Frank Wolf

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I just returned from Lebanon and Egypt where I met with State Department officials, civil society actors, including prominent religious leaders and humanitarian aid organizations, and Syrian refugees. The trip (February 18-21, 2013) came at a critical time, as events in the broader Middle East over the last two years have been both historic and tumultuous. One of the main purposes of the trip was to spend time with the Syrian Christian community. As a brutal civil war, which has taken nearly 70,000 lives, rages in Syria the plight of the sizable Christian community is often overlooked. While from the outside it appears as though President Bashar al-Assad's brutal regime will ultimately fall, the eventual outcome, including how many will perish in or be displaced by the continued violence and who will step into the ensuing 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 or church leaders. I wanted to hear firsthand from Syrian Christians about their concerns and what the future might hold 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 newly drafted constitution is viewed as highly problematic by many Egyptians. 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.'' Egypt is the recipient of billions of dollars in U.S. foreign assistance. A thorough assessment of the conditions in Egypt and the evolving political situation is critical, especially in these tight budgetary times. The Sunday People These issues 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. Their once vibrant communities in countries throughout the region are now decimated. In 1948 there were roughly 150,000 Jews in Iraq; today less than 10 remain. In Egypt, there were once as many as 80,000 Jews; now less than 100 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. . . .'' Meanwhile, with the fall of Hosni Mubarak, Coptic Christians, numbering roughly 8-10 million, are leaving in droves. 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. Their population in the U.S. may have grown by nearly 30 percent, according to rough estimates.'' Gilbert echoes this reality, writing ``. . . today, hundreds of thousands of Copts have already fled--those able to afford airfare and lawyers have sought asylum in the U.S. and Canada. As for the others . . . the options are few and fraught with danger.'' 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. Turning to Syria, in the midst of devastating bloodshed and civil war, the Christian population is particularly vulnerable. A recent Associated Press story reported ``[Christians] are fearful that Syria will become another Iraq, with Christians caught in the crossfire between rival Islamic groups.'' 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 awaits the ``Sunday People.'' An Exodus 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. A recent study on Christian persecution released by the London-based think tank Civitas found that ``[p]arts of the media have been influenced by the logical error that equates criticism of Muslims with racism, and therefore as wrong by definition. This has further distracted attention away from the hounding of Christians, helping to cement the surprisingly widespread idea that Christianity is a 'Western' faith.'' This idea could not be further from the truth. The Middle East is the very cradle of Christendom. 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, `Elahi, Elahi, lema shabaqtani?' (`My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?')'' 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. If, 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, which is especially disquieting in the aftermath of the ``Arab Spring.'' These developments demand our attention as policymakers. Similarly, these realities demand the attention of the church in West. As already noted, ancient faith communities have inhabited these lands for centuries and are a vital part of the fabric of global Christendom. Lebanon Upon arriving in Beirut on the evening of February 18, I met with the U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon, Maura Connelly, and senior embassy staff. One of the many issues addressed was the impact the substantial--and growing--Syrian refugee population is having on Lebanon. Just over four million people live in Lebanon, which is about the size of Connecticut. Since the fighting started in Syria in the spring of 2011, thousands of refugees have entered the country, putting a strain on the people and government of Lebanon. Complicating this is the fact that Lebanon has its own sectarian issues, and there is concern that the spillover from Syria could lead to instability in Lebanon, given that roughly half the population supports the Assad regime and the other half supports the rebels. A February 23 New York Times story described the precarious balance this way: ``As they flee increasingly sectarian killing, Syrians layer their fears onto those of a country deeply scarred by its own generation-long sectarian civil war. They are testing, yet also relying on, the fragile yet flexible balance that has endured here, punctured by occasional fighting, since Lebanon's war ended 22 years ago.'' On February 19, I met with Lebanese President Michel Sleiman, the only Christian president in the region. I also met with Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Mikati and Lebanese Minister of Social Affairs Wael Abou Faour. Lebanon's leaders--and its people--should be thanked for what they are doing to help address the humanitarian crisis in Syria. Lebanon is hosting more Syrian refugees than any other country, and all three expressed concern that the situation is growing more tenuous by the day as greater numbers of refugees pour over the border and resentment among Lebanon's poorer communities grows, not to mention the underlying sectarian tension. Criminal activity is also on the rise. Following the initial meetings with government leaders, I spent the rest of my time in Lebanon meeting with religious leaders, civil society representatives, non-governmental organizations, NG0s, and Syrian refugees--both Christian and Muslim. John and Mary My first meeting was a moving encounter with a Syrian Christian and his wife who, despite the risks, had driven from Syria to Beirut to meet with me and detail the experience of their community. They often cross the border. Given security concerns, I will simply refer to them as John and Mary. John and Mary told me that many Christians had left Damascus, and most of those who remained were simply too old to flee. They described some in the Free Syrian Army as terrorists, including foreign fighters from countries like Libya, Afghanistan, Yemen and Egypt. Increasingly the claims of foreign jihadists are verified. A February 18 Washington Post story reported ``[a] report issued Monday in Geneva by the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria said the Islamist fighters include foreigners--from Libya, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Iraq and Egypt--drawn to the conflict because they consider it a Sunni jihad against Assad's government, which, although secular, is dominated by Alawites, a branch of Shiism.'' John and Mary described the situation in Syria as ``very dangerous.'' Fear was a constant. ``We are always afraid,'' they said. They did not see a future for themselves or their community if the Free Syrian Army prevailed. ``We were told that when we [the opposition] take over the government you will be out [of the country] or you will die.'' But the threat is actually imminent, not some distant concern. They said the day before meeting with me that they read on the Internet that ``we advise you to leave because we are going to destroy your community.'' Throughout the course of the meeting Mary was understandably emotional. Through tears she told me that they had attempted to prepare their children for what the future may hold, saying ``we have told our children our house could come under attack and there may be blood. We have told them we will shut our eyes and then open them in Heaven.'' She went on to say that she feels God wants them in Syria. ``We will not fail. It is our mission.'' Bashar al-Assad is a brutal dictator and war criminal. But, as John and Mary caution, the West must be clear-eyed about who the rebels are, and what they will do if they seize power. Indeed, factions within the rebel movement, such as the al-Nusra Front, do not seek a peaceful, democratic and pluralistic Syria. They warned against supporting such segments of the opposition. The prospect of extremists taking over Syria weighed heavily on John and Mary. I asked if they felt abandoned by the church in the West. Their answer: ``yes.'' I left the meeting deeply sobered by what I had heard and convinced anew that there are no easy answers to the unfolding tragedy in Syria. Church Leaders On March 15, 2011, Bechara Rai was elected the 77th Patriarch of Antioch and the Levant. The Maronite Church is in communion with Rome, and Patriarch Rai frequently travels on pastoral visits to Maronite communities around the world. I spent an hour with Patriarch Rai and Bishop Sayah, who served in Jerusalem for 16 years before coming to Lebanon. Patriarch Rai provided a candid assessment of the situation in Syria, saying that ``the original movement was spontaneous. It was about freedom and human rights. But all of a sudden someone came in and took over.'' He told me ``reforms were needed, but in dealing with theocracies, it backfired.'' He pointed to Iraq, saying ``it has not reached a democracy, and now the Sunni and Shia are fighting. Our Christian culture started in Iraq. Now a majority of the Christians have had to leave. A similar thing is happening in Egypt with the Copts. They have been marginalized and are afraid. In Syria, we are witnessing the same scenario.'' Patriarch Rai also spoke to the broader geopolitical implications of the crisis facing Christians in the region, saying ``the West is heading to a situation that is going to hurt them. If Christians disappear, what will happen to this part of the world? If the Christians are gone, the West will have to deal with this radicalism.'' He lauded the model of Lebanon, saying ``Lebanon has agreed to live together. It has become a model. It still has its problems, but it has human rights. We have to make sure this country is safeguarded, too. If Lebanon disappears as a formula for success it will hurt this region and the West, too.'' I also met with Archdeacon Emanuel Youkhana of the Assyrian Church of the East. He was the focus of a piece that recently appeared in National Review Online vividly detailing the exodus of Christians from Syria. It was written by Nina Shea, director of the Hudson Institute's Center for Religious Freedom and a former commissioner on the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. She also highlighted a recent report by Swedish Journalist Nun i Kino titled ``Between the Barbed Wire.'' The Archdeacon told me that it is imperative that the church be involved in the political debate and peace process surrounding it. He also cautioned the church not to defend the Assad regime by saying it is protecting them. He said the minorities in Syria, including Christians, are being used to give cover to the dictatorship. He ended our conversation by saying Christianity in the West cannot survive if Christianity in the East is being destroyed and asked for the church in the West to ``pray for those suffering in the East. Pray for the Martyrs.'' Again, the complexities of the situation in Syria were apparent. Syriac League During a meeting with the Syriac League, an NGO in Lebanon that has strong connections with the Syriac community in Lebanon and with Christians who have come to Lebanon to escape conflict and difficulties in their own countries, including Syria, Iraq and Egypt, I had a chance to hear directly from a number of people who had fled Syria. Once again, the general theme was an abiding sense of fear. They said they lived under threat every day. They described killings and kidnappings for ransom. They talked about having to pay smugglers to help them get across the border. (One man told me that he knew he had fake papers, so he turned himself in to the authorities and ultimately had to spend 57 days in a Lebanese prison. He was released the day before we met.) They said there are some towns and villages in Syria where there are no Christians left. They said many of the Christians who remain simply have no money to get out. They talked about multiple checkpoints: some manned by the regime's forces; others by opposition forces. They said three years ago life in Syria was relatively good. While they may not have had equal rights in the government, they had freedom of religion. They also had their safety and security. One of the people I met was a doctor. He described how the Free Syrian Army forced him to treat wounded soldiers. He said they came in daily but when they found out he was a Christian they threatened to kill him. The Kurds helped him escape. He said half of his friends had either been killed or kidnapped. He lamented that as a doctor he led a good life in Syria but is struggling now because he obviously can't go back to his country nor is he able to practice medicine in Lebanon. When I asked what message I needed to take back to leaders in the West, the universal refrain was: ``We need you not to support regimes that are persecuting us [Christians]. We need to be treated as equals.'' Jihadists Arrive The people also spoke of a newcomer on the scene: jihadists. They echoed earlier conversations saying that people from other places (Afghanistan, Tunisia and Chechnya were mentioned) were coming in to fight. They specifically mentioned al-Nusra Front. On December 11, 2012, the State Department designated al-Nusra Front as a terrorist organization linked to al-Qaeda in Iraq. In the State Department briefing announcing the designation, the department spokesperson said ``Al-Nusra Front has sought to portray itself as part of a legitimate Syrian opposition, but today's actions are intended to expose them and make clear that the United States believes that al-Nusra's extremist ideology has no role in a post-Assad Syria. Among the consequences of today's actions is a prohibition against knowingly providing or attempting or conspiring to provide material support or resources to or engaging in transactions with al-Nusra Front.'' One of the men I spoke to said, ``Our people see no future for us. There is no law and order in Iraq or Syria. Our people are leaving and not coming back.'' ``We want to survive here,'' another said. ``Yet there are two problems: violence and people do not accept us as citizens.'' One family who was there with their young daughter, who is an American citizen, said they had been in Lebanon for seven months. They left Syria because the opposition knew their daughter was born in America, and they were going to kidnap her. They said a Palestinian woman once came to their house and said: ``Your daughter is an American. I am going to take your house.'' They said their neighbors were killed because they were Christians. I asked them what they would want church leaders in the West to know. The response: ``There is a total erasure of the Christian presence in the region.'' A Refugee Crisis I also visited the registration center being operated by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which is leading the humanitarian response to the refugee crisis in Lebanon. UNHCR has identified roughly 300,000 refugees--both those already registered and those who are known to be waiting for a registration date. As of February 22, there were 309,997 Syrian refugees in Lebanon, which includes 196,744 already registered and 113,253 waiting to be registered. The number of Syrians reaching out to UNHCR has accelerated significantly in the last two months with more than 3,000 individuals per day seeking assistance. I was told that it is difficult to quantify how many Christians there are among the Syrian refugee population since most of them are too afraid to register. During my visit to the center, I met with a Muslim family who had fled Syria after their village was destroyed by a bomb. The father said during the day life was normal, but at night the bombing would start and continue for several hours. ``You cannot sleep,'' he told me. He said his youngest son was cut by shards of glass when the village was hit. The family, made up of two girls and three boys, had been in Lebanon for three months and would like to go back but don't know what the future holds. The father said he has seen a number of ``foreign fighters'' in Syria and that there were checkpoints--some controlled by the regime; some controlled by the opposition--throughout the country. My next stop was the town of Zahle, about 90 minutes southeast of Beirut, to meet with more refugees and Caritas Lebanon, an NGO that has been operating in Lebanon since 1994. Catholic Relief Services is assisting Caritas. During my visit, I was able to talk to two families in Caritas' offices and visit two sites where families were living. Their stories were painfully similar to the other stories I had already heard: death, destruction and fear. Both families I met with said the circumstances in Syria have changed dramatically since the fighting started, saying Christians were not initially targeted for violence but they are now. ``Christians and Muslims were living like brother and sister but that has changed,'' one woman, who has two young children and whose husband cannot escape Syria, told me. She also explained that while she is appreciative of all that the Lebanese have done, her situation is not good. She said she has had a hard time trying to find a place to live and is essentially living in a hallway. She cannot work because there is no one to watch her children. I was told by officials with Caritas that some women are prostituting themselves for $3.50 simply to help their families survive. In recent years similar heartbreaking stories have emerged out of the Iraqi refugee population. A May 29, 2007 New York Times story quoted Sister Marie-Claude, a Syrian nun aiding Iraqi refugees, saying ``I met three sisters-in-law recently who were living together and all prostituting themselves . . . They would go out on alternate nights--each woman took her turn--and then divide the money to feed all the children.'' Unlike many humanitarian crises which are the result of war, those fleeing Syria into Lebanon are not living in massive tent cities. Most are being absorbed into communities and towns across Lebanon. But Wael Abou Faour, the Lebanese Minister of Social Affairs, cautioned in our meeting that the time is fast approaching when formal camps may need to be established. Some in the Lebanese government are understandably concerned about this. The first ``house'' I visited looked essentially like a storage unit in the West. It was about 20 feet wide and 40 feet deep (roughly the size of a two-car garage) with a concrete floor and no windows. Three Muslim families--a total of 19 people--shared the space and paid $250 a month in rent. The second site was in a farmer's field. Twenty families were living in about eight large white tents. They had been there for roughly six months. The ground was extremely muddy, the result of heavy rains in January. They pay rent to the farmer. There did not appear to be running water. The burgeoning Syria refugee crisis is but one of the great human tolls of this deadly conflict. Egypt 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. Fast-forward to February 2013. I wanted to witness first-hand the outcome of the revolution. The verdict is not what anyone had hoped. Egypt is in danger of becoming a failed state. Its economy is collapsing, unemployment is rising, as is inflation, lawlessness is becoming a real issue, and human rights abuses persist, and in some cases, are now enshrined in the new Egyptian constitution. During my visit, I met with government officials, including Prime Minister Hisham Kandil, civil society activists, Christian leaders and NGOs. In addition, I met with Maggie Gobran, affectionately known as ``Mama Maggie.'' She runs a ministry that serves poor families living in Egypt's garbage slums. Established in 1989, Stephen's Children runs 65 camps, five vocational centers, 80 clinics and 80 community education centers. The organization serves Egyptians of all faiths, including Coptic Christians. I have been so inspired by her work and ministry over the years that I joined with several other Members of Congress, both last year and this year, in nominating her for the Nobel Peace Prize. One of my last meetings was with 86-year-old Carmen Weinstein, the president of the Jewish Community of Cairo (JCC). She was born and raised in Egypt and has 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 now leads a small community of mostly elderly Jewish women in Cairo, who with their sister community in Alexandria, represent Egypt's remaining 70 or so 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 U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and have received protection as cultural and religious landmarks. Mrs. Weinstein is seeking to form a foreign-based endowment to protect the remaining synagogues, the Bassatine Jewish Cemetery--which is 900 years old and half overrun with squatters--and the patrimony records of the community. This is increasingly important as the remaining Jewish community ages and in all likelihood will eventually disappear. Summer Marriages Other than in my meetings with Egyptian officials, no one painted a rosy picture for the future of Egypt. In fact, many suggested that life was better under Mubarak. I was repeatedly told that the new government led by President Mohamed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood is ignoring women's rights, human rights and religious rights. I was told women are being removed from positions in the workplace. Photos of unveiled women are being dropped from textbooks. Child labor abuse continues, as well as female genital mutilation. I was told girls as young as nine are being kidnapped and sold as child brides. When reported to the police, no action is taken. There is no rule of law. Sexual trafficking is prevalent. Girls ages 16-18 are ``rented'' to rich men from the Gulf in what are called ``summer marriages'' during