Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day occurred earlier this week.

For many years I have cosponsored a resolution, introduced in multiple sessions of Congress, affirming the United States Record on the Armenian genocide.

From 1915 to 1923, over 1,500,000 people were murdered by the Turkish Ottoman Empire because of their Christian faith and Armenian ethnicity. To this day, Turkey continues to deny that the mass murder, rape, forced marches and deportations that occurred actually constituted genocide.

Raphael Lemkin, the Jewish legal scholar who coined the word genocide and tirelessly advocated for international law defining it and preventing it, was driven largely by what happened to the Armenians. He, and others after him, recognized that there is power in accurately describing these events so that future horrors, like the Nazi- perpetuated Holocaust and genocides in Bosnia, Cambodia, Rwanda and Darfur are prevented. Sadly, genocide and crimes against humanity are hardly relegated to the past--even today we see racially and ethnically motivated violence in Sudan's Nuba Mountains perpetrated by an internationally indicted war criminal--and the world does little.

This year's observance of the anniversary of the Armenian genocide is especially meaningful. In December 2011, the House of Representatives adopted H. Res 306, which I was pleased to cosponsor. The resolution calls on the Secretary of State to urge Turkey to end religious discrimination and return all Christian places of worship and religious artifacts to their rightful owners. Thousands of these sacred sites and artifacts were confiscated by the Ottoman Empire during and after the Armenian Genocide.

It is important that we take this time to remember the Armenian genocide, even though it occurred nearly a century ago. Only through such acts of remembrance can we hope to prevent future acts of genocide.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Chuck Colson who this past Saturday, ``slipped the surly bonds of earth'' to ``touch the face of God.'' I also submit for the Record his official obituary.

Chuck's family has lost a husband, father and grandfather. Many of us have lost a dear friend and brother. And, the Nation has lost a compelling, often-times prophetic voice with a winsome ability to speak truth with grace about some of the most challenging issues of the day.

Chuck's political instincts gave him a keen ability to effectively communicate with policymakers and politicians alike about matters of utmost import that are rarely given their due in the halls of Congress or the White House.

Chuck's personal journey, marked by redemption and grace, gave him a heart beyond pale for the prisoner, the down-trodden, and the forgotten among us.

Chuck's faith defined him--and inspired countless others.

He possessed a passion for shaping the next generation of leaders, for equipping them with the tools to articulate and defend a Christian worldview in the public square. This is among his greatest legacies.

In short, we have lost a giant.

As we mourn his loss, we take comfort in knowing that the heavens rejoice and Chuck is most assuredly hearing the words, ``well done, good and faithful servant.''

Chuck Colson, Founder of Prison Fellowship & Colson Center for

Christian World View, Dies at age 80

Lansdowne, VA., April 21, 2012.--Evangelical Christianity

lost one of its most eloquent and influential voices today

with the death of Charles W. ``Chuck'' Colson. The Prison

Fellowship and Colson Center for Christian Worldview founder

died at 3:12 p.m. ET today at the age of 80. After a brief

illness, Colson passed away at a Northern Virginia hospital

with his wife, Patty, and family at his bedside.

On March 30, Colson became ill while speaking at a Colson

Center for Christian Worldview conference in Lansdowne. The

following morning he had surgery to remove a pool of clotted

blood on the surface of his brain, and doctors determined he

had suffered an intracerebral hemorrhage. Though Colson

remained in intensive care, doctors and family were

optimistic for a recovery as he showed some signs of

improvement. However, Tuesday (April 17) Colson became

gravely ill when further complications developed.

A Watergate figure who emerged from the country's worst

political scandal, a vocal Christian leader and a champion

for prison ministry, Colson spent the last years of his life

in the dual role of leading Prison Fellowship, the world's

largest outreach to prisoners, ex-prisoners and their

families, and the Colson Center, a research and training

center focused on Christian worldview teaching.

Colson has been a central figure in the evangelical

Christian community since he shocked the Washington

establishment in 1973 by revealing his new Christian

commitment in the midst of the Watergate inquiry. In later

years Colson would say that because he was known primarily as

Nixon's ``Hatchet Man,'' the declaration that ` ``I've been

born again and given my life to Jesus Christ' kept the

political cartoonists of America clothed and fed for a solid

month.'' It also gave new visibility to the emerging movement

of ``born-again'' Christians.

Put Prison Ministry on the Church's Agenda

In 1974 Colson entered a plea of guilty to Watergate-

related charges; although not implicated in the Watergate

burglary, he voluntarily pleaded guilty to obstruction of

justice in the Daniel Ellsberg Case, which was prosecuted in

the acutely sensitive Watergate atmosphere. He entered

Maxwell Federal Prison Camp in Alabama in 1974 as a new

Christian and as the first member of the Nixon administration

to be incarcerated for Watergate-related charges. He served

seven months of a one- to three-year sentence.

Colson emerged from prison with a new mission: mobilizing

the Christian Church to minister to prisoners. He founded

Prison Fellowship in 1976; this would become perhaps his

greatest contribution to the Church and the world. Although

many local churches had ministered in nearby prisons for many

years, most observers would affirm that Colson and Prison

Fellowship truly put prison ministry on the agenda of the

church in a substantial way.

