Floor Statements

When President Obama was awarded the Nobel Prize for his commitment to human rights, the decision was based on a misplaced hope rather than actual record. In fact, the Obama administration has been silent or inept in country after country when it comes to advocating for the oppressed, the marginalized, and the vulnerable.

On Obama's watch, more than 118 Tibetans have set themselves aflame, and yet human rights was barely mentioned at the recent U.S.-China summit. On Obama's watch, genocide persists in Darfur, and thousands are starving in the Nuba Mountains, and yet the Sudan special envoy position has been vacant for nearly 4 months. On Obama's watch, Christians, including Egypt's ancient Coptic Christian community, have experienced escalating persecution throughout the Middle East, and yet religious freedom is relegated to the back burner in our dealings with Islamist governments.

In the days ahead, I will highlight this administration's abject failure to champion human rights and religious freedom around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I submit a copy of my June 19, 2013 letter again urging the creation of a bipartisan Select Committee to investigate the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate and annex in Benghazi last September.

There are only five legislative weeks left before the one-year anniversary of the attacks. Yet there remain too many unanswered questions resulting from too few public hearings with key witnesses who were present the night of the attack.

That's why 158 Members have cosponsored H. Res. 36 to create a Select Committee to conduct a full investigation with public hearings. The Select Committee has also been endorsed by family members of the Benghazi victims, more than 700 retired Special Operations officials and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association.

I urge the prompt creation of a Select Committee to ensure the American people learn the truth.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

June 19, 2013.

Hon. John A. Boehner,

Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, The Capitol.

Dear Mr. Speaker: The American people are losing confidence

in their government. The tragedy in Benghazi, along with a

stream of recent controversies, including the IRS and the

Justice Department's targeting of reporters at Fox News and

the Associated Press, as well as the ambiguity about recently

disclosed programs at the National Security Agency, are

eroding public trust in the institutions of government.

This diminishing of public confidence isn't limited to the

Executive Branch. Congress' approval rating is at an all-time

low. A June 14 National Journal article said, ``Nearly 8 in

10 Americans told Gallup pollsters this month that they

disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job, the 45th

consecutive month that more than two-thirds of Americans

graded Congress poorly. The problem isn't as much what

Congress is doing as what it is not getting done.'' I believe

most Americans would agree that one of the items ``not

getting done'' is a thorough, comprehensive and ultimately

definitive investigation into the response to the Benghazi

attacks.

That is why I have been pushing so hard for a bipartisan

Select Committee to investigate the September 11, 2012

terrorist attack in Benghazi. The response among most of our

colleagues and the public has been overwhelming. Since

January, when I proposed including the Select Committee in

the House Rules package for the 113th Congress, more than

two-thirds of House Republicans--a majority of the majority--

have cosponsored my bill, H. Res. 36, to create the Select

Committee. Since that time, there has been a growing chorus

of support. The bill has been endorsed by the parents of some

of the victims, by more than 700 retired Special Operations

officials, by the Federal Law Enforcement Officers

Associations, which represents the State Department security

officers who were on the ground in Benghazi, and by The Wall

Street Journal editorial page in addition to dozens of other

commentators, former diplomats and military officials. I

believe this broad support speaks to the public's hunger for

clear answers on Benghazi--answers which to date have been

elusive. That is why more than nine months after the

devastating attack, my resolution continues to add new

cosponsors; it now has the support of 158 Republicans.

I recognize that ``regular order'' has made some progress

over the last six months; most notably Chairman Issa's

constructive hearing with several State Department

whistleblowers. I also understand that Chairman McKeon has

planned a hearing with Gen. Carter Ham for next week, but

like so many of these hearings, this, too, will be held

behind closed doors. There is no reason Gen. Ham's

testimony shouldn't be public. This latest classified

hearing is symptomatic of a broader problem with respect

to the current congressional approach to investigating

Benghazi: Too much has been done in a piecemeal fashion,

behind closed doors,

thereby robbing the American people of clear answers to

important questions surrounding the murder of a sitting

U.S. ambassador and three civilian employees, and the

grievous injury of untold others.

Deuteronomy 16:20 tells us, ``Justice, justice shalt thou

pursue.'' As we quietly marked the nine-month anniversary of

the attacks last week, I know many people wondered if there

will ever be any clear resolution to this investigation, let

alone justice.

Writing about Benghazi in The Wall Street Journal last

month, columnist Peggy Noonan pondered, ``Was all this

incompetence? Or was it politics disguised as the fog of war?

Who called these shots and made these decisions? Who decided

to do nothing?''

More than nine months later, the Congress still cannot

answer these questions. No one has been held responsible for

the failure to respond that night. A few mid-level career

officials have been penalized, but ultimately those senior

officials who were in the position to actually say the buck

stops here--cabinet secretaries and political appointees at

the White House, State Department, Defense Department and

CIA--have emerged unscathed, and in some cases, seemingly the

better for it.

Consider that former Secretary Clinton now earns hundreds

of thousands of dollars for every speech she gives, former

Secretary Panetta just signed a $3 million book deal and

former CIA Director Petraeus recently joined an investment

firm in New York.

Similarly, several other administration officials

associated with the Benghazi response to the attack have been

promoted. Ambassador Rice has been promoted to national

security advisor, then-deputy national security advisor

Dennis McDonough has been promoted to White House chief of

staff, and then-White House chief of staff Jack Lew has been

promoted to Treasury Secretary.

If all responsible for the government's response to

Benghazi have been rewarded with lucrative contracts or

promotions within the administration, what signal does this

send to the American people about accountability?

Mr. Speaker, we're fast approaching the Independence Day

recess. We will only have four legislative weeks in July

before the August recess. When we return in September we will

be just days away from the one-year anniversary of the

Benghazi attacks.

We must not wait until the second year of this

investigation to commit the focused resources of a Select

Committee in pursuit of government accountability and,

ultimately, truth. Sources are disappearing and leads are

drying up. The Select Committee legislation needs to be

Swiftly brought to the floor for a vote, so the House can

hold public hearings over the summer--focused exclusively on

the core issues about why no assistance was sent to the

Americans under fire in Benghazi--and attempt to provide a

final public report by the first anniversary of this attack.

You have a number of committee chairman who would be

excellent at leading the Select Committee. Chairman Issa has

shown in his hearing with the State Department whistleblowers

that he would be a good chairman. Similarly, Chairman Royce,

Chairman Rogers, Chairman McKeon, Chairman Goodlatte and

Chairman McCaul are all strong leaders and would ably chair a

Select Committee. Further, we have a lot of talent in our

conference to draw from. There are a number of newer members

who have proven themselves to be capable and insightful

investigators. You could consider appointing some of them to

the Select Committee, too.

As I mentioned earlier, a number of new controversies

involving the Obama Administration have surfaced in recent

months that demand the committees' full attention. This is

all the more reason to take the best of the best under a

Select Committee to build, at no additional cost, on the work

that has already been done through regular order. There would

be no need to start over, as some have tried to say. Nor

would there be additional costs--the resolution specifically

states that we should use existing resources.

We owe it to the families of the Benghazi victims and to

the not yet named survivors, whose lives will be indelibly

marked by the wounds they endured protecting the annex, to

honor their sacrifice and their service. Harkening back to

Deuteronomy, we must pursue justice on their behalf,

recognizing their heroism and an accounting for the failures

in leadership that left them exposed and vulnerable. We also

owe it to the men and women who serve our country now and in

the years ahead to restore confidence that if they come under

fire, we will make every effort to come to their defense. For

these reasons alone, we should not give up on this issue.

I am afraid that if we don't move on a Select Committee,

we'll never find out the truth. Just as The Wall Street

Journal editorial page in May said, ``A Select Committee is

the only means available now for the U.S. political system to

extricate itself from the labyrinth called Benghazi.''

The need for a Select Committee is underscored by the

difficulty we're having getting answers on a number of

current investigations. Consider that in the case of the IRS

scandal, both the Ways and Means Committee and the Oversight

and Government Reform Committee have opened up independent

investigations that will likely take significant resources

for months to come. It is important that they investigate,

and they are doing an excellent job. But despite these

efforts, much remains unknown about the IRS scandal--which

involves only a single agency and does not have to deal with

sensitive, classified information--including whether the

political targeting of groups was confined to the Cincinnati

office or was actually directed by Washington. We still don't

have a clear answer.