the summer months and then returned to their families. Growing Persecution The Christian community also continues to be persecuted. Churches have been desecrated, and no permits to build new churches have been granted since January 2011. Just days before I arrived, an angry mob set fire to a church in Fayoum Province. Fox News reported that it was the ``second such assault against the town's Coptic population in a month. The attackers ripped down the church's cross and hurled rocks at church members. . . .'' Television channels regularly carry programming that insults Christians and women. ``The general atmosphere allows Islamists to speak out against women and Christianity and the government does nothing,'' one activist told me. At a meeting at the Coptic Orthodox Church in Cairo, Bishop Moussa, a close advisor to Coptic Pope Tawadros II, told me he is concerned about where Egypt is headed and said the Coptic community is fearful. He raised a number of issues relating to the proposed changes to the Egyptian constitution. Earlier this month, Pope Tawadros took the unusual step of publicly criticizing the constitution as discriminatory. Elections There also is deep concern that the upcoming elections will essentially be rigged, especially since it is believed that the Muslim Brotherhood has put its supporters in place to oversee the elections and that there will be no transparency. The Associated Press reported on February 23 that ``[a] key opposition leader called Saturday for a boycott of upcoming parliamentary elections, saying he will not take part in a `sham democracy.' '' In a meeting a with Emad Abdel Ghafour, a Salafist who is the presidential advisor for community outreach, all these reports were brushed aside and blamed on politics. At least the prime minister acknowledged that the government still has a long way to go. ``We are trying. It just takes time,'' he told me. The media has done a better job of reporting the plight of the persecuted in Egypt than it has in other parts of the Middle East and surrounding region. On February 22, the Washington Post ran an op-ed co-written by Robert Kagan and Michele Dunne that makes the case for a new U.S. approach in dealing with Egypt. I agree with much of what they said and have shared it with my congressional colleagues. The People, Not the Regime The U.S. must change how it deals with Egypt. On more than one occasion I was told the perception among many Egyptians is that the United States is supporting the Muslim Brotherhood. ``Why hasn't the State Department issued any statements condemning the lack of certain rights?'' one person asked me. ``There is a double standard,'' another told me. ``Human rights and women's rights mean one thing in the United States and another in Egypt.'' I was told people think the United States is developing relationships with the Muslim Brotherhood because it believes the party is going to remain in power. They went on to say that the feeling is that as long as the brotherhood protects the United States' interests in the region, it can act with impunity within its borders. One person pointedly said, ``the United States is helping create a state of terrorism that will be exported to Europe. The dogma of religion affecting human rights and women's rights will be worse than the Wahhabi sect in Saudi Arabia.'' I also was told the United States is losing credibility. When I asked what message I should take back to the West, I was told: ``Make sure you support the people of Egypt, not the regime.'' Recommendations In light of the meetings I had and the insights I gained, I came away with a number of broad-based policy recommendations: Syria The situation in Syria is complex and there is no easy solution. Many believe it will take years to resolve. Will Assad continue to cling to power with the help of Tehran? Will Syria fracture? Will the rebels attempt to form a legitimate shadow government in Syria that can garner international support? There are more questions than answers about the future of Syria. But even before the civil war broke out, Assad's abuses were well-known. Not only was he a brutal, corrupt dictator at home, but Damascus was a lifeline to the terrorist organization Hezbollah. I have seen with my own eyes Hezbollah's murderous aims having visited the Marine barracks in Lebanon following their 1983 bombing that killed 241 American servicemen. Fast-forward to earlier this month, as Hezbollah was implicated in the deadly bomb attack on Israeli vacationers in Bulgaria. Clearly Assad has much blood on his hands and the U.S. must work, even at this late date, to bring about an end to Assad's reign in Syria. The Obama Administration missed an early opportunity to aid the opposition in Syria at a time when the conflict had not yet devolved into a proxy war and when international jihadists were not as significant of a factor as they are today. An already complex environment has only intensified, and many of Syria's minorities increasingly wonder what the future holds for them. A January 15, New York Times story said, ``Former [State Department] Syria adviser, Frederic C. Hof, wrote last month that although the opposition has offered general assurances to the one-third of Syrians who belong to minority groups, `probably no more than a handful' believe it, especially as jihadist groups grow more prominent on the battlefield. . . .'' As the Obama Administration seeks to develop an effective Syria policy, including Secretary Kerry's latest overture to the Syrian opposition, it must be ever mindful of the very real concerns of Syria's Christian community. Opposition to Assad should not be enough to garner American support. A common enemy does not our friend make. Any aid to the rebels, non-military or otherwise, must be accompanied by insistence that the opposition respect minority rights and allay the very real fears of these communities. This is especially important given the influx of foreign jihadists and the ambiguity surrounding their influence and numbers among the opposition. Christian leaders in the West must begin to speak out about what is happening not only in Syria but in the Middle East and other parts of South Central Asia. Christian leaders from the Middle East need to be brought to the United States to meet with church leaders here and make the case for greater engagement from the faith community in the West. (In January, I wrote to more than 300 Protestant and Catholic leaders in the U.S. urging them to use their influence to speak out on behalf of the persecuted church around the globe specifically in the Middle East.). Egypt After I returned from Egypt in July 2011, I recommended that the United States seriously consider conditioning U.S. foreign assistance-- specifically military assistance--to Egypt. Since the Camp David Peace Accords, Egypt has received over $60 billion in U.S. foreign assistance, the second largest overall recipient of such funding. Given the Mubarak regime's human rights and religious freedom abuses, I have long believed this assistance should be conditioned on improvements in these areas. Now with the Muslim Brotherhood at the helm, and the transition to a mature democracy with all that entails, far from certain, I am more convinced than ever that aid to Egypt must be conditioned upon the government respecting and upholding universally recognized human rights norms. We must press President Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood more broadly to respect and uphold religious freedom, freedom of speech and the press, freedom of assembly and other basic rights. Police reform, too, must be a priority. Rather than ramming through the constitution, the Muslim Brotherhood must be urged to embrace an inclusive process that takes into account the concerns of the opposition and various minority groups. Clear benchmarks must be set--an agreed upon framework established--that allows policymakers in the U.S. to determine if Egypt is truly on a path to reform. Recognizing that democratic transitions are often long and messy, it is simply unacceptable to blindly give precious aid dollars to a government that is working at cross-purposes with American values. In addition, Congress should seriously consider removing altogether the State Department waiver authority as it relates to aid to Egypt, since the State Department, without fail and irrespective of changes on the ground, uses the waiver. The United States should press President Morsi to compromise with the opposition on rules for upcoming parliamentary elections, which he scheduled to begin April 22 over opposition objections. There are many legitimate opposition concerns, including gerrymandering to break up districts formerly won by secular parties and use of government ministries to advantage Morsi's party. As of now, most of the secular opposition parties say they will boycott, which means that the elections cannot produce a truly representative parliament even if they are cleanly run. The administration must utilize every ``tool'' in its ``toolbox'' to influence the Egyptian government. President Morsi's planned trip to Washington is a significant point of leverage to begin pressing for key reforms. As Morsi and his government seek further international economic relief, the U.S. must make it clear that not only is American foreign assistance contingent upon clear progress in the areas outlined above, but our willingness to galvanize the additional economic assistance needed to stabilize the Egyptian economy is also based on progress in these areas. The U.S. embassy should actively seek to cultivate relationships with the liberal, democratic Egyptian opposition groups and individuals, human rights groups, Coptic Christians and other key civil society actors. By most accounts, U.S. policy has not evolved to meet the new realities in Egypt. We have embraced the Morsi government the same way we embraced the Mubarak government--to the detriment of other elements of Egyptian civil society--elements with which we have a natural affinity. While such groups may not take the reins of leadership in the near future, they are central to the Egyptian democratic experiment, and we can bolster their standing and effectiveness if we take the long-term view. In this same vein, aid to Egypt should once again benefit Egyptian civil society, not simply the military and economy. Congressional delegations traveling to Egypt should meet with activists, NGOs and Christian leaders to better understand what is happening on the ground and to hear firsthand the perception of the United States' support for the Muslim Brotherhood. Regional Recommendations Special Envoy.--There must be a high level Special Envoy at the State Department with the dedicated mission of protecting and preserving religious minority communities in the Middle East and South Central Asia. In January 2011, I introduced bipartisan legislation in the House which would do just that. It overwhelmingly passed by a vote of 402-20 in July 2011. The House-passed legislation and companion legislation introduced by Senators Carl Levin and Roy Blunt stalled in the Senate. Despite my repeated appeals, former Senators Jim Webb and John Kerry objected to the legislation moving forward. I have joined with my Democratic colleague Rep. Anna Eshoo in reintroducing this legislation in the 113th Congress and remain committed to pressing ahead with the envoy despite State Department opposition opposition which is short- sighted and utterly consistent with the department's posture on similar initiatives over the years having opposed for example the creation of the International Religious Freedom Office. It is worth noting that it is fully within the Secretary of State's authority to appoint an envoy absent legislative action. Based on what I heard on this trip, I am confident that such a move by Secretary Kerry would be warmly embraced by the communities affected in the region and the diaspora communities abroad, including here in the United States. Persecuted Christians Relief Fund.--In some of the countries where Christians and other religious minorities have faced the most difficulties, severe economic hardship is a consequence of religious persecution, especially when entire communities are displaced. Consider this February 2011 International Organization for Migration (IOM) press report: ``The physical instability driving Christian displacement is now leading to financial hardship as well. Some in Baghdad have sought to exploit the situation by publishing rumors of impending violence against Christians in order to drive down prices of Christian homes and to force Christians to flee. Unable to sell their homes for a fair price and quickly in addition to facing difficulties in transferring their jobs or finding new sources of income, many Christians are finding it difficult to support themselves while displaced.'' It is worth noting that depletion of the Christian community in Iraq happened while America was deeply involved in Iraq and in a position militarily, politically and otherwise to exert tremendous influence. Similar difficulties faced the Syrian Christian refugees with whom I spoke as outlined above. Despite congressional attempts, over multiple years, to target aid toward Iraqi Christians, the State Department resisted these efforts, and once the funding was provided the department and USAID proved ineffectual in ensuring that the communities in question benefited. In fact, a July 2012 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, ``U.S. Assistance to Iraq's Minority Groups in Response to Congressional Directive,'' found that the agencies could not prove they spent the funds as Congress intended. In fact, it often appears that there is an anti- Christian bias at the State Department. For years the department refused to recognize that Iraqi Christians were being targeted, insisting instead that they were simply victims of generalized violence. In light of these realities, church leaders in the West, especially the leadership of affected communities (Copts, Chaldeans, Assyrians etc.), should consider partnering with other churches in the U.S. in establishing a relief fund to benefit beleaguered Christians in the Middle East. Champion Human Rights.--Every U.S. government official, from the President, to the Secretary of State, to the young foreign service officer serving in Cairo or Beirut, must champion the cause of human rights, including religious freedom, in their interactions with foreign government officials and civil society actors. Not simply paying lip- service to these foundational American principles but seeing that they are fully integrated into U.S. foreign policy at every turn. In a 1987 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 with the fearful Coptic Christian and the displaced Syrian refugee. My conversations abroad revealed that the covenant is in jeopardy. Conclusion In closing, I would like to thank the federal employees--embassy personnel, foreign service officers, Diplomatic Security Officers, FBI, and other government agencies--serving in Lebanon and Egypt. They are extraordinarily dedicated and extremely professional. In Lebanon, the ambassador and embassy staff live in an extremely challenging security environment. Their movement is seriously restricted. In Egypt, too, there are also very real security concerns for U.S. embassy personnel. Protesters scaled the walls of the compound on September 11, 2012 and pulled down the American flag, mere hours before the Benghazi consulate attack. We owe these employees of the U.S. government and their families a debt of gratitude. Specifically, in Lebanon, I was grateful for Ambassador Connelly's hospitality and for the work of my control officer, Caitlin Spicer, and the embassy's political and economic section chief, Danielle Garbe. All went to great lengths to ensure that our trip was a success and that our time was filled with insightful meetings. In Egypt, I appreciate Ambassador Patterson and her team's efforts to see that our relatively brief visit was productive. I especially want to thank my control officer Peter Shea (who also assisted with my earlier visit to Egypt). His dedication to human rights and religious freedom is evident and appreciated. I also would like to thank Speaker John Boehner and House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers for approving this trip. Finally, I would like to thank my staff, particularly Elyse Anderson, my foreign policy director, and Dan Scandling, my chief of staff, who accompanied me on the trip.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Today, I rise as the father of five and the grandfather of 16--many of whom are of the age to play video games--to express my deep concerns about the lack of discussion on mental health issues and violent media and the role they play in mass shootings. As we continue to seek ways to end mass violence, in addition to gun safety, we must address the impacts of mental illness and, of equal importance, violent video games, movies, and TV. I have supported legislation that would keep guns from getting into the wrong hands. I voted for the Brady Bill in 1993, safety lock requirements, and provisions that help police conduct effective background checks. My father was a Philadelphia policeman. As chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee that funds the Justice Department, I have increased funding for the national background check system to keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill and violent criminals. In fact, my bill provided more than double the funding requested by both the President's and the Senate's budget plan. In January, I wrote to ask Attorney General Holder to use existing funds to immediately improve the Nation's background check system. In addition, I asked the Obama administration to create a national center for campus public safety, which has strong support from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle and the Virginia Tech Family Outreach Foundation, a group of families and victims of the shooting at Virginia Tech. In fact, the idea for my bill to create the national center for campus public safety came from the Virginia Tech families and lead cosponsor, Congressman Bobby Scott from the State of Virginia. I'm expecting a response from the Justice Department soon. The shooter in the Virginia Tech massacre lived in my congressional district, and a number of the victims were from my district. I have met with their families, and I understand they are hurting. Dealing with mental illness has to be part of the solution. I have long advocated for measures that prevent health insurers from placing discriminatory restrictions on mental health and addiction treatments. I continue to remain hopeful that the nearly 20 million Americans who suffer from mental illness receive the treatment they need. Mr. Speaker, though, I was disappointed that President Obama did not seize the opportunity to address, in depth, the role of mental health and media violence as factors of mass violence during his State of the Union address. To only focus on guns, on just one piece of a very large and complicated puzzle, is simply irresponsible. The President said that the victims of mass shootings, including Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, the college students at Virginia Tech, the children at Sandy Hook, the high school students at Columbine, and the movie-goers in Aurora, all deserve a vote for gun control proposals. How can he, in good conscience, call for that but not acknowledge the fact that each one of these shooters in these events was mentally disturbed? How could he not acknowledge the role that violent media played in some of their lives? The President is failing the American people and the families of the victims by remaining frustratingly silent on these crucial issues and ignoring the other central factors related to mass violence of this kind. As I mentioned, in a number of tragic shootings, there has been a pattern of the shooters playing or even imitating violent video games. Let's begin with Anders Breivik, the Norwegian who shot 69 people at a youth camp in 2011. Forbes Magazine reported that Anders used the video game ``Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2'' as a simulator to help him practice shooting people. Anders said: I just bought ``Modern Warfare 2,'' the game. It is probably the best military simulator out there, and it's one of the hottest games this year. He goes on to say: I see ``Modern Warfare 2'' more as a part of my training- simulation than anything else. You can more or less completely simulate actual operations. And who can forget that day at Columbine High School when Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold murdered 13 classmates and wounded 23 others before turning the guns on themselves? The Simon Wiesenthal Center, which tracks Internet hate groups, found in its archives a copy of Harris' Web site with a version of the first-person shooter video game ``Doom'' that he had customized. In Harris' version, there are two shooters, each with extra weapons and unlimited ammunition, and the other people in the game cannot fight back. For a class project, Harris and Klebold made a videotape that was similar to their customized version of ``Doom.'' In the video, Harris and Klebold dress in trench coats, carry guns, and kill school athletes. They acted out their videotape performance in real life less than a year later. An investigator at the Wiesenthal Center said Harris and Klebold were ``playing out their game in God mode.'' In another videotape, Harris referred to a sawed-off shotgun as ``Arlene,'' a favorite character in the ``Doom'' video game. Harris said, ``It's gonna be like (expletive) Doom.'' And now we have a report this month from the Hartford Courant that says that Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza may have been imitating violent video games as well. The Courant reports: During a search of the Lanza home after the deadly school shootings, police found thousands of dollars' worth of graphically violent video games. The paper goes on to say: And detectives working the scene of the massacre are exploring whether Adam Lanza might have been emulating the shooting range or a video game scenario as he moved from room to room at Sandy Hook, spewing bullets, law enforcement sources have told the Courant. Then he goes on to say, Mr. Speaker: Before