Colson's personal prison experience and his frequent

ministry visits to prisons also developed in him new concerns

about the efficacy of the American criminal justice system.

His founding of Justice Fellowship in 1983 helped make Colson

one of the nation's most influential voices for criminal

justice reform. His call for alternative punishments for non-

violent offenders was often effective because Colson's

conservative credentials enabled him to line up conservative

legislators in support of what had traditionally been seen as

a liberal set of reforms.

That passion and sense of obligation to God's calling and

to his fellow inmates took Colson into prisons several times

a year. He visited some 600 prisons in the U.S. and 40 other

countries, and built a movement that at one time extended to

more than 50,000 prison ministry volunteers. Often,

particularly in the early days of Prison Fellowship, he was

vocal in his disgust over the terrible conditions in the

prisons and the need for more humane conditions and better

access to religious programs.

Colson's advocacy for prisoners' religious rights took an

additional form in the late 1990s when he and Justice

Fellowship were at the forefront, lobbying legislators to

support the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons

Act (RLUIPA), both nationally and state by state. Colson's

and Justice Fellowship's work to bring an end to the

national scourge and shame of prison rape culminated with

the passage of the Prison Rape Elimination Act in 2003.

His 1987 book, Kingdoms in Conflict, was a best-selling

directive to the Christian community on the proper

relationships of church and state, and it positioned Colson

as centrist evangelical voice for balanced Christian

political activism. Although not as visible as others in the

frontline battles, Colson provided counsel to many of the

most-evident activists and had a strong influence on

Christian politicians who went to Washington in the 80s, 90s

and into the new millennium.

Recipient of the Templeton Prize

In recognition of his work among prisoners, Colson received

the prestigious Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion in

1993, donating the $1 million prize to Prison Fellowship. In

perhaps his most-eloquent and well-known speech, The Enduring

Revolution, given at acceptance ceremonies at the University

of Chicago, Colson encouraged the Church in the face of

troubling times:

``For history's cadence is called with a confident voice.

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob reigns. His plan and

purpose rob the future of its fears. By the cross He offers

hope, by the resurrection He assures His triumph. This cannot

be resisted or delayed. Mankind's only choice is to recognize

Him now or in the moment of ultimate judgment. Our only

decision is to welcome His rule or to fear it.''

Colson's other awards included the Presidential Citizens

Medal (2008, the second-highest U.S. civilian honor),

Humanitarian Award from Domino's Pizza Corporation (1991),

The Others Award from the Salvation Army (1990), several

honorary doctorates from various colleges and universities

(1982 1995), and Outstanding Young Man of Boston from the

Chamber of Commerce (1960).

Recognized as a champion for historic orthodoxy, Colson

ignited a controversy in the Protestant world in the mid-

1990s with his initiative to declare common ground with

conservative Roman Catholics in two documents called

Evangelicals and Catholics Together.

Provided Intellectual Support to Modern Evangelicalism

The evangelical-Catholic issue was just one in which Colson

brought intellectual vitality to popular Evangelicalism in

the last three decades. Many considered him a prophetic voice

for the evangelical community, and, perhaps, an intellectual

successor to theologian/sociologist Francis Schaeffer.

Perhaps in open recognition of that legacy, his magnum opus

was titled How Now Shall We Live? after Schaeffer's How Then

Shall We Live?

In all, Colson wrote more than 30 books, which have sold

more than five million copies. His autobiographical book,

Born Again, was one of the nation's best-selling books of all

kinds in 1976 and was made into a feature-length film. His

last book, The Faith, is a powerful appeal to the Church to

re-embrace the foundational truths of Christianity.

Colson was one of the Christian community's most sought-

after speakers, but he resolutely refused to establish a

speaker's fee. Colson donated all speaking honoraria and book

royalties to the ministry and accepted the salary of a mid-

range ministry executive.

In 1991 Colson launched BreakPoint, a unique radio

commentary that provides a Christian perspective on today's

news and trends. BreakPoint was aired weekdays on some 1,400

outlets nationwide with an audience of 8 million listeners.

But his heart was ever with the prisoner. He clearly never

forgot the promise he'd made to his fellow inmates during his

brief stay in prison that he would never forget those behind

bars.

In his later years, Colson focused full time on developing

other Christian leaders who could influence the culture and

their communities through their faith. The capstone of this

effort was The Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview, a

research and training center launched in 2009 for the

promotion of Christian worldview teaching. In addition to a

vast library of worldview materials, the Colson Center

provides online courses and serves as a catalyst for a

growing movement of Christian organizations dedicated to

impacting the culture.

In 2009, Colson was a principal writer of the Manhattan

Declaration, which calls on Christians to defend the sanctity

of human life, traditional marriage and religious freedom.

More than half a million people have signed the Manhattan

Declaration. Collaborating with other Christian leaders,

Colson aimed to launch other ecumenical grassroots movements

around moral and ethical issues of great concern.