In comparison, the Benghazi case cuts across multiple

national security agencies and the White House involving

sensitive information, thereby putting it in a league of its

own among the various scandal investigations. Also of great

interest is the increasing concern that the FBI is being used

by various agencies as an excuse to avoid answering

questions on Benghazi, especially as this investigation

drags on longer. The American people should be troubled by

the anemic pace of the FBI's investigation of those

responsible for the attacks. Nearly a year later, the U.S.

does not have a single suspect in custody. The Tunisians

released one suspect earlier this year, after making the

FBI wait for months to interview him. Another person of

significant interest has been held since last fall by the

Egyptian government, a recipient of billions of dollars in

U.S. foreign assistance, but they will not allow the FBI

to interview him.

Even more concerning, last month the Associated Press

reported that the FBI allegedly has identified five men

believed to be responsible for the Benghazi attacks, but

won't detain them because it does not have enough evidence to

try them in a U.S. civilian court. For the U.S. to know the

identities and possible locations of those who killed four

Americans and fail to take action immediately because the

administration insists on an Article III trial is shameful.

For these reasons, any worthwhile Benghazi investigation must

also consider how the Justice Department has managed its

investigation into the terrorists over the last year.

Despite these serious issues, much of the House's

investigation on Benghazi to date has centered on secondary

discussions like the ``talking points'' and the

Accountability Review Board process, to the detriment of more

fundamental issues like the administration's apparent

abandonment of Americans who were facing a deadly siege.

On the issues that matter most, there is nothing that

happened that deadly night in Benghazi that can't be

addressed in a public hearing and accompanying report of

findings. There are ways to protect classified information

while still allowing the public to learn what actually

happened that night. There is no legitimate reason that the

public shouldn't know what calls for help were made from

Benghazi, who received those calls and, most importantly, why

no support was sent to the Americans under siege. There is no

reason that officials in the chain of command at various

agencies shouldn't be asked to answer publicly why no effort

was made to rescue those in Benghazi.

It has been repeated often that there were no military

assets in the region that could have responded in time to

stop the initial attack on the consulate. But when the

attacks started, no one could have known whether it would

last eight minutes, eight hours, or eight days, or longer. It

appears that not even a single plane was scrambled. We can't

help but draw the deeply troubling conclusion that within

minutes of the attack, the decision was made that the battle

was lost and the Americans left there would be collateral

damage in the greater War on Terror.

If our government never sent a plane to help defend the

annex, it begs the question: Did they even send an American

plane to get the bodies and survivors out of Benghazi after

the attacks? There's no reason the public should not learn

the answer to this question, too.

As Lt. Gen. William. G. Boykin (ret.) and other former

Special Operations officials have noted, a bedrock American

ethos--that our nation never leaves anyone behind on the

battlefield--was shattered that night in Benghazi. No one

came to rescue them despite pleas for help. More than nine

months later, too many questions remain unanswered: Who took

the call that night? What were they told and how did they

respond? Why was the determination made not to intervene in a

horrific assault on a U.S. diplomat and his brave support

staff?

In the dangerous world in which we live there are

undoubtedly hard fought battles where American blood is

spilled, and lives lost--our nation is painfully aware of

this reality through our experience in distant lands like

Iraq and Afghanistan. But Benghazi was an unanticipated

battlefield where terrorist elements seized on the occasion

of the anniversary of 9/11 to strike at an American outpost

abroad. They did so with deadly consequence, and their attack

was met with silence from a superpower.

This is a black mark on our national history. It emboldens

others with similarly gruesome aims. It leaves vulnerable

Americans serving in dangerous posts. And ultimately, the

lack of transparency from the various government agencies and

entities involved undermines the faith of the American people

in their government.

This is a less obvious ``casualty'' of that dark day, but

it has lasting implications which we as public servants know

well. For in a functioning democracy there is a sacred trust

that must exist between the government and the governed and

that trust is precipitously eroding.

As the Wall Street Journal noted in its May editorial,

``Let Benghazi's chips fall. The House should appoint a

Select Committee.''

Best wishes.

Sincerely,

Frank R. Wolf,

Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I delivered the following remarks at a Wilson Center event focused on the future of religious minorities in the Middle East.

I'd like to begin by thanking my former colleague,

Congresswoman Jane Harman, and the Wilson Center for hosting

this discussion on such a timely issue. I have long been

focused on international religious freedom--specifically on

the plight of persecuted people of faith wherever they may

be.

Martin Luther King Jr. famously said, `In the end, we will

remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our

friends.'

America has always been a friend to the oppressed, the

persecuted, the forgotten. But sadly today, that allegiance

is in question as religious freedom and human rights abuses

around the globe increasingly go unaddressed and unanswered.

Looking to the Middle East there is often societal and

communal violence and repression against religious

communities which specifically targets religious minorities.

Too often the governments of these lands foster an

atmosphere of intolerance or in some cases such as Iran,

outright criminality as it relates to different faith

traditions like the Baha'is.

Tragically, Since 1979, the Iranian government has killed

more than 200 Baha'i leaders and dismissed over 10,000 from

government and university jobs. Further, throughout the

region, there is impunity surrounding acts of religiously

targeted violence, onerous registration requirements for

houses of worship, and a general climate of fear which

isolates and too often drives out religious minorities.

These realities have been exasperated by the so-called Arab

Spring--a Spring which has devolved into Winter for many of

the most vulnerable in these societies--foremost among them

the ancient Christian communities.

The future of religious minorities in the Middle East is of

course the focus of our discussion today. I would argue that

if the current trajectory holds true, the future of these

communities--communities which are woven into the very fabric

of the region--is uncertain at best.

In February I travelled to the Middle East--specifically to

Lebanon and Egypt. One of the main purposes of the trip was

to spend time with the Syrian Christian community--a

community with ancient roots dating back to the 1st century.

We read in the Bible about Paul on the road to Damascus.

According to the latest estimates the brutal civil war,

which continues to rage, has taken nearly 93,000 lives.

With the Syrian crisis entering its third year, the

eventual outcome, including how many will perish in or be

displaced by the continued violence and who will step into

the power vacuum, is far from certain. Moreover, what that

will mean for the Christian community in Syria is largely

unknown and, unfortunately, rarely addressed by Western

media.

I wanted to hear firsthand from Syrian Christians about

their concerns and to put this issue in the larger context of

an imperiled Christian community in the broader Middle East,

specifically in Egypt and Iraq.

Coptic Christians and other minorities in Egypt have

increasingly been marginalized with the ascendancy of the

Muslim Brotherhood. The recently drafted constitution, which

made blasphemy a criminal offense, is highly problematic.

A February 5 Associated Press article reported,

`[p]rovisions in the document allow for a far stricter

implementation of Islamic Shariah law than in the past,

raising opponents' fears that it could bring restrictions on

many civil liberties and the rights of women and Christians.'

Increasingly these fears are being born out. Just last

month, a young Christian teacher in Egypt was accused of

insulting Islam while teaching a social studies class.

In a Christian Science Monitor article about this case and

the trend more broadly, a local human rights activist

reportedly said, `All Coptic teachers are scared here now

that any child who fights with them could accuse them of

blasphemy and drag them to court.'

The issues I've just outlined must be viewed not simply as

today's news but rather through the lens of history.

A phrase not often heard outside the majority Muslim world

is `First the Saturday people, then the Sunday people.' The

`Saturday people' are, of course, the Jews.

Except for Israel, their once vibrant communities in

countries throughout the region are now decimated. In 1948

there were roughly 150,000 Jews in Iraq; today 4 remain. In

Egypt, there were once as many as 80,000 Jews; now roughly 20

remain.

It appears a similar fate may await the ancient Christian

community in these same lands.

Consider this observation by author and adjunct fellow at

the Center for Religious Freedom, Lela Gilbert, who recently

wrote in the Huffington Post: ``Between 1948 and 1970,

between 80,000 and 100,000 Jews were expelled from Egypt--

their properties and funds confiscated, their passports

seized and destroyed.

