Frank Wolf

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to congratulate my constituent, Brigitte Lavey, a teacher at Langley High School, as the Fairfax County ``Teacher of the Year.'' She has demonstrated extraordinary leadership and character that has benefited many students. Additionally Brigitte, who teaches advanced placement world history, world studies, and geography, also was recently honored by The Washington Post with the Agnes Meyer Outstanding Teacher Award for educational excellence. This award is presented annually to a teacher from each school division in the Washington metropolitan area. Brigitte was hired by Fairfax County Public Schools in 1968 to teach English and history at Frost Middle School. She moved to Langley High School in 1975, where she has taught English, history, and art history. She earned bachelor's degrees in English and history from St. Louis University. Brigitte runs a student-centered classroom. On any given day, students might run a Socratic seminar, give a presentation, run a student-led discussion, or participate in a writing workshop. She implores students to see the significances of history on their own, modern lives; to compare their contemporary world with the times they study, and to use the knowledge they gain to carry our culture and country forward. As the sponsor of the History Honor Society, she continues the learning process by having members adopt a human rights issue and learn how history affects life today. She is usually first in line to volunteer for training to learn new technology and software. She also organizes an annual gift certificate for Langley custodians and food service employees and dedicates time outside classes to help students who may be struggling and she can frequently be found spending one-on-one time with students in the afternoons and on Saturdays. Her sense of humor, a commitment to scholarship, learning, empathy, flexibility, and an ability to bring her infectious passion into the classroom are what makes Brigitte Lavey such a dedicated teacher. She has also received Langley's DeBusk Award and Human Relations Award and Fairfax County's History Teacher of the Year award. She was named a Fulbright Scholar for China and has twice been a National Endowment for the Humanities fellow. Madam Speaker, I congratulate Brigitte Lavey for her dedication to her students and wish her continued success as she mentors and teaches our next generations.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of my colleagues to the following letter I sent to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton asking that the Millennium Challenge Corporation compact with Morocco be suspended in light of Morocco's deportation of Americans and other foreign nationals without due process. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, May 19, 2010. Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State, Washington DC. Dear Secretary Clinton: I write today to express my grave concern regarding the recent deportation of approximately 40 American citizens from Morocco without due process, which I believe calls into question the continuance of Morocco's Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) funding. In September 2008, the clock started for the official five- year period for project implementation under the MCC Compact with Morocco. The United States has pledged $697.5 million in assistance to the Kingdom of Morocco through this Compact. As a precondition to receiving MCC funds, the government of Morocco was evaluated on 17 key indicators of eligibility, six of which fall under the category of ``ruling justly.'' I submit, however, that these recent events raise valid questions regarding the Moroccan government's willingness to abide by the principles outlined in the MCC indicators. In early March, the Moroccan government deported approximately 40 U.S. citizens and scores of other foreign nationals for allegedly proselytizing, which is against Moroccan law. However, authorities presented no evidence or explanation of the proselytizing allegations. Among the individuals who were deported or denied reentry were businessmen, educators, and humanitarian and social workers. Many of these individuals have resided in Morocco for over a decade in full compliance with Moroccan law. Additionally, those deported were forced to leave the country within two hours of being questioned by authorities, leaving all their belongings behind. The manner in which these expulsions were carried out and the Moroccan government's refusal to grant those affected with a hearing flies in the face of the principles of due process. Furthermore, the manner in which authorities expelled these individuals violates not only the general principles of international law but Moroccan law, as well. The mandate of the MCC is based on the assumption that ``aid is most effective when it reinforces good governance.'' Rather than making strides toward accountable and democratic governance since receiving the MCC grant, Morocco has regressed. Freedom House's annual Freedom in the World Report noted backsliding in Morocco ``due to the increased concentration of power in the hands of political elites aligned with the monarchy'' over the course of the last year. At a time when the United States owes more in debts and commitments than the total combined net worth of all Americans, it is unacceptable to provide $697.5 million in taxpayer dollars to a nation which blatantly disregards the rights of American citizens residing in Morocco and forcibly expels American citizens without due process of law. The decision to suspend a MCC Compact due to a significant deterioration in good governance is not unprecedented. At my urging, the Board chose to suspend the MCC Compact with Nicaragua due to the violence and blatant thuggery exhibited by the regime of President Daniel Ortega surrounding the November 2008 elections. The United States must send a message to the Moroccan government that it is unacceptable to expel American citizens without due process under the law. I ask that you withhold Morocco's MCC funding until the government of Morocco demonstrates that it is willing to follow its own laws thus ensure that those expelled receive a fair trial and work toward a mutually acceptable solution to this matter. Thank you for your attention to this matter and I look forward to your prompt response. Sincerely, Frank R. Wolf, Member of Congress.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I want to share the following letter that I have sent to President Obama urging him to implement several bipartisan proposals that would strengthen our national security. These proposals include bringing back the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission for a 6- month period to review the implementation of the commission's recommendations and creating a ``Team B'' of experts outside of government to review our counterterrorism strategy. In light of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's report of the 14 ``points of failure'' with regard to the attempted Christmas Day bombing, it is disappointing that the administration has not adopted these proposals that would make our country safer. House of Representatives, Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, May 19, 2010. Hon. Barack H. Obama, The President, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: Yesterday, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) released an unclassified summary of its report on the attempted terrorist attack on Christmas Day. In reviewing the report's conclusions, including the 14 specific ``points of failure'' in U.S. intelligence prior to the attack, it occurred to me that many of these ``points of failure'' could have been prevented through greater outside review of our national counterterrorism operations and strategy. As you know, over the last five months I have repeatedly urged your administration to adopt four bipartisan proposals that would strengthen our national security. These ideas include bringing back the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission for a six-month review, making the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) administrator a set 10-year term to bring greater stability and expertise to the agency, collocating the new High Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG) at the National Counterterrorism Center, and creating a ``Team B'' of outside counterterrorism experts to review and challenge our strategy and assumptions across the intelligence community. In reviewing the 14 ``points of failure'' identified in the SSCI report, I believe many of the operational missteps could have been prevented if the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission-- former Rep. Lee Hamilton and former Gov. Thomas Kean--had been able to conduct a 6-month review of the implementation of the commission's original recommendations. Specifically, I believe that points 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13, listed in the enclosed report could have been mitigated by a follow-up review of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. Additionally, I believe that points 7 and 14, ``Intelligence Analysts Were Primarily Focused on Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) Threats to U.S. Interests in Yemen, Rather than on Potential AQAP Threats to the U.S. Homeland,'' could have been mitigated if a ``Team B'' of outside experts had been able to challenge institutionalized assumptions throughout the intelligence community. The team would represent a ``new approach to counterterrorism'' which focuses not just on connecting the dots of intelligence, but which seeks to stay a step ahead in understanding how to break the radicalization and recruitment cycle that sustains our enemy, how to disrupt their network globally and how to strategically isolate them. Last month, I wrote you to share a recent article from respected Georgetown University professor Bruce Hoffman, who endorses the ``Team B'' approach. He said, ``One important yet currently languishing congressional initiative that would help counter this strategy is Representative Frank Wolf's proposal to institutionalize a `red team' or `Team B' counterterrorist capability as an essential element of our efforts to combat terrorism and in the war against al- Qaeda.'' I believe that, in light of the SSCI report, such an approach is needed now more than ever. Although we now have the benefit of hindsight, it is critical that we take the lessons from the failed attack and implement measures to further review our counterterrorism processes and strategy. It is inexcusable that we would not draw on these valuable outside experts' wisdom to strengthen our homeland and ensure that these mistakes are not repeated. Best wishes. Sincerely, Frank R. Wolf, Member of Congress.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of my colleagues the precarious situation of Christians and other religious minorities in Morocco. In March, Moroccan authorities deported approximately 40 U.S. citizens and scores of our foreign nationals. The individuals deported were charged with proselytism, which is against the law in Morocco. However, Moroccan authorities have refused to turn over any evidence or offer any explanation of the charges. Among the individuals who were deported or denied reentry were businessmen, educators, humanitarian and social workers, many of whom had resided in Morocco for over a decade in full compliance with the law. Those deported were reportedly forced to leave the country within 2 hours of being questioned by authorities, leaving all of their belongings behind. As a result, a number of organizations which were run by foreign nationals and provided vital community services have been shuttered. One organization which has been adversely affected is the Village of Hope orphanage in Morocco's Atlas Mountains. Time Magazine reported that: ``The Village of Hope deportations are part of what appears to be a widespread crackdown on Christian workers in Morocco.'' A New Zealand native and staff of the orphanage, Chris Broadbent, told Time that ``most of the couples were there as foster parents and had raised these children since infancy.'' Colorado couple Eddie and Lynn Padilla were amongst those expelled from the Village of Hope, forced to leave their two Moroccan sons behind. Mr. Padilla told 9 News Colorado that his 2-year-old son, Samir, ``didn't understand what was happening but knew it wasn't good.'' He went on to describe the heart-wrenching story of their sudden separation and how Samir jumped into his father's arms and cried, ``I want to go with you, Daddy.'' The harsh nature of these expulsions call into question the longstanding friendship and mutual cooperation between the United States and Morocco dating back to the letter the Sultan of Morocco sent to George Washington at Valley Forge declaring that American vessels were permitted to enter Moroccan ports to ``take refreshments and enjoy in them the same privileges and immunities as those of the other nations.'' This letter signified the first official recognition of our fledgling Nation. I have worked with Moroccan and U.S. officials over the last 2 months in an attempt to find a satisfactory solution to this matter. Unfortunately, the Moroccan Government seems to be unwilling to compromise, as evidenced by a recent letter I received from a representative of the King. Earlier this week, 10 additional foreign nationals were asked to leave the country. It is our responsibility to speak out on behalf of human rights abuses which have been perpetrated by the Moroccan Government. President Reagan modeled this approach by consistently speaking out on behalf of the persecuted and tirelessly defending human rights and religious freedom. Today I sent Secretary of State Clinton a letter asking her to issue a travel advisory for Morocco so all U.S. citizens are aware of the potential risks. Additionally, the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, which I cochair, will hold a hearing on June 17 to further explore the issues of human rights and religious freedom in Morocco. I call on the Government of Morocco again to uphold its commitment to the principles of religious tolerance and freedom that for so long made it a model of tolerance and modernity in the Arab world. Again, I call on our Embassy, and I think our ambassador should be speaking out, the State Department should be speaking out, and the White House should be speaking out to raise this issue with Moroccan authorities at the highest levels in defending the rights and interests of these American citizens whose lives have been shattered by these events. [From Time, Mar. 21, 2010] In Morocco, a Crackdown on Christian Aid Workers (By Lisa Abend) March 8 is not a day that Chris Broadbent will soon forget. The preceding weekend, gendarmes entered the Village of Hope, a Christian-run orphanage in Morocco's Atlas Mountains where Broadbent, a New Zealand native, worked as a human resources manager, and began questioning children and staff. At first, he and the other foreign workers were assured that the interrogation was routine. But as it dragged on, the questions turned to subjects like `How do you pray?' and the police began searching homes on the compound for children's Bibles. On Monday morning, after being held in a separate room from the orphanage's 33 children, Broadbent and his 15 colleagues were summarily deported from Morocco, accused of illegally proselytizing for their faith. ``Most of the couples were there as foster parents and had raised these children since infancy,'' Broadbent says. ``When they were told that their parents had to leave, it was chaos--the kids were running after any adult they could find, and just holding on. It was the most devastating thing I've ever seen.'' The Village of Hope deportations are part of what appears to be a widespread crackdown on Christian aid workers in Morocco. An estimated 40 foreigners--including Dutch, British, American and Korean citizens--have been deported this month, including Broadbent and his colleagues. Among them were an Egyptian Catholic priest in the northern city of Larache and a Korean-born Protestant pastor in Marrakesh who was arrested as he led services in his church. And this past week, authorities searched an orphanage founded by American missionaries in the town of Azrou called The Children's Haven. Salim Sefiane, a Moroccan who was raised at the orphanage and is still in touch with workers there, said the officials interrogated the orphanage staff and asked children as young as 8 years old to demonstrate how they pray. No action has been taken yet against the