Frank Wolf

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I submit an article which recently ran in the BBC regarding the unfolding tragedy in Sudan. On the eve of the birth of a new nation in South Sudan, Khartoum is once again perpetrating acts of violence against its own people--this time in Southern Kordofan. First-hand accounts emerging from the region are chilling . . . door to door executions, reportedly based on ethnicity and political affiliation; Antonov bombers leaving a trail of devastation in their wake, mass displacement. The world says, ``never again,'' and yet in the face of mounting atrocities, where is the outrage? [From BBC News, June 23, 2011] Sudan's South Kordofan: ``Bombings, Blood and Terror'' More than 70,000 people are said to have fled violence in Sudan's South Kordofan state, where the government says it is disarming rebels. The region borders South Sudan, a largely Christian and animist region, which is due to gain independence from the mostly Arabic-speaking, Muslim north on 9 July. There is concern about the humanitarian crisis and the alleged atrocities being committed. The area has effectively been cut off by the military and not much has been heard from people in the area. One aid worker who has just left the region told the BBC's Will Ross about his experiences: It is terrifying. The civilians try to hide but generally they run in panic and hence, sadly, there are many casualties who die because of shrapnel. There are bombings and shellings every day in different areas. There is a plane called an Antonov which circles high in the sky and keeps coming over. Then there is the whistle of the bombs as they fall. You have a few seconds to run but you do not know if it is going to fall on you or not. The sounds of the explosions are huge and sometimes the craters they leave are five or six metres across. Burning hot pieces of jagged metal, the shrapnel, go flying across the air and if you are not below the surface in a hole or a dug-out you are at huge risk. Blood and flies Then there are the MiGs [planes] which come in very, very fast and low. These fire rockets and they are terrifying because they are on top of you before you know it. You have no warning. They are very loud and so the terror that this incites in people, even if you survive these attacks, is enormous. They can continue for hours on end. You can imagine how awful that is for women and children and men, rural farmers who have no military background whatsoever. And when they sense that this is not an enemy from outside that is attacking, this is their own government, they just do not understand why this is happening. There are so many poignant, heartbreaking stories. A local farmer was lying on the floor of a hospital in enormous pain, with a large piece of shrapnel that had gone through his leg, with blood and flies over him. Again and again he was asking the same desperate questions: ``Why is our president doing this to us? Why is he bombing us?'' He kept saying: ``This is wrong''. Then there was a young man who had fled a village that was attacked and when the SAF [northern] troops withdrew, he found to his horror that his wife and children had been abducted by the army. With anguish in his voice he said he would rather have been killed than his wife and child taken. ``I don't know what they will do to them, I don't think I will see them again,'' he said. No less than 75,000 people have been displaced, and because the bombing and shelling is continuing, that number is probably going up every day. This is not a war of north versus south--this is about a people within north Sudan who want a peaceful existence in the north just with social and economic opportunities and access to justice. The Nuba, a large percentage of whom are Muslims, feel their future is with north Sudan. The people of South Kordofan, both the Nuba and people from the nomadic Arab tribes, feel marginalised by Khartoum. They feel they are not granted basic human rights. House-to-house executions The area offers a remarkable alternative vision of how Christian and Muslims and animists can live together. I have witnessed after Eid, the Christians bringing breakfast for their Muslim brothers and sisters, and at Christmas and Easter all the people from the mosque coming to say ``congratulations''. But people there feel the government in the last few weeks has revealed it has no interest in allowing a political solution that gives rights to an alternative voice in the north, where there is religious tolerance and Christians and Muslims living together. There is so much anguish. People say they don't want war but they say until the policies of Khartoum change, they see no alternative. They are asking for help from all northern Sudanese to come back from this madness and have a look at how to build a peaceful, tolerant society in the north. We are getting very strong reports that house-to-house executions are going on by internal security forces where summary executions are taking place based on ethnicity, political affiliation and even how black you are. These are civilians, intellectuals, teachers, community leaders, Muslims and Christians, and often they are killed by their throats being slit. This may be only the beginning and it could well continue for many months and intensify. There is a complete lack of access--we learnt that the only airstrip that was left had been bombed and we have heard the government of Sudan will shoot down UN flights operating in South Kordofan so humanitarian flights are no longer an option. We know that there is no access from the north by road so we are looking at a population that is now effectively besieged--without access to services or humanitarian aid and who are under fire. I fear the government has started these military operations to try to ensure that opposition voice is completely squashed before the 9 July, so that no thought of help of any sort could come from the south, knowing that the emerging republic of South Sudan would be very unwilling to get involved as it would endanger their independence. The great majority of Nuba people that I have spoken to are very worried the Egyptian forces that make up a large percentage of the UN peacekeepers are not seen as sufficiently neutral. Their cultural and religious background and their behaviour and attitude towards black Nuba people are unhelpful.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Colonel Ronald Light and the men and women of the Army Corps of Engineers Middle East District, MED, located in Winchester, Virginia, for the support they have provided for troops deployed overseas. Colonel Light, commander of the MED, has had a distinguished military career since his graduation from The Pennsylvania State University in 1981. As an officer, he has completed the Engineer Officer's Basic and Advanced courses, the Combined Arms Services Staff School, the Command and General Staff Officer Course, and the U.S. Army Airborne School, while earning a Master's Degree in National Security and Strategic Studies at the U.S. Naval War College. For his service, Colonel Light has been awarded the Legion of Merit, a Bronze Star, five awards for Meritorious Service, two Army Commendation medals, the Army Medal of Achievement, the Iraq Campaign Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, among others. As the senior engineer commander responsible for reconstructions in Al Anbar and Baghdad provinces in Iraq, he managed the award of 194 projects valued at $1.32 billion and completed contracts worth an additional $782.4 million. Since Colonel Light assumed command at the MED in 2009, employment has approximately doubled from 250 to 500 personnel. The MED employs 427 civilians comprising 23 nationalities, 53 advanced degrees and 24 different languages all dedicated toward the goal of preparing combat theaters for members of the military. The MED employs local accountants, architects, attorneys, paralegals, engineers, property managers, security specialists, and many others. The MED has proved extremely beneficial not only to the U.S. Military, but also to Winchester and the Shenandoah Valley. The MED partners with local civic organizations, churches and school groups to help carry out many critical engineering projects abroad. The integration of the military and the surrounding communities will create a precedent for more companies to locate in Winchester and the Shenandoah Valley, recognizing the presence of a trained workforce and relative proximity to our nation's capital. Colonel Light and the MED's dedication to the armed forces has advanced the mission of all military units in forward theaters of combat. We express our appreciation to the dedicated individuals staffing the MED for their service and honor them as the best our military officers and civilians have to offer.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, China recently rolled out the red carpet, pictured behind me, for Sudanese President Omar Bashir, an internationally indicted war criminal facing charges on 10 counts, including murder, extermination, forcible transfer of population, torture, and rape. Prior to the visit, I wrote a letter to President Hu Jintao urging the Chinese Government to withdraw their invitation. Not only is Bashir wanted for his role in genocide in Darfur, but, as I speak, atrocities are unfolding against Christians in the Nuba Mountains--reliable reports of door-to-door targeting and killings, mass graves, Antonov bombers indiscriminately shelling civilian populations. Consider this reality: Bashir is a wanted war criminal. His murderous aims are unchanged. The Chinese Government treats him as a friend and extends every diplomatic grace. And China owns our debt. What is wrong with this picture? An indicted war criminal with the President of China.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a great sense of urgency to call attention to the unfolding nightmare taking place in Sudan right at this very moment. I submit for the Record an article today from the New York Times describing the heinous actions taken by the Sudanese Army against their own people. The article quotes an American official as saying that without mediation, ``you're going to have massive destruction and death in central Sudan, and no one seems able to do anything about it.'' Indeed, no one seems to be doing anything about it. Have we forgotten the tragic history of Rwanda? Of Darfur? Are the Nuba people destined to the same grim fate? Have we learned nothing from these previous mass annihilations of people? The New York Times reports that, ``United Nations officials in Southern Kordofan, the state that includes the Nuba Mountains, estimate that dozens have been killed in aerial bombings in the past two weeks and maybe dozens more in extrajudicial killings. Nuban officials put the civilian death toll in the hundreds.'' The story continues, ``Sudanese soldiers are planting land mines in several towns, United Nations officials said, and possibly digging mass graves. Many people in the mountains are Christian, and church officials say Christians have been attacked and churches burned.'' The Times piece echoes reports I heard last week from a young man who was a former intern in my congressional office. He has been living and working in Sudan for the past two years and is in continuous touch with people on the ground in Sudan, including in areas that have been virtually cut off from the outside world. In the face of this tragedy, the administration is AWOL. The press is hardly covering the story. Congress is barely engaged. What more will it take? Time is running short and the situation is grim. The world must not continue to turn a blind eye to slaughter. [From the New York Times, June 20, 2011] As Secession Nears, Sudan Steps Up Drive To Stop Rebels (By Jeffrey Gettleman) Nairobi, Kenya.--The Sudanese Army and its allied militias have gone on an unsparing rampage to crush rebel fighters in the Nuba Mountains of central Sudan, bombing thatch-roofed villages, executing elders, burning churches and pitching another region of the country into crisis, according to United Nations officials and villagers who have escaped. ``The market was burning,'' said Salah Kaka, a mother of four who trekked for days with thousands of others to a mushrooming refugee camp after her husband disappeared during an air raid. ``I dug ditches in the ground and hid the children.'' Tens of thousands of rebel fighters have refused the government's threat to disarm, digging into the craggy hillsides. They are demanding political reform and autonomy, a familiar refrain in Sudan's marginalized hinterlands that has set off insurgencies in Darfur in the west, as well as eastern and southern Sudan. ``This is going to spread like wildfire,'' said an American official who was not authorized to speak publicly. Without mediation, ``you're going to have massive destruction and death in central Sudan, and no one seems able to do anything about it.'' The Sudanese Army has sealed off the area and threatened to shoot down United Nations helicopters. Sudan's forces detained four United Nations peacekeepers and subjected them to ``a mock firing squad,'' the organization said Monday, calling the intimidation part of a strategy to make it nearly impossible for aid agencies and monitors to work in the region. It seems that the Sudanese government, facing upheaval on several fronts, especially with the southern third of the country preparing to declare independence next month, is determined to suppress the rebels and prevent them from encouraging other restive areas to rise up. Even after the southerners secede, countless fault lines remain in northern Sudan. Non-Arab people in the Nuba Mountains, Darfur, Blue Nile State, Kasala--and all the way down the Nile to Egypt--have long been chafing against an increasingly isolated government dominated by a small group of Arabs and led by President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, a war crimes suspect indicted by the International Criminal Court. ``Bashir is facing enormous pressure,'' said E. J. Hogendoorn, a program director at the International Crisis Group. ``There are a number of areas that could rebel again,'' he said, and the offensive in the Nuba Mountains ``may actually exacerbate resentment and inadvertently unite armed opposition movements.'' United Nations officials in Southern Kordofan, the state that includes the Nuba Mountains, estimate that dozens have been killed in aerial bombings in the past two weeks and maybe dozens more in extrajudicial killings. Nuban officials put the civilian death toll in the hundreds. Sudanese soldiers are planting land mines in several