he killed his mother and set off for Sandy Hook Elementary, Adam Lanza destroyed the hard drive on his computer, which probably kept some of the records of the games he played and who he played with. He also may have destroyed any chance to see if he had a manifesto or had written down anything indicating that he planned the shootings or why he chose the elementary school. Let me repeat, Adam Lanza may have been emulating a video game shooter or scenario as he went room to room at Sandy Hook. What parent cannot see this problem? This week, I had the opportunity to meet with a few elementary school principals from my congressional district. During the course of our discussion, the issue of media violence, particularly violent video games, came up. One principal said that when children misbehave in school and he asks them why, they will frequently say that they saw it in a video game. Another principal with him said the problem with video games is that, when young children are playing violent ones where they shoot or kill other characters, there are no repercussions or punishment, and usually the characters will even come back to life. This gives children and adolescents whose brains are still developing no sense of reality. He also said that video games desensitize kids to violence. How can we continue to ignore what common sense is telling us? Just take one look at the movie trailers and how violent they are. Some of the video games on the market today like ``Call of Duty'' and ``Halo'' all give points for killing another character. Players are rewarded for shooting people. The level of violence in ``Grand Theft Auto'' is astonishing. Players drive around, shoot people, including police officers, pick up prostitutes, and then kill them. There is a racial element to it also. Soon after the Newtown shooting, I asked the National Science Foundation to pull together experts from across the country to look at the impact of all three contributors to mass violence. These experts include Dr. Brad Bushman from Ohio State University, along with several other scholars from top-tier universities across the Nation, including Johns Hopkins; Georgetown; Columbia University; University of Pennsylvania; Penn State; Carnegie Mellon; and the University of California, Berkeley. And we will have the list at the end of this statement. Earlier this month, the NSF released a report compiled by these experts whose names, as I said, will appear at the end of the statement. It draws on reliable evidence and a number of theories to explain youth violence that have emerged from decades of research, including research supported by the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the National Research Council, and other Federal agencies. According to the report, violent video games increase aggressive thoughts, angry feelings, psychological arousal and aggressive behavior, and decrease helping behavior and feelings of empathy for others. The report compiled by these experts shows that rating systems have not kept up with the increasingly violent content of popular media, and there is no standard rating system in the U.S. across varying media platforms. Dr. Bushman, who holds the Margaret Hall and Robert Randal Rinehart chair at Ohio State University and is widely respected in his field, offers a solution to this issue. There could be a universal rating system on all media, with universal symbols that are easy for parents to understand. The Pan European Game Information system, for example, has five age-based ratings: 3-plus, 7-plus, 12-plus, 16-plus, and 18-plus; and six well-recognizable symbols for potentially objectionable material: violence, sex, drugs, discrimination, fear, and gambling. The current rating system is confusing to parents. For example, there is R for movies, TV-MA for TV, and FV for fantasy violence in video games. Another possible idea, which is something that I have long advocated for, is to put warning labels on violent video games. The report also quotes: More research is also needed on what types of individuals are most strongly affected by violent video games. Many of the spree shooters have been described as ``social outcasts.'' Are such individuals more likely to behave aggressively after playing a violent video game? Are such individuals more likely to play violent games alone? A copy of the National Science Foundation report can be found on my Web site at www.wolf.house.gov. Let me say that again, because parents might want to look at this, and hopefully the Members of the body on both sides will look at it, and hopefully members of the administration will look at it. A copy will appear at www.wolf.house.gov. And these are the views of these experts. I am not naive enough to think that video game violence is the only issue here. We need to have an honest discussion about media violence, TV, movies, and video games. We need to have an honest discussion about mental health. And we need to have an honest discussion about guns. It is easy for the President to go after the NRA. He doesn't support the NRA, and the NRA doesn't support him. But will the President of the United States ever, ever ask the entertainment industry to get involved or will he continue to be silent? While media violence is not the only factor of mass violence, it is one of the easiest factors to change and it needs to be addressed, in addition to looking at access to firearms and mental health. Don't we owe it to all the victims who have been killed to look at everything? With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Participants of the Subcommittee on Youth Violence of the Advisory Committee to the Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences Directorate, National Science Foundation Katherine S. Newman, Ph. D., Dean of Arts and Sciences, Professor of Sociology, Johns Hopkins University Brad J. Bushman, Ph.D., Professor of Communication and Psychology, Margaret Hall and Robert Randal Rinehart Chair of Mass Communication, The Ohio State University and Professor of Communication Science, VU University, Amsterdam, the Netherlands Sandra L. Calvert, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology and Director of the Children's Digital Media Center, Georgetown University Geraldine Downey, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology and Dean of Social Sciences, Columbia University Dan Romer, Ph.D., Director, Adolescent Communication Institute, Annenberg Public Policy Center, University of Pennsylvania Calvin Morrill, Ph.D., Professor of Law and Sociology and Director, Center for the Study of Law and Society, University of California, Berkeley Michael Gottfredson, Ph.D., President and Professor of Sociology, University of Oregon Ann S. Masten, Ph.D., Irving B. Harris Professor of Child Development, Institute of Child Development, University of Minnesota Mark Dredze, Ph.D., Assistant Research Professor of Computer Science, Johns Hopkins University Daniel B. Neill, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Information Systems; Director, Event and Pattern Detection Laboratory, H.J. Heinz III College, Carnegie Mellon University Daniel W. Webster, ScD, MPH, Professor and Director, Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research Nina G. Jablonski, Ph.D., Distinguished Professor of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University

Mr. WOLF

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

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the failure to discuss mental health issues and the impact of the violent media in the whole debate following the tragic shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. There needs to be a three-legged approach to this problem. It is disappointing that the President only addressed the issue of guns in the State of the Union speech. In a number of these tragic shootings, there has been a pattern of the shooters' playing violent video games. Do you remember Columbine? And do you remember the movie theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado? Now comes a report from the Hartford Courant. I quote from the Hartford Courant: During a search of the Lanza home after the deadly school shootings, police found thousands of dollars worth of graphically violent video games. And detectives working the scene of the massacre are exploring whether Adam Lanza might have been emulating the shooting range or a violent video game scenario as he moved from room to room at Sandy Hook spewing bullets, law enforcement sources have told the Courant. Before he killed his mother and set off for Sandy Hook Elementary, Adam Lanza destroyed the hard drive on his computer, which probably kept some of the records of the games he played and whom he played with. He also may have destroyed any chance to see if he had a manifesto or had written down anything indicating that he planned the shootings, or why he chose the elementary school. Soon after the Newtown shooting, I asked the National Science Foundation, which is funded as a result of the subcommittee which I chair, to pull together experts, some of the best experts--and the National Science Foundation picked them--from across the country to look at the impact of all three contributors to mass violence. Earlier this month, the National Science Foundation released its report. This is the report, ``Youth Violence: What We Need to Know,'' which supports my belief that rampage shootings are a result of multiple factors, including access to firearms, mental health issues, and exposure to violent media, including violent video games. This report can be found on my Web site. I would urge anyone who really wants to see what we need to do to go look at the National Science Foundation report. It is guns, it is mental health issues, and it is violent video games. It is easy for the President of the United States to take on the NRA. Why hasn't he asked the entertainment industry to play a greater role in this debate? Common sense tells us that the level of violence on TV, in the movies and in many video games is a problem. One only has to read the piece from the Hartford Courant to understand that this is a very serious problem. You have to look at guns, you have to look at their mental health-- and, quite frankly, the administration has not looked at mental health, and this Congress is not looking at mental health--and you have to look at violent video games and media. The administration is not looking at that, and, quite frankly, this Congress is not looking at it. Media Violence and Youth Violence Brad J. Bushman, Ph.D., Professor of Communication and Psychology, Margaret Hall and Robert Randal Rinehart Chair of Mass Communication, The Ohio State University & Professor of Communication Science, VU University, Amsterdam, the Netherlands When violent shooting sprees occur, people want to identify ``the'' cause. Violent behavior is very complex and is caused by multiple risk factors, often acting together. One possible risk factor is exposure to violent media (e.g., TV programs, films, video games). Of course, it is impossible to know whether exposure to violent media causes shooting sprees because researchers can't use guns in their laboratory experiments! However, in one experimental study, we measured what could be considered assaultive behavior. Dutch boys (Mage=14) played a violent or nonviolent video game for 20 minutes, and rated how much they identified with the game character (e.g., ``I wish I were a character such as the one in the game''). Afterwards, they competed on a task with another ``boy'' where the winner could blast the loser with loud noise through headphones. They were told that the highest noise levels (i.e., 8, 9, or 10) could cause ``permanent hearing damage.'' Boys who played a violent game, and identified with the violent character in that game, did in fact administer potentially damaging noise blasts. During the debriefing, one boy said, ``I blasted him with level 10 noise because he deserved it. I know he can get hearing damage, but I don't care!'' Another boy said he liked the violent game ``because in this game you can kill people and shoot people, and I want to do that too.'' A third boy said, ``I like Grand Theft Auto a lot because you can shoot at people and drive fast in cars. When I am older I can do such things too. I would love to do all these things right now!'' A comprehensive meta-analysis of violent video game effects, which included 381 effects from studies involving 130,295 participants from all over the world, found that violent video games increased aggressive thoughts, angry feelings, physiological arousal, and aggressive behavior. Violent games also decreased prosocial behavior (e.g., helping, cooperation) and feelings of empathy for others. The effects occurred for males and females of all ages, regardless of the country they live in. Similar effects have been found for all types of violent media (e.g., TV, film, music and music videos, comic books). A meta-analysis of 26 studies involving 13,661 participants found that violent media exposure is also significantly linked to violent behavior (e.g. punching, beating, choking others), although the effects are smaller than for aggressive behavior. This makes sense because violent criminal behavior is rarer and more difficult to predict than less severe aggressive behavior. As one example, a recent CDC-funded, cross- sectional study involving incarcerated delinquents (and a comparison group of high-school students), parents/guardians, and teachers/staff, found that consumption of violent media was related to serious violent behavior such as using a weapon against another child. It is well known that people who consume a lot of violent media come to view the world as a hostile place. People who consume a lot of violent media also think violence is ``normal'' behavior, because media characters often use violence to solve their problems. It is useful to consider a child's life as filled with a succession of social problems that must be solved. The child uses a set of programs (called scripts) for solving social problems. In theater, scripts tell actors what to do and say. In memory, scripts define situations and guide behavior: The person first selects a script for the situation, assumes a role in the script, and behaves according to the script. In many shooting sprees, the perpetrator puts on a uniform (e.g., hockey mask, trench coat, movie costume, military uniform), as if following a script. This allows the perpetrator to identify more closely with other killers. The perpetrator then gathers up a bunch of guns and ammunition, goes to a place where there are a lot of people gathered, kills as many people as possible, and then often kills himself. For most people, carrying out such a script would be impossible. But it can occur for some people who don't experience negative emotions or who see such acts as normative, or for whom performing such an act might be perceived as achieving a sense of accomplishment and ``leaving their mark on the world.'' Consider, for example, statements made by the two killers at Columbine High School. Dylan Klebold said, ``Directors will be fighting over this story.'' Eric Harris added, ``Tarentino, Spielberg.'' There is also a downward spiral between aggression, rejection, and consumption of violent media. Aggressive youth tend to be rejected by their peers, and therefore spend their time consuming media (often violent media) and associating with other aggressive youth (who have also been rejected by others), which, in turn makes them even more aggressive. Aggressive youth often consume violent media because it allows them to justify their own behavior as being normal. A child's own aggressive behavior normally should elicit guilt, but this guilt is relieved if the child who has behaved aggressively consumes violent media. The reduction in guilt that consuming violence provides makes continued aggressive and violent behavior by that child even more likely. Violent media often contain guns, and research has shown that the mere presence of guns, even at a subliminal level, can increase aggression. In summary, violent behavior is very complex and is caused by multiple risk factors, often acting together. One possible risk factor is exposure to violent media (e.g., TV programs, films, video games). Although it is not the only risk factor, or the most important risk factor, it is one of the easiest risk factors to change. Other risk factors (e.g., being male, social rejection) are difficult or impossible to change. Parents can, however, restrict the amount of violent media their children consume. Parents are the key, but producers of violent media can help parents out. For example, there could be a universal rating system on all media (TV, films, video games), with universal symbols that are easy for parents to understand. The PEGI (Pan European Game Information) system, for example, has five age-based ratings (3+, 7+, 12+, 16+, 18+) and six well-recognized symbols for potentially objectionable material (violence, sex, drugs, discrimination, fear, gambling). The current rating system is like alphabet soup and is confusing to parents (e.g., R for movies; TV-MA for TV, FV for fantasy violence in video games). Another possible idea is to put warning labels on violent video games. In 1964, the U.S. surgeon general issued a warning on tobacco, and that warning appears on all tobacco products. In 1972, the U.S. surgeon general issued a warning for violent TV programs: ``It is clear to me that the causal relationship between televised violence and antisocial behavior is sufficient to warrant appropriate and immediate remedial action . . . There comes a time when the data are sufficient to justify action. That time has come.'' Warning labels are like a double-edged sword. On the one hand, parents find warning labels informative.' On the other hand, they are like magnets to children. Educating parents about the research on violent video games is also important. This is an uphill battle, however, because the source of news and information for parents is the mass media, and the mass media are reluctant to report that violent media are harmful. Almost all of the research on violent video games has been conducted using single-player video games. But players often play with others. In a pair of studies conducted in our lab, participants were tested in pairs with an ostensible partner of the same sex (actually a confederate). Participants in the cooperative condition were instructed to work together with their partner to get as many points as possible by killing enemies and staying alive. Participants in the competitive condition were instructed to try and kill their partner more times than their partner killed them. Participants in the control condition played the game in the single player mode. After gameplay, participants competed with their ostensible partner on a task in which the winner could blast the loser with loud, unpleasant noise through headphones. In both studies, participants in the cooperative condition were less aggressive than participants in the other conditions. More research on multi-player games is clearly needed. More research is also needed on what types of individuals are most strongly affected by violent video games. Many of the spree shooters have been described as ``social outcasts.'' Are such individuals more likely to behave aggressively after playing a violent game? Are such individuals more likely to play violent games alone? Research should test whether aggression is enhanced by playing in a first-person compared with third-person mode, and by whether the enemies are realistic humans versus aliens. Some research has shown that the gorier the video game, the larger the effects, but more is needed.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. I rise in opposition to the bill. I saw the movie ``Zero Dark Thirty.'' In the movie, the woman, Maya, who is working for 10 years to find Osama bin Laden and the entire team, Maya's pay raise and pay has been frozen--and the team--for the last 10 years. There's a scene in the movie--I don't want to ruin it if you haven't seen it--but seven CIA employees were killed in Khost, Afghanistan. I went to the memorial service in my congressional district in Langley where I watched the young kids. One little kid had a blazer on and khakis. I watched him come in. The team that replaced the team that was killed in Khost had a pay freeze for 3 years. The FBI agent who stopped that young boy from being killed down in Alabama and just ran up a Taliban terrorist up in California, pay raise? No. A freeze for 3 years. Over the last 5 years, one ICE agent killed, one Secret Service agent killed, three ATF agents killed, one DEA agent killed, two U.S. Marshals killed, air traffic controllers that put the safety for my family and your family and our constituents as they fly through the sky, the NIH. My family has been devastated by cancer. My father and mother died of cancer. Cancer has impacted my family. Dr. Collins mapped the human genome system that will save many of you and the lives of your sons and daughters because of basically following that system, working on liver cancer, prostate cancer, breast cancer, ovarian cancer, which my mom died of. You will drive people like that--Dr. Collins and his team will have been frozen for 3 years. With regard to NASA, we just went through the 10th anniversary of the Challenger explosion. Those astronauts that sit on that rocket, those now and in the future, if you have NASA facilities in your district and they sit on that Soyuz rocket that goes up, they froze their pay for 3 years. The firefighters out in the West who you'll call on and beg to come and fight when the storms come this summer--and they're coming--have been frozen. There's the Weather Service. For those of you from Florida and in the tornado area and in the hurricane area, the weathermen stay around the clock, working--frozen for 3 years. There was Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and the people who worked with him, who are on the border where violent gangs come across the border--frozen for 3 years. There is the DEA and others. There are the doctors out at Walter Reed. If you go out and visit Walter Reed or go visit your VA hospitals, the doctors and the nurses who are working with the wounded warriors, people who have lost their limbs in Afghanistan and Iraq--frozen for 3 years.