orphanage's workers, Sefiane said. The large-scale deportations came as a surprise in a nation that is among the most liberal of Muslim countries. Although trying to convert Muslims to other faiths is illegal, Morocco tolerates the presence of other religions and is home to a number of churches and synagogues. ``There are several things about this that are really striking,'' says Spanish journalist Ignacio Cembrero, who has written several books about the country. ``There have been occasional deportations of people accused of proselytizing before, but never so many at once, and they've never expelled a Catholic before. And for the police to enter a church on Sunday, during services, to arrest people? Absolutely unprecedented.'' According to the Moroccan government, the deportees all broke the law, using their status as aid workers to cover their proselytizing. ``They are guilty of trying to undermine the faith of Muslims,'' Interior Minister Tayeb Cherkaoui said in a press release. But were they? Broadbent denies the charges. Part of his job at the Village of Hope was to ensure that staff members understood the rules prohibiting proselytizing, and he notes that all the orphanage's children received instruction in Islam. ``We weren't teaching Christianity in any formal way,'' he says. But asked if reading the Bible to Muslim children constitutes proselytizing, he said, ``We understood that it wasn't. And in any case, the authorities have always known that these children were being raised in Christian families.'' In fact, Village of Hope had been operating for 10 years and had received ``institutional'' status from the Moroccan government this year--a designation meaning it meets government standards. Many of the other deported Christians had also been in Morocco for extended periods of time. So why were they evicted now? Christopher Martin, a pastor since 2004 at the Casablanca International Protestant Church, says he's talked to three different people with connections ``high up in the Moroccan government'' and heard three different explanations for the action. But one common thread, he points out, is that the officials leading the crackdown--the Justice and Interior ministers--were both appointed in January. That suggests to many Christians in Morocco that the officials were eager to quickly make a mark on the political landscape with an initiative likely to have broad popular support. Although the Moroccan government has in recent years dramatically reformed its family law to better protect the rights of women and has even sponsored programs to train women as Muslim preachers, it has also proven responsive to an increasingly religious public. In recent years, alcohol licenses have become much more difficult to obtain, and last September, for the first time, police in various cities arrested Moroccans who were eating in public during the fast period of Ramadan. The action prompted a formal complaint from the international organization Human Rights Watch. Aaron Schwoebel, the information officer at the U.S. embassy in Rabat, says that the Moroccan government has told the embassy there will be more deportations, including other Americans. He said the government did not indicate when. ``We urge the Moroccan government to act in accordance with its highest traditions of tolerance,'' Schwoebel says, ``and respect the human rights of the members of these religious minority communities, including those of our own citizens.'' Now living in Spain after the gendarmes escorted him and his family to a departing ferry in Tangier, Broadbent hopes for the same thing. The last he heard, the Village of Hope children were still living at the orphanage, but he suspects they may soon be sent to other homes. ``We'd like to open a dialogue that would lead to reuniting these families,'' he says. But in the meantime, he can only wonder about the meaning of it all. ``Is this an isolated incident?'' he asks. ``Or is Morocco steering away from its tolerant past?''

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I want to share the following letters that I have sent to President Obama, National Security Advisor General Jones, FBI Director Mueller, and CIA Director Panetta last week urging the implementation four bipartisan proposals to strengthen our national security. Following the failed attack on Times Square in New York City, it is more important than ever that we implement these proposals that would make our country safer. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, May 5, 2010. Hon. Barack H. Obama, The President, The White House, Washington DC. Dear Mr. President: In light of the attempted terrorist bombing in Times Square in New York City, I urge you again to implement four bipartisan steps that would help make our country safer. If we fail to learn the lessons of the attempted attacks on Christmas Day and Times Square, we will continue to repeat the same mistakes that compromised our preparation for and response to these two incidents. The latest attack underscores the need for the rapid adoption of bipartisan solutions that strengthen our national security. As you know, I have repeatedly urged the administration to bring back the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission--Lee Hamilton and Thomas Kean--for a six-month review of the progress that has been made in implementing the commission's recommendations. To date, I have seen no effort by the administration on this front. I have spoken with Lee Hamilton and he believes this is a good idea. In fact, Mr. Hamilton underscored the need for this when he told ABC News yesterday that, ``the 9/11 commission recommended that you had to have biometric evidence, documentarian evidence of people coming in and exiting [the country.] We've done a pretty good job on the first part of it people entering the country. But with regard to those exiting the country we simply have not been able to set up a system to deal with that and it showed in this case.'' Given our failure to prevent both alleged terrorists-- Faisal Shahzad and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab--from boarding their flights, it is critically important that our transportation security structure have strong leadership and coordination. In both cases, the alleged terrorists slipped through security despite appearing on the ``no fly'' list. I have repeatedly urged the administration to support legislation to establish a more professional and independent administrator of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), by setting a 10-year term, akin to the appointment process for the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). In fact, I introduced legislation, H.R. 4459, in early January to do this. After two withdrawn nominations, the position remains vacant and the administration continues to oppose efforts to professionalize this position. In the wake of the attempted Christmas Day bombing, there were many serious questions regarding the administration's deployment of the new High Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG). Five months later, these same questions surround the administration's response to the Times Square attack. The Washington Post noted in its editorial today, ``Nor has [the administration] said whether its High Value Interrogation Group (HIG)--a group of law enforcement and intelligence experts specially trained for terrorism cases--was up and running and deployed in the Shahzad case.'' I have repeatedly urged the administration to collocate the HIG at the National Counterterrorism Center to facilitate information sharing anc cooperation among intelligence agencies. Again, I have seen no effort by the administration to do so. Perhaps most importantly, I have repeatedly urged the administration to create a ``Team B'' opf outside advisors to bring ``fresh eyes'' to U.S. counterterrorism strategy. The team would represent a ``new approach to counterterrorism'' which focuses not just on connecting the dots of intelligence, but which seeks to stay a step ahead in understanding how to break the radicalization and recruitment cycle that sustains our enemy, how to disrupt their network globally and how to strategically isolate them. This would help us better anticipate the type of threats that occured on Christmas Day and in Times Square. Counterterrorism experts, including respected Georgetown University professor Bruce Hoffman, have publicly endorsed this proposal. They understand the need for a group of outside experts to challenge assumptions across the intelligance community to help us better prepare for future attacks. In liight of the increasing pace in attempted attacks on U.S. soil, I believe this should be implemented as quickly as possible. I cannot understand why the administration continues to refuse to adopt these proposals. In light of the latest attempted attack, I urge your action on these proposals--each of which would receive broad bipartisan support from the American people. Best wishes. Sincerely, Frank R. Wolf, Member of Congress.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I call to the attention of the House the passing on January 25 of Michael Robert Spak, 62, a resident of Leesburg, Virginia, who was the founder and chairman of the nonprofit Loudoun Crime Commission. Mr. Spak enlisted in the United States Marine Corps at age 18 and completed two tours of combat duty in Vietnam from 1966-1969. Following his honorable discharge in 1969, he joined the Los Angeles Police Department, where he served on the Bomb Squad/Criminal Conspiracy Section for several years, becoming an expert on bomb detection, disposal and investigation. In 1974, he joined the Central Intelligence Agency, where he served for 23 years, first as an officer in the CIA's Directorate of Science and Technology and then in the Directorate of Operations. In the context of his work, he traveled the world from the Middle East to Africa and Asia. He also served in multiple long-term overseas assignments in Europe and Latin America. After retiring from government service in 1996, he started his own company, Virtual Defense & Development International, Inc. (VDI), an international consulting and professional services company specializing in matters of defense, law enforcement, security and intelligence, and post-conflict economic development. He served as president and chairman of VDI until the time of his death. He was the founder and chairman of the non-profit Loudoun Crime Commission; he was a founder of the newly-constructed National Museum of the Marine Corps at Quantico, and was active in the Marine Corps Heritage Foundation; and he served in the Loudoun County Marine Corps League Detachment, where he most recently held the position of judge advocate and was involved in its annual Toys for Tots campaign. In addition, he owned and operated Amber Creek Vineyard in Leesburg and was a member of the Loudoun Winegrowers Association. He was a lifelong member of the Masonic Lodge. He held two bachelor's degrees from George Mason University and American University, respectively, and at the time of his death was working towards his master's degree at American University. Mr. Spak was vigilant in his efforts to fight crime and support law enforcement agencies. He is commended for his life of service to his country and his community. Mr. Spak was willing to put his own life at risk for the protection of our country and our communities. Michael Robert Spak was very much appreciated throughout the Marine, Intelligence and law enforcement communities and his energy, ideas and enthusiasm will be greatly missed. Madam Speaker, we extend our sympathies to Mr. Spak's family, including his wife, Kristin Rickard Spak of Leesburg, Virginia; three children, Jessica Lynn White of Ashburn, Brian Thomas Spak of Boulder, CO, and Nicholas Michael Spak, of Boulder, CO; two grandchildren: Kelsey Lynn White and Austin Ray White, both of Ashburn; and a sister Janis Lee Bradley of Carson City, NV.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I would like to share with our colleagues an article which ran last week reporting that Sudan's leader, the internationally indicted war criminal, Bashir, declared martial law inside El-Fasher, Darfur. What's remarkable is the headline: Al-Bashir Executes Martial Law to Silence El Fasher Unity: US and UN Unspoken. Silence in the face of martial law? Once again, I urge this administration to find its voice on Sudan. [From Salem-News.com, May 4, 2010] Al-Bashir Executes Martial Law to Silence El Fasher Unity: US and UN Unspoken (By Alysha Atma) ``I know there are many good, compassionate people in this world, who will listen to us and help us''--Mohammed Yahya (EL FASHER/PORTLAND)--``Martial Law has been declared inside El Fasher, Darfur. We have to stay in our homes; the Police and Government Army are searching house to house looking for people, cell phones, cameras and pictures,'' a source on the ground there tells Salem-News.com. All communications have been severed, ``They are going to cut the network, no email or cell phones. We will not be able to communicate with anyone. We don't know how long this will last.'' The International Superpowers--US Government and China, have all given their silent approval in support of the Genocidal President of Sudan. Omar Al-Bashir is a wanted war criminal who ran, and won the recent, rigged and fraudulent elections. By standing silent the US Government has allowed a continued reign of terror to besiege the people of Sudan. The US government has chosen its path, to stand with the Sudanese President while he targets the people and strips them from their land, families and often their lives. The last several days have seen the tensions and terror increase inside the state of Darfur; bombings, clashes and protests have left many dead, injured or displaced. According to sources on the ground, this was to be expected, with information beginning to leak its way out of Darfur and their voices coming together in unity. The government (GoS) is trouncing hard on the people of El Fasher. Those inside report that the government is not only stopping all communication they are confiscating cell phones, cameras and computers in an effort to ebb the flow of information leaving the state. Sources say to brace for more to happen, there have been too many to count, arrested and beaten. Many of those being taken are the same that stood in strength and protested against the government's horror and deception. 2 May 2010 in El Fasher, also known as Al Fashir The GoS Ponzi scam that was earlier reported not only stole money from the hard working Darfuri's but also allowed the GoS to compile a list of names and addresses. This list is not being used not to repay those that the government owes money, but to target with violence and harassment. Many on this list have already been taken away or arrested; reports Indicate they are being sent to Shalla prison. ``Shalla is a very bad, terrible place''. We previously reported over 300 people were arrested in the two days following the protest. Our source says, ``Over 100 arrested today and still arresting more based on the governor's order this evening.'' Sources indicate this may be a very long lockdown; they cannot leave their homes and the market has been shut down. A majority of people inside El Fasher do not have running water and rely on every day trips to the market to feed their families. ``How are we going to survive if we can't get food and water, we can't last a week? If we leave our homes we are arrested or killed.'' Omar Al-Bashir has been known in the past to use starvation as a weapon of war. The goal and ideology has been consistent within this government; to clear Darfur of its people. ``They can do anything that they want and get away with it, anything beyond your imagination, that is what they can do,'' Reporter Mohammed Yahya said. Oil, gold, copper and uranium are all found in ground of Darfur. Omar Al-Bashir's actions suggest that the Sudanese people are dispensable; wipe out the people and the land is his, this equals money. He has successfully managed to wipe out over 80% of the villages. El Fasher is one of the largest towns in Darfur with a population of over 250,000, how many will survive? The citizens of El Fasher no longer having anything to lose; with no other direction and with many facing death or imprisonment, the U.S. and UN still stand silent. Their hope is for world to hear them and not allow another hundred people to disappear into Shalla prison today and thousands to starve while Al-Bashir smiles for the camera during his re-election photos. Mohammed Yahya said, ``I know there are many good, compassionate people in this world, who will listen to us and help us.''