towns, United Nations officials said, and possibly digging mass graves. Many people in the mountains are Christian, and church officials say Christians have been attacked and churches burned. ``So many people have been made to leave their homes,'' said Ali Shamilla, liaison officer for the Nuba Relief, Rehabilitation and Development Organization. ``Many are living in caves.'' Witnesses said government soldiers were shooting ``the black people,'' a reference to Nubans, who are often darker skinned than the Arab-dominated military. Human rights groups worry that this could begin a new round of ethnic cleansing, given the wholesale destruction of communities that has been part of how war is fought in Sudan. Hundreds of thousands died in Darfur after the government razed villages and armed militias to throttle rebels there, leading to genocide charges against Mr. Bashir. Millions died in the decades of civil war between north and south, under many of the same tactics. The same thing happened in Nuba. In the mid-1980s, southern rebels opened bases in the Nuba Mountains. Residents who had long felt discriminated against by the Arab rulers of Sudan joined the southerners in droves. The rulers responded by arming Arab militias--just as it would in Darfur--and setting them loose on impoverished villagers. Tens of thousands of civilians were killed and villagers were incarcerated in ``peace camps,'' forced to convert to Islam. Entire villages were wiped out. ``Nuba were often just shot on sight by Khartoum forces, no questions asked,'' said Roger P. Winter, a former State Department official, who testified Thursday during a Congressional hearing on Sudan's future. ``Today, again, Nuba are positioned for liquidation by Khartoum forces.'' This may sound hyperbolic. But as Julie Flint, an author who first visited the Nuba area in 1992, argued, some of the same men responsible for earlier atrocities in Nuba are in charge once again, including Ahmed Haroun, the Southern Kordofan governor, indicted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity connected to Darfur. ``A new war in Nuba threatens to be a replay of Darfur,'' Ms. Flint said. The Sudanese government does not deny bombing Nuban villages, arguing that the Nuba militia were supposed to disarm but did not. One Sudanese official said the war could go on ``for some years.'' Nuban militia leaders have vowed to fight until there is ``regime change'' in Khartoum or autonomy for Nuba. Under the accords that set in motion the south's secession, Nubans were supposed to hold ``popular consultations'' to determine their future, but that has not happened. Now that the south is on the verge of realizing its hard-fought goal-- independence many Nubans feel their demands have been deferred. In the north, oil had helped buy friends and woo enemies, but huge economic uncertainties loom. The south has most of the oil, and in any deal before the south splits off, the north will almost certainly get less than it used to. Already, riots have broken out in central Sudan's Arab heartland, as Mr. Bashir has warned of austerity measures. Many analysts say the recent military activity along the north-south border, including the north's seizure of the disputed Abyei area and its push in the Nuba Mountains, is part of a hard-knuckled negotiation to secure more oil revenue. Southern Sudan's leaders are reluctant to go to war over Nuba, but the southern-allied militiamen in Nuba are part of the overall southern military command, so the south could be dragged into the conflict. During a recent meeting, the top Nuban militia commander, Abdel Aziz al-Hilu, said that before any cease-fire he would have to inform ``Chairman Salva,'' meaning southern Sudan's president, Salva Kiir. Mr. Abdel Aziz also said that if things don't change, ``fires will just break out everywhere, here, in Blue Nile, in Darfur,'' according to someone at the meeting. ``We, the people of Sudan, are ready to remove them,'' vowed Mr. Abdel Aziz, the person said. ``We have guns.'' Josh Kron contributed reporting from Parieng, Sudan.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to 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. Two-time Pulitzer Prize winning history author David McCullough recently observed, ``We're raising young people who are, by and large, historically illiterate.'' The 2010 National Assessment of Educational Progress, or Nation's Report Card, in U.S. history underscores that concern. Students in grades 4, 8, and 12 participated in the assessment. At each grade, students responded to questions designed to measure their knowledge of American history in the contexts of democracy, culture, technological and economic changes, and America's changing world role. The levels--Basic, Proficient and Advanced-- measure what students should know and be able to do at each grade assessed. At all grade levels, less than one-quarter of students performed at or above the Proficient level in 2010. Only 20 percent of fourth-graders, 17 percent of eighth-graders, and 12 percent of twelfth-graders performed at or above the Proficient level on the 2010 U.S. history assessment. 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. We need to reestablish Washington's Birthday on the actual date of his birth 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. 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 introduce 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. George Washington began his career in public service in the Virginia militia, eventually promoted to Colonel in command of the Virginia Regiment. He served as a voluntary aide-de-camp to British General Edward Braddock as part of the ill-fated Monongahela expedition before resigning his commission in 1759 and returning to Mount Vernon. His military career earned him a seat in the Virginia House of Burgesses representing Frederick County, Virginia. The 10th Congressional District, which I currently represent, includes the City of Winchester, where the building that housed his office still stands. In 1774, Washington was a natural selection to be one of Virginia's representatives at the First Continental Congress. During the Second Continental Congress in 1775, he was unanimously chosen to lead the Continental Army and subsequently led a team of young officers through eight years of war against the most powerful military in the world. Perhaps Washington's greatest accomplishment during the Revolutionary War was building a professional army and keeping it together during long stretches of inactivity. After the peace treaty was signed in Paris in 1783, Washington set perhaps one of the most important precedents in our history. When he resigned his commission in the Continental Army, Washington made it clear that the military was subordinate to the civil government. Washington had gone to great lengths to observe this subordination during the war years, and made sure that this act solidified its importance. Desiring simply to retire in peace to Mount Vernon, Washington voluntarily handed over the reins of power to the elected legislature. But despite his desire to stay a private citizen, he left Mount Vernon in 1787 to serve as the president of the Constitutional Convention because he felt that his country needed him. The power of his presence was perhaps the single most important factor in bridging the divide between the disparate interests of the newly created states. Through eight years of war and the voluntary relinquishment of power, the American people and his peers trusted Washington, noting that if he supported the new Constitution, it was worthy of adoption. This trust overcame the objections of many who continued to have problems with the document until passage of the Bill of Rights. After the Constitutional Convention adjourned, Washington again made plans to permanently leave public life. But as he closely monitored the ratification process at Mount Vernon between 1787 and 1788, Washington became resigned to the fact that he was the only person that could hold the new union together. Washington moved to New York to take the position of chief executive after he received word that he had been unanimously by the Electoral College. To this day, Washington is the only president to be elected unanimously, first in 1789 and again in 1792. Perhaps most importantly, Washington set the precedent of presidents serving a maximum of two terms. This precedent was followed by the following 31 presidents, until Franklin Roosevelt won a third term in 1940 and a fourth term in 1944. It is important to understand that historically, most victorious revolutionary generals grabbed as much power as possible and served as long as they possibly could. Washington, whose devotion to serving his country was only outdone by his love of his family, broke with this dubious tradition and began 219 years of peaceful transitions of power. 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. This legislation is supported by George Washington's Mount Vernon Estate and its executive director James Rees. A copy of his letter appears below. 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. George Washington's Mount Vernon, Mount Vernon, VA, June 21, 2011. Hon. Frank Wolf, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Wolf: I would like to thank you for introducing legislation to restore the nation's official observance of George Washington's Birthday to February 22, the actual date of his birth 279 years ago. We are writing today in strong and enthusiastic support of your efforts. Today many states, the media, advertisers and the general public have abandoned recognition of Washington's Birthday and replaced it with a commercial ``shopping holiday'' that leaves American history and patriotism by the side of the road. 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. We look forward to the day, when once again, February 22 is marked by patriotic festivities and lessons about the life of George Washington, which can teach and inspire American leaders of today and tomorrow. As our nation's foremost founding father, Washington is relevant to each new generation because his prominent character traits--undaunted courage, unabashed patriotism, reasoned judgment, a profound sense of civic responsibility, and a deep, selfless commitment to country--never go out of style. Educating the children of America about the life and leadership of George Washington is an important investment in the future of our nation. Your efforts are particularly important because as noted author and historian David McCullough has said many times, we are ``raising a generation of historically illiterate children.'' Surveys and focus groups over the years tell us that most Americans--particularly young Americans--know the face of Washington because they see it every day on their dollars and quarters, but they don't know much more about him. Why should we be concerned? Because George Washington was the most important, the most effective, the most powerful leader of our nation's founding era, and the shining example of his life is needed today more than ever. To those like you who know and respect George Washington, it is crystal clear that many today have drifted so far from his standards of leadership that there is a real cause for concern for the future of our nation. We believe that George Washington is the best example of leadership and character the nation has ever known; therefore, it is our duty, our responsibility and our privilege to teach today's leaders and young people about George Washington's leadership with the hope that they will follow in his footsteps. Your legislation will be a significant step in that direction. For example, a most compelling lesson for young people today is that George Washington served in the three most important leadership roles in the founding era. Quite remarkably, the Father of our Country was selected for each of these jobs unanimously, and, contrary to the common practice of the day, he gave up power and walked away from each of the positions despite strong support for him not to do so. First, as Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army, he surmounted incredible odds, never took a day off in eight years of battle, and emerged victorious. But perhaps Washington's greatest moment came when he halted an attempt by his officers to overthrow the civilian government and make him king. He then resigned from the military entirely and returned to his life as a farmer at Mount Vernon. With this resignation, Washington actually established a new definition of power. Before George Washington the road map was for great leaders to gain as much power as possible and keep it. But Washington truly believed in the concept of liberty--where the power rests with the people. He taught the world how to relinquish power--what an important lesson for the leaders of today. Less than four years after his return to Mount Vernon, Washington was drafted to be President of the Constitutional Convention--because only he could bring the delegates together. He was elected as our first President and after serving two terms--he exited. He could have been elected again and again but he peacefully transferred power demonstrating that democracy really works. Celebration of George Washington's Birthday on February 22 will help restore the position of the Father of Our Country as ``First in War, First in Peace, and First in the Hearts of his Countrymen,'' as Light-Horse Harry Lee said so many years ago. George Washington's sterling example of character and leadership provides the opportunity to refresh and inspire our country as we face formidable challenges both at home and abroad. Sincerely, James C. Rees, President.