Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I recently read an article by Maureen Downey of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution sharing the thoughts of Mr. Frederick Assaf, headmaster at Pace Academy, an independent K-12 school in Atlanta, Georgia.

As Congress and the Obama administration continue to address mass violence, I found merit in Assaf's concerns about the desensitizing impacts of violent media, such as video games and Hollywood films. I believe these graphic images are far too easily accessed by our children and lack any notion of real-life consequences to violent death. I submit for the Record Mr. Assaf's thoughtful comments.

[From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Jan. 2, 2013]

Newtown Shooting Demands We Consider Our ``Call of Duty'' as Parents

(By Maureen Downey, AJC Get Schooled Blog)

I admire Fred Assaf, head of Pace Academy in Atlanta,

because he doesn't shy away from the tough issues. Here is

another example of his willingness to speak out on behalf of

children.

In the wake of the Newtown school shooting, Assaf questions

the popularity of violent video games, which many kids

received as Christmas gifts last week.

Please note that all comments to the blog will be moderated

and appear only after they are read and approved.

(By Fred Assaf)

Because I come to know 6-year-olds every year by having

lunch with them in our Lower School, I know the boundless joy

and optimism they have in the heart. They raise

their hands when they don't know the answer. When they run

out of knock-knock jokes they know, the make up more on the

spot.

They still need help opening their milk cartons. They look

forward to holidays, visiting cousins, and seeing

grandparents. They love their teachers, crave the structure

of a school setting, and are learning to read fast and

compute math at an incredible pace.

They will laugh at all of your jokes, even when they aren't

funny. They understand the needs of those around them, they

play with all their classmates, and they respect their

parents, their teachers, and their god.

I'm headmaster at an independent school in Atlanta. Our

school begins in Pre-First (Kindergarten) and ends with 12th

grade. My wife and I also have five children of our own. The

events in Newtown, Conn., are unimaginable to us and our

entire prayer is for sympathy and healing; there is no

justice in a situation like this.

It is my tradition to have lunch with the Pre-First

students (they are 5 and 6). In so doing I remind myself

about my vocation and come to know the boundless energy and

potential of children. It is why I teach. I know more Knock-

Knock jokes than any adult my age and I like it!

And I'm plagued now by this thought--who shoots 6-year-

olds? Because I lead a school I'm always searching for

answers, finding a new path forward, and engineering

compromise. But this idea of shooting 6-year-olds doesn't

compute; I'm not in search of a motive, as it cannot possibly

explain why.

When we had our first child, our family doctor gave us a

good piece of advice: ``Eskimo children get used to the

cold.'' As parents we understood that our attitudes and

behaviors would shape our children. Though all five of our

sons are different, they are shaped by our values and

behaviors.

And so I wonder what behaviors we as parents can change.

Certainly, we can improve school security. We can provide

better training. We can make it harder to get a gun than to

it is to get Sudafed. I don't know all the political answers,

but I'd favor anything that makes gratuitous murder more

difficult.

Which brings me to my point. As parents, we need to do our

best to stop our children from the desensitizing impact of

video games. A quick survey of the most popular video games

includes the following top 10 games: ``Halo,'' ``Assassin's

Creed,'' ``Call of Duty,'' ``World of Warcraft,'' ``Grand

Theft Auto.''

Each of these games, simply put, eats away at a child's

sensitivity toward killing. We have ``gamified'' the murder

of people, and our children shoot, steal, and bomb in their

virtual worlds. Like the basketball player who practices foul

shots, we get better at things when we practice. Their habits

become automatic, reactive, and second-nature.

Raising children is a labor of love. Working in a school is

a joy. When I reflect on President Obama's query to ask

myself what we can do better as parents, educators, and

communities--it seems to me that we can stop letting our

children kill people over and over and over again--and call

it a GAME.

If you know teenagers like I know teenagers, they will find

other things to do once you take away their shooting games--

perhaps they will even work on their free throws.

Mr. Speaker, more than 4 months have passed since the terrorist attacks in Benghazi, which killed four Americans, including our ambassador, injured many others, and destroyed two U.S. facilities. Yet, despite the months that have passed, we're hardly closer to bringing those responsible to justice than we were in the weeks immediately following the attack. Put bluntly, the lack of progress in identifying and hunting down the terrorists responsible is stunning.

Consider the current state of the Obama administration's investigation and response to the attack:

Four months later, the administration still cannot or will not name the terrorist groups responsible for the attacks or the names of these group leaders;

Four months later, despite consulate video footage that many Members of Congress have seen and many eyewitnesses, not a single Benghazi terror suspect is in custody;

Four months later, the FBI has had access to only one suspect, Ali Harzi, for just 3 hours, and the Tunisian Government kept the FBI team waiting for more than 5 weeks before finally granting access;

Four months later, the administration still has not disclosed the serious connections between the groups behind the Benghazi attack and the leaders of the attack on the U.S. embassies in Cairo, Tunis, and Sana'a that same week of September 11;

Four months later, following the release of the Pickering report on State Department failures leading up to the attack, not a single State Department employee has been fired and held responsible for their role in denying adequate security for the consulate in Benghazi;

Four months later, despite Secretary Clinton's September 21 declaration when she said, ``What happened was a terrorist attack, and we will not rest until we have tracked down and brought to justice the terrorists who murdered four Americans,'' this administration seems to have not only rested, but to have moved on and apparently hopes that the Congress and the American people will too.

Just today, the New York Times is reporting:

Several Egyptian members of the squad of militants that lay

bloody siege to an Algerian gas complex last week also took

part in the deadly attack on the United States Mission in

Libya in September.

Mr. Speaker, 4 months later, this is an unacceptable state of affairs. Quite frankly, the Obama administration has failed. They have failed to prioritize this investigation. They have failed to bring the necessary pressure to bear on the Libyan, Tunisian, and Egyptian Governments. But more fundamentally, the administration has failed to respond to a terrorist attack appropriately, treating it as a law enforcement and diplomatic issue, rather than the security issue that it is.

At its core, this is yet another reflection of President Obama's schizophrenic counterterrorism policy, the same administration that unapologetically rains down lethal drone attacks on some al Qaeda affiliate terrorists in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia and will not use other counterterrorism resources to identify, locate, and detain the terrorists involved in the death of our ambassador and others in Libya.

This inconsistent policy may stem from the President's hasty campaign promise to shut down Guantanamo Bay in Gitmo and prematurely transfer detention facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan. In doing so, the President effectively ended America's ability to detain and interrogate terrorists, depriving the FBI, the CIA, and other agencies of critical opportunities to obtain information on al Qaeda networks.

Today, as the case of Benghazi suspect Ali Harzi has demonstrated, the United States is completely reliant on the cooperation of host countries to detain on our behalf and selectively allow access to suspects. As in the case of Harzi, as demonstrated, this approach is fraught with diplomatic roadblocks, costing critical time in getting information from suspects to track terrorist networks. Perhaps that is why President Obama so often opts to use lethal drone strikes to kill terrorists, knowing that the U.S. would be unable to get access to interrogate these terror suspects by working through host governments or because he no longer has a way to detain them in U.S. custody short of providing them the full privileges of an article III court.

In short, the President has tied his own hands, compromised U.S. national security and put the FBI in an impossible position. The FBI has been asked to treat the terrorist attack where four Americans died as if it's a law enforcement activity and has been put in a compromised and very difficult spot, and they have laid the groundwork for the administration's inept response in the wake of the terrorist attack in Benghazi.

To make matters worse, the administration has not even seen any significant success from its diplomatic-focused response. When Tunisia refused to allow the FBI access to Harzi for more than 5 weeks, the administration took no public steps to use diplomatic tools, like U.S. foreign assistance, to pressure the Tunisians to make Harzi available. In fact, the FBI only gained access after Members of Congress threatened amendments to cut off or restrict Tunisia's foreign aid if they continued to obstruct the FBI investigation.

I was among those Members of Congress along with Lindsey Graham and Senator McCain and others. In the interim, I urged the administration to act immediately to suspend foreign assistance if the Tunisian Government persisted in obstructing the investigation. On January 4, I received a tepid--and it was tepid--response from the Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Legislative and Public Affairs at USAID with a bland assurance that the Tunisian Government was cooperating. Was cooperating? Five weeks and the FBI had to wait? Then the FBI had 3 hours to talk to him, and we gave this Tunisian Government, Mr. Speaker, $320 million last year? Days later, Ali Harzi was released.

Today, I again wrote USAID, expressing my disappointment that the administrator himself could not respond directly to a Member of Congress who serves on a committee of jurisdiction and, further, pointed out what should be obvious--that the Tunisian Government did not cooperate. The Tunisian Government never seriously thought the aid--precious taxpayer money--was in jeopardy. The Tunisian Government has not faced a single consequence for undermining U.S. national security. I submit my letter for the Record.

Sadly, the failure to respond forcefully and appropriately to the Benghazi attack will undoubtedly encourage our enemies and make the world a more dangerous place for Americans working in hostile environments around the world. This failure to respond has endangered future Embassy staffs and Ambassadors--the Federal employees who serve our country at great risk.

