Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, this week marked the 98th anniversary of the Armenian genocide.

I have long been a cosponsor of a resolution introduced in multiple sessions of Congress which reaffirms the United States record on the Armenian genocide.

The Armenian genocide, in which 1.5 million perished, is widely recognized as the 20th century's first genocide. Raphael Lemkin, the Jewish legal scholar who coined the word genocide and tirelessly advocated for international law defining it and preventing it, was driven largely by what happened to the Armenians.

Since that time, the world has witnessed unfathomable horrors during the Nazi-perpetrated Holocaust and subsequent genocides in Bosnia, Cambodia, Rwanda and Sudan. And too often, the world has been silent in the face of such brutality despite claims of ``Never Again.''

In fact, Sudanese president Omar Bashir, an internationally-indicted war criminal charged with genocide and crimes against humanity, continues to travel the globe with virtual impunity.

Adolph Hitler, in describing his murderous plans and seeking to silence those with reservations, famously said, ``Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?''

There is power in speaking the truth, even about atrocities that occurred nearly a century ago, so that others with evil aims will not be empowered by our silence.

Sadly President Obama, despite his campaign promises, has once again failed to characterize the brutal slaughter of one and half million people as genocide.

Mr. Speaker, this past Saturday, Carmen Weinstein, the leader of Cairo's small remaining Jewish community died at her home. I had the privilege of meeting Ms. Weinstein during a visit to Egypt earlier this year.

She had a passion for preserving Jewish history and antiquities in Egypt and protecting the remaining synagogues. She told me of her dismay that the Jewish cemetery at Bassatine, where she herself will be buried, had been overrun by squatters and vandals.

Hers was a remarkable life, set against the backdrop of a great Jewish emigration out of Egypt more than 60 years ago.

Since her mother's passing, Ms. Weinstein had led a small community of mostly elderly Jewish women in Cairo. In fact, she was one of fewer than 100 Jews still living in Egypt.

In the words of her Washington Post obituary, ``Ms. Weinstein worked to remind people that Jews in Egypt were once part of the country's vibrant economy, cultural and political life.'' I feel fortunate to have met her.

[From the Washington Post, Apr. 13, 2013]

Carmen Weinstein, Jewish Leader in Cairo, Dies at 82

(By Aya Batrawy)

Carmen Weinstein, the leader of Egypt's dwindling Jewish

community, known for her tireless work preserving synagogues

and a once-sprawling Jewish cemetery, died April 13 at the

age of 82.

A statement from the Jewish Community in Cairo confirmed

her death in Cairo. She had been suffering from knee problems

and poor blood circulation.

Ms. Weinstein helped urge Egyptian authorities to renovate

at least four Cairo synagogues among the 15 that still exist

in the city. Just a day before her death, she traveled to the

Maadi suburb to inspect the renovation of a synagogue there.

Since 1978, she also worked to preserve the Bassatine

cemetery, the only Jewish cemetery left in Cairo.

The transformation of Bassatine mirrors the dramatic

changes Egypt has undergone as its population skyrocketed and

poverty grew. Named in Arabic after its gardens, the cemetery

is now a slum of tightly packed redbrick apartment buildings

that house thousands of poor Egyptians. Parts of the

Bassatine were turned into a garbage dump.

Ms. Weinstein was able to preserve a small area as a Jewish

cemetery.

Egypt's once thriving Jewish community largely left more

than 60 years ago at a time of hostilities between the

country and Israel. Since the creation of the state of Israel

in 1948, an estimated 65,000 Jews left Egypt for Europe, the

West and Israel.

According to a friend of Ms. Weinstein's, Magda Haroun,

only around 40 Egyptian Jews remain in the country, split

between Cairo and the Mediterranean city of Alexandria, which

once was a thriving multicultural and cosmopolitan hub.

Haroun said Ms. Weinstein's father had owned a large print

shop in downtown Cairo, where Ms. Weinstein had worked for

some 50 years after her father's death. The family's name

remains on the shop, which now sells stationery.

Haroun said one of Ms. Weinstein's other achievements was

in persuading Egypt's remaining Jews to come together and use

Cairo's main downtown synagogue for prayer, after it had been

closed for years.

``We were scattered all over Cairo, and she managed to

regroup us and keep us together,'' Haroun said.

In her last community newsletter, Ms. Weinstein wrote that

this year's Passover ceremony in late March was celebrated by

about 50 people in Cairo's main synagogue, many of them

diplomats.

Ms. Weinstein worked to remind people that Jews in Egypt

were once part of the country's vibrant economy, cultural and

political life.

She was a graduate of both Cairo University and the

American University in Cairo, where she studied literature,

according to a biography posted on the Jewish Community in

Cairo's Web site. She spoke fluent French, English and

Arabic.

Haroun said Ms. Weinstein often reminisced of the Egypt she

knew growing up, when neighbors did not ask about one

another's religion.

Mr. Speaker, as of Friday, March 15, the position of Sudan special envoy at the State Department has been vacant.

This vacancy is symptomatic of a president that has all but forsaken the people of Sudan.

Last December a group of prominent Sudan activists and advocates wrote a letter to the administration, which I submit for the Record, expressing their ``grave concerns that the current U.S. policy is ineffective at stopping mass atrocities in Sudan.'' They urged President Obama, in his second term, to embrace ``an urgent shift in the U.S. policy to finally end the humanitarian crises and bring about a just and lasting peace in Sudan.''

The letter cited the president's own words from 2007 when he rightly called the genocide in Darfur a ``stain on our souls'' and said that ``as a president of the United States I don't intend to abandon people or turn a blind eye to slaughter.''

And yet, I can't help but wonder if the people of Darfur, who have been displaced from their homes and brutalized by violence for ten years now, do in fact feel abandoned by this president and this administration.

On March 7, CNN featured a piece by the chairman of the Darfur Union in the United Kingdom, himself a Darfuri. Tellingly, he wrote, ``. . . Khartoum's attempt to establish a racially pure Islamic state involves waging war against its own unarmed civilians, systematically and with impunity. In Darfur this has lasted a decade. The U.N. estimates that 300,000 Darfuris have died since 2003, but it hasn't bothered to estimate casualty numbers since 2008. With fighting continuing to this day, the number is likely to be far higher. The world assumes `Darfur is over.' It isn't.''

Not only is Darfur's nightmare ongoing, but Khartoum's brutality has only spread, consistent with its decades' long effort to systematically and ruthlessly consolidate power resulting in the death and displacement of untold thousands. More recently the Nuban people have been driven from their homes, targeted for killing and terrorized because of the color of their skin. Khartoum has indiscriminately bombed civilian populations--disrupting an entire way of life for this largely farming population. Starvation, death and despair have followed. I have visited the refugee camps and talked with the people personally. I have heard their pleas for help and I have conveyed their message to this administration--a message which fell on largely deaf ears.

On March 19, USA Today featured a joint op-ed by actor and co-founder of the anti-genocide organization Not On Our Watch, Don Cheadle, and John Prendergast the co-founder of the Enough Project, in the op-ed wrote, ``By excluding all but a narrow clique of Sudanese from access to the power and wealth of the country, marginalized groups from the west (Darfur), south (Blue Nile and the Nuba Mountains) and east have all taken up arms against that regime. . . . Any peace effort should deal comprehensively with all the rebel movements, the unarmed opposition, and civil society, in search of a solution for the whole of Sudan. Until the abusive governing system in Sudan is radically reformed, there will be blood.''

Indeed, much blood has been shed, and yet inexplicably this administration has embraced a policy of engagement marked by conciliatory outreach to Khartoum, including the prospect of debt relief for a genocidal government, and a perverse sense of moral equivalence in dealing with South Sudan and Sudan.

While there has been criticism of two successive special envoys, ultimately they were merely the implementers of a policy that is inherently flawed and ultimately ineffective. In fact, I am grateful for the dedication and efforts of both Ambassadors Scott Gration and Princeton Lyman both of whom have poured much time and energy into a daunting task. We owe them a debt of gratitude.

In a February 12 letter to Secretary of State Kerry I wrote, ``Our approach to Sudan and South Sudan needs reinvigorating. It demands a renewed sense of moral clarity about who we are dealing with in Khartoum--namely genocidaires. It necessitates someone who can speak candidly with our friends in South Sudan about their own internal challenges, including corruption, and shortcomings as a new nation. While an envoy alone does not a policy make, a high-profile special envoy, from

outside the department, with the knowledge and mandate to aggressively pursue peace, security and justice for the people of Sudan and South Sudan, is an important step in the right direction.''

Specifically, I recommended someone like former Senator Russ Feingold.

Now there are whispers that the administration is considering former U.S. ambassador to Sudan, Tim Carney. Many in the Sudan advocacy community are deeply dismayed at this prospect and took the unusual step of asking Secretary Kerry not to move forward with this nomination.

In a March 19 letter, Act for Sudan wrote, ``It has come to our attention that former U.S. Ambassador to Sudan, Timothy Carney, is being considered for the position of Special Envoy. . . . While Ambassador Carney has experience in Sudan, we are concerned that his publicly stated advice and guidance with regard to U.S. policy on Sudan will prolong the suffering of the Sudanese people and will undermine U.S. objectives to support a just peace and stable democracies in Sudan and South Sudan, which ultimately are in the best interest of the U.S. and the international community.''

The letter references a February 2009 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing that Kerry chaired where Carney proposed offering a series of carrots to Khartoum, including deferring the International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant for Sudanese President Omar Bashir, sending an ambassador to Khartoum and removing Sudan from the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism.

If the past is any indication, this would be precisely the wrong direction for U.S. policy. Khartoum has met this administration's overtures with continued atrocities and intransigence. Khartoum has rightly concluded that they incur no more blame than the leadership in Juba for what has occurred since the independence vote of January 2011.

Meanwhile, this administration sought to block efforts in Congress, which I initiated, to isolate Bashir. Last year I offered an amendment to the State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill which would have cut non-humanitarian foreign assistance to any nation that allowed him into their country without arresting him. The amendment was adopted with bipartisan support by voice vote despite the department's opposition.

This approach of using our increasingly scarce aid dollars to effectuate change and further our foreign policy objectives is a tried and true method. When Malawi allowed Bashir to enter the country to attend a regional trade summit I pressed the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) to end Malawi's compact. The MCC was initially opposed to this course of action but ultimately, in the face of a deteriorating human rights situation internally, reversed course and suspended Malawi's compact, citing Bashir's visit as one of the reasons.

Fortunately Malawi's new president, Joyce Banda, hoping to reinvigorate her country's relationship with donor countries, last year took a firm stand in refusing to allow Bashir to visit her country for the African Union (AU) summit. President Banda went so far as to decline to host the summit lest her country and her government be placed in the position of being forced to host a war criminal. Given her principled stand I made clear to the MCC Board that I supported Malawi's compact being reinstated which it ultimately was.

However, other countries, including large recipients of U.S. foreign assistance, have not followed suit and the administration has failed to embrace this approach to spur such action.

The amendment I proposed would isolate Bashir and make him an international pariah as is befitting a man with blood on his hands. It is noteworthy that the amendment garnered the support of 70 prominent Holocaust and genocide scholars. Dr. Rafael Medoff, director of the Wyman Institute, which initiated a letter of support to the administration from these scholars, said: ``Halting aid to those who host Bashir would be the first concrete step the U.S. has taken to isolate the Butcher of Darfur and pave the way for his arrest. If the Obama administration is serious about punishing perpetrators of genocide, it should support the Wolf Amendment.''

Sadly that support never materialized.

Candidate Obama purported to be deeply concerned by the crisis in Sudan and committed to bold actions.

Have we seen a fraction of that concern or anything close to bold action since he became president?

Candidate Obama was sharp in his criticism of President Bush's handling of Sudan.

Have we seen President Obama take even fleeting interest, beyond the occasional talking point, in the deteriorating situation in Sudan marked in part by a growing humanitarian crisis in the Nuba Mountains?

In a piece in the August 4, 2011 Christian Science Monitor, noted Sudan researcher and activist Eric Reeves, wrote, ``If the world refuses to see what is occurring in South Kordofan, and refuses to respond to evidence that the destruction of the Nuba people, as such, is a primary goal of present military and security actions by Sudan, then this moment will represent definitive failure of the `responsibility to protect.' ''

Meanwhile in an April 23, 2012 speech at the U.S. Holocaust Museum President Obama lauded his commitment in the realm of genocide and mass-atrocities prevention, saying, without a hint of irony, ``We're making sure that the United States government has the structures, the mechanisms to better prevent and respond to mass atrocities. So I created the first-ever White House position dedicated to this task. It's why I created a new Atrocities Prevention Board, to bring together senior officials from across our government to focus on this critical mission. This is not an afterthought.''

He continued, ``. . . we need to be doing everything we can to prevent and respond to these kinds of atrocities--because national sovereignty is never a license to slaughter your people.''

I couldn't agree more. And yet, I think most in the Sudan watchers would hardly be able to claim that this administration has done everything it can to prevent and respond to Khartoum's assault on its own people.

