Frank Wolf

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I come to the floor today to share the sad news of the passing of Manus ``Jack'' Fish. An engineer by profession, Jack worked for almost four decades at the National Park Service here in Washington, serving from 1973 until his retirement in 1988 as the director of the National Capital Region. Jack, one of my constituents from Ashburn, Virginia, died on February 27 at the age of 81 following a stroke. I had the pleasure of first working with Jack Fish in the early 1970's when I served in the Interior Department under Secretary Rogers C.B. Morton and he was at the Park Service. When I came to Congress in 1981, our working relationship continued, and Jack was instrumental in the approval of a safety improvement plan I had recommended at the merge of the Spout Run Parkway and the George Washington Memorial Parkway, the first federal parkway and gateway to the nation's capital. Jack was the epitome of a public servant. He loved his job and made it his life's work to maintain and beautify and preserve the grounds that encompass the vast national capital region--from the gardens to the memorials to the Mall to the parks--for every resident and visitor of this area to enjoy. We express our condolences to his wife of 58 years, Rosemary Fish, their 12 children, 42 grandchildren and nine great-grandchildren, and we remember Jack Fish with these biblical words: ``Well done, good and faithful servant.'' Madam Speaker, I submit an obituary for Jack Fish published in the Washington Post on March 4. [From the Washington Post, Mar. 4, 2010] Manus ``Jack'' Fish, 81, Dies; Led National Park Service Work (By Patricia Sullivan) Manus ``Jack'' Fish, 81, the National Park Service regional director who oversaw the heavily trafficked National Mall, expanded the Civil War battlefield at Manassas and supervised the planting of 150,000 trees and millions of flowers in the parks and byways of greater Washington, died after a stroke Feb. 27 at Heritage Hall nursing and rehabilitation center in Leesburg. Mr. Fish led the Park Service's complex and diverse National Capital Region, whose holdings include historic memorials, the 185 mile-long C&O Canal, an urban sports complex, Civil War battlefields, the White House and two major highways. His office granted 1,000 permits a year for demonstrations including a one-person crusade for ``husband liberation'' as well as the hundreds of thousands who gather for the Fourth of July celebrations between the Capitol and Washington Monument. He was the regional director from 1973 to 1988 after working three years as the deputy. A diplomatic and unflappable engineer, Mr. Fish worked for the Park Service for 36 years, based the entire time in Washington. He helped design playground swings and the Roosevelt Bridge and became a regular presence on Capitol Hill, either appearing at hearings or reassuring his hundreds of Congressional bosses that, yes, he was dealing with the timing of lights on Spout Run at George Washington Parkway or trying to resolve who would pay for a leaking roof at the Kennedy Center. ``I've got to study issues in detail,'' he told a Washington Post reporter in 1978. ``And I guess I like that. If I didn't, I'd have ulcers and high blood pressure.'' His nighttime studying was done in a household of a dozen children, with television, radio, stereos and phone conversations swirling around him. His wife of 58 years, Rosemary Fish, was ``kind of a short-order cook,'' he joked, adept at managing the comings and goings of the brood. In addition to his wife of Ashburn, survivors include 12 children, M. John Fish of Herndon, Theresa Grooms of Leesburg, Mary Ann LaRock of Gambrills, Joan Rowe of Irmo, S.C., Peter Fish of Huntsville, Ala., Christine Behrmann of Troy, N.Y., Helen Kokolakis of Falls Church, and Kathleen Key, Rosemary Burke, Brigid Powell and Bernadette Ishmael, all of Ashburn; a brother; a sister; 42 grandchildren; and nine great-grandchildren. After leaving the Park Service in 1988, Mr. Fish worked for 10 years as vice president at the West Group, a local real estate developer, and was chairman of the Parks & History Association, which operates 25 bookstores in the national parks. He also served on numerous boards and was a member of St. Theresa Catholic Church in Ashburn. A native of Trenton, N.J., Manus John Fish Jr. moved to Washington as a youth and graduated from St. John's College High School. He served in the Army in Korea between World War II and the Korean War, then returned to Washington and graduated from Catholic University with a degree in engineering. He began working for the Park Service in 1952, reporting to the stone engineer's office near the Washington Monument. In pursuit of his duties, he rode in countless parades, mastering horseback riding in two days in order to accompany a member of Congress on a tour of one of the parks, and learned to iceskate overnight when a skating rink opened on the Mall. ``I was able to stay on the horse, and I kind of skated on my ankles,'' he told a Post reporter in 1988. He also managed 3,000 employees and oversaw an annual operating budget of $100 million. During his tenure, Constitution Gardens and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial opened on the Mall; handicapped-accessible entrances were added to many memorials, and Wolf Trap's Filene Center was rebuilt. It was his decision to close Beach Drive in Rock Creek Park to vehicles on weekends and holidays, to close and grass over two streets on the Mall and to eliminate nine holes from a 36-hole golf course in East Potomac Park to expand an adjacent softball field, a decision that did not stand under fierce protests from golfers. He made maintenance and preservation a priority and struggled for additional appropriations for repairs, which forced him to reduce grass cutting and put off hiring Park Police officers. He received the Interior Department's Distinguished Service Medal for guiding the expansion of the parks, especially during the 1976 Bicentennial year. ``There remains much to be done,'' he said upon his retirement. So long did he hold the politically sensitive ``fish-bowl'' job that he, too, is memorialized. If you're at the Tidal Basin next month when the cherry blossoms bloom, take a look at the Ohio Drive bridge. You'll find some gargoyles sculpted into the stone. The fish creature is a caricature of the Park Service's Mr. Fish.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and celebrate March 1-7, 2010, as National Peace Corps Week. On March 1, the Peace Corps celebrated its 49th anniversary, an impressive accomplishment. Established by President John F. Kennedy in 1961, the Peace Corps has inspired nearly 200,000 Americans to volunteer their time to improve the lives of individuals in 76 countries across the globe. The Peace Corps has volunteers in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, Central and South America, Europe, the Middle East, and the Pacific Islands. There are 7,000 people currently serving in the Peace Corps, 18 of whom are from Virginia's 10th District. The Peace Corps has a strong legacy of promoting peace through the efforts of these selfless volunteers. In particular, the agency has tasked its volunteers with working on initiatives dealing with education, business development, agriculture, information technology, health and HIV/AIDS, youth, and the environment. These volunteer efforts have significantly improved the lives of countless people around the world. I ask that my colleagues join me in celebrating National Peace Corps Week and recognizing the nearly 200,000 people who have served their country and other communities overseas as Peace Corps volunteers.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, Friday's Washington Post featured an editorial which posed the following question: ``Since the critique of the old Cuba policy was grounded in its supposed ineffectiveness, it seems fair to ask: Is the new, Castro-friendly approach working?'' The Post continued, ``A good answer to that question came Tuesday, when Orlando Zapata Tamayo, a 42-year old Afro-Cuban political prisoner, died after an 83-day hunger strike.'' Last week, just 90 miles off our shores, Mr. Tamayo's heroic protest against his treatment by the Cuban regime tragically ended. Mr. Tamayo had been active in several dissident organizations and was arrested in 2003 during a government crackdown and sentenced to a lengthy prison term. Forced to endure what he described as repeated beatings among other abuses, he stopped eating solid foods on December 3. At the time of his death he was he was facing a total of 36 years in prison for a variety of baseless charges, among them ``disobedience.'' He was not alone in his repression. The U.S. State Department's annual human rights report outlines in grim detail the reality of life in a country where the government continues to deny its citizens the most basic human rights. The 2009 report indicated that at year's end there were ``at least 205 political prisoners and detainees. As many as 5,000 citizens served sentences for `dangerousness,' without being charged with a specific crime,'' according to the report. I'd be curious to know how many of those political prisoners or their families have been visited by any of the international delegations, including U.S. congressional delegations, that frequent Havana. I have long held the belief--in Democrat and Republican administrations alike--that America is most true to its defining principles when in the face of tyranny, fear and oppression, we boldly speak for those whose voices have been silenced. Ronald Reagan did this time and again with the Soviet Union. And when the Wall had crumbled, and the dust had settled, stories emerged of dissidents who found the hope to carry on when word reached their cells of this American president who had raised, by name, their individual plight. Let us speak out for heroes like Mr. Tamayo who cannot speak for themselves.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Tree of Life food pantry in Purcellville, Virginia, which is in my congressional district. Through the group effort of dedicated volunteers, the Tree of Life food pantry has been able to help the hungry in western Loudoun County. The Tree of Life food pantry was established in November 2009 to serve the hungry in Purcellville and the surrounding area in Loudoun County. In these tough economic times, so many families across the Nation are struggling to put food on the table. Some face grave economic challenges. Food pantries, like the Tree of Life, are able to help people make it through these challenging times. The Tree of Life food pantry owes some of its success to its local partners, including Giant and Wegmans grocery stores and Costco Wholesale warehouse, which all pledged their support to the organization. These partnerships are proof that the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Act, which protects food donors from liability, has been successful in helping to deliver surplus food to food banks in need. Besides providing for the hungry, the Tree of Life food pantry also serves its community through ministering to the elderly and sick by providing additional food and resources. This organization has truly been a blessing to its community. I ask my colleagues in the House to join me in recognizing the good work of the Tree of Life food pantry and its dedicated volunteers in serving the hungry in Loudoun County, Virginia.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 944 and thank the Chair and Ranking Member for their efforts to bring this to the floor for consideration at such a pivotal time in Iraq. A February 6 ABC News story opened with the following observation: ``Across the Middle East, where Christianity was born and its followers once made up a sizable portion of the population, Christians are now tiny minorities.'' This is perhaps no more true than in Iraq. With the exception of Israel, the Bible contains more references to the cities, regions and nations of ancient Iraq than any other country. The patriarch Abraham came from a city in Iraq called Ur. Isaac's bride, Rebekah, came from northwest Iraq. Jacob spent 20 years in Iraq and his sons (the 12 tribes of Israel) were born in northwest Iraq. A remarkable spiritual revival as told in the book of Jonah occurred in Nineveh. The events of the book of Esther took place in Iraq as did the account of Daniel in the Lion's Den. Tragically Iraq's ancient Christian community is facing extinction. The U.N. High Commission for Refugees estimates that some 250,000 to 500,000 Christians have left the country since 2003, or about half the Christian population. According to the bipartisan U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), ``while Christians and other religious minorities represented only approximately 3 percent of the pre-2003 Iraqi population, they constitute approximately 15 and 20 percent of registered Iraqi refugees in Jordan and Syria, respectively, and Christians account for 35 and 64 percent, respectively, of all registered Iraqi refugees in Lebanon and Turkey.'' It is critical to note, as the figures above indicate, that the violence and intimidation that Iraq's Christians and other vulnerable ethno-religious communities have faced is targeted. In July 2008, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Migration & Refugee Services said this about the minority religious communities: ``These groups, whose home has been what is now Iraq for many centuries, are literally being obliterated--not because they are fleeing generalized violence but because they are being specifically and viciously victimized by Islamic extremists and, in some cases, common criminals.'' Reports indicate that since 2003, more than 200 Christians have been killed in Iraq, and since June 2004, 65 churches have been attacked or bombed. The situation facing these minority communities is not improving. In fact there has been a recent uptick in violence in the lead up to the elections in Iraq. A Reuters story last week reported that, ``With Iraq's March 7 parliamentary vote looming, a spike in attacks against Christians could be a sign of voter intimidation by factions in the bitter Kurd-Arab dispute, or another attempt by al Qaeda to derail the election.'' I have appreciated Ambassador Chris Hill's commitment to this issue. In recent correspondence he indicated that ``the security of the Christian community remains one of my paramount concerns, especially in light of attacks directed at Christian churches in Baghdad and Mosul over the past five months.'' But there needs to be leadership from the highest levels within the State Department as well. I have long advocated, both during the previous administration and in the current administration, that the U.S. needs to adopt a comprehensive policy to address the unique situation of these defenseless minorities. This resolution includes language urging the Secretary of State to develop just such a strategy. It is time for this administration to start taking religious freedom seriously. The position of U.S. ambassador for International Religious Freedom has been vacant for more than a year while other more junior posts have been filled. There's a saying in Washington that personnel is policy. When there isn't personnel, the policy inevitably suffers. The ancient faith communities of Iraq and others enduring religious persecution worldwide deserve a voice. This resolution is a step in the right direction.