Rather than demonstrating that there will be no quarter, no respite, no safe haven for terrorists who threaten American officials abroad, the message the administration has sent is that there is no apparent consequence for these actions. This will only embolden our enemy to plan the next Benghazi, knowing that under this administration there is less consequence even for their involvement in such an attack.

In this context, perhaps it is not surprising that the al Qaeda- affiliated terrorist group Ansar al-Sharia brazenly took pictures of the FBI agents interviewing Harzi and posted pictures on their Web sites; and when the Tunisian Government released Harzi, Ansar al-

Sharia was there to welcome him and post a video of the celebration of his release. Again, these antagonistic actions have been met by silence from this administration.

As Steve Hayes and Tom Joscelyn reported in The Weekly Standard this week:

U.S. officials tell The Weekly Standard that the release of

the photos was a clear attempt to intimidate the Americans

and show that the FBI could not act with impunity.

In its posting, Ansar al-Sharia Tunisia warned the Tunisian people that their government had allowed the FBI ``to begin investigating your sons under post-revolutionary protection.''

Consider that, in the same week of the Benghazi attack, our Embassies in Cairo, Tunis and Sana were also overrun in an increasingly apparent coordinated plot. In each case, the American flag was ripped down and burned, and a black al Qaeda flag was flown in its place. We are fortunate and blessed that none of these incidents resulted in a loss of life. They were, nonetheless, an attack on America by hostile groups.

As the administration's own State Department Web site states: ``Any attack on an Embassy is considered an attack on the country it represents.'' Each Embassy and consulate that was overrun the week of September 11 represents, in its own way, a public attack on America, and in the months that have followed, this administration has demonstrated that there are no consequences for breaching our Embassies or for killing our personnel.

I fear that the latest hostage-taking and killing of Americans and other Westerners in Algeria is a manifestation of a newfound confidence by our enemy in knowing that they may face no serious consequences from this administration for their murderous acts. It is telling that neither President Obama nor any others in his administration have made a public statement on the recent terrorist activities in Algeria, whereas the head of France and the head of England have spoken out over and over and over.

All the while, the Arab Spring, which was fanned by this administration to much fanfare, has become an Arab Winter, and for many of the people in the Middle East and North Africa, this Arab Winter--a new safe haven for al Qaeda-affiliated groups--is forming, ideologically fueled by the release of terrorists and extremists from prisons and flush with weapons provided to anti-Qadhafi rebels last year.

We are witnessing the potential formation of the next front in the war on terror, but we increasingly have an administration that no longer considers it a war worth fighting no matter the cost to American power or to the safety of our people abroad. While some have described the Obama doctrine as leading from behind, it is increasingly clear that the Obama doctrine means not leading at all. While most of the responsibility falls on the President and his administration, the Congress--the House and the Senate--and the media share some blame for failing to adequately investigate and bring attention to the many questions surrounding the administration's response to Benghazi.

Aside from a handful of reporters who have stayed with this story and have continued to raise questions about the administration's words and deeds, I can't help but wonder: Where are the New York Times, the Washington Post, or the network news programs? Why in the wake of last week's deadly terrorist attack in Algeria are no reporters investigating the serious links between al Qaeda's affiliates in North Africa and the connection between the groups?

Equally important, where has the Congress been in investigating both the circumstances of the attack and the administration's response over the last 4 months? Despite a handful of hearings, many in classified settings and done by very capable and good people, the American people have not been provided with anything close to an adequate answer to the following questions. It is not only important for the Congress to find out; it is important for the American people to find out. Have they been given answers to these questions?

Secretary Panetta, Attorney General Holder and DNI Clapper still have not testified publicly before Congress as to what steps they took during the attack and in the days that followed.

What were the President's activities during the 7-hour period of attack?

Why wasn't the U.S. military deployed to assist?

On the anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in American history and after multiple attacks this year on U.S. and Western interests, why were U.S. military units and assets in the region not ready, alert, and in a position to respond? After all, two of the four people killed were murdered 7 hours after the fighting began.

Why do we still not have the clear answers on the internal process that produced the inaccurate and, frankly, misleading talking points on which Ambassador Rice relied several days after the attack?

Why were the testimonies of the U.S. personnel who were evacuated from Benghazi on September 12--eyewitnesses who knew there was never a demonstration outside the consulate--not immediately factored into the judgments of our intelligence community?

Have the witnesses who were there on the scene, government employees, good people--all risking their lives--been called to come up and been given the opportunity to talk to Members on both sides of the aisle? The answer to date is ``no.''

Why hasn't Secretary Clinton been interviewed by the Pickering Commission?

Was the White House aware of the FBI investigation of General Petraeus? If not, why not?

To date, Congress has failed to get these answers, and it has not developed a coordinated or substantial investigative plan to fully explore this critical matter, which has a direct bearing on U.S. national security. In the absence of serious oversight, the media has moved on. In the absence of this, the administration, which has so much to account for to the American people, receives a carte blanche from the legislative branch to continue its questionable policies.

These matters are too serious to be brushed aside. There are critical legislative decisions the next Congress will have to make based on answers to these questions; but, more importantly, the American people deserve the answers to these questions, including open hearings and an unclassified report.

Mr. Speaker, for these reasons I remain convinced that a House select committee on the terrorist attack in Benghazi is needed more than ever. That is why last week I introduced my resolution, H. Res. 36, with 20 of our colleagues joining as cosponsors.

A select committee is essential to combine the myriad existing investigations into a single, comprehensive, and exhaustive review. I believe such a combined effort will yield even more information regarding the true nature of these terrorist attacks and the administration's response will not allow administration officials to offer up siloed accounts to various committees.

The select committee I am proposing should draw from the existing congressional investigations by including the chairman and ranking member of each committee of jurisdiction--the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Rogers and Mr. Ruppersberger have done a great job; the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Royce and Mr. Engel do a great job; the Judiciary Committee, the same way; the Armed Services Committee; the Homeland Security Committee; the Oversight and Government Reform Committee; as well as five additional Republican Members appointed by the Speaker and two additional Democrats appointed by the minority leader so it is truly bipartisan.

I appreciate the support I've received for this resolution from the original cosponsors, as well as the Heritage Foundation; former Senator from Tennessee, Fred Thompson, who was counsel on the Watergate Select Committee; former Ambassador John Bolton; and General Jerry Boykin, a former special operations officer and CIA operative who is widely respected in the intelligence community.

Mr. Speaker and Members of this body, we owe it to the families of the victims and the American people to fully investigate this terrorist attack. I urge my colleagues to support my resolution to create a House select committee.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

January 23, 2013.

Dr. Rajiv Shah,

Administrator, Agency For International Development,

Washington, DC.

Dear Dr. Shah: Ms. Barbara Bennett, acting deputy assistant

administrator for legislative and public affairs at USAID

recently sent a response to my December 11, 2012 letter to

you. I was disappointed you did not respond directly to a

Member of Congress who serves on a committee of jurisdiction,

especially given that my concern was budgetary in nature.

Just days after I received your response, Tunisian

authorities released Ali Harzi, a key suspect in the

September 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate and annex

in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans,

including the U.S. ambassador, and resulted in the

destruction of two U.S. facilities. This development is

completely at odds with USAID's assurances in the response

letter that ``. . . Tunisian authorities are cooperating with

the Department [State] through normal law enforcement

channels.'' Respectfully, I would also like to remind you

that I chair the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations

subcommittee which has jurisdiction over the Federal Bureau

of Investigation (FBI). Consequently, while Ms. Bennett

indicated that USAID ``could not provide further detail,'' I

am well-versed on the investigation and can say with

confidence that releasing Ali Harzi is an affront to U.S.

national security and rule of law, given the evidence of his

alleged involvement.

Furthermore, your assertion that U.S. assistance is

critical to ``Tunisia's successful democratic transition'' is

misguided. Tunisia is not transitioning successfully. I have

enclosed for your review a recent piece which ran in

Bloomberg Businessweek, ``Revolution and Entropy,'' which

paints a bleak picture of progress in Tunisia. A January 14

Reuters piece described large street protests in the capital

city during which protestors chanted, ``Where is the

constitution? Where is democracy?'' Democratic transition

aside, the Tunisian government, as evidenced by this most

recent development with Ali Harzi, is working at cross-

purposes with U.S. national interests.

During these tight budgetary times, when worthy programs

face constraints and cuts, our national priorities should

undergird our foreign assistance. The administration

continues to claim that bringing the perpetrators to justice

for the deadly attack on the U.S. consulate is a priority.

And yet its actions are inconsistent with such sentiments,

particularly in the case of Tunisia.

We must send a clear and unequivocal message to the

Tunisian government. U.S. aid must not be taken for granted.

U.S. national security considerations are a cornerstone of

our foreign policy. When those interests are undermined,

there are consequences.

I look forward to a personal response to this letter and

any future correspondence. Best wishes.

Sincerely,

Frank R. Wolf,

Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I submit a letter I recently sent to over three hundred national faith leaders encouraging them to use their platform and lend their voice to the cause of the persecuted church globally.