Mr. WOLF. I recognize the good intentions of the gentleman in what they're trying to do. It's not justice and it's not fair. I urge a ``no'' vote for this bill.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to reintroduce legislation that would reestablish the legal public holiday for Washington's Birthday from the third Monday of February to the actual date of George Washington's birth on February 22. I have long admired President Washington and have found inspiration in public service from studying his life. Unfortunately, I have found that students today have a dearth of knowledge about our nation's beginnings and the man from Virginia who led the colonies to form the union known as the United States of America. In 2011, two-time Pulitzer Prize winning history author David McCullough observed, ``We're raising young people who are, by and large, historically illiterate.'' How can we adequately explain the importance of George Washington to our children when we do not even take time to recognize his actual birthday? We must reestablish Washington's Birthday on the 22nd to honor his legacy and in doing so call upon schools across the nation to focus on Washington as the soldier, legislator and president who shepherded our young nation through war, political turmoil, rebellion and expansion as no other single individual was capable of doing. I believe Congress has unwittingly contributed to this lack of historical understanding by relegating Washington's Birthday to the third Monday of February to take advantage of a three-day weekend. We need to change the focus from celebrating sales at the mall to celebrating the significance of President Washington's birth to the birth of our nation. There is a reason the birthday of President George Washington is the only legal federal holiday observed for a president of the United States. He is called the ``father of our country'' because he is without compare in our nation's history. Washington's Birthday has been celebrated since the final days of the Revolutionary War. French and American troops paraded through Newport, Rhode Island, in 1781 and celebrations were held in Richmond, Virginia, in 1782. Organized by French General Rochambeau and others who knew him personally, these celebrations drew special attention to the bravery, courage, leadership and perseverance of the Revolutionary War hero. From the beginning of our country, the importance of this day has been recognized. As President James Buchanan said in 1860, ``. . . when the birthday of Washington shall be forgotten, liberty will have perished from the earth.'' In response, President Rutherford B. Hayes signed legislation in 1879 that made Washington's Birthday a holiday for District federal workers. The holiday was extended to all federal workers in 1885. This legislation I reintroduce today is not without precedent. In 1975, Congress amended the Uniform Monday Holiday Act and President Gerald R. Ford signed legislation into law returning the annual observance of Veterans Day from the fourth Monday in November to its original date of November 11, beginning in 1978. The Uniform Holiday Bill signed in 1968 and effective in 1971 was intended to ensure three-day weekends for federal employees by celebrating four national holidays on Mondays: Washington's Birthday, Memorial Day, Veterans Day and Columbus Day. Originally called Armistice Day to mark the signing of an Armistice on the 11th hour, of the 11th day, of the 11th month in 1918 that ended World War I, the date of November 11 holds historic and patriotic significance as a day of thanks and remembrance for all veterans. The law change brought widespread public protest and 46 states refused to recognize any day other than November 11 to honor the sacrifice made first by World War I veterans and subsequently by all veterans. The restoration of the observance of Veterans Day to November 11 not only preserves the historical significance of the date, but helps focus attention on the important purpose of Veterans Day as a celebration to honor America's veterans for their patriotism, love of country, and willingness to serve and sacrifice for the common good. Likewise, we need to restore the observance of Washington's Birthday to February 22 to preserve the date of his birth for history and to focus attention on his life of service and duty to his country. Even George Washington's home state of Virginia, where he was born and raised, which he served in elected office, where he accepted General Cornwallis' surrender, and where he is buried, celebrates Washington's Birthday in accordance with the Uniform Monday Holiday Act. I believe all school children in every state should dedicate February 22 each year to learning about our greatest leader, foremost patriot, first president and the only six-star general in the nation's history. Posterity has shown that the traditions he started, including civilian control of the military and presidential term limits, have distinguished our government from so many failed countries born in revolution from the colonial powers of the 18th century. President Washington exemplifies the best that America and Americans have to offer the world; principled leadership, personal bravery, a sense of duty and public service, patriotism, recognition of our unique role in world history, and a reverence for his Creator. His enduring service deserves to be remembered on his actual birthday. My legislation is supported by George Washington's Mount Vernon Estate. Executive Director Jim Rees said, ``The holiday was far more meaningful when it revolved around George Washington, and schools were able to focus on his sterling example of character and leadership.'' I am extremely pleased that David McCullough supports my legislation as well. His letter, copied below, says ``Celebrating George Washington's Birthday on February 22 is a simple, solid, self-evident statement of respect for one of the greatest of all Americans, for his whole founding generation, and for so much that we owe them.'' The legislation is also supported by other prominent authors and scholars that have published extensive works on Washington's life. Scholar and history professor Gordon Wood stated ``I agree wholeheartedly that Washington's Birthday ought to be separated from the Uniform Monday Holiday Act. He is unique as a president and founder.'' In addition, my legislation is supported by noted Washington historian Ron Chernow, historians Peter Henriques and Richard Brookhiser and history professors from the University of Georgia, LaSalle University, James Madison University and Brandeis University. Mr. Speaker, it is only right that we hold February 22 as a date of reverence to commemorate the unique person without whom the tide of American history may well have taken a different turn. I urge my colleagues to join in cosponsoring this legislation to forever honor President George Washington's Birthday. January 19, 2012. Dear Mr. Wolf: The place of George Washington in the American story, his all-important example of courage and integrity in leadership, can hardly be overstated and must never be taken lightly. Nor should we celebrate his birthday on any day but February 22, any more than we would wish to move July 4 about to suit some convenience of the moment. How can it reasonably be argued otherwise? Celebrating George Washington's birthday on February 22 is a simple, solid, self-evident statement of respect for one of the greatest of all Americans, for his whole founding generation, and for so much that we owe them. Sincerely, David McCullough.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I submit a report that will air on ABC News tonight about the Obama Administration's negligence of the Fort Hood survivors and their families. This was clearly a terrorist attack and while the administration has designated this attack as ``workplace violence,'' the survivors cannot access assistance. We are not treating these people fairly. [From ABC News, Feb. 12, 2013] Fort Hood Hero Says Obama `Betrayed' Her, Other Victims (By Ned Berkowitz and Brian Ross) Three years after the White House arranged a hero's welcome at the State of the Union address for the Fort Hood police sergeant and her partner who stopped the deadly shooting there, Kimberly Munley says President Obama broke the promise he made to her that the victims would be well taken care of. ``Betrayed is a good word,'' former Sgt. Munley told ABC News in a tearful interview to be broadcast tonight on ``World News with Diane Sawyer'' and ``Nightline.'' ``Not to the least little bit have the victims been taken care of,'' she said. ``In fact they've been neglected.'' There was no immediate comment from the White House about Munley's allegations. Thirteen people were killed, including a pregnant soldier, and 32 others shot in the November 2009 rampage by the accused shooter, Major Nidal Hasan, who now awaits a military trial on charges of premeditated murder and attempted murder. Tonight's broadcast report also includes dramatic new video, obtained by ABC News, taken in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, capturing the chaos and terror of the day. Munley, since laid off from her job with the base's civilian police force, was shot three times as she and her partner, Sgt. Mark Todd, confronted Hasan, who witnesses said had shouted ``Allahu Akbar'' as he opened fire on soldiers being processed for deployment to Afghanistan. As Munley lay wounded, Todd fired the five bullets credited with bringing Hasan down. Despite extensive evidence that Hasan was in communication with al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki prior to the attack, the military has denied the victims a Purple Heart and is treating the incident as ``workplace violence'' instead of ``combat related'' or terrorism. Al-Awlaki has since been killed in a U.S. drone attack in Yemen, in what was termed a major victory in the U.S. efforts against al Qaeda. Munley and dozens of other victims have now filed a lawsuit against the military alleging the ``workplace violence'' designation means the Fort Hood victims are receiving lower priority access to medical care as veterans, and a loss of financial benefits available to those who injuries are classified as ``combat related.'' Some of the victims ``had to find civilian doctors to get proper medical treatment'' and the military has not assigned liaison officers to help them coordinate their recovery, said the group's lawyer, Reed Rubenstein. ``There's a substantial number of very serious, crippling cases of post-traumatic stress disorder exacerbated, frankly, by what the Army and the Defense Department did in this case,'' said Rubenstein. ``We have a couple of cases in which the soldiers' command accused the soldiers of malingering, and would say things to them that Fort Hood really wasn't so bad, it wasn't combat.'' A spokesperson for the Army said its policy is not to comment on pending litigation, but that it is ``not true'' any of the military victims have been neglected and that it has no control over the guidelines of the Veterans Administration. Secretary of the Army John McHugh told ABC News he was unaware of any specific complaints from the Fort Hood victims, even though he is a named defendant in the lawsuit filed last November which specifically details the plight of many of them. ``If a soldier feels ignored, then we need to know about it on a case by case basis,'' McHugh told ABC News. ``It is not our intent to have two levels of care for people who are wounded by whatever means in uniform.'' Some of the victims in the lawsuit believe the Army Secretary and others are purposely ignoring their cases out of political correctness. ``These guys play stupid every time they're asked a question about it, they pretend like they have no clue,'' said Shawn Manning, who was shot six times that day at Fort Hood. Two of the bullets remain in his leg and spine, he said. ``It was no different than an insurgent in Iraq or Afghanistan trying to kill us,'' said Manning, who was twice deployed to Iraq and had to retire from the military because of his injuries. An Army review board initially classified Manning's injuries as ``combat related,'' but that finding was later overruled by higher-ups in the Army. Manning says the ``workplace violence'' designation has cost him almost $70,000 in benefits that would have been available if his injuries were classified as ``combat related.'' ``Basically, they're treating us like I was downtown and I got hit by a car,'' he told ABC News. For Alonzo Lunsford, who was shot seven times at Fort Hood and blinded in one eye, the military's treatment is deeply hurtful. ``It's a slap in the face, not only for me but for all of the 32 that wore the uniform that day,'' he told ABC News. Lunsford's medical records show his injuries were determined to be ``in the line of duty'' but neither he nor any of the other soldiers shot or killed at Fort Hood is eligible for the Purple Heart under the Department of Defense's current policy for decorations and awards. Army Secretary McHugh says awarding Purple Hearts could adversely affect the trial of Major Hasan. ``To award a Purple Heart, it has to be done by a foreign terrorist element,'' said McHugh. ``So to declare that soldier a foreign terrorist, we are told, I'm not an attorney and I don't run the Justice Department, but we're told would have a profound effect on the ability to conduct the trial.'' Members of Congress, including the chairman of the House Homeland Security committee, Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, say they will introduce legislation to force the military and the Obama administration to give the wounded and dead the recognition and honors they deserve. ``It was clearly an act of terrorism that occurred that day, there's no question in my mind,'' McCaul told ABC News. ``I think the victims should be treated as such.'' Former Sgt. Munley says she now believes the White House used her for political advantage in arranging for her to sit next to Michelle Obama during the President's State of the Union address in 2010. Munley says she has no hesitation now speaking out against the President or taking part in the lawsuit, because she wants to help the others who were shot that day and continue to suffer. ``We got tired of being neglected. So this was our last resort and I'm not ashamed of it a bit,'' she said.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, a report will air tonight on ``ABC News'' about the Obama administration's negligence of the Fort Hood survivors and their families. This was clearly a terrorist attack. And while the Obama administration has designated that attack that killed all those people a ``workplace violence,'' the survivors cannot get assistance. Major Hasan was influenced by Awlaki. The administration knew Awlaki was bad, and they killed him by a drone missile. And now the people that are involved are not getting the necessary help. Secretary of Defense Panetta, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Dempsey, Attorney General Holder, and the President of the United States have failed the people and continue to fail the people who were wounded and killed at Fort Hood, as well as their families.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. America is broke. America is in trouble, and the Simpson- Bowles plan is the only framework out there that truly reforms Social Security and saves it for our children and grandchildren. When I go into high schools in my district and I ask the students, how many of you believe the Social Security system is sound, in the last 4 years, not one senior has raised their hand. The seniors know more than the Congress, both the Republican and Democratic Party, and more than the President. Just yesterday, CBO Director Doug Elmendorf noted that the number of seniors receiving Social Security and Medicare benefits will increase by 40 percent over the next decade. In order to preserve Social Security and save it for our children, the President should use Simpson-Bowles as a starting point. He created the commission. It received bipartisan support, and then he walked away. Some Members on both sides are afraid of this vote. You know what you ought to be afraid of? You ought to be afraid of facing your children and your grandchildren and your constituents when this country goes bankrupt and goes into decline. I thank the gentleman for offering the amendment, and strongly urge a unanimous ``yes'' vote. Madam Chair, I thank Mr. Schrader for yielding, and thank the other cosponsors of this amendment, Mr. Cooper and Mr. Gibson, for their work. I continue to believe that the only way to address our Nation's massive debt, which is crippling our ability to compete, is by adopting a comprehensive proposal along the lines of the Simpson-Bowles framework. It would put our Nation on a sustainable path by reducing deficits by 4 trillion dollars through a mix of spending reductions-- both mandatory and discretionary--and comprehensive, pro-growth reform. By finding these savings, sequestration wouldn't even be necessary. This amendment is simple. It adds a finding to this legislation that the president created the Simpson-Bowles Commission and suggests using Simpson-Bowles as a starting point, to meet the underlying requirements of the bill. Quite honestly, I am disappointed that an amendment is even necessary. As Alan Greenspan noted in May, ``The worst mistake the president made was not embracing that vehicle [Simpson-Bowles] right away.'' I am submitting for the Record letters I sent earlier this week to both the president and the speaker asking both to embrace bipartisan efforts to ``turn off'' sequestration. Simpson-Bowles is a valid approach to deal with this problem, even though the president walked away from his own commission's hard work. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment and a ``yes'' vote on the bill. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, February 4, 2013. Hon. John A. Boehner, Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I recently read an article by Maureen Downey of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution sharing the thoughts of Mr. Frederick Assaf, headmaster at Pace Academy, an independent K-12 school in Atlanta, Georgia. As Congress and the Obama administration continue to address mass violence, I found merit in Assaf's concerns about the desensitizing impacts of violent media, such as video games and Hollywood films. I believe these graphic images are far too easily accessed by our children and lack any notion of real-life consequences to violent death. I submit for the Record Mr. Assaf's thoughtful comments. [From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Jan. 2, 2013] Newtown Shooting Demands We Consider Our ``Call of Duty'' as Parents (By Maureen Downey, AJC Get Schooled Blog) I admire Fred Assaf, head of Pace Academy in Atlanta, because he doesn't shy away from the tough issues. Here is another example of his willingness to speak out on behalf of children. In the wake of the Newtown school shooting, Assaf questions the popularity of violent video games, which many kids received as Christmas gifts last week. Please note that all comments to the blog will be moderated and appear only after they are read and approved. (By Fred Assaf) Because I come to know 6-year-olds every year by having lunch with them in our Lower School, I know the boundless joy and optimism they have in the heart. They raise their hands when they don't know the answer. When they run out of knock-knock jokes they know, the make up more on the spot. They still need help opening their milk cartons. They look forward to holidays, visiting cousins, and seeing grandparents. They love their teachers, crave the structure of a school setting, and are learning to read fast and compute math at an incredible pace. They will laugh at all of your jokes, even when they aren't funny. They understand the needs of those around them, they play with all their classmates, and they respect their parents, their teachers, and their god. I'm headmaster at an independent school in Atlanta. Our school begins in Pre-First (Kindergarten) and ends with 12th grade. My wife and I also have five children of our own. The events in Newtown, Conn., are unimaginable to us and our entire prayer is for sympathy and healing; there is no justice in a situation like this. It is my tradition to have lunch with the Pre-First students (they are 5 and 6). In so doing I remind myself about my vocation and come to know the boundless energy and potential of children. It is why I teach. I know more Knock- Knock jokes than any adult my age and I like it! And I'm plagued now by this thought--who shoots 6-year- olds? Because I lead a school I'm always searching for answers, finding a new path forward, and engineering compromise. But this idea of shooting 6-year-olds doesn't compute; I'm not in search of a motive, as it cannot possibly explain why. When we had our first child, our family doctor gave us a good piece of advice: ``Eskimo children get used to the cold.'' As parents we understood that our attitudes and behaviors would shape our children. Though all five of our sons are different, they are shaped by our values and behaviors. And so I wonder what behaviors we as parents can change. Certainly, we can improve school security. We can provide better training. We can make it harder to get a gun than to it is to get Sudafed. I don't know all the political answers, but I'd favor anything that makes gratuitous murder more difficult. Which brings me to my point. As parents, we need to do our best to stop our children from the desensitizing impact of video games. A quick survey of the most popular video games includes the following top 10 games: ``Halo,'' ``Assassin's Creed,'' ``Call of Duty,'' ``World of Warcraft,'' ``Grand Theft Auto.'' Each of these games, simply put, eats away at a child's sensitivity toward killing. We have ``gamified'' the murder of people, and our children shoot, steal, and bomb in their virtual worlds. Like the basketball player who practices foul shots, we get better at things when we practice. Their habits become automatic, reactive, and second-nature. Raising children is a labor of love. Working in a school is a joy. When I reflect on President Obama's query to ask myself what we can do better as parents, educators, and communities--it seems to me that we can stop letting our children kill people over and over and over again--and call it a GAME. If you know teenagers like I know teenagers, they will find other things to do once you take away their shooting games-- perhaps they will even work on their free throws.