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I recently attended a wonderful event at Rocky Run Middle School in Chantilly, Virginia. The program brings World War II veterans together with 7th grade students for one-on-one interviews about the veterans' experiences during war. The event was initiated 10 years ago by history teacher Jamie Sawatzky and for his efforts, he was selected as the Fairfax County Public Schools Teacher of the Year. Rocky Run Middle School is the only school in the region with this type of program. The event was attended by 125 World War II veterans, representing all branches of the Armed Forces and nearly every theater of the war. I was touched to hear the recollections from so many members of the ``Greatest Generation'' who sacrificed so much to protect our nation's freedom. Students got to hear from Edward Connor, who served with the U.S. Army Air Corps in Papua, New Guinea, and Guadalcanal; Lucas Dargan, who served aboard a U.S. Navy destroyer in the north Atlantic guiding supply convoys; Donald Graul, a paratrooper with the 82nd Airborne Division who parachuted into Normandy on D-Day and was captured by the Germans, spending the rest of the war in a POW camp, and Richard Graff, who marched with the Army through France, Belgium, and Holland and met the Russian Army at the Elbe River. These men, and many more, volunteered their time to share their views with today's students. With fewer and fewer World War II veterans still living, I applaud the efforts of these and all veterans who share this living history and make their memories part of children's learning experience and the historical record. I also want to draw attention to the Rocky Run students, who recognize the importance of learning from previous generations. Knowing about one of the most traumatic episodes in world history and the sacrifice it required of all Americans, these students will have an appreciation of what it takes to preserve our nation's freedoms. The 7th graders of Rocky Run Middle School took on a challenging assignment and carried it out in a fashion of which we can all be proud. There can be no better learning experience than combining the knowledge and experience of the ``Greatest Generation'' with the ``Latest Generation.'' I hope schools across America can learn from the example of Rock Run Middle School in Chantilly, Virginia.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I recently attended a wonderful event at Rocky Run Middle school in Chantilly, Virginia. The program brings World War II veterans together with 7th grade students for one-on-one interviews about the veterans' experiences during war. The event was initiated 10 years ago by history teacher Jamie Sawatzky and for his efforts, he was selected as the Fairfax County Public Schools Teacher of the Year. Rocky Run Middle School is the only school in the region with this type of program. The event was attended by 125 World War II veterans, representing all branches of the Armed Forces and nearly every theater of the war. I was touched to hear the recollections from so many members of the ``Greatest Generation'' who sacrificed so much to protect our nation's freedom. Students got to hear from Edward Connor, who served with the U.S. Army Air Corps in Papua, New Guinea, and Guadalcanal; Lucas Dugan, who served aboard a U.S. Navy destroyer in the north Atlantic guiding supply convoys; Donald Graul, a paratrooper with the 82nd Airborne Division who parachuted into Normandy on D-Day and was captured by the Germans, spending the rest of the war in a POW camp, and Richard Graff, who marched with the Army through France, Belgium, and Holland and met the Russian Army at the Elbe River. These men, and many more, volunteered their time to share their views with today's students. With fewer and fewer World War II veterans still living, I applaud the efforts of these and all veterans who share this living history and make their memories part of children's learning experience and the historical record. I also want to draw attention to the Rocky Run students, who recognize the importance of learning from previous generations. Knowing about one of the most traumatic episodes in world history and the sacrifice it required of all Americans, these students will have an appreciation of what it takes to preserve our nation's freedoms. The 7th graders of Rocky Run Middle School took on a challenging assignment and carried it out in a fashion of which we can all be proud. There can be no better learning experience than combining the knowledge and experience of the ``Greatest Generation'' with the ``Latest Generation.'' I hope schools across America can learn from the example of Rock Run Middle School in Chantilly, Virginia.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following article regarding the scope of Chinese espionage. The degree to which China spies on both its own people and foreigners is a reminder of the illegitimate security and economic practices of Beijing. Chinese Spying Devices Installed on Hong Kong Cars (By Albert Ding and Matthew Robertson) For years now Chinese authorities have been installing spying devices on all dual-plate Chinese-Hong Kong vehicles, enabling a vast network of eavesdropping across the archipelago, according to a Hong Kong newspaper. The report in Apple Daily states that the recording devices began being installed as ``inspection and quarantine cards'' in July 2007. They were installed without charge by the Shenzhen Inspection and Quarantine Bureau on thousands of vehicles. Smugglers were the first to note something strange about the devices. A source told Apple Daily that after the cards were installed mainland authorities had no trouble picking off the cars carrying illicit goods. ``For every ten cars we ran we only had [smuggled goods] in three or four to reduce the risk, but the border agents caught all of them. The accuracy was unreal!'' Apple Daily quoted the smuggler saying. The device, no larger than a PDA, is taped onto the vehicle's front window. Protective tape covers the screws, presumably to prevent tampering--though it didn't stop Apple Daily from removing the devices, taking them to experts for inspection, and presenting pictures of them splayed open on their website, with neat graphics indicating the various internal components. Apple Daily says they took the device to a university professor and a private investigator, both of whom attested to the espionage potential of the units. Zhang Dawei, identified as ``a private investigator of over 30 years,'' took a look at the device's internal structure and told the Daily that the card could certainly be used for eavesdropping. An Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering at City University of Hong Kong, Zheng Liming, took apart one of the devices and confirmed that it can listen in on conversations. And the range is extensive, he said. ``The signal receiving range is up to 20km, which means if the device installer wants to, they can listen even when the vehicles are in Hong Kong,'' he said. Two of the regions in Hong Kong where the device can transmit data back to China are Sha tin and Tuen mun. Much cheaper chips can be used to check inspection status for simple border crossings, Zhang said, ``But this device uses chips commonly found in Bluetooth and voice recording devices, designed for receiving voice transmission.'' He thus thought it ``very likely'' that they were being used for surveillance. The Daily interviewed several Hong Kong drivers to gauge their reactions; predictably, they were often irate. Ms. Deng, who operates a real estate business, said: ``Even if we hired a maid, we are not allowed to install a surveillance camera in her room due to privacy issues! You can't just do whatever you want.'' A senior manager in an unidentified company noted that those who qualify for the dual license plate usually have some financial clout. If their business conversations in the car were recorded and the information shared, he said, it may be enough to send people bankrupt. HKBusiness.net, an online news site, says that businesses that invested more than $1 million in mainland China and paid more than 30,000 yuan in tax over the past year qualify for a dual license plate. Apple Daily quotes a source saying there are at least 20,000 cars with dual license plates, and tens of thousands of trucks and buses. A reporter from the newspaper went to the Shenzhen Inspection and Quarantine Bureau and confronted them with the accusations. Staff on duty flatly denied the idea, Apple Daily said. Speaking Cantonese, they assured him that ``It's not that high tech.''

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, Marine Sergeant Sean T. Callahan of Warrenton, Virginia, made the supreme sacrifice for his country on April 23, 2011, while conducting combat operations in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Sergeant Callahan was assigned antitank missile duties and was with the 3rd Battalion of the 9th Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, based at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. Sean joined the Marine Corps in March 2008 and received a combat meritorious promotion to the grade of sergeant on February 2, 2011. He deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom from August until October 2009. He deployed again in support of Operation Enduring Freedom in December, 2010. His awards include a Purple Heart, the Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Afghanistan Campaign Medal, Iraq Campaign Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Combat Action Ribbon, and Navy-Marine Corps Commendation Medal with Valor Device. Sean was escorted home from Dover, Delaware, by his brother, Corporal Daniel J. Callahan, who is assigned to the 1st Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion at Camp Pendleton, California. Sean was born on Flag Day, June 14, 1987, in Manassas, Virginia, the youngest of four children. He grew up in Prince William County and graduated from Brentsville High School in 2005. He was an accomplished guitar player who loved music and went out of his way to encourage younger musicians to pursue their shared love of music. Sergeant Callahan's leadership qualities, his loyalty and dedication all found a purpose when he joined the United States Marine Corps. He believed deeply in his calling to defend the freedoms granted in America and in the defense of dignity and freedom in other countries. Sean was a true son of Virginia and will be deeply missed by those who knew and loved him.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I missed the vote on Campbell amendment #54 to H.R. 1540, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. Had I voted, I would have voted ``no'' on the amendment.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to my colleagues' attention some extremely disturbing news coming out of Iran. Just this past weekend, a coordinated series of raids have been carried out on the homes of several Iranian Baha'is. An estimated 14 Baha'is have been arrested thus far. According to a representative of the Baha'i International Community to the United Nations in Geneva, ``All of the targets were homes of individuals closely involved with the operations of the Baha'i Institute for Higher Education.'' This institution was created to provide young Baha'is an opportunity to pursue higher education after being systematically denied access to higher learning institutions by the Iranian government. These attacks--and Iran's general policy of suppressing religious freedom--are unacceptable and must stop. The U.S. and the international community must vigorously speak out against these acts of injustice facing the nearly 300,000 Baha'is living in Iran today--a community which, according to the recently published report of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, ``has long been subject to particularly severe religious violations in Iran.'' We must not allow such atrocities to continue unnoticed.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of this amendment to recognize the remarkable work done by Federal employees in the intelligence community and by our Federal law enforcement officers. Their tireless work over the last 10 years led to finding Osama bin Laden and the raids on his compound which resulted in his death--an extraordinary victory in the War on Terror. This important victory has come at a great cost to the brave men and women in our intelligence community and Federal law enforcement communities and their families. The first American killed in Afghanistan after 9/11, Mike Spann, was a CIA agent and a constituent from my congressional district. In January 2010, I attended funerals for some of the seven CIA agents who were killed by a Taliban suicide bomber at Forward Operating Base Chapman near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. As we recognize this important victory, we must also remember those Federal employees in our intelligence and Federal law agencies who continue to risk their lives every day on the front lines side by side with our Armed Forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other fronts in the Global War on Terror. The American people appreciate their sacrifice and tireless work to protect our country.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained and unable to be in the Chamber for two rollcall votes on H.R. 754 due to a meeting with constituents at the Loudoun County Chamber of Commerce. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the Rogers amendment and ``yea'' on the Gibson amendment. Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Hinchey