Colson was born in Boston in 1931 and received a

scholarship to Brown University and went on to earn his law

degree at George Washington University in Washington. He

served in the Marine Corps from 1953 1955, becoming what was

at the time its youngest captain. He began his political

career in 1956, when he was the youngest administrative

assistant in the Senate, working for Massachusetts Senator

Leverett Saltonstall.

Although God worked through Colson to encourage Christians

around the world and serve many whom society would often

neglect, his greatest love and focus were his family. Colson

is survived by his wife of 48 years, Patty; three children,

Wendell, Christian and Emily; and five grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, I have been consistent in my support for comprehensive tax reform that lowers rates for individuals and businesses by eliminating the types of carve outs and deductions in the tax code that, as recently reported by The Hill, have let 26 Fortune 500 companies pay a negative tax rate over a four-year span. To be clear, that means these companies are getting paid by the government while hard-working men and women pay their taxes.

Something is very wrong with this picture. That is precisely the reason why we need real, long-term comprehensive tax reform. Last year, Senator Tom Coburn identified nearly $1 trillion in annual spending through the tax code through tax earmarks that benefit special interests such as video game developers, hedge fund managers, NASCAR, dog and horse tracks and ethanol producers. Unlike an earmark in an annual appropriations bill, these tax earmarks are far worse because once enacted they typically exist in perpetuity.

Using these extensive tax loopholes, General Electric (GE) paid no federal taxes in 2010. Yet, the Congressional Research Service has found that GE was honored by a Chinese newspaper for ranking 32nd among commercial service sector companies that paid taxes to China.

Let me repeat: GE paid no taxes to the United States, but was a significant source of tax revenue for China. China? China, a country that is spying on us, persecutes people of faith and has a long record of horrific human rights abuses.

Rather than putting forth true comprehensive tax reform--the type that would bring stability to the economy by providing certainty for job creators and families--both parties in both chambers have pushed political agendas instead of what is best for America.

The so-called ``Buffett rule'' the Senate attempted to pass earlier this week was defeated, and rightly so. Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus points out President Obama's pursuit of this policy ``is pure political stunt. . . . It won't pass. And even if that happened, it would have a negligible impact on the exploding debt--$4.7 billion a year, or less than four-tenths of 1 percent of this year's deficit--and take a tiny nibble out of income inequality.''

At a time when strong leadership is needed to address our nation's crippling debt, it is unfortunate that President Obama has continually failed to lead by example. He even walked away from the recommendations of his own bipartisan fiscal commission.

Unfortunately, the House today has done no better than the Senate or president. The Wall Street Journal, in an editorial today headlined Bipartisan Tax Gimmickry, candidly described the proposal before us as a ``gimmick'' and went on to say that Republicans ``would do more for the economy and their political prospects if they began to educate the country about sensible tax policy.''

The bill before us is a temporary, one-year proposal that will increase our debt by $46 billion, without an offset to pay for this additional deficit spending. I want to stress: $46 billion for a temporary, one-year proposal.

I want to remind my colleagues that two months ago Congress essentially wiped out the $95 billion in savings cut from the 2011 and 2012 appropriations bills when it approved extending the payroll ``holiday'' for another year at a cost of $93 billion.

We are now talking about adding to this spending for a total of $139 billion in temporary, one-year stimulus spending with no offsets; no way to pay for it.

We are already running trillion dollar deficits for the fourth straight year. We are $15.6 trillion in debt. We have unfunded obligations and liabilities of $65 trillion. Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee earlier this month posted a chart on its Web site showing that our debt at the end of 2011 was greater than the combined debt of the United Kingdom and the entire Eurozone.

We need look no further than the riots in Europe to see the destructive impact that results from the crushing reality of a government unable to deliver promised entitlements to its citizens. There have been riots in Belgium, Spain, France, Ireland, England, Italy, Latvia, and Greece. And yet we are considering another proposal that moves us closer to Europe's instability.

We are now spending $4.3 billion a week simply on interest to service the debt. And this is at historically low interest rates.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that by 2022 we're going to be sending $11.6 billion out the door each week to nations such as China, which is spying on us, where human rights are an afterthought, and Catholic bishops, Protestant ministers and Tibetan monks are jailed for practicing their faith, and oil-exporting countries such as Saudi Arabia, which funded the radical madrasahs on the Afghan-Pakistan border, resulting in the rise of the Taliban and al Qaeda.

And, unless we change course, according to the CBO's long term estimate, every penny collected of the federal budget will go to interest on the debt and entitlement spending by 2025.

Every penny. That means no money for national defense. No money for homeland security. No money to fix the nation's crumbling bridges and roads. No money for medical research to find a cure for cancer or Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease.

Quite frankly this borrowing is unsustainable, dangerous and irresponsible.

Given our nation's fiscal obligations, one must ask: Can we really afford another costly, one-year policy absent the needed comprehensive reform?

Why are we spending time on a policy that everyone knows has no chance of being signed into law as currently drafted? Could it be because, as recently reported by Politico, ``Congress is readying for a political fight with dueling tax votes this week that will define each party's priorities in this election year''?

