 years. In his address, Lt. Gen. Smith discussed his recent trip to the island of Iwo Jima, specifically, his visit to Mt. Suribachi with several surviving veterans of the Battle of Iwo Jima. Lt. Gen. Smith has had an established military career and has been awarded numerous decorations for his service. He now serves as president of the Iwo Jima Association of America and currently resides in my congressional district in Winchester, Virginia. I submit Lt. Gen. Smith's remarks from the Great Falls Memorial Day Service and a recent news article from the Great Falls Connection. Address by Lieutenant General Norman H. Smith, USMC (Ret) of Winchester, Virginia at the Memorial Day 2013, the Great Falls Freedom Memorial Good Morning. I'm going to take a bit of keynote speaker's prerogative to point out one special guest for today's service, and he is Marine Tommy Cox, a veteran of the Iwo Jima campaign of World War 2. I'm honored to speak to you this morning on this particular day, in this particular place, which is dedicated to those residents who have given their lives in the cause of freedom. I'm a Marine, but it is my great privilege to be here today to represent all of our Armed forces. All of them contribute mightily to the security of our nation. It is an even greater honor, on this Memorial Day 2013, to speak about the tens of thousands of our fellow citizens who have given their lives in the defense of our country, its people, and its principles. For me, Memorial Day came early this year, in mid-March on the island of Iwo Jima. I went there with a group that included military historians, writers, students from the Young Marines organization and, first and foremost, 14 veterans of the battle of Iwo Jima and the Pacific campaign of World War 2. These men who are now in their late 80's and early 90's were, most of them, teenagers in February of 1945, when the battle began. The ultimate goal of the Iwo Jima campaign was to gain ever closer access to the Japanese home islands in the event that an invasion of Japan would be necessary in order to end the long, bloody war. Iwo Jima in 1945 was a barren volcanic island covered with ash and stone. There was nowhere to take cover, no trees, nowhere even to be able to dig a fighting hole, for the soil was ashy sand that acquired a name of its own: the black sands of Iwo Jima. Beneath this forbidding surface lay noxious sulphur beds that stank, and many miles of tunnels, caves and reinforced fighting positions crammed with small arms, machine guns, mortars and artillery pieces. The Japanese defenders, well prepared for an assault on the island, intended to inflict massive casualties on their enemies. They did. Sixty-eight years later, the 14 Iwo Jima vets I traveled with returned to the site of a savage battle that went on without pause and without quarter, on either side, for 36 days. They went back to remember their own experiences and to keep alive the sacrifices they witnessed. Six thousand eight hundred Marines died during the 36-day battle. 22,000 were wounded. More than 20,000 Japanese were killed. In February 1945 the Iwo Jima veterans of today were fighting for their lives and the lives of their brother Marines and sailors. They were fighting, too, for the lives of many Army Air Corps crewmen who would have died were it not for the emergency landing field built by Seabees while the battle still raged. It is estimated that more than 20,000 U.S. airmen were saved by landing their battle damaged B-29s and B-24s as they returned from bombing raids over Japan. All the American Armed Forces contributed to the victory on Iwo: the Army, Navy, Navy Air, the Army Air Corps, the Marine Corps, the Coast Guard and the often forgotten Merchant Marine. The almost accidental photograph of the flag raising on Mt. Suribachi became an iconic image of American valor. Today, Mt. Suribachi is the site of a very different annual ceremony, a ceremony that none of the 14 returning veterans could have believed possible in 1945. This, the annual Reunion of Honor, is attended by American and Japanese alike, who meet every year to commemorate the historic battle and the post war U.S.-Japanese alliance. The Reunion of Honor began in 1995, when the Iwo Jima Association of America joined with the Iwo Jima Association of Japan in order to honor warriors on both sides who died for their respective countries on that desolate island, 600 miles from Japan. This memorial service is not about lauding the victors nor humiliating the vanquished. Nor does it attempt to glorify war. Far from it. Iwo Jima was a killing ground and, like our own Civil War battlefields in the Shenandoah Valley and other places, it is also hallowed ground where the remains of the missing still lie. To the Japanese families of soldiers whose bodies were never recovered, it is an annual pilgrimage undertaken to honor their ancestors. This year the hour-long service took place in perfect weather, on an island that looks far different from the hellish place it was 68 years ago. What was black sand and scarred rock is now green with scrub trees and shrubs. Dirt roads have been paved, memorial markers have been placed. The beaches, however, are still black sand. Japanese and American military and governmental officials spoke during the service and wreaths were laid on the memorial stone markers. A military band played, a band composed of both American and Japanese musicians. Following the ceremony the American group boarded mini-vans for the trip up the serpentine road to the top of Mt. Suribachi. During the battle, this mountain--about the height of the Washington Monument--was honeycombed with gun emplacements that rained deadly fire on the U.S. forces. On the third day of the invasion, elements of the 28th Marine Regiment made a tortuous and deadly ascent up the steep side of the mountain, to its peak. It was here that the now famous flag raising took place. The photo taken was used to create the magnificent bronze monument in Arlington Cemetery: the Marine Corps War Memorial. Atop Suribachi the Iwo vets and others visited the unit memorials placed there. Photos were taken and more stories from the vets were forthcoming as they gazed down upon the landing beaches and the now peaceful landscape of Iwo Jima. As we stood on Mt. Suribachi some of the vets talked about their recollections of the battle . . . and the rest of us listened. Donald Graves is 87. He was 18 then. He remembered having steak for breakfast at 0700 on the day he went ashore in the 3d wave. Once on the black beach he lay with his face in the sand, very scared. He told me he was clinging to a ledge on Mt. Suribachi with his flamethrower, just a few feet from where the flag was raised. Bill Montgomery is 89. In 1945 he was not long out of high school. On Iwo Jima he was the only survivor of his small unit. When he saw the flag raised on Suribachi, he thought it was all over . . . but the battle went on for more than a month. He told me that he had not wanted to revisit the scene of so much tragedy, but decided to come now to remember, and to honor his fallen brother Marines. Lieutenant General Larry Snowden, 92, a native Virginian, was a young company commander on Iwo Jima. When he talks about the battle he never fails to remember the men he lost there. To this day he holds them close in loving memory of their courage and honor. In today's world, 68 years is a very long time. To the younger generations, it may seem like an eternity. In the 68 years since the battle of Iwo Jima, much has happened that we might prefer to forget. The young men who survived the battle, which was after all, but one of countless such battles in the European and Pacific Theaters of World War 2, may have wanted nothing more than merciful forgetfulness . . . and who could blame them? The men I stood with on Suribachi have not forgotten. They spoke with quiet dignity about those who died there. They grieve for them still. The stakes during the dark days of any war are so high . . . so high. Those who make the greatest sacrifice have no tomorrows. They have given them to us. For those who have given their lives, we must and will be strong, be faithful, be free. To them we owe all that we now possess. Our duty is clear; we will never forget our Nation's debt of gratitude to those who died in the defense of our liberties. Thank you.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. WOLF. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I want, again, to begin: I don't believe it's fair to say that had we closed down Guantanamo Bay bin Laden would not have done what he had done. Bin Laden was active and al Qaeda was active in a 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center that was before the Guantanamo Bay. They were involved in the bombing of the American Embassy in Tanzania and Nairobi that was before. And I don't believe that al Qaeda and al-Shabaab and all these are waiting to see, Well, when President Obama closes down Guantanamo Bay, we're going to kind of get off the field and it's going to be over. I just don't think that has any impact. Secondly, the transferees--according to a political article, FBI Director Robert Mueller stated: To transfer detainees to local jails could affect or infect other prisoners or have the capability of affecting events outside the prison system. I agree with Director Mueller. I think Director Mueller has done a great job. On the Moussaoui case--if the gentleman remembers, Moussaoui was in Alexandria for 4 years, and it tied up Alexandria. And to bring some of these people and to try them here creates a lot of problems. The other issue, though, is 15 percent, at least--and this is an old figure. It could be higher, it could be a little bit lower, but at least 15 percent of the terrorist recidivism rate of released detainees that were released back to Yemen and places like that, it is not unheard of to have, as you release some--and some were released under the Bush administration--went back on the field and killed our men and women. And so to release these, certainly you would never do this in an appropriations bill. You would have extensive hearings in and out. You would call the FBI to ask them what are the ramifications. You would call the CIA to ask them what are the ramifications. You would call Homeland Security to ask them what are the ramifications. So for all these issues--and I won't take up any more time because we covered it last night--I think this is a bad amendment, and I urge its defeat. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WOLF. Moussaoui was picked up here in the United States. He was not picked up in the battlefield in Afghanistan or someplace like that. So they were totally separate-type issues. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. News broke today that an Egyptian court sentenced dozens of NGO workers, including the son of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, our former colleague, to jail, for their involvement with prominent prodemocracy organizations. Beginning with the December 2011 raids and throughout the course of the so-called ``investigation'' involving Freedom House, the National Democratic Institute and the International Republican Institute have been a highly politicized charade. Prior to their closure, these organizations carried out important and legitimate programs to help support citizen participation in the Egyptian transition process--the very essence of democracy and America's greatest export. I was in Egypt in February and heard firsthand that the Egyptian Government's handling of this case is symptomatic of a broader crackdown on civil society. This was a sham trial from the start. If this decision stands, not a penny more of U.S. taxpayer money should go to the Muslim Brotherhood-led government in Cairo. I call on President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry to personally raise this travesty of justice with the Egyptian President, Mr. Morsi, and I would urge every Member of the House and Senate to send a letter to the Egyptian Government protesting what took place yesterday in Cairo.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. I rise in opposition to my good friend's--and we are good friends--amendment. Let me tell you why. One, at the outset, in the President's first term, an executive order declared the intention to close Guantanamo Bay and bring the detainees to the United States. That proposal was rejected by the Congress overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis. Similar language is carried in a Commerce, State, Justice bill on the subcommittee on which I serve. These provisions reflect a consensus of this and previous Congresses. But let me tell you some of the real reasons why this is a bad and even, I would say, a dangerous amendment. Several of these men who have been released from Guantanamo have gone back into the battlefield and have killed Americans. Secondly, Director Mueller, and I don't have the letter here, but I will give it to my friend, said this could have an impact on local jails, the locality of the jails. Do you remember the Blind Sheikh Rahman when Officer Pepe was stabbed in the eye with regard to an escape? To bring people like this into the United States could have an impact not only on the jail but also on the community. To bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to the United States would cost roughly, if you recall, $250 million a year. Moussaoui, who was tried in the gentleman's district in Alexandria, it literally upset Alexandria, and if you take the same timeframe that Moussaoui was tried in, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's trial would go on for 4 years, would cost $1 billion--$250 million a year. Do you remember when this idea first came out, Mayor Bloomberg said nothing, and Chuck Schumer said nothing, and then all of a sudden everything broke loose and Mayor Bloomberg came out against it and Senator Schumer came out against it. Lastly, the Bureau of Prisons, we had to give Holder the ability to reprogram money because they were going to furlough prison guards. They were going to furlough prison guards. So to bring people like this in to put this stress on the Bureau of Prisons would be absolutely crazy. Let me just debunk another thing. For people who say, and I heard the President say it, that Guantanamo causes terrorism, Guantanamo Bay Prison was not there when 9/11 took place. The Blind Sheikh who was involved in trying to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993, there was no Guantanamo. It's a hoax to say that. What you say is not true. It's false. To say that Bin Laden and people like that, we're going to say, oh, well, the Congress and the administration they're going to close down Guantanamo, we're going to close down al Qaeda, we're going to close down all the terrorism, it just doesn't make any sense. This is a bad amendment. The gentleman is a good friend, but it's a bad amendment, and it's a very dangerous amendment and it would cost a lot of money and, quite frankly, I think would endanger the locality. If you vote for this amendment, you'd better be prepared. What locality wants to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to their local neighborhood. What locality wants to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to their county, to their State? I say none. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, following is the article I referred to earlier today in my one-minutes speech. [From the Washington Post, June 2, 2013] Witnesses to Tiananmen Square Struggle With What to Tell Their Children (By William Wan) Beijing.--From a young age, Qi Zhiyong's daughter asked him how he lost his leg. To everyone else in the world, Qi always responded to the question with an unflinching, often angry, answer: He lost his left leg when soldiers fired on him and other unarmed civilians during protests at Tiananmen Square in one of modern history's most brutal crackdowns. But when his daughter asked, Qi choked back the words. ``I lost it in an accident,'' he mumbled for years. The lie, however, burned at him, he said. In the 2\1/2\ decades since the protests' violent end, China's government has largely scrubbed Tiananmen from history. Bullet holes on the streets of Beijing have long been patched over. The government has barred any independent inquiry and censored all mention online. Instead, Tiananmen Square has been reduced to a single euphemistic sentence in most school textbooks, making vague reference to ``political turbulence in 1989.'' But for those who were part of the student-led protests against government repression and corruption, those dark morning hours of June 4, 1989, remain etched in memory and, in cases like Qi's, on their bodies. That generation must now decide what to tell their children about that day, if anything at all. For many, the decision is colored by how their own views have changed over time. In interviews with more than a dozen survivors, a few wondered whether the democratic cause they fought for was misguided by youthful passion. Others have won asylum abroad, and when they talk of Tiananmen to their children, it is as history--just one part of their life's larger story. But the dilemma is often more complicated for those who remain in China, where public mention of Tiananmen can result in government retribution. To this day, officials maintain that the decision was necessary for stability, and the anniversary is marked with thousands of police officers patrolling the square and chasing off journalists. Those who have found successful careers in business, law and academia often talk of it only in private, fearful of consequences for themselves and their offspring. Even some of those who have soldiered on as activists deliberately say little of Tiananmen to their children, who grow up not fully understanding why police barge into their homes each year as the anniversary approaches to interrogate and spirit away their parents for weeks without explanation. Some children experience restrictions and warnings at school. For most parents, it comes down to a choice between protecting their children from the past or passing on dangerous and bitter truths about the authoritarian society they continue to live under. It is something Qi and his wife have wrestled with throughout their 14-year-old daughter's life. The two have fought so often and so heatedly on the subject that neither dares mention 1989 at home anymore. `The veil was lifted' A 33-year-old construction worker at the time of the Tiananmen protests, Qi took a detour that night toward the central Beijing square with co-workers out of curiosity, not activism. Qi, who later converted to Christianity, now likens the moment that troops fired without warning at the crowd around him to a baptism of sorts. ``The veil was lifted from my eyes, and I saw the party for what it really was,'' he said. In the hospital, he said, as doctors tried to salvage his bullet-torn left thigh, he took a purple antiseptic liquid and, to their chagrin, angrily scrawled on his leg: ``This bullet belongs to the Communist Party's army. After the amputation, he was forced to give up his construction job and has not found work since. By the time Qi Ji was born in 1998, her father had become a full-time activist, protesting the government's maltreatment of the disabled and democracy advocates, along with other human rights abuses. Qi's wife warned him early on: Say what you want about the government to everyone else, but Ji is too young. Why create problems for her, his wife argued. Why poison her against the society she must live in? ``But I don't think it's a bad thing for her to understand this government,'' Qi said on a recent afternoon while waiting for his daughter's return from school. ``I want her to be prepared to handle life and to face these problems. Why should we cover up the truth and let her live in illusion?'' For Qi, the Tiananmen crackdown--or June 4, as it is commonly referred to in China--has become the defining moment of his life. While most people, including some former Tiananmen protesters, have learned to avoid the topic, Qi carries business cards listing his job title as ``Disabled Victim of June 4.'' His home telephone number, cellphone number and e- mail address end with deliberately chosen digits: ``89 64.'' And on the back of his cards, he has emblazoned this slogan: ``Facts written in ink cannot conceal the truth written in blood.'' His family lives in a cramped Beijing apartment, dependent on his wife's $320-a-month job as a drugstore sales assistant, while Qi cares for their daughter and supports human rights causes--work that has resulted in long stretches of detention and frequent government harassment. Qi's wife, Lu Shiying, wishes he would let go of what happened 24 years ago. She recently declined to meet with foreign journalists and warned Qi against it. ``How come others are able to move forward?'' she often asks him, he said. ``You were not the only victim on June Fourth.'' `Nothing to be gained' Kong Weizhen also was shot and lost the use of his left leg that night. But after seeing the danger and futility of his anti-government activism, he abandoned the opposition work that had brought him to the streets. Instead, he tried to make a new life for himself within the existing system. He became a salesman and worked his way up to owning a computer store. He even tried in vain to join the Communist Party at one point--an attempt, he says, to increase his pay for the sake of his 12-year-old daughter. ``My family is now my first priority,'' he explained in a phone interview. ``There's nothing to be gained from telling her about June 4. If I tell her, she may form some dangerous resentment against the party. . . . I just want her to have a safe and happy life.'' The only reason he would tell her, he said, is if another anti-government protest erupted. ``If that happened, I would use my own