They left, stateless, with little more than the shirts on

their backs to show for centuries of Egyptian citizenship. .

. .''

One of my last meetings in Egypt was with 86-year-old

Carmen Weinstein, the president of the Jewish Community of

Cairo (JCC). She was born and raised in Egypt and had lived

her entire life there--a life set against the backdrop of a

great Jewish emigration out of Egypt, namely the departure of

thousands of Egyptian Jews from the 1940s--60s. She led a

small community of mostly elderly Jewish women in Cairo, who

with their sister community in Alexandria, represent Egypt's

remaining Jews.

There are 12 synagogues left in Cairo. Some, along with a

landmark synagogue in Alexandria, have been refurbished by

the government of Egypt and/or US. Agency for International

Development (USAID) and have received protection as cultural

and religious landmarks--many have not. Further, the 900 year

old Bassatine Jewish Cemetery is half overrun with squatters

and sewage.

Ms. Weinstein sought to preserve these historic landmarks

as well as the patrimony records of the Egyptian Jewish

community.

Not long after my return to the US., Ms. Weinstein passed

away and is now buried in the very cemetery she sought to

protect. Meanwhile, with the fall of Hosni Mubarak, Coptic

Christians, numbering roughly 8-10 million, are leaving in

droves in the face of increased repression, persecution and

violence.

A January 8 National Public Radio (NPR) story reported

`Coptic Christians will celebrate Christmas on Monday, and

many will do so outside their native Egypt. Since the

revolution there, their future in the country has looked

uncertain and many are resettling in the United States.'

A May 15 New York Times piece with the headline,

`Christians Uneasy in Morsi's Egypt,' reported that, `Since

the ouster of Mr. Mubarak in February 2011, a growing number

of Copts, including some of the most successful businessmen,

have left Egypt or are preparing to do so, fearing

persecution by an Islamist-controlled government as much as

the stagnant economy that is smothering their industries.'

And yet our government continues to give increasingly

scarce U.S. foreign assistance to the Egyptian government

without a single string attached.

Just last month, weeks before an Egyptian court sentenced

more than 40 pro-democracy NGO workers, several of whom are

American, including Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood's

son, to jail, Secretary Kerry quietly waived the law that

would have prevented the $1.3 billion, BILLION, in U.S.

taxpayer money from going to Egypt absent concrete steps

toward true democracy and respect for basic human rights and

religious freedom.

Similarly, Iraq's Christian population has fallen from as

many as 1.4 million in 2003 to roughly 500,000 today.

Churches have been targeted, believers kidnapped for ransom

and families threatened with violence if they stay.

In October 2010, Islamist extremists laid siege on Our Lady

of Salvation Catholic Church in Baghdad, killing over 50

hostages and police, and wounding dozens more.

The head of the Chaldean Catholic Church in Iraq reportedly

told MidEast Christian News that the number of Christian

church declined precipitously in the last decade. There are

roughly 60 Christian churches in the entire country, down

from more than 300 as recently as 2003.

Of course other, much smaller but no less vulnerable,

religious minorities have also suffered greatly in Iraq. The

U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, in its

recently release annual report found that, `Large percentages

of the country's smallest religious minorities--which include

Chaldo-Assyrian and other Christians, Sabean Mandaeans, and

Yezidis--have fled the country in recent years, threatening

these communities' continued existence in Iraq.'

And yet, last year, the General Accounting Office (GAO)

released a report titled, `U.S. Assistance to Iraq's Minority

Groups in Response to Congressional Directive,' which it had

conducted at the request of several Members of Congress,

including Congresswoman Anna Eshoo and myself after hearing

from representatives of the Iraqi Diaspora community that

despite targeted congressional funding intended to assist

these religious communities, little tangible proof or impact

was being seen on the ground.

Over multiple years, Congress directed the State Department

and USAID to dedicate certain funds to help Iraq's minority

populations. But GAO found that these agencies couldn't prove

they spent the funds as Congress intended.

Perhaps this failure to follow a clear congressional

directive was attributable in part to a refusal on the part

of this administration, and frankly the previous

administration, to acknowledge that minorities were being

targeted, rather than merely victims of generalized violence

in Iraq.

In short, over the span of a few decades, the Middle East,

with the exception of Israel, has virtually been emptied of

Jews. In my conversations with Syrian Christian refugees,

Lebanese Christians and Coptic Christians in Egypt, a

resounding theme emerged: a similar fate may await the

`Sunday People.'

While it remains to be seen whether the historic exodus of

Christians from the region will prove to be as dramatic as

what has already happened to the Jewish community, it is

without question devastating, as it threatens to erase

Christianity from its very roots.

Consider Iraq. With the exception of Israel, the Bible

contains more references to the cities, regions and nations

of ancient Iraq than any other country. The patriarch Abraham

came from a city in Iraq called Ur. Isaac's bride, Rebekah,

came from northwest Iraq.

Jacob spent 20 years in Iraq, and his sons (the 12 tribes

of Israel) were born in northwest Iraq. A remarkable

spiritual revival as told in the book of Jonah occurred in

Nineveh. The events of the book of Esther took place in Iraq

as did the account of Daniel in the Lion's Den. Furthermore,

many of Iraq's Christians still speak Aramaic the language of

Jesus.

In fact a February 2013 Smithsonian Magazine story noted

`[a]s Jesus died on the cross, he cried in Aramaic, ``My God,

my God, why have you forsaken me?''

Further, in Egypt, some 2,000 years ago, Mary, Joseph and

Jesus sought refuge in this land from the murderous aims of

King Herod. Egypt's Coptic community traces its origins to

the apostle Mark.

lf, as appears to be happening, the Middle East is

effectively emptied of the Christian faith, this will have

grave geopolitical implications and does not bode well for

the prospects of pluralism and democracy in the region. These

developments demand our attention as policymakers.

But rather than being met with urgency, vision or

creativity, our government's response, both Executive and

Congressional, has been anemic and at times outright baffling

especially to the communities most impacted by the changing

Middle East landscape.

We would do well to recall the words of Holocaust survivor

Elie Wiesel, ``We must take sides. Neutrality helps the

oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the

tormentor, never the tormented.''

Prior to February, I was last in Egypt in June 2011 four

months after Hosni Mubarak stepped down as president and

turned over power to the military.

In the face of decades of human rights and religious

freedom abuses under the Mubarak regime, successive U.S.

administrations, including the Obama Administration, failed

to advocate for those whose voices were being silenced. Many

pro-democracy activists and religious minorities that I spoke

with during that trip felt abandoned by the West. Their

disillusionment with the U.S. and general trepidation about

the rise of Islamists in the lead up to the elections was

tempered by a palpable sense of anticipation, and in some

cases, even hope about what the future might hold for the

Egyptian people.

That hope has long since faded and fear has taken up

residence.

In conversation after conversation Coptic Christians,

reformers, secularist, women and others told me that the U.S.

was perceived as the largest supporter of the Muslim

Brotherhood-led government. Further, there was a widely held

perception that the U.S. was either disengaged or simply

uninterested in advocating for religious freedom and other

basic human rights.

This is a perception informed by reality. Briefly turning

from the Middle East for a moment consider the following:

Genocide persists in Darfur; the Sudan Special Envoy

position has been vacant for 3 month; an internationally

indicted war criminal, Sudanese president Bashir, travels the

globe with impunity; meanwhile the administration actively

worked to undermine congressional attempts to isolate Bashir

by cutting off non-humanitarian aid to countries who host

him, and then in April rewarded a notorious Sudanese

government official, accused of torturing enemies and seeking

to block U.N. peacekeepers in Darfur, with an invitation to

Washington for high-level meetings.

In China, human rights issues are consistently relegated to

the back-burner as seen in the recent summit.

This administration and the previous administration have

ignored bipartisan Congressional calls to place Vietnam on

the State Department's list of the most egregious religious

freedom violators, despite crackdowns on people of faith and

an overall deteriorating human rights situation, preferring

instead a policy defined simply by trade.

Consecutive administrations have been silent about the

brutal gulags enslaving thousands in North Korea and can

barely muster an objection when the Chinese government flouts

its international obligations to North Korean refugees by

deporting them to an almost certain death sentence.