With tensions between Sudan and South Sudan on the rise and nearing a tipping point, thousands starving in the Nuba Mountains, refugees fleeing aerial bombardment and pouring over the border into South Sudan, violence persisting in Darfur and an internationally indicted war criminal at the helm in Khartoum who travels the globe with virtual impunity, it is time for a fresh policy and a renewed commitment to peace and justice in Sudan.

To date, this president has offered nothing more than an abdication of leadership and a failure of vision, which has culminated in human suffering and misery.

December 11, 2012,

Hon. Barack Obama,

President of the United States,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. President, We, the undersigned human rights

organizations, have grave concerns that the current U.S.

policy is ineffective at stopping mass atrocities in Sudan.

We write in the hope that the transition to your second term

in office will bring an urgent shift in the U.S. policy to

finally end the humanitarian crises and bring about a just

and lasting peace in Sudan.

As you know, genocide continues in Sudan. The National

Congress Party (NCP) regime in Sudan, led by a president

indicted by the International Criminal Court for genocide,

crimes against humanity and war crimes, is causing the death,

starvation, displacement, and destruction of livelihood of

Sudanese civilians in Darfur, Nuba Mountains/South Kordofan

and the Blue Nile state.

When speaking about Sudan in 2007 you called the genocide

in Darfur a ``stain on our souls'' and said that ``as a

president of the United States I don't intend to abandon

people or turn a blind eye to slaughter.'' Vice President

Biden, the same year, called for military force in Darfur.

Yet five years later, the same genocidal regime, whose grave

human rights abuses have been left unchecked by the

international community, is emboldened to continue to

perpetrate atrocities, not only in Darfur but now in Sudan's

border regions.

In your first term, your administration pursued a policy of

engagement, marked by conciliatory diplomacy. Under the

oversight of two Special Envoys, this policy has failed to

stop the government of Sudan from committing ongoing mass

atrocities.

We now ask that you revamp your Sudan policy to address the

root cause of Sudan's multiple conflicts, the repressive and

genocidal Sudan regime.

Specifically, we ask that your administration:

(1) Deliver humanitarian aid to the starving Sudanese

civilians in the Nuba Mountains/South Kordofan and Blue Nile

State, with or without agreement from the government of Sudan

or the U.N. Security Council, with multilateral partners or

unilaterally, and with the urgency required to save starving

people.

(2) Instruct the National Security Council to accelerate

decisions and related actions regarding protection of Nuba,

Blue Nile, and Darfuri populations from air attacks and to

seriously consider the destruction of Sudan's offensive

aerial assets and/or the imposition of a no-fly zone pursuant

to the responsibility to protect doctrine.

(3) Support an end to the NCP regime's control of the

government of Sudan and support the movement within Sudan for

democratic transformation.

(4) Oppose debt relief and cash transfers to the government

of Sudan, thereby increasing pressure on that government and

strengthening the effects of U.S. sanctions.

(5) Demonstrate strong leadership to end the government-

sponsored violence in Sudan, protect civilians in Sudan and

South Sudan, ensure unhindered humanitarian access for those

in need, and bring the perpetrators of genocide and mass

atrocities to justice at the International Criminal Court.

The government of Sudan's blatant and longstanding abuse of

its citizens and disregard for the international community

clearly defines the nature of that government. Sudan's

repeated failure to abide by

the outcome of negotiations is a well-established pattern.

After 23 years of mass atrocities committed by President

Bashir and his government, it is long past time for the

United States and the international community to confront

Bashir and the NCP and bring an end to their mass atrocities.

Sincerely,

Act for Sudan, Martina Knee, Co-Founder USA; African

Soul, American Heart, Debra Dawson, President, Fargo,

ND, USA; Americans Against the Darfur Genocide, Nikki

Serapio, Director, Washington, DC, USA; Amnesty Group

133, Robert Saulnier, Somerville, MA, USA; Dr. Kjell

Anderson, Senior Researcher/Project Leader, The Hague

Institute for Global Justice, Member, Advisory Board

International Association of Genocide Scholars, The

Hague, The Netherlands; Armenian Assembly of America,

Bryan Ardouny, Executive Director, Washington, DC, USA;

Beja Organization for Human Rights and Development,

Ibrahim T. Ahmed, Co-founder and Executive Director,

Fairfax, VA, USA; Blue Nile Association of North

America, Abdalla Babikir, Washington, DC, USA; Brooklyn

Coalition for Darfur & Marginalized Sudan, Laura

Limuli, Coordinator, Brooklyn, NY, USA; ``Change the

world. It just takes cents'' TM, Sara Caine Kornfeld,

Founder/Educator, Denver, CO, USA; Christian Solidarity

International--USA, Rev. Heidi McGinness, Director of

Outreach, Denver, CO, USA.

Church Alliance for a New Sudan, The Institute on

Religion and Democracy, Faith J. H. McDonnell,

Director, Washington, DC, USA; Colorado Coalition for

Genocide Awareness and Action, Roz Duman, Founder/

Director Denver, CO, USA; Connecticut Coalition to Save

Darfur, Timothy Oslovich, Chairperson, Vernon, CT, USA;

Damanga Coalition for Freedom and Democracy, Mohamed

Yahya, Executive Director, Falls Church, VA, USA;

Darfur Action Group of SC, Richard Sribnick, Chairman,

Columbia, SC, USA; Darfur and Beyond, Cory Williams,

Co-Founder, Phoenix, AZ, USA; Darfur Association, Adam

Omer, President, Lincoln, NE, USA; Darfur Association

of the USA, Dr. Mahmoud Braima, President, Baton Rouge,

LA, USA; Darfur Association, Ahmed Adam Ali, Denver,

CO, USA; Darfur Community Organization, Bakheit A.

Shata, Founder/Executive Director, Omaha, NE, USA;

Darfur Human Rights Organization of the USA, Abdelgabar

Adam, Founder and President, Philadelphia, PA, USA;

Darfur Interfaith Network, Richard Young, Co-Chair,

Washington, DC, USA.

Darfur Leaders Network (DLN), Motasim Adam, Director,

Washington, DC, USA; Darfur People's Association of New

York, Ahmat Nour, President, Brooklyn, NY, USA; Darfur

Solidarity USA, Mohammed Ahmed Eisa, Executive

Director, Cambridge, MA, USA; Darfur Women Action

Group, Niemat Ahmadi, President, Washington, DC, USA;

Darfurian Association of Greater Houston, Sallah Yahya,

Executive Director, Houston, TX, USA; Dear Sudan, Love

Marin, Gerri Miller, Founder and Coordinator, Tiburon,

CA, USA; Tanya L. Domi, Adjunct Professor of

International and Public Affairs, Columbia University,

New York, NY, USA; Dr. Herbert Ekwe-Ekwe, Independent

Scholar, Author of Biafra Revisited (Dakar and Reading:

African Renaissance, 2006) and Readings from Reading:

Essays on African Politics, Genocide, Literature (Dakar

and Reading: African Renaissance, 2011), London,

England; Essex County Coalition for Darfur, Gloria

Crist, Co-Founder, Montclair, NJ, USA; Mia Farrow,

Actor, CT, USA; Fur Cultural Revival, El-Fadel Arbab,

Executive Director and Lecturer, Portland, ME, USA;

Genocide No More, Mary Steinberg, Coordinator, Redding,

Mr. Chair, I will vote today for H. Con. Res. 25, authored by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, because we have a duty to address our nation's looming fiscal obligations. As I have repeatedly said, we cannot continue to kick the proverbial can down the road.

I want to be clear: I would prefer to vote for a bipartisan budget modeled off the Simpson-Bowles plan. It could be improved by incorporating changes in existing law and other proposals, such as the discussions between the president and Speaker Boehner, and plans offered by Alice Rivlin and Pete Domenici, and Rep. Ryan and Sen. Wyden. Like the Ryan plan before us today, I do not agree with every line in the Simpson-Bowles plan. However, I continue to believe that a budget based on this model is the only plan that can put our nation on a sustainable, long-term path to replace sequestration and reform our nation's entitlement programs so they will exist for future generations.

For more than six years, I have forcefully spoken out about the dire need to get our nation's fiscal house in order. I have made thoughtful and serious recommendations for a way forward and have voted for substantial legislation to get our nation back on solid financial footing.

When I came to the floor to vote for last year's budget, we were $15.5 trillion in debt. Today, we are over $16.7 trillion in debt. It's projected to grow to $26 trillion in 10 years--that's a $10 trillion increase. Our unfunded obligations and liabilities are now projected to be over $71 trillion. We've just had our fourth straight year of trillion dollar deficits. Four straight years.

And while this year's deficit is projected to be about $845 billion, that's still unsustainable. The reduction in the deficit can be mainly traced to new tax revenues from the ``fiscal cliff'' deal versus new spending restraint. I opposed this measure because it failed to seriously address government spending--in fact, it contained new spending--and did not include reforms to strengthen and secure entitlements. While the measure addressed many immediate issues, its adoption is making it more difficult to make needed, comprehensive reforms to our long-term obligations and liabilities and to stop sequestration.

The amount of debt we owe is staggering. Consider that this past August, the Congressional Budget Office predicted we'd be spending $570 billion on interest payments to service the debt in 2022. However, the February picture is shocking: $795 billion to serve the debt in 2022. Let me repeat--in August, the Congressional Budget Office predicted that we would be spending $570 billion to service the debt in 10 years. Their updated February numbers predict we will be sending $795 billion out the door in 2022 to service the debt, a $225 billion increase within six months. In six months, the projections have changed to reflect that the Congressional Budget Office thinks we will be spending close to $11 billion in interest payments per week to more than $15 billion per week. Fifteen billion dollars each week. And they predict that in 2023, 10 years from now, we will be sending $857 billion out the door. That's roughly $16.5 billion dollars per week.

What accounts for these changes? We have been borrowing at historically low levels. I have repeatedly noted my concerns that interest rates on our debt load could increase, and

the Congressional Budget Office predictions are starting to reflect this.

That is money that could be invested in our national defense, repairing our roads and bridges or life-saving cancer research.

Notably, this debt is increasingly held by foreign countries. In 1970, 6 percent of debt held by the public was in foreign hands. In 1990, it was 19 percent. But today, 48 percent of our publically held debt is in foreign hands.

Just who are our bankers? Nations such as China, which is spying on us, where human rights are an afterthought, and Catholic bishops, Protestant ministers and Tibetan monks are jailed for practicing their faith, and oil-exporting countries such as Saudi Arabia, which funded the radical madrasahs on the Afghan-Pakistan border resulting in the rise of the Taliban and al Qaeda.

Quite frankly, this borrowing is unsustainable, dangerous and irresponsible.

And what does this mean for individual Americans? Chairman Ryan points out that a 1 percent increase in the interest rates would mean an extra $400 per year in interest payments for the average family.

That is why I have been urging the president and Congress to make the hard choices to ensure a better future for our children and grandchildren.

That is why I have been working with my colleagues, through my assignment as chairman of the House appropriations subcommittee that funds the departments of Commerce and Justice, to cut $95 billion in federal spending during fiscal years 2010, 2011 and 2012, including more than $11.5 billion from my subcommittee alone.

That is why I repeatedly voted against the payroll tax holiday, which stole directly from the Social Security Trust Fund. The 2012 extension took $93 billion and brought us nearly a month closer to the statutory debt limit. With that one vote, we practically wiped out all the $95 billion in savings from the cuts enacted during the last Congress.

That is why I also do not and never will sign pledges to lobbyists. My loyalty is to the Constitution, to the people of Virginia's 10th District, and my family.

I have been speaking out about the need to get our nation's fiscal house in order since President George W. Bush was in office.

In 2006, I introduced legislation to create an independent, bipartisan commission to address our debt and deficit. I called it the SAFE Commission, short for Securing America's Future Economy. It said everything should be on the table for discussion: all entitlement spending, all domestic discretionary spending, including defense spending, and tax reform, particularly changes to make the tax code more simple and fair and to end the practice of tax earmarks that costs hundreds of billions of dollars. Congress would be required to vote up or down on the commission's recommendations, just as was done in the base closing process.

I was glad to have been joined in this effort by my good friend and colleague Jim Cooper of Tennessee. Our legislation served as the blueprint for the president's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, commonly referred to as the Simpson-Bowles Commission.

Last year, I spoke in support of and voted for a full substitute amendment, offered by Mr. Cooper and former Representative LaTourette, to the budget that was based on the commission's recommendations. While I was disappointed that this amendment did not pass, I still believe a plan based on this model is the most appropriate and realistic path forward, and I am committed to finding bipartisan solutions.

Last month, I offered a bipartisan amendment to H.R. 444, the Require a PLAN Act, that would require the president to incorporate the Simpson-Bowles recommendations into his budget submission to Congress. This amendment received 75 bipartisan votes.

The Simpson-Bowles Commission produced a credible plan that gained the support of a bipartisan majority of the commission's 18 members. Called ``The Moment of Truth,'' the commission's report made clear that eliminating the debt and deficit will not be easy and that any reform must begin with entitlements. Mandatory and discretionary spending also has to be addressed, as well other ``sacred cows,'' including tax reform and defense spending.