example to teach her what such movements can accomplish and what they cannot. And I would ask her to get as far away as she can.'' But even those who have devoted their lives to fighting for the democratic ideals of 1989 disagree on how much to tell their children. Many of them now form the core of China's dissident community. ``I don't want my children to know,'' said Zhang Lin, a rights activist in Anhui province who has spent many years in jail on state subversion charges. In February, authorities pulled his 10-year-old daughter, Anni, from school as an apparent punishment to her father. The incident spurred dozens of other activists to stage a hunger strike in front of the school. Weeks later, Anni was allowed to resume class, but only in another town far away. His daughter now loses her temper easily, Zhang said, and has become obsessed with cartoons in which the good guys beat up the bad. ``I don't want my children to follow the same path as me,'' he said. In a phone interview, his daughter said, ``I don't know why the police keep coming,'' though she knows it's related somehow to her father. When asked about June 4, she responded: ``What is June 4? I haven't heard anything about it.'' `I have no regrets' Qi said he doesn't begrudge other parents their personal decisions, but he worries that staying silent contributes to the gradual purge of China's collective memory. To this day, he said, his amputated stump hurts whenever he hears the crack of fireworks. He avoids passing Tiananmen Square, he said, because he tastes blood whenever he gets too close. In the end, suppressing all mention of June 4 in front of his daughter proved impossible. And after his daughter turned 10, a teacher made a passing reference to the date while talking about the physical space of Tiananmen Square. That night, with Qi's wife still at work, his daughter mentioned it to him, and the memories poured out. The clacking advance of tanks. The shocking sound of gunfire. The blood he saw all around him and the sudden pain and darkness. In the years that followed, he secretly told her more and more. They watched banned videos about that day on overseas Web sites. They talked about the party and its instinct for self-preservation. He watched both proud and pained as June 4 began to color her worldview as it had his. She became both more rebellious and more mature, he said. Like her parents, she now refers to the police watching their home as ``dogs,'' but she accepts without questioning when school leaders exclude her from trips abroad and from student parades at Tiananmen celebrating China's Communist rule. Lately, she's talked of becoming a kindergarten teacher so she can teach kids how to think for themselves about what's right and wrong. ``All parents want their children to live a happy life, but I have no regrets about telling her,'' Qi said. ``Only after she first tastes the bitter can she know what the sweet is.'' Qi's wife now knows that her daughter knows. But the family recently reached a kind of detente--similar to the one in Chinese society at large. When together at home these days, the family simply avoids all mention of Tiananmen Square, June 4 and what happened that day 24 years ago.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize four remarkable students from my congressional district who were recently awarded college scholarships through the ``Beat the Odds'' program. Hosted by the Loudoun Bar Association, ``Beat the Odds'' provides financial support to area students who have overcome challenging, and often tragic circumstances. The students who received awards this year have endured hardships ranging from sexual abuse to illness to poverty, yet have still achieved great success in the classroom or on the athletic field. I had the privilege of attending a ceremony for the recipients on Thursday, May 23, in Leesburg. It was an honor to meet the students and hear firsthand how they overcame adverse situations. Their ability to remain positive and work hard despite the difficulties they face is inspiring. I wish them all the best as they embrace this wonderful opportunity and move on to college. The recipients of this year's scholarships are: Jonathan ``Cory'' Dickey of Loudoun County High School, Shannon Hayes of Park View High School, Leanna Moron of Loudoun County High School and Vineetha Thekkel of Tuscarora High School. I submit two recent news articles from the Loudoun Times-Mirror and Leesburg Today on these remarkable students. [From the Loudoun Times-Mirror, May 24, 2013] Four Loudoun Students Awarded ``Beat the Odds'' Scholarships (By Alanna Dvorak) Looking at Loudoun County High School senior Leanna Moron, one wouldn't suspect the challenges she's overcome. The poised girl of Thai and Bolivian descent is an academic, sitting within the top 10 percent of her class. She takes time out of her day to work with English Language Learners. She will be attending Penn State to study nursing. She's also endured multiple traumas, from sexual abuse, financial struggles, alcoholic family members and ``tremendous heartache and pain.'' ``To know what she has lived through everyday and see her still be who she is is amazing,'' said Megan Dunn, a guidance counselor at Loudoun County and the person who nominated Moron for the award. Moron received a $6,000 scholarship from the Loudoun Bar Association's Beat the Odds program at a ceremony May 24 at the historic courthouse in Leesburg. ``It's an amazing honor,'' Moron said. ``I'm very thankful for this scholarship and this opportunity.'' The Beat the Odds program awards scholarships to students who have overcome significant life obstacles, such as abuse, illness or poverty. A national program, the Loudoun chapter was founded nine years ago by members of the Loudoun County Bar Association. ``In a given year, there are roughly 245 days we hold court,'' said Juvenile and Domestics Court Judge Pamela Brooks, who hosted the ceremony. ``I have two favorite days: today and adoption day.'' In addition to Moron, three other students received merit awards at the ceremony. Jonathan ``Cory'' Dickey, a senior football player and wrestler at Loudoun County High School, received a $2,000 award. At age 14, he physically stopped his alcoholic father from strangling his mother. His father left and the family was forced to make do with food stamps, social security benefits his mother, who is unable to work, receives and a part-time job Dickey took on. Still: the family was unable to stave off foreclosure. ``I did it not only for myself, but I try to be strong for my brothers,'' Dickey said. ``It is very tough growing up at an early age but I think it's made me a stronger person in the long run.'' Park View's Shannon Hayes' parents divorced when she eight, after her father's struggles with alcoholism made it unsafe for her. Two years later, her mom became ill and her father moved back in with the family to help out. ``I thought our family was finally growing back together,'' Hayes said. However, her father was diagnosed with Leukemia and died just 15 days before Hayes' 13th birthday. Hayes' family has also struggled financially. Hayes received a $2,500 award to put toward her education at Penn State, where she plans to study biochemistry to become a genetic engineer. Vineetha Thekkel of Tuscarora received the third merit award of the evening. Thekkel and her parents came to America in 2009 and the then 13 year old immediately had to take on an adult role, trying to find transportation for the family from the airport. Once the family settled in Leesburg, the young teenager then solicited for jobs for her mother and deaf father. Despite being laughed out by numerous business owners, Thekkel was able to help her parents find employment. They currently each work three jobs. Thekkel credits much of her success to agencies around Loudoun County who supported her family during their financial struggles with food stamps and free medical care and teachers who personally supported her. ``With their support, I was able to stay on top of my schoolwork,'' Thekkel said. Thekkel will be attending Mt. Vernon Nazarene University in Ohio and hopes to become a missionary doctor. She received a $2,500 scholarship. Several prominent members of the community came out to support the students, including Board of Supervisor member Ken Reed, School Board member Thomas Reed, Town of Leesburg Mayor Kristen Umstattd and Congressman Frank Wolf, who served as keynote speaker. Wolf told of his adversities from childhood and being teased as a stutterer and poor student. He told the students their adversity would determine their success, rather their character and ability to overcome. ``Do not be afraid to take on tough issues,'' Wolf told the students. The Beat the Odds program will hold a special event June 13 at the Tally Ho in Leesburg from 5 to 7:30 p.m. The event will serve as both a fundraiser and an opportunity for the community to hear the stories from this year's winners.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Twenty-four years ago, peaceful, pro-democracy demonstrators gathered in Tiananmen Square were brutally crushed by the People's Liberation Army. The Chinese Government remains frightened by the spirit that animated that protest. I will submit for the Record an article from today's Washington Post, which reported that: In the 2\1/2\ decades since the protests' violent end, China's government has largely scrubbed Tiananmen from history. In 1991, Congressman Chris Smith and I traveled to China where we visited Beijing Prison Number One, which housed approximately 40 Tiananmen Square protesters. While our request to visit the demonstrators was denied, we left with a pair of socks made by prisoners for export to the West. The events of the past and the continued repression today are made worse by this administration's failure to prioritize human rights in our relationship with China. Will President Obama even mention Tiananmen in his summit with the Chinese President this week, or will he abide by the censor's wishes and pretend it never happened?