The examples are too numerous to cite.

In 1998 I authored the International Religious Freedom Act

(IRFA) which created a dedicated office at the State

Department headed by an Ambassador-at-Large who was intended

to serve as the primary advisor to the Secretary of State on

matters of religious freedom.

It also created the U.S. Commission on International

Religious Freedom (USCIRF), an independent, bipartisan

advisory body distinct from the State Department which can

make clear-eyed policy recommendations unfettered by other

diplomatic or bureaucratic considerations.

The legislation created the ``Countries of Particular

Concern'' designation, reserved for those countries with the

most severe systematic, ongoing and egregious violations.

A designation which has been grossly under-utilized--this

administration has failed to even designate ANY CPC's since

2011.

At the time of introduction, as is their institutional

inclination, the State Department was adamantly opposed to

the legislation and sought to undermine it at every turn.

Just last week, the National Security subcommittee of the

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee held a

hearing which examined the government's record on

implementing IRFA, at which panelist Chris Seiple testified.

There was near unanimity that over the course of successive

administrations, both Republican and Democrat, IRFA had not

been implemented as Congress intended.

The IRE office is presently buried in the bureaucracy. The

ambassador, a fine person, is marginalized. The issue itself

America's first freedom, is viewed as periphery.

Fast forward to 2011. I worked with Congresswoman Anna

Eshoo to introduce bipartisan legislation to create a high-

level special envoy charged with advocating on behalf of

religious minorities in the Middle East and South Central

Asia.

At the time of introduction, the IRE ambassador post had

been vacant for two years, sending a clear message globally

that this issue simply was not a priority.

The legislation overwhelmingly passed the House last

Congress only to stall in the Senate. Then Senators Webb and

Kerry blocked it from moving forward largely at the request

of the State Department.

Congresswoman Eshoo and myself along with Senators Roy

Blunt and and Carl Levin have reintroduced the legislation

this year.

The legislation mandates that the envoy would have a

priority focus on Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and

Afghanistan--countries where Christians, Baha'is, Ahdmadiya

Muslims, Jews and more face incredible repression,

persecution, violence and even death.

There is a historic precedent for effective special envoys

advancing seemingly intractable issues. Consider former Sudan

Special Envoy John Danforth. His laser beam focus on the

peace process, high-level access to the White House and

undivided attention to his mission was incredibly effective.

I don't pretend to think that a special envoy will single-

handedly solve the problem, but it certainly can't hurt to

have a high-level person within the State Department

bureaucracy who is exclusively focused on the protection and

preservation of these ancient communities.

This will send an important message to both our own foreign

policy establishment and to suffering communities in the

Middle East and elsewhere that religious freedom is a

priority--that America will be a voice for the voiceless.

Let me conclude by sharing the quote of a Coptic priest who

was recently interviewed about the blasphemy charges facing

the young Coptic teacher I mentioned earlier.

He said, ``Today, despite this repression, we can live. But

tomorrow, what will we do? The coming days will be much

worse.''

This much is clear: absent strong, principled U.S.

leadership on this fundamental human right, the future for

religious minorities in the Middle East will indeed be much

worse.

In a Constitution Day speech, President Ronald Reagan

described the United States Constitution as ``a covenant we

have made not only with ourselves, but with all of mankind.''

We have an obligation to keep that covenant for it is a

covenant that transcends time and place--it is a covenant

with the beleaguered Coptic Christian in Egypt, the

imprisoned Baha'i in Iran, the fearful Chaldean nun in Iraq.

We would do well to remember that repressive governments

the world over fear the words of the Constitution and the

promise they hold as much as they fear the aspirations of

their own people.''

Mr. Speaker, more than three months since the departure of Sudan Special Envoy Princeton Lyman, this administration has yet to fill his position.

A June 11 UPI story covered a recently released Amnesty International report which underscored that, ``Indiscriminate bombing has been the Sudanese government's signature tactic in Blue Nile state, to devastating effect.''

Amnesty reported on the desperate humanitarian situation facing the people of the region--including acute food shortages and virtually non- existent access to medical care.

The report underscored the fact that an internationally indicted war criminal, Sudanese President Omar Bashir, continues to evade justice and concludes: ``With no accountability for past crimes, there is little deterrence for those of the present.''

I couldn't agree more which is why I attempted to restrict non- humanitarian foreign assistance to countries that diplomatically welcomed an architect of genocide in an effort to isolate a man who undoubtedly has blood on his hands. I offered an amendment to that effect to last year's appropriations bill--an amendment which the Obama Administration sought to defeat as the appropriations process moved forward.

These realities beg certain questions: What is this administration's policy on Sudan? Is it to isolate Bashir? Apparently not. Is it to pursue justice for the Sudanese people? Not if it risks ruffling diplomatic feathers. Is it to elevate the issue within our own foreign policy establishment? Not really--how else to explain a prolonged vacancy of the Special Envoy post?

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

Mr. Speaker, on Memorial Day I had the privilege of attending a ceremony in Great Falls, Virginia, honoring those who have fought for our great Nation.

I was joined at the service with dozens of Great Falls residents, along with other community leaders, to pay tribute to the 25 men and women of Great Falls who died in battle or from attacks on America.

The service began with a friendly welcome from Mr. Bruce Ellis Fein, a member of Friends of the Great Falls Freedom Memorial. In 2002, Friends of the Great Falls Freedom Memorial was created with the goal of building a memorial site in Great Falls dedicated to those residents who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom.

The highlight of the service was the keynote speech by Lt. Gen. Norman H. Smith who served our country in the Marine Corps for over 35 years. In his address, Lt. Gen. Smith discussed his recent trip to the island of Iwo Jima, specifically, his visit to Mt. Suribachi with several surviving veterans of the Battle of Iwo Jima.

Lt. Gen. Smith has had an established military career and has been awarded numerous decorations for his service. He now serves as president of the Iwo Jima Association of America and currently resides in my congressional district in Winchester, Virginia.

I submit Lt. Gen. Smith's remarks from the Great Falls Memorial Day Service and a recent news article from the Great Falls Connection.

Address by Lieutenant General Norman H. Smith, USMC (Ret) of Winchester, Virginia at the Memorial Day 2013, the Great Falls Freedom

Memorial

Good Morning.

I'm going to take a bit of keynote speaker's prerogative to

point out one special guest for today's service, and he is

Marine Tommy Cox, a veteran of the Iwo Jima campaign of World

War 2.

I'm honored to speak to you this morning on this particular

day, in this particular place, which is dedicated to those

residents who have given their lives in the cause of freedom.

I'm a Marine, but it is my great privilege to be here today

to represent all of our Armed forces. All of them contribute

mightily to the security of our nation. It is an even greater

honor, on this Memorial Day 2013, to speak about the tens of

thousands of our fellow citizens who have given their lives

in the defense of our country, its people, and its

principles.

For me, Memorial Day came early this year, in mid-March on

the island of Iwo Jima. I went there with a group that

included military historians, writers, students from the

Young Marines organization and, first and foremost, 14

veterans of the battle of Iwo Jima and the Pacific campaign

of World War 2.

These men who are now in their late 80's and early 90's

were, most of them, teenagers in February of 1945, when the

battle began. The ultimate goal of the Iwo Jima campaign was

to gain ever closer access to the Japanese home islands in

the event that an invasion of Japan would be necessary in

order to end the long, bloody war.

Iwo Jima in 1945 was a barren volcanic island covered with

ash and stone. There was nowhere to take cover, no trees,

nowhere even to be able to dig a fighting hole, for the soil

was ashy sand that acquired a name of its own: the black

sands of Iwo Jima.

Beneath this forbidding surface lay noxious sulphur beds

that stank, and many miles of tunnels, caves and reinforced

fighting positions crammed with small arms, machine guns,

mortars and artillery pieces. The Japanese defenders, well

prepared for an assault on the island, intended to inflict

massive casualties on their enemies. They did.

Sixty-eight years later, the 14 Iwo Jima vets I traveled

with returned to the site of a savage battle that went on

without pause and without quarter, on either side, for 36

days. They went back to remember their own experiences and to

keep alive the sacrifices they witnessed. Six thousand eight

hundred Marines died during the 36-day battle. 22,000 were

wounded. More than 20,000 Japanese were killed. In February

1945 the Iwo Jima veterans of today were fighting for their

lives and the lives of their brother Marines and sailors.