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, like so many Americans, my family and I have been touched by cancer. I have worked over the years in Congress as a member of the Congressional Cancer Caucus as well as my service on the Appropriations Committee to support measures to help fight cancer, including historic increases in research funding for the National Institutes of Health, NIH. I have always believed that ensuring adequate funding for medical research on diseases such as cancer is an important priority for the federal government. There is another important component in the fight against cancer being lead today, Madam Speaker, by Bill Couzens, one of my constituents from Middleburg, Virginia. He heads a grassroots nonprofit organization--the Next Generation Choices Foundation--that he founded over 6 years ago, to build awareness for cancer prevention by reducing environmental exposures both known and suspected to be linked with cancer. After the loss of his sister Anne, mother Joan and several close friends, he felt the need to create an organization that would focus on the root causes of the worldwide cancer epidemic and increase awareness on ways to reduce exposures and choices linked with human health and the environment. He says he learned that there are healthy choices that can be made by individuals and communities to work toward a world with less cancer, including nutritional food options for families. Next Generation Choices in turn has formed the Less Cancer Campaign, which has grown to become a worldwide leader in cancer prevention awareness, with over 10,000 members, friends, and fans on Facebook. The reach of the Less Cancer Campaign has been wide; numerous other organizations have followed its lead and collaborated to fan the flame for cancer prevention around the globe. These combined efforts have raised awareness for Less Cancer, not just here in America, but around the world. The Less Cancer and new Healthy Town campaigns are working to help guide communities and individuals on understanding the importance of making strong choices, and providing information on options and resources available to assist them in making healthy decisions. While most often pointing to options for the consumer, the organization in some rare cases has provided food cards, information for healthy food choices, and even shoes for children who need to get out and move, run and play. While Mr. Couzens' personal experience inspired his passion to help lessen the grip of cancer on society, he also understood the importance of working with scientists and physicians who have a depth of work in evidenced-based science. Next Generation Choices board of directors includes Ronald B. Herberman, M.D., founding director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, associate vice chancellor for cancer research, Hillman professor of oncology, and professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. Dr. Herberman is an internationally recognized tumor immunologist who has made major discoveries in his field and has fostered the application of this information to novel approaches in cancer therapy, diagnosis and prevention. The phenomenon of natural killer, NK, cell-mediated cytotoxicity against tumors was first discovered in Dr. Herberman's laboratory at the National Cancer Institute in the early 1970s. In addition to his pioneering investigation of NK cells, Dr. Herberman has played a leading role in multiple areas of tumor immunology. Other leaders in science and medicine on the board are Maryann Donovan, Ph.D., the director of the Center for Environmental Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, and Thomas M. Sherman, M.D., a gastroenterologist. The board also includes professionals in industry and business. Greg Lam and John Couzens both contribute from their years in business and nonprofit management. Miles M. O'Brien is a 26-year broadcast news veteran. Based in New York City, he owns a production company that creates, produces, and distributes original content across all media platforms. For nearly 17 years he worked as a correspondent, anchor, and producer for CNN based in Atlanta and New York. At various times he was CNN's science, space, aviation, technology, and environment correspondent. Also on the board is Veronique Pittman, a trustee of The Rainforest Foundation and Round Hill Hotels and Villas, and a partner with Rainforest Native, which imports fair-trade ecological products from the Amazon rain forest. In addition, she sits on the Leadership Council of the Green Schools Alliance and is an Advisory Board member of the Sustainable Acai Project and Global Goods Partners. Next Generation Choices, Less Cancer, and Healthy Town are closely associated with cancer prevention, but also work to reduce all illnesses associated with human health and the environment. As Mr. Couzens has said, ``When communities and individuals work to make healthier choices, great strides toward preventing cancer and other illnesses including heart disease, diabetes, and obesity can be made. By educating people and unifying individuals and programs-- transformation will occur for the next generation.'' Madam Speaker, the battle against cancer will take the work of individuals, communities, businesses and governments, and we salute the effort of Bill Couzens and Next Generation Choices as they raise awareness on ways we can all be involved in this fight.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Special Agent Gregory A. Scovel, Deputy Director for Operations of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS), who retired from that organization on February 19 after 31 years of highly distinguished public service. I am pleased to say that Special Agent Scovel is one of my constituents from Leesburg, Virginia. He began his NCIS career in 1978 following his graduation from the University of San Diego. Among his first field assignments was his participation in Operation ``Red Blanket'' following the Red Brigade kidnapping of U.S. Army General James Dozier when he was detailed in Beirut at the time of the 1983 bombing of the USMC barracks. Special Agent Scovel was selected in 1986 to be the Assistant Special Agent in Charge (ASAC) for Counterintelligence at the Norfolk Resident Agency and moved in 1988 to serve as the Special Agent in Charge (SAC) of the Little Creek Resident Agency. He completed a ``trifecta'' of assignments in the Norfolk region with his posting as the Operations Officer for the NCIS Atlantic Command. Special Agent Scovel was promoted in 1992 and assigned as the SAC of the Naples Resident Agency. Following the reorganization of the NCIS in 1994, he was designated as the ASAC for Counterintelligence of the Europe Field Office. For his performance in Europe, he was recognized with the Department of the Navy Meritorious Civilian Service Award as well as a 1996 promotion and transfer to headquarters as the Deputy Assistant Director (DAD) for Technical Services. Following that tour, he was selected to serve as the SAC of the Washington Field Office. In 2000, Special Agent Scovel attended the National Security Management Program at Syracuse University's prestigious Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. Following the October 2000 bombing in Yemen, he was detailed to service on the USS Cole Commission and authored the CI and Force Protection Chapters for its final report, after which he was recognized with the Defense Exceptional Civilian Service Award, the highest level career civilian honor given by the Office of the Secretary of Defense. He joined the NCIS Executive Staff in 2001 as the Executive Assistant Director (EAD) for Criminal Investigations and following the tragic events of 9/11 assumed leadership in shaping the NCIS response including the development of the Counterterrorism Task Force and its ultimate successor, the Combating Terrorism Directorate. He was later reassigned as the EAD for Counterintelligence and in 2007 was promoted as the Deputy Director for Operations and later concurrently served as the Acting Director of the NCIS until a new director was selected this month. Following his retirement, Special Agent Scovel will begin a second career within the private sector. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Scovel for his 31 years of outstanding public service and to wish him ``fair winds and following seas'' as he begins the next chapter of his life.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 1059, a resolution honoring the heroism of the seven urban search and rescue teams deployed to Haiti from New York City, New York; Fairfax County, Virginia; Los Angeles County, California; Miami, Florida; Miami-Dade County, Florida; and Virginia Beach, Virginia, and commending their dedication and assistance in the aftermath of the horrific January 12 Haitian earthquake. I was pleased to be an original cosponsor of this resolution which congratulates the more than 500 rescue workers, some of whom are from my congressional district in Fairfax County, for the lives they helped save and for the work they undertook to train additional international teams working in Haiti. The enormity of the destruction that Haiti has experienced is difficult to comprehend. But in the face of this devastation, selfless men and women from around our country have given of their time and talents to help a people and a nation in desperate need. I join my colleagues in recognizing and thanking them for their service.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding the time. I want to support the comments that have been made by Members of both sides and let Members think about it for a moment. With the exception of Israel, the Bible, the Bible contains more references to the cities, the regions, and the nations of ancient Iraq than any other country. The patriarch Abraham came from the city of Ur. I actually visited the site, when the war began, of the location of Abraham's house. Isaac's bride, Rebekah, came from northwest Iraq. Jacob spent 20 years in Iraq, and his sons, the 12 tribes of Israel, were born in northwest Iraq. A remarkable spiritual revival as told in the Book of Jonah occurred in Nineveh. The events of the Book of Esther took place in Iraq, as did the account of Daniel in the lion's den. So all of these religious things have taken place, and yet people have almost forgotten about Iraq. And the previous speaker in his comments has said the Christian community in these areas has been going through tremendous pressure. I have appreciated Ambassador Chris Hill's commitment to this issue. In recent correspondence, he indicated that the security of the Christian community remains one of his paramount concerns, especially in light of attacks directed at Christian churches in Baghdad and Mosul over the past 5 months. But there needs to be leadership from the highest levels within the State Department as well. We've long advocated both during the previous administration and the current one that the U.S. needs to adopt a comprehensive policy to address the unique situation of these defenseless minorities. This resolution, and I thank both sides for bringing it up, urges the Secretary of State to develop such a strategy. In closing, let me just say it is time for this administration to start taking religious freedom seriously. The position of U.S. Ambassador for International Religious Freedom has been vacant, has been vacant for over a year. Did anyone hear? There is no ambassador for religious freedom that has been appointed by this administration. The position has been vacant, vacant for 1 year. Yet we see the persecution of the Coptic Christians in Egypt, the Assyrian Christians in Iraq, the Catholic Church in China, the Catholic Church in Vietnam, on and on. So we want to see this administration have an ambassador who can advocate, as the resolution calls for, to help Chris Hill and helps others to speak out and advocate. But the very fact that there has been no ambassador appointed for over 13 months kind of tells the story. Personnel, personnel is policy, and if there's no personnel, it's not a good policy. Let me just end. I want to thank the gentlemen on both sides and the gentlewoman for speaking. And I hope there's a rollcall vote on this. I hope we have to vote up and down so we can send a message to the Assyrian Christians and those who are going through tremendous persecution wondering whether anybody in the West cares.