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, today I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote 182, on consideration of a motion to recommit with instructions for H.R. 1911, and rollcall vote 183, on passage of H.R. 1911, the Smarter Solutions for Students Act, because of a longstanding commitment to discuss compassionate approaches to assist the poor and hungry. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall 182 and ``aye'' on rollcall 183.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize our Nation's public servants and thank them for their invaluable contributions to our country. In every community, federal employees work to make sure the government is effective, promote the common good and keep us safe. They are the people you call when you need help. As we celebrate Public Service Recognition Week, which started on Sunday, May 5, and ends on Saturday, May 11, I rise to express my gratitude to our civil servants for their tireless dedication and service. Federal employees often get little recognition for their work, despite the fact that day in and day out many of them are repeatedly put in dangerous situations. From the Customs and Border Patrol and DEA agents working to combat illegal immigration and human trafficking and drug runners, to the FBI agents rescuing children who have been kidnapped and finding suspected terrorists--federal employees perform vital jobs that make our country a safer and better place. Every day intelligence agents and Foreign Service officers on the front lines of duty sacrifice to defend democracy and keep us safe. The CIA agents who coordinated the raid to kill Osama bin Laden are federal employees. On the evening of the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, the Foreign Service officers representing our government at the consulate and annex where the attack occurred were federal employees. In addition to providing security abroad, federal employees regularly risk their lives to protect us here at home. Just last month, FBI and ATF agents worked diligently to track down the suspects in the Boston Marathon bombings. Without their hard work, we could not bring the individuals responsible for these unspeakable acts to justice. It is also important to recognize that many federal employees who are not directly in harm's way graciously serve our Nation. Nurses and doctors at the VA who care for our veterans and wounded warriors, medical researchers at NIH searching for a cure for cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, and autism are all federal employees. The FDA inspectors who trace E. coli and salmonella outbreaks to ensure that our food is safe to eat are federal employees. There are federal employees who propel our country to the forefront of scientific advancements. Scientists at Department of Energy labs, NASA astronauts, engineers and scientists all work to keep America competitive in the increasingly global economy. Meteorologists at weather service storm centers track hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, and blizzards so that we can prepare for inclement weather and natural disasters. Defense civilian riggers, machinists, refuelers, and engineers who repair sophisticated electronic weaponry systems at our Army depots, Air Force bases, and shipyards are the federal employees who support our military personnel. Air traffic controllers work to make sure we are safe when we travel. Federal firefighters protect homes and businesses when a lightning strike sets a national forest on fire. Park Service rangers facilitate safe hiking and camping in our national parks and tours of our national battlefields. These are but a few of the essential services federal employees provide. I hope my colleagues will join me in thanking them for their service to ensure the safety and security of our Nation.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, there are some who argue that the world's destinies are shaped by impersonal forces rather than by the courage and determination of individual men and women. I believe that historians of that persuasion never met my friend, and freedom's friend, Mark Palmer. I rise to celebrate the life of Ambassador Mark Palmer, who died recently after a characteristically brave and uncomplaining twenty year battle against melanoma. But for Mark's controversial determination while U.S. ambassador to Hungary that the barbed wire fences between Hungary and Austria should be severed in order to allow East Germans to leave the Communist orbit, the Berlin Wall might still be standing. But for his brave willingness to openly challenge Hungary's Communist government when conventional thinkers at the State Department and elsewhere were worried about the ``destabilizing'' effects of a Communist collapse, the Soviet Empire might still be in power. But for Mark's years of incomparably influential service as a speechwriter and pro-democracy advocate to three Presidents and six Secretaries of State, America might not have understood how the promotion of human rights, democracy and American values strategically tracks with the promotion of American national security interests. There are many examples of how history was made by the man once described by The New York Times ``as the most active Western booster for economic and political liberalization'' of Communist dictatorships. They are examples of why, at the celebration of the 20th anniversary of Hungary's liberation from communist dictatorship, Mark was awarded a Commander's Cross of Hungary's Order of Merit because, as ``the right man at the right time at the right place . . . he rose to the occasion [of] shepherding democratic opposition . . . through . . . turbulent times by giving [it] legitimacy.'' They are reasons why Mark received three Presidential Awards and two Superior Honor Awards from the Department of State during a 26 year career as a Foreign Service officer. A great moment in Mark Palmer's career--and proof of how his ideas have shaped events--was his role while in the Foreign Service as co- drafter of President Ronald Reagan's great 1982 Westminster Hall ``Democracy Crusade'' speech on democracy and human rights. The speech, whose every word had to be fought through a resistant bureaucracy, was a critical step in moving the United States from a policy of accepting and containing communism to what became the successful policy of peacefully challenging it. Thanks to Mark, the speech also led to the establishment of the National Endowment for Democracy--which he had proposed and later served as a key board member. After his Foreign Service career, Mark served for nearly twenty years as Vice Chair of Freedom House, one of America's primary human rights organizations. He was honorary chair and co-founder of the International Management Center in Budapest, Hungary and served on the boards of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, the Georgetown University Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, the Budapest International Centre for Democratic Transition, the American Academy of Diplomacy, the Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training, the University of the District of Columbia, the Friends of Falun Gong, and the Secretary of State's Advisory Committee on Democracy Promotion. Mark was the brains and inspiration behind another great institution whose positive impact will grow over the years. He helped to establish the Community of Democracies, a global assembly of democratic governments that now meets annually in support of democracy and human rights and to deepen the bonds between democratic governments. Mark served as Vice Chair of the Community's permanent operating body, its Council. As but one example of the Council's work and Mark's efforts on its behalf, he initiated and helped write increasingly influential training handbooks that guide U.S. diplomats and military officers to assist democratic promotion and transition. In Mark's honor, the Council established Palmer Prizes for contributions by diplomats to the advancement of democracy that were first awarded in 2011 to diplomats from seven countries for pro-human rights efforts in such nations as Belarus, Cuba and Zimbabwe. A frequent author of policy and advocacy pieces to leading media outlets, and of expert testimony and counsel to Congress and the Executive Branch, Mark published in 2003 his groundbreaking Breaking the Real Axis of Evil: How to Oust the World's Last Dictators by 2025. In it, he argued for a revamping of U.S. foreign policy to make worldwide promotion of democracy a primary goal. Legislation based on the book was sponsored by Senator John McCain and my late colleague and fellow Palmer admirer Tom Lantos, and was signed into law by President George W. Bush on August 3, 2007. Entitled ``ADVANCE Democracy Act of 2007'', it was described by a scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace as ``. . . the most important bill . . . on democracy promotion since the 1983 initiative to establish the National Endowment for Democracy . . .'' Mark's business career was as successful as his diplomatic career and was often focused on the same objectives. Knowing the critical value of free and unmonitored information in dictatorial and post-dictatorial countries, he founded Central European Media Enterprises Ltd. which, with local partners, established, owned and operated the first politically independent national television stations in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Romania, Ukraine and Poland. He was a co- founder of Television Development Partners and Signal One Media Corporation--ventures for the establishment of independent, commercial satellite TV channels in the Middle East. He chaired the advisory board of New Tang Dynasty Television, and strongly backed the launch of the first uncensored satellite TV broadcasts into China. In what may prove as great a contribution to 21st century world freedom as those Mark made during the 20th century, he led the effort to establish a robust U.S. initiative to overcome the Internet firewalls of China, Iran and other closed society regimes. Mark knew what the world's dictators know--that Internet firewalls are present day equivalents of the brick and barbed wire walls he helped bring down in the 20th century. He knew what China's former Premier Hu Jintao has openly acknowledged--that the ability of closed society regimes to ``purify'' the Internet is critical to their ability to remain in power. Thus, when millions of house church Christians freely and safely conduct worship services over their mobile phones in China, and when hundreds of thousands of Iranians in and out of the country conduct interactive town meetings--as I believe will soon occur--this development will be a tribute to the vision that Mark inspired many of us to share during the latter part of his productive life. Mark came early to his activism in the cause of human rights, participating during the early 1960s in Freedom Bus rides and other civil rights demonstrations while a student at Yale University, from which he graduated magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa. Taking similar action, Mark regularly sought out and met with dissidents in Moscow and Belgrade early in his career as a junior Foreign Service Officer. As a private citizen, he returned to Belgrade in 1996 to march with students against the criminal regime of then Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic. Patriotism is said to be an honorable competition with one's ancestors, and Mark had many models that helped make him the man he became. He was born on July 14, 1941 in Ann Arbor, Michigan to the late Captain Robie Ellis Palmer, USN and the late Katherine Hooker Palmer. His mother was the granddaughter of Civil War Colonel George W. Hooker, an Antietam Medal of Honor winner of the 4th Vermont Volunteers who was later appointed Assistant Adjutant General of Union Army Volunteers by President Lincoln. Not long after Mr. Palmer's birth, his father left to take command of the submarine USS Pollack, which operated in the Pacific theater and served in several dangerous missions in Japanese waters. America--and the world--will miss Mark. But as my colleagues on both sides of the aisle know--Mark's legacy will be with us for years and generations to come. When men and women escape the chains of 21st century oppression, they will be in Mark Palmer's debt as we, his friends, will forever be. Finally, in rising to celebrate Mark I rise as well to celebrate his cherished partner in all that he accomplished during his distinguished career--his wife of 47 years, Dr. Sushma Palmer.