They were fighting, too, for the lives of many Army Air Corps

crewmen who would have died were it not for the emergency

landing field built by Seabees while the battle still raged.

It is estimated that more than 20,000 U.S. airmen were saved

by landing their battle damaged B-29s and B-24s as they

returned from bombing raids over Japan. All the American

Armed Forces contributed to the victory on Iwo: the Army,

Navy, Navy Air, the Army Air Corps, the Marine Corps, the

Coast Guard and the often forgotten Merchant Marine.

The almost accidental photograph of the flag raising on Mt.

Suribachi became an iconic image of American valor. Today,

Mt. Suribachi is the site of a very different annual

ceremony, a ceremony that none of the 14 returning veterans

could have believed possible in 1945. This, the annual

Reunion of Honor, is attended by American and Japanese alike,

who meet every year to commemorate the historic battle and

the post war U.S.-Japanese alliance.

The Reunion of Honor began in 1995, when the Iwo Jima

Association of America joined with the Iwo Jima Association

of Japan in order to honor warriors on both sides who died

for their respective countries on that desolate island, 600

miles from Japan. This memorial service is not about lauding

the victors nor humiliating the vanquished. Nor does it

attempt to glorify war. Far from it. Iwo Jima was a killing

ground and, like our own Civil War battlefields in the

Shenandoah Valley and other places, it is also hallowed

ground where the remains of the missing still lie. To the

Japanese families of soldiers whose bodies were never

recovered, it is an annual pilgrimage undertaken to honor

their ancestors.

This year the hour-long service took place in perfect

weather, on an island that looks far different from the

hellish place it was 68 years ago. What was black sand and

scarred rock is now green with scrub trees and shrubs.

Dirt roads have been paved, memorial markers have been

placed. The beaches, however, are still black sand.

Japanese and American military and governmental officials

spoke during the service and wreaths were laid on the

memorial stone markers. A military band played, a band

composed of both American and Japanese musicians.

Following the ceremony the American group boarded mini-vans

for the trip up the serpentine road to the top of Mt.

Suribachi. During the battle, this mountain--about the height

of the Washington Monument--was honeycombed with gun

emplacements that rained deadly fire on the U.S. forces. On

the third day of the invasion, elements of the 28th Marine

Regiment made a tortuous and deadly ascent up the steep side

of the mountain, to its peak. It was here that the now famous

flag raising took place. The photo taken was used to create

the magnificent bronze monument in Arlington Cemetery: the

Marine Corps War Memorial.

Atop Suribachi the Iwo vets and others visited the unit

memorials placed there. Photos were taken and more stories

from the vets were forthcoming as they gazed down upon the

landing beaches and the now peaceful landscape of Iwo Jima.

As we stood on Mt. Suribachi some of the vets talked about

their recollections of the battle . . . and the rest of us

listened.

Donald Graves is 87. He was 18 then. He remembered having

steak for breakfast at 0700 on the day he went ashore in the

3d wave. Once on the black beach he lay with his face in the

sand, very scared. He told me he was clinging to a ledge on

Mt. Suribachi with his flamethrower, just a few feet from

where the flag was raised.

Bill Montgomery is 89. In 1945 he was not long out of high

school. On Iwo Jima he was the only survivor of his small

unit. When he saw the flag raised on Suribachi, he thought it

was all over . . . but the battle went on for more than a

month. He told me that he had not wanted to revisit the scene

of so much tragedy, but decided to come now to remember, and

to honor his fallen brother Marines.

Lieutenant General Larry Snowden, 92, a native Virginian,

was a young company commander on Iwo Jima. When he talks

about the battle he never fails to remember the men he lost

there. To this day he holds them close in loving memory of

their courage and honor.

In today's world, 68 years is a very long time. To the

younger generations, it may seem like an eternity. In the 68

years since the battle of Iwo Jima, much has happened that we

might prefer to forget. The young men who survived the

battle, which was after all, but one of countless such

battles in the European and Pacific Theaters of World War 2,

may have wanted nothing more than merciful forgetfulness . .

. and who could blame them?

The men I stood with on Suribachi have not forgotten. They

spoke with quiet dignity about those who died there. They

grieve for them still. The stakes during the dark days of any

war are so high . . . so high. Those who make the greatest

sacrifice have no tomorrows. They have given them to us. For

those who have given their lives, we must and will be strong,

be faithful, be free. To them we owe all that we now possess.

Our duty is clear; we will never forget our Nation's debt of

gratitude to those who died in the defense of our liberties.

Thank you.

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

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I want, again, to begin: I don't believe it's fair to say that had we closed down Guantanamo Bay bin Laden would not have done what he had done. Bin Laden was active and al Qaeda was active in a 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center that was before the Guantanamo Bay. They were involved in the bombing of the American Embassy in Tanzania and Nairobi that was before. And I don't believe that al Qaeda and al-Shabaab and all these are waiting to see, Well, when President Obama closes down Guantanamo Bay, we're going to kind of get off the field and it's going to be over. I just don't think that has any impact.

Secondly, the transferees--according to a political article, FBI Director Robert Mueller stated:

To transfer detainees to local jails could affect or infect

other prisoners or have the capability of affecting events

outside the prison system.

I agree with Director Mueller. I think Director Mueller has done a great job.

On the Moussaoui case--if the gentleman remembers, Moussaoui was in Alexandria for 4 years, and it tied up Alexandria. And to bring some of these people and to try them here creates a lot of problems.

The other issue, though, is 15 percent, at least--and this is an old figure. It could be higher, it could be a little bit lower, but at least 15 percent of the terrorist recidivism rate of released detainees that were released back to Yemen and places like that, it is not unheard of to have, as you release some--and some were released under the Bush administration--went back on the field and killed our men and women.

And so to release these, certainly you would never do this in an appropriations bill. You would have extensive hearings in and out. You would call the FBI to ask them what are the ramifications. You would call the CIA to ask them what are the ramifications. You would call Homeland Security to ask them what are the ramifications.

So for all these issues--and I won't take up any more time because we covered it last night--I think this is a bad amendment, and I urge its defeat.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Moussaoui was picked up here in the United States. He was not picked up in the battlefield in Afghanistan or someplace like that. So they were totally separate-type issues.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

News broke today that an Egyptian court sentenced dozens of NGO workers, including the son of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, our former colleague, to jail, for their involvement with prominent prodemocracy organizations.

Beginning with the December 2011 raids and throughout the course of the so-called ``investigation'' involving Freedom House, the National Democratic Institute and the International Republican Institute have been a highly politicized charade. Prior to their closure, these organizations carried out important and legitimate programs to help support citizen participation in the Egyptian transition process--the very essence of democracy and America's greatest export.

I was in Egypt in February and heard firsthand that the Egyptian Government's handling of this case is symptomatic of a broader crackdown on civil society. This was a sham trial from the start. If this decision stands, not a penny more of U.S. taxpayer money should go to the Muslim Brotherhood-led government in Cairo.

I call on President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry to personally raise this travesty of justice with the Egyptian President, Mr. Morsi, and I would urge every Member of the House and Senate to send a letter to the Egyptian Government protesting what took place yesterday in Cairo.

I rise in opposition to my good friend's--and we are good friends--amendment. Let me tell you why. One, at the outset, in the President's first term, an executive order declared the intention to close Guantanamo Bay and bring the detainees to the United States. That proposal was rejected by the Congress overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis.

Similar language is carried in a Commerce, State, Justice bill on the subcommittee on which I serve. These provisions reflect a consensus of this and previous Congresses.

But let me tell you some of the real reasons why this is a bad and even, I would say, a dangerous amendment.

Several of these men who have been released from Guantanamo have gone back into the battlefield and have killed Americans. Secondly, Director Mueller, and I don't have the letter here, but I will give it to my friend, said this could have an impact on local jails, the locality of the jails. Do you remember the Blind Sheikh Rahman when Officer Pepe was stabbed in the eye with regard to an escape? To bring people like this into the United States could have an impact not only on the jail but also on the community.

To bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to the United States would cost roughly, if you recall, $250 million a year. Moussaoui, who was tried in the gentleman's district in Alexandria, it literally upset Alexandria, and if you take the same timeframe that Moussaoui was tried in, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's trial would go on for 4 years, would cost $1 billion--$250 million a year.

Do you remember when this idea first came out, Mayor Bloomberg said nothing, and Chuck Schumer said nothing, and then all of a sudden everything broke loose and Mayor Bloomberg came out against it and Senator Schumer came out against it.

Lastly, the Bureau of Prisons, we had to give Holder the ability to reprogram money because they were going to furlough prison guards. They were going to furlough prison guards. So to bring people like this in to put this stress on the Bureau of Prisons would be absolutely crazy.

Let me just debunk another thing. For people who say, and I heard the

President say it, that Guantanamo causes terrorism, Guantanamo Bay Prison was not there when 9/11 took place. The Blind Sheikh who was involved in trying to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993, there was no Guantanamo. It's a hoax to say that. What you say is not true. It's false. To say that Bin Laden and people like that, we're going to say, oh, well, the Congress and the administration they're going to close down Guantanamo, we're going to close down al Qaeda, we're going to close down all the terrorism, it just doesn't make any sense.

This is a bad amendment. The gentleman is a good friend, but it's a bad amendment, and it's a very dangerous amendment and it would cost a lot of money and, quite frankly, I think would endanger the locality.

If you vote for this amendment, you'd better be prepared. What locality wants to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to their local neighborhood. What locality wants to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to their county, to their State? I say none. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, following is the article I referred to earlier today in my one-minutes speech.

[From the Washington Post, June 2, 2013]

Witnesses to Tiananmen Square Struggle With What to Tell Their Children

(By William Wan)

Beijing.--From a young age, Qi Zhiyong's daughter asked him

how he lost his leg.

To everyone else in the world, Qi always responded to the

question with an unflinching, often angry, answer: He lost

his left leg when soldiers fired on him and other unarmed

civilians during protests at Tiananmen Square in one of

modern history's most brutal crackdowns.

But when his daughter asked, Qi choked back the words.

``I lost it in an accident,'' he mumbled for years.

The lie, however, burned at him, he said.

In the 2\1/2\ decades since the protests' violent end,

China's government has largely scrubbed Tiananmen from

history. Bullet holes on the streets of Beijing have long

been patched over. The government has barred any independent

inquiry and censored all mention online. Instead, Tiananmen

Square has been reduced to a single euphemistic sentence in

most school textbooks, making vague reference to ``political

turbulence in 1989.''

But for those who were part of the student-led protests

against government repression and corruption, those dark

morning hours of June 4, 1989, remain etched in memory and,

in cases like Qi's, on their bodies. That generation must now

decide what to tell their children about that day, if

anything at all.

For many, the decision is colored by how their own views

have changed over time. In interviews with more than a dozen

survivors, a few wondered whether the democratic cause they

fought for was misguided by youthful passion. Others have won

asylum abroad, and when they talk of Tiananmen to their

children, it is as history--just one part of their life's

larger story.

But the dilemma is often more complicated for those who

remain in China, where public mention of Tiananmen can result

in government retribution. To this day, officials maintain

that the decision was necessary for stability, and the

anniversary is marked with thousands of police officers

patrolling the square and chasing off journalists.

Those who have found successful careers in business, law

and academia often talk of it only in private, fearful of

consequences for themselves and their offspring.

Even some of those who have soldiered on as activists

deliberately say little of Tiananmen to their children, who

grow up not fully understanding why police barge into their

homes each year as the anniversary approaches to interrogate

and spirit away their parents for weeks without explanation.

Some children experience restrictions and warnings at school.

For most parents, it comes down to a choice between

protecting their children from the past or passing on

dangerous and bitter truths about the authoritarian society

they continue to live under.

It is something Qi and his wife have wrestled with

throughout their 14-year-old daughter's life. The two have

fought so often and so heatedly on the subject that neither

dares mention 1989 at home anymore.

`The veil was lifted'

A 33-year-old construction worker at the time of the

Tiananmen protests, Qi took a detour that night toward the

central Beijing square with co-workers out of curiosity, not

activism. Qi, who later converted to Christianity, now likens

the moment that troops fired without warning at the crowd

around him to a baptism of sorts.

``The veil was lifted from my eyes, and I saw the party for

what it really was,'' he said.

In the hospital, he said, as doctors tried to salvage his

bullet-torn left thigh, he took a purple antiseptic liquid

and, to their chagrin, angrily scrawled on his leg: ``This

bullet belongs to the Communist Party's army.

After the amputation, he was forced to give up his

construction job and has not found work since. By the time Qi

Ji was born in 1998, her father had become a full-time

activist, protesting the government's maltreatment of the

disabled and democracy advocates, along with other human

rights abuses.

Qi's wife warned him early on: Say what you want about the

government to everyone else, but Ji is too young. Why create

problems for her, his wife argued. Why poison her against the

society she must live in?

``But I don't think it's a bad thing for her to understand

this government,'' Qi said on a recent afternoon while

waiting for his daughter's return from school. ``I want her

to be prepared to handle life and to face these problems. Why

should we cover up the truth and let her live in illusion?''

For Qi, the Tiananmen crackdown--or June 4, as it is

commonly referred to in China--has become the defining moment

of his life.

While most people, including some former Tiananmen

protesters, have learned to avoid the topic, Qi carries

business cards listing his job title as ``Disabled Victim of

June 4.'' His home telephone number, cellphone number and e-

mail address end with deliberately chosen digits: ``89 64.''

And on the back of his cards, he has emblazoned this slogan:

``Facts written in ink cannot conceal the truth written in

blood.''

His family lives in a cramped Beijing apartment, dependent

on his wife's $320-a-month job as a drugstore sales

assistant, while Qi cares for their daughter and supports

human rights causes--work that has resulted in long stretches

of detention and frequent government harassment.

Qi's wife, Lu Shiying, wishes he would let go of what

happened 24 years ago. She recently declined to meet with

foreign journalists and warned Qi against it.

``How come others are able to move forward?'' she often

asks him, he said. ``You were not the only victim on June

Fourth.''

`Nothing to be gained'

Kong Weizhen also was shot and lost the use of his left leg

that night. But after seeing the danger and futility of his

anti-government activism, he abandoned the opposition work

that had brought him to the streets. Instead, he tried to

make a new life for himself within the existing system.

He became a salesman and worked his way up to owning a

computer store. He even tried in vain to join the Communist

Party at one point--an attempt, he says, to increase his pay

for the sake of his 12-year-old daughter.

``My family is now my first priority,'' he explained in a

phone interview. ``There's nothing to be gained from telling

her about June 4. If I tell her, she may form some dangerous

resentment against the party. . . . I just want her to have a

safe and happy life.''

The only reason he would tell her, he said, is if another

anti-government protest erupted. ``If that happened, I would

use my own example to teach her what such movements can

accomplish and what they cannot. And I would ask her to get

as far away as she can.''

But even those who have devoted their lives to fighting for

the democratic ideals of 1989 disagree on how much to tell

their children. Many of them now form the core of China's

dissident community.

``I don't want my children to know,'' said Zhang Lin, a

rights activist in Anhui province who has spent many years in

jail on state subversion charges.

In February, authorities pulled his 10-year-old daughter,

Anni, from school as an apparent punishment to her father.

The incident spurred dozens of other activists to stage a

hunger strike in front of the school. Weeks later, Anni was

allowed to resume class, but only in another town far away.

His daughter now loses her temper easily, Zhang said, and

has become obsessed with cartoons in which the good guys beat

up the bad. ``I don't want my children to follow the same

path as me,'' he said.

In a phone interview, his daughter said, ``I don't know why

the police keep coming,'' though she knows it's related

somehow to her father.

When asked about June 4, she responded: ``What is June 4? I

haven't heard anything about it.''

`I have no regrets'

Qi said he doesn't begrudge other parents their personal

decisions, but he worries that staying silent contributes to

the gradual purge of China's collective memory.