Had just three more members of the Simpson-Bowles Commission supported the recommendations, this plan likely would have passed the Congress and be law today. I was disappointed that the president, and his administration, walked away from the commission. The president failed the country. And the Congress has also failed. This town is dysfunctional. If the plan had advanced, we would already be on our way in getting our nation's fiscal house in order.

We have to find a solution to this debt crisis. Failure is not an option.

Congress and the president must be willing to support a plan that breaks loose from the special interests that are holding Washington by the throat and return confidence to the country.

Congress and the president also need to be honest with the American people and explain that we cannot solve our nation's financial crisis by just cutting waste, fraud and abuse within discretionary accounts. The real runaway spending is occurring in our out-of-control entitlement costs and the hundreds of billions of dollars in annual tax earmarks. Until we reach an agreement that addresses these two drivers of our deficit and debts, we cannot right our fiscal ship of state.

Absent a bipartisan budget, I vote for the Ryan budget today because it is a credible path forward, if imperfect.

Like last year's proposal, this budget blueprint calls for significant reductions in discretionary spending, for reduced tax rates and for the repeal of the costly health care reform law.

Further, it proposes a balanced budget in the next 10 years. I have consistently voted for a balanced budget amendment to the constitution every time the measure has come before the House--in 1982, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1995 and, more recently, in 2011.

The Ryan plan also points out that we can no longer ignore the trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities that consume our budget. There may be disagreement on the significant changes in Medicare and Medicaid entitlement programs that he proposes, and while his plan is again silent on changes needed to reform Social Security entitlements, it does recognize that need. Mr. Ryan continues to pull back the curtain on the mandatory spending ``elephant in the room,'' which we can no longer ignore.

I do not agree with everything in this proposal, and will work to improve future legislation that may be considered as a result of its adoption. For example, I regret that this proposal does not offer more on ways to address Social Security and tax reform.

I am also troubled that this resolution unfairly targets the federal workforce. While there are many federal employees in the capital region, it is worth noting that more than 85 percent of the workforce is outside of Washington.

It is also worth noting that more than 65 percent of all federal employees work in agencies that support our national defense capabilities as we continue to fight the War on Terror. The first American killed in Afghanistan, Mike Spann, was a CIA agent and a constituent from my congressional district. CIA, FBI, DEA agents, and State Department employees are serving side-by-side with our military in the fight against the Taliban.

Let's also not forget the Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents who are working to stop the flow of illegal immigrants and drugs across our borders.

Or the medical researchers at NIH working to develop cures for cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's and autism.

Or the VA doctors and nurses treating veterans from World War II to present day.

Or the FDA inspectors working to stop a salmonella outbreak. These are all federal employees.

Mr. Chair, enough is enough. It is simply wrong to claim, as the Ryan budget erroneously continues to do, that these public servants ``have been immune from the effects of the recession.''

This budget also could be improved by providing for the needs of the most vulnerable in our society. As the Congress deals with the budget, we must always do so in a way that does not neglect the needs of the poor. Scripture (Proverbs 19:17) tells us, ``He who is kind to the poor lends to the Lord.'' And in the New Testament Jesus talks a lot about the poor. Matthew 25 says that if we ignore the poor and hungry, it is the same as ignoring him. But this budget resolution is an outline for future action, not an enacting piece of legislation that carries the weight of law.

The budget also seeks to shore up our defense capabilities by finding alternative savings to prevent the across-the-board cuts (sequestration) resulting from the Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction's bipartisan failure of leadership, which, regretfully, represents the larger failure of the President and both political parties.

For the first time in four years, the Senate has proposed a budget resolution. While I do not agree with their proposal, and therefore voted ``no'' on the Mulvaney amendment to demonstrate my opposition to it, it is good for our country that the Senate has finally put forth a written document. Its voice in this debate is needed. I am disappointed that the president has failed to even offer his own budget. This abdication of responsibility has not been seen since the Harding Administration.

This budget recognizes that our fiscal challenges must be dealt with in a timely manner. It is a first step in the process. This is a blueprint that can be molded and changed, but it is a blueprint that committees will use to get to work. I hope this outline will spur the authorizing committees to move forward on comprehensive tax and entitlement reform legislation.

The Appropriations Committee has already led the way in enacting legislation cutting discretionary spending. Only 16 percent of federal spending this year will be non-defense discretionary. Two thirds of our spending is on autopilot, and reforms are urgently needed. We must reform our nation's spending habits to ensure America has the ability to nimbly respond to crises and is able to make the investments needed to spur private growth and American ingenuity.

We, as elected representatives, have a duty to lead. We have a duty to put forth ideas within the public sphere and engage in debate. I'm ready to make the tough choices today. I vote for the Ryan budget so that the House can get to work.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that former Virginia Senator and Secretary of the Navy John Warner was honored last Saturday at a keel laying ceremony at Newport News Shipbuilding, a subsidiary of Huntington Ingalls Industries. This is a special occasion for the Navy and the Commonwealth of Virginia as the John Warner SSN 785, a 377-foot nuclear-powered submarine, is the first Virginia-class fast attack submarine to be named after a person. The submarine's apt namesake shows John Warner's dedication to the service of our country. Construction of the 12th Virginia-class submarine began in 2009 and it is scheduled to be delivered to the Navy in 2015. I am pleased to have served with John Warner in Congress and submit a Daily Press accounting of the ceremony.

[From the Daily Press, Mar. 17, 2013]

Shipyard Lays Keel of the John Warner Submarine

(By Michael Welles Shapiro)

On Saturday the former lawmaker whose fingerprints are all

over Newport News Shipbuilding's involvement in the

construction of Virginia-class nuclear submarines watched as

his initials were welded onto a piece of the shipyard's

latest boat.

In a rarity in military shipbuilding, the shipyard laid the

keel of a fast-attack submarine with its namesake, former

senator and Secretary of the Navy John Warner, in attendance.

The boat is the 12th in the Virginia-class program and it

is scheduled for delivery to the Navy in 2015. The shipyard,

a unit of Huntington Ingalls Industries, builds the boats in

partnership with General Dynamics Electric Boat in Groton,

Conn., a unique arrangement that Warner is credited with

helping to start.

Shipyard president Matt Mulherin said naming the latest

submarine for Warner is fitting because ``he led the efforts

to create this teaming agreement between Newport News

Shipbuilding and Electric Boat to cooperatively build these

submarines.''

Navy leaders also spoke glowingly of the joint construction

program. Adm. John Richardson, the director of the Naval

Nuclear Propulsion Program, said, ``the on-time, on-cost, on-

quality implementation of this program is well-known.''

Warner also received accolades from lawmakers in

attendance.

Sen. Mark Warner, who is no relation, said he admired the

former senator for being a politician who was willing to set

aside politics when push came to shove.

Mark Warner, a Democrat, said that when he was governor,

John Warner, a Republican, spoke out in support of a Mark

Warner budget bill that had stalled during a partisan tug of

war.

``We could use a lot more John Warners in the United States

Congress at this point,'' he said.

John Warner's wife, Jeanne, is the submarine's sponsor.

To close the ceremony the couple chalked their initials on

a steel plate before shipyard worker Matthew Shilling welded

the letters onto the metal.

Shilling, 27, said after the ceremony that he'd been

practicing welding block letters during the week leading up

to the keel laying.

But Warner threw the shipbuilder a curve when he wrote his

``J'' in cursive with a flourish. ``I was nervous,'' Shilling

said, saying he's more accustomed to working in a loud

construction environment.

Warner also improvised a bit as the ceremony wrapped up.

The Navy and Marine Corps veteran made an unexpected

gesture to show that the submarine represents not just him

but an entire generation that served in World War II.

He asked the sub's prospective commanding officer, Cmdr.

Dan Caldwell, to

have a small pin that he and others who served received at

the end of the war kept onboard the submarine near the steel

plate.

What's in a name?

From 1903 to the late 1960s, attack submarines like the

Warner were given the names of fish and creatures of the

deep--the Seawolf, the Sturgeon and the Whale, for instance.

In his speech, Warner attributed a change in that

convention to former Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird.

Warner said he and Adm. Hyman Rickover--the famed admiral

who pushed Congress to buy nuclear-powered ships--were called

in to meet with Laird and the secretary brought up the topic

of ship names.

Laird told the two men, ``fish don't appropriate, and fish

don't vote, so stop calling them fish,'' according to Warner.

Since 1973 the country's two large classes of attack

submarines have been named for cities and states. The two

exceptions to those traditions are a boat that was named for

Rickover and built in the 1980s and the Warner.

Military ships of any sort are seldom named for living

people.

Starting in the 1970s about three ships a decade have been

named for people who are living at the time of the

announcement, according to a July 2012 Navy report to

Congress on naming conventions.

The list includes four presidents, former Arizona Rep.

Gabby Giffords, astronaut and former senator John Glenn and

comedian Bob Hope, who was famous for his numerous United

Service Organizations shows to entertain military personnel.

``(W)hile naming ships after living persons remains a

relatively rare occurrence . . . it is now an accepted but

sparingly used practice for pragmatic (Navy) secretaries of

both parties,'' the report says.

``(O)ccasionally honoring an especially deserving member of

Congress, U.S. naval leader or famous American with a ship

name so that they might end their days on earth knowing that

their life's work is both recognized and honored by America's

Navy-Marine Corps Team, and that their spirit will accompany

and inspire the team in battle, is sometimes exactly the

right thing to do.''

Asked how he felt about having a submarine named for him,

Warner said, ``I'm not too much of a philosopher,'' but ``I'm

humbled.''

Mr. Speaker, today I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote 82, on consideration of H. Res. 115, a resolution providing for the expenses of certain committees of the House of Representatives for the 113th Congress, because I was questioning the Director the Federal Bureau of Investigation in my capacity as chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, I just returned from Lebanon and Egypt where I met with State Department officials, civil society actors, including prominent religious leaders and humanitarian aid organizations, and Syrian refugees. The trip (February 18-21, 2013) came at a critical time, as events in the broader Middle East over the last two years have been both historic and tumultuous.

One of the main purposes of the trip was to spend time with the Syrian Christian community. As a brutal civil war, which has taken nearly 70,000 lives, rages in Syria the plight of the sizable Christian community is often overlooked. While from the outside it appears as though President Bashar al-Assad's brutal regime will ultimately fall, the eventual outcome,

including how many will perish in or be displaced by the continued violence and who will step into the ensuing power vacuum, is far from certain. Moreover, what that will mean for the Christian community in Syria is largely unknown and, unfortunately, rarely addressed by Western media or church leaders.

I wanted to hear firsthand from Syrian Christians about their concerns and what the future might hold and to put this issue in the larger context of an imperiled Christian community in the broader Middle East, specifically in Egypt and Iraq.

Coptic Christians and other minorities in Egypt have increasingly been marginalized with the ascendancy of the Muslim Brotherhood. The newly drafted constitution is viewed as highly problematic by many Egyptians. A February 5 Associated Press article reported ``[p]rovisions in the document allow for a far stricter implementation of Islamic Shariah law than in the past, raising opponents' fears that it could bring restrictions on many civil liberties and the rights of women and Christians.''

Egypt is the recipient of billions of dollars in U.S. foreign assistance. A thorough assessment of the conditions in Egypt and the evolving political situation is critical, especially in these tight budgetary times.

The Sunday People

These issues must be viewed not simply as today's news but rather through the lens of history. A phrase not often heard outside the majority Muslim world is ``First the Saturday people, then the Sunday people.'' The ``Saturday people'' are, of course, the Jews. Their once vibrant communities in countries throughout the region are now decimated. In 1948 there were roughly 150,000 Jews in Iraq; today less than 10 remain. In Egypt, there were once as many as 80,000 Jews; now less than 100 remain. It appears a similar fate may await the ancient Christian community in these same lands.

Consider this observation by author and adjunct fellow at the Center for Religious Freedom, Lela Gilbert, who recently wrote in the Huffington Post: ``Between 1948 and 1970, between 80,000 and 100,000 Jews were expelled from Egypt--their properties and funds confiscated, their passports seized and destroyed. They left, stateless, with little more than the shirts on their backs to show for centuries of Egyptian citizenship. . . .''

Meanwhile, with the fall of Hosni Mubarak, Coptic Christians, numbering roughly 8-10 million, are leaving in droves. A January 8 National Public Radio, NPR, story reported ``Coptic Christians will celebrate Christmas on Monday, and many will do so outside their native Egypt. Since the revolution there, their future in the country has looked uncertain and many are resettling in the United States. Their population in the U.S. may have grown by nearly 30 percent, according to rough estimates.''

Gilbert echoes this reality, writing ``. . . today, hundreds of thousands of Copts have already fled--those able to afford airfare and lawyers have sought asylum in the U.S. and Canada. As for the others . . . the options are few and fraught with danger.''

Similarly, Iraq's Christian population has fallen from as many as 1.4 million in 2003 to roughly 500,000 today. Churches have been targeted, believers kidnapped for ransom and families threatened with violence if they stay. In October 2010, Islamist extremists laid siege on Our Lady of Salvation Catholic Church in Baghdad, killing over 50 hostages and police, and wounding dozens more.