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, this week marked the 98th anniversary of the Armenian genocide. I have long been a cosponsor of a resolution introduced in multiple sessions of Congress which reaffirms the United States record on the Armenian genocide. The Armenian genocide, in which 1.5 million perished, is widely recognized as the 20th century's first genocide. Raphael Lemkin, the Jewish legal scholar who coined the word genocide and tirelessly advocated for international law defining it and preventing it, was driven largely by what happened to the Armenians. Since that time, the world has witnessed unfathomable horrors during the Nazi-perpetrated Holocaust and subsequent genocides in Bosnia, Cambodia, Rwanda and Sudan. And too often, the world has been silent in the face of such brutality despite claims of ``Never Again.'' In fact, Sudanese president Omar Bashir, an internationally-indicted war criminal charged with genocide and crimes against humanity, continues to travel the globe with virtual impunity. Adolph Hitler, in describing his murderous plans and seeking to silence those with reservations, famously said, ``Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?'' There is power in speaking the truth, even about atrocities that occurred nearly a century ago, so that others with evil aims will not be empowered by our silence. Sadly President Obama, despite his campaign promises, has once again failed to characterize the brutal slaughter of one and half million people as genocide.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, this past Saturday, Carmen Weinstein, the leader of Cairo's small remaining Jewish community died at her home. I had the privilege of meeting Ms. Weinstein during a visit to Egypt earlier this year. She had a passion for preserving Jewish history and antiquities in Egypt and protecting the remaining synagogues. She told me of her dismay that the Jewish cemetery at Bassatine, where she herself will be buried, had been overrun by squatters and vandals. Hers was a remarkable life, set against the backdrop of a great Jewish emigration out of Egypt more than 60 years ago. Since her mother's passing, Ms. Weinstein had led a small community of mostly elderly Jewish women in Cairo. In fact, she was one of fewer than 100 Jews still living in Egypt. In the words of her Washington Post obituary, ``Ms. Weinstein worked to remind people that Jews in Egypt were once part of the country's vibrant economy, cultural and political life.'' I feel fortunate to have met her. [From the Washington Post, Apr. 13, 2013] Carmen Weinstein, Jewish Leader in Cairo, Dies at 82 (By Aya Batrawy) Carmen Weinstein, the leader of Egypt's dwindling Jewish community, known for her tireless work preserving synagogues and a once-sprawling Jewish cemetery, died April 13 at the age of 82. A statement from the Jewish Community in Cairo confirmed her death in Cairo. She had been suffering from knee problems and poor blood circulation. Ms. Weinstein helped urge Egyptian authorities to renovate at least four Cairo synagogues among the 15 that still exist in the city. Just a day before her death, she traveled to the Maadi suburb to inspect the renovation of a synagogue there. Since 1978, she also worked to preserve the Bassatine cemetery, the only Jewish cemetery left in Cairo. The transformation of Bassatine mirrors the dramatic changes Egypt has undergone as its population skyrocketed and poverty grew. Named in Arabic after its gardens, the cemetery is now a slum of tightly packed redbrick apartment buildings that house thousands of poor Egyptians. Parts of the Bassatine were turned into a garbage dump. Ms. Weinstein was able to preserve a small area as a Jewish cemetery. Egypt's once thriving Jewish community largely left more than 60 years ago at a time of hostilities between the country and Israel. Since the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, an estimated 65,000 Jews left Egypt for Europe, the West and Israel. According to a friend of Ms. Weinstein's, Magda Haroun, only around 40 Egyptian Jews remain in the country, split between Cairo and the Mediterranean city of Alexandria, which once was a thriving multicultural and cosmopolitan hub. Haroun said Ms. Weinstein's father had owned a large print shop in downtown Cairo, where Ms. Weinstein had worked for some 50 years after her father's death. The family's name remains on the shop, which now sells stationery. Haroun said one of Ms. Weinstein's other achievements was in persuading Egypt's remaining Jews to come together and use Cairo's main downtown synagogue for prayer, after it had been closed for years. ``We were scattered all over Cairo, and she managed to regroup us and keep us together,'' Haroun said. In her last community newsletter, Ms. Weinstein wrote that this year's Passover ceremony in late March was celebrated by about 50 people in Cairo's main synagogue, many of them diplomats. Ms. Weinstein worked to remind people that Jews in Egypt were once part of the country's vibrant economy, cultural and political life. She was a graduate of both Cairo University and the American University in Cairo, where she studied literature, according to a biography posted on the Jewish Community in Cairo's Web site. She spoke fluent French, English and Arabic. Haroun said Ms. Weinstein often reminisced of the Egypt she knew growing up, when neighbors did not ask about one another's religion.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, as of Friday, March 15, the position of Sudan special envoy at the State Department has been vacant. This vacancy is symptomatic of a president that has all but forsaken the people of Sudan. Last December a group of prominent Sudan activists and advocates wrote a letter to the administration, which I submit for the Record, expressing their ``grave concerns that the current U.S. policy is ineffective at stopping mass atrocities in Sudan.'' They urged President Obama, in his second term, to embrace ``an urgent shift in the U.S. policy to finally end the humanitarian crises and bring about a just and lasting peace in Sudan.'' The letter cited the president's own words from 2007 when he rightly called the genocide in Darfur a ``stain on our souls'' and said that ``as a president of the United States I don't intend to abandon people or turn a blind eye to slaughter.'' And yet, I can't help but wonder if the people of Darfur, who have been displaced from their homes and brutalized by violence for ten years now, do in fact feel abandoned by this president and this administration. On March 7, CNN featured a piece by the chairman of the Darfur Union in the United Kingdom, himself a Darfuri. Tellingly, he wrote, ``. . . Khartoum's attempt to establish a racially pure Islamic state involves waging war against its own unarmed civilians, systematically and with impunity. In Darfur this has lasted a decade. The U.N. estimates that 300,000 Darfuris have died since 2003, but it hasn't bothered to estimate casualty numbers since 2008. With fighting continuing to this day, the number is likely to be far higher. The world assumes `Darfur is over.' It isn't.'' Not only is Darfur's nightmare ongoing, but Khartoum's brutality has only spread, consistent with its decades' long effort to systematically and ruthlessly consolidate power resulting in the death and displacement of untold thousands. More recently the Nuban people have been driven from their homes, targeted for killing and terrorized because of the color of their skin. Khartoum has indiscriminately bombed civilian populations--disrupting an entire way of life for this largely farming population. Starvation, death and despair have followed. I have visited the refugee camps and talked with the people personally. I have heard their pleas for help and I have conveyed their message to this administration--a message which fell on largely deaf ears. On March 19, USA Today featured a joint op-ed by actor and co-founder of the anti-genocide organization Not On Our Watch, Don Cheadle, and John Prendergast the co-founder of the Enough Project, in the op-ed wrote, ``By excluding all but a narrow clique of Sudanese from access to the power and wealth of the country, marginalized groups from the west (Darfur), south (Blue Nile and the Nuba Mountains) and east have all taken up arms against that regime. . . . Any peace effort should deal comprehensively with all the rebel movements, the unarmed opposition, and civil society, in search of a solution for the whole of Sudan. Until the abusive governing system in Sudan is radically reformed, there will be blood.'' Indeed, much blood has been shed, and yet inexplicably this administration has embraced a policy of engagement marked by conciliatory outreach to Khartoum, including the prospect of debt relief for a genocidal government, and a perverse sense of moral equivalence in dealing with South Sudan and Sudan. While there has been criticism of two successive special envoys, ultimately they were merely the implementers of a policy that is inherently flawed and ultimately ineffective. In fact, I am grateful for the dedication and efforts of both Ambassadors Scott Gration and Princeton Lyman both of whom have poured much time and energy into a daunting task. We owe them a debt of gratitude. In a February 12 letter to Secretary of State Kerry I wrote, ``Our approach to Sudan and South Sudan needs reinvigorating. It demands a renewed sense of moral clarity about who we are dealing with in Khartoum--namely genocidaires. It necessitates someone who can speak candidly with our friends in South Sudan about their own internal challenges, including corruption, and shortcomings as a new nation. While an envoy alone does not a policy make, a high-profile special envoy, from outside the department, with the knowledge and mandate to aggressively pursue peace, security and justice for the people of Sudan and South Sudan, is an important step in the right direction.'' Specifically, I recommended someone like former Senator Russ Feingold. Now there are whispers that the administration is considering former U.S. ambassador to Sudan, Tim Carney. Many in the Sudan advocacy community are deeply dismayed at this prospect