Dear Friend: Christians worldwide just celebrated the birth

of Jesus. For those of us living in the West, this was a

festive season marked by worship services, gift-giving and

time with family and friends. But for our brethren in the

Middle East, fear of persecution and outright violence or

even death cast a long dark shadow over the Christmas

holiday.

While most striking in the Middle East, given the ancient

roots of Christianity in that part of the world, the

challenges facing those believers are by no means isolated,

nor are they anything ``new under the sun.''

Ecclesiastes 4:1 says, ``I saw the tears of the oppressed,

and they have no comforter; power was on the side of the

oppressor.'' As you well know, oppression has marked the

church since its birth. Consider the chilling words of Roman

historian Tacitus regarding the early church:

``Besides being put to death they were made to serve as

objects of amusement; they were clad in the hides of beasts

and torn to death by dogs; others were crucified, others set

on fire to serve to illuminate the night when daylight

failed. . .''

Every day, around the world, men and women of faith are

imprisoned, beaten, detained, tortured and even killed. The

book of Hebrews enjoins us to ``remember those in prison as

if you were their fellow prisoners, and those who are

mistreated as if you yourselves were suffering.'' Do we

suffer with our brethren? Have we in the West ceased to be

salt and light?

Consider that on our watch a historic exodus of Christians

from the Middle East is underway--an exodus fueled by

persecution.

German Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer, faced with the

tyranny and horror of Nazism, famously said, ``Silence in the

face of evil is itself evil. Not to speak is to speak. Not to

act is to act.''

And that is precisely what many in the church did, or

failed to do, as Hitler unleashed his murderous plans. I

recently encountered this haunting account by a German

Christian in the book When a Nation Forgets God:

``I lived in Germany during the Nazi Holocaust. I

considered myself a Christian. We heard stories of what was

happening to the Jews, but we tried to distance ourselves

from it, because, what could anyone do to stop it?

A railroad track ran behind our small church and each

Sunday morning we could hear the whistle in the distance and

then the wheels coming over the tracks. We became disturbed

when we heard the cries coming from the train as it passed

by. We realized that it was carrying Jews like cattle in the

cars!

Week after week the whistle would blow. We dreaded to hear

the sound of those wheels because we knew that we would hear

the cries of the Jews en route to a death camp. Their screams

tormented us.

We knew the time the train was coming and when we heard the

whistle blow we began singing hymns. By the time the train

came past our church we were singing at the top of our

voices. If we heard the screams, we sang more loudly and soon

we heard them no more.

Years have passed and no one talks about it anymore. But I

still hear that train whistle in my sleep. God forgive me;

forgive all of us who called ourselves Christians and yet did

nothing to intervene.''

The parallels are imperfect but the sentiments are the

same. Has our comfort led to complacency? Can the church in

the West be galvanized to act?

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 awaits the ancient Christian

community in these same lands. Iraq's Christian population

has fallen from as many as 1.4 million in 2003 to between

500,000 and 700,000 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.

In Egypt with the ascent of the Muslim Brotherhood, Coptic

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

droves. Ironically, some 2,000 years ago, the Holy Family

sought refuge in this same land from the murderous aims of

King Herod.

In the midst of devastating bloodshed in Syria, the

Christian population is particularly vulnerable. A recent ABC

News story reported, ``They [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, was virtually emptied of Jews. The same

thing will happen to the Christian community if the current

trajectory holds true. And yet, the silence of many in the

West is deafening. Such stories receive scant attention in

the mainstream media, and perhaps more strikingly, are rarely

spoken of from our pulpits.

A recent study on Christian persecution released by the

British-based think tank Civitas explained the media's

seeming ambivalence this way: ``Parts 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.''

And yet, we in the church ought to know better. 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.

So how do we account for the Church's indifference? Is it

political correctness? Lack of awareness? What tragedy must

befall this community before we are propelled to act?

The persecution plaguing the Middle East is no exception.

Christians are targeted throughout the world in countries

like China, Vietnam and Pakistan. According to the Civitas

study, ``More Christians are imprisoned in China than in any

other country in the world.'' If the faith community in the

West isn't engaged, are we surprised when government leaders

turn a blind eye to matters of religious freedom?

Consider the following: bipartisan legislation to create a

special envoy position at the State Department charged with

advocating on behalf of religious minorities in the Middle

East and South Central Asia overwhelmingly passed the House

of Representatives more than a year and a half ago. But it

remained stalled in the Senate as a result of State

Department opposition and the refusal of the chairman of the

Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and presumptive secretary

of state, John Kerry, to even hold a hearing on the

legislation.

I have had the privilege of meeting individuals who boldly

follow Jesus despite unbelievably hostile circumstances.

Shabbaz Bhatti, Pakistan's federal minister for minority

affairs, and the only Christian Member of the cabinet and an

outspoken critic of his country's blasphemy laws, was one

such man. On March 2, 2011 he was murdered, his car riddled

with bullets, leaving his mother's house for work. In a video

filmed shortly before his assassination (accessible on my Web

site at http://wolf.house.gov/bhattivideo), Bhatti appears to

sense that the path he has chosen will come with a price.

When asked about the threats against his life, he said,

without malice or fear, ``I believe in Jesus Christ who has

given his own life for us. I know what is the meaning of

[the] cross. And I am following the cross. And I am ready to

die for a cause.'' And so he did.

The book of Proverbs tells us to ``Speak up for those who

cannot speak for themselves . . .'' Bhatti can no longer

speak. The Chinese bishop under house arrest cannot speak.

The North Korean believer enslaved in the gulag can't speak.

The Iraqi nun fearing for her life cannot speak.

Will we be their voice? Martin Luther King, Jr. famously

said, ``In the end, we will remember not the words of our

enemies, but the silence of our friends.'' Are we not their

friends?

The Church globally is under assault. Our response must not

be to simply sing more loudly, thereby drowning out the cries

for help from our brothers and sisters. Rather we must speak

out, advocate and act on their behalf.

From my perspective the Church in the West, specifically in

America, is failing in this regard. Can you, as a leader in

the Church, help? Are you pained by these accounts of

persecution? Do you have ideas about how best to respond?

Will you use your sphere of influence to raise the profile of

this issue--be it through a sermon, writing or media

interview? I welcome your thoughts and invite your engagement

in this monumental task.

Next week, when Congress reconvenes, I intend to

reintroduce the special envoy legislation and press for

passage in both houses of Congress. I don't pretend to think

that a special envoy will single-handedly solve the problem,

but it certainly can't hurt to have a high-level person

within the State Department bureaucracy who is exclusively

focused on the protection and preservation of these ancient

communities. Furthermore, to do nothing is simply not an

option.

We in the West must speak out on behalf of the persecuted

church around the world.

Best wishes.

Sincerely,

Frank R. Wolf,

Member of Congress.

P.S. I know you are busy and have so many competing

priorities but your involvement could really make a

difference in the lives of believers around the world.

Mr. Speaker, today I have reintroduced my resolution to establish a House Select Committee on the Terrorist Attack in Benghazi to ensure a unified investigation of the attack and the Obama Administration's response. A select committee is essential to combine the myriad existing investigations into a single, comprehensive and exhaustive review. I believe such a combined effort will yield even more information regarding the true nature of these terrorist attacks and the administration's response.

More than four months have passed since the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate and annex that occurred during the late evening and early morning hours of September 11-12. The attack took the lives of four Americans, including a U.S. ambassador--the first ambassador to be killed in the line of duty since 1979. Yet the American people still have been told little about the timeline of this attack and the administration's response in the hours, days and weeks following. Consider that the American people still haven't been provided answers to the following serious questions:

With the inexplicable release of suspect Ali Harzi by Tunisian authorities earlier this month, why are there no suspects in custody?

Secretary Clinton, Secretary Panetta, Attorney General Holder and DNI Clapper still haven't testified before Congress--what steps did they take during the attack and in the days that followed?

What were the President's activities during the seven-hour period of attack?

Why wasn't the U.S. military deployed to assist? On the anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in American history, after multiple attacks this year on U.S. and Western interests, why were U.S. military units and assets in the region not ready, alert and positioned to respond? After all, two of the four people were killed seven hours after fighting began.

Why do we still not have clear answers on the internal process that produced the inaccurate talking points on which Ambassador Rice relied several days after the attack?

Why were the testimonies of the U.S. personnel who were evacuated from Benghazi on September 12--eyewitnesses who knew there never was a demonstration outside the Consulate--not immediately factored in to the judgments of our intelligence community?

Why wasn't Secretary Clinton interviewed by the Pickering Commission?

Was the White House aware of the FBI investigation of Gen. Petraeus? If not, why not?

There are also serious questions about links of this terrorist attack to the protests at the U.S. embassies in Cairo, Egypt, Tunis, Tunisia and Sanaa, Yemen that same week--where each American compound was breached by individuals allegedly linked to al Qaeda-affiliated groups. What, if any, were the connections between these incidents and the attack in Benghazi?

These questions are too serious--and the consequences too grave--to be brushed aside. There are critical legislative decisions the next Congress will have to make based on the answers of these questions. But more importantly, the American people deserve answers to these questions--including open hearings and an unclassified report.