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, Sudan--genocide--killing. Many of the household names once engaged on Sudan have moved on to the next cause while the refrain ``never again'' echoes faintly, but the desperation in Darfur's camps is still a reality. The CPA which ended Khartoum's brutal 20-year civil war with the south where 2.1 million perished--and where mainly Christians died-- hangs in the balance. Against this backdrop, the administration's policy is languishing. There is an immediate need for renewed, principled leadership on Sudan at the highest levels--leadership which is clear-eyed about the history of the internationally indicted war criminal at the helm in Khartoum. These are the people who gave safe haven to Osama bin Laden from 1991 to 1996. President Obama must empower Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Rice to take control of this faltering policy. Time is running out. Lives hang in the balance. A stalemate policy in Sudan is not an option. President Obama must act.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. ``If President Obama is ever going to find his voice on Sudan, it better be soon.'' These were the closing words 2 weeks ago of columnist Nicholas Kristof. Having first traveled to Sudan in 1989, my interest in this country has spanned the better part of 20 years. I've been most recently there in July of 2004, with Senator Brownback. We were the first congressional delegation to visit Darfur, where genocide has taken place. We saw the same scorched earth tactics from Khartoum in the brutal 20-year civil war with the South where 2.1 million people perished. I remain grateful for President Bush's leadership in bringing about an end to the bloodshed with the historic signing of the CPA. But that peace is now in jeopardy. Fast forward to 2009. I was part of a bipartisan group in Congress who called for the appointment of a special envoy shortly after President Obama was elected. What was once a successful model for Sudan is not having the desired effect today. And I'm not alone in that belief. Last week, six respected NGOs ran ads in the Washington Post calling for Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Rice to exercise ``personal and sustained leadership on Sudan'' in the face of a ``stalemated policy.'' Today, I join the chorus of voices in calling on the President to empower Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Rice to take control of this languishing policy in Sudan. They should oversee quarterly deputies' meetings to ensure options for consequences are on the table. In fact, I call on the President himself to exercise leadership in this regard, consistent with the explicit campaign promises he made about Sudan-- promises which, to date, ring hollow. There is a pressing need for renewed and principled leadership at the highest levels--leadership which is clear-eyed about the history and the record of the internationally indicted war criminal at the helm in Khartoum. In addition to the massive human rights abuses perpetrated by the country's leader, Bashir, Sudan remains on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism. The same people currently in control in Khartoum gave safe haven to bin Laden. Bin Laden lived in Sudan from 1991 to 1996. I believe that this administration's engagement with Sudan, under the leadership of General Gration, and with the apparent blessing of the President, has failed to recognize the true nature of Bashir and the NCP. While the hour is late, the administration can still chart a new course. Today, I sent a letter to the President, which I submit for the Record, outlining seven policy recommendations and calling for urgent action. When the administration released its Sudan policy, Secretary Clinton indicated that benchmarks would be applied to Sudan, that progress would be assessed, and that ``backsliding by any party will be met with credible pressure in the form of disincentives leveraged by our government.'' But in the face of national elections that were neither free nor fair, and in the face of continued violations of the U.N. arms embargo, in the face of Bashir's failure to cooperate in any way with the International Criminal Court, there are no disincentives. This is a worst case scenario and guaranteed, if history is a guide, to fail. More than 6 months have passed since the release of the administration's Sudan strategy, and implementation has been insufficient at best and altogether absent at worst. During the campaign, then-candidate Obama said regarding Sudan, ``Washington must respond to the ongoing genocide and the ongoing failure to implement the CPA with consistency and strong consequences.'' These words ring truer today than ever before. But the burden for action, the weight of leadership, now rests with this President and this administration alone--and there are lives at risk. The stakes could not be higher. I close, Mr. Speaker, with a slight variation on the words of Nicholas Kristof: If President Obama is ever going to find his voice on Sudan, it had better be now. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, May 5, 2010. Hon. Barack H. Obama, The President, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: ``If President Obama is ever going to find his voice on Sudan, it had better be soon.'' These were the closing words of New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof two weeks ago. I could not agree more with his assessment of Sudan today. Time is running short. Lives hang in the balance. Real leadership is needed. Having first travelled to Sudan in 1989, my interest and involvement in this country has spanned the better part of 20 years. I've been there five times, most recently in July 2004 when Senator Sam Brownback and I were the first congressional delegation to go to Darfur. Tragically, Darfur is hardly an anomaly. We saw the same scorched earth tactics from Khartoum in the brutal 20-year civil war with the South where more than 2 million perished, most of whom were civilians. In September 2001, President Bush appointed former Senator John Danforth as special envoy and his leadership was in fact instrumental in securing, after two and a half years of negotiations, the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), thereby bringing about an end to the war. I was at the 2005 signing of this historic accord in Kenya, as was then Secretary of State Colin Powell and Congressman Donald Payne, among others. Hopes were high for a new Sudan. Sadly, what remains of that peace is in jeopardy today. What remains of that hope is quickly fading. I was part of a bipartisan group in Congress who urged you to appoint a special envoy shortly after you came into office, in the hope of elevating the issue of Sudan. But what was once a successful model for Sudan policy is not having the desired effect today. I am not alone in this belief. Just last week, six respected NGOs ran compelling ads in the Washington Post and Politico calling for Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Rice to exercise ``personal and sustained leadership on Sudan'' in the face of a ``stalemated policy'' and waning U.S. credibility as a mediator. In that same vein, today I join that growing chorus of voices in urging you to empower Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Rice to take control of the languishing Sudan policy. They should oversee quarterly deputies' meetings to ensure options for consequences are on the table. There is a pressing and immediate need for renewed, principled leadership at the highest levels--leadership which, while recognizing the reality of the challenges facing Sudan, is clear-eyed about the history and the record of the internationally indicted war criminal at the helm in Khartoum. We must not forget who we are dealing with in Bashir and his National Congress Party (NCP). In addition to the massive human rights abuses perpetrated by the Sudanese government against its own people, Sudan remains on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism. It is well known that the same people currently in control in Khartoum gave safe haven to Osama bin Laden in the early 1990s. I believe that this administration's engagement with Sudan to date, under the leadership of General Gration, and with your apparent blessing, has failed to recognize the true nature of Bashir and the NCP. Any long-time Sudan follower will tell you that Bashir never keeps his promises. The Washington Post editorial page echoed this sentiment this past weekend saying of Bashir: ``He has frequently told Western governments what they wanted to hear, only to reverse himself when their attention drifted or it was time to deliver. . . . the United States should refrain from prematurely recognizing Mr. Bashir's new claim to legitimacy. And it should be ready to respond when he breaks his word.'' Note that the word was ``when'' not ``if'' he breaks his word. While the hour is late, the administration can still chart a new course. In addition to recommending that Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Rice take the helm in implementing your administration's Sudan policy, I propose the following policy recommendations: Move forward with the administration's stated aim of strengthening the capacity of the security sector in the South. A good starting point would be to provide the air defense system that the Government of Southern Sudan (GOSS) requested and President Bush approved in 2008. This defensive capability would help neutralize Khartoum's major tactical advantage and make peace and stability more likely following the referendum vote. Do not recognize the outcome of the recent presidential elections. While the elections were a necessary part of the implementation of the CPA and an important step before the referendum, they were inherently flawed and Bashir is attempting to use them to lend an air of legitimacy to his genocidal rule. Clearly and unequivocally state at the highest levels that the United States will honor the outcome of the referendum and will ensure its implementation. Begin assisting the South in building support for the outcome of the referendum. Appoint an ambassador or senior political appointee with the necessary experience in conflict and post-conflict settings to the U.S. consulate in Juba. Prioritize the need for a cessation of attacks in Darfur, complete restoration of humanitarian aid including ``non- essential services,'' unfettered access for aid organizations to all vulnerable populations and increased diplomatic attention to a comprehensive peace process including a viable plan for the safe return of millions of internally displaced persons (IDPs). When the administration released its Sudan policy last fall, Secretary Clinton indicated that benchmarks would be applied to Sudan and that progress would be assessed ``based on verifiable changes in conditions on the ground. Backsliding by any party will be met with credible pressure in the form of disincentives leveraged by our government and our international partners.'' But in the face of national elections that were neither free nor fair, in the face of continued violations of the U.N. arms embargo, in the face of Bashir's failure to cooperate in any way with the International Criminal Court, we've seen no ``disincentives'' or ``sticks'' applied. This is a worst case scenario and guaranteed, if history is to be our guide, to fail. Many in the NGO community and in Congress cautiously expressed support for the new policy when it was released, at the same time stressing that a policy on paper is only as effective as its implementation on the ground. More than six months have passed since the release of the strategy and implementation has been insufficient at best and altogether absent at worst. During the campaign for the presidency, you said, regarding Sudan, ``Washington must respond to the ongoing genocide and the ongoing failure to implement the CPA with consistency and strong consequences.'' These words ring true still today. Accountability is imperative. But the burden for action, the weight of leadership, now rests with you and with this administration alone. With the referendum in the South quickly approaching, the stakes could not be higher. The marginalized people of Sudan yearn for your administration to find its voice on Sudan--and to find it now. Sincerely, Frank R. Wolf, Member of Congress.