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, more than 4 months have passed since the terrorist attacks in Benghazi, which killed four Americans, including our ambassador, injured many others, and destroyed two U.S. facilities. Yet, despite the months that have passed, we're hardly closer to bringing those responsible to justice than we were in the weeks immediately following the attack. Put bluntly, the lack of progress in identifying and hunting down the terrorists responsible is stunning. Consider the current state of the Obama administration's investigation and response to the attack: Four months later, the administration still cannot or will not name the terrorist groups responsible for the attacks or the names of these group leaders; Four months later, despite consulate video footage that many Members of Congress have seen and many eyewitnesses, not a single Benghazi terror suspect is in custody; Four months later, the FBI has had access to only one suspect, Ali Harzi, for just 3 hours, and the Tunisian Government kept the FBI team waiting for more than 5 weeks before finally granting access; Four months later, the administration still has not disclosed the serious connections between the groups behind the Benghazi attack and the leaders of the attack on the U.S. embassies in Cairo, Tunis, and Sana'a that same week of September 11; Four months later, following the release of the Pickering report on State Department failures leading up to the attack, not a single State Department employee has been fired and held responsible for their role in denying adequate security for the consulate in Benghazi; Four months later, despite Secretary Clinton's September 21 declaration when she said, ``What happened was a terrorist attack, and we will not rest until we have tracked down and brought to justice the terrorists who murdered four Americans,'' this administration seems to have not only rested, but to have moved on and apparently hopes that the Congress and the American people will too. Just today, the New York Times is reporting: Several Egyptian members of the squad of militants that lay bloody siege to an Algerian gas complex last week also took part in the deadly attack on the United States Mission in Libya in September. Mr. Speaker, 4 months later, this is an unacceptable state of affairs. Quite frankly, the Obama administration has failed. They have failed to prioritize this investigation. They have failed to bring the necessary pressure to bear on the Libyan, Tunisian, and Egyptian Governments. But more fundamentally, the administration has failed to respond to a terrorist attack appropriately, treating it as a law enforcement and diplomatic issue, rather than the security issue that it is. At its core, this is yet another reflection of President Obama's schizophrenic counterterrorism policy, the same administration that unapologetically rains down lethal drone attacks on some al Qaeda affiliate terrorists in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia and will not use other counterterrorism resources to identify, locate, and detain the terrorists involved in the death of our ambassador and others in Libya. This inconsistent policy may stem from the President's hasty campaign promise to shut down Guantanamo Bay in Gitmo and prematurely transfer detention facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan. In doing so, the President effectively ended America's ability to detain and interrogate terrorists, depriving the FBI, the CIA, and other agencies of critical opportunities to obtain information on al Qaeda networks. Today, as the case of Benghazi suspect Ali Harzi has demonstrated, the United States is completely reliant on the cooperation of host countries to detain on our behalf and selectively allow access to suspects. As in the case of Harzi, as demonstrated, this approach is fraught with diplomatic roadblocks, costing critical time in getting information from suspects to track terrorist networks. Perhaps that is why President Obama so often opts to use lethal drone strikes to kill terrorists, knowing that the U.S. would be unable to get access to interrogate these terror suspects by working through host governments or because he no longer has a way to detain them in U.S. custody short of providing them the full privileges of an article III court. In short, the President has tied his own hands, compromised U.S. national security and put the FBI in an impossible position. The FBI has been asked to treat the terrorist attack where four Americans died as if it's a law enforcement activity and has been put in a compromised and very difficult spot, and they have laid the groundwork for the administration's inept response in the wake of the terrorist attack in Benghazi. To make matters worse, the administration has not even seen any significant success from its diplomatic-focused response. When Tunisia refused to allow the FBI access to Harzi for more than 5 weeks, the administration took no public steps to use diplomatic tools, like U.S. foreign assistance, to pressure the Tunisians to make Harzi available. In fact, the FBI only gained access after Members of Congress threatened amendments to cut off or restrict Tunisia's foreign aid if they continued to obstruct the FBI investigation. I was among those Members of Congress along with Lindsey Graham and Senator McCain and others. In the interim, I urged the administration to act immediately to suspend foreign assistance if the Tunisian Government persisted in obstructing the investigation. On January 4, I received a tepid--and it was tepid--response from the Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Legislative and Public Affairs at USAID with a bland assurance that the Tunisian Government was cooperating. Was cooperating? Five weeks and the FBI had to wait? Then the FBI had 3 hours to talk to him, and we gave this Tunisian Government, Mr. Speaker, $320 million last year? Days later, Ali Harzi was released. Today, I again wrote USAID, expressing my disappointment that the administrator himself could not respond directly to a Member of Congress who serves on a committee of jurisdiction and, further, pointed out what should be obvious--that the Tunisian Government did not cooperate. The Tunisian Government never seriously thought the aid--precious taxpayer money--was in jeopardy. The Tunisian Government has not faced a single consequence for undermining U.S. national security. I submit my letter for the Record. Sadly, the failure to respond forcefully and appropriately to the Benghazi attack will undoubtedly encourage our enemies and make the world a more dangerous place for Americans working in hostile environments around the world. This failure to respond has endangered future Embassy staffs and Ambassadors--the Federal employees who serve our country at great risk. Rather than demonstrating that there will be no quarter, no respite, no safe haven for terrorists who threaten American officials abroad, the message the administration has sent is that there is no apparent consequence for these actions. This will only embolden our enemy to plan the next Benghazi, knowing that under this administration there is less consequence even for their involvement in such an attack. In this context, perhaps it is not surprising that the al Qaeda- affiliated terrorist group Ansar al-Sharia brazenly took pictures of the FBI agents interviewing Harzi and posted pictures on their Web sites; and when the Tunisian Government released Harzi, Ansar al- Sharia was there to welcome him and post a video of the celebration of his release. Again, these antagonistic actions have been met by silence from this administration. As Steve Hayes and Tom Joscelyn reported in The Weekly Standard this week: U.S. officials tell The Weekly Standard that the release of the photos was a clear attempt to intimidate the Americans and show that the FBI could not act with impunity. In its posting, Ansar al-Sharia Tunisia warned the Tunisian people that their government had allowed the FBI ``to begin investigating your sons under post-revolutionary protection.'' Consider that, in the same week of the Benghazi attack, our Embassies in Cairo, Tunis and Sana were also overrun in an increasingly apparent coordinated plot. In each case, the American flag was ripped down and burned, and a black al Qaeda flag was flown in its place. We are fortunate and blessed that none of these incidents resulted in a loss of life. They were, nonetheless, an attack on America by hostile groups. As the administration's own State Department Web site states: ``Any attack on an Embassy is considered an attack on the country it represents.'' Each Embassy and consulate that was overrun the week of September 11 represents, in its own way, a public attack on America, and in the months that have followed, this administration has demonstrated that there are no consequences for breaching our Embassies or for killing our personnel. I fear that the latest hostage-taking and killing of Americans and other Westerners in Algeria is a manifestation of a newfound confidence by our enemy in knowing that they may face no serious consequences from this administration for their murderous acts. It is telling that neither President Obama nor any others in his administration have made a public statement on the recent terrorist activities in Algeria, whereas the head of France and the head of England have spoken out over and over and over. All the while, the Arab Spring, which was fanned by this administration to much fanfare, has become an Arab Winter, and for many of the people in the Middle East and North Africa, this Arab Winter--a new safe haven for al Qaeda-affiliated groups--is forming, ideologically fueled by the release of terrorists and extremists from prisons and flush with weapons provided to anti-Qadhafi rebels last year. We are witnessing the potential formation of the next front in the war on terror, but we increasingly have an administration that no longer considers it a war worth fighting no matter the cost to American power or to the safety of our people abroad. While some have described the Obama doctrine as leading from behind, it is increasingly clear that the Obama doctrine means not leading at all. While most of the responsibility falls on the President and his administration, the Congress--the House and the Senate--and the media share some blame for failing to adequately investigate and bring attention to the many questions surrounding the administration's response to Benghazi. Aside from a handful of reporters who have stayed with this story and have continued to raise questions about the administration's words and deeds, I can't help but wonder: Where are the New York Times, the Washington Post, or the network news programs? Why in the wake of last week's deadly terrorist attack in Algeria are no reporters investigating the serious links between al Qaeda's affiliates in North Africa and the connection between the groups? Equally important, where has the Congress been in investigating both the circumstances of the attack and the administration's response over the last 4 months? Despite a handful of hearings, many in classified settings and done by very capable and good people, the American people have not been provided with anything close to an adequate answer to the following questions. It is not only important for the Congress to find out; it is important for the American people to find out. Have they been given answers to these questions? Secretary Panetta, Attorney General Holder and DNI Clapper still have not testified publicly before Congress as to what steps they took during the attack and in the days that followed. What were the President's activities during the 7-hour period of attack? Why wasn't the U.S. military deployed to assist? On the anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in American history and after multiple attacks this year on U.S. and Western interests, why were U.S. military units and assets in the region not ready, alert, and in a position to respond? After all, two of the four people killed were murdered 7 hours after the fighting began. Why do we still not have the clear answers on the internal process that produced the inaccurate and, frankly, misleading talking points on which Ambassador Rice relied several days after the attack? Why were the testimonies of the U.S. personnel who were evacuated from Benghazi on September 12--eyewitnesses who knew there was never a demonstration outside the consulate--not immediately factored into the judgments of our intelligence community? Have the witnesses who were there on the scene, government employees, good people--all risking their lives--been called to come up and been given the opportunity to talk to Members on both sides of the aisle? The answer to date is ``no.'' Why hasn't Secretary Clinton been interviewed by the Pickering Commission? Was the White House aware of the FBI investigation of General Petraeus? If not, why not? To date, Congress has failed to get these answers, and it has not developed a coordinated or substantial investigative plan to fully explore this critical matter, which has a direct bearing on U.S. national security. In the absence of serious oversight, the media has moved on. In the absence of this, the administration, which has so much to account for to the American people, receives a carte blanche from the legislative branch to continue its questionable policies. These matters are too serious to be brushed aside. There are critical legislative decisions the next Congress will have to make based on answers to these questions; but, more importantly, the American people deserve the answers to these questions, including open hearings and an unclassified report. Mr. Speaker, for these reasons I remain convinced that a House select committee on the terrorist attack in Benghazi is needed more than ever. That is why last week I introduced my resolution, H. Res. 36, with 20 of our colleagues joining as cosponsors. A select committee is essential to combine the myriad existing investigations into a single, comprehensive, and exhaustive review. I believe such a combined effort will yield even more information regarding the true nature of these terrorist attacks and the administration's response will not allow administration officials to offer up siloed accounts to various committees. The select committee I am proposing should draw from the existing congressional investigations by including the chairman and ranking member of each committee of jurisdiction--the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Rogers and Mr. Ruppersberger have done a great job; the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Royce and Mr. Engel do a great job; the Judiciary Committee, the same way; the Armed Services Committee; the Homeland Security Committee; the Oversight and Government Reform Committee; as well as five additional Republican Members appointed by the Speaker and two additional Democrats appointed by the minority leader so it is truly bipartisan. I appreciate the support I've received for this resolution from the original cosponsors, as well as the Heritage Foundation; former Senator from Tennessee, Fred Thompson, who was counsel on the Watergate Select Committee; former Ambassador John Bolton; and General Jerry Boykin, a former special operations officer and CIA operative who is widely respected in the intelligence community. Mr. Speaker and Members of this body, we owe it to the families of the victims and the American people to fully investigate this terrorist attack. I urge my colleagues to support my resolution to create a House select committee. I yield back the balance of my time. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, January 23, 2013. Dr. Rajiv Shah, Administrator, Agency For International Development, Washington, DC. Dear Dr. Shah: Ms. Barbara Bennett, acting deputy assistant administrator for legislative and public affairs at USAID recently sent a response to my December 11, 2012 letter to you. I was disappointed you did not respond directly to a Member of Congress who serves on a committee of jurisdiction, especially given that my concern was budgetary in nature. Just days after I received your response, Tunisian authorities released Ali Harzi, a key suspect in the September 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate and annex in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador, and resulted in the destruction of two U.S. facilities. This development is completely at odds with USAID's assurances in the response letter that ``. . . Tunisian authorities are cooperating with the Department [State] through normal law enforcement channels.'' Respectfully, I would also like to remind you that I chair the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations subcommittee which has jurisdiction over the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Consequently, while Ms. Bennett indicated that USAID ``could not provide further detail,'' I am well-versed on the investigation and can say with confidence that releasing Ali Harzi is an affront to U.S. national security and rule of law, given the evidence of his alleged involvement. Furthermore, your assertion that U.S. assistance is critical to ``Tunisia's successful democratic transition'' is misguided. Tunisia is not transitioning successfully. I have enclosed for your review a recent piece which ran in Bloomberg Businessweek, ``Revolution and Entropy,'' which paints a bleak picture of progress in Tunisia. A January 14 Reuters piece described large street protests in the capital city during which protestors chanted, ``Where is the constitution? Where is democracy?'' Democratic transition aside, the Tunisian government, as evidenced by this most recent development with Ali Harzi, is working at cross- purposes with U.S. national interests. During these tight budgetary times, when worthy programs face constraints and cuts, our national priorities should undergird our foreign assistance. The administration continues to claim that bringing the perpetrators to justice for the deadly attack on the U.S. consulate is a priority. And yet its actions are inconsistent with such sentiments, particularly in the case of Tunisia. We must send a clear and unequivocal message to the Tunisian government. U.S. aid must not be taken for granted. U.S. national security considerations are a cornerstone of our foreign policy. When those interests are undermined, there are consequences. I look forward to a personal response to this letter and any future correspondence. Best wishes. Sincerely, Frank R. Wolf, Member of Congress.