Turning to Syria, in the midst of devastating bloodshed and civil war, the Christian population is particularly vulnerable. A recent Associated Press story reported ``[Christians] are fearful that Syria will become another Iraq, with Christians caught in the crossfire between rival Islamic groups.''

Over the span of a few decades, the Middle East, with the exception of Israel, has virtually been emptied of Jews. In my conversations with Syrian Christian refugees, Lebanese Christians and Coptic Christians in Egypt, a resounding theme emerged: a similar fate awaits the ``Sunday People.''

An Exodus

While it remains to be seen whether the historic exodus of Christians from the region will prove to be as dramatic as what has already happened to the Jewish community, it is without question devastating, as it threatens to erase Christianity from its very roots.

A recent study on Christian persecution released by the London-based think tank Civitas found that ``[p]arts of the media have been influenced by the logical error that equates criticism of Muslims with racism, and therefore as wrong by definition. This has further distracted attention away from the hounding of Christians, helping to cement the surprisingly widespread idea that Christianity is a 'Western' faith.''

This idea could not be further from the truth. The Middle East is the very cradle of Christendom.

Consider Iraq. With the exception of Israel, the Bible contains more references to the cities, regions and nations of ancient Iraq than any other country. The patriarch Abraham came from a city in Iraq called Ur. Isaac's bride, Rebekah, came from northwest Iraq. Jacob spent 20 years in Iraq, and his sons (the 12 tribes of Israel) were born in northwest Iraq. A remarkable spiritual revival as told in the book of Jonah occurred in Nineveh. The events of the book of Esther took place in Iraq as did the account of Daniel in the Lion's Den. Furthermore, many of Iraq's Christians still speak Aramaic the language of Jesus. In fact a February 2013 Smithsonian Magazine story noted ``[a]s Jesus died on the cross, he cried in Aramaic, `Elahi, Elahi, lema shabaqtani?' (`My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?')'' In Egypt, some 2,000 years ago, Mary, Joseph and Jesus sought refuge in this land from the murderous aims of King Herod. Egypt's Coptic community traces its origins to the apostle Mark.

If, as appears to be happening, the Middle East is effectively emptied of the Christian faith, this will have grave geopolitical implications and does not bode well for the prospects of pluralism and democracy in the region, which is especially disquieting in the aftermath of the ``Arab Spring.'' These developments demand our attention as policymakers.

Similarly, these realities demand the attention of the church in West. As already noted, ancient faith communities have inhabited these lands for centuries and are a vital part of the fabric of global Christendom.

Lebanon

Upon arriving in Beirut on the evening of February 18, I met with the U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon, Maura Connelly, and senior embassy staff. One of the many issues addressed was the impact the substantial--and growing--Syrian refugee population is having on Lebanon.

Just over four million people live in Lebanon, which is about the size of Connecticut. Since the fighting started in Syria in the spring of 2011, thousands of refugees have entered the country, putting a strain on the people and government of Lebanon. Complicating this is the fact that Lebanon has its own sectarian issues, and there is concern that the spillover from Syria could lead to instability in Lebanon, given that roughly half the population supports the Assad regime and the other half supports the rebels.

A February 23 New York Times story described the precarious balance this way: ``As they flee increasingly sectarian killing, Syrians layer their fears onto those of a country deeply scarred by its own generation-long sectarian civil war. They are testing, yet also relying on, the fragile yet flexible balance that has endured here, punctured by occasional fighting, since Lebanon's war ended 22 years ago.''

On February 19, I met with Lebanese President Michel Sleiman, the only Christian president in the region. I also met with Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Mikati and Lebanese Minister of Social Affairs Wael Abou Faour. Lebanon's leaders--and its people--should be thanked for what they are doing to help address the humanitarian crisis in Syria. Lebanon is hosting more Syrian refugees than any other country, and all three expressed concern that the situation is growing more tenuous by the day as greater numbers of refugees pour over the border and resentment among Lebanon's poorer communities grows, not to mention the underlying sectarian tension. Criminal activity is also on the rise.

Following the initial meetings with government leaders, I spent the rest of my time in Lebanon meeting with religious leaders, civil society representatives, non-governmental organizations, NG0s, and Syrian refugees--both Christian and Muslim.

John and Mary

My first meeting was a moving encounter with a Syrian Christian and his wife who, despite the risks, had driven from Syria to Beirut to meet with me and detail the experience of their community. They often cross the border. Given security concerns, I will simply refer to them as John and Mary.

John and Mary told me that many Christians had left Damascus, and most of those who remained were simply too old to flee. They described some in the Free Syrian Army as terrorists, including foreign fighters from countries like Libya, Afghanistan, Yemen and Egypt.

Increasingly the claims of foreign jihadists are verified. A February 18 Washington Post story reported ``[a] report issued Monday in Geneva by the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria said the Islamist fighters include foreigners--from Libya, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Iraq and Egypt--drawn to the conflict because they consider it a Sunni jihad against Assad's government, which, although secular, is dominated by Alawites, a branch of Shiism.''

John and Mary described the situation in Syria as ``very dangerous.'' Fear was a constant. ``We are always afraid,'' they said. They did not see a future for themselves or their community if the Free Syrian Army prevailed. ``We were told that when we [the opposition] take over the government you will be out [of the country] or you will die.''

But the threat is actually imminent, not some distant concern. They said the day before meeting with me that they read on the Internet that ``we advise you to leave because we are going to destroy your community.''

Throughout the course of the meeting Mary was understandably emotional. Through tears she told me that they had attempted to prepare their children for what the future may hold, saying ``we have told our children our house could come under attack and there may be blood. We have told them we will shut our eyes and then open them in Heaven.''

She went on to say that she feels God wants them in Syria. ``We will not fail. It is our mission.''

Bashar al-Assad is a brutal dictator and war criminal. But, as John and Mary caution, the West must be clear-eyed about who the rebels are, and what they will do if they seize power. Indeed, factions within the rebel movement, such as the al-Nusra Front, do not seek a peaceful, democratic and pluralistic Syria.

They warned against supporting such segments of the opposition. The prospect of extremists taking over Syria weighed heavily on John and Mary.

I asked if they felt abandoned by the church in the West. Their answer: ``yes.''

I left the meeting deeply sobered by what I had heard and convinced anew that there are no easy answers to the unfolding tragedy in Syria.

Church Leaders

On March 15, 2011, Bechara Rai was elected the 77th Patriarch of Antioch and the Levant. The Maronite Church is in communion with Rome, and Patriarch Rai frequently travels on pastoral visits to Maronite communities around the world. I spent an hour with Patriarch Rai and Bishop Sayah, who served in Jerusalem for 16 years before coming to Lebanon.

Patriarch Rai provided a candid assessment of the situation in Syria, saying that ``the original movement was spontaneous. It was about freedom and human rights. But all of a sudden someone came in and took over.''

He told me ``reforms were needed, but in dealing with theocracies, it backfired.'' He pointed to Iraq, saying ``it has not reached a democracy, and now the Sunni and Shia are fighting. Our Christian culture started in Iraq. Now a majority of the Christians have had to leave. A similar thing is happening in Egypt with the Copts. They have been marginalized and are afraid. In Syria, we are witnessing the same scenario.''

Patriarch Rai also spoke to the broader geopolitical implications of the crisis facing Christians in the region, saying ``the West is heading to a situation that is going to hurt them. If Christians disappear, what will happen to this part of the world? If the Christians are gone, the West will have to deal with this radicalism.''

He lauded the model of Lebanon, saying ``Lebanon has agreed to live together. It has become a model. It still has its problems, but it has human rights. We have to make sure this country is safeguarded, too. If Lebanon disappears as a formula for success it will hurt this region and the West, too.''

I also met with Archdeacon Emanuel Youkhana of the Assyrian Church of the East. He was the focus of a piece that recently appeared in National Review Online vividly detailing the exodus of Christians from Syria. It was written by Nina Shea, director of the Hudson Institute's Center for Religious Freedom and a former commissioner on the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. She also highlighted a recent report by Swedish Journalist Nun i Kino titled ``Between the Barbed Wire.'' The Archdeacon told me that it is imperative that the church be involved in the political debate and peace process surrounding it. He also cautioned the church not to defend the Assad regime by saying it is protecting them. He said the minorities in Syria, including Christians, are being used to give cover to the dictatorship. He ended our conversation by saying Christianity in the West cannot survive if Christianity in the East is being destroyed and asked for the church in the West to ``pray for those suffering in the East. Pray for the Martyrs.''

Again, the complexities of the situation in Syria were apparent.

Syriac League

During a meeting with the Syriac League, an NGO in Lebanon that has strong connections with the Syriac community in Lebanon and with Christians who have come to Lebanon to escape conflict and difficulties in their own countries, including Syria, Iraq and Egypt, I had a chance to hear directly from a number of people who had fled Syria. Once again, the general theme was an abiding sense of fear. They said they lived under threat every day. They described killings and kidnappings for ransom. They talked about having to pay smugglers to help them get across the border. (One man told me that he knew he had fake papers, so he turned himself in to the authorities and ultimately had to spend 57 days in a Lebanese prison. He was released the day before we met.) They said there are some towns and villages in Syria where there are no Christians left. They said many of the Christians who remain simply have no money to get out. They talked about multiple checkpoints: some manned by the regime's forces; others by opposition forces.

They said three years ago life in Syria was relatively good. While they may not have had equal rights in the government, they had freedom of religion. They also had their safety and security.

One of the people I met was a doctor. He described how the Free Syrian Army forced him to treat wounded soldiers. He said they came in daily but when they found out he was a Christian they threatened to kill him. The Kurds helped him escape. He said half of his friends had either been killed or kidnapped. He lamented that as a doctor he led a good life in Syria but is struggling now because he obviously can't go back to his country nor is he able to practice medicine in Lebanon.

When I asked what message I needed to take back to leaders in the West, the universal refrain was: ``We need you not to support regimes that are persecuting us [Christians]. We need to be treated as equals.''

Jihadists Arrive

The people also spoke of a newcomer on the scene: jihadists. They echoed earlier conversations saying that people from other places (Afghanistan, Tunisia and Chechnya were mentioned) were coming in to fight. They specifically mentioned al-Nusra Front. On December 11, 2012, the State Department designated al-Nusra Front as a terrorist organization linked to al-Qaeda in Iraq. In the State Department briefing announcing the designation, the department spokesperson said ``Al-Nusra Front has sought to portray itself as part of a legitimate Syrian opposition, but today's actions are intended to expose them and make clear that the United States believes that al-Nusra's extremist ideology has no role in a post-Assad Syria. Among the consequences of today's actions is a prohibition against knowingly providing or attempting or conspiring to provide material support or resources to or engaging in transactions with al-Nusra Front.''

One of the men I spoke to said, ``Our people see no future for us. There is no law and order in Iraq or Syria. Our people are leaving and not coming back.''

``We want to survive here,'' another said. ``Yet there are two problems: violence and people do not accept us as citizens.''

One family who was there with their young daughter, who is an American citizen, said they had been in Lebanon for seven months. They left Syria because the opposition knew their daughter was born in America, and they were going to kidnap her. They said a Palestinian woman once came to their house and said: ``Your daughter is an American. I am going to take your house.'' They said their neighbors were killed because they were Christians.

I asked them what they would want church leaders in the West to know. The response: ``There is a total erasure of the Christian presence in the region.''

A Refugee Crisis

I also visited the registration center being operated by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which is leading the humanitarian response to the refugee crisis in Lebanon. UNHCR has identified roughly 300,000 refugees--both those already registered and those who are known to be waiting for a registration date. As of February 22, there were 309,997 Syrian refugees in Lebanon, which includes 196,744 already registered and 113,253 waiting to be registered. The number of Syrians reaching out to UNHCR has accelerated significantly in the last two months with more than 3,000 individuals per day seeking assistance. I was told that it is difficult to quantify how many Christians there are among the Syrian refugee population since most of them are too afraid to register.

During my visit to the center, I met with a Muslim family who had fled Syria after their village was destroyed by a bomb. The father said during the day life was normal, but at night the bombing would start and continue for several hours. ``You cannot sleep,'' he told me. He said his youngest son was cut by shards of glass when the village was hit. The family, made up of two girls and three boys, had been in Lebanon for three months and would like to go back but don't know what the future holds. The father said he has seen a number of ``foreign fighters'' in Syria and that there were checkpoints--some controlled by the regime; some controlled by the opposition--throughout the country.

My next stop was the town of Zahle, about 90 minutes southeast of Beirut, to meet with more refugees and Caritas Lebanon, an NGO that has been operating in Lebanon since 1994. Catholic Relief Services is assisting Caritas.

During my visit, I was able to talk to two families in Caritas' offices and visit two sites

where families were living. Their stories were painfully similar to the other stories I had already heard: death, destruction and fear. Both families I met with said the circumstances in Syria have changed dramatically since the fighting started, saying Christians were not initially targeted for violence but they are now. ``Christians and Muslims were living like brother and sister but that has changed,'' one woman, who has two young children and whose husband cannot escape Syria, told me.