The select committee I am proposing should draw from the existing congressional investigations by including the chairman and ranking member of each committee of jurisdiction--Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, Judiciary, Armed Services, Homeland Security and Oversight and Government Reform--as well as five additional Republicans appointed by the Speaker and two additional Democrats appointed by the Minority Leader.

I appreciate the support I have received for this resolution from the original cosponsors, as well as the Heritage Foundation. I also submit for the record a recent op-ed that was published on RealClearPolitics.com by former Senator Fred Thompson articulating the benefits of a unified select committee. Senator Thompson has a unique perspective on the need for this committee given his experience as counsel on the Senate select committee on Watergate.

Mr. Speaker, we owe it to the families of the victims, and the American people, to fully investigate this terrorist attack. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

[From RealClearPolitics.com, Nov. 28, 2012]

Investigating Benghazi: Why We Need a Select Committee

(By Fred Thompson)

As we fixate on the latest version of Gen. David Petraeus'

testimony or the misleading statements of Susan Rice, I

suggest that we stop and think about the size of what we are

dealing with. The Benghazi tragedy raises questions

concerning the protection of our embassies, the performance

and capabilities of our military and our intelligence

community, as well as the decisions of high-ranking officials

in the Department of Defense, the State Department, the White

House and possibly the Justice Department.

The scope of the questions that involve an array of

officials, and sensitive agencies and departments of our

government, is unprecedented. The inquiry into what happened

and why, along with who is or should be accountable, calls

for a focused, responsible effort equal to the seriousness

and the complexities the issues.

I've seen this rodeo before, both in a constructive manner

(Watergate, where I served as a counsel) and a less-than-

constructive one (Clinton-era investigations, where I chaired

a committee that probed at least one facet of the various

scandals). On our present course, the prospects for a

relatively short but thorough, credible, bipartisan

congressional investigation are not good. The prospects for a

disjointed, drawn-out mess, replete with partisan bickering,

are much better.

It is easy to identify at least eight congressional

committees (four in each chamber) with claims of jurisdiction

in the Benghazi matter. No committee has jurisdiction over

all of it, and several committees have jurisdiction over

parts that overlap with the jurisdictions of other

committees. Some of the committee hearings will involve

classified information and will be conducted behind closed

doors. Members of ``Committee A'' will not know what a

witness told ``Committee B'' in a closed hearing. Gen.

Petraeus' recent appearance on Capitol Hill demonstrates how

difficult it can be to get a consistent story when the

witness is making multiple appearances before even the same

committee.

Perhaps not all committees with jurisdiction will have

hearings, but if half of them do it will produce competing

hearings, with competing staffs and competing press

conferences over much of Capitol Hill. It will also take

longer than necessary, as government officials shuffle back

and forth giving repeat performances. Different committee

chairmen and their committees will make different rulings on

document production, whether to move for immunity for

witnesses who refuse to testify on the basis of the 5th

Amendment, and a host of other matters.

This is simply not the most efficient and credible way to

proceed. And it is less likely to arrive at the truth. The

seriousness of the matter calls for something better. It

calls for a select committee that is given a specific

mandate, a budget and a cut-off date that can be adjusted if

it is agreed upon. It needs to be comprised of members of

both parties who have been selected by their leadership

because of their proven integrity, reputation for fairness,

and expertise in a given area.

In a matter fraught with political implications, it is

especially important that Congress accept its responsibility

and minimize partisanship as much as possible. History

demonstrates that this goal is much easier to achieve with a

handful of selected people than it is with many. Since 1789,

when Congress investigated a failed military expedition,

select committees have been utilized to serve such important

and sensitive functions, and the Benghazi matter should

follow in that long tradition, whether by means of a joint

committee of both houses of Congress or by either chamber.

Most select committees have become historical footnotes.

Some, however, are well remembered because of the

contribution they made to helping Congress carry out its

duties of legislating, overseeing the executive branch and

educating the American people as to the operation of their

government. Ironically, it is because of the success of these

panels that some members of Congress and others oppose the

formation of one in this case.

They say that forming a select committee for a matter such

as Benghazi, where a consulate and four American lives were

lost, would attach too much importance to the investigation.

They fear that it would be equating it with Watergate. Of

course, if the Watergate standard, as they define it, is now

the operative standard for the formation of a select

committee, then seldom, if ever, will another select

committee be formed.

Critics of the select committee miss the point on several

levels. First of all, if indeed a comparison is to be made,

one must look at the seriousness of facts and issues

presented concerning Benghazi and compare them with the

seriousness of facts and issues presented at the times when

other select committees, such as Watergate, were formed. So

compare the Watergate burglary with what we have here. Can

there be any doubt that Benghazi passes the Watergate test?

The wisdom of utilizing a select committee should not just

be judged on the outcome of the committee's work; dramatic

results are not always achieved or warranted. The select

Watergate Committee is a beneficial reference point, not

because of the end result of its investigation a year and a

half after it was formed, but because of the process Congress

utilized to deal with a difficult situation.

At that time, we had a Republican president and a Congress

controlled by the Democrats. Yet the Senate voted unanimously

to form the committee. Democratic leadership appointed Sen.

Sam Ervin, reputed to be the chamber's leading constitutional

scholar, to chair the committee. The Republican leader

appointed Sen. Howard Baker to be the vice

chairman and leading member of his party on the committee--a

senator who was respected on both sides of the aisle. These

men protected the legitimate partisan interests of their

respective parties and the path was not always smooth,

especially behind closed doors, but they understood that

their colleagues, as well as the nation, were depending upon

them to be responsible and seek the truth. Authority and

accountability were clearly placed on the committee, and its

members performed accordingly.

Select committees are not perfect creations by any means. A

clear narrative is often difficult to produce under any

circumstances. However, a select committee is simply much

more likely to produce focused and credible results. Soon we

will see if the United States Congress is still capable of

coming together toward the common goal of getting to the

bottom of a very serious matter. Or, are decisions about

select committees simply reflective of positions based upon

whose ox is in danger of being gored?

Mr. Speaker, today I am joining with my colleague Rep. Anna G. Eshoo in reintroducing legislation to create a special envoy position at the State Department to advocate on behalf of vulnerable religious minorities in the Middle East and South Central Asia.

In countries like Iraq and Egypt, ancient Christian communities are being driven from the lands they have inhabited for centuries. In Iran, Baha'is are imprisoned and some cases executed simply because of their faith. In Pakistan, Ahmadi graves are desecrated. In Afghanistan, a country where America has sacrificed greatly in both blood and treasure, the most basic right to freedom of religion or belief is not recognized in the constitution. This is but a snap shot of the grave challenges facing these communities.

If the international community fails to speak out, the prospects for religious pluralism and tolerance in the region are bleak.

Last Congress the House, to its credit, overwhelmingly passed, by a vote of 402-20, bipartisan legislation, H.R. 440, to create a special envoy position at the State Department charged with focusing on the plight of religious minorities in these regions. Sadly, in the face of State Department opposition, the Senate failed to act.

There is a historic precedent for special envoys--including the Sudan special envoy and the North Korea human rights special envoy--whose positions were created in response to an urgent need for focused attention on a critical issue. The dire challenges facing Coptic Christians, Baha'is, Chaldo-Assyrians, Ahmadis, the small remaining Jewish population and countless other religions minorities throughout the Middle East and South Central Asia is surely such an issue.

While there is no guarantee that a special envoy will be able to single-handedly solve the problem, it certainly cannot hurt to have a high-level person within the State Department bureaucracy who is exclusively focused on the protection and preservation of these ancient communities. Such an envoy would send an important message to both our own foreign policy establishment and to suffering communities in the Middle East and elsewhere that religious freedom is a priority--that America will be a voice for the voiceless.

President Reagan once said that the U.S. Constitution is ``a covenant that we have made not only with ourselves, but with all of mankind.'' I believe the United States has an obligation to speak out for the voiceless around the world and urge my colleagues to join me cosponsoring this critical legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today I am reintroducing legislation that would create a permanent inspector general for the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA).

My bill would amend the Inspector General Act of 1978 by creating a special post with the sole duty of providing long term oversight of MWAA. Only the U.S. Secretary of Transportation can appoint and remove the IG and no additional action from any jurisdiction on the state or local level is required for this position to be established. In addition, MWAA would be required to pay for the IG using its revenues, not taxpayer dollars.

I am reintroducing this legislation because I believe that due to the continued growth of the Dulles corridor, the Dulles rail project is the most important transportation project in the Commonwealth. It must be completed on time and at, or under, budget.

I appreciate Secretary Ray LaHood appointing an accountability officer to monitor the MWAA, but it is clear this entity, which is responsible for overseeing the entire construction of the Dulles rail project, requires a permanent IG to provide long term oversight of its actions.

Mr. Speaker, today I am reintroducing legislation to reduce the size of the board of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, MWAA, and provide Virginia a clear majority of the seats, given that both Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, Reagan, and Washington Dulles International Airport, Dulles, are located in Virginia.