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a Lutheran pastor executed for his efforts in the Nazi resistance during World War II, once said, ``the ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world that it leaves to its children.'' These are timeless words that resonate deeply today as our Nation struggles to confront our growing national debt. The release this week of President Obama's fiscal year 2011 budget projects a deficit of nearly $1.6 trillion, equivalent to 10.6 percent of economic output. I am convinced that addressing ballooning debt is not only an economic issue, but there is also a moral component to this issue that goes to the heart of who we are as Americans. Yet I wonder if we in Congress, America's political leaders, have lost the will to make the tough decisions necessary, decisions that could well require sacrifice. The generation of Americans who came of age during the era of Dietrich Bonhoeffer has been affectionately called the Greatest Generation. Many of them have made unimaginable sacrifices, including their lives, for their children and their children's children. If we remember the legacy that we've inherited, the giants on whose shoulders we stand, I believe we, too, can be moved to do our duty. It will not be easy, but that which is worth doing rarely is. However, should the 111th Congress fail to address the financial tsunami approaching our shores, it will be judged by history as a dysfunctional, fundamentally broken institution that neglected its responsibilities not only to its constituents we came here to serve, but to those future generations of Americans. We are on that precipice. It has been almost 4 years since I first came to the floor of the House proposing an independent bipartisan commission to address unsustainable Federal spending. The SAFE Commission, short for Securing America's Future Economy, would operate in an authentic and transparent way, holding a series of public meetings across the country to hear from the American people. It would put everything on the table, entitlements and all other spending and tax policy. Its recommendations would not be made in a vacuum or over a weekend locked up at Andrews Air Force Base. At the time of introduction, and still today, it is the only debt reduction commission legislation in play that mandates public engagement on this scale. It also would force Congress to vote up or down on the legislative package born from the commission's work. There would be no avoiding of hard choices. When I first introduced the bill in the spring of 2006, I discussed the looming financial crisis facing our country and said that the longer we put off fixing the problem, the more bitter the medicine required to fix it would be. I also sought to address the objections of some who said the problem was too big to fix, too risky, particularly in a congressional election year, and an abdication of congressional responsibility. At face value, there may be some merits to some of those objections, but these arguments ring hollow for the future that we face. They paralyze the Congress from moving forward. They allow the Congress to blindly continue to spend. They provide an excuse for the status quo. They allow us to stick our heads in the sand, all to the detriment of the country. Consider that from 2011 to 2020, the Congressional Budget Office projects staggering cumulative deficits of $6 trillion. Our Nation is broke. The national debt is now over $12 trillion and growing at rates that haven't been matched since World War II. Amazingly, the House earlier today followed the Senate action to increase the Federal debt limit to a staggering $14.294 trillion. Significantly, these deficits are not first and foremost wartime deficits. Rather, we have amassed enormous unfunded obligations to ensure future entitlement benefits that, when added with liabilities like the debt, total nearly $57 trillion. That means every man, woman, and child owes $184,000. Legitimate credit rating agencies have threatened in recent weeks to downgrade the United States from its current Triple A bond rating. The latest warning came just this week from Moody's, a top Wall Street credit agency, reacting to the President's budget. Moody issued a report saying ``unless further measures are taken to reduce the budget deficit further or the economy rebounds more vigorously than expected, the Federal financial picture as presented in President Obama's February 1 budget will at some point put pressure on AAA government bond rating.'' This news comes on the heels of Spain, Greece, and Dubai all seeing their credit ratings downgraded. Losing this ``gold standard'' would make it even more difficult to borrow money, would shake confidence in the dollar, and could lead to a situation where the dollar is no longer the primary international reserve currency. If that were to happen, prices for everything traded internationally, including food and oil, would go up. Just this week, The Washington Post featured a piece by Allan Sloan, Fortune magazine's senior editor-at-large. He focused on a recent report from the Congressional Budget Office that shows that for the first time in 25 years, Social Security is taking in less in taxes than it is spending on benefits. Sloan writes, ``Instead of helping to finance the rest of the government, as it has done for decades, our Nation's biggest social program needs help from the Treasury to keep benefit checks from bouncing--in other words, a taxpayer bailout.'' He concludes, ``this year's Social Security cash shortfall is a watershed event. Until this year, Social Security was a problem for the future. Now it's a problem for the present.'' Social Security and Medicare are amassing huge deficits and are ill- prepared for the coming flood of new baby boom retirees. When our retirement security programs like Social Security and Medicare were established, the ratio of workers supporting each retiree was more than 10 times the number supporting retirees today. The American people understand the depth of the country's spending problems and are leaps and bounds ahead of Congress in acknowledging the need to deal with this issue. A national survey taken in November revealed that 70 percent of those polled said a bipartisan commission is the best way to tackle the growing budget deficits and national debt. Seventy percent is a pretty convincing number. Every Member of Congress knows how serious the Federal Government's spending is. But where are those willing to deal with it? The lyrics in Simon and Garfunkel's song ``The Boxer''-- ``man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest''--aptly describe the mood on Capitol Hill when it comes to addressing Federal spending. Every day that passes without action is a day that entitlement spending continues to diminish vital discretionary dollars currently being used for domestic and foreign priorities. But where will the money to meet the needs of the American people come from if these dollars continue to shrink because mandatory spending is taking a growing piece of that pie? If we do not begin to rein in spending, every penny of the Federal budget will go to interest on the debt and entitlement spending by 2028. The implications are staggering. The New York Times ran an article on the front page the day after the President's budget was submitted to Congress which captured this approaching reality. It said, ``unless miraculous growth, or miraculous political compromises, creates some unforeseen change over the next decade, there is virtually no room for new domestic initiatives for Mr. Obama or his successors.'' What does that mean in real terms? Do you care about national defense and homeland security in a post-9/ 11 world? There will not be any money left. Do you care about improving our Nation's crumbling transportation infrastructure? There won't be any money left. Do you care about returning a man to the Moon? There will not be any money left. Do you care about this country leading the way in scientific innovation and technological advancement? There will not be any money left. Do you care about finding a cure for cancer, Alzheimer's, autism and Lyme disease? There will not be any money left. Do you care about helping the vulnerable populations around the world, the orphan, the widow, the HIV/AIDS patient? There will not be any money left. Do you care about sending aid to countries devastated by natural disasters like Haiti after the earthquake? There will not be any money left. No money. Zero. Every penny of the Federal budget will go to interest on the debt and entitlement spending. The sheer size of the Federal deficit and national debt are astounding. But the narrative that will accompany these numbers if Congress continues to do nothing will be even more devastating. Its implications are not just economic but also encompass our national security. Wall Street Journal columnist Gerald Seib made just this point last week. He wrote, ``the Federal budget deficit has long since graduated from nuisance to headache to pressing national concern. Now, however, it has become so large and persistent that it is time to start thinking of it as something else entirely: A national security threat.'' Foreign lenders already own nearly 40 percent of our domestic economy. Our biggest ``bankers'' are China, Japan and oil-exporting countries like Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia was home to the 9/11 terrorists. Saudi Arabia's Wahhabi brand of Islam is taught in some of the most radical mosques and madrassas around the world, including along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Saudi Arabia continues to view floggings and beheadings with a sword as legitimate means of punishment. They have repressed women. They persecute Christians and those of the Jewish faith. Their textbooks are filled with hateful messages about minority faiths. Is this a country that we want to be beholden to? What about communist China, which routinely violates the basic human rights and religious freedom of its own people, where Catholic bishops, Protestant pastors and Tibetan monks are jailed for practicing their faith? I've seen how they plundered Tibet with my own eyes. The U.S. intelligence community notes that China's attempts to penetrate U.S. agencies are the most aggressive of all foreign intelligence organizations. According to the FBI, Chinese intelligence services ``pose a significant threat both to the national security and to the compromise of U.S. critical national assets.'' Weapons that entities of the People's Republic of China supplied to Iran were ``found to have been transferred to terrorist organizations in Iraq and Afghanistan.'' China is a major arms supplier and source of economic strength to the regime in Sudan. They have been the major obstacle to ending the genocide in Darfur. Our efforts to exert diplomatic pressure against Iran's nuclear weapons program have been thwarted by China's opposition to the U.N. Security Council sanctions against Iran. Do we really want China to be our banker? These foreign countries, with vastly different aims than our own, could end up negatively influencing U.S. foreign policy by threatening to dump our currency in the world market. Such actions would not be a historical anomaly. Recall 1956 in the Suez Canal crisis, which some believed signaled the end of Britain and France as world powers. Egypt announced that it was going to nationalize the canal, which outraged the British and French, who then devised a plan to use military force to keep control. The U.S. wanted to avert conflict at any cost. And President Eisenhower threatened to sell the U.S. reserves of the British pound, which would essentially result in the collapse of the British currency. The British changed course. Is it conceivable to imagine the Saudis threatening to dump our currency if we don't withdraw from the region? Is it conceivable to imagine China threatening to dump our currency if we don't stop pressing nuclear-armed North Korea? Simply put, we are presently borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from countries which pursue aims that are at odds with our national interest and values, both directly and indirectly. How did America reach this unsustainable spending level? There is plenty of blame to go around for lack of action from both political parties. It has been an equal opportunity spending society. I tried to get the Bush administration on board from July 2006 to April 2008. I then wrote Treasury Secretary Paulson more than a dozen letters imploring him to embrace the bipartisan SAFE process. Two months before then, President-elect Obama took the oath of office. I wrote to ask him to support the SAFE Commission initiative, which Congressman Jim Cooper and I were advocating as the best way forward to rein in America's debt. Last week, after years of effort, the commission finally got its day of debate on the Senate floor, and we came as close as we have gotten to creating this bipartisan panel legislatively. The Senate considered a measure put forward by Senators Conrad and Gregg, in many ways companion legislation to the SAFE Commission. During the debate, Senator Conrad pointed to a recent Newsweek cover story, ``How Great Powers Fall: Steep Debt, Slow Growth, and High Spending Kills Empires-- and America Could Be Next.'' He quoted from the article that ``this is how empires decline. It begins with a debt explosion. It ends with inexorable reduction in the resources available for the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force. If the United States doesn't come up soon with a credible plan to restore the Federal budget to balance over the next 5 to 10 years, the danger is very real that a debt crisis could lead to a major weakening of American power.'' Sobering words, but hardly alarmist. Senator Gregg in his floor speech also described before us in stark terms. He said, ``We are on an intolerable path, a path of unsustainability, a path which leads us down the road to a Nation which is less prosperous and has a lower standard of living than what we received from our parents.'' Similar to the remarks of Senators Conrad and Gregg, underscoring the crisis we face, The New York Times story referenced earlier also reports candidly about this same issue and cites historical precedent. The Times reported: ``The United States could begin to suffer the same disease that has afflicted Japan over the past decade. As debt grows more rapidly than income, the country's influence around the world erodes.'' Charles Krauthammer in October also described the prospect of America's decline but laid it squarely in our laps to choose. He said, ``For America today, decline is not a condition. Decline is a choice. Two decades into the unipolar world that came about with the fall of the Soviet Union, America is in the position of deciding whether to abdicate or retain its dominance. Decline, or continued ascendancy, is in our hands.'' Last year, the well-respected Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress, published a report titled, ``Saving America's Future: A Challenge to the American People.'' It paints a stark and troubling picture of our Nation's challenges. One of its recommendations was to create a bipartisan commission to deal with the looming financial crisis. At the press conference unveiling the report, the study panel's cochairman, Norm Augustine, the former chairman and CEO of Lockheed Martin, voiced a similar warning. He said, ``In the technology-driven economy in which we live, Americans have come to accept leadership as the natural and enduring state of affairs. But leadership is