The final paragraph of today's Wall Street Journal editorial noted that ``[t]he economy works best when investors and companies can operate under predictable policies that allow them to better judge their risks for the long term. Reagan-era officials understood this, but too many Republicans have forgotten. The U.S. economy doesn't need another tax gimmick. It needs a tax reform that includes a permanent cut in individual and business tax rates for everyone.''

The president and some on the other side of the aisle say that our debt crisis is because Americans are under-taxed. Like President Reagan said, and I believe, ``the problem is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is that government spends too much.'' There is no question that the real problem is overspending, especially on runaway entitlement costs and through hundreds of billions of so-called tax expenditures.

It is no secret that our inefficient and burdensome tax code is undermining consumer and business confidence, further weakening our fragile economic recovery. Comprehensive tax reform is needed now more than ever to rid our tax code of earmarks and loopholes that promote crony capitalism and let Washington pick winners and losers.

Two weeks ago I was one of 38 members to vote for the bipartisan Cooper-LaTourette substitute amendment to the budget, which was modeled on the work of the Simpson-Bowles Commission. The Simpson-Bowles Commission produced a credible plan that gained the support of a bipartisan majority of the commission's 18 members. Called ``The Moment of Truth,'' the commission's report made clear that eliminating the debt and deficit will not be easy and that any reform must begin with entitlements. Mandatory and discretionary spending also has to be addressed as well as other ``sacred cows,'' including tax reform and defense spending.

The Cooper-LaTourette substitute was a balanced and ambitious plan, that, while not perfect, was the type of bitter medicine necessary to address our deficit. There is never a convenient time to make tough decisions, but the longer we put off fixing the problem, the worse the medicine will be. Unfortunately, the amendment failed.

For nearly six years I have pushed bipartisan legislation to set up an independent commission to develop a comprehensive deficit reduction package that would require an up-or-down vote by the Congress. I have said that the enormity of the crisis we face demands that everything must be on the table for discussion--all entitlement spending, all domestic discretionary spending, and tax policy; not tax increases, but reforms to make the tax code simpler and fairer and free from special interest earmarks.

I have supported every serious effort to resolve this crisis: the Bowles-Simpson recommendations, the ``Gang of Six'' effort, and the ``Cut, Cap and Balance'' bill--including the Balanced Budget Amendment. None of these solutions were perfect, but they all took the steps necessary to rebuild and protect our economy.

But powerful special interests continue to hold this institution hostage and undermine every good faith effort to change course. And that's why we have these actions on the floor of the House and Senate instead of the much-needed proposal to enact comprehensive reform.

Mr. Speaker, I do not sign political pledges to special interest groups. My only pledge is the oath of office I take on the first day of each Congress. And that is why I cannot partake in this political vote that would further add to the deficit without dealing with the underlying drivers of our deficit and debt.

As The Hill reported this week: ``Republicans and Democrats are hurtling toward a fiscal cliff, but neither side wants to take the plunge.

``In less than nine months, Bush-era tax rates are scheduled to expire, hiking rates for the middle class as well as top income earners. At the same time, automatic spending cuts will kick in. The combination, coupled with the expiration of the payroll tax cut and other factors, would constitute a blow that analysts say could imperil the economic recovery and send America crashing back into recession.''

We need to simplify the tax code to lower tax rates. But we need to do it through real, comprehensive reform, not through a piecemeal approach that makes it too politically easy to ignore our overall finances. I vote ``present'' to bring attention to this point.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Millbrook High School Girls Basketball team, on becoming the only Virginia high school team that has ever won three consecutive State championships in girls basketball.

Earlier this month, the Millbrook Pioneers broke the 61-year-old Virginia High School League record by winning an unprecedented third state title with a victory over the Courtland Cougars. I commend the team for their hard work and their passion for basketball. I would like to extend a special thank you to Coach Debby Sanders who has led the team on the path to success.

I submit the following piece from the Winchester Star on the Millbrook Pioneers' record-breaking victory.

[Mar. 12, 2012]

Our View: Perfect Pioneers--Third Title ``Icing on the Cake''

Richmond.--Thirty minutes before her girls basketball team

took the floor in search of an unprecedented third straight

state title Saturday night, Millbrook High Principal Carrie

Butler was talking about cake.

No, Mrs. Butler was not hungry, at least not discernibly.

The cake she was rather nervously describing to Frederick

County School Board member Peggy Clark was purely figurative.

``I told Debby (Millbrook coach Sanders), `The cake is

sweet . . . with or without the icing,' '' Mrs. Butler said

to Mrs. Clark.

In other words, even if the Pioneers somehow came up short

of their 80th consecutive victory on the Siegel Center floor,

this ``cake,'' baked with care and love over the last three

winters, would not lose its ``sweet'' taste. Win or lose,

what the Pioneers had accomplished up to then--a record 79

straight wins, two state championships--was simply amazing.

Or, like the famous song or hit new TV drama,

``unforgettable.''