She also explained that while she is appreciative of all that the Lebanese have done, her situation is not good. She said she has had a hard time trying to find a place to live and is essentially living in a hallway. She cannot work because there is no one to watch her children. I was told by officials with Caritas that some women are prostituting themselves for $3.50 simply to help their families survive. In recent years similar heartbreaking stories have emerged out of the Iraqi refugee population. A May 29, 2007 New York Times story quoted Sister Marie-Claude, a Syrian nun aiding Iraqi refugees, saying ``I met three sisters-in-law recently who were living together and all prostituting themselves . . . They would go out on alternate nights--each woman took her turn--and then divide the money to feed all the children.''

Unlike many humanitarian crises which are the result of war, those fleeing Syria into Lebanon are not living in massive tent cities. Most are being absorbed into communities and towns across Lebanon. But Wael Abou Faour, the Lebanese Minister of Social Affairs, cautioned in our meeting that the time is fast approaching when formal camps may need to be established. Some in the Lebanese government are understandably concerned about this.

The first ``house'' I visited looked essentially like a storage unit in the West. It was about 20 feet wide and 40 feet deep (roughly the size of a two-car garage) with a concrete floor and no windows. Three Muslim families--a total of 19 people--shared the space and paid $250 a month in rent. The second site was in a farmer's field. Twenty families were living in about eight large white tents. They had been there for roughly six months. The ground was extremely muddy, the result of heavy rains in January. They pay rent to the farmer. There did not appear to be running water.

The burgeoning Syria refugee crisis is but one of the great human tolls of this deadly conflict.

Egypt

I was last in Egypt in June 2011, four months after Hosni Mubarak stepped down as president and turned over power to the military. In the face of decades of human rights and religious freedom abuses under the Mubarak regime, successive U.S. administrations, including the Obama Administration, failed to advocate for those whose voices were being silenced. Many pro-democracy activists and religious minorities that I spoke with during that trip felt abandoned by the West. Their disillusionment with the U.S. and general trepidation about the rise of Islamists in the lead up to the elections was tempered by a palpable sense of anticipation, and in some cases, even hope about what the future might hold for the Egyptian people.

Fast-forward to February 2013. I wanted to witness first-hand the outcome of the revolution. The verdict is not what anyone had hoped. Egypt is in danger of becoming a failed state. Its economy is collapsing, unemployment is rising, as is inflation, lawlessness is becoming a real issue, and human rights abuses persist, and in some cases, are now enshrined in the new Egyptian constitution.

During my visit, I met with government officials, including Prime Minister Hisham Kandil, civil society activists, Christian leaders and NGOs. In addition, I met with Maggie Gobran, affectionately known as ``Mama Maggie.'' She runs a ministry that serves poor families living in Egypt's garbage slums. Established in 1989, Stephen's Children runs 65 camps, five vocational centers, 80 clinics and 80 community education centers. The organization serves Egyptians of all faiths, including Coptic Christians. I have been so inspired by her work and ministry over the years that I joined with several other Members of Congress, both last year and this year, in nominating her for the Nobel Peace Prize.

One of my last meetings was with 86-year-old Carmen Weinstein, the president of the Jewish Community of Cairo (JCC). She was born and raised in Egypt and has lived her entire life there--a life set against the backdrop of a great Jewish emigration out of Egypt, namely the departure of thousands of Egyptian Jews from the 1940s-60s. She now leads a small community of mostly elderly Jewish women in Cairo, who with their sister community in Alexandria, represent Egypt's remaining 70 or so Jews.

There are 12 synagogues left in Cairo. Some, along with a landmark synagogue in Alexandria, have been refurbished by the government of Egypt and/or U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and have received protection as cultural and religious landmarks. Mrs. Weinstein is seeking to form a foreign-based endowment to protect the remaining synagogues, the Bassatine Jewish Cemetery--which is 900 years old and half overrun with squatters--and the patrimony records of the community. This is increasingly important as the remaining Jewish community ages and in all likelihood will eventually disappear.

Summer Marriages

Other than in my meetings with Egyptian officials, no one painted a rosy picture for the future of Egypt. In fact, many suggested that life was better under Mubarak. I was repeatedly told that the new government led by President Mohamed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood is ignoring women's rights, human rights and religious rights. I was told women are being removed from positions in the workplace. Photos of unveiled women are being dropped from textbooks. Child labor abuse continues, as well as female genital mutilation. I was told girls as young as nine are being kidnapped and sold as child brides. When reported to the police, no action is taken. There is no rule of law. Sexual trafficking is prevalent. Girls ages 16-18 are ``rented'' to rich men from the Gulf in what are called ``summer marriages'' during the summer months and then returned to their families.

Growing Persecution

The Christian community also continues to be persecuted. Churches have been desecrated, and no permits to build new churches have been granted since January 2011. Just days before I arrived, an angry mob set fire to a church in Fayoum Province. Fox News reported that it was the ``second such assault against the town's Coptic population in a month. The attackers ripped down the church's cross and hurled rocks at church members. . . .''

Television channels regularly carry programming that insults Christians and women. ``The general atmosphere allows Islamists to speak out against women and Christianity and the government does nothing,'' one activist told me.

At a meeting at the Coptic Orthodox Church in Cairo, Bishop Moussa, a close advisor to Coptic Pope Tawadros II, told me he is concerned about where Egypt is headed and said the Coptic community is fearful. He raised a number of issues relating to the proposed changes to the Egyptian constitution. Earlier this month, Pope Tawadros took the unusual step of publicly criticizing the constitution as discriminatory.

Elections

There also is deep concern that the upcoming elections will essentially be rigged, especially since it is believed that the Muslim Brotherhood has put its supporters in place to oversee the elections and that there will be no transparency. The Associated Press reported on February 23 that ``[a] key opposition leader called Saturday for a boycott of upcoming parliamentary elections, saying he will not take part in a `sham democracy.' ''

In a meeting a with Emad Abdel Ghafour, a Salafist who is the presidential advisor for community outreach, all these reports were brushed aside and blamed on politics. At least the prime minister acknowledged that the government still has a long way to go. ``We are trying. It just takes time,'' he told me.

The media has done a better job of reporting the plight of the persecuted in Egypt than it has in other parts of the Middle East and surrounding region. On February 22, the Washington Post ran an op-ed co-written by Robert Kagan and Michele Dunne that makes the case for a new U.S. approach in dealing with Egypt. I agree with much of what they said and have shared it with my congressional colleagues.

The People, Not the Regime

The U.S. must change how it deals with Egypt. On more than one occasion I was told the perception among many Egyptians is that the United States is supporting the Muslim Brotherhood. ``Why hasn't the State Department issued any statements condemning the lack of certain rights?'' one person asked me. ``There is a double standard,'' another told me. ``Human rights and women's rights mean one thing in the United States and another in Egypt.''

I was told people think the United States is developing relationships with the Muslim Brotherhood because it believes the party is going to remain in power. They went on to say that the feeling is that as long as the brotherhood protects the United States' interests in the region, it can act with impunity within its borders.

One person pointedly said, ``the United States is helping create a state of terrorism that will be exported to Europe. The dogma of religion affecting human rights and women's rights will be worse than the Wahhabi sect in Saudi Arabia.''

I also was told the United States is losing credibility. When I asked what message I should take back to the West, I was told: ``Make sure you support the people of Egypt, not the regime.''

Recommendations

In light of the meetings I had and the insights I gained, I came away with a number of broad-based policy recommendations:

Syria

The situation in Syria is complex and there is no easy solution. Many believe it will take years to resolve. Will Assad continue to cling to power with the help of Tehran? Will Syria fracture? Will the rebels attempt to form a legitimate shadow government in Syria that can garner international support? There are more questions than answers about the future of Syria. But even before the civil war broke out, Assad's abuses were well-known. Not only was he a brutal, corrupt dictator at home, but Damascus was a lifeline to the terrorist organization Hezbollah. I have seen with my own eyes Hezbollah's murderous aims having visited the Marine barracks in Lebanon following their 1983 bombing that killed 241 American servicemen. Fast-forward to earlier this month, as Hezbollah was implicated in the deadly bomb attack on Israeli vacationers in Bulgaria. Clearly Assad has much blood on his hands and the U.S. must work, even at this late date, to bring about an end to Assad's reign in Syria.

The Obama Administration missed an early opportunity to aid the opposition in Syria at a time when the conflict had not yet devolved into a proxy war and when international jihadists were not as significant of a factor as they are today. An already complex environment has only intensified, and many of Syria's minorities increasingly wonder what the future holds for them. A January 15, New York Times story said, ``Former [State Department] Syria adviser, Frederic C. Hof, wrote last month that although the opposition has offered general assurances to the one-third of Syrians who belong to minority groups, `probably no more than a handful' believe it, especially as jihadist groups grow more prominent on the battlefield. . . .'' As the Obama Administration seeks to develop an effective Syria policy, including Secretary Kerry's latest overture to the Syrian opposition, it must be ever mindful of the very real concerns of Syria's Christian community. Opposition to Assad should not be enough to garner American support. A common enemy does not our friend make. Any aid to the rebels, non-military or otherwise, must be accompanied by insistence that the opposition respect minority rights and allay the very real fears of these communities. This is especially important given the influx of foreign jihadists and the ambiguity surrounding their influence and numbers among the opposition.

Christian leaders in the West must begin to speak out about what is happening not only in Syria but in the Middle East and other parts of South Central Asia. Christian leaders from the Middle East need to be brought to the United States to meet with church leaders here and make the case for greater engagement from the faith community in the West. (In January, I wrote to more than 300 Protestant and Catholic leaders in the U.S. urging them to use their influence to speak out on behalf of the persecuted church around the globe specifically in the Middle East.).

Egypt

After I returned from Egypt in July 2011, I recommended that the United States seriously consider conditioning U.S. foreign assistance-- specifically military assistance--to Egypt. Since the Camp David Peace Accords, Egypt has received over $60 billion in U.S. foreign assistance, the second largest overall recipient of such funding. Given the Mubarak regime's human rights and religious freedom abuses, I have long believed this assistance should be conditioned on improvements in these areas. Now with the Muslim Brotherhood at the helm, and the transition to a mature democracy with all that entails, far from certain, I am more convinced than ever that aid to Egypt must be conditioned upon the government respecting and upholding universally recognized human rights norms. We must press President Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood more broadly to respect and uphold religious freedom, freedom of speech and the press, freedom of assembly and other basic rights. Police reform, too, must be a priority. Rather than ramming through the constitution, the Muslim Brotherhood must be urged to embrace an inclusive process that takes into account the concerns of the opposition and various minority groups. Clear benchmarks must be set--an agreed upon framework established--that allows policymakers in the U.S. to determine if Egypt is truly on a path to reform. Recognizing that democratic transitions are often long and messy, it is simply unacceptable to blindly give precious aid dollars to a government that is working at cross-purposes with American values. In addition, Congress should seriously consider removing altogether the State Department waiver authority as it relates to aid to Egypt, since the State Department, without fail and irrespective of changes on the ground, uses the waiver.

The United States should press President Morsi to compromise with the opposition on rules for upcoming parliamentary elections, which he scheduled to begin April 22 over opposition objections. There are many legitimate opposition concerns, including gerrymandering to break up districts formerly won by secular parties and use of government ministries to advantage Morsi's party. As of now, most of the secular opposition parties say they will boycott, which means that the elections cannot produce a truly representative parliament even if they are cleanly run.

The administration must utilize every ``tool'' in its ``toolbox'' to influence the Egyptian government. President Morsi's planned trip to Washington is a significant point of leverage to begin pressing for key reforms. As Morsi and his government seek further international economic relief, the U.S. must make it clear that not only is American foreign assistance contingent upon clear progress in the areas outlined above, but our willingness to galvanize the additional economic assistance needed to stabilize the Egyptian economy is also based on progress in these areas.

The U.S. embassy should actively seek to cultivate relationships with the liberal, democratic Egyptian opposition groups and individuals, human rights groups, Coptic Christians and other key civil society actors. By most accounts, U.S. policy has not evolved to meet the new realities in Egypt. We have embraced the Morsi government the same way we embraced the Mubarak government--to the detriment of other elements of Egyptian civil society--elements with which we have a natural affinity. While such groups may not take the reins of leadership in the near future, they are central to the Egyptian democratic experiment, and we can bolster their standing and effectiveness if we take the long-term view. In this same vein, aid to Egypt should once again benefit Egyptian civil society, not simply the military and economy.

Congressional delegations traveling to Egypt should meet with activists, NGOs and Christian leaders to better understand what is happening on the ground and to hear firsthand the perception of the United States' support for the Muslim Brotherhood.

Regional Recommendations

Special Envoy.--There must be a high level Special Envoy at the State Department with the dedicated mission of protecting and preserving religious minority communities in the Middle East and South Central Asia. In January 2011, I introduced bipartisan legislation in the House which would do just that. It overwhelmingly passed by a vote of 402-20 in July 2011. The House-passed legislation and companion legislation introduced by Senators Carl Levin and Roy Blunt stalled in the Senate. Despite my repeated appeals, former Senators Jim Webb and John Kerry objected to the legislation moving forward. I have joined with my Democratic colleague Rep. Anna Eshoo in reintroducing this legislation in the 113th Congress and remain committed to pressing ahead with the envoy despite State Department opposition opposition which is short- sighted and utterly consistent with the department's posture on similar initiatives over the years having opposed for example the creation of the International Religious Freedom Office. It is worth noting that it is fully within the Secretary of State's authority to appoint an envoy absent legislative action. Based on what I heard on this trip, I am confident that such a move by Secretary Kerry would be warmly embraced by the communities affected in the region and the diaspora communities abroad, including here in the United States.