highly perishable. It must be constantly re-earned. ``In the 16th century, the citizens of Spain no doubt thought they would remain the world leader. In the 17th century, it was France. In the 19th century, Great Britain. And in the 20th century, it was the United States. ``Unless we do something dramatically different, including strengthening our investments in research and education, the 21st century will belong to China and India.'' George Will's column in The Washington Post today echoes these themes of China's ascent. He cites Robert Fogel, a Nobel Prize-winning economist, who predicts that ``by 2040, China's GDP will be $123 trillion, or three times the entire world's economic output in 2000. China's 40 percent share of the global GDP will be almost triple that of the United States' 14 percent.'' Despite these alarm bells these statements set off, the Senate failed to approve the Conrad-Gregg amendment. The vote was close. A majority was on board, but the final tally came up seven votes short: 53-46. I salute Senators Conrad and Gregg, as well as the other 44 Senators who voted for the commission, for the profiles in courage they showed. In the aftermath of that defeat, the President, who only at the 11th hour had endorsed Conrad-Gregg, proposed in his State of the Union address the creation of a fiscal commission by executive order. His budget document reflected that proposal, though only in broad terms without any formal language or timeline. When I first heard that he was considering such a plan, I came to the House floor to voice my skepticism about an executive commission without congressional approval. Those concerns are undiminished as more details have emerged. One of the most authentic provisions of the SAFE Commission is its mandate for an up-or-down vote in the Congress. The establishment of fiscal commission by executive order that does not require Congress to vote on its findings is what could be called ``big hat, but no cattle,'' a big hat used for political cover for elected officials who aren't willing to make tough choices in an election year. Simply put, a commission established through executive order will make it look like Washington is finally doing something to address runaway spending, but without the teeth to require action. It will amount to nothing more than another report collecting dust on the bookshelf. It will not make a difference. A real commission must be authentic, accountable, and transparent. It must involve the American people. It must require legislative action. A commission through executive order fails on all those counts. It will be viewed by the America people as cover for the billions of dollars added to the deficit in recent spending legislation, such as the $787 billion in economic stimulus that has failed to move the unemployment rate below 10 percent, or the nearly $1 trillion in health care reform being negotiated behind closed doors, or other huge budget breakers widely unpopular in the eyes of the American people. And if by some miracle Congress were forced to vote on the recommendations of such a fiscal commission, it would be after November with a lame duck Congress filled with Members who are retiring and may have already secured new jobs as lobbyists, or those who were defeated. Where would the accountability to the constituents be that they represent? Just this week, the President submitted a budget that includes unprecedented spending and borrowing: some $1.4 trillion in new taxes, $8.5 trillion in additional deficits, $3.8 trillion in government spending this year alone, and $100 billion proposed for another dubious stimulus package, and all submitted with the claim that the administration's fiscal commission will put the country on a fiscally sustainable path. Where is the credibility? There has been much analysis of Senator-elect Scott Brown's upset victory in Massachusetts. For the record, Scott Brown, too, has voiced his support for the bipartisan commission and said if he had been seated before the vote on Conrad-Gregg, he would have voted for the amendment. One thing that the pundits and politicians in Washington ought to take away from his election is that the American people lack trust in their elected officials and have grown weary of the status quo. The American people want their voices to be heard. The American people are deeply concerned about record spending. The American people expect more from their elected leaders. We have to prove to them that we are listening. I am among those who believe that Republicans can and will regain a majority in the House; and when we do, I am hopeful that we will have the courage to prove to the American people that we are listening. We must take the bold action necessary to address runaway spending, something that we failed to emphasize in recent years. To Members of my own party who prefer to bide their time in the hope that we are successful in November, I respectfully submit we cannot wait to deal with this growing threat to our economy and standard of living. In fact, I have been deeply disappointed that many with whom I typically find common cause, Americans for Tax Reform and The Wall Street Journal, among them, have been some of the most vocal in their opposition to the commission idea, stating their fear that it would ultimately prove to be a vehicle for tax increases. Interesting, they have found themselves keeping company with MoveOn.org, the service employees union SEIU, and AFL-CIO, and NOW, all of whom have come out opposed to our legislation. Those organizations' reason, of course, is entirely opposite, with the fear the commission would cut their closely guarded spending programs. Yes, MoveOn.org, which maliciously and unnecessarily launched personal attacks on respected Army General David Petraeus. Remember the General Betray Us ads? And the same Service Employees International Union, whose president Andy Stern was the most frequent visitor to President Obama's White House in the first months of his Presidency and turned out more than 100,000 volunteers to fund his campaign. And the same AFL-CIO which is pushing organized labor's agenda and legislation that would strip workers of their right to a secret-ballot election when it comes to union representation. During the Senate consideration of the Conrad-Gregg measure, Senator Voinovich, an early champion of the commission, aptly described the political landscape: ``Since the possible passage of this commission has become a reality, special interest groups on both sides of the aisle have assailed it as terrible. The taxpayer organizations on the right warn that the commission will increase taxes. The liberal groups on the left warn it will result in cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and other government programs. If the left and the right is so unhappy,'' Senator Voinovich said, ``with this, this has to be good legislation.'' I want to be absolutely clear: I am a fiscal conservative. I worked with senior staff at the Heritage Foundation, a bastion of conservativism, among others, in drafting the SAFE Commission legislation. I believe that the economy grows when people keep more of their hard-earned money, and my voting record reflects this belief. I do not favor tax increases. In fact, I would support a short-term moratorium on Social Security payroll taxes as the ultimate economic stimulus to put more of taxpayers' hard-earned money back into their hands so they can invest in the economy. This would cost less than a so-called stimulus and would create jobs. As sometimes happens around here, positions are staked out before the actual bill text is ever read. So I encourage my colleagues, especially on my side of the aisle, to actually read the SAFE Commission bill. It is a bipartisan process. The legislation text protects the minority by requiring a supermajority, 12 of 16 of the commission's members, to be in agreement before any legislative recommendations are sent to Congress for an up- or-down vote. I do not believe that minority Members are likely to be appointed to this type of commission by the Republican leadership. Paul Ryan, ranking member on the House Budget Committee, and Dave Camp, ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee, they would not waiver in their opposition to tax increases. To say that this would bring about tax increases, it is wrong. Senator Gregg underscored this point during consideration of the Conrad-Gregg amendment. Senator Gregg said, ``One presumes that whoever goes on this task force, if chosen by the leaders of their party in the Senate, whether Senator Reid or Senator McConnell, or leaders of the party in the House, Ms. Pelosi or Mr. Boehner, is going to reflect fairly aggressively the viewpoints and philosophies of the different parts. It will be a bipartisan report, or it will not be a report at all. Then it comes to the Congress, and has to be voted up or down by a supermajority. Once again, it basically moots the ability to game it. One side can't game the other. The proposal must be bipartisan and fair.'' In short, without Republican support, any attempt to raise taxes would never see the light of day on the House floor. The SAFE bill was carefully crafted to ensure a bipartisan process and to protect the rights of the minority party. Given the enormity of the challenge, the commission needs to be able to look at every component of our fiscal policy to fairly assess where we stand and how we can best move toward a sound financial future. In looking at revenues, the legislative language is clear that any changes in the Tax Code must help simplify the system and stimulate increased economic growth and, thereby, tax revenue. But what no one is saying is that by opposing the commission concept altogether, and failing to put forward any viable alternative, those who most adamantly oppose tax increases essentially ensure they will happen down the road. The issue is that if we don't do something now about the deficit, the debts that continue to mount at record levels will guarantee tax increases in the future. The longer it takes to address this issue, the more draconian the options will be when Congress is forced, which they will most surely be, to change course. I have repeatedly challenged colleagues on both sides of the aisle who question the SAFE Commission to come up with another solution to the deficit and debt crisis that can pass Congress. Without a special process like the SAFE Commission, which is based on the successful Federal base-closing process, I am convinced Congress will never put a mechanism in place to control government spending. Quite frankly, both parties have failed to face up to the entitlement challenges in recent years. Given the enormity of the country's financial turmoil, I remain convinced that the bold steps needed to control deficit spending will never be taken through regular order in a Congress that is so politically controlled by special interests. Our entire political system is now so polarized that many only think in terms of red or blue ideology at the expense of a shared national interest. Time is growing short. If lawmakers are serious about the debt and the deficit, issues that Americans are increasingly worried about, Congress will halt the budget gimmicks, the slick talking points, and muster the political will to have an honest conversation with the American people about where we are, where we are headed, and what changes need to be made to get us back on track. That is what the SAFE Commission-like process is all about, a national conversation. The people of this country deserve an honest assessment about their Federal Government's future government savings account and checkbook, a discussion driven not by politics but by statesmanship. The American people deserve a discussion which elevates the Nation's sights. The consequences of inaction are simply too great to put this issue on hold and rely on a fake commission. We need a process that will produce measurable results, a process that will foster a renaissance in the country, will allow us to honestly tell our children that the foundation of America that they are inheriting is just as strong and just as promising as the America that our parents left us. I long to be able to tell my five children and my 15 grandchildren that that is the case. Abraham Lincoln, one of our Nation's most admired and greatest Presidents once said, ``You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today.'' Yet that is exactly what Congress is poised to do if it fails to act. In closing, Madam Speaker, nearly 4 years ago I visited the site of George Washington's crossing the Delaware River in anticipation of the Battle of Trenton. The iconic scene is depicted in the painting which hangs in the west wing of the White House. Washington was down to only 3,000 soldiers, and the cause of liberty looked to be headed for defeat. Yet with great courage and sacrifice, Washington and his forces were successful in changing the direction of the American Revolution, and therefore the course of history. Their legacy is a rich one, and it is ours. If we are mindful of this legacy, of the sacrifices of so many previous generations of Americans, I believe we will move to take action. I believe that we will rise in our midst, profiles in courage. I believe we will make the sacrifices necessary for the betterment of this country. I close with the words of Washington himself, the cautionary words from his 1796 farewell address. He said, ``We should avoid ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden of what we ourselves ought to bear.'' Indeed, this is our burden to bear. I ask my colleagues, will we falter under its weight or rise above it as befitting this great Nation? And with that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF

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