Nurturing principal that she is, Mrs. Butler was simply

erecting, through metaphor, a firebreak (or ``cakebreak''?)

against letdown. Courtland, the Pioneers' opponent, was also

entering the contest undefeated. And anything can happen in

sports, and often does--especially when two teams that have

not played each other previously collide.

Then again, this is Millbrook we're talking about. Which is

another way of saying, ``No need to worry. This is old hat.

The situation's well under control.''

And, indeed, it was.

The Pioneers spotted the Cougars the first four points of

the game, and traded buckets on a brace of ensuing alternate

possessions. But then it came, as predictable as the morning

sun. With Courtland leading 8-4, the Pioneers ripped off one

of their patented runs, this time to the tune of 20-4, to

double the score at 24-12.

The Cougars crept back to within eight at the half, 29-21,

and, after Millbrook stretched its lead to 37-23, they

managed to cut the margin back to single digits, at 37-28,

late in the third quarter. But then, as is their wont, the

locals ran away and hid, dosing out the game on a 10-0 spurt

to win 63-38.

The contest, though intensely played, had none of the drama

of the Pioneers' first two state titles, against Greensville

County (2010) when star Courtni Green hurt an ankle, or

Robert E. Lee last year. So schooled, so measured and yet so

relentless, these girls drain drama out of on-court

proceedings by sheer talent and will.

In fitting style, the team's trio of college-bound

standouts--Miss Green, Alisha Mobley, and Sara Mead--

dominated the stats sheet, all hitting double figures in

points. As dominant as Miss Green has been over four years,

amassing more than 2,600 points, on this night, it was the

``paint'' presence of Miss Mobley for whom the opposition had

absolutely no answer. She was unstoppable.

But then, consider this: So, too, have been the Pioneers,

with their seven seniors and an enviable bench used adroitly

by Miss Sanders.

As such, they've earned the right to revel. That previously

unblemished foe has been vanquished; the icing, too, has been

whipped. Let them eat cake. And so let us all--as we've just

witnessed something truly special, something worth

celebrating.

Mr. Chair, I will vote today for H. Con. Res. 112, authored by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, because we have a duty to address our nation's looming fiscal obligations. Simply put, we cannot continue to kick the proverbial can down the road.

When I came to the floor to vote for last year's budget, we were $14 trillion in debt. Today, we are $15.5 trillion in debt. It is projected we could be $17 trillion in debt by the end of the year and $21 trillion in debt by 2021.

This will be our fourth straight year of trillion dollar deficits. Four straight years.

We are currently spending 10 cents of every dollar on interest to finance the debt, even though we're borrowing money at historically low rates. If we realistically assume that rates will rise, we could be spending close to 1 out of every 6 dollars to finance the debt by the end of the decade. And that is under the best case scenario.

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

In 1970, 5 percent of debt held by the public was in foreign hands. In 1990, it was 19 percent. Today, more than 40 percent of our publically held debt is in foreign hands.

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

Quite frankly this borrowing is unsustainable, dangerous and irresponsible.

That is why I have been willing to make the hard choices to ensure a better future for our children and grandchildren. Every two years I take an oath to support and defend the Constitution. I do not sign pledges to lobbyists or special interest groups.

That is why I have been working with my colleagues, through my assignment as chairman of the House appropriations subcommittee that funds the departments of Commerce and Justice, to cut $95 billion in federal spending since the start of this Congress, including $11 billion from my subcommittee alone.

That is why I have repeatedly voted against the payroll tax holiday, which steals from the Social Security Trust Fund. The most recent extension alone took $93 billion and brought us nearly a month closer to the statutory debt limit. With just one vote in February, we practically wiped out all the $95 billion savings from the cuts enacted since Republican took back control of the House.

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

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

I was glad to have been joined in this effort by my good friend and colleague Jim Cooper of Tennessee. Our legislation served as the blueprint for the president's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, commonly referred to as the Simpson-Bowles Commission. I am pleased Mr. Cooper and Mr. LaTourette produced a full substitute amendment that I believe is the right way forward. I commend them for their work.

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

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

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

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

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

I regret that the bipartisan Cooper amendment failed. But since it did, today I'm voting for the Ryan budget.

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

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

I want to be clear: I would prefer for this House to pass the bipartisan Cooper-LaTourette budget, which is modeled on the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles plan. Even though there were some parts that I would have liked to change, I spoke in strong support of that budget proposal and continue to believe that it is the only plan that can pass the Senate. That proposal put everything on the table, and, more importantly, sought to achieve enough deficit reductions to turn off the need for the sequester that could be so harmful to our defense capabilities. But, again, as that bipartisan proposal failed to pass, I will support the Ryan plan.

I do not agree with everything in this proposal, and will work to improve future legislation. For example, I regret that this proposal does not offer more on ways to address Social Security and tax reform efforts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The budget also seeks to shore up our defense capabilities for the next year by finding alternative savings to prevent the across-the- board cuts that are coming in January as a result of the Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction's bipartisan failure of leadership, which, regretfully, represents the larger failure of the President and both political parties.