Persecuted Christians Relief Fund.--In some of the countries where Christians and other religious minorities have faced the most difficulties, severe economic hardship is a consequence of religious persecution, especially when entire communities are displaced. Consider this February 2011 International Organization for Migration (IOM) press report: ``The physical instability driving Christian displacement is now leading to financial hardship as well. Some in Baghdad have sought to exploit the situation by publishing rumors of impending violence against Christians in order to drive down prices of Christian homes and to force Christians to flee. Unable to sell their homes for a fair price and quickly in addition to facing difficulties in transferring their jobs or finding new sources of income, many Christians are finding it difficult to support themselves while displaced.'' It is worth noting that depletion of the Christian community in Iraq happened while America was deeply involved in Iraq and in a position militarily, politically and otherwise to exert tremendous influence. Similar difficulties faced the Syrian Christian refugees with whom I spoke as outlined above. Despite congressional attempts, over multiple years, to target aid toward Iraqi Christians, the State Department resisted these efforts, and once the funding was provided the department and USAID proved ineffectual in ensuring that the communities in question benefited. In fact, a July 2012 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, ``U.S. Assistance to Iraq's Minority Groups in Response to Congressional Directive,'' found that the agencies could not prove they spent the funds as

Congress intended. In fact, it often appears that there is an anti- Christian bias at the State Department. For years the department refused to recognize that Iraqi Christians were being targeted, insisting instead that they were simply victims of generalized violence. In light of these realities, church leaders in the West, especially the leadership of affected communities (Copts, Chaldeans, Assyrians etc.), should consider partnering with other churches in the U.S. in establishing a relief fund to benefit beleaguered Christians in the Middle East.

Champion Human Rights.--Every U.S. government official, from the President, to the Secretary of State, to the young foreign service officer serving in Cairo or Beirut, must champion the cause of human rights, including religious freedom, in their interactions with foreign government officials and civil society actors. Not simply paying lip- service to these foundational American principles but seeing that they are fully integrated into U.S. foreign policy at every turn. In a 1987 Constitution Day speech, President Ronald Reagan described the United States Constitution as ``a covenant we have made not only with ourselves, but with all of mankind.'' We have an obligation to keep that covenant with the fearful Coptic Christian and the displaced Syrian refugee. My conversations abroad revealed that the covenant is in jeopardy.

Conclusion

In closing, I would like to thank the federal employees--embassy personnel, foreign service officers, Diplomatic Security Officers, FBI, and other government agencies--serving in Lebanon and Egypt. They are extraordinarily dedicated and extremely professional. In Lebanon, the ambassador and embassy staff live in an extremely challenging security environment. Their movement is seriously restricted. In Egypt, too, there are also very real security concerns for U.S. embassy personnel. Protesters scaled the walls of the compound on September 11, 2012 and pulled down the American flag, mere hours before the Benghazi consulate attack. We owe these employees of the U.S. government and their families a debt of gratitude.

Specifically, in Lebanon, I was grateful for Ambassador Connelly's hospitality and for the work of my control officer, Caitlin Spicer, and the embassy's political and economic section chief, Danielle Garbe. All went to great lengths to ensure that our trip was a success and that our time was filled with insightful meetings.

In Egypt, I appreciate Ambassador Patterson and her team's efforts to see that our relatively brief visit was productive. I especially want to thank my control officer Peter Shea (who also assisted with my earlier visit to Egypt). His dedication to human rights and religious freedom is evident and appreciated.

I also would like to thank Speaker John Boehner and House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers for approving this trip.

Finally, I would like to thank my staff, particularly Elyse Anderson, my foreign policy director, and Dan Scandling, my chief of staff, who accompanied me on the trip.

Today, I rise as the father of five and the grandfather of 16--many of whom are of the age to play video games--to express my deep concerns about the lack of discussion on mental health issues and violent media and the role they play in mass shootings.

As we continue to seek ways to end mass violence, in addition to gun safety, we must address the impacts of mental illness and, of equal importance, violent video games, movies, and TV.

I have supported legislation that would keep guns from getting into the wrong hands. I voted for the Brady Bill in 1993, safety lock requirements, and provisions that help police conduct effective background checks. My father was a Philadelphia policeman.

As chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee that funds the Justice Department, I have increased funding for the national background check

system to keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill and violent criminals. In fact, my bill provided more than double the funding requested by both the President's and the Senate's budget plan.

In January, I wrote to ask Attorney General Holder to use existing funds to immediately improve the Nation's background check system. In addition, I asked the Obama administration to create a national center for campus public safety, which has strong support from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle and the Virginia Tech Family Outreach Foundation, a group of families and victims of the shooting at Virginia Tech. In fact, the idea for my bill to create the national center for campus public safety came from the Virginia Tech families and lead cosponsor, Congressman Bobby Scott from the State of Virginia. I'm expecting a response from the Justice Department soon. The shooter in the Virginia Tech massacre lived in my congressional district, and a number of the victims were from my district. I have met with their families, and I understand they are hurting.

Dealing with mental illness has to be part of the solution. I have long advocated for measures that prevent health insurers from placing discriminatory restrictions on mental health and addiction treatments. I continue to remain hopeful that the nearly 20 million Americans who suffer from mental illness receive the treatment they need.

Mr. Speaker, though, I was disappointed that President Obama did not seize the opportunity to address, in depth, the role of mental health and media violence as factors of mass violence during his State of the Union address. To only focus on guns, on just one piece of a very large and complicated puzzle, is simply irresponsible.

The President said that the victims of mass shootings, including Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, the college students at Virginia Tech, the children at Sandy Hook, the high school students at Columbine, and the movie-goers in Aurora, all deserve a vote for gun control proposals. How can he, in good conscience, call for that but not acknowledge the fact that each one of these shooters in these events was mentally disturbed? How could he not acknowledge the role that violent media played in some of their lives?

The President is failing the American people and the families of the victims by remaining frustratingly silent on these crucial issues and ignoring the other central factors related to mass violence of this kind.

As I mentioned, in a number of tragic shootings, there has been a pattern of the shooters playing or even imitating violent video games.

Let's begin with Anders Breivik, the Norwegian who shot 69 people at a youth camp in 2011. Forbes Magazine reported that Anders used the video game ``Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2'' as a simulator to help him practice shooting people. Anders said:

I just bought ``Modern Warfare 2,'' the game. It is

probably the best military simulator out there, and it's one

of the hottest games this year.

He goes on to say:

I see ``Modern Warfare 2'' more as a part of my training-

simulation than anything else. You can more or less

completely simulate actual operations.

And who can forget that day at Columbine High School when Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold murdered 13 classmates and wounded 23 others before turning the guns on themselves? The Simon Wiesenthal Center, which tracks Internet hate groups, found in its archives a copy of Harris' Web site with a version of the first-person shooter video game ``Doom'' that he had customized. In Harris' version, there are two shooters, each with extra weapons and unlimited ammunition, and the other people in the game cannot fight back.

For a class project, Harris and Klebold made a videotape that was similar to their customized version of ``Doom.'' In the video, Harris and Klebold dress in trench coats, carry guns, and kill school athletes. They acted out their videotape performance in real life less than a year later.

An investigator at the Wiesenthal Center said Harris and Klebold were ``playing out their game in God mode.''

In another videotape, Harris referred to a sawed-off shotgun as ``Arlene,'' a favorite character in the ``Doom'' video game. Harris said, ``It's gonna be like (expletive) Doom.''

And now we have a report this month from the Hartford Courant that says that Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza may have been imitating violent video games as well. The Courant reports:

During a search of the Lanza home after the deadly school

shootings, police found thousands of dollars' worth of

graphically violent video games.

The paper goes on to say:

And detectives working the scene of the massacre are

exploring whether Adam Lanza might have been emulating the

shooting range or a video game scenario as he moved from room

to room at Sandy Hook, spewing bullets, law enforcement

sources have told the Courant.

Then he goes on to say, Mr. Speaker:

Before he killed his mother and set off for Sandy Hook

Elementary, Adam Lanza destroyed the hard drive on his

computer, which probably kept some of the records of the

games he played and who he played with. He also may have

destroyed any chance to see if he had a manifesto or had

written down anything indicating that he planned the

shootings or why he chose the elementary school.

Let me repeat, Adam Lanza may have been emulating a video game shooter or scenario as he went room to room at Sandy Hook. What parent cannot see this problem?

This week, I had the opportunity to meet with a few elementary school principals from my congressional district. During the course of our discussion, the issue of media violence, particularly violent video games, came up. One principal said that when children misbehave in school and he asks them why, they will frequently say that they saw it in a video game. Another principal with him said the problem with video games is that, when young children are playing violent ones where they shoot or kill other characters, there are no repercussions or punishment, and usually the characters will even come back to life. This gives children and adolescents whose brains are still developing no sense of reality. He also said that video games desensitize kids to violence.

How can we continue to ignore what common sense is telling us? Just take one look at the movie trailers and how violent they are. Some of the video games on the market today like ``Call of Duty'' and ``Halo'' all give points for killing another character. Players are rewarded for shooting people. The level of violence in ``Grand Theft Auto'' is astonishing.

Players drive around, shoot people, including police officers, pick up prostitutes, and then kill them. There is a racial element to it also.

Soon after the Newtown shooting, I asked the National Science Foundation to pull together experts from across the country to look at the impact of all three contributors to mass violence. These experts include Dr. Brad Bushman from Ohio State University, along with several other scholars from top-tier universities across the Nation, including Johns Hopkins; Georgetown; Columbia University; University of Pennsylvania; Penn State; Carnegie Mellon; and the University of California, Berkeley. And we will have the list at the end of this statement. Earlier this month, the NSF released a report compiled by these experts whose names, as I said, will appear at the end of the statement.

It draws on reliable evidence and a number of theories to explain youth violence that have emerged from decades of research, including research supported by the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the National Research Council, and other Federal agencies.

According to the report, violent video games increase aggressive thoughts, angry feelings, psychological arousal and aggressive behavior, and decrease helping behavior and feelings of empathy for others. The report compiled by these experts shows that rating systems have not kept up with the increasingly violent content of popular media, and there is no standard rating system in the U.S. across varying media platforms.

Dr. Bushman, who holds the Margaret Hall and Robert Randal Rinehart chair at Ohio State University and is widely respected in his field, offers a solution to this issue. There could be a universal rating system on all media, with universal symbols that are easy for parents to understand. The Pan European Game Information system, for

example, has five age-based ratings: 3-plus, 7-plus, 12-plus, 16-plus, and 18-plus; and six well-recognizable symbols for potentially objectionable material: violence, sex, drugs, discrimination, fear, and gambling.

The current rating system is confusing to parents. For example, there is R for movies, TV-MA for TV, and FV for fantasy violence in video games.

Another possible idea, which is something that I have long advocated for, is to put warning labels on violent video games. The report also quotes:

More research is also needed on what types of individuals

are most strongly affected by violent video games. Many of

the spree shooters have been described as ``social

outcasts.'' Are such individuals more likely to behave

aggressively after playing a violent video game? Are such

individuals more likely to play violent games alone?

A copy of the National Science Foundation report can be found on my Web site at www.wolf.house.gov. Let me say that again, because parents might want to look at this, and hopefully the Members of the body on both sides will look at it, and hopefully members of the administration will look at it. A copy will appear at www.wolf.house.gov. And these are the views of these experts.

I am not naive enough to think that video game violence is the only issue here. We need to have an honest discussion about media violence, TV, movies, and video games. We need to have an honest discussion about mental health. And we need to have an honest discussion about guns.

It is easy for the President to go after the NRA. He doesn't support the NRA, and the NRA doesn't support him. But will the President of the United States ever, ever ask the entertainment industry to get involved or will he continue to be silent?

While media violence is not the only factor of mass violence, it is one of the easiest factors to change and it needs to be addressed, in addition to looking at access to firearms and mental health.

Don't we owe it to all the victims who have been killed to look at everything?