To this day, he said, his amputated stump hurts whenever he

hears the crack of fireworks. He avoids passing Tiananmen

Square, he said, because he tastes blood whenever he gets too

close.

In the end, suppressing all mention of June 4 in front of

his daughter proved impossible. And after his daughter turned

10, a teacher made a passing reference to the date while

talking about the physical space of Tiananmen Square.

That night, with Qi's wife still at work, his daughter

mentioned it to him, and the memories poured out. The

clacking advance of tanks. The shocking sound of gunfire. The

blood he saw all around him and the sudden pain and darkness.

In the years that followed, he secretly told her more and

more. They watched banned videos about that day on overseas

Web sites. They talked about the party and its instinct for

self-preservation.

He watched both proud and pained as June 4 began to color

her worldview as it had his.

She became both more rebellious and more mature, he said.

Like her parents, she now refers to the police watching their

home as ``dogs,'' but she accepts without questioning when

school leaders exclude her from trips abroad and from student

parades at Tiananmen celebrating China's Communist rule.

Lately, she's talked of becoming a kindergarten teacher so

she can teach kids how to think for themselves about what's

right and wrong.

``All parents want their children to live a happy life, but

I have no regrets about telling her,'' Qi said. ``Only after

she first tastes the bitter can she know what the sweet is.''

Qi's wife now knows that her daughter knows. But the family

recently reached a kind of detente--similar to the one in

Chinese society at large. When together at home these days,

the family simply avoids all mention of Tiananmen Square,

June 4 and what happened that day 24 years ago.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize four remarkable students from my congressional district who were recently awarded college scholarships through the ``Beat the Odds'' program.

Hosted by the Loudoun Bar Association, ``Beat the Odds'' provides financial support to area students who have overcome challenging, and often tragic circumstances. The students who received awards this year have endured hardships ranging from sexual abuse to illness to poverty, yet have still achieved great success in the classroom or on the athletic field.

I had the privilege of attending a ceremony for the recipients on Thursday, May 23, in Leesburg. It was an honor to meet the students and hear firsthand how they overcame adverse situations. Their ability to remain positive and work hard despite the difficulties they face is inspiring. I wish them all the best as they embrace this wonderful opportunity and move on to college.

The recipients of this year's scholarships are: Jonathan ``Cory'' Dickey of Loudoun County High School, Shannon Hayes of Park View High School, Leanna Moron of Loudoun County High School and Vineetha Thekkel of Tuscarora High School.

I submit two recent news articles from the Loudoun Times-Mirror and Leesburg Today on these remarkable students.

[From the Loudoun Times-Mirror, May 24, 2013]

Four Loudoun Students Awarded ``Beat the Odds'' Scholarships

(By Alanna Dvorak)

Looking at Loudoun County High School senior Leanna Moron,

one wouldn't suspect the challenges she's overcome.

The poised girl of Thai and Bolivian descent is an

academic, sitting within the top 10 percent of her class. She

takes time out of her day to work with English Language

Learners. She will be attending Penn State to study nursing.

She's also endured multiple traumas, from sexual abuse,

financial struggles, alcoholic family members and

``tremendous heartache and pain.''

``To know what she has lived through everyday and see her

still be who she is is amazing,'' said Megan Dunn, a guidance

counselor at Loudoun County and the person who nominated

Moron for the award.

Moron received a $6,000 scholarship from the Loudoun Bar

Association's Beat the Odds program at a ceremony May 24 at

the historic courthouse in Leesburg. ``It's an amazing

honor,'' Moron said. ``I'm very thankful for this scholarship

and this opportunity.''

The Beat the Odds program awards scholarships to students

who have overcome significant life obstacles, such as abuse,

illness or poverty. A national program, the Loudoun chapter

was founded nine years ago by members of the Loudoun County

Bar Association.

``In a given year, there are roughly 245 days we hold

court,'' said Juvenile and Domestics Court Judge Pamela

Brooks, who hosted the ceremony. ``I have two favorite days:

today and adoption day.''

In addition to Moron, three other students received merit

awards at the ceremony.

Jonathan ``Cory'' Dickey, a senior football player and

wrestler at Loudoun County High School, received a $2,000

award. At age 14, he physically stopped his alcoholic father

from strangling his mother. His father left and the family

was forced to make do with food stamps, social security

benefits his mother, who is unable to work, receives and a

part-time job Dickey took on. Still: the family was unable to

stave off foreclosure.

``I did it not only for myself, but I try to be strong for

my brothers,'' Dickey said. ``It is very tough growing up at

an early age but I think it's made me a stronger person in

the long run.''

Park View's Shannon Hayes' parents divorced when she eight,

after her father's struggles with alcoholism made it unsafe

for her. Two years later, her mom became ill and her father

moved back in with the family to help out.

``I thought our family was finally growing back together,''

Hayes said.

However, her father was diagnosed with Leukemia and died

just 15 days before Hayes' 13th birthday. Hayes' family has

also struggled financially.

Hayes received a $2,500 award to put toward her education

at Penn State, where she plans to study biochemistry to

become a genetic engineer.

Vineetha Thekkel of Tuscarora received the third merit

award of the evening. Thekkel and her parents came to America

in 2009 and the then 13 year old immediately had to take on

an adult role, trying to find transportation for the family

from the airport. Once the family settled in Leesburg, the

young teenager then solicited for jobs for her mother and

deaf father. Despite being laughed out by numerous business

owners, Thekkel was able to help her parents find employment.

They currently each work three jobs.

Thekkel credits much of her success to agencies around

Loudoun County who supported her family during their

financial struggles with food stamps and free medical care

and teachers who personally supported her.

``With their support, I was able to stay on top of my

schoolwork,'' Thekkel said.

Thekkel will be attending Mt. Vernon Nazarene University in

Ohio and hopes to become a missionary doctor. She received a

$2,500 scholarship.

Several prominent members of the community came out to

support the students, including Board of Supervisor member

Ken Reed, School Board member Thomas Reed, Town of Leesburg

Mayor Kristen Umstattd and Congressman Frank Wolf, who served

as keynote speaker.

Wolf told of his adversities from childhood and being

teased as a stutterer and poor student. He told the students

their adversity would determine their success, rather their

character and ability to overcome.

``Do not be afraid to take on tough issues,'' Wolf told the

students.

The Beat the Odds program will hold a special event June 13

at the Tally Ho in Leesburg from 5 to 7:30 p.m. The event

will serve as both a fundraiser and an opportunity for the

community to hear the stories from this year's winners.

Twenty-four years ago, peaceful, pro-democracy demonstrators gathered in Tiananmen Square were brutally crushed by the People's Liberation Army. The Chinese Government remains frightened by the spirit that animated that protest.

I will submit for the Record an article from today's Washington Post, which reported that:

In the 2\1/2\ decades since the protests' violent end,

China's government has largely scrubbed Tiananmen from

history.

In 1991, Congressman Chris Smith and I traveled to China where we visited Beijing Prison Number One, which housed approximately 40 Tiananmen Square protesters. While our request to visit the demonstrators was denied, we left with a pair of socks made by prisoners for export to the West.

The events of the past and the continued repression today are made worse by this administration's failure to prioritize human rights in our relationship with China.

Will President Obama even mention Tiananmen in his summit with the Chinese President this week, or will he abide by the censor's wishes and pretend it never happened?

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize our Nation's public servants and thank them for their invaluable contributions to our country.

In every community, federal employees work to make sure the government is effective, promote the common good and keep us safe. They are the people you call when you need help. As we celebrate Public Service Recognition Week, which started on Sunday, May 5, and ends on Saturday, May 11, I rise to express my gratitude to our civil servants for their tireless dedication and service.

Federal employees often get little recognition for their work, despite the fact that day in and day out many of them are repeatedly put in dangerous situations. From the Customs and Border Patrol and DEA agents working to combat illegal immigration and human trafficking and drug runners, to the FBI agents rescuing children who have been kidnapped and finding suspected terrorists--federal employees perform vital jobs that make our country a safer and better place.

Every day intelligence agents and Foreign Service officers on the front lines of duty sacrifice to defend democracy and keep us safe. The CIA agents who coordinated the raid to kill Osama bin Laden are federal employees. On the evening of the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, the Foreign Service officers representing our government at the consulate and annex where the attack occurred were federal employees.