and took the unusual step of asking Secretary Kerry not to move forward with this nomination. In a March 19 letter, Act for Sudan wrote, ``It has come to our attention that former U.S. Ambassador to Sudan, Timothy Carney, is being considered for the position of Special Envoy. . . . While Ambassador Carney has experience in Sudan, we are concerned that his publicly stated advice and guidance with regard to U.S. policy on Sudan will prolong the suffering of the Sudanese people and will undermine U.S. objectives to support a just peace and stable democracies in Sudan and South Sudan, which ultimately are in the best interest of the U.S. and the international community.'' The letter references a February 2009 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing that Kerry chaired where Carney proposed offering a series of carrots to Khartoum, including deferring the International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant for Sudanese President Omar Bashir, sending an ambassador to Khartoum and removing Sudan from the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism. If the past is any indication, this would be precisely the wrong direction for U.S. policy. Khartoum has met this administration's overtures with continued atrocities and intransigence. Khartoum has rightly concluded that they incur no more blame than the leadership in Juba for what has occurred since the independence vote of January 2011. Meanwhile, this administration sought to block efforts in Congress, which I initiated, to isolate Bashir. Last year I offered an amendment to the State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill which would have cut non-humanitarian foreign assistance to any nation that allowed him into their country without arresting him. The amendment was adopted with bipartisan support by voice vote despite the department's opposition. This approach of using our increasingly scarce aid dollars to effectuate change and further our foreign policy objectives is a tried and true method. When Malawi allowed Bashir to enter the country to attend a regional trade summit I pressed the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) to end Malawi's compact. The MCC was initially opposed to this course of action but ultimately, in the face of a deteriorating human rights situation internally, reversed course and suspended Malawi's compact, citing Bashir's visit as one of the reasons. Fortunately Malawi's new president, Joyce Banda, hoping to reinvigorate her country's relationship with donor countries, last year took a firm stand in refusing to allow Bashir to visit her country for the African Union (AU) summit. President Banda went so far as to decline to host the summit lest her country and her government be placed in the position of being forced to host a war criminal. Given her principled stand I made clear to the MCC Board that I supported Malawi's compact being reinstated which it ultimately was. However, other countries, including large recipients of U.S. foreign assistance, have not followed suit and the administration has failed to embrace this approach to spur such action. The amendment I proposed would isolate Bashir and make him an international pariah as is befitting a man with blood on his hands. It is noteworthy that the amendment garnered the support of 70 prominent Holocaust and genocide scholars. Dr. Rafael Medoff, director of the Wyman Institute, which initiated a letter of support to the administration from these scholars, said: ``Halting aid to those who host Bashir would be the first concrete step the U.S. has taken to isolate the Butcher of Darfur and pave the way for his arrest. If the Obama administration is serious about punishing perpetrators of genocide, it should support the Wolf Amendment.'' Sadly that support never materialized. Candidate Obama purported to be deeply concerned by the crisis in Sudan and committed to bold actions. Have we seen a fraction of that concern or anything close to bold action since he became president? Candidate Obama was sharp in his criticism of President Bush's handling of Sudan. Have we seen President Obama take even fleeting interest, beyond the occasional talking point, in the deteriorating situation in Sudan marked in part by a growing humanitarian crisis in the Nuba Mountains? In a piece in the August 4, 2011 Christian Science Monitor, noted Sudan researcher and activist Eric Reeves, wrote, ``If the world refuses to see what is occurring in South Kordofan, and refuses to respond to evidence that the destruction of the Nuba people, as such, is a primary goal of present military and security actions by Sudan, then this moment will represent definitive failure of the `responsibility to protect.' '' Meanwhile in an April 23, 2012 speech at the U.S. Holocaust Museum President Obama lauded his commitment in the realm of genocide and mass-atrocities prevention, saying, without a hint of irony, ``We're making sure that the United States government has the structures, the mechanisms to better prevent and respond to mass atrocities. So I created the first-ever White House position dedicated to this task. It's why I created a new Atrocities Prevention Board, to bring together senior officials from across our government to focus on this critical mission. This is not an afterthought.'' He continued, ``. . . we need to be doing everything we can to prevent and respond to these kinds of atrocities--because national sovereignty is never a license to slaughter your people.'' I couldn't agree more. And yet, I think most in the Sudan watchers would hardly be able to claim that this administration has done everything it can to prevent and respond to Khartoum's assault on its own people. With tensions between Sudan and South Sudan on the rise and nearing a tipping point, thousands starving in the Nuba Mountains, refugees fleeing aerial bombardment and pouring over the border into South Sudan, violence persisting in Darfur and an internationally indicted war criminal at the helm in Khartoum who travels the globe with virtual impunity, it is time for a fresh policy and a renewed commitment to peace and justice in Sudan. To date, this president has offered nothing more than an abdication of leadership and a failure of vision, which has culminated in human suffering and misery. December 11, 2012, Hon. Barack Obama, President of the United States, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President, We, the undersigned human rights organizations, have grave concerns that the current U.S. policy is ineffective at stopping mass atrocities in Sudan. We write in the hope that the transition to your second term in office will bring an urgent shift in the U.S. policy to finally end the humanitarian crises and bring about a just and lasting peace in Sudan. As you know, genocide continues in Sudan. The National Congress Party (NCP) regime in Sudan, led by a president indicted by the International Criminal Court for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, is causing the death, starvation, displacement, and destruction of livelihood of Sudanese civilians in Darfur, Nuba Mountains/South Kordofan and the Blue Nile state. When speaking about Sudan in 2007 you called the genocide in Darfur a ``stain on our souls'' and said that ``as a president of the United States I don't intend to abandon people or turn a blind eye to slaughter.'' Vice President Biden, the same year, called for military force in Darfur. Yet five years later, the same genocidal regime, whose grave human rights abuses have been left unchecked by the international community, is emboldened to continue to perpetrate atrocities, not only in Darfur but now in Sudan's border regions. In your first term, your administration pursued a policy of engagement, marked by conciliatory diplomacy. Under the oversight of two Special Envoys, this policy has failed to stop the government of Sudan from committing ongoing mass atrocities. We now ask that you revamp your Sudan policy to address the root cause of Sudan's multiple conflicts, the repressive and genocidal Sudan regime. Specifically, we ask that your administration: (1) Deliver humanitarian aid to the starving Sudanese civilians in the Nuba Mountains/South Kordofan and Blue Nile State, with or without agreement from the government of Sudan or the U.N. Security Council, with multilateral partners or unilaterally, and with the urgency required to save starving people. (2) Instruct the National Security Council to accelerate decisions and related actions regarding protection of Nuba, Blue Nile, and Darfuri populations from air attacks and to seriously consider the destruction of Sudan's offensive aerial assets and/or the imposition of a no-fly zone pursuant to the responsibility to protect doctrine. (3) Support an end to the NCP regime's control of the government of Sudan and support the movement within Sudan for democratic transformation. (4) Oppose debt relief and cash transfers to the government of Sudan, thereby increasing pressure on that government and strengthening the effects of U.S. sanctions. (5) Demonstrate strong leadership to end the government- sponsored violence in Sudan, protect civilians in Sudan and South Sudan, ensure unhindered humanitarian access for those in need, and bring the perpetrators of genocide and mass atrocities to justice at the International Criminal Court. The government of Sudan's blatant and longstanding abuse of its citizens and disregard for the international community clearly defines the nature of that government. Sudan's repeated failure to abide by the outcome of negotiations is a well-established pattern. After 23 years of mass atrocities committed by President Bashir and his government, it is long past time for the United States and the international community to confront Bashir and the NCP and bring an end to their mass atrocities. Sincerely, Act for Sudan, Martina Knee, Co-Founder USA; African Soul, American Heart, Debra Dawson, President, Fargo, ND, USA; Americans Against the Darfur Genocide, Nikki Serapio, Director, Washington, DC, USA; Amnesty Group 133, Robert Saulnier, Somerville, MA, USA; Dr. Kjell Anderson, Senior Researcher/Project Leader, The Hague Institute for Global Justice, Member, Advisory Board International Association of Genocide Scholars, The Hague, The Netherlands; Armenian Assembly of America, Bryan Ardouny, Executive Director, Washington, DC, USA; Beja Organization for Human Rights and Development, Ibrahim T. Ahmed, Co-founder and Executive Director, Fairfax, VA, USA; Blue Nile Association of North America, Abdalla Babikir, Washington, DC, USA; Brooklyn Coalition for Darfur & Marginalized Sudan, Laura Limuli, Coordinator, Brooklyn, NY, USA; ``Change the world. It just takes cents'' TM, Sara Caine Kornfeld, Founder/Educator, Denver, CO, USA; Christian Solidarity International--USA, Rev. Heidi McGinness, Director of Outreach, Denver, CO, USA. Church Alliance for a New Sudan, The Institute on Religion and Democracy, Faith