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing bipartisan legislation with Sen. Lindsey Graham to prohibit the use of Department of Justice funds for a civilian trial for Khalid Sheik Mohammed--9/11 mastermind and murderer of journalist Daniel Pearl--and four other co- conspirators in any community in the U.S. I feel this legislation is critically needed in light of the attorney general's dangerous mismanagement of this trial. This legislation is similar to an amendment I offered to fiscal year 2010 appropriations legislation, but was defeated on a party-line vote late last year. Last November, Attorney General Eric Holder unilaterally announced that Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his four co-conspirators currently held at Guantanamo Bay would be tried in the heart of New York City in a civilian trial. Alarmingly, the attorney general did not consult with any local leaders, including New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly or Mayor Michael Bloomberg. If he had, he would have better understood the dangers and cost of this approach. The trial, as planned, is estimated to cost taxpayers at least $250 million per year--for a total expected cost of more than $1 billion. Upon reviewing the costs and security concerns from the New York City Police Department last week, Mayor Bloomberg stated, ``It would be great if the federal government could find a site that didn't cost a billion dollars, which using downtown [New York City] will. [The trial] is going to cost an awful lot of money and disturb an awful lot of people.'' Shortly thereafter, scores of local, state, and congressional leaders from the New York region withdrew their support and encouraged the attorney general to reverse this reckless decision. However, in light of this collapsing support from local leaders for the trial, I am concerned that the Obama Administration is now ``venue shopping'' for a new city to hold this trial in order to save face. This approach is no less dangerous, costly and disruptive to other communities under consideration than it was for New York City. The legislation Sen. Graham and I are introducing today would explicitly block this dangerous and wasteful trial from any domestic civilian court and, hopefully, compel the attorney general to work with Congress on a safer and more appropriate option. However, our legislation would still allow for a military commission at Guantanamo Bay or on a secure military base inside the U.S. This is a reasonable approach that allows the administration to try these murderous terrorists in an appropriate military commission. These detainees do not deserve more rights than an American service man or woman that is tried by military court. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation. The attorney general does not have a blank check to try dangerous terrorists in the venue of his choice. This must be a decision made in consultation with local leaders, Congress and the American people.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I submit for the Record a letter that I received earlier today from Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan in response to my many letters to him and the President on the release of dangerous detainees from Guantanamo Bay to unstable countries. In Mr. Brennan's letter, he confirms that detainee recidivism has dramatically grown from 13 to 20 percent over the last year. The administration has been suppressing this information for many months and I have urged the White House on several occasions to release it to the public. He also challenges my concerns about the release of a detainee named Ayman Batarfi, who is connected to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda's anthrax program. I also submit for the record a response to Mr. Brennan's letter by Mr. Thomas Joscelyn that was published on The Weekly Standard's Web site. The White House, Washington, DC, February 1, 2010. Dear Representative Wolf: I am writing in response to questions you have raised in letters to the President on November 2, 2009, November 5, 2009, November 12, 2009, December 18, 2009, December 29, 2009, and January 12, 2010, as well as during a briefing I provided to Members of the House of Representatives on January 13, 2010. In particular, you have posed questions relating to the closure of the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay and the Administration's counterterrorism efforts in Yemen. Let me take this opportunity to address these issues in greater detail. The professional assessment of our military commanders and civilian leaders at the Department of Defense is that closing the detention facilities at Guantanamo is a national security imperative in the war against al-Qa'ida. Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen, and General Petraeus have all stated that closing Guantanamo will help our troops by eliminating a potent recruiting tool. All three officials prosecuted this war under the previous Administration and continue to do so today. With respect to detainees transferred abroad, this Administration has instituted the most robust review process ever applied to detainees at Guantanamo, including halting the ``stove-piping'' of classified information and requiring unanimous interagency decisions prior to every transfer. On January 22, 2009, the President signed Executive Order 13492, directing the consolidation of information from all agencies relating to Guantanamo detainees. As a result, Federal agencies for the first time have unprecedented access to a wide range of classified information collected from across the government. The Executive Order also directed a comprehensive interagency review of all individuals at Guantanamo. To implement this directive, a task force was established with more than 60 career prosecutors, agents, analysts, and attorneys from across the government, including civilian, military, and intelligence officials. Every decision to transfer a detainee to a foreign country during this Administration has been made unanimously by all agencies involved with the review process after a full assessment of intelligence and threat information. This includes the Department of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, as well as the Departments of State, Justice, and Homeland Security. A critical factor in considering the transfer of detainees abroad relates to security conditions in the receiving country. The situation in Yemen presents significant challenges in this respect, and as a result, we have been deliberate about transferring detainees there. The previous Administration transferred 13 detainees to Yemen, and this Administration has repatriated 7 to date. Although more than 90 Yemeni detainees remain at Guantanamo, the Administration temporarily suspended repatriations to Yemen earlier this month because of the specific security conditions and threat environment in that country. During the briefing on January 13, you made allegations that one detainee repatriated to Yemen had been involved in weapons of mass destruction. As it has done in every case, the task force thoroughly reviewed all information available to the government about this individual and concluded that there is no basis for the assertions you made during this session. I am attaching a classified addendum to this letter that addresses your concerns directly. We believe that significant improvements to the detainee review process have contributed to significant improvements in the results. According to the most recent report to Congress pursuant to section 319 of the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009, the Intelligence Community assesses that 20 percent of detainees transferred from Guantanamo are confirmed or suspected of recidivist activity. This figure includes 9.6 percent of former detainees who are confirmed recidivists and 10.4 percent of former detainees who the Intelligence Community suspects, but is not certain, may have engaged in recidivist activities. I want to underscore the fact that all of these cases relate to detainees released during the previous Administration and under the prior detainee review process. The report indicates no confirmed or suspected recidivists among detainees transferred during this Administration, although we recognize the ongoing risk that detainees could engage in such activity. The Administration has worked aggressively since President Obama's inauguration to fully support Yemeni stability. Although previous punitive policies left Yemen with little U.S. financial and military support, this Administration is attempting to correct this problem by significantly increasing our financial and military support to the Government of Yemen. In addition to assisting Yemen in countering al-Qa'ida in the Arabian Peninsula, we are examining political and fiscal reforms to improve the security conditions in Yemen and ensure that gains are lasting. These issues are among the most challenging we face as a nation, and the Administration is committed to executing a careful and comprehensive approach that promotes the national security of the United States. I look forward to working with you in the future on these and other issues. Sincerely, John O. Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize John Toups' contribution to health care in northern Virginia. He has recently stepped down after more than 20 years of service on the Board of Trustees at Inova Health System in Fairfax County, Virginia. In 1986, John began his service as a trustee on the board of the Fairfax Hospital Association, which is now known as the Inova Health System Board of Trustees. He served as vice-chairman from 1999-2003, and then as chairman from 2004-2007. For the past two years, John served on the board as past chairman. During his voluntary tenure on the Inova board, John led Inova through a merger with Alexandria Hospital in 1997 and then with Loudoun Hospital in 2005. He has helped to establish funding for other health care initiatives to benefit patients and their families, and has long supported Inova's philanthropic priorities, including the Life with Cancer program. Along with his work on the Board of Trustees for Inova, John found the time to serve as president of various community organizations, including the Northern Virginia Community Foundation, the George Mason University Foundation, and the Northern Virginia Roundtable. In his professional life, John founded a civil engineering firm which later merged with the Planning Research Corporation. He retired as president and CEO of PRC in 1987. I ask that my colleagues join me in recognizing John Toups and his significant contribution to the Inova Health System, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the entire northern Virginia community.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I rise to share with our colleagues the recent passing of Marvin L. Gillum. He died on January 21, 2010, at the age of 85. Marvin had a long history of service to the city of Manassas, Virginia, and the greater Prince William County community. He served as mayor of Manassas for eight years from 1996 to 2004, and was also a former chairman of the Manassas School Board. I submit for the Record an obituary for Marvin that ran in the Manassas News & Messenger on January 22: Marvin L. Gillum Marvin L. Gillum, age 85, died peacefully at his home Thursday, January 21, 2010. He was born on February 2, 1924 in his town, Manassas. He graduated from Osbourn High School in 1940 and continued his education at the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) where he earned a B.S. in chemistry and pre- med. He then received his D.D.S. from the Medical College of Virginia School of Dentistry. He worked as a dentist for forty years. His father, Dr. V.V. Gillum, established the family business in 1914 in Manassas where he served a number of patients who arrived by train from all over the area. Marvin served his country as a Captain in the U.S. Air Force Dental Corps during the Korean War. After retiring from dentistry in 1987, Dr. Gillum chose a second career in investment brokerage. He served Scott & Stringfellow as an Executive Vice President, a Senior Vice President, and sat on the Board of Directors. In 1947, he and his bride Mardi came to Manassas where they raised three daughters, Cindy, Debby and Melanie, who have given their parents six grandchildren and two grandchildren through marriage. Marvin and Mardi were blessed with 62 wonderful years of marriage. Apart from his devotion to his wife and family, Dr. Gillum's personal interests included tennis, bridge, piano and organ, reading, baseball, the Washington Redskins, and his alma mater VMI. His community activities read like a full chapter in ``Who's Who in America,'' and include Mayor of Manassas for eight years (1996-2004); 15 years on the Manassas School Board with ten as chairman; former chairman of Prince William Health System Foundation; first chairman of the Manassas Historical Commission; a trustee of the Manassas Baptist Church and former deacon (where he had been a member since age five); former director of the City of Manassas Education Foundation; former board member of Historic Manassas, Inc; former commissioner of the Manassas Baseball League; former director of the Prince William Chapter of the American Red Cross; advisory board of the Prince William Campus of George Mason University; honorary chairman of the March of Dimes; former director of SERVE, Inc.; past president of the Manassas Rotary Club; Outstanding Alumni Graduate Award -Osbourn High School Alumni Association; Vice Chairman and Board of Directors for Manassas Dance Company; former member of Manassas Kiwanis Club; and the Grand Marshal of the Greater Manassas Christmas Parade in 1994. He has also been an avid supporter of the local fine arts, backing such attractions as the new home for the Center for the Arts and the Loy E. Harris Pavilion. During his tenure as mayor, the city experienced a renaissance which included receiving the 2003 Great America Main Street Award and designation as one of ``Washingtonian'' magazine's top places to live in the Washington area. He truly loved his city and his lifelong endeavor was to enhance the quality of community life for all who lived here. He was preceded in death by his parents Dr. V.V. and Lois Layman Gillum and his sister, Jocelyn Gillum Scott. Survivors include his wife, Martha Droste Gillum; his three daughters, Cindy Gillum Coiner and husband Bill of Midlothian, Va., Debby Gillum Milligan and husband Dick of Manassas and Melanie Gillum Przybocki and husband Dave of Manassas. Grandchildren include: Caroline Milligan of Winchester, Va., Meredith Milligan of Manassas, Cara Clayton of Sarasota, Fla., Cory Clayton and wife Signe of Denmark, Rob Dufour of Newport News, Va., Mollie Przybocki of Manassas, Wil and Jenny Coiner of Midlothian and one brother- in-law, David Scott of Decatur, Ga. The family will receive friends from 1 to 4 and 6 to 8 p.m. Friday, January 29, 2010 at Pierce Funeral Home, 9609 Center Street, Manassas. A Celebration of Life will be held at Grace E. Metz School, 9950 Wellington Road, Manassas at 1 p.m. Saturday, January 30, 2010. A private family interment will take place after the service at Stonewall Memory Gardens, Manassas. Contributions may be made in his memory to his beloved Manassas Baptist Church, 8800 Sudley Road, Manassas, VA 20110 (Marvin always wanted a chime tower for all to hear) or to the George Mason University, Hylton Performing Arts Center, 10900 University Blvd. MS5D2, Manassas, VA 20110 (for all to enjoy) in loving memory of Marvin L. Gillum. Condolences may be sent to www.piercefh.com.