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I submit a letter I recently sent to over three hundred national faith leaders encouraging them to use their platform and lend their voice to the cause of the persecuted church globally. Dear Friend: Christians worldwide just celebrated the birth of Jesus. For those of us living in the West, this was a festive season marked by worship services, gift-giving and time with family and friends. But for our brethren in the Middle East, fear of persecution and outright violence or even death cast a long dark shadow over the Christmas holiday. While most striking in the Middle East, given the ancient roots of Christianity in that part of the world, the challenges facing those believers are by no means isolated, nor are they anything ``new under the sun.'' Ecclesiastes 4:1 says, ``I saw the tears of the oppressed, and they have no comforter; power was on the side of the oppressor.'' As you well know, oppression has marked the church since its birth. Consider the chilling words of Roman historian Tacitus regarding the early church: ``Besides being put to death they were made to serve as objects of amusement; they were clad in the hides of beasts and torn to death by dogs; others were crucified, others set on fire to serve to illuminate the night when daylight failed. . .'' Every day, around the world, men and women of faith are imprisoned, beaten, detained, tortured and even killed. The book of Hebrews enjoins us to ``remember those in prison as if you were their fellow prisoners, and those who are mistreated as if you yourselves were suffering.'' Do we suffer with our brethren? Have we in the West ceased to be salt and light? Consider that on our watch a historic exodus of Christians from the Middle East is underway--an exodus fueled by persecution. German Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer, faced with the tyranny and horror of Nazism, famously said, ``Silence in the face of evil is itself evil. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.'' And that is precisely what many in the church did, or failed to do, as Hitler unleashed his murderous plans. I recently encountered this haunting account by a German Christian in the book When a Nation Forgets God: ``I lived in Germany during the Nazi Holocaust. I considered myself a Christian. We heard stories of what was happening to the Jews, but we tried to distance ourselves from it, because, what could anyone do to stop it? A railroad track ran behind our small church and each Sunday morning we could hear the whistle in the distance and then the wheels coming over the tracks. We became disturbed when we heard the cries coming from the train as it passed by. We realized that it was carrying Jews like cattle in the cars! Week after week the whistle would blow. We dreaded to hear the sound of those wheels because we knew that we would hear the cries of the Jews en route to a death camp. Their screams tormented us. We knew the time the train was coming and when we heard the whistle blow we began singing hymns. By the time the train came past our church we were singing at the top of our voices. If we heard the screams, we sang more loudly and soon we heard them no more. Years have passed and no one talks about it anymore. But I still hear that train whistle in my sleep. God forgive me; forgive all of us who called ourselves Christians and yet did nothing to intervene.'' The parallels are imperfect but the sentiments are the same. Has our comfort led to complacency? Can the church in the West be galvanized to act? 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. Their once vibrant communities in countries throughout the region are now decimated. In 1948 there were roughly 150,000 Jews in Iraq; today less than 10 remain. In Egypt, there were once as many as 80,000 Jews; now less than 100 remain. It appears a similar fate awaits the ancient Christian community in these same lands. Iraq's Christian population has fallen from as many as 1.4 million in 2003 to between 500,000 and 700,000 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. In Egypt with the ascent of the Muslim Brotherhood, Coptic Christians, numbering roughly 8 to 10 million, are leaving in droves. Ironically, some 2,000 years ago, the Holy Family sought refuge in this same land from the murderous aims of King Herod. In the midst of devastating bloodshed in Syria, the Christian population is particularly vulnerable. A recent ABC News story reported, ``They [Christians] are fearful that Syria will become another Iraq, with Christians caught in the crossfire between rival Islamic groups.'' Over the span of a few decades, the Middle East, with the exception of Israel, was virtually emptied of Jews. The same thing will happen to the Christian community if the current trajectory holds true. And yet, the silence of many in the West is deafening. Such stories receive scant attention in the mainstream media, and perhaps more strikingly, are rarely spoken of from our pulpits. A recent study on Christian persecution released by the British-based think tank Civitas explained the media's seeming ambivalence this way: ``Parts of the media have been influenced by the logical error that equates criticism of Muslims with racism, and therefore as wrong by definition. This has further distracted attention away from the hounding of Christians, helping to cement the surprisingly widespread idea that Christianity is a `Western' faith.'' And yet, we in the church ought to know better. The Middle East is the very cradle of Christendom. 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. So how do we account for the Church's indifference? Is it political correctness? Lack of awareness? What tragedy must befall this community before we are propelled to act? The persecution plaguing the Middle East is no exception. Christians are targeted throughout the world in countries like China, Vietnam and Pakistan. According to the Civitas study, ``More Christians are imprisoned in China than in any other country in the world.'' If the faith community in the West isn't engaged, are we surprised when government leaders turn a blind eye to matters of religious freedom? Consider the following: bipartisan legislation to create a special envoy position at the State Department charged with advocating on behalf of religious minorities in the Middle East and South Central Asia overwhelmingly passed the House of Representatives more than a year and a half ago. But it remained stalled in the Senate as a result of State Department opposition and the refusal of the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and presumptive secretary of state, John Kerry, to even hold a hearing on the legislation. I have had the privilege of meeting individuals who boldly follow Jesus despite unbelievably hostile circumstances. Shabbaz Bhatti, Pakistan's federal minister for minority affairs, and the only Christian Member of the cabinet and an outspoken critic of his country's blasphemy laws, was one such man. On March 2, 2011 he was murdered, his car riddled with bullets, leaving his mother's house for work. In a video filmed shortly before his assassination (accessible on my Web site at http://wolf.house.gov/bhattivideo), Bhatti appears to sense that the path he has chosen will come with a price. When asked about the threats against his life, he said, without malice or fear, ``I believe in Jesus Christ who has given his own life for us. I know what is the meaning of [the] cross. And I am following the cross. And I am ready to die for a cause.'' And so he did. The book of Proverbs tells us to ``Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves . . .'' Bhatti can no longer speak. The Chinese bishop under house arrest cannot speak. The North Korean believer enslaved in the gulag can't speak. The Iraqi nun fearing for her life cannot speak. Will we be their voice? Martin Luther King, Jr. famously said, ``In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.'' Are we not their friends? The Church globally is under assault. Our response must not be to simply sing more loudly, thereby drowning out the cries for help from our brothers and sisters. Rather we must speak out, advocate and act on their behalf. From my perspective the Church in the West, specifically in America, is failing in this regard. Can you, as a leader in the Church, help? Are you pained by these accounts of persecution? Do you have ideas about how best to respond? Will you use your sphere of influence to raise the profile of this issue--be it through a sermon, writing or media interview? I welcome your thoughts and invite your engagement in this monumental task. Next week, when Congress reconvenes, I intend to reintroduce the special envoy legislation and press for passage in both houses of Congress. 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. Furthermore, to do nothing is simply not an option. We in the West must speak out on behalf of the persecuted church around the world. Best wishes. Sincerely, Frank R. Wolf, Member of Congress. P.S. I know you are busy and have so many competing priorities but your involvement could really make a difference in the lives of believers around the world.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, today I have reintroduced my resolution to establish a House Select Committee on the Terrorist Attack in Benghazi to ensure a unified investigation of the attack and the Obama Administration's response. A select committee is essential to combine the myriad existing investigations into a single, comprehensive and exhaustive review. I believe such a combined effort will yield even more information regarding the true nature of these terrorist attacks and the administration's response. More than four months have passed since the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate and annex that occurred during the late evening and early morning hours of September 11-12. The attack took the lives of four Americans, including a U.S. ambassador--the first ambassador to be killed in the line of duty since 1979. Yet the American people still have been told little about the timeline of this attack and the administration's response in the hours, days and weeks following. Consider that the American people still haven't been provided answers to the following serious questions: With the inexplicable release of suspect Ali Harzi by Tunisian authorities earlier this month, why are there no suspects in custody? Secretary Clinton, Secretary Panetta, Attorney General Holder and DNI Clapper still haven't testified before Congress--what steps did they take during the attack and in the days that followed? What were the President's activities during the seven-hour period of attack? Why wasn't the U.S. military deployed to assist? On the anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in American history, after multiple attacks this year on U.S. and Western interests, why were U.S. military units and assets in the region not ready, alert and positioned to respond? After all, two of the four people were killed seven hours after fighting began. Why do we still not have clear answers on the internal process that produced the inaccurate talking points on which Ambassador Rice relied several days after the attack? Why were the testimonies of the U.S. personnel who were evacuated from Benghazi on September 12--eyewitnesses who knew there never was a demonstration outside the Consulate--not immediately factored in to the judgments of our intelligence community? Why wasn't Secretary Clinton interviewed by the Pickering Commission? Was the White House aware of the FBI investigation of Gen. Petraeus? If not, why not? There are also serious questions about links of this terrorist attack to the protests at the U.S. embassies in Cairo, Egypt, Tunis, Tunisia and Sanaa, Yemen that same week--where each American compound was breached by individuals allegedly linked to al Qaeda-affiliated groups. What, if any, were the connections between these incidents and the attack in Benghazi? These questions are too serious--and the consequences too grave--to be brushed aside. There are critical legislative decisions the next Congress will have to make based on the answers of these questions. But more importantly, the American people deserve answers to these questions--including open hearings and an unclassified report. The select committee I am proposing should draw from the existing congressional investigations by including the chairman and ranking member of each committee of jurisdiction--Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, Judiciary, Armed Services, Homeland Security and Oversight and Government Reform--as well as five additional Republicans appointed by the Speaker and two additional Democrats appointed by the Minority Leader. I appreciate the support I have received for this resolution from the original cosponsors, as well as the Heritage Foundation. I also submit for the record a recent op-ed that was published on RealClearPolitics.com by former Senator Fred Thompson articulating the benefits of a unified select committee. Senator Thompson has a unique perspective on the need for this committee given his experience as counsel on the Senate select committee on Watergate. Mr. Speaker, we owe it to the families of the victims, and the American people, to fully investigate this terrorist attack. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. [From RealClearPolitics.com, Nov. 28, 2012] Investigating Benghazi: Why We Need a Select Committee (By Fred Thompson) As we fixate on the latest version of Gen. David Petraeus' testimony or the misleading statements of Susan Rice, I suggest that we stop and think about the size of what we are dealing with. The Benghazi tragedy raises questions concerning the protection of our embassies, the performance and capabilities of our military and our intelligence community, as well as the decisions of high-ranking officials in the Department of Defense, the State Department, the White House and possibly the Justice Department. The scope of the questions that involve an array of officials, and sensitive agencies and departments of our government, is unprecedented. The inquiry into what happened and why, along with who is or should be accountable, calls for a focused, responsible effort equal to the seriousness and the complexities the issues. I've seen this rodeo before, both in a constructive manner (Watergate, where I served as a counsel) and a less-than- constructive one (Clinton-era investigations, where I chaired a committee that probed at least one facet of the various scandals). On our present course, the prospects for a relatively short but thorough, credible, bipartisan congressional investigation are not good. The prospects for a disjointed, drawn-out mess, replete with partisan bickering, are much better. It is easy to identify at least eight congressional committees (four in each chamber) with claims of jurisdiction in the Benghazi matter. No committee has jurisdiction over all of it, and several committees have jurisdiction over parts that overlap with the jurisdictions of other committees. Some of the committee hearings will involve classified information and will be conducted behind closed doors. Members of ``Committee A'' will not know what a witness told ``Committee B'' in a closed hearing. Gen. Petraeus' recent appearance on Capitol Hill demonstrates how difficult it can be to get a consistent story when the witness is making multiple appearances before even the same committee. Perhaps not all committees with jurisdiction will have hearings, but if half of them do it will produce competing hearings, with competing staffs and competing press conferences over much of Capitol Hill. It will also take longer than necessary, as government officials shuffle back and forth giving repeat performances. Different committee chairmen and their committees will make different rulings on document production, whether to move for immunity for witnesses who refuse to testify on the basis of the 5th Amendment, and a host of other matters. This is simply not the most efficient and credible way to proceed. And it is less likely to arrive at the truth. The seriousness of the matter calls for something better. It calls for a select committee that is given a specific mandate, a budget and a cut-off date that can be adjusted if it is agreed upon. It needs to be comprised of members of both parties who have been selected by their leadership because of their proven integrity, reputation for fairness, and expertise in a given area. In a matter fraught with political implications, it is especially important that Congress accept its responsibility and minimize partisanship as much as possible. History demonstrates that this goal is much easier to achieve with a handful of selected people than it is with many. Since 1789, when Congress investigated a failed military expedition, select committees have been utilized to serve such important and sensitive functions, and the Benghazi matter should follow in that long tradition, whether by means of a joint committee of both houses of Congress or by either chamber. Most select committees have become historical footnotes. Some, however, are well remembered because of the contribution they made to helping Congress carry out its duties of legislating, overseeing the executive branch and educating the American people as to the operation of their government. Ironically, it is because of the success of these panels that some members of Congress and others oppose the formation of one in this case. They say that forming a select committee for a matter such as Benghazi, where a consulate and four American lives were lost, would attach too much importance to the investigation. They fear that it would be equating it with Watergate. Of course, if the Watergate standard, as they define it, is now the operative standard for the formation of a select committee, then seldom, if ever, will another select committee be formed. Critics of the select committee miss the point on several levels. First of all, if indeed a comparison is to be made, one must look at the seriousness of facts and issues presented concerning Benghazi and compare them with the seriousness of facts and issues presented at the times when other select committees, such as Watergate, were formed. So compare the Watergate burglary with what we have here. Can there be any doubt that Benghazi passes the Watergate test? The wisdom of utilizing a select committee should not just be judged on the outcome of the committee's work; dramatic results are not always achieved or warranted. The select Watergate Committee is a beneficial reference point, not because of the end result of its investigation a year and a half after it was formed, but because of the process Congress utilized to deal with a difficult situation. At that time, we had a Republican president and a Congress controlled by the Democrats. Yet the Senate voted unanimously to form the committee. Democratic leadership appointed Sen. Sam Ervin, reputed to be the chamber's leading constitutional scholar, to chair the committee. The Republican leader appointed Sen. Howard Baker to be the vice chairman and leading member of his party on the committee--a senator who was respected on both sides of the aisle. These men protected the legitimate partisan interests of their respective parties and the path was not always smooth, especially behind closed doors, but they understood that their colleagues, as well as the nation, were depending upon them to be responsible and seek the truth. Authority and accountability were clearly placed on the committee, and its members performed accordingly. Select committees are not perfect creations by any means. A clear narrative is often difficult to produce under any circumstances. However, a select committee is simply much more likely to produce focused and credible results. Soon we will see if the United States Congress is still capable of coming together toward the common goal of getting to the bottom of a very serious matter. Or, are decisions about select committees simply reflective of positions based upon whose ox is in danger of being gored?