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, ``If President Obama is ever going to find his voice on Sudan, it had better be soon.'' These were the closing words two weeks ago of columnist Nicholas Kristof. Having first travelled to Sudan in 1989, my interest in this country has spanned the better part of 20 years. I've been most recently in July 2004 when Senator Sam Brownback and I were the first congressional delegation to go to Darfur. We saw the same scorched earth tactics from Khartoum in the brutal 20-year civil war with the South where 2.1 million perished. I remain grateful for President Bush's leadership in bringing about an end to the bloodshed with the historic signing of the CPA. But that peace is now in jeopardy. Fast forward to 2009. I was part of a bipartisan group in Congress who called for the appointment of a special envoy shortly after President Obama was elected. What was once a successful model for Sudan policy is not having the desired effect today. I am not alone in this belief. Last week, six respected NGOs ran ads in the Washington Post calling for Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Rice to exercise ``personal and sustained leadership on Sudan'' in the face of a ``stalemated policy.'' Today I join the chorus of voices in calling on the President to empower Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Rice to take control of the languishing Sudan policy. They should oversee quarterly deputies' meetings to ensure options for consequences are on the table. In fact, I call on the President himself to exercise leadership in this regard, consistent with the explicit campaign promises he made about Sudan, promises which to date ring hollow. There is a pressing need for renewed, principled leadership at the highest levels--leadership which is clear-eyed about the history and the record of the internationally indicted war criminal at the helm in Khartoum. In addition to the massive human rights abuses perpetrated by the country's leader, Bashir, Sudan remains on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism. The same people currently in control in Khartoum gave safe haven to bin Laden in the early 1990's. I believe that this administration's engagement with Sudan, under the leadership of General Gration, and with the apparent blessing of the President, has failed to recognize the true nature of Bashir and the NCP. While the hour is late, the administration can still chart a new course. Today, I sent a letter to the President which I submit for the record, outlining seven policy recommendations and calling for urgent action on behalf of the marginalized people of Sudan. When the administration released its Sudan policy, Secretary Clinton indicated that benchmarks would be applied to Sudan, that progress would be assessed and that ``backsliding by any party will be met with credible pressure in the form of disincentives leveraged by our government . . . .'' But in the face of national elections that were neither free nor fair, in the face of continued violations of the U.N. arms embargo, in the face of Bashir's failure to cooperate in any way with the International Criminal Court, we've seen no ``disincentives'' applied. This is a worst case scenario and guaranteed, if history is to be our guide, to fail. More than 6 months have passed since the release of the administration's Sudan strategy and implementation has been insufficient at best and altogether absent at worst. During the campaign, then candidate Obama said regarding Sudan, ``Washington must respond to the ongoing genocide and the ongoing failure to implement the CPA with consistency and strong consequences.'' These words ring true today. But the burden for action, the weight of leadership, now rests with this President and this administration alone. The stakes could not be higher. I close with a slight variation on the words of Nicholas Kristof: If President Obama is ever going to find his voice on Sudan, it had better be now. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, May 5, 2010. Hon. Barack H. Obama, The President, The White House, Washington DC Dear Mr. President: ``If President Obama is ever going to find his voice on Sudan, it had better be soon.'' These were the closing words of New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof two weeks ago. I could not agree more with his assessment of Sudan today. Time is running short. Lives hang in the balance. Real leadership is needed. Having first travelled to Sudan in 1989, my interest and involvement in this country has spanned the better part of 20 years. I've been there five times, most recently in July 2004 when Senator Sam Brownback and I were the first congressional delegation to go to Darfur. Tragically, Darfur is hardly an anomaly. We saw the same scorched earth tactics from Khartoum in the brutal 20-year civil war with the South where more than 2 million perished, most of whom were civilians. In September 2001, President Bush appointed former Senator John Danforth as special envoy and his leadership was in fact instrumental in securing, after two and a half years of negotiations, the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), thereby bringing about an end to the war. I was at the 2005 signing of this historic accord in Kenya, as was then Secretary of State Colin Powell and Congressman Donald Payne, among others. Hopes were high for a new Sudan. Sadly, what remains of that peace is in jeopardy today. What remains of that hope is quickly fading. I was part of a bipartisan group in Congress who urged you to appoint a special envoy shortly after you came into office, in the hope of elevating the issue of Sudan. But what was once a successful model for Sudan policy is not having the desired effect today. I am not alone in this belief. Just last week, six respected NGOs ran compelling ads in The Washington Post and Politico calling for Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Rice to exercise ``personal and sustained leadership on Sudan'' in the face of a ``stalemated policy'' and waning U.S. credibility as a mediator. In that same vein, today I join that growing chorus of voices in urging you to empower Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Rice to take control of the languishing Sudan policy. They should oversee quarterly deputies' meetings to ensure options for consequences are on the table. There is a pressing and immediate need for renewed, principled leadership at the highest levels--leadership which, while recognizing the reality of the challenges facing Sudan, is clear-eyed about the history and the record of the internationally indicted war criminal at the helm in Khartoum. We must not forget who we are dealing with in Bashir and his National Congress Party (NCP). In addition to the massive human rights abuses perpetrated by the Sudanese government against its own people, Sudan remains on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism. It is well known that the same people currently in control in Khartoum gave safe haven to Osama bin Laden in the early 1990. I believe that this administration's engagement with Sudan to date, under the leadership of General Gration, and with your apparent blessing, has failed to recognize the true nature of Bashir and the NCP. Any long-time Sudan follower will tell you that Bashir never keeps his promises. The Washington Post editorial page echoed this sentiment this past weekend saying of Bashir: ``He has frequently told Western governments what they wanted to hear, only to reverse himself when their attention drifted or it was time to deliver. . . . the United States should refrain from prematurely recognizing Mr. Bashir's new claim to legitimacy. And it should be ready to respond when he breaks his word.'' Note that the word was ``when'' not ``if' he breaks his word. While the hour is late, the administration can still chart a new course. In addition to recommending that Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Rice take the helm in implementing your administration's Sudan policy, I propose the following policy recommendations: Move forward with the administration's stated aim of strengthening the capacity of the security sector in the South. A good starting point would be to provide the air defense system that the Government of Southern Sudan (GOSS) requested and President Bush approved in 2008. This defensive capability would help neutralize Khartoum's major tactical advantage and make peace and stability more likely following the referendum vote. Do not recognize the outcome of the recent presidential elections. While the elections were a necessary part of the implementation of the CPA and an important step before the referendum, they were inherently flawed and Bashir is attempting to use them to lend an air of legitimacy to his genocidal rule. Clearly and unequivocally state at the highest levels that the United States will honor the outcome of the referendum and will ensure its implementation. Begin assisting the South in building support for the outcome of the referendum. Appoint an ambassador or senior political appointee with the necessary experience in conflict and post-conflict settings to the U.S. consulate in Juba. Prioritize the need for a cessation of attacks in Darfur, complete restoration of humanitarian aid including ``non- essential services,'' unfettered access for aid organizations to all vulnerable populations and increased diplomatic attention to a comprehensive peace process including a viable plan for the safe return of millions of internally displaced persons (IDPs). When the administration released its Sudan policy last fall, Secretary Clinton indicated that benchmarks would be applied to Sudan and that progress would be assessed ``based on verifiable changes in conditions on the ground. Backsliding by any party will be met with credible pressure in the form of disincentives leveraged by our government and our international partners.'' But in the face of national elections that were neither free nor fair, in the face of continued violations of the U.N. arms embargo, in the face of Bashir's failure to cooperate in any way with the International Criminal Court, we've seen no ``disincentives'' or ``sticks'' applied. This is a worst case scenario and guaranteed, if history is to be our guide, to fail. Many in the NGO community and in Congress cautiously expressed support for the new policy when it was released, at the same time stressing that a policy on paper is only as effective as its implementation on the ground. More than six months have passed since the release of the strategy and implementation has been insufficient at best and altogether absent at worst. During the campaign for the presidency, you said, regarding Sudan, ``Washington must respond to the ongoing genocide and the ongoing failure to implement the CPA with consistency and strong consequences.'' These words ring true still today. Accountability is imperative. But the burden for action, the weight of leadership, now rests with you and with this administration alone. With the referendum in the South quickly approaching, the stakes could not be higher. The marginalized people of Sudan yearn for your administration to find its voice on Sudan--and to find it now. This is very important. Sincerely, Frank R. Wolf, Member of Congress.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Sarbanes for his leadership on this issue. Most of the issues have been covered, but I would just say that there is nothing magic about strapping yourself into a metal box and driving 25 or 30 miles when you can telework. I think the important part of this legislation is the fact that Mr. Sarbanes will have someone in each agency, a senior person responsible. Some agencies do a great job, and others do not do very well. But also, it is important for the American people to know the productivity, the studies have shown that the productivity of people who are teleworking is very, very high. So you are really getting a lot for the government and for whoever is the employer. Secondly, with regard to the environment and the traffic and the congestion in this region and other regions, it is very important. Lastly, with the American family under such attack, the opportunity for moms and dads to spend more time with their families, singing in a church choir, or coaching Little League is very beneficial. I rise in strong support of H.R. 1722, the Telework Improvements Act, and thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I also want to thank Congressman John Sarbanes for introducing this important and necessary legislation, and the committee for moving this legislation to the floor. I am an original cosponsor and strong proponent of this bill. I have been a long-time and staunch supporter of telework, also referred to as telecommuting. Last Congress, Congressman Sarbanes and I teamed to introduce legislation to establish a National Telework Week. Last year, this House in a unanimous voice vote approved Representative Danny Davis's Telework Improvements Act of 2008, of which I was an original cosponsor. I was disappointed that the Senate did not act on that legislation, and am hopeful that the bill we will pass today will be given priority by the other body. My legislation, enacted in 2001, mandated a phased-in program to expand the number of federal employees who telework with the goal of giving every eligible federal worker this workplace option by the end of 2005. While annual surveys by the Office of Personnel Management on telework by federal employees have shown some progress in meeting the law's mandate, there is much more that agencies can do to expand telework. This legislation is an important next step in making the federal government a model telework employer. The federal government should be leading the way in developing an ``e-workforce'' and enhancing the use of the technologies of the 21st century to seamlessly link employees and employers. To emphasize the importance of telework in the federal workplace, when I chaired the Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations subcommittee, I included provisions in the FY 2005, FY 2006 and FY 2007 spending bills for the departments of Commerce, Justice, and State and related agencies to withhold $5 million from the agencies which failed to meet the 2001 law. Telework offers a 21st century workplace option that can reduce traffic congestion and air pollution, as well as cut gasoline consumption and dependency on foreign oil. Study after study has shown that telework is a win-win for both employees and employers. It gives employees the flexibility they need to meet daily demands. Employers--both government and private businesses--get the benefit of increased productivity, improved morale, fewer sick leave days used, better worker retention, and reduced costs for office space. As we face the realities of the post 9/11 world, ensuring continuity of operations of the federal government is one more reason to support federal telework policies. The need for this legislation also was crystallized during the historic February blizzard, which paralyzed the Nation's capital and shut down the federal government for four days. The estimated cost in lost productivity was some $70 million a day, but that cost was cut dramatically from earlier estimates of $100 million when the some 30 percent of the federal workforce who teleworked during the shutdown was factored in. That's a huge savings with telework, which is why it is so important to ensure that more employees are eligible to work from home or at alternate worksites. Our legislation builds on past actions to require each government agency to establish a telework policy and its provisions will: Instruct the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to develop a uniform, government-wide telework policy for federal employees. Create a Telework Managing Officer within every agency and department to oversee telework within that agency or department. The designation of a senior employee at each agency as a telework managing officer responsible for implementing the bill's requirements is a key provision to allow eligible employees to telework to the maximum extent possible. Again, I thank my colleague from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, for his leadership on this important legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I want to share the following letters that I have sent to President Obama urging him to implement four bipartisan proposals to strengthen our national security. It is disappointing that the administration has not adopted these proposals that would make our country safer. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, January 12, 2010. Hon. Barack H. Obama, President, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: ``National Security is too important to become a partisan issue.'' This sentence was the opening line in a January 11 USA Today op-ed jointly authored by Lee Hamilton and Thomas Kean, co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission. Last week, you, too, said, ``Now is not a time for partisanship, it's a time for citizenship--a time to come together and work together with the seriousness of purpose that our national security demands.'' I could not agree more with this sentiment. No nation, including America, can hope to win this long battle against al Qaeda and like foes if the war effort is marked by partisanship. Sadly, not only has partisanship infused the rhetoric surrounding national security discussions, it has actually obstructed the critical role of congressional oversight. Too often in recent months partisanship has resulted in withholding of information, unanswered letters and briefings denied by this administration. The stakes are too high and the cost of failure is too great for petty politics to rule the day. The White House has a moral obligation to actively and consistently reach out to the minority party in Congress, to be forthcoming with information and to provide access to all levels of government. Hamilton and Kean go on to write, ``We intend to monitor the implementation of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations and report on new national security threats.'' I urge you to encourage this effort by bringing back these two co-chairs for a six-month period to conduct a formal review and 9/11 Commission follow-up. They would be charged with evaluating which of the Commission's original recommendation have been implemented and to what end, and which have failed to be implemented and at what cost. This past weekend, The Washington Post featured an op-ed by Bruce Hoffman, respected professor of security studies at Georgetown University and a senior fellow at the U.S. Military Academy's Combating Terrorism Center. Hoffman wrote, ``(W)hile al-Qaeda is finding new ways to exploit our weaknesses, we are stuck in a pattern of belated responses, rather than anticipating its moves and developing preemptive strategies. The `systemic failure' of intelligence analysis and airport security that Obama recently described was not just the product of a compartmentalized bureaucracy or analytical inattention, but a failure to recognize al Qaeda's new strategy. The national security architecture built in the aftermath of Sept. 11 addresses yesterday's threats--but not today's and certainly not tomorrow's. It is superb at reacting and responding, but not at outsmarting . . . a new approach to counterterrorism is essential.'' Distinct from temporarily bringing back the two 9/11 Commission co-chairs, I also urge the creation of a ``Team B.'' As you may know, historically the phrase ``Team B'' refers to a group of outside experts, commissioned by the Central Intelligence Agency in the 1970's and headed by Richard Pipes, to analyze the threats posed by the Soviet Union to the United States and counter the positions of intelligence officials within the CIA, known as ``Team A.'' In your remarks last week following the review of the attempted Christmas Day terrorist attack, you rightly referred to our enemy as ``nimble.'' Too often our response to the evolving threat posed by al Qaeda, and others sympathetic to their murderous aims, is anything but. The Team B concept has been successful in previous administrations when fresh eyes were needed to provide the commander-in-chief with objective information to make informed policy decisions. I believe it can work now, too, and suggest that among the individuals, but not exclusively, whose expertise and forward-thinking would be well-suited to a Team B are: Bruce Hoffman; Andrew McCarthy and Patrick Fitzgerald, both of whom were involved in the prosecution of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman in the first World Trade Center bombings; Fouad Ajami, professor at the School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), Johns Hopkins University; Jean Bethke Elshtain, professor of social and political ethics at the University of Chicago; economist Judy Shelton, National Endowment for Democracy board member; foreign policy columnist and author Anne Applebaum; Andrew F. Krepinevich Jr., author of Seven Deadly Scenarios: A Military Futurist Explores War in the 21st Century; Elliot Cohen, professor of Strategic Studies at SAIS; Philip D. Zelikow, diplomat and author who worked as executive director of the 9/11 Commission, and Joshua Muravchik, formerly a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and presently a Foreign Policy Institute fellow at SAIS. The 9/11 Commission report was issued nearly six years ago. Even if every recommendation had been implemented, which it has not, our enemy has evolved since that time. Our current intelligence infrastructure is at times overwhelmed by data, information and the urgency of daily events, and as such is unable to dedicate the time and resources necessary to think outside the box and better comprehend this multidimensional threat. ``Team B'' would possess the necessary expertise but would be free from these daily pressures. The team would represent a ``new approach to counterterrorism'' which focuses not just on connecting the dots of intelligence, but which seeks to stay a step ahead in understanding how to break the radicalization and recruitment cycle that sustains our enemy, how to disrupt their network globally and how to strategically isolate them. I also believe there is an urgent need to make the Transportation Security Agency (TSA) administrator a long- term position. Since TSA's inception following the 9/11 attacks, there have been six Transportation Security Agency administrators and acting administrators. For a position of this import to turn over with such frequency and to automatically change hands with each new administration simply does not make sense. I am introducing legislation that mirrors the language used to establish a 10-year term and Senate confirmation for FBI directors. I am hopeful that members of both parties will see the merits of this proposal and I urge your support for this change. America is a great nation facing an enemy unlike any other we have ever known. We must steel ourselves for the struggle ahead, frankly assessing the nature and scope of the threat we face and guarding against partisanship at all costs. The people of this country deserve nothing less. Sincerely, Frank R. Wolf, Member of Congress.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I call to the attention of the House the passing on March 25 of John E.D. Ball, 77, a resident of Vienna, Virginia, who was the founding president of the National Captioning Institute and two-time national Emmy Award winner for his television engineering work. Mr. Ball was a native of Glasgow, Scotland. An avid electronics buff as a teenager, he was a graduate of Glasgow's Royal College of Science and Technology. He served two years in the Royal Air Force as a radio signaller and 13 years with the BBC. Recruited by Computer Sciences Corporation, he and his family arrived in the United States in 1966. He joined the Public Broadcasting Service in 1971 and helped implement the first domestic satellite distribution system. Completed in 1978, the project won Mr. Ball his first Emmy award for engineering. His interest in developing closed captioning for television programs was spawned in 1972 when he attended a briefing at Gallaudet College (now Gallaudet University) and was struck by the enthusiasm from the largely deaf audience following a demonstration by ABC-TV and the National Bureau of Standards of a subtitling system for the deaf. He worked over the next 7 years at PBS to make closed caption television a reality and in 1980 accepted on behalf of PBS a second national engineering Emmy Award. Mr. Ball's effort led to the establishment later that year of the National Captioning Institute, a nonprofit that worked to expand the availability of closed captioning, for which Mr. Ball served as the founding president and chief executive officer for 15 years. At the urging of NCI and others, Congress passed the Television Decoder Circuitry Act in 1990 that required new televisions with screens larger than 13 inches to be equipped with closed-captioning technology. Today the ``talking TV'' logo has become one of the most recognizable symbols in the country. For his exceptional dedication and work, Mr. Ball was awarded an honorary degree from Gallaudet University and also received a distinguished service award from the American-Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Madam Speaker, we extend our sympathies to Mr. Ball's family, including his wife, the former Elizabeth Rodger of Vienna, Virginia; three sons, Norman Ball of Leesburg, Adrian Ball of Arlington County and Evan Ball of Vienna; and a grandson.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and celebrate April as the National Month of the Military Child. I also ask that my colleagues join me in recognizing the outstanding work of the Our Military Kids organization as well as its 2010 award winners. I am honored that this program, founded in McLean, Virginia, is located in the 10th District of Virginia. Our Military Kids is an organization that offers support to children of deployed National Guard and Reserve personnel in addition to children of severely injured servicemembers, through grants for extracurricular activities. In honor of the sacrifices military parents make, Our Military Kids helps to ensure that children of military families have the chance to have access to enrichment activities such as fine arts, sports, or academic programs. I particularly wish to recognize the dedicated staff of Our Military Kids. They are joined by a Board of Directors, as well as an Advisory Board, who help make important decisions on behalf of the organization. The organization launched its original program in Winchester, Virginia, in connection with the Virginia National Guard in 2005. Today the success of Our Military Kids has gained national recognition and now reaches 14,633 children in all 50 states. Each year Our Military Kids recognizes outstanding military children and families for their service to and sacrifice for our country. This year's award ceremony was held on April 13 in the Cannon Caucus Room here on Capitol Hill and I was honored to attend the ``Celebration of Our Military Kids' Star Power'' event at which four military children and one military family were saluted. The 2010 award winners are: Valerie Gonzalez of Alhambra, CA, in the 7-10-year-old age category; Jasmine Warren of Douglasville, GA, 11-14-year-old category; Taylor Ulmen of Madelia, MN, 15-18-year-old category; John Stefan Jenkins, Jr. of Jamaica, NY, 15-18-year old category, and four children from the Sonnen Family of Annandale, VA, whose father Tom was deployed to Iraq. Through many generous partnerships with individuals, foundations, and corporations Our Military Kids is able to award grants to children each year. The Star Supporters of 2009-2010 include: General Dynamics; Target; Bob Woodruff Foundation; Leonsis Foundation; Lockheed Martin; American Legion Child Welfare Foundation; Emerson Charitable Trust; USAA; AUSA; General Dynamics-AIS; Jeong H. Kim Foundation; Oshkosh Defense; Mr. & Mrs. Michael Ansari; ASMBA Star Foundation; Association of Military Banks of America; Avion Manufacturing; Binder Foundation; Careerbuilder.com; EADS North America; Janning Family Foundation; PGA Tour Wives Association; Mr. & Mrs. Roger C. Schultz; Silicon Valley Community Foundation; Tiger Woods Foundation; Aspen Capital, LLC; Mr. & Mrs. Peter J. Barris; Bechtel; Binder Foundation; Booz Allen Hamilton; Congressional Country Club; Dorothy G. Bender Foundation, Mr. & Mrs. Shawn Hendon, Mr. & Mrs. John H. Hiser, Kipps DeSanto; Mr. & Mrs. Gerard R. Lear; Lillian Adams Charitable Trust; Mr. & Mrs. Philip Odeen; Gen. & Mrs. Peter Pace; Triple Canopy; Walter B. Slocombe; Mr. & Mrs. Paul A. Weaver, Jr.; Mr. & Mrs. William Wolpert. In closing, I would like to particularly thank Linda Davidson, Our Military Kids' executive director, for dedication and tireless efforts to support our Nation's military families.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I submit for the Record a bipartisan letter which was sent to the State Department's Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, TIP, expressing ``concern over continuing reports of abductions, forced marriages, and exploitation of Coptic women and girls in Egypt.'' We urged the TIP Office to investigate whether these cases should be included in the upcoming Trafficking in Persons Report. The U.S. has given Egypt billions of dollars in foreign aid since the Camp David Accords, and yet they persist in trampling the rights of minorities and brutally suppressing political and human rights. In fact, by most accounts there has been backsliding in all of these areas. With still no Ambassador for International Religious Freedom, when was the last time that this administration advocated for the Coptic Christians? Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, April 16, 2010. Hon. Luis CdeBaca, Ambassador-at-Large, U.S. Department of State, Washington,