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of my colleagues legislation I am introducing to amend the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA), including reauthorizing the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF). Religious freedom, often referred to as the first freedom, is of central import to the American experiment. As such it should feature prominently in U.S. foreign policy. Recognizing that this critical issue and other human rights related issues are often relegated to the sidelines within the State Department, I authored legislation more than ten years ago, in 1998, to establish the International Religious Freedom Office at the State Department, headed by an ambassador at-large, and to create the USCIRF--an independent, bipartisan commission charged with monitoring the status of freedom of religion or belief abroad and providing policy recommendations to the President, Secretary of State, and Congress. Since the passage of this legislation, religious freedom has been elevated within U.S. foreign policy. But it still does not enjoy the preeminence it deserves. And sadly, a strong U.S. voice on this critical issue has arguably never been more needed. According to a Pew Research Study released in December 2009, one- third of all nations, containing 70 percent of the world's population, severely restrict religious freedom. We need look no further than the daily newspapers to know that these statistics are not mere numbers. Rather, they are sobering realities for millions of people of faith around the globe. Consider the following headlines from recent weeks alone: ``Chinese Christians Face Tense Easter in Beijing,'' ``Egyptian Copts, Reeling From Violence, Want Protection,'' ``Baha'i Citizens Are Forced to Leave Iran,'' ``Pakistan's Other Blemish: Anti-Religious Violence,'' ``Indonesia Pressured Over Ahmadiyah Muslim Sect Killings,'' and ``Thousands of Cameras Watch China's Uighurs, Inhibiting Discourse.'' The bill I introduce today will make a number of strategic improvements to the Religious Freedom Office at the State Department. To start, it places the ambassador-at-large in the office of the Secretary of State as opposed to burying it within the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. This change is more in keeping with the original intent of the legislation that Congress passed. Over successive administrations this critical position has not been treated with the seniority it deserves and this revised language will help rectify this problem. The legislation also provides the ambassador with oversight and management authority of the IRF Office and other religiously oriented positions and programs at the State Department and carves out funding in the larger Human Rights and Democracy Fund to enable the IRF office to promote religious freedom through advocacy, reporting and programming. The legislation requires the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Department of Defense, Homeland Security, the Treasury and the U.S. Agency for International Development to issue a one-time report to Congress on the best uses of foreign assistance to promote religious freedom and religious engagement. In addition the legislation requires religious freedom training for every Foreign Service Officer (FSO) and states that USCIRF must be involved in that training. American embassies abroad must be islands of freedom. Whether in Vietnam, China, Pakistan or Iraq--every FSO should be trained and committed to advocating for those whose voices have been silenced by their own governments. This mandatory training will help ensure that our diplomatic corps is equipped in this regard. My legislation also strengthens the ``Countries of Particular Concern'' (CPC) designation process and effectiveness. CPCs are countries whose governments are found to have engaged in or tolerated particularly severe violations of religious freedom. The amended language will require that CPC designations are made 90 days after the issuance of the State Department's annual religious freedom report. One hundred and twenty days after a country has been designated a CPC, the Secretary of State must submit a report to Congress that identifies the action taken, the purpose of the action, and an evaluation of its effectiveness and impact. Also included is language tightening the President's waiver authority, so that indefinite waivers are not an option. Very significantly, this legislation will reauthorize the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom until September 30, 2018. USCIRF, unlike the State Department, is unencumbered by the impulse to maintain good bilateral relations above all else--an impulse which sadly can result in critical issues of religious freedom being sidelined in the pursuit of broader foreign policy goals. USCIRF, as an independent, bipartisan Federal Government commission, has been a reliable voice for the world's persecuted people. It monitors and reports on religious freedom abroad and makes informed policy recommendations to Members of Congress, the President and the State Department, based in part on information gathered during extensive travel and meetings with senior foreign officials. USCIRF regularly holds briefings and hearings for interested parties on and off the Hill and is frequently called upon to provide expert witness testimony to Congress. Just in the last year the Commission has taken a leadership role on a series of key issues. It was quick to recognize the strategic importance and courageous voice of the late Shahbaz Bhatti, Pakistan's federal minister of Minorities Affairs, an outspoken critic of his nation's draconian blasphemy laws. During a critical time for the people of Sudan, it also issued special recommendations on the implementation of the historic Comprehensive Peace Agreement. It has made a series of policy recommendations aimed at preserving and protecting Iraq's besieged religious minorities. It also has actively worked with dozens of Hill offices on combating the ``defamation of religions'' resolution before the United Nations. In short, ensuring that the commission is reauthorized is of paramount importance. In a Constitution Day speech, President Ronald Reagan famously described our founding documents which enshrine basic liberties, among them religious freedom, as a ``covenant we have made not only with ourselves, but with all of mankind.'' Passage of this legislation will go a long way in helping us keep that covenant. I urge my colleagues' support.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize The Frederick County Public School District for its pursuit of bettering its science education programs. I visited Sherando High School in Stephens City on April 19 and saw firsthand how the school and its students are improving and excelling the fields of math and science. Kelley Aitken, the Frederick County Public Schools Supervisor of Science and Visual Arts, explained that ``the school division's science curriculum is moving from a fact/knowledge level of thinking to one which is based on conceptual understanding and application.'' The teachers have been provided with information from the University of Virginia's faculty on how to develop inquiry-based lesson plans. The school district has also changed its curriculum requiring students in grades six through eight to complete inquiry-based science projects every year. It is the district's hope that by engaging the students in middle school they will be able to carry that understanding and passion for science throughout their education. Mrs. Aitken also explained a number of community partnerships that the school district has developed. These include DuPont, the Blandy Experimental Farm, the Alice Ferguson Foundation, and Valley Health, which provide students with hands-on instruction in science. After Mrs. Aitken's presentation I was honored to meet with and learn about the students who have excelled in the district's science programs. I heard from three high school students and one middle school teacher about their experiences. The first student was a senior who worked with the Pulsar Search Collaboratory (PSC), where he discovered a pulsar, a highly neutralized neutron rotating star. The senior along with the high school's Astronomy Club, analyzed data from the National Radio Astronomy Observatory in West Virginia. The student is going to pursue his interest in science at James Madison University. The next student, a sophomore, explained her project, which examined the effect of chemicals and pesticides on the regeneration of planaria. The student will be competing in the International Science Engineering Fair (ISEF) in Los Angeles, California, in May. The next student, a junior, will also be competing in the fair for her second year in a row. The student used the Eratosthenes's Theory, to determine the diameter of the earth. A sixth grade teacher in the district's Robert E. Aylor Middle School, in Stephens City explained the Discovery Education online science module, which is used throughout the district in the middle schools. He explained that the program is used to let the students interact and manipulate investigations as they are learning science material. At the end of my visit, Superintendent Patricia Taylor was awarded the Discovery Education's Visionary District Award by the Vice President for Discovery Education. I am proud to have such an outstanding school in my district. I congratulate the school for recognizing the importance of providing our youth with the tools to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering and math.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and commend my dear friend and our former colleague, Ambassador Tony Hall, for his devotion to those less fortunate. Ambassador Hall went on a 28-day fast after learning of proposed budget cuts for programs that help those less fortunate domestically and abroad. Here are some comments that he made regarding his recent fast: ``Back in 1993, as a Member of Congress, I went on a 22-day fast to protest the lack of conscience of the U.S. Congress towards poor and hungry people. Now, almost twenty years later, the stakes are even higher. That's why on March 28, 2011--almost one month ago--I stopped eating and started fasting, calling on friends and colleagues from across the country and around the world to join me. ``This coming Easter Sunday I will stop fasting. The Hungerfast campaign is coming to an end, but the movement to ensure our leaders don't balance the budgets on the backs of poor and hungry people is only getting started. ``But before moving forward, I want to pause for a moment to look back on what we have accomplished together, and to express my gratitude for all the ways people have broken out of their normal routines--going above and beyond--in order to make the Hungerfast movement possible. ``Hungerfast has brought together a large and diverse coalition of partners; Meals on Wheels and the ONE Campaign. World Vision and MoveOn.org. Christian, Jewish and Muslim organizations breaking out of business as usual to call their constituencies to fasting, prayer and personal sacrifice. ``With over 36,000 Americans, including 28 Members of Congress, committed to fasting, prayer and other forms of serious personal sacrifice, the HungerFast movement will have repercussions long into the future; it has not only set the stage for our ongoing budget debate, it has moved all of us into deeper levels of solidarity with those who Jesus called, `the least of these.'' As the Congress continues the budget process, we must carefully consider proposals that impact the most vulnerable. Scripture (Proverbs 19:17) tells us, ``He who is kind to the poor lends to the Lord.'' And in the New Testament Jesus talks a lot about the poor. In Matthew 25 he says that if we ignore the poor and hungry it is the same as ignoring him. It is imperative that we all work together rein in our nation's unfunded liabilities to ensure that resources are available to help society's neediest and most vulnerable members.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I have been one of the strongest supporters of Washington Dulles International Airport and Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport as well as the Dulles Corridor Metrorail Extension project. I was one of the original sponsors of the 1986 legislation that transferred from the federal government the operations of Dulles and Reagan. I worked with former Senators John Warner and Paul Trible, former Governor Linwood Holton, and former Secretary of Transportation Elizabeth Dole to enact that important law that created the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, MWAA. For nearly 25 years MWAA has operated effectively, governed by board members who were pillars of the community and understood the importance of the success of both Dulles and Reagan. After the airports authority was created, both Reagan and Dulles prospered. In the past 25 years, Dulles has become the economic engine for not only northern Virginia, but the entire Commonwealth. Without a successful international airport drawing global traffic and myriad businesses, the region would not be nearly as successful as it is today. Metrorail access to the airport and fast-growing Loudoun County will attract more businesses, create new jobs and ease congestion on area roadways. Dulles Rail being completed on time and at or under original cost estimates is key to many more decades of success. While I have been extremely pleased observing MWAA's achievements over the past two decades, I believe continued success is now threatened by a board of directors that has lost sight of its primary mission of serving airport passengers and residents of the surrounding communities. For many years MWAA was run by competent and dedicated professionals such as Jim Wilding and Jim Bennett. As current CEO Lynn Hampton prepares to retire, the search process for her replacement conducted by the current board of directors has been a study in poor management and political horse trading. When the board voted to advance the nomination of Nathaniel Ford, the deciding vote was cast by proxy by a then board member who was under house arrest in the Ivory Coast. This problem arose because under the current law, board members serve until their replacement is confirmed. While this may have worked in the past, in my opinion the law is being abused to keep political favorites in office, even if their service is suspect. The leadership void at MWAA also is reflected in the planning for Phase 2 of Dulles Rail. Under the current board, costs have greatly exceeded original estimates, with more likely to come with the board's April 6 decision to build an underground station at Dulles Airport. Because of these concerns about the direction of MWAA today, I am introducing legislation to make changes to the 1986 law that established the regional operating authority for Dulles and Reagan National airports. This legislation will amend the original statute to give Virginia a majority on the MWAA Board of Directors by increasing the number of Commonwealth appointees from five to nine. With both airports located in Virginia and with northern Virginia residents and local governments providing the lion's share of the revenue for the Dulles Rail project, it is only fair that the majority of the board be Virginians. The bill will also prevent board members from serving past the end of their appointment, and will establish that board members can be replaced at any time by the respective executives who appoint the board: the governors of Virginia and Maryland, the mayor of the District of Columbia or the president of the United States. I believe these changes are critical if we are to ensure that MWAA will once again function as originally intended and in the best interests of northern Virginia. Phase 2 will require nothing less than the most qualified board possible to be a success. It is imperative that these changes to the original law be enacted quickly, and I hope that the committee of jurisdiction will expedite review of the legislation. If the current leadership is allowed to stay in place, it will very likely continue to make decisions that add to the cost of Phase 2 and further jeopardize not only MWAA's bond rating, but the success of both airports under their control. The respective executives simply must have the ability to appoint new board members as soon as possible to prevent the current board from turning Dulles Rail into a failed project. My primary interest is to see the project completed on time and at or under budget and I believe the board's decision to opt for an underground station at