The health of the airports and the Dulles Metrorail Extension project have an enormous impact on northern Virginia. I have often said that the Dulles corridor is the ``main street'' of Virginia. The number of businesses that have chosen to locate in this region is a testament to the strength of the airports and the services it provides as a hub for national and international travel. The success of the Dulles corridor, northern Virginia and the entire Commonwealth depend on MWAA being able to capably run the airports and the rail project.

I firmly believe that it is in the best interest of Virginia residents for the Commonwealth to have a majority of seats on the MWAA board to ensure that the airports continue to thrive, Dulles Rail is completed successfully and the Dulles Corridor will continue to be the economic engine of not only the National Capital Region, but the entire Commonwealth of Virginia. I stand ready to work with all interested parties to make sure that both the airports and the Dulles Rail project are successful.

Mr. Speaker, Members of Congress do not deserve a pay raise. I won't accept one. In fact, all of us should have our pay docked, as should the president. But that's not what this vote is about. It's time for members of both parties to stop attacking our Nation's hardworking civil servants.

Unlike other sectors of our society, since the beginning of 2011, federal employees, as a result of reduced compensation and benefits, have already made significant contributions to efforts to reduce our Nation's deficit. I know that every federal employee continually is willing to contribute to efforts that address our Nation's unfunded spending obligations and liabilities. However, they also rightly expect that others will join them in this effort.

The legislation before us could have a significant impact on our ability to recruit and retain qualified employees.

Has anyone fully considered the impact that a three-year pay freeze will have on the CIA, the NSA, the National Reconnaissance Office and the National Counter Terrorism Center?

Or the impact on the FBI, which has, since 9/11, disrupted scores of terrorist plots against our country?

Or the impact on our military, which is supported by federal employees every day on military bases across the Nation?

Or the impact on VA hospitals across the country, which are treating military veterans from World War II to today?

Or the impact on the Border Patrol?

Or the impact on NASA, its astronauts, engineers and scientists, especially on the nine-year anniversary of the tragic loss of the Columbia crew and a week after the 45th anniversary of the loss of the Apollo 1 crew?

Or the impact on NIH, and other federal researchers, scientists and doctors?

Clearly, federal employees don't just sit behind desks. They are members of our communities who are out in the field, often in harm's way, protecting our Nation. Within the last year, residents in northern Virginia mourned the loss of two federal employees who died in the line of duty--U.S. Park Police Sergeant Michael Andrew Boehm of Burke, and National Park Service Ranger Margaret Anderson, who previously worshipped in Lovettsville.

Their sacrifices remind us that many federal employees are often put in dangerous situations. Since 1992, nearly 3,000 federal employees have paid the ultimate price while serving their country, according to the Office of Personnel Management. The first American killed in Afghanistan, Mike Spann, was a CIA agent and a constituent of mine from Manassas Park. I attended his funeral. Over 100,000 CIA, FBI, DEA agents, and State Department employees have served side-by-side with our military to carry out the War on Terror in locations such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Three years ago, I attended funerals for some of the seven CIA agents who were killed by a suicide bomber at Forward Operating Base Chapman near Khost on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

Our Nation mourns the loss of the four Americans who died during the attack on the U.S. consulate and annex in Benghazi, Libya, U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stephens, U.S. Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith, and two former Navy Seals, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.

And we should not forget that the CIA agents who planned and helped execute the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden are federal employees.

Every day, Border Patrol agents and ICE agents are working to stop the flow of illegal immigrants, victims of human trafficking and drugs across our borders. Federal firefighters work to protect federal lands and mitigate the spread of deadly fires. Immediately following the December 2011 shooting at Virginia Tech, some of the first law enforcement officers on the scene were ATF agents. These are but a few examples of the vital jobs performed by federal employees.

Federal employees who are not in harm's way on a daily basis are also dedicated public servants. The medical researchers at the National Institutes of Health working to develop cures for cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, Lyme disease and autism are all federal employees. Dr. Francis Collins, the physician who mapped the human genome and serves as director of the NIH, is a federal employee. The CDC employees tracking steroid shots tainted with meningitis are federal employees. The USDA researchers who work with our farmers to find solutions for the invasive species that are destroying our crops are federal employees. The National Weather Service meteorologists who track tornadoes and hurricanes, as well as the FDA inspectors working to stop a salmonella outbreak, are federal employees.

The Nation's debt limit has been reached. We have annual deficits of more than $1 trillion. We are facing the prospect of across-the-board cuts to programs from the sequester. All of our Nation's fiscal problems could be resolved if the Congress had the will to pass the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles proposal, which I have long supported and have voted for.

I vote no.

Mr. Speaker, news reports from Afghanistan continue to show that U.S. policy is not working. For fiscal year 2012, the House provided the secretary of defense $1 million to establish the Afghanistan/Pakistan Study Group (APSG). Modeled after the successful Iraq Study Group (ISG), the APSG would be a bipartisan panel bringing together the best and brightest minds to provide solutions on how to assure a successful outcome in this troubled region. I have written President Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta over a dozen times asking that the APSG be established, so the American people will know that every effort is being made to address a faltering U.S. policy at a critical juncture. I submit for the Record the first part of a series of letters from August 4, 2010 through September 15, 2011 on this important topic. How can President Obama and Secretary Panetta, who served on the ISG, continue to claim that putting ``fresh eyes'' on U.S. strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan is a bad idea? Additional correspondence with the administration between October 3, 2011 and December 13, 2012 will follow tomorrow.

Hon. Barack H. Obama,

The President, The White House, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. President: On September 14, 2001, following the

catastrophic and deliberate terrorist attack on our country,

I voted to go to war in Afghanistan. I stand by that decision

and have the utmost confidence in General Petraeus's proven

leadership. I also remain unequivocally committed to the

success of our mission there and to the more than 100,000

American troops sacrificing toward that end. In fact, it is

this commitment which has led me to write to you. While I

have been a consistent supporter of the war effort in both

Afghanistan and Iraq, I believe that with this support comes

a responsibility. This was true during a Republican

administration in the midst of the wars, and it remains true

today.

In 2005, I returned from my third trip to Iraq where I saw

firsthand the deteriorating security situation. I was deeply

concerned that Congress was failing to exercise the necessary

oversight of the war effort. Against this backdrop I authored

the legislation that created the Iraq Study Group (ISG). The

ISG was a 10-member bipartisan group of well-respected,

nationally known figures who were brought together with the

help of four reputable organizations--the U.S. Institute for

Peace, the Center for the Study of the Presidency, the Center

for Strategic and International Studies, and the Baker

Institute for Public Policy at Rice University--and charged

with undertaking a comprehensive review of U.S. efforts

there. This panel was intended to serve as ``fresh eyes on

the target''--the target being success in Iraq.

While reticent at first to their credit President Bush,

State Secretary Rice and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld came to

support the ISG, ably led by bipartisan co-chairs, former

Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee

Hamilton. Two members of your national security team,

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and CIA Director Leon

Panetta, saw the merit of the ISG and, in fact, served on the

panel. Vice President Biden, too, then serving in the Senate,

was supportive and saw it as a means to unite the Congress at

a critical time. A number of the ISG's recommendations and

ideas were adopted. Retired General Jack Keane, senior

military adviser to the ISG, was a lead proponent of ``the

surge,'' and the ISG referenced the possibility on page 73.

Aside from the specific policy recommendations of the panel,

the ISG helped force a moment of truth in our national

conversation about the war effort.

I believe our nation is again facing such a moment in the

Afghanistan war effort, and that a similar model is needed.

In recent days I have spoken with a number of knowledgeable

individuals including former senior diplomats, public policy

experts and retired and active military. Many believe our

Afghanistan policy is adrift, and all agreed that there is an

urgent need for what I call an Afghanistan-Pakistan Study

Group (APSG). We must examine our efforts in the region

holistically, given Pakistan's strategic significance to our

efforts in Afghanistan and the Taliban's presence in that

country as well, especially in the border areas.

This likely will not come as a surprise to you as commander

in chief. You are wall acquainted with the sobering

statistics of the past several weeks--notably that July

surpassed June as the deadliest month for U.S, troops. There

is a palpable shift in the nation's mood and in the halls of

Congress. A July 2010 CBS news poll found that 62 percent of

Americans say the war is going badly in Afghanistan, up from

49 percent in May. Further, last week, 102 Democrats voted

against the war spending bill, which is 70 more than last

year, and they were joined by 12 Members of my own party.

Senator Lindsay Graham, speaking last Sunday on CNN's ``State

of the Union,'' candidly expressed concern about an ``unholy

alliance'' emerging of anti-war Democrats and Republicans.

I have heard it said that Vietnam was not lost in Saigon;

rather, it was lost in Washington. While the Vietnam and

Afghanistan parallels are imperfect at best, the shadow of

history looms large. Eroding political will has

consequences--and in the case of Afghanistan, the stakes

could not be higher. A year ago, speaking before the Veterans

of Foreign War National Convention, you rightly said, ``Those

who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If

left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even

larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more

Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting . . .

this is fundamental to the defense of our people.'' Indeed it

is fundamental. We must soberly consider the implications of

failure in Afghanistan. Those that we know for certain are

chilling--namely an emboldened al-Qaeda, a reconstituted

Taliban with an open staging ground for future worldwide

attacks, and a destabilized, nuclear-armed Pakistan.