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I submit for the Record an op-ed today by respected New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof regarding the Obama administration's abysmal record on Sudan. He paints a bleak picture about the potentially dire implications of the administration's failure to confront Khartoum. I echo Kristof's warning that ``if President Obama is ever going to find his voice on Sudan, it had better be soon.'' [From the New York Times, April 22, 2010] Obama Backs Down on Sudan (By Nicholas D. Kristof) Juba, Sudan.--Until he reached the White House, Barack Obama repeatedly insisted that the United States apply more pressure on Sudan so as to avoid a humanitarian catastrophe in Darfur and elsewhere. Yet, as president, Mr. Obama and his aides have caved, leaving Sudan gloating at American weakness. Western monitors, Sudanese journalists and local civil society groups have all found this month's Sudanese elections to be deeply flawed--yet Mr. Obama's special envoy for Sudan, Maj. Gen. Scott Gration, pre-emptively defended the elections, saying they would be ``as free and as fair as possible.'' The White House showed only a hint more backbone with a hurried reference this week to ``an essential step'' with ``serious irregularities.'' President Omar Hassan al-Bashir of Sudan--the man wanted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity in Darfur--has been celebrating. His regime calls itself the National Congress Party, or N.C.P., and he was quoted in Sudan as telling a rally in the Blue Nile region: ``Even America is becoming an N.C.P. member. No one is against our will.'' Memo to Mr. Obama: When a man who has been charged with crimes against humanity tells the world that America is in his pocket, it's time to review your policy. Perhaps the Obama administration caved because it considers a flawed election better than no election. That's a reasonable view, one I share. It's conceivable that Mr. Bashir could have won a quasi-fair election--oil revenues have manifestly raised the standard of living in parts of Sudan--and the campaigning did create space for sharp criticism of the government. It's also true that Sudan has been behaving better in some respects. The death toll in Darfur is hugely reduced, and the government is negotiating with rebel groups there. The Sudanese government gave me a visa and travel permits to Darfur, allowing me to travel legally and freely. The real game isn't, in fact, Darfur or the elections but the maneuvering for a possible new civil war. The last north- south civil war in Sudan ended with a fragile peace in 2005, after some two million deaths. The peace agreement provided for a referendum, scheduled to take place in January, in which southern Sudanese will decide whether to secede. They are expected to vote overwhelmingly to form a separate country. Then the question becomes: will the north allow South Sudan to separate? The south holds the great majority of the country's oil, and it's difficult to see President Bashir allowing oil fields to walk away. ``If the result of the referendum is independence, there is going to be war--complete war,'' predicts Mudawi Ibrahim Adam, one of Sudan's most outspoken human rights advocates. He cautions that America's willingness to turn a blind eye to election-rigging here increases the risk that Mr. Bashir will feel that he can get away with war. ``They're very naive in Washington,'' Mr. Mudawi said. ``They don't understand what is going on.'' On the other hand, a senior Sudanese government official, Ghazi Salahuddin, told me unequivocally in Khartoum, the nation's capital, that Sudan will honor the referendum results. And it's certainly plausible that north and south will muddle through and avoid war, for both sides are exhausted by years of fighting. Here in Juba, the South Sudan capital, I met Winnie Wol, 26, who fled the civil war in 1994 after a militia from the north attacked her village to kill, loot, rape and burn. Her father and many relatives were killed, but she escaped and made her way to Kenya--and eventually resettled as a refugee in California. She now lives in Olathe, Kan., and she had returned for the first time to Sudan to visit a mother and sisters she had last seen when she was a little girl. Ms. Wol, every bit the well-dressed American, let me tag along for her journey back to her village of Nyamlell, 400 miles northwest of Juba. The trip ended by a thatch-roof hut that belonged to her mother, who didn't know she was coming-- so no one was home. Ms. Wol was crushed. Then there was a scream and a woman came running. It was Ms. Wol's mother, somehow recognizing her, and they flew into each other's arms. To me, It felt like a peace dividend. Yet that peace is fragile, and Ms. Wol knows that the northern forces may come back to pillage again. ``I don't want war,'' she said, ``but I don't think they will allow us to separate.'' My own hunch is that the north hasn't entirely decided what to do, and that strong international pressure can reduce the risk of another savage war. If President Obama is ever going to find his voice on Sudan, it had better be soon.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the FY2011 budget proposed by President Obama for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA. I believe the administration plan would abdicate U.S. leadership in space. Nearly every astronaut, including Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the moon, has spoken out against this misguided budget proposal. I submit articles from The Wall Street Journal and the Orlando Sentinel which further call into question the administration's judgment with regard to NASA. [From the Wall Street Journal, Apr. 17, 2010] NASA Whipsaw: Prop Re-Do for Obama's Speech When President Barack Obama gave his long-awaited speech Thursday laying out a vision for NASA, the backdrop featured an immaculate mockup of the Orion space capsule. But only a few days before, workers at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida had frantically removed all vestiges of the Orion program from the same building. What prompted the prop swap? The reasons behind the abrupt scene change--and Obama's positive words about Orion in his address--reflect the sudden shifts and last-minute policy decisions that continue to buffet the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. For more on that, read this WSJ article.) In February, the White House shocked many in industry and Congress by seeking to kill NASA's Constellation manned exploration program, designed to replace the retiring space shuttle fleet and eventually take astronauts back to the moon and on to Mars. The multi-billion dollar Orion capsule, reminiscent of the Apollo era, is part of that program. In the following months, the Obama administration resisted entreaties by Lockheed Martin, the capsule contractor, and its champions on Capitol Hill to save Orion. The company repeatedly tried but failed to interest NASA and the White House in pursuing a less-expensive, stripped-down version of the capsule, ``Orion light.'' For the White House, all of Constellation was too expensive and would take too long to complete. On Mondays as the space center was preparing for the high- profile presidential policy speech, Lockheed had forklifts and other equipment hurriedly removing everything related to Orion from the building where Obama would speak, according to people familiar with the details. Administration officials bluntly told company executives that the president didn't want to be associated with Orion. That quickly changed. On Tuesday afternoon, chief White House science adviser John Holdren called Joanne Maguire, head of Lockheed Martin's space programs, to inform her that a revised version of the Orion capsule would be reinstated in the president's plans. Now, NASA wants to use the capsule, at the very least, as an emergency escape system for U.S. astronauts when they are on the international space station. That still left NASA, however, with the dilemma of what to do about the mockup. Between Tuesday night and Thursday morning, the White House, NASA managers and local center officials managed to restore the Orion mockup to its earlier prominence in the building. ``Things were really changing pretty quickly there, at the end,'' said one administration official. As photographers and reporters swarmed around Obama, pictures of the capsule were beamed around the world. Lockheed didn't have any comment. The White House had no immediate comment. During his speech, Obama had only nice things to say about the Lockheed Martin program, though he initially mispronounced its name. NASA, he said, ``will build on the good work already done'' on the Orion crew capsule, and it will become ``part of the technological foundation for advanced spacecraft to be used in future deep-space missions.'' [From OrlandoSentinel.com, Apr. 18, 2010] Obama's Space Plan Adds Insult to Injury (By Douglas MacKinnon) With all due respect to President Obama, regarding his speech in Florida on ``Space Exploration in the 21st Century,'' I simply have to ask, ``Are you kidding me?'' As one who has consulted on and written extensively about our space program, worked in the White House and drafted a speech or two, I know shameless pandering filler when I read it. The president's speech had more useless and suspect filler than a New York City street hot dog--part of that filler being when the president recognized his chief science adviser, John Holdren. This is the same man who just told students the United States couldn't be No. 1 in science forever. When the nation and the program most needed honesty, true direction and an unwavering belief in the promise of space, the president chose to add insult to the injury that is the dismantling of our human spaceflight program. To quote Neil Armstrong, James Lovell and Eugene Cernan, the president's decision to ``. . . cancel the Constellation program, its Ares 1 and Ares V rockets, and the Orion spacecraft, is devastating.'' Three heroic and history-making astronauts take the unusual step of writing an open letter to warn of this ``devastating'' action, and the president responds with a pedestrian speech that makes a mockery of a dire situation. Worse, for purely political reasons, he decided to pit the Apollo 11 moonwalkers against each other. To try and blunt the criticism of him by the first man to step on the surface of the moon, Obama not only flew Buzz Aldrin with him on Air Force One for the event at Kennedy Space Center, but led his remarks by referring to Aldrin as a legend. Aldrin may be the only one not aware of his role as a prop of the White House political operation. It's not a stretch to imagine Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel turning to David Axelrod and saying, ``If the first man on the moon is going to strongly and publicly criticize us, then let's use the second man to walk on the moon as validation for our `promise them anything but deliver nothing' new vision.'' In a speech void of detail, the president said, ``By the mid-2030s, I believe we can send humans to orbit Mars and return them safely to Earth.'' Where have I heard something like that before? That would be President George H. W. Bush in July 1989 when he spoke of landing Americans on Mars. Twenty-one years later, Obama gives us a watered-down version of that speech. In 1989, much of the media rightfully took President Bush to task for an open-ended goal that lacked specifics and would have carried a price tag in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Say what you will about Bush's half-hearted effort, at least his astronauts would have landed on the Red Planet. Under Obama's fictional plan, for our investment of more than $100 billion, our astronauts would only get to wave at Mars as they zipped around it, with a landing saved for a future mission. Can't we just wave at it for free from here on Earth? The president betrayed both his lack of interest in human spaceflight as well as his ignorance of the subject when he said, ``Now, I understand that some believe that we should attempt a return to the surface of the moon first, as previously planned. But I just have to say pretty bluntly here. We've been there before. Buzz has been there . . .'' By that thinking, European explorers should have abandoned the New World and President Jefferson should have ignored the explorations and discoveries of great natural wealth made by Lewis and Clark. For reasons of cost, commercial enterprise, science and national security, it makes sense for us to establish bases, observatories, mines and potentially even military operations on the moon. If we don't, others--particularly the People's Republic of China with its military-controlled space program--most assuredly will. President Obama has played the space community for fools, and he's hoping he will get away with it. Unfortunately for us all, China, Russia and others share his hope.