Dulles Airport could be disastrous. Since the announcement, Fairfax and Loudoun counties have indicated that they will not assume the extra costs of the underground station. If the local governments withdraw Phase 2 funding, the project will be in serious jeopardy. The underground station also is opposed by nearly every elected official representing northern Virginia residents, including the Fairfax and Loudoun boards of supervisors, the Herndon Town Council, Virginia Secretary of Transportation Sean Connaughton and Governor Bob McDonnell. Independent groups such as the Washington Airports Task Force, Dulles Corridor Rail Association, the Northern Virginia Regional Commission, the Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce, the Virginia Chamber of Commerce and AAA Mid-Atlantic have all spoken out against the underground station. For a board member to recently state, ``I think the board is committed to the underground station as best for the community at large'' shows astonishing hubris and a willful avoidance of reality. Recent Phase 2 cost estimates are extremely troubling. While original projections put the cost of Phase 2 at $2.5 billion, the cost spikes to at least $3.5 billion under the plan approved by the MWAA board. With such dramatic cost increases before a contract is even awarded, some have expressed concerns about the creditworthiness of the bonds that will be issued to pay for Phase 2. Airport authorities nationwide have been placed on notice that bond ratings could be lowered in the future. An additional $300 million or more for Dulles Rail could be a troublesome sign for the bond markets. I fear an increase in borrowing costs could effectively kill the project in the design phase. Considering all this information, I do not believe that the current board of directors is acting in the best interests of the northern Virginia residents who will be forced to underwrite costs for Phase 2 through increased tolls on the DTR and increased revenue from county coffers. The underground station will add at least $300 million to the overall cost of Phase 2. When long-term financing costs are included, the underground station could end up adding closer to $500 million to the project. It is my understanding that tolls on the Dulles Toll Road could reach $10.25 in 2020, eight- and-a-half years from now. The initial toll projection issued by MWAA had tolls reaching $11.25 by 2047. As the cost of Phase 2 goes up, so will the tolls. A recent Washington Post editorial indicated that commuters could be forced to pay as much as $4,000 a year to use the toll road by 2020. Add in the tolls on the Dulles Greenway and my constituents' transportation costs could be higher than their monthly car payments. It will be the parents taking their children to school and soccer practice, the business owner that uses the DTR on a daily basis to make deliveries, the realtor who will see home sales decrease due to the higher transportation costs and the commuters to Tysons Corner who will shoulder the heavy burden of the MWAA board's recent decisions. I want both MWAA and Dulles Rail to be successful. Because of that, Representative Tom Latham, chairman of the House Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, and I have asked the U.S. Department of Transportation Inspector General, IG, to conduct an audit of the operations of the MWAA board. I am pleased that the IG's office will begin this audit in the near future. Outside of the actual composition of the board, it is my hope that the audit will examine the governance structure of MWAA and determine if it operates with the transparency necessary for an organization tasked with such important responsibilities. In the meantime, I urge support for my legislation to update the board's composition and appointment structure to reflect today's realities.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize three local schools that have excelled in robotic competitions. These three teams participated in the Robotics for Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology (FIRST), regional tournament in Richmond on April 8-9, where 64 teams competed. The local schools represented--Highland High School in Warrenton, RoboHawk-Team 3373; Fresta Valley Christian School in Marshall, Team 1731; and Battlefield High School in Haymarket, Team 1885 ILITE squad-- are all local schools and teams that participated in the regional tournament. The FIRST robotics program offers students a chance to design a robot from scratch. Their mission is to ``inspire young people to be science and technology leaders, by engaging them in exciting mentor-based programs that build science, engineering and technology skills, that inspire innovation, and that foster well-rounded life capabilities including self-confidence, communication, and leadership.'' The students receive a box of parts with no instructions, just a specific goal that their robot must reach. Then, the students have to design the robot to complete certain tasks for the competitions. The students are allotted a six-week period to build their robots and must bag and tag them before the tournament. The students are responsible for obtaining mentors and sponsors to raise the $5,000 that is needed to receive a starter kit from FIRST. Their mentors are usually parents who work in the field of engineering and are role models and an inspiration to the students. At the regional tournament in Richmond, there were three different competition rounds. The first round was autonomous, where the pre- programmed six-wheel robot had to act independently of its operators and place rings on pegs in order to gain points. The second round consisted of the operators having the robot place tubes on the scoring racks. The final and most difficult round, according to the Battlefield team, was having a minibot climb up the rack and place tubes at a faster and higher rate than the original robot. I congratulate all the teams for participating in such a hands-on engineering and scientific educational experience, with special mention to the Fresta Valley Christian School for making it to the quarterfinals of the competition. I also congratulate Battlefield High School for placing second in the regional tournament. I congratulate and commend the two teams for their participation in the National Championship, which was held in St. Louis April 27-30.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the work that federal employees do, day in and day out, to make our country a better place. Federal employees are on the front lines working to ensure that our government is running as efficiently and effectively as possible to provide the services taxpayers expect. They make our nation a safer and better place. They work in every congressional district of the country and thus it is incredibly appropriate that we honor their service this week. Whether it's the FBI agent working to find a kidnapped child, the DEA agent keeping drugs out of schools, or the DOJ attorney prosecuting a child molester--all are federal employees graciously serving our nation. We must also remember that there are intelligence agents risking their lives every day on the front lines side by side with our armed forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other fronts in the Global War on Terror who serve as federal employees. The first American killed in Afghanistan, Mike Spann, was a CIA agent and a constituent from my congressional district. Imagine the dangers a CIA employee or an FBI agent working side by side in Afghanistan with the U.S. military must encounter. A year ago January, I attended funerals for some of the seven CIA agents who were killed by a Taliban suicide bomber at Forward Operative Base Chapman near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Federal employees also put their lives on the line here at home. The Border Patrol agent shot and killed in Arizona this past December who was working to stop the flow of illegal immigrants across our southern border was a federal employee. The Immigration and Custom Enforcement agent who was killed and the two who were shot this past February outside of Mexico City were federal employees. Doctors who tend to our veterans and wounded warriors in veterans hospitals and who are developing new prosthetic devices to help them recover, medical researchers at NIH working to develop cures for cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, and autism--all are dedicated federal employees. These are individuals who could find more lucrative jobs in the private sector, but who are committed to public service. Dr. Francis Collins, the physician who mapped the human genome and serves as director of the National Institutes of Health, is a federal employee. The National Weather Service meteorologist who tracks hurricanes, the SBA staffer who helps a new business start up, the FDA inspector working to stop a salmonella outbreak--all are federal employees. Though they often receive little praise for the work they do, federal employees provide many of the services that make this nation great. Today I thank them for their hard work and service to our country.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize and pay tribute to J. Warren Geurin, a former congressional staffer and member of the Loudoun County School Board. Warren passed away April 30, at the age of 65 after having battled cancer for several months. Warren began his career on the Hill as the Minority Investigator on the House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, serving our former colleagues Congressman Gene Taylor and Congressman Trent Lott. From 1980 to 1991 Warren served as a Minority counsel to the U.S. House Committee on Rules, working for former Congressmen Taylor, Lott, and Del Latta. Warren concluded his time on the Hill as legislative counsel to Congressman Chris Smith. In 1992, Warren was appointed by President George H.W. Bush as Director of Congressional Affairs to then U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Andrew Card. Following Warren's congressional service, he worked in the private sector and later went on to serve as a three-term member of the Loudoun County School Board. Despite his diagnosis and worsening condition, Warren proved to be an inspiration, serving as chairman of the Committee on Academies and as a member of the Personnel Committee and the Minority Student Achievement Advisory Committee. Throughout his time on the School Board, Warren tirelessly advocated for children and Loudoun Schools and it was through his efforts which led to the successful completion of renovation projects at all of the schools in his district. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, it is my pleasure to honor the life of Mr. J. Warren Geurin, a great public servant, model citizen and a personal friend of mine. Warren will be honored and remembered by many, especially his widow, Susie; his two children Jennifer and Jeff; his many friends, colleagues and all who knew him.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chair, as we debate the House budget resolution today, I ask my colleagues: are you here to make a point, or are you here to make a difference? We have reached a tipping point in our country's financial future. Our nation is pushed to the edge of a fiscal cliff. We are over $14 trillion in debt. CBO projects that the President's budget request will cause net interest payments to skyrocket over the next 10 years--from $260 billion in 2012 to $931 billion in 2021. If we continue on our current path, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest payments to service the debt will consume all government revenues within 14 years. We're borrowing 41 cents on every dollar. And we're borrowing from nations such as China and Saudi Arabia that do not share our values or national priorities. Moody's has warned that our coveted AAA bond rating could be at risk in as little as a year. We've seen what a downgrade can do to foreign economies, and we must not let that happen here. Seeing the signs about our nation's financial future, I introduced legislation almost five years ago--during the last Republican House majority--to create an independent bipartisan commission to address unsustainable federal spending, putting everything on the table for discussion--entitlements, all other spending programs and tax policy-- and like the Department of Defense's Base Realignment and Closure Commission process, Congress would be required to vote up or down on the commission's recommendations. An iteration of this legislation became the blueprint for President's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, or the Bowles-Simpson Commission. The President appointed the Bowles-Simpson Commission. He established their working parameters in a manner that, quite frankly, I believed was designed to doom it to failure. Despite this, the report released last December by the commission was supported by a bipartisan majority of the commission's 18 members. It makes clear that addressing the debt and the deficit isn't just a simple exercise in rooting out waste, fraud and abuse, eliminating earmarks, and reining in discretionary spending. Those, to be sure, are important reforms, but alone don't come close to solving the debt and the deficit crisis. Reform must begin with entitlements and other mandatory spending and must also include all other sacred cows, including tax reform and defense spending. Until two days ago, the President barely acknowledged the work of his commission. He didn't help them assemble the necessary 14 votes to send their recommendations to Congress. Then, he walked away from his commission's recommendations, first by not expressing any views on their report, then silence during the State of the Union, and again silence in his FY 2012 budget request. On Wednesday, the President finally started to recognize the seriousness of this problem. His leadership is needed. But I was disappointed that he failed to offer specific solutions, and seemed more interested in staking out political positions than finding common ground. I hope his call for negotiations across the aisle to develop a legislative framework are successful, but this seems like yet another instance where the President is sidestepping the recommendations of his own fiscal commission. I believe that the Bowles-Simpson proposal offers the way forward for the most comprehensive and realistic solution to our nation's fiscal problems. I have repeatedly said that, while there are some changes I would make in the plan, if a version of the Bowles-Simpson plan were given a vote on the House floor, I would vote for it. But we don't have that choice