Another example of this failure of leadership is the decision by the Senate not to even offer a budget proposal. While the Budget Control Act, BCA, does not require a new budget to establish FY 2013 spending levels, the BCA was passed with the assumption that the so-called supercommittee on deficit reduction would be successful. We need to have a robust debate in the public arena as everyone works to mitigate the harmful cuts that will result from the coming sequester. It is an abdication of responsibility for the Senate to refuse to put forth a budget.

This budget recognizes that our fiscal challenges are too great to wait until the next election. We, as elected representatives, have a duty to lead. We have a duty to put forth ideas within the public sphere and engage in debate. I'm ready to make the tough choices today. I vote for the Ryan budget so that the House can get to work.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank Nina Shea, Dr. Don Argue, Dr. Richard Land, Dr. Elizabeth H. Prodromou and Felice Gaer for their service on the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF). These commissioners have made significant contributions to USCIRF's work on behalf of the cherished right of freedom of religion or belief, including its deeper integration into U.S. foreign policy and national security. Since its inception, the commission has served as a voice for the voiceless, championing the plight of those whose most basic rights are threatened.

I would especially like to recognize the tireless efforts of Nina Shea, who has served on the commission since its creation. As a stalwart advocate, prolific writer and subject matter expert, Nina has played an invaluable role on the commission and her leadership will be sorely missed. She was at the forefront of much of the commission's work on Sudan and she took a prominent role in shining a bright light on extremist Wahhabi ideology coming out of Saudi Arabia. Early on, Nina recognized the precarious plight of religious minorities, notably Christians in the Middle East, and sought to develop policy recommendations that would ensure their continued existence and flourishing in the lands they have inhabited for centuries.

As director of the Center for Religious Freedom and a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, Nina will undoubtedly continue fighting the good fight on behalf of persecuted people worldwide.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mercer Middle School in Aldie, Virginia, which recently finished a winter food drive.

As a result of this, Mercer students were able to donate 600 pounds of food to Loudoun Interfaith Relief, the largest food pantry in Loudoun County. I sincerely appreciate their efforts to address the serious challenge of hunger in our community.

As hard as it may be for some to believe, families are going hungry in Fairfax and Loudoun counties in northern Virginia. I have been meeting with the local food banks and pantries on a regular basis for the past several years and they all tell me demand is at an all-time high. In fact, families who used to regularly donate to some food pantries are now coming to receive food. One local pantry actually closed for several days last fall because its shelves were bare.

On March 23, I attended a wonderful event at Mercer where the students presented the food donations to Loudoun Interfaith Relief. I was impressed by their hard work and their service to their community. This service project could not have been possible without the support of Principal John Duellman and PTA President Karen Goodwin.

I congratulate all the students, teachers and parents who participated in Mercer Middle School's winter food drive.

Simon & Garfunkel said in the song ``The Boxer'': ``Man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.'' I tell the gentleman, I'm opposed to ObamaCare. I voted against it 26 times.

America is in trouble. America is facing economic collapse. We have $15.2 trillion debt, and by the end of this year when you hang your Christmas tree lights up with Christmas tree lights made in China, it will be at $17 trillion. We're borrowing money from China where there are 25 Catholic bishops under house arrest and hundreds of Protestant pastors under house arrest, and we're doing nothing about it. We're borrowing money from Saudi Arabia that funded the radical madrassas up among the Afghan-Pakistan border that led to 9/11, and that led to where we are, quite frankly, with regard to Afghanistan.

When I go into every high school in my district, I ask the young people, Is the Social Security system sound and will it be there when you retire? In the last 3 years, not one has raised their hand. The seniors in my congressional district know more than this Congress, and they know more than this administration. The President has walked away and has failed, and the Congress--both political parties--have walked away and failed.

I commend my friends, Mr. Cooper and Mr. LaTourette, and ask for a ``yes'' vote on the Simpson-Bowles Commission.

Mr. Chair, nearly six years ago--during the last Republican House majority--I introduced legislation to create an independent, bipartisan commission to address the deficit.

I called it the SAFE Commission, short for Securing America's Future Economy. Everything would be on the table for discussion--entitlements, all other spending programs and tax policy--and like the BRAC process, Congress would be required to vote up or down on the commission's recommendations.

My colleague and good friend Jim Cooper of Tennessee joined me in sponsoring this legislation in 2007 and in subsequent years. It ultimately became the blueprint for the President's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, more commonly referred to as the Simpson-Bowles Commission.

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

Had just three more members of the Simpson-Bowles Commission supported the recommendations, this plan likely would have passed the Congress and be law today. I was disappointed that the President, and his administration, walked away from the commission. The President failed the country. Leadership on both sides of the congressional aisle has done no better. This town is dysfunctional. If the plan had advanced, we would already be on our way in getting our nation's fiscal house in order.

Over the past year and a half I have repeatedly said that while there are some changes I would make, I would support a budget proposal similar to or based on Simpson-Bowles if it came to a vote on the House floor. I want to commend Mr. Cooper and Mr. LaTourette today for offering this substitute amendment, which was drafted using the bipartisan principals of the Simpson-Bowles Commission.