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I rise today to share with our colleagues the speech new Virginia Governor Robert F. McDonnell gave at his inauguration in Richmond on January 16. I was moved by his speech, ``A Commonwealth of Opportunity,'' and believe the message is relevant to all Americans. I submit for the Record the governor's speech: Inaugural Address of Governor Robert F. McDonnell ``A commonwealth of opportunity'' Thank you. Mr. Speaker, Lt. Governor Bolling, Attorney General Cuccinelli, members of the General Assembly, distinguished guests from around the world and across the country, family and friends, my fellow Virginians, good afternoon! We gather today on the steps of our magnificent and newly renovated State Capitol. From this hill the land rolls gently down to the James River, the waterway of the settlers in 1607. From this place, the sweep of history has moved us forward to today. This is the cradle of democracy for Virginia and America. Governor Thomas Jefferson designed this Capitol building. Governor Patrick Henry came here for the laying of its cornerstone. I am humbled today to follow in their historic footsteps. The General Assembly first convened in this new building during the first term of America's first President, Virginia's George Washington. Behind me, in the Rotunda, are the busts of the eight Virginians who became President. It was here that Robert E. Lee, the son of a Virginia Governor, was commissioned as Commander of the Commonwealth's military forces as a young nation split into war. It was here, just four years later, that President Abraham Lincoln came to begin the process of reuniting our war-torn nation, walking the streets of still smoldering Richmond. And it was here, 125 years after Lincoln's visit that a grandson of slaves, L. Douglas Wilder, took the Oath of Office as the nation's first African-American Governor. And it is here, today, that an average middle class kid from Fairfax County, a grandson of Irish immigrants, is given the enormous honor of becoming the 71st Governor of Virginia. As it turns out, I succeed another descendent of Irish immigrants, Governor Timothy Kaine. On behalf of the grateful people of Virginia, I thank Governor Kaine for his leadership and service to our Commonwealth. Today's Virginia is a thriving and diverse home of nearly 8 million people, with one in ten born outside the United States. A state of rich history and strong people, we do face many challenges together. We do not face the challenges of forming a new government or securing a young nation, as did Washington, Jefferson and Henry. We do not encounter the devastation and destruction of Civil War, as did Lincoln and Lee. We do not struggle with the injustice of slavery and its legacy of segregation as did Governor Wilder as a young man. We do not march into bullets and artillery shells, as did the Greatest Generation on the beaches of Normandy and the islands of the Pacific. Two members of that generation, who served in World War II, my father Jack McDonnell and my father-in-law Frank Gardner, join us here today. On behalf of a grateful Commonwealth I thank them, and all military members and veterans, for their incredible sacrifice and service to our nation that continues today. The actions of those patriots that came before us had a common purpose--to create and expand freedom and opportunity for the generations that came behind them. The creation of, and desire for, new opportunity has shaped Virginia from its foundation. It was in seeking the Opportunity of a New World that Captain John Smith and 104 settlers braved the perilous Atlantic to step onto the sands of Cape Henry in April 1607. It was in securing the Opportunity of a New Nation that Virginia patriots joined together with their fellow colonists in the first fight for freedom and independence, and thus was born a country of ordered liberty that, 234 years later, is the beacon of hope for the world. It was in seizing the Opportunity of equality and education that a courageous 16 year-old girl named Barbara Johns, memorialized behind this majestic Capitol at the Virginia Civil Rights Memorial, stood up and walked out of Moton High School in Farmville 59 years ago this spring. New opportunity helped them meet the challenges of their time. Greater opportunity will help us meet the challenges of ours. Together we must create jobs and economic opportunities. Provide new educational opportunities for all Virginians. And enhance family and community opportunities by easing government burdens on free people. As Virginians, we believe that government must help foster a society in which all our people can use their God-given talents in liberty to pursue the American Dream. Where opportunity is absent, we must create it. Where opportunity is limited, we must expand it. Where opportunity is unequal, we must make it open to everyone. Our Administration will be dedicated to building ``A Commonwealth of Opportunity'' for all Virginians. It starts with restoring economic opportunity to Virginians in every corner of our Commonwealth. Tens of thousands of our family members, friends and neighbors have lost their jobs. Thousands more worry they could be next. As we confront the worst economy in generations, the creation of new job opportunities for all our citizens is the obligation of our time, so all Virginians who seek a good job can find meaningful work and the dignity that comes with it. Virginia has received high rankings over the years for being a business-friendly state. Those rankings speak well of our past. They do not determine our future. Competition for jobs is intense among the states, and between nations. States are aggressively positioning themselves to best appeal to job creators and entrepreneurs. We must make this the best state in which to start and grow a small business. It is why we will reduce burdensome taxation and regulation that impede job-creation. And, it is why, even in these tough times, we will have the foresight to invest today in ideas and policies that increase economic prosperity tomorrow. This economic crisis has touched every Virginian. Declining home values and diminished retirement accounts have wiped away in just a few months the accumulated savings of many years. As jobs are lost and consumer confidence remains low, state revenues have declined, and an historic budget shortfall has stretched into the billions. Thus, like so many households and businesses across the Commonwealth, state government needs to devise new ways to operate and find savings. This austerity won't be easy, but it is necessary. The circumstances of our time demand that we reconsider and restore the proper role of government. Without reform the continued growth of government threatens our very prosperity. We must properly fund the core priorities of government, but--equally important--we must utilize innovation, privatization, and consolidations to deliver government services more effectively. And as we enact these reforms we must remember this: that government cannot guarantee individual outcomes, but equality of opportunity must be guaranteed for all. All Virginians must have the same fundamental opportunities to work hard, live free and succeed. Access to a quality education is the foundation of future opportunity. My Dad stressed to me as a child that to get a good job, you need a good education. It was true then and even more true today. Virginians are blessed with many great schools with dedicated, professional teachers like my sister Nancy in Amherst, who work tirelessly to mold the minds and character of the next generation. To compete in this global economy every young Virginian must have the opportunity of a world-class education from pre-school to college. A child's future prospects should be as unlimited as his intelligence, integrity and work ethic can take him. No child in Virginia should have her future determined by her place of birth or zip code. We will work with President Obama to expand high-quality charter schools and institute performance pay to our great teachers. More money must go to the classroom and less into administration, and new opportunities in science, technology, engineering, math and healthcare must be created through our schools and colleges. And let us recognize that a high school degree is no longer the finish line in a global economy. We must create affordable new pathways to earning a college degree and make a commitment to confer 100,000 additional degrees over the next 15 years. We must make our community colleges national leaders in workforce development and career training. These are investments that will pay individual and societal dividends for many years to come. Barbara Johns was willing to risk everything for the simple opportunity of a good education. Surely, sixty years later, we can work together to provide that opportunity to all Virginia children. Our Administration will demand excellence, reward performance, provide choices and celebrate achievement. God has bestowed upon our Commonwealth an amazing wealth of natural resources. Virginians have the intellectual capital to use these resources to create new jobs, reduce our energy bills, and make our nation more energy independent. We will make Virginia the ``Energy Capital of the East Coast'' by growing the natural gas and coal industries, expanding the use of nuclear power, and promoting new energy technologies like wind, solar and biomass. And we will champion environmentally safe offshore energy exploration and production, bringing with it thousands of new jobs, hundreds of millions in new state revenue and billions in new investment. We must also seize the opportunity to improve our transportation system by getting long overdue projects underway, and utilizing innovative ideas to build the roads, bridges, rail and ports we need. A better transportation system will create new opportunities for Virginians across the state. These are policies focused on addressing the real problems our people face, and delivering results. I've had people tell me they fear that America may no longer be the land of opportunity it has always been, and that Virginia's history in playing a leading role in the life of our nation may be just that--history. I say: They are wrong. Working together--Republicans, Democrats and Independents alike--Virginia will continue to blaze the trail of opportunity and prosperity. And like the mechanic looking to the owner's manual to troubleshoot the automobile, we should look to the Founders and their writings for wisdom. The Founders' capstone on the Constitution is the Bill of Rights. No federal mandate nor program crafted by either political party should undermine the central principle of federalism, enshrined in the birth certificate of America by those who pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor. The Founders recognized that the government closest to the people governs best. More often than not, Richmond knows better about the hopes and dreams of the people than Washington. And Galax and Fairfax and Virginia Beach know far better than Richmond. As we enthusiastically pursue the vision of ``A Commonwealth of Opportunity'', I ask all Virginians to continue to seek your own opportunities to get involved in the life of our Commonwealth. Half a century ago President Kennedy challenged the American people to ``ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country.'' Today, I ask all Virginians to rise up to meet this timeless challenge. We live in the most generous nation on Earth. So many Virginians give sacrificially of their time, talents and treasure, and rightly so. The Scriptures say, ``To whom much is given, much will be required.'' Right now, much is required in the nation of Haiti. And I urge all Virginians to donate to the relief efforts underway. Here in our Commonwealth, I urge business owners to look for opportunities to sponsor a little league team, help a charity, and promote corporate responsibility in the communities in which you live and work. I urge all the leaders of our faith communities to expand your selfless work of helping the homeless, feeding the poor, and comforting the broken hearted. I urge the young people of Virginia to use your talents and energy to fully engage in the future of this Commonwealth. I urge Virginians who came here from other lands to contribute your culture, your history and your traditions to our rich tapestry of life. I urge every Virginian to take every opportunity to thank a man or woman in a law enforcement or military uniform for the preservation of our freedoms. There is so much each one of us can do to leave this Commonwealth a better place than we found it. No government program can substitute for the incredible good done through voluntary actions performed freely by caring individuals every day. And while government can help provide opportunities, it is every person's responsibility to take advantage of them. In recent weeks I've seen people exercising that responsibility, and changing lives at: the Healing Place in Richmond, the Carpenter's Shelter in Alexandria, Food Banks in Abingdon, Norfolk and Richmond, the Boys and Girls Club in Virginia Beach, the USO in Norfolk. As a Commonwealth, we must do the same . . . and we will. Standing here today, on the steps of our State Capitol, in the inspiring shadows of the shared history behind us, we embrace the limitless future opportunities stretching out far before us. . . . And now it is here, in this place, that we pledge to work together to create ``A Commonwealth of Opportunity'' . . . for all Virginians, and to add our steps to Virginia's journey. It was George Washington who noted, in his first Inaugural Address, ``The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected to remain on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained.'' It is right to help one another. It is right to work together to get results and solve problems. It is right to provide opportunities for all. Let us heed the words of the Father of our Country, employ these eternal rules of order and right, and get to work for the good of the people of Virginia. Thank you and God Bless the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, Monday's Washington Post featured a story about seven leaders of the Baha'i community who are facing ``trial behind closed doors in Tehran.'' The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom rightly called the trial a ``sham.'' The U.S. State Department issued a statement strongly condemning the Iranian government's decision to commence the espionage trial against seven leaders of the Iranian Baha'i community: Mrs. Fariba Kamalabadi, Mr. Jamaloddin Khanjani, Mr. Afif Naeimi, Mr. Saeid Rezaie, Mr. Behrouz Tavakkoli, Mr. Vahid Tizfahm and Mrs. Mahvash Sabet. After 20 months in prison these individuals finally had their first court appearance on January 12. According to the Baha'i International Community Iranian authorities have notified the lawyers of seven imprisoned Baha'i leaders that the next session of their trial will be held on February 7. They spent their first year in prison without formal charges or access to lawyers, in violation of Iranian law. And now, the stakes are getting even higher for members of this minority faith. A recent state-sponsored media campaign levied false accusations against the Baha'is claiming this religious group incited the latest protests in the Iran. This is a regime that is scared of its own people and desperately looking to redirect public discontent. Sadly, we should not be surprised by these actions. The government of Iran's gross violations of religious freedom are well-documented and long-standing including the execution of over 200 Baha'i leaders since 1979, the desecration of Baha'i cemeteries and places of worship and the violent arrest and harassment of members of the Baha'i faith. The U.S. must continue to work with our partners to speak with one voice about inexcusable human rights violations that are occurring in Iran. We must continue to speak out for due process and a fair trial for these seven Baha'i leaders. The world cannot turn a blind eye to this regime's persecution of its own people.