in the House. My friend Jim Cooper, whom I have partnered with over the past four years to offer a bipartisan way forward to address the nation's financial crisis, initially planned to offer the principals of the Bowles-Simpson proposal as a substitute amendment to be considered today. Recognizing that the President's recent speech has inflamed partisan passions, he withdrew the amendment so as not to undercut efforts underway in the Senate by the so-called Gang of Six. Had the Cooper substitute been offered, I would have voted for it, even though I did not agree with every part of it, such as the reconciliation instructions Mr. Cooper had for the committee of jurisdiction over the federal workforce. I would have voted yes to indicate my continued support for the principals of the Bowles-Simpson commission. Mr. Cooper has engaged in the kind of bipartisan cooperation that we must have, the kind of forthright, realistic conversation about our nation's fiscal future in which we must engage across the aisle, across the Capitol and down Pennsylvania Avenue if we are to have any hope of coming up with a credible plan to protect the future of our children and grandchildren. I see the Ryan proposal as an honest attempt to provide a blueprint to continue the conversation on our country's financial future and move forward so that a conference with the Senate can produce a budget plan that ensures our national security and protects the programs on which so many Americans rely. The Ryan bill may not pass the Senate, but I commend the chairman of the House Budget Committee for his courage in putting forth a bold proposal to address our nation's skyrocketing and unfunded financial obligations. While his focus is not the ``everything on the table'' approach I prefer, I believe Mr. Ryan could provide an opening to force both chambers and the President to deal with entitlement spending that is consuming the federal budget. He deserves credit for taking on an issue so many in Congress would rather continue to kick down the road. It's easy to stand in the well of the House and criticize any legislation. As I look at Chairman Ryan's measure, I don't agree with every provision. I believe there are some critical issues that are missing and things that must be changed, and there are several things that I do not support and will not support if authorizing legislation is offered to implement his budget blueprint. As I have stated, I believe everything must be on the table for discussion, starting with all entitlement spending, discretionary program spending, and tax policy. But we have reached the moment of truth for the kind of country we will leave to our children and grandchildren. Therefore, I will vote for the Ryan budget so that we can continue to move this process forward and continue the discussion. This proposal would put our nation on course to reduce all of the publicly held debt by 2060, a feat not reached since Andrew Jackson's presidency. Relative to the President's proposal, it cuts $6.2 trillion. Under this plan, within four years, we would reach primary balance on our debt, which the President's proposal never attains. Reaching primary balance, which is when revenue is greater than spending less interest payments, is an important milestone that reduces a grave national security threat. This budget blueprint calls for significant reductions in discretionary spending, for reduced tax rates, and for repeal of the health care reform law. Significantly, Mr. Ryan's plan says we can no longer ignore the trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities that consume our budget. There may be disagreement on the significant changes in Medicare and Medicaid entitlement programs that he proposes, and while his plan is silent on changes needed to reform Social Security entitlements, it does recognize that need. Mr. Ryan has pulled the curtain back on the mandatory spending elephant in the room that we can no longer ignore. As I have stated, I will vote for the Ryan budget so that we can move forward to fulfill our responsibility to come up with a budget for this fiscal year. We must avoid the recent fiasco we endured which brought us to the brink of a government shutdown because of the failure by the majority in the last Congress to produce a budget. That being said, I believe the Ryan budget comes up short in a number of areas. I will mention just a few. First, it misses an opportunity by not fully addressing the Social Security program's growing deficit. For the first time this year, with the Baby Boom generation starting to retire, more is being paid out in benefits than is coming in. I always ask students whether or not they expect to receive Social Security benefits upon retirement. Three years ago, one or two students would answer in the affirmative. Now, no one does. In calling for Social Security to be on the table, my sole motivation is to protect all those in or near retirement and to ensure that the Social Security program remains strong for future generations. The Ryan budget is lacking here. Second, the Ryan plan, I believe, unfairly targets the federal workforce. I believe that federal employees know that spending must be reduced to ensure that our country's financial future remains strong, and I believe that public servants would be the first in line to make the sacrifices needed. But the massive budget situation we face, I believe, calls for shared sacrifice that does not single out any one area of the federal budget. I regret that the Ryan proposal seeks to make government service an unattractive career choice by freezing pay levels, which the President has already frozen for two years, for an additional three years; by imposing drastic hiring restrictions, and by changing retirement plans. Unlike their counterparts in state government, federal employees pay Social Security taxes and contribute to their pensions. The Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund is not facing insolvency. Federal employees are on the front lines working to ensure that our government is running as efficiently and effectively as possible to provide the services taxpayers expect. We must be careful in budget plans that we first do no harm in our vital efforts to attract, recruit and retain the best and brightest for public service. Day in and day out, federal employees make our nation a safer and better place. The FBI agent working to find a kidnapped child, the DEA agent keeping drugs out of schools, the DOJ attorney prosecuting a child molester, other law enforcement and intelligence agents risking their lives every day on the front lines side by side with our armed forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other fronts in the Global War on Terror--all are federal employees. The first American killed in Afghanistan, Mike Spann, was a CIA agent and a constituent from my congressional district. Imagine how a CIA employee or an FBI agent working side by side in Afghanistan with the U.S. military would feel knowing that his or her pay would be frozen for five years. A year ago January, I attended funerals for some of the seven CIA agents who were killed by a Taliban suicide bomber at Forward Operative Base Chapman near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. The Washington Post has reported on ``the post 9/11 brain drain at the CIA.'' The Border Patrol agent shot and killed in Arizona this past December who was working to stop the flow of illegal immigrants across our southern border, the Immigration and Custom Enforcement agent who was killed and the two who were shot this past February outside of Mexico City, doctors who tend to our veterans and wounded warriors in veterans hospitals and who are developing new prosthetic devices to help them recover, medical researchers at NIH working to develop cures for cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, and autism--all are dedicated federal employees who I'm sure could find more lucrative jobs in the private sector, but who are committed to public service. Dr. Francis Collins, the physician who mapped the human genome and serves as director of the National Institutes of Health, is a federal employee. The National Weather Service meteorologist who tracks hurricanes, the SBA staffer who helps a new business start up, the FDA inspector working to stop a salmonella outbreak--all are federal employees. As we consider ways to find budget savings, it is important to remember the jobs federal employees perform. The third area in which I believe the Ryan budget could be improved is providing for the needs of the most vulnerable in our society. As the Congress deals with the budget, we must always do it in a way that does not neglect the needs of the poor. Scripture (Proverbs 19:17) tells us, ``He who is kind to the poor lends to the Lord.'' And in the New Testament Jesus talks a lot about the poor. In Matthew 25 he says that if we ignore the poor and hungry it is the same as ignoring him. Are we giving false hope to the neediest of our society by refusing to acknowledge that society's safety nets have such gaping holes in their finances that they will collapse within 20 years? We must carefully consider proposals that impact the most vulnerable. The budget before us assumes that program cuts can be absorbed by projecting that unemployment levels will drop to an unheard of 2.8 percent in 10 years. This would be the lowest levels since 1953. I believe this is unrealistic when considering the unemployment rate has historically been 5 percent. The fourth area of concern with the Ryan budget is its lack of a reform plan to make the tax code fairer and simpler. This budget takes some steps forward, but it could be improved by forcefully calling for a closer examination of tax expenditures, as was detailed by the Bowles-Simpson Commission. Our colleagues across the Capitol may have the comprehensive Bowles- Simpson plan as a budget choice, and I applaud the efforts of six senators who are working across the aisle to translate this proposal into legislative text. I wholeheartedly support the work of Saxby Chambliss, Republican of Georgia; Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia; Mike Crapo, Republican of Idaho; Richard Durbin, Democrat of Illinois; Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, and Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota. It is disappointing that some have attacked these senators for daring to engage in a discussion putting everything on the table. Regretfully, this seems to be a tried and true technique whenever an attempt to reform the tax code is made. Senator Tom Coburn is an honest, ethical, decent, member of Congress with whom I served when he was in the House. One of our nation's leading conservative budget hawks, who may have as good, if not a better record than most members of the House and Senate on tax policy, he is currently leading an effort to eliminate one of the more recognizable tax expenditures, the credit given to the producers of ethanol. This is a tax credit that many, such as the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, think should be eliminated. Ethanol, through tax credits, tariffs, and friendly regulations, is one of the most subsidized industries in the United States. The government has created a perverse policy in which farmers are incentivized to grow corn to produce a ``dirty fuel.'' Food prices rise because this domestic crop does not enter our food supply. Yet Americans for Tax Reform, led by Grover Norquist, has been engaging in bullying tactics designed to stop Senator Coburn's effort and exert undue influence on this process. This is the same Grover Norquist who, according to Senate Report 109-325, ``Gimmie Five--An Investigation of Tribal Lobbying Matters, allowed disgraced and convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff to use ATR as a conduit to finance grassroots lobbying campaigns. When this occurred, ATR kept a cut for itself. Watch the documentary Casino Jack It's all there. We will never be able to reform the tax code if any attempt to eliminate a tax expenditure--spending through the tax code--is equated to a tax increase. Senator Coburn has called out ATR and Mr. Norquist, pointing out that by this logic, ``reducing provisions in the code such as the Earned Income Tax Credit would constitute a violation of your pledge [to oppose tax increases] unless it was `offset' by another so- called `tax cut,' such as an expansion of the ethanol subsidy. That is hardly sound conservative economics.'' On March 24, the New York Times reported that General Electric, which posted a profit of $14.2 billion, of which $5.1 billion came from operations within the United States, did not pay any taxes to the federal government. Not only did they owe nothing to the federal government, they claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion. Many provisions used by their accountants were initially designed as short-term tax breaks to spur economic growth. But as frequently happens, such as with the ethanol subsidy, once a tax cut is enacted, it is nearly impossible to eliminate. If this is not an example of the need to fully reexamine our tax code, I don't know what is. That's why everything in our budget discussion must be on the table. There is never a convenient time to make hard decisions, but the longer we put off fixing the problem, the worse the medicine will be and greater the number of Americans will be hurt. America is living on borrowed dollars and borrowed time. As a nation we are moving closer and closer to the edge of the financial cliff. A few steps forward and we will start a free fall into a canyon of debt which could be the economic death of America as we know it. Is that what we want for our children and grandchildren? Have we lost the national will to make tough decisions that may require sacrifice? Have we lost the political courage to reject the partisan and special interest demands and do what is right for our country? This is an American issue; not a Republican issue or a Democrat issue. I will continue to work to try to achieve balance in our budget plan. Our goal must be a bipartisan document that can pass the House and the Senate. Is the Ryan plan perfect? No. But it at least recognizes the road that we must take. How we get there is the conversation we must continue to have because the financial future for our children and grandchildren is at stake. I urge my colleagues to heed the wisdom of the father of our country at his farewell address in 1796. President George Washington admonished his fellow countrymen: ``We should avoid ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden of which we ourselves ought to bear.''