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I would like to share with our colleagues an editorial from the April 9 Scranton Times Tribune urging the Obama administration to name an Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom, as required by the International Religious Freedom Act, which was passed by Congress in 1998. The editorial rightly points out that the portfolio of this ambassador is ``fundamental to American ideals. . . .'' The absence of a consistent voice dedicated to the pursuit of religious freedom both within the State Department and globally in our interactions with foreign governments is deeply concerning. America must speak out for those around the world whose most basic freedoms are being trampled. [From the Times-Tribune, Apr. 9, 2010] Name, Elevate Ambassador More than a year into office, President Barack Obama has yet to name a key diplomat with a portfolio that is fundamental to American ideals, international human rights and U.S. law. The Religious Freedom Act of 1998, for good reason, requires the appointment of an ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom. Religious liberty is, of course, a founding principle of the United States. The first line of the First Amendment states it flatly: ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .'' Abundant experience shows that a government's lack of religious tolerance is a sure indicator of broader oppression. And it is a very modern problem. According to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, about 70 percent of the world's people live under regimes that restrict religious freedom. The Clinton and George W. Bush administrations both named ambassadors-at-large for religious freedom but failed to afford them the status required by the 1998 law. Passed unanimously by Congress, the law requires the ambassador to be the principal adviser to the president and the secretary of state on matters of international religious freedom. As noted by Joseph Grieboski, the Lackawanna County native who founded the Institute on Religion and Public Policy, the current administration would further diminish the status of the ambassador by having the eventual appointee report far down the chain of command rather than directly to the president or secretary of state. Other ambassadors-at-large, for counterterrorism, war crimes and global women's issues, report directly to the president or secretary, or both, as required by the laws establishing the positions. Religious liberty is a human rights issue inextricably woven into America's position of promoting democracy and freedom around the world. President Obama should signal repressive regimes that it is an important matter to the United States by quickly naming an ambassador and having that person consult directly with him and the secretary of state.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the third grade students at the Loudoun Country Day School in Leesburg, Virginia. They are conducting a food drive called ``Kids Helping Kids'' to benefit Loudoun Interfaith Relief. I am honored to recognize the ongoing contributions of these special young people to help feed the hungry in their community. These talented students are collecting healthy breakfast and lunch items to distribute to Loudoun County families this summer. Many families depend on free and reduced price hot meals for their children during the school year, and will greatly benefit for receiving meals during the summer months. This is the second food drive that the Loudoun Country Day students have implemented this year. Last fall, the students collected 1,296 pounds of food that allowed 40 families to have a complete Thanksgiving feast. I ask that my colleagues join me in congratulating the following students for their commitment to helping the hungry in their community. Aidan Kennedy Alex Moran Annabella Stavrou Ben Kowkowski Greyson Sequino Hunter Gowin Lindsey Fouty Lyndsey Coleman Lauren Miller Peyton Carter TJ Donovan Lauren Rubino McKenna Martinez Maddi Moran Ella Parsons Brian Wilmans Christophe Atkinson Luke Miller Stephen Kalivokas Drew Johnson Gabrielle Latimer Zyannah Malick

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman. Madam Speaker, this is a sad occasion as we inform the House of the passing of a former colleague, Representative Stan Parris, who died on March 27 at the age of 80. Stan loved the people's House and proudly served Virginia's Eighth District for six terms. I had the privilege of serving with Stan for 10 of those 12 years. He was a good friend. He had many legislative accomplishments for the people in northern Virginia, in addition to the ones my colleagues, Mr. Moran, said. I think many would agree that one most significant accomplishment was the transfer of Dulles and National Airports from the FAA to a regional airports authority, an effort that consumed several years, but eventually led to two of the finest airports in the region. He was not only an outstanding Member of Congress, but he was a Korean War hero. Someone said if you wanted to understand Stan Parris, you should read the book ``The Right Stuff'' because he had the right stuff. He was a pilot, had been shot down during the Korean War. His airplane landed on power lines, and he was later rescued in North Korea. He received a Distinguished Flying Cross, the Purple Heart and the Air Medal. He was also a State legislator and a local legislator, businessman and attorney. He recently had made his home in Mathews, Virginia, with his wife, Martie. And so to Martie and Stan's three children and two grandchildren, we express our deepest sympathies. Funeral services for Stan will be held in late June, I believe June 28, with a burial at Arlington National Cemetery. He was a good Member of Congress, and he loved this institution as much as anybody that I ever met. [From the Washington Post, Mar. 29, 2010] Stanford E. Parris, 80, Dies; N. Va. Member of Congress (By Matt Schudel) Stanford E. Parris, 80, who served six terms in the U.S. House of Representatives as a Republican from Northern Virginia's Eighth District, died March 27 of heart disease at his home in Mathews County, Va. Mr. Parris, who was a lawyer and car dealer before entering politics, was first elected in 1972, then returned to Congress from 1981 to 1991. A onetime Air Force fighter pilot, he survived several hard-fought campaigns and was among the first Republicans to gain a foothold in modern-day Virginia politics. During his first term in Congress, he won the gratitude of football fans by introducing a bill prohibiting the National Football League from imposing television blackouts of sold- out games. He supported efforts to improve transportation in Northern Virginia, including carpool lanes on Interstate 395, and helped transfer control of Dulles and National airports from the Federal Aviation Administration to a regional airport authority. As ranking Republican on the House District Committee, he was a persistent critic of the D.C. government and often quarreled with then-Mayor Marion Barry. Mr. Parris also led an effort to move the D.C. prison from Lorton, which was finally accomplished after he left Congress. Mr. Parris possessed a blunt, direct style that served him well on the campaign trail. He had three epic electoral battles with Democratic Rep. Herbert E. Harris II, losing in 1974 before ousting Harris from Congress in 1980. Mr. Parris defeated Harris in a rematch in 1982, spending $700,000 in Virginia's most expensive congressional campaign up to that point. ``They were tough campaigns,'' recalled U.S. Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.), who served in Congress with Mr. Parris. ``They were almost like the Lincoln-Douglas debates.'' Describing his political approach to The Washington Post in 1989, Mr. Parris said: ``Somewhere along the line, I learned the best thing to do was to simply stand up and say what you mean, mean what you say, and do what you commit to.'' Stanford Elmer Parris was born Sept. 9, 1929, in Champaign, Ill., and was a graduate of the University of Illinois. During the Korean War, he piloted fighter jets and was once rescued after being shot down over North Korea. He received the Distinguished Flying Cross, Purple Heart and Air Medal. He graduated from George Washington University law school in 1958, settled in Fairfax County and practiced law. He later owned car dealerships in Woodbridge and Manassas. After serving on the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, he was elected to the Virginia House of Delegates in 1969, as one of nine Republicans in the body. He was Virginia's secretary of the commonwealth in 1978. Mr. Parris unsuccessfully sought the Republican nomination for governor in 1985 and 1989 and failed in a bid for the Virginia state Senate in 1995. After losing his congressional seat to James P. Moran Jr. (D) in 1990, he was administrator of the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corp. and was of counsel to the law firm of Dickstein Shapiro. He was also a founder of the Flying Circus Aerodrome in Bealeton, where he took part in aerobatic demonstrations. In recent years, Mr. Parris lived in Mathews County and Melbourne, Fla. His marriages to Jane McCullough Parris and Sonja Parris ended in divorce. Survivors include his wife of 28 years, Martha Harper Parris of Mathews County and Melbourne; three children from his first marriage, Michael Parris of Los Angeles, Ann Parris of Culpeper and Susan Parris Littlewood of Mount Airy; and two grandsons.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the contributions of the members of the Virginia-Maryland-District of Columbia National Guard on the occasion of the 66th anniversary of the Normandy Invasion and D-Day which will occur this June 6. I ask that my colleagues join me in recognizing the service and sacrifice of the members of this National Guard unit. The Virginia-Maryland-District of Columbia National Guard unit was the only one from the United States to serve in the first wave of the Normandy Invasion on D-Day. Over 3,100 soldiers from this unit courageously served their country in Normandy, and there were 1,107 casualties in the invasion. The 29th Infantry Division of the Virginia National Guard joined the 116th Infantry Regiment, also known as Virginia's ``Stonewall Brigade,'' and the 111th Field Artillery Battalion in the assault on the Nazis on Omaha Beach on June 6, 1944. The Headquarters Company, 3rd Battalion, 116th Infantry Regiment is still based in Winchester, Virginia, and continues to send its troops to serve their country in Afghanistan and Iraq. A new National Guard Armory opened last year in Frederick County and was named in honor of Staff Sgt. Craig W. Cherry and Sgt. Bobby E. Beasley, two local National Guardsmen who lost their lives in Afghanistan in 2004. I submit for the Record the text of a joint resolution passed in the Virginia General Assembly in February, honoring this heroic unit of the National Guard: House Joint Resolution No. 292 Offered February 16, 2010 Commending the 29th Infantry Division of the Virginia- Maryland-District of Columbia National Guard and the Virginia communities represented in the Normandy Invasion on the 66th anniversary of D-Day. Patrons--Sherwood, Abbitt, Abbott, Albo, Alexander, Anderson, Armstrong, Athey, BaCote, Barlow, Bell, Richard P., Bell, Robert B., Brink, Bulova, Byron, Carr, Carrico, Cleaveland, Cline, Cole, Comstock, Cosgrove, Cox, J.A., Cox, M.K., Crockett-Stark, Dance, Ebbin, Edmunds, Englin, Garrett, Gear, Gilbert, Greason, Griffith: Herring, Hope, Howell, A.T., Howell, W.J., Hugo, Iaquinto, Ingram, James, Janis, Joannou, Johnson, Jones, Keam, Kilgore, Knight, Kory, Landes, LeMunyon, Lewis, Lingamfelter, Lohr, Loupassi, Marshall, D.W., Marshall, R.G,, Massie, May, McClellan, McQuinn, Merricks, Miller, J.H., Miller, P.J., Morefield, Morgan, Morrissey, Nixon, Nutter, O'Bannon, Oder, Orrock, Peace, Phillips, Plum, Pogge, Poindexter, Pollard, Purkey, Putney, Rust, Scott, E.T., Scott, J.M., Shuler, Sickles, Spruill, Stolle, Surovell, Tata, Torian, Toscano, Tyler, Villanueva, Ward, Ware, O., Ware, R.L., Watts and Wright Whereas, June 6, 2010, is the 66th anniversary of the Normandy Invasion, commonly known as D-Day; this epic and decisive moment in World War II helped defeat Nazi rule in Europe and was the most massive military operation in world history; and Whereas, the only National Guard division of the United States Army selected to participate in the initial assault on the coast of France was the 29th Infantry Division of the Virginia-Maryland-District of Columbia National Guard; this division was assigned as its objective that beach sector designated Omaha, which because of the fierce resistance encountered there soon became known as ``Bloody Omaha''; and Whereas, Virginia's historic ``Stonewall Brigade,'' the 116th Infantry Regiment, was chosen to be in the first wave at Omaha and, after a bloody battle on the beach, finally succeeded in taking the high ground above it, and thus secured a beachhead in France; when ``the Longest Day'' ended, the courageous regiment of over 3,100 soldiers had suffered 1,107 casualties; and Whereas, joining the 