Given these realities and wavering public and political

support, I urge you to act immediately, through executive

order, to convene an Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group modeled

after the Iraq Study Group. The participation of nationally

known and respected individual's is of paramount importance.

Among the names that surfaced in my discussions with others,

all of whom more than meet the criteria described above, are

ISG co-chairs Baker and Hamilton; former Senators Chuck Robb,

Bob Kerrey and Sam Nunn; former Congressman Duncan Hunter,

former U.S. ambassador Ryan Crocker; former Secretary Of

Defense James Schlesinger, and General Keane. These harms are

simply suggestions among a cadre of capable men and women, as

evidenced by the make-up of the ISG, who would be more than

up to the task.

I firmly believe that an Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group

could reinvigorate national confidence in how America can be

successful and move toward a shared mission in Afghanistan.

This is a crucial task. On the Sunday morning news shows this

past weekend, it was unsettling to hear conflicting

statements from within the leadership of the administration

that revealed a lack of clarity about the end game in

Afghanistan. How much more so is this true for the rest of

the country? An APSG is necessary for precisely that reason.

We are nine years into our nation's longest running war and

the American people and their elected representatives do not

have a clear sense of what we are aiming to achieve, why it

is necessary and how far we are from attaining that goal.

Further, an APSG could strengthen many of our NATO allies in

Afghanistan who are also facing dwindling public support, as

evidenced by the recent Dutch troop withdrawal, and would

give them a tangible vision to which to commit.

Just as was true at the time of the Iraq Study Group, I

believe that Americans of all political viewpoints, liberals

and conservatives alike, and varied opinions on the war will

embrace this ``fresh eyes'' approach. Like the previous

administration's support of the Iraq Study Group, which

involved taking the group's members to Iraq and providing

high-level access to policy and decision makers, I urge you

to embrace an Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group. It is always

in our national interest to openly assess the challenges

before us and to chart a clear course to success.

As you know, the full Congress comes back in session in

mid-September--days after Americans around the country will

once again pause and remember that horrific morning nine

years ago when passenger airlines became weapons, when the

skyline of one of America's greatest cities was forever

changed, when a symbol of America's military might was left

with a gaping hole. The experts with whom I have spoken in

recent days believe that time is of the essence In moving

forward with a study panel, and waiting for Congress to

reconvene is too long to wait. As such, I am hopeful you will

use an executive order and the power of the bully pulpit to

convene this group in short order, and explain to the

American people why it is both necessary and timely. Should

you choose not to take this path, respectfully, I intend to

offer an amendment by whatever vehicle necessary to mandate

the group's creation at the earliest possible opportunity.

The ISG's report opened with a letter from the co-chairs

that read, ``There is no magic formula to solve the problems

of Iraq. However, there are actions that can be taken to

improve the situation and protect American interests.'' The

same can be said of Afghanistan.

I understand that you are a great admirer of Abraham

Lincoln. He, too, governed during a time of war, albeit a war

that pitted brother against brother, and father against son.

In the midst of that epic struggle, he relied on a cabinet

with strong, often times opposing viewpoints. Historians

assert this served to develop his thinking on complex

matters. Similarly, while total agreement may not emerge from

a study group for Afkhanistan and Pakistan, I believe that

vigorous, thoughtful and principled debate and discussion

among some of our nation's greatest minds on these matters

will only serve the national interest. The biblical

admonition that iron sharpens iron rings true.

Best wishes.

Sincerely,

Frank R. Wolf,

Member of Congress.

P.S. We as a nation must be successful in Afghanistan. We

owe this to our men and women in the military serving in

harm's way and to the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Jay Pierson, the longtime floor assistant to Speakers Gingrich, Hastert and Boehner, who will be retiring at the end of the 112th Congress.

It's fair to say that no one knows more about legislative procedure and the workings of the House than Jay. His retirement will leave an irreplaceable void in the institutional memory of this chamber.

Jay started working in the House two years before my election in 1980 and I have relied on his assistance throughout my time here. In fact, whenever my staff had legislative questions, our answer usually started with the exclamation: ``Let's call Jay!'' And when you called him, you could always rely on his expert advice.

In addition to his wealth of legislative knowledge, Jay is just an all-around terrific person who is unfailingly helpful and ready with a smile. It is these qualities that earned him the respect of members on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, it is an understatement to say that the Republican cloakroom and floor won't be the same without him. I am grateful for Jay's career of service to our country and wish him all the best in his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Kentucky, Mr. Rogers, and I share the sad news of the passing of our colleague, David O'Brien Martin, originally of Canton, New York, who died with his wife Dana by his side on November 20 at his home in Hedgesville, West Virginia, at the age of 68.

Representative Martin is survived by his children, Victoria (Duskas), Kelly (Bridges) and Julia (Bassett); two grandchildren, Jacqueline Victoria and William O'Brien; a stepson Michael McGee, a stepdaughter Kimberly Travis and, shared with his wife, eleven grandchildren and a great-granddaughter. He is also survived by several nieces and nephews.

Congressman Martin, who was a commissioned officer in the Marine Corps and served in Vietnam, will be interned at Arlington National Cemetery on January 4, 2013.

We had the honor of being elected to Congress with Dave in 1980 as part of the Reagan wave. He served on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and on the Armed Services Committee, where he was the senior Republican on the Military Installations Subcommittee and vice chair of the Morale, Welfare and Recreational Panel.

Dave O'B. Martin will be remembered for his indelible footprint on the North Country, where his efforts led to the revitalization of Fort Drum and the reactivation of the Army's storied light infantry division, the 10th Mountain Division. It has been reported that his efforts led to an influx of over $1.3 billion to the local economy to construct the post.

We also submit for the record an article by The Watertown Daily Times further noting his service to the North Country and the nation.

Dave O'B. Martin served with us for six terms before electing to retire.

Dave enjoyed history, particularly related to the Civil War. He will be remembered for his friendly demeanor and storytelling ability.

We offer our heartfelt thoughts and prayers to Dana and his family.

[From the Watertown Daily Times,

Nov. 23, 2012]

Martin, Former North Country Congressman, Dies at 68

(By Roger Dupuis)

David O'Brien Martin's roots in the north country ran deep.

His legacy may run deeper still.

The former Republican congressman, who represented the

north country from 1981 to 1993, died Tuesday night at his

home in Hedgesville, W.Va. He was remembered by friends and

colleagues for his commitment to serving the region, perhaps

best exemplified by his efforts to bring the 10th Mountain

Division to Fort Drum in the 1980s.

``For those of us in the north country, his work truly

changed our lives,'' said Secretary of the Army John M.

McHugh--who, like Mr. Martin, formerly represented the region

in Congress.

Mr. Martin, 68, was with his family and under hospice care

when he died, said Steven M. Cary of O'Leary Funeral Service

in Canton. The cause of death was not disclosed.

Services are scheduled for next week in West Virginia,

followed by calling hours Dec. 3 at O'Leary, 5821 Route 11,

Mr. Cary said. Mass will be said Dec. 4 at St. Mary's-

Catholic Church, 66 Court St., Canton. Burial plans were not

finalized as of Thursday evening, he said.

Mr. Martin served in Vietnam, and was a commissioned

officer in the U.S. Marine Corps. A graduate of the

University of Notre Dame, he resumed his studies upon

returning to civilian life. He earned a law degree from

Albany Law School in 1973, the same year he was elected to

the St. Lawrence County Board of Legislators.

Following three years in county government, Mr. Martin rose

quickly, serving in the state Assembly from 1977 until the

end of 1980, the year he was elected to the first of six

terms in the U.S. House of Representatives.

It was just four years later, at the Watertown American

Legion post, that Mr. Martin broke the news that the storied

light infantry division would be reactivated in Northern New

York.

``His incredible effort to revitalize Fort Drum and bring

the 10th Mountain Division to our doorstep brought renewed

sense of vitality and purpose to the region,'' Mr. McHugh

said Wednesday.

More than $1.3 billion was spent on construction on the

post from 1985 to 1993, during Mr. Martin's tenure in

Washington, according to a 2006 Times article.

``He probably did more for the north country than anyone

has,'' said former Republican state Sen. H. Douglas Barclay,

Pulaski. ``It's a sad day for the north country. He was a

great guy, a great friend and a wonderful public servant,

both in the Assembly and in Congress.''

While in Congress, Mr. Martin was a member of the Committee

on Armed Services for 10 years, serving as senior Republican

member of the Military Installations Subcommittee and vice

chairman of the Morale, Welfare and Recreational Panel,

overseeing military commissaries, exchanges and related

activities. He also served on the House Permanent Select

Committee on Intelligence.

While Mr. Martin's commitment to the nation and the region

loom large, so do the contributions he and his family made to

St. Lawrence County. His father, Edson A. Martin, donated the

land for SUNY Canton in the early 1960s. The younger Mr.