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. I want to begin by acknowledging and thanking the Speaker and his staff--I think John Boehner has done an incredible job--and also Mr. Rogers and the appropriations staff on both sides of the aisle for their good work. This has never really been done before. I rise in very strong support of the bill that provides the appropriations for the Defense Department and other agencies. The bill before the House is the long-overdue conclusion to the fiscal year 2011 appropriations process which the previous Congress had failed to really address. The new Congress has crafted a package of thoughtful and necessary reductions to discretionary spending which will put the country back on a path of fiscal responsibility. The bill includes a total of $53.4 billion under the jurisdiction of the Commerce, Justice, Science Subcommittee, a reduction of $11 billion, or 17 percent, from fiscal year 2010 and a reduction of $7 billion, or 12 percent, from the President's request. At the same time, the bill preserves strong funding levels for critical national priorities, such as FBI national security programs and the basic scientific research supported by the National Science Foundation, NIST and others. Also, the bill includes the funding and language needed to allow NASA to move forward with the new space exploration programs that were outlined in the authorization bill. This takes care of NASA, and Members on both sides asked for it with regard to that. There's also, I will let Members know, language prohibiting NASA and the Office of Science and Technology in the White House from participating in bilateral cooperation with China. The Chinese regime is engaged in an aggressive espionage program to steal sensitive technologies from the Federal Government and American companies. Every day, they engage in cyberattacks against sometimes almost all of the agencies, but also the Defense Department and Congress included. This bill contains the tough but responsible decisions on discretionary spending that are necessary. It's easy to condemn and complain, but this is a good bill, and I urge all Members to support it.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of my colleagues legislation I am introducing to create an Afghanistan- Pakistan Study Group, APSG, modeled after the Iraq Study Group, ISG, to bring ``fresh eyes'' to the war effort in Afghanistan which is now in its 10 year. Last August, I began pressing the administration to convene an Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group. I submit a copy of my initial letter to the President. In the letter, I outlined the genesis of the Iraq Study Group, ISG-- an idea which was born in 2005 after my third visit to Iraq, during which I witnessed firsthand the deteriorating security situation. While reticent at first, to their credit President Bush, Secretary of State 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. It has been my hope that the Obama administration would come to view this bipartisan ``fresh eyes'' approach as something which is ultimately good for our men and women in uniform and good for the country as a whole. Aside from the specific policy recommendations of the ISG, the formation of the group and the issuance of the report helped force a moment of truth in our national conversation about the war effort. It was apparent last summer, and it is truer still today, that with roughly 100,000 U.S. troops presently in Afghanistan, no clear end in sight to our nation's longest running war at 10 years and counting, and public support for the war at an all-time low, a national conversation about Afghanistan is what is in fact urgently needed. Before proposing this idea to the Obama administration I spoke with a number of knowledgeable individuals including former senior diplomats, public policy experts and retired and active military. Many believed our Afghanistan policy was adrift, and there was near unanimity that an Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group was needed. Among those distinguished individuals who embraced the idea was former Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker. I also sought input from senior foreign policy experts, among them former U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Ronald Neumann, who now serves as president of the American Academy of Diplomacy, regarding the implications of failure in Afghanistan. I submit for the record Ambassador Neumann's letter which lays out in sobering detail all that is at stake in that country. I also submit for the record a letter I received last year from a constituent who is the mother of six children, all of whom are currently serving or have served in the U.S. military. She wrote of being troubled by ``how distant this war is for so many Americans'' and she offered her wholehearted support for ``the formation of an Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group in the hope that it will turn the tide of this war . . .'' I shared this constituent correspondence, too, with the administration last September and again urged them to take action. The war has remained distant for many Americans. It is rarely spoken of from the presidential bully pulpit. In fact a recent Fox News piece reported that ``The last time Obama specifically devoted a full public speech to Afghanistan was December 9, 2009, 16 months ago, when he announced at West Point that he was sending an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to that war-torn country.'' Further, the war is seldom covered in great depth in the news. And yet for the husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters who have sent off a loved one in uniform, the war in Afghanistan is anything but distant. It is uncertainty and sacrifice, it is separation and worry, it is life and death. Despite my several letters to the President and other senior administration officials calling for a ``vigorous, thoughtful and principled debate and discussion among some of our nation's greatest minds,'' the idea for a study group has languished. And so today I am introducing legislation to create an Afghanistan- Pakistan Study Group, comprised of nationally known and respected individuals who love their country more than their political party, and who would, I believe, serve to provide much-needed clarity to a policy that appears adrift at best and highly politicized at worst. In reading Obama's Wars, I was deeply troubled by Bob Woodward's reporting which indicated that discussions of the war strategy were infused with political calculations. Woodward also wrote of an administration that ``wrestled with the most basic questions about the war . . . What is the mission? What are we trying to do? What will work?'' These are questions that demand answers. I believe that Americans of all political viewpoints can embrace this ``fresh eyes'' approach--for it is always in our national interest to openly assess the challenges before us and to chart a clear course to success. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, August 4, 2010. Hon. Barack H. Obama, The President, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: On September 14, 2001, following the catastrophic and deliberate terrorist attack on our country, I voted to go to war in Afghanistan. I stand by that decision and have the utmost confidence in General Petraeus's proven leadership. I also remain unequivocally committed to the success of our mission there and to the more than 100,000 American troops sacrificing toward that end. In fact, it is this commitment which has led me to write to you. While I have been a consistent supporter of the war effort in both Afghanistan and Iraq, I believe that with this support comes a responsibility. This was true during a Republican administration in the midst of the wars, and it remains true today. In 2005, I returned from my third trip to Iraq where I saw firsthand the deteriorating security situation. I was deeply concerned that Congress was failing to exercise the necessary oversight of the war effort. Against this backdrop I authored the legislation that created the Iraq Study Group (ISO). 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 ISO and, in fact, served on the panel. Vice President Biden, too, then serving in the Senate, was supportive and saw it as a means to unite the Congress at a critical time. A number of the ISG's recommendations and ideas were adopted. Retired General Jack Keane, senior military adviser to the ISG, was a lead proponent of ``the surge,'' and the ISG referenced the possibility on page 73. Aside from the specific policy recommendations of the panel, the ISG helped force a moment of truth in our national conversation about the war effort. I believe our nation is again facing such a moment in the Afghanistan war effort, and that a similar model is needed. In recent days I have spoken with a number of knowledgeable individuals including former senior diplomats, public policy experts and retired and active military. Many believe our Afghanistan policy is adrift, and all agreed that there is an urgent need for what I call an Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group (APSG). We must examine our efforts in the region holistically, given Pakistan's strategic significance to our efforts in Afghanistan and the Taliban's presence in that country as well, especially in the border areas. This likely will not come as a surprise to you as commander in chief. You are well acquainted with the sobering statistics of the past several weeks--notably that July surpassed June as the deadliest month for U.S. troops. There is a palpable shift in the nation's mood and in the halls of Congress. A July 2010 CBS news poll found that 62 percent of Americans say the war is going badly in Afghanistan, up from 49 percent in May. Further, last week, 102 Democrats voted against the war spending bill, which is 70 more than last year, and they were joined by 12 members of my own party. Senator Lindsay Graham, speaking last Sunday on CNN's ``State of the Union,'' candidly expressed concern about an ``unholy alliance'' emerging of anti-war Democrats and Republicans. I have heard it said that Vietnam was not lost in Saigon; rather, it was lost in Washington. While the Vietnam and Afghanistan parallels are imperfect at best, the shadow of history looms large. Eroding political will has consequences--and in the case of Afghanistan, the stakes could not be higher. A year ago, speaking before the Veterans of Foreign War National Convention, you rightly said, ``Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting . . . this is fundamental to the defense of our people.'' Indeed it is fundamental. We must soberly consider the implications of failure in Afghanistan. Those that we know for certain are chilling--namely an emboldened al-Qaeda, a reconstituted Taliban with an open staging ground for future worldwide attacks, and a destabilized, nuclear-armed Pakistan. Given these realities and wavering public and political support, I urge you to act immediately, through executive order, to convene an Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group modeled after the Iraq Study Group. The participation of nationally known and respected individuals is of paramount importance. Among the names that surfaced in my discussions with others, all of whom more than meet the criteria described above, are ISG co-chairs Baker and Hamilton; former Senators Chuck Robb, Bob Kerrey and Sam Nunn; former Congressman Duncan Hunter; former U.S. ambassador Ryan Crocker; former Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger, and General Keane. These names are simply suggestions among a cadre of capable men and women, as evidenced by the make-up of the ISG, who would be more than up to the task. I firmly believe that an Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group could reinvigorate national confidence in how America can be successful and move toward a shared mission in Afghanistan. This is a crucial task. On the Sunday morning news shows this past weekend, it was unsettling to hear conflicting statements from within the leadership of the administration that revealed a lack of clarity about the end game in Afghanistan. How much more so is this true for the rest of the country? An APSG is necessary for precisely that reason. We are nine years into our nation's longest running war and the American people and their elected representatives do not have a clear sense of what we are aiming to achieve, why it is necessary and how far we are from attaining that goal. Further, an APSG could strengthen many of our NATO allies in Afghanistan who are also facing dwindling public support, as evidenced by the recent Dutch troop withdrawal, and would give them a tangible vision to which to commit. Just as was true at the time of the Iraq Study Group, I believe