J. H. McDonnell, Director, Washington, DC, USA; Colorado Coalition for Genocide Awareness and Action, Roz Duman, Founder/ Director Denver, CO, USA; Connecticut Coalition to Save Darfur, Timothy Oslovich, Chairperson, Vernon, CT, USA; Damanga Coalition for Freedom and Democracy, Mohamed Yahya, Executive Director, Falls Church, VA, USA; Darfur Action Group of SC, Richard Sribnick, Chairman, Columbia, SC, USA; Darfur and Beyond, Cory Williams, Co-Founder, Phoenix, AZ, USA; Darfur Association, Adam Omer, President, Lincoln, NE, USA; Darfur Association of the USA, Dr. Mahmoud Braima, President, Baton Rouge, LA, USA; Darfur Association, Ahmed Adam Ali, Denver, CO, USA; Darfur Community Organization, Bakheit A. Shata, Founder/Executive Director, Omaha, NE, USA; Darfur Human Rights Organization of the USA, Abdelgabar Adam, Founder and President, Philadelphia, PA, USA; Darfur Interfaith Network, Richard Young, Co-Chair, Washington, DC, USA. Darfur Leaders Network (DLN), Motasim Adam, Director, Washington, DC, USA; Darfur People's Association of New York, Ahmat Nour, President, Brooklyn, NY, USA; Darfur Solidarity USA, Mohammed Ahmed Eisa, Executive Director, Cambridge, MA, USA; Darfur Women Action Group, Niemat Ahmadi, President, Washington, DC, USA; Darfurian Association of Greater Houston, Sallah Yahya, Executive Director, Houston, TX, USA; Dear Sudan, Love Marin, Gerri Miller, Founder and Coordinator, Tiburon, CA, USA; Tanya L. Domi, Adjunct Professor of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA; Dr. Herbert Ekwe-Ekwe, Independent Scholar, Author of Biafra Revisited (Dakar and Reading: African Renaissance, 2006) and Readings from Reading: Essays on African Politics, Genocide, Literature (Dakar and Reading: African Renaissance, 2011), London, England; Essex County Coalition for Darfur, Gloria Crist, Co-Founder, Montclair, NJ, USA; Mia Farrow, Actor, CT, USA; Fur Cultural Revival, El-Fadel Arbab, Executive Director and Lecturer, Portland, ME, USA; Genocide No More, Mary Steinberg, Coordinator, Redding,

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chair, I will vote today for H. Con. Res. 25, authored by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, because we have a duty to address our nation's looming fiscal obligations. As I have repeatedly said, we cannot continue to kick the proverbial can down the road. I want to be clear: I would prefer to vote for a bipartisan budget modeled off the Simpson-Bowles plan. It could be improved by incorporating changes in existing law and other proposals, such as the discussions between the president and Speaker Boehner, and plans offered by Alice Rivlin and Pete Domenici, and Rep. Ryan and Sen. Wyden. Like the Ryan plan before us today, I do not agree with every line in the Simpson-Bowles plan. However, I continue to believe that a budget based on this model is the only plan that can put our nation on a sustainable, long-term path to replace sequestration and reform our nation's entitlement programs so they will exist for future generations. For more than six years, I have forcefully spoken out about the dire need to get our nation's fiscal house in order. I have made thoughtful and serious recommendations for a way forward and have voted for substantial legislation to get our nation back on solid financial footing. When I came to the floor to vote for last year's budget, we were $15.5 trillion in debt. Today, we are over $16.7 trillion in debt. It's projected to grow to $26 trillion in 10 years--that's a $10 trillion increase. Our unfunded obligations and liabilities are now projected to be over $71 trillion. We've just had our fourth straight year of trillion dollar deficits. Four straight years. And while this year's deficit is projected to be about $845 billion, that's still unsustainable. The reduction in the deficit can be mainly traced to new tax revenues from the ``fiscal cliff'' deal versus new spending restraint. I opposed this measure because it failed to seriously address government spending--in fact, it contained new spending--and did not include reforms to strengthen and secure entitlements. While the measure addressed many immediate issues, its adoption is making it more difficult to make needed, comprehensive reforms to our long-term obligations and liabilities and to stop sequestration. The amount of debt we owe is staggering. Consider that this past August, the Congressional Budget Office predicted we'd be spending $570 billion on interest payments to service the debt in 2022. However, the February picture is shocking: $795 billion to serve the debt in 2022. Let me repeat--in August, the Congressional Budget Office predicted that we would be spending $570 billion to service the debt in 10 years. Their updated February numbers predict we will be sending $795 billion out the door in 2022 to service the debt, a $225 billion increase within six months. In six months, the projections have changed to reflect that the Congressional Budget Office thinks we will be spending close to $11 billion in interest payments per week to more than $15 billion per week. Fifteen billion dollars each week. And they predict that in 2023, 10 years from now, we will be sending $857 billion out the door. That's roughly $16.5 billion dollars per week. What accounts for these changes? We have been borrowing at historically low levels. I have repeatedly noted my concerns that interest rates on our debt load could increase, and the Congressional Budget Office predictions are starting to reflect this. That is money that could be invested in our national defense, repairing our roads and bridges or life-saving cancer research. Notably, this debt is increasingly held by foreign countries. In 1970, 6 percent of debt held by the public was in foreign hands. In 1990, it was 19 percent. But today, 48 percent of our publically held debt is in foreign hands. Just who are our bankers? Nations such as China, which is spying on us, where human rights are an afterthought, and Catholic bishops, Protestant ministers and Tibetan monks are jailed for practicing their faith, and oil-exporting countries such as Saudi Arabia, which funded the radical madrasahs on the Afghan-Pakistan border resulting in the rise of the Taliban and al Qaeda. Quite frankly, this borrowing is unsustainable, dangerous and irresponsible. And what does this mean for individual Americans? Chairman Ryan points out that a 1 percent increase in the interest rates would mean an extra $400 per year in interest payments for the average family. That is why I have been urging the president and Congress to make the hard choices to ensure a better future for our children and grandchildren. That is why I have been working with my colleagues, through my assignment as chairman of the House appropriations subcommittee that funds the departments of Commerce and Justice, to cut $95 billion in federal spending during fiscal years 2010, 2011 and 2012, including more than $11.5 billion from my subcommittee alone. That is why I repeatedly voted against the payroll tax holiday, which stole directly from the Social Security Trust Fund. The 2012 extension took $93 billion and brought us nearly a month closer to the statutory debt limit. With that one vote, we practically wiped out all the $95 billion in savings from the cuts enacted during the last Congress. That is why I also do not and never will sign pledges to lobbyists. My loyalty is to the Constitution, to the people of Virginia's 10th District, and my family. I have been speaking out about the need to get our nation's fiscal house in order since President George W. Bush was in office. In 2006, I introduced legislation to create an independent, bipartisan commission to address our debt and deficit. I called it the SAFE Commission, short for Securing America's Future Economy. It said everything should be on the table for discussion: all entitlement spending, all domestic discretionary spending, including defense spending, and tax reform, particularly changes to make the tax code more simple and fair and to end the practice of tax earmarks that costs hundreds of billions of dollars. Congress would be required to vote up or down on the commission's recommendations, just as was done in the base closing process. I was glad to have been joined in this effort by my good friend and colleague Jim Cooper of Tennessee. Our legislation served as the blueprint for the president's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, commonly referred to as the Simpson-Bowles Commission. Last year, I spoke in support of and voted for a full substitute amendment, offered by Mr. Cooper and former Representative LaTourette, to the budget that was based on the commission's recommendations. While I was disappointed that this amendment did not pass, I still believe a plan based on this model is the most appropriate and realistic path forward, and I am committed to finding bipartisan solutions. Last month, I offered a bipartisan amendment to H.R. 444, the Require a PLAN Act, that would require the president to incorporate the Simpson-Bowles recommendations into his budget submission to Congress. This amendment received 75 bipartisan votes. The Simpson-Bowles Commission produced a credible plan that gained the support of a bipartisan majority of the commission's 18 members. Called ``The Moment of Truth,'' the commission's report made clear that eliminating the debt and deficit will not be easy and that any reform must begin with entitlements. Mandatory and discretionary spending also has to be addressed, as well other ``sacred cows,'' including tax reform and defense spending. Had just three more members of the Simpson-Bowles Commission supported the recommendations, this plan likely would have passed the Congress and be law today. I was disappointed that the president, and his administration, walked away from the commission. The president failed the country. And the Congress has also failed. This town is dysfunctional. If the plan had advanced, we would already be on our way in getting our nation's fiscal house in order. We have to find a solution to this debt crisis. Failure is not an option. Congress and the president must be willing to support a plan that breaks loose from the special interests that are holding Washington by the throat and return confidence to the country. Congress and the president also need to be honest with the American people and explain that we cannot solve our nation's financial crisis by just cutting waste, fraud and abuse within discretionary accounts. The real runaway spending is occurring in our out-of-control entitlement costs and the hundreds of billions of dollars in annual tax earmarks. Until we reach an agreement that addresses these two drivers of our deficit and debts, we cannot right our fiscal ship of state. Absent a bipartisan budget, I vote for the Ryan budget today because it is a credible path forward, if imperfect. Like last year's proposal, this budget blueprint calls for significant reductions in