Simpson-Bowles provides the framework for the most comprehensive and realistic solution to our nation's fiscal problems. I have submitted the preamble of the Simpson-Bowles Commission report for the Record, which, I believe, is a worthy read as we debate the Cooper-LaTourette substitute.

Every Member of Congress and the President know the dire economic situation facing our country: a debt load over $15.5 trillion, annual deficits over $1 trillion and unfunded obligations and liabilities over $65 trillion on the books to pay for programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

We're borrowing this money from nations such as China--which is spying on us, where human rights are an afterthought, and Catholic bishops, Protestant ministers and Tibetan monks are jailed for practicing their faith--and oil-exporting countries such as Saudi Arabia--which funded the radical madrasahs on the Afghan-Pakistan border resulting in the rise of the Taliban and al Qaeda.

We always say we want to leave our country better than we found it, and to give our children and grandchildren hope for the future. Just today, noted historian Niall Ferguson testified before my subcommittee and said that, if we do not change course, the debt burden will not only crush our children and grandchildren but also the current generation in the very near future.

According to the Congressional Budget Office's long term estimate, every penny of the federal budget will go to interest on the debt and entitlement spending by 2025. Every penny. That means no money for national defense. No money for homeland security. No money to fix the nation's crumbling bridges and roads. No money for medical research to find a cure for cancer or Alzheimer's or Parkinson's diseases.

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

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

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

I am--and have been--willing to make the hard choices to ensure a better future for our children and grandchildren. Every two years I take an oath to support and defend the Constitution. I do not sign pledges to lobbyists or special interest groups.

If the Cooper-LaTourette substitute does not pass today, I will vote to support the Ryan budget proposal so that we may move the budget process forward and continue the necessary discussions to address our nation's financial crisis.

But I hope this substitute passes. It is a balanced and ambitious roadmap to address our deficit.

It also is the only truly bipartisan plan that is being offered, and, I believe, the only plan that has the opportunity to be approved by the Senate.

More important, this proposal calls for difficult decisions by finding savings to completely turn off the Budget Control Act's looming sequestration, which could devastate our defense capabilities.

As I mentioned earlier, I do not agree with every recommendation in the Simpson-Bowles plan. Nor do I support every part of the Cooper- LaTourette substitute. For example, I fully support efforts to repeal and replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and regret that Cooper-LaTourette is silent on the need to address this issue. I am also concerned about the instructions proposed for the committee of jurisdiction over the federal workforce. This could impact workers including the FBI and CIA agents serving in Afghanistan, CBP agents stopping illegal immigrants coming across our borders, the VA doctors caring for our veterans, and the NIH medical researchers working to develop cures for cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's and autism.

However, the Cooper-LaTourette substitute is the kind of bipartisan cooperation that we must have. It is the kind of forthright, realistic conversation about our nation's fiscal future in which we must engage across the aisle, across the Capitol and down Pennsylvania Avenue if we are to have any hope of coming up with a credible plan to protect the future for our children and grandchildren.

Every Member should support this substitute.

Preamble

Throughout our nation's history, Americans have found the

courage to do right by our children's future. Deep down,

every American knows we face a moment of truth once again. We

cannot play games or put off hard choices any longer. Without

regard to party, we have a patriotic duty to keep the promise

of America to give our children and grandchildren a better

life.

Our challenge is clear and inescapable: America cannot be

great if we go broke. Our businesses will not be able to grow

and create jobs, and our workers will not be able to compete

successfully for the jobs of the future without a plan to get

this crushing debt burden off our backs.

Ever since the economic downturn, families across the

country have huddled around kitchen tables, making tough

choices about what they hold most dear and what they can

learn to live without. They expect and deserve their leaders

to do the same. The American people are counting on us to put

politics aside, pull together not pull apart, and agree on a

plan to live within our means and make America strong for the

long haul.

As members of the National Commission on Fiscal

Responsibility and Reform, we spent the past eight months

studying the same cold, hard facts. Together, we have reached

these unavoidable conclusions: The problem is real. The

solution will be painful. There is no easy way out.

Everything must be on the table. And Washington must lead.

We come from different backgrounds, represent different

regions, and belong to different parties, but we share a

common belief that America's long-term fiscal gap is

unsustainable and, if left unchecked, will see our children

and grandchildren living in a poorer, weaker nation. In the

words of Senator Tom Coburn, ``We keep kicking the can down

the road, and splashing the soup all over our

grandchildren.'' Every modest sacrifice we refuse to make

today only forces far greater sacrifices of hope and

opportunity upon the next generation.

Over the course of our deliberations, the urgency of our

mission has become all the more apparent. The contagion of

debt that began in Greece and continues to sweep through

Europe shows us clearly that no economy will be immune. If

the U.S. does not put its house in order, the reckoning will

be sure and the devastation severe.