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I saw the article in this month's Washington Post about the Obama administration's cutting a backroom deal with the Democrat leadership to create, by Executive order, a commission to deal with our Nation's excessive spending. I am opposed to creating this panel by Executive order, and the American people will be opposed. Congress should be voting to create this commission, and it should be requiring that it act on the panel's recommendations. What the President and the Democrat leadership have agreed to, which has only now come around to addressing the issue because they need political cover to increase the debt limit, is a fig leaf. This is the same group that has pushed our deficit to record levels and that has continued to write check after check from an account which already has a negative balance. The American people will be cut out of the process. It is a backroom deal; and under this deal, the recommendations will be voted on by a lame-duck Congress, filled with retiring and defeated Members. This is wrong. Any action should be taken by a newly elected Congress, not one on the way out the door. Creating this commission by Executive order is the wrong way to go. We have to get this right. Too much is at stake.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. I rise in opposition to the rule. Today, the press is reporting that a backroom deal has been cut with Democratic leadership to create a deficit-cutting commission by Executive order. There are also reports that instead of putting every spending program and tax policy on the table, discretionary spending controlled by the Democratic-controlled Appropriations Committee would be exempt. I oppose creating this panel by Executive order, and the American people will oppose this sleight of hand also. Press reports suggest that the Democratic leadership intends to bring the commission's recommendation up for a vote in Congress, but a vote that is not mandated as it would be if Congress passed similar legislation statutorily. More important, the vote that could take place under the administration's plan would happen after the midterm elections and before the newly elected Congress begins. It would be basically a lame- duck Congress vote. Lawmakers who are retiring or get defeated could vote on a set of recommendations with regard to entitlement spending and tax policy but never be accountable to the American people. Is it right for an outgoing Member of Congress to consider proposals that could affect every single American, knowing that days or weeks later they will no longer answer to voters in the district they once represented? Between the Democrats and the Republicans in both Chambers, over 30 Members have already announced that they are retiring or running for another office. It is not appropriate for outgoing lawmakers who may eventually lobby for a special interest that has a vested interest in the outcome of the vote on the commission to then vote on that recommendation. Any recommendation put forward should be considered by the newly elected Congress, who will have to publicly stand by their vote on the commission's recommendations, Members who have been elected and are accountable to the American people. A deficit commission established through Executive order amounts to nothing more than political cover. This Congress has run up the country's credit card to a point of no return, and now the administration wants to be able to tout a bipartisan solution to spending that will conveniently help them survive the upcoming election cycle. All of a sudden, the Obama administration has found deficit-cutting religion. The same administration that pushed through a $787 billion economic stimulus promising that unemployment would be held under 8 percent now wants to get our Nation's financial house in order. The same administration that promised an open and transparent process on health care reform, which is now being negotiated behind closed doors and could cost taxpayers nearly $1 trillion, now wants credibility on spending issues. The FY 2009 budget deficit registered at an unprecedented $1.4 trillion. I believe the American people understand the depth of our financial problems, recognize the spending gorge that Congress has embarked on, and won't be fooled by a fig leaf commission established by an Executive order. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, the American people will be cut out of the process under this plan. The bipartisan commission process I've talked about, and many Members on both sides have talked about for 4 years, includes a legitimate public engagement mandating public town hall- style meetings throughout the country. Now there will be no input from the hardworking people in our neighborhoods and communities. That is not right, and everyone knows it. If lawmakers were serious about the debt and the deficit issues that Americans are increasingly worried about, Congress would halt the budget gimmicks, the slick talking points, and muster the political will to have an honest conversation with the American people about where we are, where we're heading, and what changes need to be made to get back on track. But an open process that allows the American people to weigh in will never happen through a commission established by an Executive order all done here in Washington. This morning, Congressman Lamar Smith, our colleague from Texas, in a 1-minute speech on the floor offered a series of lessons to be learned from yesterday's special Senate election in Massachusetts. He said, All true reform starts with the voice of the people. The people will not have a voice in a deficit commission established through an Executive order. He also said that common sense triumphs partisanship. A commission through Executive order negotiated by one party is the height of partisanship. Republican leadership in the House and the Senate have not been involved in this effort. He also said voters can exercise real independence. Where is the voice of the people in a process that will not go beyond the Beltway? In closing, Mr. Smith correctly, and I say correctly, noted that one- party control leads to arrogance. We are seeing today an arrogance of power by a party that forecloses the minority from a seat at the table. And to be fair, Republicans were just as arrogant at times. Hopefully we have learned a lesson and will never go back to those times. Mr. Smith concluded that we should be listening to the American people, not defying them. The people of Massachusetts spoke yesterday. We would be wise in this Congress to heed that lesson. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Today the press, Mr. Speaker, is reporting that a backroom deal has been cut with Democratic leadership to create a deficit cutting commission by executive order. I oppose this effort, and so will the American people. In light of this news, the remarks that Representative Lamar Smith of Texas made on the House floor this morning ring truer and more urgent than ever. Representative Smith offered a series of lessons to be learned from yesterday's special Senate election in Massachusetts. He said all true reform starts with the voice of the people. The people will not have a choice in a deficit commission established by executive order. He also said common sense trumps partisanship. A commission through executive order negotiated by one party is the height of partisanship. He also said voters can exercise real independence. Where is the voice of the people in a process that will not go beyond the Beltway? Mr. Smith correctly noted that one-party control leads to arrogance. We are seeing today an arrogance of power on a party that forecloses the minority from a seat at the table. To be fair, the Republicans in the majority were arrogant at times. And Mr. Smith concluded that we should be listening to the people, not defying them. The people of Massachusetts spoke yesterday. They proved that when the people get mad enough, anything is possible, even in Massachusetts. Lawmakers in Congress on both sides of the aisle would be wise to hear that message loud and clear, yet the Obama administration doesn't seem to be listening. There are a number of serious problems being exposed as details of the administration's executive order commission are revealed. Any commission should be authentically bipartisan, passed by the Congress. Press reports indicate that instead of putting every spending program and tax policy on the table, discretionary spending would be exempt. How can we have an honest conversation about the Nation's financial health without looking at discretionary funds that accounted for more than 33 percent of Federal spending in '09? The $447 billion omnibus appropriations bill that was considered by Congress and signed into law in December corresponded with the Democrats' budget blueprint that increased nondefense discretionary spending by 12 percent over the previous year. When all appropriations spending is combined, the Democratic majority will have increased nondefense, nonveterans discretionary spending by 85 percent over the last 2 fiscal years. The American household has certainly not seen their income rise by 85 percent in recent years. Simply put, discretionary spending, with the spending set by annual appropriations levels of Congress, matter. A deficit reduction commission that is barred from looking at one-third of the Federal budget is a fig leaf. The bipartisan commission process I have talked about for nearly 4 years puts everything, entitlements, tax policy, discretionary spending, everything on the table for discussion by the commission members. Moreover, the American people will be cut out of the process under the President's plan. The SAFE Commission plan I have advocated for includes legitimate public engagement, mandating public town hall-style meetings. But under President Obama's plan the public voice will be nonexistent. There will be no input from the hardworking taxpayers in our communities. This is not the right way to form public policy. Perhaps the most glaring sleight of hand, one I believe the American people will recognize and refute, is that the Democratic leadership intends to bring the commission recommendations up for a vote in Congress, but only after the mid-term elections and before the new Congress begins in 2011. It would be a lame duck vote. Lawmakers who are retiring or get defeated could vote on a set of recommendations with regard to entitlement spending and tax policy, but never be held accountable by the American people. Is it right for outgoing Members of Congress to consider proposals that could affect every single American knowing that days and weeks later they would no longer be answerable to the voters of the district they once represented? Between the Democrats and Republicans in both chambers, over 30 Members have already announced they are retiring or running for another office, and this number will grow. During the lame duck session, some outgoing Members may already be looking for new jobs, which could well be lobbying special interest groups and other stakeholders that have a vested interest in the outcome of the vote on the commission's recommendations. Yet the Obama administration is setting up a process that would allow these outgoing lawmakers to vote on the commission's recommendations and run the risk of blurring the lines between what is best for the American people and best for their future employer. Any recommendation put forward should be considered by the newly elected Congress, which would have to publicly stand by their vote on the commission's recommendation. This Congress has run up the country's credit card to a point of no return, and now the administration wants to be able to tout a bipartisan solution to spending for political cover to survive the upcoming elections. A commission through executive order is political gamesmanship. It is a blatant effort by the administration to find political cover after advocating for the $787 billion economic stimulus, supporting health care reform being negotiated behind closed doors that could cost a trillion, and pushing other budget breakers that are wildly unpopular in the eyes of the American people. In closing, the American people understand the depth of our financial problems. They recognize the spending gorge that Congress has embarked on since the Obama administration began, and they will not be fooled about by a fig leaf commission established by executive order. Just ask the people of Massachusetts.