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Participants of the Subcommittee on Youth Violence of the Advisory Committee to the Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences Directorate,

National Science Foundation

Katherine S. Newman, Ph. D., Dean of Arts and Sciences,

Professor of Sociology, Johns Hopkins University

Brad J. Bushman, Ph.D., Professor of Communication and

Psychology, Margaret Hall and Robert Randal Rinehart Chair of

Mass Communication, The Ohio State University and Professor

of Communication Science, VU University, Amsterdam, the

Netherlands

Sandra L. Calvert, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology and

Director of the Children's Digital Media Center, Georgetown

University

Geraldine Downey, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology and Dean

of Social Sciences, Columbia University

Dan Romer, Ph.D., Director, Adolescent Communication

Institute, Annenberg Public Policy Center, University of

Pennsylvania

Calvin Morrill, Ph.D., Professor of Law and Sociology and

Director, Center for the Study of Law and Society, University

of California, Berkeley

Michael Gottfredson, Ph.D., President and Professor of

Sociology, University of Oregon

Ann S. Masten, Ph.D., Irving B. Harris Professor of Child

Development, Institute of Child Development, University of

Minnesota

Mark Dredze, Ph.D., Assistant Research Professor of

Computer Science, Johns Hopkins University

Daniel B. Neill, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Information

Systems; Director, Event and Pattern Detection Laboratory,

H.J. Heinz III College, Carnegie Mellon University

Daniel W. Webster, ScD, MPH, Professor and Director, Johns

Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research

Nina G. Jablonski, Ph.D., Distinguished Professor of

Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 2 o'clock and 7 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, March 4, 2013, at noon for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the failure to discuss mental health issues and the impact of the violent media in the whole debate following the tragic shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. There needs to be a three-legged approach to this problem. It is disappointing that the President only addressed the issue of guns in the State of the Union speech.

In a number of these tragic shootings, there has been a pattern of the shooters' playing violent video games. Do you remember Columbine? And do you remember the movie theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado? Now comes a report from the Hartford Courant. I quote from the Hartford Courant:

During a search of the Lanza home after the deadly school

shootings, police found thousands of dollars worth of

graphically violent video games. And detectives working the

scene of the massacre are exploring whether Adam Lanza might

have been emulating the shooting range or a violent video

game scenario as he moved from room to room at Sandy Hook

spewing bullets, law enforcement sources have told the

Courant.

Before he killed his mother and set off for Sandy Hook

Elementary, Adam Lanza destroyed the hard drive on his

computer, which probably kept some of the records of the

games he played and whom he played with. He also may have

destroyed any chance to see if he had a manifesto or had

written down anything indicating that he planned the

shootings, or why he chose the elementary school.

Soon after the Newtown shooting, I asked the National Science Foundation, which is funded as a result of the subcommittee which I chair, to pull together experts, some of the best experts--and the National Science Foundation picked them--from across the country to look at the impact of all three contributors to mass violence. Earlier this month, the National Science Foundation released its report.

This is the report, ``Youth Violence: What We Need to Know,'' which supports my belief that rampage shootings are a result of multiple factors, including access to firearms, mental health issues, and exposure to violent media, including violent video games. This report can be found on my Web site. I would urge anyone who really wants to see what we need to do to go look at the National Science Foundation report. It is guns, it is mental health issues, and it is violent video games.

It is easy for the President of the United States to take on the NRA. Why hasn't he asked the entertainment industry to play a greater role in this debate? Common sense tells us that the level of violence on TV, in the movies and in many video games is a problem. One only has to read the piece from the Hartford Courant to understand that this is a very serious problem.

You have to look at guns, you have to look at their mental health-- and, quite frankly, the administration has not looked at mental health, and this Congress is not looking at mental health--and you have to look at violent video games and media. The administration is not looking at that, and, quite frankly, this Congress is not looking at it.

Media Violence and Youth Violence

Brad J. Bushman, Ph.D., Professor of Communication and Psychology, Margaret Hall and Robert Randal Rinehart Chair of Mass Communication,

The Ohio State University & Professor of Communication Science, VU

University, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

When violent shooting sprees occur, people want to identify

``the'' cause. Violent behavior is very complex and is caused

by multiple risk factors, often acting together. One possible

risk factor is exposure to violent media (e.g., TV programs,

films, video games). Of course, it is impossible to know

whether exposure to violent media causes shooting sprees

because researchers can't use guns in their laboratory

experiments! However, in one experimental study, we measured

what could be considered assaultive behavior. Dutch boys

(Mage=14) played a violent or nonviolent video

game for 20 minutes, and rated how much they identified with

the game character (e.g., ``I wish I were a character such as

the one in the game''). Afterwards, they competed on a task

with another ``boy'' where the winner could blast the loser

with loud noise through headphones. They were told that the

highest noise levels (i.e., 8, 9, or 10) could cause

``permanent hearing damage.'' Boys who played a violent game,

and identified with the violent character in that game, did

in fact administer potentially damaging noise blasts. During

the debriefing, one boy said, ``I blasted him with level 10

noise because he deserved it. I know he can get hearing

damage, but I don't care!'' Another boy said he liked the

violent game ``because in this game you can kill people and

shoot people, and I want to do that too.'' A third boy said,

``I like Grand Theft Auto a lot because you can shoot at

people and drive fast in cars. When I am older I can do such

things too. I would love to do all these things right now!''

A comprehensive meta-analysis of violent video game

effects, which included 381 effects from studies involving

130,295 participants from all over the world, found that

violent video games increased aggressive thoughts, angry

feelings, physiological arousal, and aggressive behavior.

Violent games also decreased prosocial behavior (e.g.,

helping, cooperation) and feelings of empathy for others. The

effects occurred for males and females of all ages,

regardless of the country they live in. Similar effects have

been found for all types of violent media (e.g., TV, film,

music and music videos, comic books). A meta-analysis of 26

studies involving 13,661 participants found that violent

media exposure is also significantly linked to violent

behavior (e.g. punching, beating, choking others), although

the effects are smaller than for aggressive behavior. This

makes sense because violent criminal behavior is rarer and

more difficult to predict than less severe aggressive

behavior. As one example, a recent CDC-funded, cross-

sectional study involving incarcerated delinquents (and a

comparison group of high-school students), parents/guardians,

and teachers/staff, found that consumption of violent media

was related to serious violent behavior such as using a

weapon against another child.

It is well known that people who consume a lot of violent

media come to view the world as a hostile place. People who

consume a lot of violent media also think violence is

``normal'' behavior, because media characters often use

violence to solve their problems.

It is useful to consider a child's life as filled with a

succession of social problems that must be solved. The child

uses a set of programs (called scripts) for solving social

problems. In theater, scripts tell actors what to do and say.

In memory, scripts define situations and guide behavior: The

person first selects a script for the situation, assumes a

role in the script, and behaves according to the script. In

many shooting sprees, the perpetrator puts on a uniform

(e.g., hockey mask, trench coat, movie costume, military

uniform), as if following a script. This allows the

perpetrator to identify more closely with other killers. The

perpetrator then gathers up a bunch of guns and ammunition,

goes to a place where there are a lot of people gathered,

kills as many people as possible, and then often kills

himself. For most people, carrying out such a script would be

impossible. But it can occur for some people who don't

experience negative emotions or who see such acts as

normative, or for whom performing such an act might be

perceived as achieving a sense of accomplishment and

``leaving their mark on the world.'' Consider, for example,

statements made by the two killers at Columbine High School.

Dylan Klebold said, ``Directors will be fighting over this

story.'' Eric Harris added, ``Tarentino, Spielberg.''

There is also a downward spiral between aggression,

rejection, and consumption of violent media. Aggressive youth

tend to be rejected by their peers, and therefore spend their

time consuming media (often violent

media) and associating with other aggressive youth (who have

also been rejected by others), which, in turn makes them even

more aggressive.

Aggressive youth often consume violent media because it

allows them to justify their own behavior as being normal. A

child's own aggressive behavior normally should elicit guilt,

but this guilt is relieved if the child who has behaved

aggressively consumes violent media. The reduction in guilt

that consuming violence provides makes continued aggressive

and violent behavior by that child even more likely.

Violent media often contain guns, and research has shown

that the mere presence of guns, even at a subliminal level,

can increase aggression. In summary, violent behavior is very

complex and is caused by multiple risk factors, often acting

together. One possible risk factor is exposure to violent

media (e.g., TV programs, films, video games). Although it is

not the only risk factor, or the most important risk factor,

it is one of the easiest risk factors to change. Other risk

factors (e.g., being male, social rejection) are difficult or

impossible to change. Parents can, however, restrict the

amount of violent media their children consume.

Parents are the key, but producers of violent media can

help parents out. For example, there could be a universal

rating system on all media (TV, films, video games), with

universal symbols that are easy for parents to understand.

The PEGI (Pan European Game Information) system, for example,

has five age-based ratings (3+, 7+, 12+, 16+, 18+) and six

well-recognized symbols for potentially objectionable

material (violence, sex, drugs, discrimination, fear,

gambling). The current rating system is like alphabet soup

and is confusing to parents (e.g., R for movies; TV-MA for

TV, FV for fantasy violence in video games). Another possible

idea is to put warning labels on violent video games. In

1964, the U.S. surgeon general issued a warning on tobacco,

and that warning appears on all tobacco products. In 1972,

the U.S. surgeon general issued a warning for violent TV

programs: ``It is clear to me that the causal relationship

between televised violence and antisocial behavior is

sufficient to warrant appropriate and immediate remedial

action . . . There comes a time when the data are sufficient

to justify action. That time has come.'' Warning labels are

like a double-edged sword. On the one hand, parents find

warning labels informative.' On the other hand, they are like

magnets to children.

Educating parents about the research on violent video games

is also important. This is an uphill battle, however, because

the source of news and information for parents is the mass

media, and the mass media are reluctant to report that

violent media are harmful.

Almost all of the research on violent video games has been

conducted using single-player video games. But players often

play with others. In a pair of studies conducted in our lab,

participants were tested in pairs with an ostensible partner

of the same sex (actually a confederate). Participants in the

cooperative condition were instructed to work together with

their partner to get as many points as possible by killing

enemies and staying alive. Participants in the competitive

condition were instructed to try and kill their partner more

times than their partner killed them. Participants in the

control condition played the game in the single player mode.

After gameplay, participants competed with their ostensible

partner on a task in which the winner could blast the loser

with loud, unpleasant noise through headphones. In both

studies, participants in the cooperative condition were less

aggressive than participants in the other conditions. More

research on multi-player games is clearly needed.

More research is also needed on what types of individuals

are most strongly affected by violent video games. Many of

the spree shooters have been described as ``social

outcasts.'' Are such individuals more likely to behave

aggressively after playing a violent game? Are such

individuals more likely to play violent games alone?

Research should test whether aggression is enhanced by

playing in a first-person compared with third-person mode,

and by whether the enemies are realistic humans versus

aliens. Some research has shown that the gorier the video

game, the larger the effects, but more is needed.

I rise in opposition to the bill.

I saw the movie ``Zero Dark Thirty.'' In the movie, the woman, Maya, who is working for 10 years to find Osama bin Laden and the entire team, Maya's pay raise and pay has been frozen--and the team--for the last 10 years.

There's a scene in the movie--I don't want to ruin it if you haven't seen it--but seven CIA employees were killed in Khost, Afghanistan. I went to the memorial service in my congressional district in Langley where I watched the young kids. One little kid had a blazer on and khakis. I watched him come in. The team that replaced the team that was killed in Khost had a pay freeze for 3 years. The FBI agent who stopped that young boy from being killed down in Alabama and just ran up a Taliban terrorist up in California, pay raise? No. A freeze for 3 years.

Over the last 5 years, one ICE agent killed, one Secret Service agent killed, three ATF agents killed, one DEA agent killed, two U.S. Marshals killed, air traffic controllers that put the safety for my family and your family and our constituents as they fly through the sky, the NIH.

My family has been devastated by cancer. My father and mother died of cancer. Cancer has impacted my family. Dr. Collins mapped the human genome system that will save many of you and the lives of your sons and daughters because of basically following that system, working on liver cancer, prostate cancer, breast cancer, ovarian cancer, which my mom died of. You will drive people like that--Dr. Collins and his team will have been frozen for 3 years.

With regard to NASA, we just went through the 10th anniversary of the Challenger explosion. Those astronauts that sit on that rocket, those now and in the future, if you have NASA facilities in your district and they sit on that Soyuz rocket that goes up, they froze their pay for 3 years.

The firefighters out in the West who you'll call on and beg to come and fight when the storms come this summer--and they're coming--have been frozen. There's the Weather Service. For those of you from Florida and in the tornado area and in the hurricane area, the weathermen stay around the clock, working--frozen for 3 years. There was Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and the people who worked with him, who are on the border where violent gangs come across the border--frozen for 3 years. There is the DEA and others.

There are the doctors out at Walter Reed. If you go out and visit Walter Reed or go visit your VA hospitals, the doctors and the nurses who are working with the wounded warriors, people who have lost their limbs in Afghanistan and Iraq--frozen for 3 years.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to reintroduce legislation that would reestablish the legal public holiday for Washington's Birthday from the third Monday of February to the actual date of George Washington's birth on February 22.

I have long admired President Washington and have found inspiration in public service from studying his life. Unfortunately, I have found that students today have a dearth of knowledge about our nation's beginnings and the man from Virginia who led the colonies to form the union known as the United States of America.

In 2011, two-time Pulitzer Prize winning history author David McCullough observed, ``We're raising young people who are, by and large, historically illiterate.'' How can we adequately explain the importance of George Washington to our children when we do not even take time to recognize his actual birthday? We must reestablish Washington's Birthday on the 22nd to honor his legacy and in doing so call upon schools across the nation to focus on Washington as the soldier, legislator and president who shepherded our young nation through war, political turmoil, rebellion and expansion as no other single individual was capable of doing.