Martin's longtime advocacy was honored by the college in 2006

with an honorary doctorate of laws.

``Congressman Martin was a wonderful supporter of SUNY

Canton and the north country,'' Interim SUNY Canton President

Carli C. Schiffner said Wednesday. ``He assisted the college

in many ways throughout his career, and he dedicated much of

his life to furthering the development of Fort Drum, our

schools and our communities.''

There was life after Congress for Mr. Martin. After

deciding not to run in 1992, Mr. Martin became a professor at

the Naval War College in Newport, R.I., and later an

executive with soft-drink trade groups. He founded a

government affairs, consulting and marketing firm in 2000.

It was in that role that then-SUNY Canton president Joseph

L. Kennedy observed Mr. Martin's clout and camaraderie first

hand during a visit to Washington.

``He was just known by everybody. He could walk us through

security without

waiting in line,'' said Mr. Kennedy, who stepped down this

fall after 19 years in the post. ``I admired his spunk.''

SUNY Potsdam also had cause to mourn the former

congressman, and to celebrate his accomplishments. Mr.

Martin's papers are held in the college archives, ``so that

all can remember and learn from his life's work,'' SUNY

Potsdam President John F. Schwaller said.

Times staff writer Brian Kelly contributed to this report.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share a speech I recently gave on the deteriorating situation in the Middle East particularly for religious minorities. Increasing violence, targeted attacks and heightened discrimination against Christians and other religious minorities in Iraq and Egypt, combined with longstanding abuses in Afghanistan and Pakistan, are among the many reasons why I introduced H.R. 440, bipartisan legislation that would require the State Department to appoint a special envoy to advocate for religious minorities.

More than a year has passed since the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed this legislation yet, today, both this bill and its Senate companion, S. 1245 are both languishing in the Senate. This is deeply disappointing. Even more disappointing is the fact that the State Department has urged Senator Jim Webb to oppose this bipartisan legislation and put a hold on it in the Senate.

Time is running out--both in terms of the legislative calendar for this year and in terms of the survival of these communities. Will a special envoy guarantee these communities' protection in the lands they have inhabited for centuries? No one can predict for sure. But I am certain that to do nothing is not an option--lest on the State Department's and Congress' watch we witness a Middle East empty of faith communities, foremost among them the beleaguered Christian community.

Here is the text of my recent speech:

Just one year ago my good friend, the late Chuck Colson was

given [the Edwin Meese Award for Religious Liberty] award for

his tireless efforts to promote religious liberty and human

dignity. His prophetic voice is sorely missed during these

trying times for our country. For these are indeed trying

times--times that demand men and women of faith to steel

themselves for the challenges ahead. Are we prepared to do

so?

I take inspiration from the German Lutheran pastor Dietrich

Bonhoeffer who, faced with the tyranny and horror of Nazism

gave his very life. And the British parliamentarian William

Wilberforce, who labored for decades, against seemingly

insurmountable odds, to abolish the slave trade in England--

ultimately inspiring abolitionist efforts in America. These

are just some of the giants on whose shoulders we stand.

Ecclesiastes 4:1 says, ``I saw the tears of the oppressed,

and they have no comforter; power was on the side of the

oppressor.'' Oppression has marked the church since its

birth. Consider the chilling words of Roman historian Tacitus

regarding the early church:

``Besides being put to death they were made to serve as

objects of amusement; they were clad in the hides of beasts

and torn to death by dogs; others were crucified, others set

on fire to serve to illuminate the night when daylight

failed--. . . .''

Are such trials reserved for the history books? Hardly.

Every day, around the world, men and women of faith are

imprisoned, beaten, detained, tortured and even killed. And

yet such stories receive scant attention in the mainstream

media--and perhaps more strikingly, are rarely spoken of from

our pulpits. The book of Hebrews enjoins us to ``Remember

those in prison as if you were their fellow prisoners, and

those who are mistreated as if you yourselves were

suffering.'' Do we suffer with our brethren? Have we in the

West ceased to be salt and light? Has our comfort led to

complacency? Consider that on our watch a historic exodus of

Christians from the Middle East is underway--an exodus fueled

by persecution.

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 and now less than 100 remain.

It appears a similar fate could befall the ancient

Christian community in these same lands. Iraq's Christian

population has fallen from as many as 1.4 million in 2003 to

between 500,000 and 700,000. Churches have been targeted,

believers kidnapped for ransom, families threatened with

violence if they stay. This reality is all the more sobering

considering Iraq's significance in Christendom. 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 Aramaics the language of Jesus.

In Egypt with the ascent of the Muslim Brotherhood, Coptic

Christians,

numbering roughly 8-10 million, are leaving in droves. And

the Middle East is far from being the exception. Persecution

is on the rise. The International Day of Prayer for the

Persecuted Church was earlier this month. Given the picture I

just painted, one would think the church in the West would be

galvanized. But how many churches marked this occasion with

even a passing mention? If the faith community isn't engaged

are we surprised when our government leaders turn a blind eye

to matters of religious freedom?

Consider the following: Bipartisan legislation to create a

Special Envoy position at the State Department charged with

advocating on behalf of religious minorities in the Middle

East and South Central Asia overwhelmingly passed the House a

year and a half ago. But it has remained stalled in the

Senate as a result of State Department opposition and the

refusal of Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John

Kerry, rumored to be in the running for Secretary of State or

Defense, to even hold a hearing on the legislation.

Day in, day out I have the privilege of meeting individuals

who boldly follow Jesus despite unbelievably hostile

circumstances. Shabbaz Bhatti, Pakistan's Federal Minister

for Minority Affairs, and the only Christian Member of the

cabinet and an outspoken critic of his country's blasphemy

laws, was one such man. On March 2, 2011 he was murdered, his

car riddled with bullets, leaving his mother's house for

work. In a video filmed shortly before his assassination,

Bhatti appears to sense that the path he has chosen will come

with a price.

When asked about the threats against his life, he said,

without malice or fear, ``I believe in Jesus Christ who has

given his own life for us. I know what is the meaning of

[the] cross. And I am following the cross. And I am ready to

die for a cause.'' And so he did.

The book of Proverbs tells us to ``Speak up for those who

cannot speak for themselves. . . .'' Bhatti can no longer

speak. The Chinese bishop under house arrest cannot speak.

The North Korean enslaved in the gulag cannot speak. The

Iraqi nun fearing for her life cannot speak.

Will we be their voice? Martin Luther King famously said,

``In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies,

but the silence of our friends.'' Are we not their friends?

America's Founding Fathers grounded our own experiment in

self-governance in the notion that liberty comes from God and

that all human life is sacred. As part of this equation,

religious freedom was the ``first freedom.'' The ideas set

forth in Philadelphia on that hot summer day were

simultaneously ancient and revolutionary--they are grounded

in historic Judeo-Christian teachings.

Nearly 25 years ago these very ideas were a source of

inspiration to the democracy marchers in Tiananmen Square.

Ronald Reagan famously spoke of our founding documents as a

covenant we made with the world--a promise that transcended

time and place. I fear that covenant is in jeopardy.

America's influence is waning. Our once ``shining city''

appears dim. And we have lost our voice on behalf of the

oppressed. And yet, dissidents still seek refuge in our

embassies, the persecuted seek safe haven on our shores. To

them the promise of American exceptionalism is no mere

philosophical debate; it is the difference between life and

death. They cling to the promise even as our own leaders have

abandoned it. And so, seeking to preserve that covenant that

Reagan envisioned, it falls to men and women of faith to

carry the torch--to pray, to advocate, to act.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I submitted for the Record extensive correspondence I have had with the Obama Administration regarding the importance of creating the bipartisan Afghanistan/Pakistan Study Group (APSG). Today I submit for the Record the remaining correspondence I have had from October 3, 2011 to December 13, 2012. The very fact that President Obama and Secretary Panetta will not create the APSG is a disgrace.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, October 3, 2011.

Hon. Leon Panetta,

Secretary of Defense,

Washington, DC.

Dear Secretary Panetta, I am disappointed that your staff

was unable to meet with Ambassador Peter Tomsen to discuss

his book on Afghanistan and Pakistan. While I understand that

both you and Mr. Tomsen have busy schedules, I fear you and

your staff may be missing pertinent information and insight

that could help devise a successful strategy in South Asia.

You only need to read the headlines to see the erosion in

our relationship with the Pakistani military and intelligence

services. Recent comments from retiring chairman of the Joint

Chiefs Admiral Mullen have described how the Pakistani

military and Inter Service Intelligence agency actively

cooperate with two of the most deadly terror networks sowing

the seeds of destruction and chaos in Afghanistan. Ambassador

Tomsen's book, The Wars of Afghanistan provides detailed

information on the tribal structures and the realities of

Pakistani involvement with terrorist groups. I sincerely hope

that you and your staff will read his book.

I have also enclosed a column Mr. Tomsen wrote for the most

recent edition of World Policy Journal. I hope you and your

staff will find the piece informative.

The situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan grows more dire

nearly every day. I again ask that you use your authority to

create the Af/Pak Study Group. We owe nothing less to the men

and women making the ultimate sacrifice to ensure that we

have a long-term strategy for success in the region.

Best wishes.

Sincerely,

Frank R. Wolf,

Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Inova Loudoun Hospital, which celebrates 100 years of serving Loudoun County this year.

Inova Loudoun Hospital first opened as ``Leesburg Hospital'' on June 5, 1912 in a rented house on Market Street by Mr. P. Howell Lightfoot, Dr. William C. Orr, Dr. John A. Gibson and Mr. Horace Littlejohn. In 1997, due to the growing population in Loudoun County, ``Loudoun Hospital'' expanded and moved to the Lansdowne location where it currently exists today. The hospital again grew

to meet Loudoun County's emergency care needs with the opening of the Cornwall Emergency Department in 2003.

Today, Inova Loudoun Hospital is a 183-bed ``advanced acute-care hospital'' on two campuses, which offers a variety of specialties and employs over 1,500 people. In 2011 the hospital provided care for 12,010 inpatients, 66,953 emergency room visits, 2,637 births and a wide range of outpatient and ambulatory services to our community. In the summer of 2011, Inova Loudoun announced that it is once again expanding to better serve the Loudoun community with a redevelopment project to upgrade patient convenience, technology and building design.

I have had the privilege of working with Inova Loudoun and its excellent staff many times over the years. It is a wonderful organization and I have long been impressed by the hospital's commitment to serving our community and making health care more accessible for Loudoun residents.

I congratulate Inova Loudoun Hospital on reaching this remarkable milestone.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to remember a former member of my staff who lost his battle with cancer two weeks ago today.

Joe McNulty was my deputy press secretary and director of online communications. He worked for me from the summer of 2009 until this July, when he left to go to law school at the University of South Carolina. Joe was an important member of my staff and will be missed dearly.

Joe was an amazing individual and certainly left his mark on this world, as evidenced by the number of people who attended his memorial service at Immanuel Bible Church in Springfield, Virginia on December 10. Aside from family, friends and co-workers, classmates from high school and college were in attendance as were friends and neighbors of his parents, Paul and Brenda, and three sisters, Katy, Anni and Corrie.

People came from as far away as Spain for the service. There were friends from the church he attended and members of his college club soccer team. His principal from Robinson high school came, as did the school's choral director. The current U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was at the service (Joe's father was the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia from 2001-2006) as were several other assistant U.S. attorneys from the office and a number of U.S. Marshals.

Joe's passing also made Politico's Playbook, something everyone on Capitol Hill reads every day and Joe devoured every morning.

The service for Joe was deeply moving. The pastor of his church in Fairfax spoke at the service, as did the pastor of the church he started attending in South Carolina, where he was attending law school. Both talked about Joe's strong faith in the Lord.

Joe's best friend, Steve Brewer, talked about how they met as freshmen in high school and said Joe was the best friend anyone could ask for. He told a story about how on a recent birthday the Washington area was paralyzed by a massive snowstorm, yet Joe managed to dig out his car and drive across town so his best friend wouldn't be alone on his birthday. That spoke volumes of Joe's loyalty and the value he placed on friendship.

Joe's older sister, Katy, spoke on behalf of the ``McNulty Women.'' She reminisced about how she and ``Joey'' would play for hours on end as toddlers and that Joe was always a good sport about playing the things that his older sister always wanted. She also talked about how ``Joey'' cared about his sisters and always looked out for them.

His father, whom I have known since his days when he served on the House Judiciary Committee, described how Joe always put others first, even in his darkest hours. He emphasized how much Joe would want to thank everyone for all they have done for him through the years and for coming to his memorial service. He told a story about how as Joe was once being wheeled into an operating room he asked the nurses to stop so he could thank them and the doctors for all they were doing for him. One of the nurses said no one had ever done that before. That was Joe. Always putting others first.

Paul also stressed Joe's unwavering in his courage, especially as he received one piece of bad news after another yet always helped his family and friends get through all it. Paul said Joe referred to his courageous reaction to news about spreading cancer as ``a leadership moment.''

His family has carried on Joe's spirit, sending out this message a few days after the service: ``On behalf of all the McNulty's, I [his mother, Brenda] just wanted to say THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH for all of your selflessness over the weekend as you prepared, and on Monday for Joe's service. It was above and beyond anything we could ever hope for or imagine and we are so very grateful. . . . Every word spoken and every song sung ministered to us and to everyone there. So many people have been telling us that they appreciated the scriptures, were moved by the whole tone of the service, and gained a new appreciation for Joe and all he was about. We truly appreciate all you did to participate in the service and wish we could give you all a huge collective hug but mere words will have to do.''

I was honored to speak at Joe's service on December 10. Below are my remarks:

I am speaking today on behalf of my entire staff, who

worked with Joe and loved Joe. We extend our condolences to

Brenda and Paul and the rest of Joe's family.

Joe started in the Wolf office as an intern but left as a

vital part of our staff. He always wanted to be a prosecutor

like his father. That drove him.

I know my staff would have liked him to have abandoned

those plans for our own selfish reasons because of the

talents he brought to the office. He always pushed us to find

new and more creative ways to reach constituents. He was a

trend setter on Capitol Hill for communicating online. Other

offices would regularly reach out to him asking for advice.

He also was active in the Republican Communications

Association, serving as its treasurer and reinvigorating the

organization with great speakers and social events.

Joe brought an incredible work ethic to the office. No job

was too menial; no task insurmountable. He also had an

unbelievable reservoir of energy. There were nights that he

would play sports until the wee hours of the morning but be

at his desk first thing in the morning ready to conquer the

world.

He never really stopped working. My staff got an e-mail

from him just the other day making sure we had seen an

article on an

issue the office has put a lot of time and effort into.

Everyone who knew Joe well knew that he could be stubborn

at times--stubborn in a way you don't often find in his

generation; the kind of stubbornness that stems from deep

integrity and a willingness to fight for what he believed was

right.

It was this same quality that drove him to keep working

even during the toughest hours of his fight against cancer.

Even on the most challenging days, Joe would come in to the

office ready to work, and work hard. We practically had to

order him home to rest up. Joe had an uncommon drive and

commitment to public service.

Joe had an infectious smile and a great personality.

Everyone loved being with him and he was always setting up

office outings for the staff. In small Hill offices, where

everyone attended different schools, there are friendly

rivalries, particularly among Virginia schools.

Joe was part of the JMU mafia in the office, which at one

point outnumbered all the staff from other Virginia schools

and they never let anyone forget that, especially that JMU

once beat Virginia Tech in football. Joe was proud to be a

JMU Duke and volunteered with the JMU Alumni Association and

the JMU Politicos, the school's Capitol Hill networking

group.

Joe loved to eat, and for a little guy he could eat. He

holds the office record for eating six giant glazed donuts in

one day. One of his going away presents was donuts.

Joe also valued public service, which led him to take the

next step in his career: law school. Although we missed him

after he left our office this summer, we were so proud of him

for getting into University of South Carolina. He pursued his

dream of law school, daring to envision a future even when so

much was uncertain about the present.

I want to read from parts of an email Joe sent to the staff

on his last day in the office this summer:

``I just wanted to say thank you to all of you one more

time. It has truly been an honor and privilege to work with

all of you. I have learned so much working with all of you

over the past three years and each of you have encouraged me

and taught me lessons that I will never forget. I think it is

important for all of us to remember how blessed we are to

have the opportunity to serve our country. I know it's hard

to remember that on a daily basis but that is truly what you

are doing when you work for a member of Congress. You are

serving the people of your community and you ARE making a

huge difference.

``. . . My time on Capitol Hill has also taught me that

many people are really cynical and believe that all

politicians are corrupt. ``It's easy to reach a point where

you think that it's too hard to enact real change or get the

big things done. But this is a mentality I think we should

try to suppress. If you believe in something and you want to

enact change, then get in there and fight for what you

believe in. That's what public service is all about. If you

think you have good ideas that can help people, don't be

afraid to fight for them. Don't let the weekly scandal or

negative news story discourage you from trying to help people

or make a difference in your country.''

Joe wanted to make a difference. And he did. But it was a

life cut painfully short. Joe was a man of faith and

scripture tells us

In Ecclesiates 7:2

``For death is the destiny of every man the living should

take this to heart.''

We here today should take it to heart.

In Psalm 103:15, King David said:

``As for man, his days are like grass. He flourishes like a

flower of the field, the wind blows over and it is gone and

its place remembers no more.''

It's apparent even as the cancer attacked his body, that

Joe's soul was strengthened by his faith in Jesus, a faith

which only grew in the face of circumstance that would

dictate otherwise. In an e-mail to a staff member before

leaving last summer he wrote:

``There is no way I could have gotten through my bout with

cancer had I not had a foundation in Christ. Reading my Bible

was the one thing that gave me hope and encouragement when I

was in pain and sick.''

We grieve Joe's passing but we celebrate his life and know

he has entered eternal life with his savior and Lord. Our

goal should be to live a life of faith so that we can one day

join Joe in the House of our Heavenly Father.