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to establish a 10-year term of office for any individual appointed to serve as the administrator of the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, akin to the appointment process for the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI. The failed Christmas Day bombing of a U.S. airliner points to the need for strong, capable leadership at TSA. It is essential that the agency be independent of political influence and focus on its core mission: to protect ``the Nation's transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce.'' Given the continued threat from al Qaeda to U.S. and international aviation, it is essential that the TSA administrator has bipartisan support. I believe a 10-year term for the administrator of TSA will help provide the agency with the qualified, long-term and independent leadership it needs at this time. Over the last 9 years since TSA's creation following 9/11, TSA has had six administrators--averaging terms of just 1.5 years. This is hardly the stable and committed leadership that the agency should have, given its critical role in ensuring the safety of our citizens and aviation infrastructure. It simply does not make sense for the position to change hands with each new administration or even sooner. This bill further strengthens our Nation's homeland by ensuring stable leadership at the Department of Homeland Security and freeing that the TSA administrator to assure agency professionalism over political fidelity. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission, Lee Hamilton and Thomas Kean, in an op-ed for the USA Today, wrote that ``national security is too important to become a partisan issue.'' And I could not agree more. That is why I wrote President Obama yesterday with three specific actions that I recommended he could take immediately, with strong bipartisanship support, to help prevent future terrorist attacks against America. First, I recommended that he immediately bring back the two co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission for a six-month period to conduct a formal review and follow-up to the 9/11 report. Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Kean would be charged with evaluating which of the commission's original recommendations have been implemented and to what end, and which have failed to be implemented and at what cost. Second, I urged the creation of a Team B concept, separate from the review that would be conducted by the 9/11 Commission co-chairs. Historically, the phrase Team B refers to a group of outside experts brought together to analyze the threats posed by the Soviet Union to the United States and counter the positions of intelligence officials within the CIA and government, known as Team A. 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. Third, I urged the President to support the legislation that I introduced today to establish a 10-year term of office for the administrator of the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, similar to what the Congress has done in the past for the appointment process for the director of the FBI. Bob Mueller has done an outstanding job, and that process has worked well. Since TSA's creation following 9/11, TSA has had six administrators, six, averaging terms of just 1.5 years. The attempted Christmas Day bombing of a U.S. airliner points to the need for long-term, strong, and capable leadership that is outside of the political process. In a separate letter to Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan, I posed a series of pointed questions concerning the security situation in Yemen and the circumstances surrounding the failed Christmas Day attack. Specifically, I asked the administration how it plans to deal with the possible radicalization of some 55,000 Americans, 55,000 Americans that are currently visiting, living, or studying in Yemen, pointing out that these individuals can fly back to the United States with American passports. The dangers of radicalization in Yemen are very troubling. The alleged Fort Hood terrorist, Major Nidal Hasan was radicalized by Yemeni-American cleric Anwar al Aulaqi. The alleged terrorist who killed a U.S. Army recruiter in Little Rock, Arkansas, was also radicalized by al Aulaqi. And now we have learned that the alleged Christmas Day terrorist was reportedly also in contact with al Aulaqi in Yemen. Convicted terrorist John walker Lindh was radicalized in Yemen while studying Arabic in 1998 and 2000, leading to his collaboration with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Last week, President Obama said, ``Now is not the time for partisanship, it is the time for citizenship--a time to come together, work together with the seriousness of purpose that our national security demands.'' However, working together demands that this administration work with Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, in good faith to provide information, answer questions, and consider solutions, and to develop a strategy to defeat al Qaeda, whenever and however we can. The administration must live up to the President's challenge to involve Congress in the active participation on counterterrorism matters. This can only happen, however, if the legislative branch, Republicans and Democrats, are included in the process. In closing, I urge my colleagues in the House to support bringing back the 9/11 team, Kean and Hamilton, for 6 months, create a Team B to consider innovative solutions to disrupt and defeat al Qaeda, and to make the TSA administrator position independent and nonpartisan, that will go for a long term, similar to what we currently do with regards to the FBI. These are good bipartisan steps to protect the homeland, and ultimately to defeat al Qaeda. With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your courtesy, and yield back the balance of my time. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, January 12, 2010. Hon. Barack H. Obama, The President, The White House, 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 recommendations 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 rise today to voice my strong support of Google's intention to consider pulling out of China due to a ``highly sophisticated and targeted attack'' on its corporate infrastructure and email service. Google is making a principled stand reminiscent of the companies that pulled out of apartheid South Africa and fascist Germany. The Washington Post reported today that Google said it has evidence that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. They found that the gmail accounts of literally dozens of brave human rights advocates ``appear to have been routinely accessed by third parties.'' This is unconscionable but is not surprising given China's long history of cracking down on free speech, human rights, and religious freedom. China is regressing. They are increasingly brazen in their human rights abuses. This principled stand on the part of Google will surely give hope to the millions of Chinese people who yearn for freedom and who cry out for basic human rights.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce a Resolution of Inquiry directing the Attorney General to transmit to the House all information relating to the decision to dismiss an important voter intimidation case, United States v. New Black Panther Party. The case sought to enforce Voting Rights Act statutes against members of the New Black Panther Party that threatened Philadelphia voters--both verbally and physically--last year. This case was inexplicably dismissed earlier this year--over the ardent objections of the career attorneys overseeing the case as well as the department's own appeal office. I regret that Congress must resort to oversight resolutions as a means to receive information about the dismissal of this case, but the Congress and the American people have a right to know why this case was not prosecuted. As ranking Republican member of the House Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations Subcommittee that funds the Justice Department, I take oversight of the department very seriously. I also strongly support voting rights protections. In 1981, I was the only member--Republican or Democrat--of the Virginia delegation in the House to vote for the Voting Rights Act and was harshly criticized by the editorial page of the Richmond Times-Dispatch, and when I supported its reauthorization in 2006, I was criticized again by editorial pages. Time and again over the last year, the department has stonewalled any effort to learn about the decision to dismiss this case. I have written Attorney General Holder on six occasions asking for an explanation for the dismissal of this case. To date, I have received no response from him. I wrote the DOJ Inspector General to request a review of this decision. He deferred to the Office of Professional Responsibility-- which reports directly to the Attorney General. I have written the Office of Professional Responsibility seeking information on its investigation. The Office has refused to share any information. In fact, the only response I have received--from a legislative affairs staffer--was woefully incomplete and--in places--inaccurate. Two months ago, I met with House Judiciary Chairman Conyers to ask for his assistance in obtaining this information, but he has yet to take any action. This is a shameful failure to provide necessary congressional oversight. It is not only Congress that is being stonewalled by the Attorney General. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has repeatedly sought this same information, in fulfillment of its statutory responsibility to ensure the enforcement of civil rights law. After being similarly rebuffed, the commission filed subpoenas with the department for this information as well as to interview the career attorneys that handled the case. However, we understand that the Attorney General has instructed his department to ignore these subpoenas. The nation's chief law enforcement officer is forcing these career attorneys to choose between complying with the law and complying with the Attorney General's obstruction. At least one of the attorneys has been compelled to obtain private counsel. I urge the House Judiciary Committee to report this resolution out favorably and to demand that the Attorney General answer the questions surrounding this case. The career attorneys and Appellate Division within the department sought to demonstrate the Federal Government's commitment to protecting voting rights by vigorously prosecuting any individual or group that seeks to undermine this right. This House must not turn a blind eye to the Attorney General's obstruction. He has an obligation to answer the legitimate questions of the House and the Civil Rights Commission. It is imperative that we protect the right of all Americans to vote-- the sacrosanct and inalienable right of any democracy. I submit for the record a copy of the resolution that I am introducing. Resolution Directing the Attorney General to transmit to the House of Representatives all information in the Attorney General's possession relating to the decision to dismiss United States v. New Black Panther Party. Resolved, That the Attorney General is directed to transmit to the House of Representatives, not later than 14 days after the date of adoption of this resolution, copies of any document, memo, or correspondence of the Department of Justice with regard to United States v. New Black Panther Party, or any portion of any such document, memo, or correspondence that refers or relates to-- (1) any department communications with regard to the case between November 5, 2008 and November 15, 2009; (2) any communication with the defendants or the defendants' attorneys between November 5, 2008 and November 15, 2009; (3) any communication with third-party organizations or individuals between November 5, 2008 and November 15, 2009; or (4) any evidence with regard to the dismissal of the case.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, last week I spoke at a moving exhibit at the Heritage Foundation which featured a collection of 50 paintings by Ukrainian artist and gulag survivor Nikolai Getman. Mr. Getman spent eight years in a Siberian gulag. Following his harrowing experience he secretly undertook to chronicle his time in the Soviet forced labor system because he said he was ``convinced that it was my duty to leave behind a testimony to the fate of the millions of prisoners who died and who should not be forgotten.'' These 50 paintings are the fruit of 40 years of work on the part of Nikolai. They are a powerful testimony of one's man's triumph over totalitarianism. They ought not be relegated to the annals of history. While the Soviet Union no longer exists, those who seek to suppress freedom, be they in North Korea, China or Egypt, are still with us. I submit my remarks from the Heritage Foundation event: ``Experience and the record had convinced me that communism is a form of totalitarianism, that its triumph means slavery to men wherever they fall under its sway, and spiritual night to the human mind and soul.'' These words were spoken by famed Communist party member, Soviet spy and ultimate defector, Whitaker Chambers. In testimony before the House Unamerican Activities Committee, Chambers said that in spite of what he knew to be true of communism, he believed he was ``leaving the winning side for the losing side'' but that was ``better to die on the losing side than to live under communism.'' Of course we know that Chambers' fear proved to be untrue. That communism, as Ronald Reagan predicted, was destined for the ``ash heap of history.'' That the gulags of that era, depicted before us tonight, were destined to be relics of the past. Ronald Reagan modeled how to confront repressive regimes like the Soviet Union. He spoke truth to power. He boldly pressed the Soviets to respect the fundamental human rights of their own people. He raised the cases of dissidents by name. He did this because of a fundamental belief that the US. constitution was a ``covenant we have made not only with ourselves, but with all of mankind'' Reagan once said, ``Coersion, after all, merely captures man. Freedom captivates him.'' Indeed freedom captivates the human spirit and ultimately triumphs over tyranny whatever form it takes.