discretionary spending, for reduced tax rates and for the repeal of the costly health care reform law. Further, it proposes a balanced budget in the next 10 years. I have consistently voted for a balanced budget amendment to the constitution every time the measure has come before the House--in 1982, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1995 and, more recently, in 2011. The Ryan plan also points out that we can no longer ignore the trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities that consume our budget. There may be disagreement on the significant changes in Medicare and Medicaid entitlement programs that he proposes, and while his plan is again silent on changes needed to reform Social Security entitlements, it does recognize that need. Mr. Ryan continues to pull back the curtain on the mandatory spending ``elephant in the room,'' which we can no longer ignore. I do not agree with everything in this proposal, and will work to improve future legislation that may be considered as a result of its adoption. For example, I regret that this proposal does not offer more on ways to address Social Security and tax reform. I am also troubled that this resolution unfairly targets the federal workforce. While there are many federal employees in the capital region, it is worth noting that more than 85 percent of the workforce is outside of Washington. It is also worth noting that more than 65 percent of all federal employees work in agencies that support our national defense capabilities as we continue to fight the War on Terror. The first American killed in Afghanistan, Mike Spann, was a CIA agent and a constituent from my congressional district. CIA, FBI, DEA agents, and State Department employees are serving side-by-side with our military in the fight against the Taliban. Let's also not forget the Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents who are working to stop the flow of illegal immigrants and drugs across our borders. Or the medical researchers at NIH working to develop cures for cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's and autism. Or the VA doctors and nurses treating veterans from World War II to present day. Or the FDA inspectors working to stop a salmonella outbreak. These are all federal employees. Mr. Chair, enough is enough. It is simply wrong to claim, as the Ryan budget erroneously continues to do, that these public servants ``have been immune from the effects of the recession.'' This budget also could be improved by providing for the needs of the most vulnerable in our society. As the Congress deals with the budget, we must always do so in a way that does not neglect the needs of the poor. Scripture (Proverbs 19:17) tells us, ``He who is kind to the poor lends to the Lord.'' And in the New Testament Jesus talks a lot about the poor. Matthew 25 says that if we ignore the poor and hungry, it is the same as ignoring him. But this budget resolution is an outline for future action, not an enacting piece of legislation that carries the weight of law. The budget also seeks to shore up our defense capabilities by finding alternative savings to prevent the across-the-board cuts (sequestration) resulting from the Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction's bipartisan failure of leadership, which, regretfully, represents the larger failure of the President and both political parties. For the first time in four years, the Senate has proposed a budget resolution. While I do not agree with their proposal, and therefore voted ``no'' on the Mulvaney amendment to demonstrate my opposition to it, it is good for our country that the Senate has finally put forth a written document. Its voice in this debate is needed. I am disappointed that the president has failed to even offer his own budget. This abdication of responsibility has not been seen since the Harding Administration. This budget recognizes that our fiscal challenges must be dealt with in a timely manner. It is a first step in the process. This is a blueprint that can be molded and changed, but it is a blueprint that committees will use to get to work. I hope this outline will spur the authorizing committees to move forward on comprehensive tax and entitlement reform legislation. The Appropriations Committee has already led the way in enacting legislation cutting discretionary spending. Only 16 percent of federal spending this year will be non-defense discretionary. Two thirds of our spending is on autopilot, and reforms are urgently needed. We must reform our nation's spending habits to ensure America has the ability to nimbly respond to crises and is able to make the investments needed to spur private growth and American ingenuity. We, as elected representatives, have a duty to lead. We have a duty to put forth ideas within the public sphere and engage in debate. I'm ready to make the tough choices today. I vote for the Ryan budget so that the House can get to work.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that former Virginia Senator and Secretary of the Navy John Warner was honored last Saturday at a keel laying ceremony at Newport News Shipbuilding, a subsidiary of Huntington Ingalls Industries. This is a special occasion for the Navy and the Commonwealth of Virginia as the John Warner SSN 785, a 377-foot nuclear-powered submarine, is the first Virginia-class fast attack submarine to be named after a person. The submarine's apt namesake shows John Warner's dedication to the service of our country. Construction of the 12th Virginia-class submarine began in 2009 and it is scheduled to be delivered to the Navy in 2015. I am pleased to have served with John Warner in Congress and submit a Daily Press accounting of the ceremony. [From the Daily Press, Mar. 17, 2013] Shipyard Lays Keel of the John Warner Submarine (By Michael Welles Shapiro) On Saturday the former lawmaker whose fingerprints are all over Newport News Shipbuilding's involvement in the construction of Virginia-class nuclear submarines watched as his initials were welded onto a piece of the shipyard's latest boat. In a rarity in military shipbuilding, the shipyard laid the keel of a fast-attack submarine with its namesake, former senator and Secretary of the Navy John Warner, in attendance. The boat is the 12th in the Virginia-class program and it is scheduled for delivery to the Navy in 2015. The shipyard, a unit of Huntington Ingalls Industries, builds the boats in partnership with General Dynamics Electric Boat in Groton, Conn., a unique arrangement that Warner is credited with helping to start. Shipyard president Matt Mulherin said naming the latest submarine for Warner is fitting because ``he led the efforts to create this teaming agreement between Newport News Shipbuilding and Electric Boat to cooperatively build these submarines.'' Navy leaders also spoke glowingly of the joint construction program. Adm. John Richardson, the director of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, said, ``the on-time, on-cost, on- quality implementation of this program is well-known.'' Warner also received accolades from lawmakers in attendance. Sen. Mark Warner, who is no relation, said he admired the former senator for being a politician who was willing to set aside politics when push came to shove. Mark Warner, a Democrat, said that when he was governor, John Warner, a Republican, spoke out in support of a Mark Warner budget bill that had stalled during a partisan tug of war. ``We could use a lot more John Warners in the United States Congress at this point,'' he said. John Warner's wife, Jeanne, is the submarine's sponsor. To close the ceremony the couple chalked their initials on a steel plate before shipyard worker Matthew Shilling welded the letters onto the metal. Shilling, 27, said after the ceremony that he'd been practicing welding block letters during the week leading up to the keel laying. But Warner threw the shipbuilder a curve when he wrote his ``J'' in cursive with a flourish. ``I was nervous,'' Shilling said, saying he's more accustomed to working in a loud construction environment. Warner also improvised a bit as the ceremony wrapped up. The Navy and Marine Corps veteran made an unexpected gesture to show that the submarine represents not just him but an entire generation that served in World War II. He asked the sub's prospective commanding officer, Cmdr. Dan Caldwell, to have a small pin that he and others who served received at the end of the war kept onboard the submarine near the steel plate. What's in a name? From 1903 to the late 1960s, attack submarines like the Warner were given the names of fish and creatures of the deep--the Seawolf, the Sturgeon and the Whale, for instance. In his speech, Warner attributed a change in that convention to former Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird. Warner said he and Adm. Hyman Rickover--the famed admiral who pushed Congress to buy nuclear-powered ships--were called in to meet with Laird and the secretary brought up the topic of ship names. Laird told the two men, ``fish don't appropriate, and fish don't vote, so stop calling them fish,'' according to Warner. Since 1973 the country's two large classes of attack submarines have been named for cities and states. The two exceptions to those traditions are a boat that was named for Rickover and built in the 1980s and the Warner. Military ships of any sort are seldom named for living people. Starting in the 1970s about three ships a decade have been named for people who are living at the time of the announcement, according to a July 2012 Navy report to Congress on naming conventions. The list includes four presidents, former Arizona Rep. Gabby Giffords, astronaut and former senator John Glenn and comedian Bob Hope, who was famous for his numerous United Service Organizations shows to entertain military personnel. ``(W)hile naming ships after living persons remains a relatively rare occurrence . . . it is now an accepted but sparingly used practice for pragmatic (Navy) secretaries of both parties,'' the report says. ``(O)ccasionally honoring an especially deserving member of Congress, U.S. naval leader or famous American with a ship name so that they might end their days on earth knowing that their life's work is both recognized and honored by America's Navy-Marine Corps Team, and that their spirit will accompany and inspire the team in battle, is sometimes exactly the right thing to do.'' Asked how he felt about having a submarine named for him, Warner said, ``I'm not too much of a philosopher,'' but ``I'm humbled.''

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, today I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote 82, on consideration of H. Res. 115, a resolution providing for the expenses of certain committees of the House of Representatives for the 113th Congress, because I was questioning the Director the Federal Bureau of Investigation in my capacity as chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''