that Americans of all political viewpoints, liberals and conservatives alike, and varied opinions on the war will embrace this ``fresh eyes'' approach. Like the previous administration's support of the Iraq Study Group, which involved taking the group's members to Iraq and providing high-level access to policy and decision makers, I urge you to embrace an Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group. It is always in our national interest to openly assess the challenges before us and to chart a clear course to success. As you know, the full Congress comes back in session in mid-September--days after Americans around the country will once again pause and remember that horrific morning nine years ago when passenger airlines became weapons, when the skyline of one of America's greatest cities was forever changed, when a symbol of America's military might was left with a gaping hole. The experts with whom I have spoken in recent days believe that time is of the essence in moving forward with a study panel, and waiting for Congress to reconvene is too long to wait. As such, I am hopeful you will use an executive order and the power of the bully pulpit to convene this group in short order, and explain to the American people why it is both necessary and timely. Should you choose not to take this path, respectfully, I intend to offer an amendment by whatever vehicle necessary to mandate the group's creation at the earliest possible opportunity. The ISG's report opened with a letter from the co-chairs that read, ``There is no magic formula to solve the problems of Iraq. However, there are actions that can be taken to improve the situation and protect American interests.'' The same can be said of Afghanistan. I understand that you are a great admirer of Abraham Lincoln. He, too, governed during a time of war, albeit a war that pitted brother against brother, and father against son. In the midst of that epic struggle, he relied on a cabinet with strong, often times opposing viewpoints. Historians assert this served to develop his thinking on complex matters. Similarly, while total agreement may not emerge from a study group for Afghanistan and Pakistan, I believe that vigorous, thoughtful and principled debate and discussion among some of our nation's greatest minds on these matters will only serve the national interest. The biblical admonition that iron sharpens iron rings true. Best wishes. Sincerely, Frank R. Wolf, Member of Congress. P.S. We as a nation must be successful in Afghanistan. We owe this to our men and women in the military serving in harm's way and to the American people.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of the House legislation I am introducing to create an Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group, modeled after the Iraq Study Group, to bring fresh eyes to the war effort in Afghanistan, which is now in its 10th year. Last August, I began pressing the administration to convene an Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group. While reticent at first, to their credit President Bush, Secretary of State Rice, and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld came to support the Iraq Study Group, ably led by bipartisan chairs, former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton. It has been my hope that the Obama administration would come to view this bipartisan fresh eyes approach as something which is ultimately good for our men and women in uniform and good for the country as a whole. Aside from the specific policy recommendations, the Iraq Study Group helped force a moment of truth in our national conversation about the war effort. It was apparent last summer and is still truer today that with roughly 100,000 U.S. troops presently in Afghanistan, no clear end is in sight to our Nation's longest running war, at 10 years and counting. Public support for the war is at an all-time low. A national conversation about Afghanistan is what is urgently needed. Before proposing this idea to the Obama administration, I spoke with a number of knowledgeable individuals, including former senior diplomats, public policy experts, and retired and active duty military. Many believed, all believed our Afghanistan policy was adrift. And there was a near unanimous position that an Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group was needed. Among the distinguished individuals who embraced the idea was former ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker. Sadly, the war has remained distant for many Americans. It is rarely spoken of from the Presidential bully pulpit. In fact, a recent Fox News piece reported, ``The last time Obama specifically devoted a full public speech to Afghanistan was December 9, 2009, 16 months ago, when he announced at West Point that he was sending an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to that war-torn country.'' And this Congress ought to be looking at this also. Further, the war is seldom covered in great depth in the news. And yet, for the husbands and wives, and mothers and fathers, sons and daughters who have sent off a loved one in uniform, the war in Afghanistan is anything but distant. It is uncertainty and sacrifice, it is separation and worry, and many times it is life and death. Despite my several letters to the President and other senior administration officials calling for a, quote, ``vigorous, thoughtful, and principled debate and discussion among some of our Nation's greatest minds,'' the idea for the study group has languished. So today, after the Obama administration has neglected this, I am introducing legislation to create an Afghan-Pakistan Study Group comprised of nationally known and respected individuals who love their country more than they love their political party, and who would, I believe, serve to provide much needed clarity to a policy that appears adrift at best, and highly politicized at worst. In reading ``Obama's Wars,'' I was deeply troubled by Bob Woodward's reporting, which indicated that discussions of the war strategy were infused with political calculations. Woodward also wrote of an administration that wrestled with the most basic questions about the war: What is the mission? What are we trying do? What will work? These are questions that demand answers. I believe that Americans of all political viewpoints can embrace this fresh eyes approach, for it is always to our national interest to openly assess the challenges before us and to chart a clear course to success. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation. This Congress, both political parties, cannot do what this administration is doing. We cannot ignore this issue.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Team B Act to confront the growing challenge of domestic radicalization and homegrown terrorist attacks. I believe that we must take a fresh look at how we can thwart domestic radicalization. I have been concerned about and been following the issue of radical Islamic terrorism for nearly 3 decades. I visited the Marine barracks in Lebanon following the 1983 bombing that killed 241 American servicemen. I closely followed the issue of terrorism with the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 and throughout the 1990s with the deadly attacks against our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, where yet another of my constituents was killed. As a result, in 1998 I authored legislation creating the National Commission on Terrorism, also known as the Bremer Commission, and highlighted the threat from Osama bin Laden in my introductory remarks--years before many in our government fully understood the danger he posed. I was the chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee that funds the FBI and Justice Department on September 11, 2001, and I worked closely with Director Mueller and his leadership team from 2002 to 2006 to transform its mission to deal with the terrorist threat. I am now again chairman of that subcommittee and receive regular briefings on terrorism and the new and growing threat posed by domestic radicalization and frequently visit the National Counterterrorism Center, which is located in my district. According to the Congressional Research Service, there have been 43 ``homegrown jihadist terrorist plots and attacks since 9/11,'' including 22 plots or attacks since May 2009. Director Mueller and the men and women of the FBI should be commended for their exceptional work in intercepting would-be terrorists before their attacks. They work tirelessly to protect our country and their record over the last decade speaks for itself. But despite the FBI's success at disrupting plots under way, the U.S. does not have an effective or coherent policy to prevent domestic radicalization. According to a recent report by respected counterterrorism experts called Assessing the Terrorist Threat: ``The American melting pot'' has not provided a firewall against the radicalization and recruitment of American citizens and residents, though it has arguably lulled us into a sense of complacency that homegrown terrorism couldn't happen in the United States . . . By not taking more urgently and seriously the radicalization and recruitment that was actually occurring in the U.S., authorities failed to comprehend that this was not an isolated phenomenon . . . Rather, it indicated the possibility that even an embryonic terrorist radicalization and recruitment infrastructure had been established in the U.S. homeland. That is why I am introducing this legislation to create a ``Team B'' to bring fresh eyes to U.S. domestic radicalization and counterterrorism strategy. The team would represent a new approach, which focuses not just on connecting the dots of intelligence, but to rethink the nature of threats to stay a step ahead in understanding how to break the radicalization and recruitment cycle that sustains terrorism, how to disrupt the global terrorist network and how to strategically isolate it. During the Ford administration, then-CIA director George H.W. Bush created a ``Team B'' composed of outside experts to reexamine intelligence relating to Soviet capabilities. Their conclusions were markedly different than those reached by agency officials. Many of their assessments were used in the Reagan administration to deal with the Soviets--ultimately leading to the end of the Cold War. Today, our intelligence community and federal law enforcement are so inundated with reports and investigations that they do not have the time or capacity to step back and strategically reevaluate the threat before us. I believe a ``Team B'' would provide a tremendous service to both the agencies and the Congress in making recommendations on how we can disrupt domestic radicalization. For more than a year, I have written numerous letters to the President and members of his national security team urging them to implement this proposal. They have not. As respected Georgetown University professor Dr. Bruce Hoffman wrote for The National Interest in October 2010: The logic behind Congressman Wolf's idea is simple and makes eminent sense. Since both the U.S. intelligence community and our national security and law-enforcement agencies are overwhelmed with data, information and a multiplicity of immediate ``in-box''-driven issues that continually challenge their ability to think both strategically and in terms of a patently evolving, dynamic, multidimensional threat, the red team concept would represent a new approach to counterterrorism that would potentially enable the United States to stay one step ahead of our adversaries' own strategy and tactics. First, it would have a broader remit than the red team exercises currently employed by individual agencies. Congressman Wolf's idea is that this red team would have a strategic counterterrorism mandate and would therefore look at general, global patterns of terrorism rather than the use and effects of individual tactics. Second, it would be composed of nongovernment specialists and experts representing a broad array of different perspectives, backgrounds and opinions--the type of ``glorious amateurs'' described by General Donovan who once populated the OSS but who would now be enlisted in the war on terrorism. Under Congressman Wolf's formulation, these persons would advise and help inform the assessments of both the National Intelligence Council (NIC) and Office of the Director of National Intelligence by providing broad strategic analysis of terrorism trends and patterns and their possible future implications. In this manner, alternative assessments and strategic counterterrorism analysis could be provided to the Intelligence Community that would also help to avoid ``group think.'' Mr. Speaker, for these reasons I believe this legislation would be a constructive step to address the evolving terrorist threat and I urge my colleagues to support it.