I believe Congress has unwittingly contributed to this lack of historical understanding by relegating Washington's Birthday to the third Monday of February to take advantage of a three-day weekend. We need to change the focus from celebrating sales at the mall to celebrating the significance of President Washington's birth to the birth of our nation.

There is a reason the birthday of President George Washington is the only legal federal holiday observed for a president of the United States. He is called the ``father of our country'' because he is without compare in our nation's history.

Washington's Birthday has been celebrated since the final days of the Revolutionary War. French and American troops paraded through Newport, Rhode Island, in 1781 and celebrations were held in Richmond, Virginia, in 1782. Organized by French General Rochambeau and others who knew him personally, these celebrations drew special attention to the bravery, courage, leadership and perseverance of the Revolutionary War hero.

From the beginning of our country, the importance of this day has been recognized. As President James Buchanan said in 1860, ``. . . when the birthday of Washington shall be forgotten, liberty will have perished from the earth.'' In response, President Rutherford B. Hayes signed legislation in 1879 that made Washington's Birthday a holiday for District federal workers. The holiday was extended to all federal workers in 1885.

This legislation I reintroduce today is not without precedent. In 1975, Congress amended the Uniform Monday Holiday Act and President Gerald R. Ford signed legislation into law returning the annual observance of Veterans Day from the fourth Monday in November to its original date of November 11, beginning in 1978.

The Uniform Holiday Bill signed in 1968 and effective in 1971 was intended to ensure three-day weekends for federal employees by celebrating four national holidays on Mondays: Washington's Birthday, Memorial Day, Veterans Day and Columbus Day. Originally called Armistice Day to mark the signing of an Armistice on the 11th hour, of the 11th day, of the 11th month in 1918 that ended World War

I, the date of November 11 holds historic and patriotic significance as a day of thanks and remembrance for all veterans. The law change brought widespread public protest and 46 states refused to recognize any day other than November 11 to honor the sacrifice made first by World War I veterans and subsequently by all veterans.

The restoration of the observance of Veterans Day to November 11 not only preserves the historical significance of the date, but helps focus attention on the important purpose of Veterans Day as a celebration to honor America's veterans for their patriotism, love of country, and willingness to serve and sacrifice for the common good.

Likewise, we need to restore the observance of Washington's Birthday to February 22 to preserve the date of his birth for history and to focus attention on his life of service and duty to his country. Even George Washington's home state of Virginia, where he was born and raised, which he served in elected office, where he accepted General Cornwallis' surrender, and where he is buried, celebrates Washington's Birthday in accordance with the Uniform Monday Holiday Act. I believe all school children in every state should dedicate February 22 each year to learning about our greatest leader, foremost patriot, first president and the only six-star general in the nation's history.

Posterity has shown that the traditions he started, including civilian control of the military and presidential term limits, have distinguished our government from so many failed countries born in revolution from the colonial powers of the 18th century. President Washington exemplifies the best that America and Americans have to offer the world; principled leadership, personal bravery, a sense of duty and public service, patriotism, recognition of our unique role in world history, and a reverence for his Creator. His enduring service deserves to be remembered on his actual birthday.

My legislation is supported by George Washington's Mount Vernon Estate. Executive Director Jim Rees said, ``The holiday was far more meaningful when it revolved around George Washington, and schools were able to focus on his sterling example of character and leadership.''

I am extremely pleased that David McCullough supports my legislation as well. His letter, copied below, says ``Celebrating George Washington's Birthday on February 22 is a simple, solid, self-evident statement of respect for one of the greatest of all Americans, for his whole founding generation, and for so much that we owe them.''

The legislation is also supported by other prominent authors and scholars that have published extensive works on Washington's life. Scholar and history professor Gordon Wood stated ``I agree wholeheartedly that Washington's Birthday ought to be separated from the Uniform Monday Holiday Act. He is unique as a president and founder.'' In addition, my legislation is supported by noted Washington historian Ron Chernow, historians Peter Henriques and Richard Brookhiser and history professors from the University of Georgia, LaSalle University, James Madison University and Brandeis University.

Mr. Speaker, it is only right that we hold February 22 as a date of reverence to commemorate the unique person without whom the tide of American history may well have taken a different turn. I urge my colleagues to join in cosponsoring this legislation to forever honor President George Washington's Birthday.

January 19, 2012.

Dear Mr. Wolf: The place of George Washington in the

American story, his all-important example of courage and

integrity in leadership, can hardly be overstated and must

never be taken lightly.

Nor should we celebrate his birthday on any day but

February 22, any more than we would wish to move July 4 about

to suit some convenience of the moment.

How can it reasonably be argued otherwise?

Celebrating George Washington's birthday on February 22 is

a simple, solid, self-evident statement of respect for one of

the greatest of all Americans, for his whole founding

generation, and for so much that we owe them.

Sincerely,

David McCullough.

Mr. Speaker, I submit a report that will air on ABC News tonight about the Obama Administration's negligence of the Fort Hood survivors and their families.

This was clearly a terrorist attack and while the administration has designated this attack as ``workplace violence,'' the survivors cannot access assistance. We are not treating these people fairly.

[From ABC News, Feb. 12, 2013]

Fort Hood Hero Says Obama `Betrayed' Her, Other Victims

(By Ned Berkowitz and Brian Ross)

Three years after the White House arranged a hero's welcome

at the State of the Union address for the Fort Hood police

sergeant and her partner who stopped the deadly shooting

there, Kimberly Munley says President Obama broke the promise

he made to her that the victims would be well taken care of.

``Betrayed is a good word,'' former Sgt. Munley told ABC

News in a tearful interview to be broadcast tonight on

``World News with Diane Sawyer'' and ``Nightline.''

``Not to the least little bit have the victims been taken

care of,'' she said. ``In fact they've been neglected.''

There was no immediate comment from the White House about

Munley's allegations.

Thirteen people were killed, including a pregnant soldier,

and 32 others shot in the November 2009 rampage by the

accused shooter, Major Nidal Hasan, who now awaits a military

trial on charges of premeditated murder and attempted murder.

Tonight's broadcast report also includes dramatic new

video, obtained by ABC News, taken in the immediate aftermath

of the shooting, capturing the chaos and terror of the day.

Munley, since laid off from her job with the base's

civilian police force, was shot three times as she and her

partner, Sgt. Mark Todd, confronted Hasan, who witnesses said

had shouted ``Allahu Akbar'' as he opened fire on soldiers

being processed for deployment to Afghanistan.

As Munley lay wounded, Todd fired the five bullets credited

with bringing Hasan down.

Despite extensive evidence that Hasan was in communication

with al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki prior to the attack, the

military has denied the victims a Purple Heart and is

treating the incident as ``workplace violence'' instead of

``combat related'' or terrorism.

Al-Awlaki has since been killed in a U.S. drone attack in

Yemen, in what was termed a major victory in the U.S. efforts

against al Qaeda.

Munley and dozens of other victims have now filed a lawsuit

against the military alleging the ``workplace violence''

designation means the Fort Hood victims are receiving lower

priority access to medical care as veterans, and a loss of

financial benefits available to those who injuries are

classified as ``combat related.''

Some of the victims ``had to find civilian doctors to get

proper medical treatment'' and the military has not assigned

liaison officers to help them coordinate their recovery, said

the group's lawyer, Reed Rubenstein. ``There's a substantial

number of very serious, crippling cases of post-traumatic

stress disorder exacerbated, frankly, by what the Army and

the Defense Department did in this case,'' said Rubenstein.

``We have a couple of cases in which the soldiers' command

accused the soldiers of malingering, and would say things to

them that Fort Hood really wasn't so bad, it wasn't combat.''

A spokesperson for the Army said its policy is not to

comment on pending litigation, but that it is ``not true''

any of the military victims have been neglected and that it

has no control over the guidelines of the Veterans

Administration. Secretary of the Army John McHugh told ABC

News he was unaware of any specific complaints from the Fort

Hood victims, even though he is a named defendant in the

lawsuit filed last November which specifically details the

plight of many of them.

``If a soldier feels ignored, then we need to know about it

on a case by case basis,'' McHugh told ABC News. ``It is not

our intent to have two levels of care for people who are

wounded by whatever means in uniform.''

Some of the victims in the lawsuit believe the Army

Secretary and others are purposely ignoring their cases out

of political correctness.

``These guys play stupid every time they're asked a

question about it, they pretend like they have no clue,''

said Shawn Manning, who was shot six times that day at Fort

Hood. Two of the bullets remain in his leg and spine, he

said.

``It was no different than an insurgent in Iraq or

Afghanistan trying to kill us,'' said Manning, who was twice

deployed to Iraq and had to retire from the military because

of his injuries.

An Army review board initially classified Manning's

injuries as ``combat related,'' but that finding was later

overruled by higher-ups in the Army.

Manning says the ``workplace violence'' designation has

cost him almost $70,000 in benefits that would have been

available if his injuries were classified as ``combat

related.''

``Basically, they're treating us like I was downtown and I

got hit by a car,'' he told ABC News.

For Alonzo Lunsford, who was shot seven times at Fort Hood

and blinded in one eye, the military's treatment is deeply

hurtful.

``It's a slap in the face, not only for me but for all of

the 32 that wore the uniform that day,'' he told ABC News.

Lunsford's medical records show his injuries were

determined to be ``in the line of duty'' but neither he nor

any of the other soldiers shot or killed at Fort Hood is

eligible for the Purple Heart under the Department of

Defense's current policy for decorations and awards.

Army Secretary McHugh says awarding Purple Hearts could

adversely affect the trial of Major Hasan.

``To award a Purple Heart, it has to be done by a foreign

terrorist element,'' said McHugh. ``So to declare that

soldier a foreign terrorist, we are told, I'm not an attorney

and I don't run the Justice Department, but we're told would

have a profound effect on the ability to conduct the trial.''

Members of Congress, including the chairman of the House

Homeland Security committee, Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas,

say they will introduce legislation to force the military and

the Obama administration to give the wounded and dead the

recognition and honors they deserve.

``It was clearly an act of terrorism that occurred that

day, there's no question in my mind,'' McCaul told ABC News.

``I think the victims should be treated as such.''

Former Sgt. Munley says she now believes the White House

used her for political advantage in arranging for her to sit

next to Michelle Obama during the President's State of the

Union address in 2010.

Munley says she has no hesitation now speaking out against

the President or taking part in the lawsuit, because she

wants to help the others who were shot that day and continue

to suffer.

``We got tired of being neglected. So this was our last

resort and I'm not ashamed of it a bit,'' she said.

Mr. Speaker, a report will air tonight on ``ABC News'' about the Obama administration's negligence of the Fort Hood survivors and their families. This was clearly a terrorist attack. And while the Obama administration has designated that attack that killed all those people a ``workplace violence,'' the survivors cannot get assistance. Major Hasan was influenced by Awlaki. The administration knew Awlaki was bad, and they killed him by a drone missile. And now the people that are involved are not getting the necessary help.

Secretary of Defense Panetta, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Dempsey, Attorney General Holder, and the President of the United States have failed the people and continue to fail the people who were wounded and killed at Fort Hood, as well as their families.

America is broke. America is in trouble, and the Simpson- Bowles plan is the only framework out there that truly reforms Social Security and saves it for our children and grandchildren.

When I go into high schools in my district and I ask the students, how many of you believe the Social Security system is sound, in the last 4 years, not one senior has raised their hand. The seniors know more than the Congress, both the Republican and Democratic Party, and more than the President.

Just yesterday, CBO Director Doug Elmendorf noted that the number of seniors receiving Social Security and Medicare benefits will increase by 40 percent over the next decade. In order to preserve Social Security and save it for our children, the President should use Simpson-Bowles as a starting point. He created the commission. It received bipartisan support, and then he walked away.

Some Members on both sides are afraid of this vote. You know what you ought to be afraid of? You ought to be afraid of facing your children and your grandchildren and your constituents when this country goes bankrupt and goes into decline.

I thank the gentleman for offering the amendment, and strongly urge a unanimous ``yes'' vote.

Madam Chair, I thank Mr. Schrader for yielding, and thank the other cosponsors of this amendment, Mr. Cooper and Mr. Gibson, for their work.

I continue to believe that the only way to address our Nation's massive debt, which is crippling our ability to compete, is by adopting a comprehensive proposal along the lines of the Simpson-Bowles framework. It would put our Nation on a sustainable path by reducing deficits by 4 trillion dollars through a mix of spending reductions-- both mandatory and discretionary--and comprehensive, pro-growth reform. By finding these savings, sequestration wouldn't even be necessary.

This amendment is simple. It adds a finding to this legislation that the president created the Simpson-Bowles Commission and suggests using Simpson-Bowles as a starting point, to meet the underlying requirements of the bill.

Quite honestly, I am disappointed that an amendment is even necessary. As Alan Greenspan noted in May, ``The worst mistake the president made was not embracing that vehicle [Simpson-Bowles] right away.''

I am submitting for the Record letters I sent earlier this week to both the president and the speaker asking both to embrace bipartisan efforts to ``turn off'' sequestration. Simpson-Bowles is a valid approach to deal with this problem, even though the president walked away from his own commission's hard work.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment and a ``yes'' vote on the bill.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, February 4, 2013.

Hon. John A. Boehner,

Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,