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, today I am joining with my colleague Rep. Anna G. Eshoo in reintroducing legislation to create a special envoy position at the State Department to advocate on behalf of vulnerable religious minorities in the Middle East and South Central Asia. In countries like Iraq and Egypt, ancient Christian communities are being driven from the lands they have inhabited for centuries. In Iran, Baha'is are imprisoned and some cases executed simply because of their faith. In Pakistan, Ahmadi graves are desecrated. In Afghanistan, a country where America has sacrificed greatly in both blood and treasure, the most basic right to freedom of religion or belief is not recognized in the constitution. This is but a snap shot of the grave challenges facing these communities. If the international community fails to speak out, the prospects for religious pluralism and tolerance in the region are bleak. Last Congress the House, to its credit, overwhelmingly passed, by a vote of 402-20, bipartisan legislation, H.R. 440, to create a special envoy position at the State Department charged with focusing on the plight of religious minorities in these regions. Sadly, in the face of State Department opposition, the Senate failed to act. There is a historic precedent for special envoys--including the Sudan special envoy and the North Korea human rights special envoy--whose positions were created in response to an urgent need for focused attention on a critical issue. The dire challenges facing Coptic Christians, Baha'is, Chaldo-Assyrians, Ahmadis, the small remaining Jewish population and countless other religions minorities throughout the Middle East and South Central Asia is surely such an issue. While there is no guarantee that a special envoy will be able to single-handedly solve the problem, it certainly cannot 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. Such an envoy would 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. President Reagan once said that the U.S. Constitution is ``a covenant that we have made not only with ourselves, but with all of mankind.'' I believe the United States has an obligation to speak out for the voiceless around the world and urge my colleagues to join me cosponsoring this critical legislation.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, today I am reintroducing legislation that would create a permanent inspector general for the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA). My bill would amend the Inspector General Act of 1978 by creating a special post with the sole duty of providing long term oversight of MWAA. Only the U.S. Secretary of Transportation can appoint and remove the IG and no additional action from any jurisdiction on the state or local level is required for this position to be established. In addition, MWAA would be required to pay for the IG using its revenues, not taxpayer dollars. I am reintroducing this legislation because I believe that due to the continued growth of the Dulles corridor, the Dulles rail project is the most important transportation project in the Commonwealth. It must be completed on time and at, or under, budget. I appreciate Secretary Ray LaHood appointing an accountability officer to monitor the MWAA, but it is clear this entity, which is responsible for overseeing the entire construction of the Dulles rail project, requires a permanent IG to provide long term oversight of its actions.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, today I am reintroducing legislation to reduce the size of the board of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, MWAA, and provide Virginia a clear majority of the seats, given that both Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, Reagan, and Washington Dulles International Airport, Dulles, are located in Virginia. The health of the airports and the Dulles Metrorail Extension project have an enormous impact on northern Virginia. I have often said that the Dulles corridor is the ``main street'' of Virginia. The number of businesses that have chosen to locate in this region is a testament to the strength of the airports and the services it provides as a hub for national and international travel. The success of the Dulles corridor, northern Virginia and the entire Commonwealth depend on MWAA being able to capably run the airports and the rail project. I firmly believe that it is in the best interest of Virginia residents for the Commonwealth to have a majority of seats on the MWAA board to ensure that the airports continue to thrive, Dulles Rail is completed successfully and the Dulles Corridor will continue to be the economic engine of not only the National Capital Region, but the entire Commonwealth of Virginia. I stand ready to work with all interested parties to make sure that both the airports and the Dulles Rail project are successful.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, Members of Congress do not deserve a pay raise. I won't accept one. In fact, all of us should have our pay docked, as should the president. But that's not what this vote is about. It's time for members of both parties to stop attacking our Nation's hardworking civil servants. Unlike other sectors of our society, since the beginning of 2011, federal employees, as a result of reduced compensation and benefits, have already made significant contributions to efforts to reduce our Nation's deficit. I know that every federal employee continually is willing to contribute to efforts that address our Nation's unfunded spending obligations and liabilities. However, they also rightly expect that others will join them in this effort. The legislation before us could have a significant impact on our ability to recruit and retain qualified employees. Has anyone fully considered the impact that a three-year pay freeze will have on the CIA, the NSA, the National Reconnaissance Office and the National Counter Terrorism Center? Or the impact on the FBI, which has, since 9/11, disrupted scores of terrorist plots against our country? Or the impact on our military, which is supported by federal employees every day on military bases across the Nation? Or the impact on VA hospitals across the country, which are treating military veterans from World War II to today? Or the impact on the Border Patrol? Or the impact on NASA, its astronauts, engineers and scientists, especially on the nine-year anniversary of the tragic loss of the Columbia crew and a week after the 45th anniversary of the loss of the Apollo 1 crew? Or the impact on NIH, and other federal researchers, scientists and doctors? Clearly, federal employees don't just sit behind desks. They are members of our communities who are out in the field, often in harm's way, protecting our Nation. Within the last year, residents in northern Virginia mourned the loss of two federal employees who died in the line of duty--U.S. Park Police Sergeant Michael Andrew Boehm of Burke, and National Park Service Ranger Margaret Anderson, who previously worshipped in Lovettsville. Their sacrifices remind us that many federal employees are often put in dangerous situations. Since 1992, nearly 3,000 federal employees have paid the ultimate price while serving their country, according to the Office of Personnel Management. The first American killed in Afghanistan, Mike Spann, was a CIA agent and a constituent of mine from Manassas Park. I attended his funeral. Over 100,000 CIA, FBI, DEA agents, and State Department employees have served side-by-side with our military to carry out the War on Terror in locations such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Three years ago, I attended funerals for some of the seven CIA agents who were killed by a suicide bomber at Forward Operating Base Chapman near Khost on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Our Nation mourns the loss of the four Americans who died during the attack on the U.S. consulate and annex in Benghazi, Libya, U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stephens, U.S. Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith, and two former Navy Seals, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods. And we should not forget that the CIA agents who planned and helped execute the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden are federal employees. Every day, Border Patrol agents and ICE agents are working to stop the flow of illegal immigrants, victims of human trafficking and drugs across our borders. Federal firefighters work to protect federal lands and mitigate the spread of deadly fires. Immediately following the December 2011 shooting at Virginia Tech, some of the first law enforcement officers on the scene were ATF agents. These are but a few examples of the vital jobs performed by federal employees. Federal employees who are not in harm's way on a daily basis are also dedicated public servants. The medical researchers at the National Institutes of Health working to develop cures for cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, Lyme disease and autism are all federal employees. Dr. Francis Collins, the physician who mapped the human genome and serves as director of the NIH, is a federal employee. The CDC employees tracking steroid shots tainted with meningitis are federal employees. The USDA researchers who work with our farmers to find solutions for the invasive species that are destroying our crops are federal employees. The National Weather Service meteorologists who track tornadoes and hurricanes, as well as the FDA inspectors working to stop a salmonella outbreak, are federal employees. The Nation's debt limit has been reached. We have annual deficits of more than $1 trillion. We are facing the prospect of across-the-board cuts to programs from the sequester. All of our Nation's fiscal problems could be resolved if the Congress had the will to pass the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles proposal, which I have long supported and have voted for. I vote no.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, news reports from Afghanistan continue to show that U.S. policy is not working. For fiscal year 2012, the House provided the secretary of defense $1 million to establish the Afghanistan/Pakistan Study Group (APSG). Modeled after the successful Iraq Study Group (ISG), the APSG would be a bipartisan panel bringing together the best and brightest minds to provide solutions on how to assure a successful outcome in this troubled region. I have written President Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta over a dozen times asking that the APSG be established, so the American people will know that every effort is being made to address a faltering U.S. policy at a critical juncture. I submit for the Record the first part of a series of letters from August 4, 2010 through September 15, 2011 on this important topic. How can President Obama and Secretary Panetta, who served on the ISG, continue to claim that putting ``fresh eyes'' on U.S. strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan is a bad idea? Additional correspondence with the administration between October 3, 2011 and December 13, 2012 will follow tomorrow. Hon. Barack H. Obama, The President, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: On September 14, 2001, following the catastrophic and deliberate terrorist attack on our country, I voted to go to war in Afghanistan. I stand by that decision and have the utmost confidence in General Petraeus's proven leadership. I also remain unequivocally committed to the success of our mission there and to the more than 100,000 American troops sacrificing toward that end. In fact, it is this commitment which has led me to write to you. While I have been a consistent supporter of the war effort in both Afghanistan and Iraq, I believe that with this support comes a responsibility. This was true during a Republican administration in the midst of the wars, and it remains true today. In 2005, I returned from my third trip to Iraq where I saw firsthand the deteriorating security situation. I was deeply concerned that Congress was failing to exercise the necessary oversight of the war effort. Against this backdrop I authored the legislation that created the Iraq Study Group (ISG). The ISG was a 10-member bipartisan group of well-respected, nationally known figures who were brought together with the help of four reputable organizations--the U.S. Institute for Peace, the Center for the Study of the Presidency, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and the Baker Institute for Public Policy at Rice University--and charged with undertaking a comprehensive review of U.S. efforts there. This panel was intended to serve as ``fresh eyes on the target''--the target being success in Iraq. While reticent at first to their credit President Bush, State Secretary Rice and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld came to support the ISG, ably led by bipartisan co-chairs, former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton. Two members of your national security team, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and CIA Director Leon Panetta, saw the merit of the ISG and, in fact, served on the panel. Vice President Biden, too, then serving in the Senate, was supportive and saw it as a means to unite the Congress at a critical time. A number of the ISG's recommendations and ideas were adopted. Retired General Jack Keane, senior military adviser to the ISG, was a lead proponent of ``the surge,'' and the ISG referenced the possibility on page 73. Aside from the specific policy recommendations of the panel, the ISG helped force a moment of truth in our national conversation about the war effort. I believe our nation is again facing such a moment in the Afghanistan war effort, and that a similar model is needed. In recent days I have spoken with a number of knowledgeable individuals including former senior diplomats, public policy experts and retired and active military. Many believe our Afghanistan policy is adrift, and all agreed that there is an urgent need for what I call an Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group (APSG). We must examine our efforts in the region holistically, given Pakistan's strategic significance to our efforts in Afghanistan and the Taliban's presence in that country as well, especially in the border areas. This likely will not come as a surprise to you as commander in chief. You are wall acquainted with the sobering statistics of the past several weeks--notably that July surpassed June as the deadliest month for U.S, troops. There is a palpable shift in the nation's mood and in the halls of Congress. A July 2010 CBS news poll found that 62 percent of Americans say the war is going badly in Afghanistan, up from 49 percent in May. Further, last week, 102 Democrats voted against the war spending bill, which is 70 more than last year, and they were joined by 12 Members of my own party. Senator Lindsay Graham, speaking last Sunday on CNN's ``State of the Union,'' candidly expressed concern about an ``unholy alliance'' emerging of anti-war Democrats and Republicans. I have heard it said that Vietnam was not lost in Saigon; rather, it was lost in Washington. While the Vietnam and Afghanistan parallels are imperfect at best, the shadow of history looms large. Eroding political will has consequences--and in the case of Afghanistan, the stakes could not be higher. A year ago, speaking before the Veterans of Foreign War National Convention, you rightly said, ``Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting . . . this is fundamental to the defense of our people.'' Indeed it is fundamental. We must soberly consider the implications of failure in Afghanistan. Those that we know for certain are chilling--namely an emboldened al-Qaeda, a reconstituted Taliban with an open staging ground for future worldwide attacks, and a destabilized, nuclear-armed Pakistan. Given these realities and wavering public and political support, I urge you to act immediately, through executive order, to convene an Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group modeled after the Iraq Study Group. The participation of nationally known and respected individual's is of paramount importance. Among the names that surfaced in my discussions with others, all of whom more than meet the criteria described above, are ISG co-chairs Baker and Hamilton; former Senators Chuck Robb, Bob Kerrey and Sam Nunn; former Congressman Duncan Hunter, former U.S. ambassador Ryan Crocker; former Secretary Of Defense James Schlesinger, and General Keane. These harms are simply suggestions among a cadre of capable men and women, as evidenced by the make-up of the ISG, who would be more than up to the task. I firmly believe that an Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group could reinvigorate national confidence in how America can be successful and move toward a shared mission in Afghanistan. This is a crucial task. On the Sunday morning news shows this past weekend, it was unsettling to hear conflicting statements from within the leadership of the administration that revealed a lack of clarity about the end game in Afghanistan. How much more so is this true for the rest of the country? An APSG is necessary for precisely that reason. We are nine years into our nation's longest running war and the American people and their elected representatives do not have a clear sense of what we are aiming to achieve, why it is necessary and how far we are from attaining that goal. Further, an APSG could strengthen many of our NATO allies in Afghanistan who are also facing dwindling public support, as evidenced by the recent Dutch troop withdrawal, and would give them a tangible vision to which to commit. Just as was true at the time of the Iraq Study Group, I believe that Americans of all political viewpoints, liberals and conservatives alike, and varied opinions on the war will embrace this ``fresh eyes'' approach. Like the previous administration's support of the Iraq Study Group, which involved taking the group's members to Iraq and providing high-level access to policy and decision makers, I urge you to embrace an Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group. It is always in our national interest to openly assess the challenges before us and to chart a clear course to success. As you know, the full Congress comes back in session in mid-September--days after Americans around the country will once again pause and remember that horrific morning nine years ago when passenger airlines became weapons, when the skyline of one of America's greatest cities was forever changed, when a symbol of America's military might was left with a gaping hole. The experts with whom I have spoken in recent days believe that time is of the essence In moving forward with a study panel, and waiting for Congress to reconvene is too long to wait. As such, I am hopeful you will use an executive order and the power of the bully pulpit to convene this group in short order, and explain to the American people why it is both necessary and timely. Should you choose not to take this path, respectfully, I intend to offer an amendment by whatever vehicle necessary to mandate the group's creation at the earliest possible opportunity. The ISG's report opened with a letter from the co-chairs that read, ``There is no magic formula to solve the problems of Iraq. However, there are actions that can be taken to improve the situation and protect American interests.'' The same can be said of Afghanistan. I understand that you are a great admirer of Abraham Lincoln. He, too, governed during a time of war, albeit a war that pitted brother against brother, and father against son. In the midst of that epic struggle, he relied on a cabinet with strong, often times opposing viewpoints. Historians assert this served to develop his thinking on complex matters. Similarly, while total agreement may not emerge from a study group for Afkhanistan and Pakistan, I believe that vigorous, thoughtful and principled debate and discussion among some of our nation's greatest minds on these matters will only serve the national interest. The biblical admonition that iron sharpens iron rings true. Best wishes. Sincerely, Frank R. Wolf, Member of Congress. P.S. We as a nation must be successful in Afghanistan. We owe this to our men and women in the military serving in harm's way and to the American people.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Jay Pierson, the longtime floor assistant to Speakers Gingrich, Hastert and Boehner, who will be retiring at the end of the 112th Congress. It's fair to say that no one knows more about legislative procedure and the workings of the House than Jay. His retirement will leave an irreplaceable void in the institutional memory of this chamber. Jay started working in the House two years before my election in 1980 and I have relied on his assistance throughout my time here. In fact, whenever my staff had legislative questions, our answer usually started with the exclamation: ``Let's call Jay!'' And when you called him, you could always rely on his expert advice. In addition to his wealth of legislative knowledge, Jay is just an all-around terrific person who is unfailingly helpful and ready with a smile. It is these qualities that earned him the respect of members on both sides of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, it is an understatement to say that the Republican cloakroom and floor won't be the same without him. I am grateful for Jay's career of service to our country and wish him all the best in his retirement.