In addition to providing security abroad, federal employees regularly risk their lives to protect us here at home. Just last month, FBI and ATF agents worked diligently to track down the suspects in the Boston Marathon bombings. Without their hard work, we could not bring the individuals responsible for these unspeakable acts to justice.

It is also important to recognize that many federal employees who are not directly in harm's way graciously serve our Nation. Nurses and doctors at the VA who care for our veterans and wounded warriors, medical researchers at NIH searching for a cure for cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, and autism are all federal employees. The FDA inspectors who trace E. coli and salmonella outbreaks to ensure that our food is safe to eat are federal employees.

There are federal employees who propel our country to the forefront of scientific advancements. Scientists at Department of Energy labs, NASA astronauts, engineers and scientists all work to keep America competitive in the increasingly global economy. Meteorologists at weather service storm centers track hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, and blizzards so that we can prepare for inclement weather and natural disasters.

Defense civilian riggers, machinists, refuelers, and engineers who repair sophisticated electronic weaponry systems at our Army depots, Air Force bases, and shipyards are the federal employees who support our military personnel. Air traffic controllers work to make sure we are safe when we travel. Federal firefighters protect homes and businesses when a lightning strike sets a national forest on fire. Park Service rangers facilitate safe hiking and camping in our national parks and tours of our national battlefields.

These are but a few of the essential services federal employees provide. I hope my colleagues will join me in thanking them for their service to ensure the safety and security of our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, there are some who argue that the world's destinies are shaped by impersonal forces rather than by the courage and determination of individual men and women.

I believe that historians of that persuasion never met my friend, and freedom's friend, Mark Palmer. I rise to celebrate the life of Ambassador Mark Palmer, who died recently after a characteristically brave and uncomplaining twenty year battle against melanoma.

But for Mark's controversial determination while U.S. ambassador to Hungary that the barbed wire fences between Hungary and Austria should be severed in order to allow East Germans to leave the Communist orbit, the Berlin Wall might still be standing. But for his brave willingness to openly challenge Hungary's Communist government when conventional thinkers at the State Department and elsewhere were worried about the ``destabilizing'' effects of a Communist collapse, the Soviet Empire might still be in power. But for Mark's years of incomparably influential service as a speechwriter and pro-democracy advocate to three Presidents and six Secretaries of State, America might not have understood how the promotion of human rights, democracy and American values strategically tracks with the promotion of American national security interests.

There are many examples of how history was made by the man once described by The New York Times ``as the most active Western booster for economic and political liberalization'' of Communist dictatorships. They are examples of why, at the celebration of the 20th anniversary of Hungary's liberation from communist dictatorship, Mark was awarded a Commander's Cross of Hungary's Order of Merit because, as ``the right man at the right time at the right place . . . he rose to the occasion [of] shepherding democratic opposition . . . through . . . turbulent times by giving [it] legitimacy.'' They are reasons why Mark received three Presidential Awards and two Superior Honor Awards from the Department of State during a 26 year career as a Foreign Service officer.

A great moment in Mark Palmer's career--and proof of how his ideas have shaped events--was his role while in the Foreign Service as co- drafter of President Ronald Reagan's great 1982 Westminster Hall ``Democracy Crusade'' speech on democracy and human rights. The speech, whose every word had to be fought through a resistant bureaucracy, was a critical step in moving the United States from a policy of accepting and containing communism to what became the successful policy of peacefully challenging it. Thanks to Mark, the speech also led to the establishment of the National Endowment for Democracy--which he had proposed and later served as a key board member.

After his Foreign Service career, Mark served for nearly twenty years as Vice Chair of Freedom House, one of America's primary human rights organizations. He was honorary chair and co-founder of the International Management Center in Budapest, Hungary and served on the boards of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, the Georgetown University Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, the Budapest International Centre for Democratic Transition, the American Academy of Diplomacy, the Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training, the University of the District of Columbia, the Friends of Falun Gong, and the Secretary of State's Advisory Committee on Democracy Promotion.

Mark was the brains and inspiration behind another great institution whose positive impact will grow over the years. He helped to establish the Community of Democracies, a global assembly of democratic governments that now meets annually in support of democracy and human rights and to deepen the bonds between democratic governments. Mark served as Vice Chair of the Community's permanent operating body, its Council. As but one example of the Council's work and Mark's efforts on its behalf, he initiated and helped write increasingly influential training handbooks that guide U.S. diplomats and military officers to assist democratic promotion and transition. In Mark's honor, the Council established Palmer Prizes for contributions by diplomats to the advancement of democracy that were first awarded in 2011 to diplomats from seven countries for pro-human rights efforts in such nations as Belarus, Cuba and Zimbabwe.

A frequent author of policy and advocacy pieces to leading media outlets, and of expert testimony and counsel to Congress and the Executive Branch, Mark published in 2003 his groundbreaking Breaking the Real Axis of Evil: How to Oust the World's Last Dictators by 2025. In it, he argued for a revamping of U.S. foreign policy to make worldwide promotion of democracy a primary goal. Legislation based on the book was sponsored by Senator John McCain and my late colleague and fellow Palmer admirer Tom Lantos, and was signed into law by President George W. Bush on August 3, 2007. Entitled ``ADVANCE Democracy Act of 2007'', it was described by a scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace as ``. . . the most important bill . . . on democracy promotion since the 1983 initiative to establish the National Endowment for Democracy . . .''

Mark's business career was as successful as his diplomatic career and was often focused on the same objectives. Knowing the critical value of free and unmonitored information in dictatorial and post-dictatorial countries, he founded Central European Media Enterprises Ltd. which, with local partners, established, owned and operated the first politically independent national television stations in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Romania, Ukraine and Poland. He was a co- founder of Television Development Partners and Signal One Media Corporation--ventures for the establishment of independent, commercial satellite TV channels in the Middle East. He chaired the advisory board of New Tang Dynasty Television, and strongly backed the launch of the first uncensored satellite TV broadcasts into China.

In what may prove as great a contribution to 21st century world freedom as those Mark made during the 20th century, he led the effort to establish a robust U.S. initiative to overcome the Internet firewalls of China, Iran and other closed society regimes. Mark knew what the world's dictators know--that Internet firewalls are present day equivalents of the brick and barbed wire walls he helped bring down in the 20th century. He knew what China's former Premier Hu Jintao has openly acknowledged--that the ability of closed society regimes to ``purify'' the Internet is critical to their ability to remain in power. Thus, when millions of house church Christians freely and safely conduct worship services over their mobile phones in China, and when hundreds of thousands of Iranians in and out of the country conduct interactive town meetings--as I believe will soon occur--this development will be a tribute to the vision that Mark inspired many of us to share during the latter part of his productive life.

Mark came early to his activism in the cause of human rights, participating during the early 1960s in Freedom Bus rides and other civil rights demonstrations while a student at Yale University, from which he graduated magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa. Taking similar action, Mark regularly sought out and met with dissidents in Moscow and Belgrade early in his career as a junior Foreign Service Officer. As a private citizen, he returned to Belgrade in 1996 to march with students against the criminal regime of then Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic.

Patriotism is said to be an honorable competition with one's ancestors, and Mark had many models that helped make him the man he became. He was born on July 14, 1941 in Ann Arbor, Michigan to the late Captain Robie

Ellis Palmer, USN and the late Katherine Hooker Palmer. His mother was the granddaughter of Civil War Colonel George W. Hooker, an Antietam Medal of Honor winner of the 4th Vermont Volunteers who was later appointed Assistant Adjutant General of Union Army Volunteers by President Lincoln. Not long after Mr. Palmer's birth, his father left to take command of the submarine USS Pollack, which operated in the Pacific theater and served in several dangerous missions in Japanese waters.

America--and the world--will miss Mark. But as my colleagues on both sides of the aisle know--Mark's legacy will be with us for years and generations to come. When men and women escape the chains of 21st century oppression, they will be in Mark Palmer's debt as we, his friends, will forever be.

Finally, in rising to celebrate Mark I rise as well to celebrate his cherished partner in all that he accomplished during his distinguished career--his wife of 47 years, Dr. Sushma Palmer.