116th Infantry Regiment in the assault was Virginia's 111th Field Artillery Battalion and other smaller units from the Virginia National Guard, all elements of the 29th Infantry Division. and Whereas, the Virginia communities represented in the D-Day Invasion were: 116th Infantry Regiment (Stonewall Brigade) Headquarters and Headquarters Company--Roanoke Anti-Tank Platoon--Roanoke Medical Department Detachment-Staunton & Wytheville Service Company--Roanoke Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion--Roanoke Company A--Bedford Company B--Lynchburg Company C--Harrisonburg Company D--Roanoke Headquarters Company, 2nd Battalion-Altavista Company E--Chase City Company F--South Boston Company G--Farmville Company H--Martinsville Headquarters Company, 3rd Battalion-Winchester Company I--Winchester Company K--Charlottesville Company L--Staunton Company M--Emporia 29th Infantry Division Band (Virginia portion)--Roanoke 29th Signal Company--Norfolk 29th Cavalry Reconnaissance Troop-Berryville Headquarters and Headquarters Battery, 29th Infantry Division Artillery-Richmond 111th Field Artillery Battalion (First Virginia Artillery) Headquarters and Headquarters Battery-Norfolk Service Battery--Newport News Battery A--Richmond Battery B--Norfolk Battery C--Portsmouth 227th Field Artillery Battalion (formerly 2nd Battalion, 111th Field Artillery) Headquarters and Headquarters Battery--Richmond Service Battery--post mobilization organization--no Virginia community Battery A--Hampton Battery B--Richmond Battery C--Fredericksburg Whereas, many brave individuals participated in the Normandy Invasion and all who worked so hard and fought so valiantly are honored as heroes; and Whereas, General George C. Marshall, U.S. Army Chief of Staff, helped plan the Allied invasion of France; he graduated from the Virginia Military Institute as First Captain of the Corps of Cadets in 1901; and Whereas, a former commander of the 29th Infantry Division, Lieutenant General Leonard Gerow was promoted to command the V Corps (Fifth Corps), made up of the 1st and 29th Infantry Divisions, which were the first troops to land on Omaha Beach; he was a native of Petersburg and a graduate of the Virginia Military Institute, Class of 1911; and Whereas, on June 8, 1944, Technical Sergeant Frank D. Peregory of Charlottesville's Company K, from the 116th Infantry Regiment, single-handedly killed or captured over 25 enemy soldiers, earning the Congressional Medal of Honor, only to be killed in action six days later; and Whereas, a graduate of The Citadel's Class of 1929 and a teacher and coach at Staunton Military Academy, Major Thomas D. Howie of Staunton's Company L, best known as ``the Major of St Lo,'' was killed in action on July 17, 1944, while in command of the 3rd Battalion, 116th Infantry, during its final drive to capture the strategic city of Saint-Lo; and Whereas, commander of the 111th Field Artillery Battalion, Lieutenant Colonel Thornton L. Mullins of Richmond, after his unit lost all of its guns but one in the English Channel when its landing craft were either swamped or destroyed by enemy fire, was killed in action while leading a band of survivors and destroying several enemy positions; he was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross, the U.S. Army's second highest award for valor; and Whereas, today, the 116th Infantry Regiment and other Virginia National Guard units of soldiers and airmen maintain a proud tradition with troops deployed in harm's way in the War on Terrorism, such as the mobilization to Iraq of the 1st Battalion, 116th Infantry on January 6, 2010, and two deployments to Afghanistan of the 3rd Battalion, 116th Infantry accompanied by several Embedded Transition Teams drawn from across the Virginia Army Guard, including the 116th Infantry's Brigade Combat Team; and Whereas, since the start of the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, nearly 10,000 men and women of the Virginia National Guard have served in one or both conflicts, many on multiple tours, and a total of 13 members have died on active duty protecting our liberties, and it is fitting we honor and remember their service and sacrifices; and Whereas, the Commonwealth of Virginia and its citizens are indebted to and thankful for the D-Day soldiers, their successors in the ranks of the Virginia National Guard today, and their families for their valiant service and enormous sacrifice; now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Delegates, the Senate concurring, That the General Assembly commend the 29th Infantry Division of the Virginia-Maryland-District of Columbia National Guard and the Virginia communities represented in the Normandy Invasion on the 66th anniversary of D-Day that occurred on June 6, 1944, honoring the brave troops who served there, especially the soldiers of the Stonewall Brigade, 116th Infantry Regiment who fought in the first wave of attack and the 111th Field Artillery Battalion, both of which are a part of the 29th Infantry Division; and, be it Resolved further, That the General Assembly acknowledge the efforts of the Virginia National Guard to commemorate the Normandy Invasion with a Day of Awareness to remind Virginians of the sacrifices made to preserve their freedoms by those who fought on D-Day and by the men and women of the Virginia National Guard who continue to fight around the world to protect liberty for their countrymen; and, be it Resolved finally, That the Clerk of the House of Delegates prepare a copy of this resolution for presentation to Major General Robert B. Newman, Jr., the Adjutant General of Virginia, on behalf of the General Assembly in recognition of the soldiers of the 29th Infantry Division of the Virginia- Maryland-District of Columbia National Guard and the Virginia communities represented in the Normandy Invasion who fought at Normandy and on into the heart of Germany to help bring about the final victory over Nazi tyranny.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend the winners of the Valor Foundation's essay contest. I am honored to recognize the achievements of these students from Loudoun County and this excellent program in the 10th District of Virginia. The Valor Foundation is an organization dedicated to partnering with individuals and organizations to support local community fire, rescue, and law enforcement groups. The dedicated work of this foundation supports numerous public safety officers and their families during their times of need. To recognize and celebrate these individuals, the foundation held a youth essay competition to honor the first responders. To recognize the National First Responder Day, Loudoun County Middle School students were asked to submit essays describing, ``Why We Should Have a National First Responder's Appreciation Day.'' The Valor Foundation collaborated with Randy Kelly, CEO of INOVA Loudoun Hospital, to award five essay winners with savings bonds. I ask that my colleagues join me in congratulating these outstanding students for their achievements, as well as the dedication of the first responders of Loudoun County. I submit for the winning essays: Tommy Mai, Belmont Ridge Middle School: First responders are brave people. They sacrifice their lives just to save other lives at any cost. Whether it's a fire, medical emergency, or a shoot-out, they'll put anything and everything on the line. Think about a jailhouse without police guards, or a burning building without fire fighters coming to the rescue, or hospitals without doctors, nurses, and paramedics. Think about what would have happened during 9/11 without these brave people. Who can think of braver people. They sacrifice their lives for their families, for us, but more importantly, for America.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health care bill. I do not question the need for Congress to find a way for the millions of Americans without health insurance to be assured of quality, affordable health care. The majority of my constituents in the 10th District of Virginia have made clear that they want an open and transparent process in which Republicans and Democrats work together to pass responsible health care reform that lowers costs and offers greater access to affordable health care. They told me that they don't want more government spending. They don't want government-run health care. They don't want a plan that hurts America's seniors, families or small businesses. What they do want is a plan that fixes what's broken and keeps what's working without adding billions of dollars to an already ballooning deficit. I cannot support today's bill because it will raise over $500 billion in new taxes during a recession and times of high unemployment. This will especially hit small business employers at a time when the Federal Government should be assisting in job creation, not raising taxes. This legislation cuts billions of dollars from Medicare, a program that our seniors rely on. It requires individuals to purchase health insurance. If you don't purchase health insurance, the government will fine you a minimum fine of $750, up to the maximum penalty of 2 percent of your income. This provision has drawn the attention of the citizens of Virginia, with the Virginia General Assembly, in a bipartisan vote, becoming the first legislature in the Nation to pass legislation opposing this mandate. This bill mandates billions of dollars in additional Medicaid spending in unfunded mandates for cash-strapped states. It breaks a promise to members of our Nation's armed services, their families, veterans, and employees, with its failure to protect the military's TRICARE system--health care programs provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs. This means that, under this legislation, unless an individual has TRICARE for Life, additional health insurance would have to be purchased. Mr. Speaker, I am committed to working with my colleagues to pass real health care reform in a cost effective manner. This legislation fails that test.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 605, a resolution recognizing the continued persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in China on the 10th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party campaign to suppress the Falun Gong spiritual movement. The resolution also calls for an immediate end to the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners. The Chinese government's abuse of the Falun Gong is well-documented. The State Department's annual International Religious Freedom Report, found that the Government of China, ``continued to restrict severely the activities of groups it designated as `evil religions,' including several Christian groups and Falun Gong. . . . There are reports that dedicated government offices were responsible for coordinating operations against Falun Gong.'' Just last week, the State Department released its annual Human Rights Report which included numerous examples of the Chinese government's persecution of the Falun Gong including the following: ``Family members of activists, dissidents, Falun Gong practitioners, journalists, unregistered religious figures, and former political prisoners were targeted for arbitrary arrest, detention, and harassment.'' The report continued, ``Police continued to detain current and former Falun Gong practitioners and used possession of Falun Gong material as a pretext for arresting political activists. The government continued its use of high-pressure tactics and mandatory anti-Falun Gong study sessions to force practitioners to renounce. Falun Gong.'' Among the most notorious human rights abuses of the Chinese government last year was the arrest and subsequent disappearance of top Christian human rights attorney, Gao Zhisheng. Gao had defended house church Christians and Falun Gong members which earned the ire of the government. According to the State Department, ``At year's end his whereabouts remained unconfirmed . . .'' Prior to his arrest Gao had published a letter in which he went into great detail about the torture he experienced during his previous detention. Gao has paid dearly for his defense of basic human rights including those of Falun Gong practitioners. China has become increasingly brazen in its human rights abuses. In the face of this repression, America has a responsibility to continually affirm that we stand with the defenseless--with those whose voices have been silenced. President Reagan understood this well. He famously described the U.S. Constitution as a covenant we have made not only with ourselves but with all of mankind. This Congress and this administration must be unwavering in our support of all persecuted peoples, be they Coptic Christians in Egypt, Baha'is in Iran or Falun Gong in China.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I am deeply concerned by reports that the majority party may try to move the health care reform bill through the House without a vote. To move such sweeping legislation, especially considering the price tag, using a parliamentary gimmick is unconscionable. The majority of the American people do not support the health care reform bill presently before Congress. It spends money we don't have, cuts the Medicare program when we should be coming up with ways to get our financial house in order and make sure the Medicare program is protected. The American people want a bipartisan bill that fixes what is broken and keeps what is working. Where is the accountability? Where is the transparency? America expects more and deserves more. This morning The Washington Post said that what the Democrats are threatening to do is ``unseemly.'' There needs to be an up-or-down vote on health care reform, not on a procedural sleight of hand.