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Kentucky, Mr. Rogers, and I share the sad news of the passing of our colleague, David O'Brien Martin, originally of Canton, New York, who died with his wife Dana by his side on November 20 at his home in Hedgesville, West Virginia, at the age of 68. Representative Martin is survived by his children, Victoria (Duskas), Kelly (Bridges) and Julia (Bassett); two grandchildren, Jacqueline Victoria and William O'Brien; a stepson Michael McGee, a stepdaughter Kimberly Travis and, shared with his wife, eleven grandchildren and a great-granddaughter. He is also survived by several nieces and nephews. Congressman Martin, who was a commissioned officer in the Marine Corps and served in Vietnam, will be interned at Arlington National Cemetery on January 4, 2013. We had the honor of being elected to Congress with Dave in 1980 as part of the Reagan wave. He served on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and on the Armed Services Committee, where he was the senior Republican on the Military Installations Subcommittee and vice chair of the Morale, Welfare and Recreational Panel. Dave O'B. Martin will be remembered for his indelible footprint on the North Country, where his efforts led to the revitalization of Fort Drum and the reactivation of the Army's storied light infantry division, the 10th Mountain Division. It has been reported that his efforts led to an influx of over $1.3 billion to the local economy to construct the post. We also submit for the record an article by The Watertown Daily Times further noting his service to the North Country and the nation. Dave O'B. Martin served with us for six terms before electing to retire. Dave enjoyed history, particularly related to the Civil War. He will be remembered for his friendly demeanor and storytelling ability. We offer our heartfelt thoughts and prayers to Dana and his family. [From the Watertown Daily Times, Nov. 23, 2012] Martin, Former North Country Congressman, Dies at 68 (By Roger Dupuis) David O'Brien Martin's roots in the north country ran deep. His legacy may run deeper still. The former Republican congressman, who represented the north country from 1981 to 1993, died Tuesday night at his home in Hedgesville, W.Va. He was remembered by friends and colleagues for his commitment to serving the region, perhaps best exemplified by his efforts to bring the 10th Mountain Division to Fort Drum in the 1980s. ``For those of us in the north country, his work truly changed our lives,'' said Secretary of the Army John M. McHugh--who, like Mr. Martin, formerly represented the region in Congress. Mr. Martin, 68, was with his family and under hospice care when he died, said Steven M. Cary of O'Leary Funeral Service in Canton. The cause of death was not disclosed. Services are scheduled for next week in West Virginia, followed by calling hours Dec. 3 at O'Leary, 5821 Route 11, Mr. Cary said. Mass will be said Dec. 4 at St. Mary's- Catholic Church, 66 Court St., Canton. Burial plans were not finalized as of Thursday evening, he said. Mr. Martin served in Vietnam, and was a commissioned officer in the U.S. Marine Corps. A graduate of the University of Notre Dame, he resumed his studies upon returning to civilian life. He earned a law degree from Albany Law School in 1973, the same year he was elected to the St. Lawrence County Board of Legislators. Following three years in county government, Mr. Martin rose quickly, serving in the state Assembly from 1977 until the end of 1980, the year he was elected to the first of six terms in the U.S. House of Representatives. It was just four years later, at the Watertown American Legion post, that Mr. Martin broke the news that the storied light infantry division would be reactivated in Northern New York. ``His incredible effort to revitalize Fort Drum and bring the 10th Mountain Division to our doorstep brought renewed sense of vitality and purpose to the region,'' Mr. McHugh said Wednesday. More than $1.3 billion was spent on construction on the post from 1985 to 1993, during Mr. Martin's tenure in Washington, according to a 2006 Times article. ``He probably did more for the north country than anyone has,'' said former Republican state Sen. H. Douglas Barclay, Pulaski. ``It's a sad day for the north country. He was a great guy, a great friend and a wonderful public servant, both in the Assembly and in Congress.'' While in Congress, Mr. Martin was a member of the Committee on Armed Services for 10 years, serving as senior Republican member of the Military Installations Subcommittee and vice chairman of the Morale, Welfare and Recreational Panel, overseeing military commissaries, exchanges and related activities. He also served on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. While Mr. Martin's commitment to the nation and the region loom large, so do the contributions he and his family made to St. Lawrence County. His father, Edson A. Martin, donated the land for SUNY Canton in the early 1960s. The younger Mr. Martin's longtime advocacy was honored by the college in 2006 with an honorary doctorate of laws. ``Congressman Martin was a wonderful supporter of SUNY Canton and the north country,'' Interim SUNY Canton President Carli C. Schiffner said Wednesday. ``He assisted the college in many ways throughout his career, and he dedicated much of his life to furthering the development of Fort Drum, our schools and our communities.'' There was life after Congress for Mr. Martin. After deciding not to run in 1992, Mr. Martin became a professor at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I., and later an executive with soft-drink trade groups. He founded a government affairs, consulting and marketing firm in 2000. It was in that role that then-SUNY Canton president Joseph L. Kennedy observed Mr. Martin's clout and camaraderie first hand during a visit to Washington. ``He was just known by everybody. He could walk us through security without waiting in line,'' said Mr. Kennedy, who stepped down this fall after 19 years in the post. ``I admired his spunk.'' SUNY Potsdam also had cause to mourn the former congressman, and to celebrate his accomplishments. Mr. Martin's papers are held in the college archives, ``so that all can remember and learn from his life's work,'' SUNY Potsdam President John F. Schwaller said. Times staff writer Brian Kelly contributed to this report.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share a speech I recently gave on the deteriorating situation in the Middle East particularly for religious minorities. Increasing violence, targeted attacks and heightened discrimination against Christians and other religious minorities in Iraq and Egypt, combined with longstanding abuses in Afghanistan and Pakistan, are among the many reasons why I introduced H.R. 440, bipartisan legislation that would require the State Department to appoint a special envoy to advocate for religious minorities. More than a year has passed since the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed this legislation yet, today, both this bill and its Senate companion, S. 1245 are both languishing in the Senate. This is deeply disappointing. Even more disappointing is the fact that the State Department has urged Senator Jim Webb to oppose this bipartisan legislation and put a hold on it in the Senate. Time is running out--both in terms of the legislative calendar for this year and in terms of the survival of these communities. Will a special envoy guarantee these communities' protection in the lands they have inhabited for centuries? No one can predict for sure. But I am certain that to do nothing is not an option--lest on the State Department's and Congress' watch we witness a Middle East empty of faith communities, foremost among them the beleaguered Christian community. Here is the text of my recent speech: Just one year ago my good friend, the late Chuck Colson was given [the Edwin Meese Award for Religious Liberty] award for his tireless efforts to promote religious liberty and human dignity. His prophetic voice is sorely missed during these trying times for our country. For these are indeed trying times--times that demand men and women of faith to steel themselves for the challenges ahead. Are we prepared to do so? I take inspiration from the German Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer who, faced with the tyranny and horror of Nazism gave his very life. And the British parliamentarian William Wilberforce, who labored for decades, against seemingly insurmountable odds, to abolish the slave trade in England-- ultimately inspiring abolitionist efforts in America. These are just some of the giants on whose shoulders we stand. Ecclesiastes 4:1 says, ``I saw the tears of the oppressed, and they have no comforter; power was on the side of the oppressor.'' Oppression has marked the church since its birth. Consider the chilling words of Roman historian Tacitus regarding the early church: ``Besides being put to death they were made to serve as objects of amusement; they were clad in the hides of beasts and torn to death by dogs; others were crucified, others set on fire to serve to illuminate the night when daylight failed--. . . .'' Are such trials reserved for the history books? Hardly. Every day, around the world, men and women of faith are imprisoned, beaten, detained, tortured and even killed. And yet such stories receive scant attention in the mainstream media--and perhaps more strikingly, are rarely spoken of from our pulpits. The book of Hebrews enjoins us to ``Remember those in prison as if you were their fellow prisoners, and those who are mistreated as if you yourselves were suffering.'' Do we suffer with our brethren? Have we in the West ceased to be salt and light? Has our comfort led to complacency? Consider that on our watch a historic exodus of Christians from the Middle East is underway--an exodus fueled by persecution. 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. Their once vibrant communities in countries throughout the region are now decimated. In 1948 there were roughly 150,000 Jews in Iraq--today less than 10 remain. In Egypt, there were once as many as 80,000 Jews and now less than 100 remain. It appears a similar fate could befall the ancient Christian community in these same lands. Iraq's Christian population has fallen from as many as 1.4 million in 2003 to between 500,000 and 700,000. Churches have been targeted, believers kidnapped for ransom, families threatened with violence if they stay. This reality is all the more sobering considering Iraq's significance in Christendom. 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 Aramaics the language of Jesus. In Egypt with the ascent of the Muslim Brotherhood, Coptic Christians, numbering roughly 8-10 million, are leaving in droves. And the Middle East is far from being the exception. Persecution is on the rise. The International Day of Prayer for the Persecuted Church was earlier this month. Given the picture I just painted, one would think the church in the West would be galvanized. But how many churches marked this occasion with even a passing mention? If the faith community isn't engaged are we surprised when our government leaders turn a blind eye to matters of religious freedom? Consider the following: Bipartisan legislation to create a Special Envoy position at the State Department charged with advocating on behalf of religious minorities in the Middle East and South Central Asia overwhelmingly passed the House a year and a half ago. But it has remained stalled in the Senate as a result of State Department opposition and the refusal of Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, rumored to be in the running for Secretary of State or Defense, to even hold a hearing on the legislation. Day in, day out I have the privilege of meeting individuals who boldly follow Jesus despite unbelievably hostile circumstances. Shabbaz Bhatti, Pakistan's Federal Minister for Minority Affairs, and the only Christian Member of the cabinet and an outspoken critic of his country's blasphemy laws, was one such man. On March 2, 2011 he was murdered, his car riddled with bullets, leaving his mother's house for work. In a video filmed shortly before his assassination, Bhatti appears to sense that the path he has chosen will come with a price. When asked about the threats against his life, he said, without malice or fear, ``I believe in Jesus Christ who has given his own life for us. I know what is the meaning of [the] cross. And I am following the cross. And I am ready to die for a cause.'' And so he did. The book of Proverbs tells us to ``Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves. . . .'' Bhatti can no longer speak. The Chinese bishop under house arrest cannot speak. The North Korean enslaved in the gulag cannot speak. The Iraqi nun fearing for her life cannot speak. Will we be their voice? Martin Luther King famously said, ``In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.'' Are we not their friends? America's Founding Fathers grounded our own experiment in self-governance in the notion that liberty comes from God and that all human life is sacred. As part of this equation, religious freedom was the ``first freedom.'' The ideas set forth in Philadelphia on that hot summer day were simultaneously ancient and revolutionary--they are grounded in historic Judeo-Christian teachings. Nearly 25 years ago these very ideas were a source of inspiration to the democracy marchers in Tiananmen Square. Ronald Reagan famously spoke of our founding documents as a covenant we made with the world--a promise that transcended time and place. I fear that covenant is in jeopardy. America's influence is waning. Our once ``shining city'' appears dim. And we have lost our voice on behalf of the oppressed. And yet, dissidents still seek refuge in our embassies, the persecuted seek safe haven on our shores. To them the promise of American exceptionalism is no mere philosophical debate; it is the difference between life and death. They cling to the promise even as our own leaders have abandoned it. And so, seeking to preserve that covenant that Reagan envisioned, it falls to men and women of faith to carry the torch--to pray, to advocate, to act.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I submitted for the Record extensive correspondence I have had with the Obama Administration regarding the importance of creating the bipartisan Afghanistan/Pakistan Study Group (APSG). Today I submit for the Record the remaining correspondence I have had from October 3, 2011 to December 13, 2012. The very fact that President Obama and Secretary Panetta will not create the APSG is a disgrace. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, October 3, 2011. Hon. Leon Panetta, Secretary of Defense, Washington, DC. Dear Secretary Panetta, I am disappointed that your staff was unable to meet with Ambassador Peter Tomsen to discuss his book on Afghanistan and Pakistan. While I understand that both you and Mr. Tomsen have busy schedules, I fear you and your staff may be missing pertinent information and insight that could help devise a successful strategy in South Asia. You only need to read the headlines to see the erosion in our relationship with the Pakistani military and intelligence services. Recent comments from retiring chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mullen have described how the Pakistani military and Inter Service Intelligence agency actively cooperate with two of the most deadly terror networks sowing the seeds of destruction and chaos in Afghanistan. Ambassador Tomsen's book, The Wars of Afghanistan provides detailed information on the tribal structures and the realities of Pakistani involvement with terrorist groups. I sincerely hope that you and your staff will read his book. I have also enclosed a column Mr. Tomsen wrote for the most recent edition of World Policy Journal. I hope you and your staff will find the piece informative. The situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan grows more dire nearly every day. I again ask that you use your authority to create the Af/Pak Study Group. We owe nothing less to the men and women making the ultimate sacrifice to ensure that we have a long-term strategy for success in the region. Best wishes. Sincerely, Frank R. Wolf, Member of Congress.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Inova Loudoun Hospital, which celebrates 100 years of serving Loudoun County this year. Inova Loudoun Hospital first opened as ``Leesburg Hospital'' on June 5, 1912 in a rented house on Market Street by Mr. P. Howell Lightfoot, Dr. William C. Orr, Dr. John A. Gibson and Mr. Horace Littlejohn. In 1997, due to the growing population in Loudoun County, ``Loudoun Hospital'' expanded and moved to the Lansdowne location where it currently exists today. The hospital again grew to meet Loudoun County's emergency care needs with the opening of the Cornwall Emergency Department in 2003. Today, Inova Loudoun Hospital is a 183-bed ``advanced acute-care hospital'' on two campuses, which offers a variety of specialties and employs over 1,500 people. In 2011 the hospital provided care for 12,010 inpatients, 66,953 emergency room visits, 2,637 births and a wide range of outpatient and ambulatory services to our community. In the summer of 2011, Inova Loudoun announced that it is once again expanding to better serve the Loudoun community with a redevelopment project to upgrade patient convenience, technology and building design. I have had the privilege of working with Inova Loudoun and its excellent staff many times over the years. It is a wonderful organization and I have long been impressed by the hospital's commitment to serving our community and making health care more accessible for Loudoun residents. I congratulate Inova Loudoun Hospital on reaching this remarkable milestone.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to remember a former member of my staff who lost his battle with cancer two weeks ago today. Joe McNulty was my deputy press secretary and director of online communications. He worked for me from the summer of 2009 until this July, when he left to go to law school at the University of South Carolina. Joe was an important member of my staff and will be missed dearly. Joe was an amazing individual and certainly left his mark on this world, as evidenced by the number of people who attended his memorial service at Immanuel Bible Church in Springfield, Virginia on December 10. Aside from family, friends and co-workers, classmates from high school and college were in attendance as were friends and neighbors of his parents, Paul and Brenda, and three sisters, Katy, Anni and Corrie. People came from as far away as Spain for the service. There were friends from the church he attended and members of his college club soccer team. His principal from Robinson high school came, as did the school's choral director. The current U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was at the service (Joe's father was the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia from 2001-2006) as were several other assistant U.S. attorneys from the office and a number of U.S. Marshals. Joe's passing also made Politico's Playbook, something everyone on Capitol Hill reads every day and Joe devoured every morning. The service for Joe was deeply moving. The pastor of his church in Fairfax spoke at the service, as did the pastor of the church he started attending in South Carolina, where he was attending law school. Both talked about Joe's strong faith in the Lord. Joe's best friend, Steve Brewer, talked about how they met as freshmen in high school and said Joe was the best friend anyone could ask for. He told a story about how on a recent birthday the Washington area was paralyzed by a massive snowstorm, yet Joe managed to dig out his car and drive across town so his best friend wouldn't be alone on his birthday. That spoke volumes of Joe's loyalty and the value he placed on friendship. Joe's older sister, Katy, spoke on behalf of the ``McNulty Women.'' She reminisced about how she and ``Joey'' would play for hours on end as toddlers and that Joe was always a good sport about playing the things that his older sister always wanted. She also talked about how ``Joey'' cared about his sisters and always looked out for them. His father, whom I have known since his days when he served on the House Judiciary Committee, described how Joe always put others first, even in his darkest hours. He emphasized how much Joe would want to thank everyone for all they have done for him through the years and for coming to his memorial service. He told a story about how as Joe was once being wheeled into an operating room he asked the nurses to stop so he could thank them and the doctors for all they were doing for him. One of the nurses said no one had ever done that before. That was Joe. Always putting others first. Paul also stressed Joe's unwavering in his courage, especially as he received one piece of bad news after another yet always helped his family and friends get through all it. Paul said Joe referred to his courageous reaction to news about spreading cancer as ``a leadership moment.'' His family has carried on Joe's spirit, sending out this message a few days after the service: ``On behalf of all the McNulty's, I [his mother, Brenda] just wanted to say THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH for all of your selflessness over the weekend as you prepared, and on Monday for Joe's service. It was above and beyond anything we could ever hope for or imagine and we are so very grateful. . . . Every word spoken and every song sung ministered to us and to everyone there. So many people have been telling us that they appreciated the scriptures, were moved by the whole tone of the service, and gained a new appreciation for Joe and all he was about. We truly appreciate all you did to participate in the service and wish we could give you all a huge collective hug but mere words will have to do.'' I was honored to speak at Joe's service on December 10. Below are my remarks: I am speaking today on behalf of my entire staff, who worked with Joe and loved Joe. We extend our condolences to Brenda and Paul and the rest of Joe's family. Joe started in the Wolf office as an intern but left as a vital part of our staff. He always wanted to be a prosecutor like his father. That drove him. I know my staff would have liked him to have abandoned those plans for our own selfish reasons because of the talents he brought to the office. He always pushed us to find new and more creative ways to reach constituents. He was a trend setter on Capitol Hill for communicating online. Other offices would regularly reach out to him asking for advice. He also was active in the Republican Communications Association, serving as its treasurer and reinvigorating the organization with great speakers and social events. Joe brought an incredible work ethic to the office. No job was too menial; no task insurmountable. He also had an unbelievable reservoir of energy. There were nights that he would play sports until the wee hours of the morning but be at his desk first thing in the morning ready to conquer the world. He never really stopped working. My staff got an e-mail from him just the other day making sure we had seen an article on an issue the office has put a lot of time and effort into. Everyone who knew Joe well knew that he could be stubborn at times--stubborn in a way you don't often find in his generation; the kind of stubbornness that stems from deep integrity and a willingness to fight for what he believed was right. It was this same quality that drove him to keep working even during the toughest hours of his fight against cancer. Even on the most challenging days, Joe would come in to the office ready to work, and work hard. We practically had to order him home to rest up. Joe had an uncommon drive and commitment to public service. Joe had an infectious smile and a great personality. Everyone loved being with him and he was always setting up office outings for the staff. In small Hill offices, where everyone attended different schools, there are friendly rivalries, particularly among Virginia schools. Joe was part of the JMU mafia in the office, which at one point outnumbered all the staff from other Virginia schools and they never let anyone forget that, especially that JMU once beat Virginia Tech in football. Joe was proud to be a JMU Duke and volunteered with the JMU Alumni Association and the JMU Politicos, the school's Capitol Hill networking group. Joe loved to eat, and for a little guy he could eat. He holds the office record for eating six giant glazed donuts in one day. One of his going away presents was donuts. Joe also valued public service, which led him to take the next step in his career: law school. Although we missed him after he left our office this summer, we were so proud of him for getting into University of South Carolina. He pursued his dream of law school, daring to envision a future even when so much was uncertain about the present. I want to read from parts of an email Joe sent to the staff on his last day in the office this summer: ``I just wanted to say thank you to all of you one more time. It has truly been an honor and privilege to work with all of you. I have learned so much working with all of you over the past three years and each of you have encouraged me and taught me lessons that I will never forget. I think it is important for all of us to remember how blessed we are to have the opportunity to serve our country. I know it's hard to remember that on a daily basis but that is truly what you are doing when you work for a member of Congress. You are serving the people of your community and you ARE making a huge difference. ``. . . My time on Capitol Hill has also taught me that many people are really cynical and believe that all politicians are corrupt. ``It's easy to reach a point where you think that it's too hard to enact real change or get the big things done. But this is a mentality I think we should try to suppress. If you believe in something and you want to enact change, then get in there and fight for what you believe in. That's what public service is all about. If you think you have good ideas that can help people, don't be afraid to fight for them. Don't let the weekly scandal or negative news story discourage you from trying to help people or make a difference in your country.'' Joe wanted to make a difference. And he did. But it was a life cut painfully short. Joe was a man of faith and scripture tells us In Ecclesiates 7:2 ``For death is the destiny of every man the living should take this to heart.'' We here today should take it to heart. In Psalm 103:15, King David said: ``As for man, his days are like grass. He flourishes like a flower of the field, the wind blows over and it is gone and its place remembers no more.'' It's apparent even as the cancer attacked his body, that Joe's soul was strengthened by his faith in Jesus, a faith which only grew in the face of circumstance that would dictate otherwise. In an e-mail to a staff member before leaving last summer he wrote: ``There is no way I could have gotten through my bout with cancer had I not had a foundation in Christ. Reading my Bible was the one thing that gave me hope and encouragement when I was in pain and sick.'' We grieve Joe's passing but we celebrate his life and know he has entered eternal life with his savior and Lord. Our goal should be to live a life of faith so that we can one day join Joe in the House of our Heavenly Father.