The President and the leaders of both parties in both

chambers of Congress asked us to address the nation's fiscal

challenges in this decade and beyond. We have worked to offer

an aggressive, fair, balanced, and bipartisan proposal--a

proposal as serious as the problems we face. None of us likes

every element of our plan, and each of us had to tolerate

provisions we previously or presently oppose in order to

reach a principled compromise. We were willing to put our

differences aside to forge a plan because our nation will

certainly be lost without one.

We do not pretend to have all the answers. We offer our

plan as the starting point for a serious national

conversation in which every citizen has an interest and all

should have a say. Our leaders have a responsibility to level

with Americans about the choices we face, and to enlist the

ingenuity and determination of the American people in rising

to the challenge.

We believe neither party can fix this problem on its own,

and both parties have a responsibility to do their part. The

American people are a long way ahead of the political system

in recognizing that now is the time to act. We believe that

far from penalizing their leaders for making the tough

choices, Americans will punish politicians for backing down--

and well they should.

In the weeks and months to come, countless advocacy groups

and special interests will try mightily through expensive,

dramatic, and heart-wrenching media assaults to exempt

themselves from shared sacrifice and common purpose. The

national interest, not special interests, must prevail. We

urge leaders and citizens with principled concerns about any

of our recommendations to follow what we call the Becerra

Rule: Don't shoot down an idea without offering a better idea

in its place.

After all the talk about debt and deficits, it is long past

time for America's leaders to put up or shut up. The era of

debt denial is over, and there can be no turning back. We

sign our names to this plan because we love our children, our

grandchildren, and our country too much not to act while we

still have the chance to secure a better future for all our

fellow citizens.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the life and service of Marine Corps Captain Michael Quin, who tragically lost his life, along with others, during the final training mission before his unit's scheduled deployment to Afghanistan. Captain Quin is a native of Purcellville, Virginia where his parents, Brad and Betsy still reside.

Captain Quin graduated from Loudoun Valley High School and received an appointment to the United States Naval Academy, where he graduated in 2006. Michael went on to successfully complete flight school and receive his wings in 2008, graduating at the top of his flight school class. Michael rose quickly as a pilot from 2nd Lieutenant to Captain and was in command of a helicopter.

On February 22, Captain Quin was conducting a training mission at the Yuma Training Range Complex in Arizona when his helicopter collided with another, killing six out of the seven pilots in his squadron. Captain Quin was remembered by the commanding officer and gunnery sergeant of the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing as ``one of those rare young captains'' who inspired admiration from all those with whom he served.

Captain Quin's service has been reported on by the Leesburg Today, which I submit for the record, as well as the Loudoun Times Mirror, Purcellville Gazette, and the Blue Ridge Leader. Captain Quin was honored by residents of Purcellville when his body made the return trip from Arizona to Reagan National Airport and finally back home to his family. Marines old and young, police, firefighters, and Boy and Girl Scouts turned out to show their respects for Captain Quin and to show support for his parents, siblings and fiancee.

Captain Quin was an example of leadership and patriotism of which we all can be proud. He chose to serve his country during extremely difficult times and was prepared to wear the uniform of the United States Marine Corps into battle to protect his family and his country. That he lost his life in service to his country is a testament to his bravery.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the thoughts and prayers of the full House of Representatives go out to the Quin family as they honor the exceptional life of their son, Marine Corps Captain Michael Quin.

Capt. Quin Remembered: ``He Was the Best''

The tragic impacts of the nation's war effort again are

being felt in Loudoun, with the death of U.S. Marine Corps

Capt. Michael Quin. The Purcellville resident and 2002

Loudoun Valley High School graduate was

killed last week when two helicopters collided while training

in Arizona in advance of a deployment to Afghanistan.

Mourned by his parents, sisters and fiancee, the death of

the 28-year-old naval aviator also has hit the Purcellville

community, one that just two years ago paid tribute to

another fallen serviceman, Army Specialist Stephan Lee Mace,

who was killed in Afghanistan in a fierce firefight with the

Taliban. Flags in town will fly at half staff until Quin's

burial service at Arlington Cemetery. As of Tuesday, plans

for services in Purcellville and at Arlington had not yet

been finalized.

Michael lost his life, along with six others, in a remote

area of the 1.2 million-acre Yuma Training Range Complex in

Arizona during the two-week ``Scorpion Fire'' training

mission that was to have been his last before being deployed

to Afghanistan in April.

After graduating Loudoun Valley High School, he graduated

from the U.S. Naval Academy in 2006 and joined the Marine

Corps.

The tragedy of Quin's death was compounded in that he was

in the last stages of his training before his deployment to

Afghanistan. It was the last qualification that he needed to

emerge with ``top gun'' status for helicopters.

Quin had recently become engaged, and had planned to spend

a week away with his fiancee before coming home for four or

five days with his family before leaving in early April for

Afghanistan.

His parents Brad and Betsy Quin had seen the report of the

fatal crash and when they didn't get a reassuring phone call

from their son that all was well, they began to worry.

When the Marine officers were sent to deliver the news,

both parents were at work, his father in Reston, and his

mother in Leesburg.

Brad Quin was at lunch, so the officers waited. When he was

told there were officers waiting to see him: ``I knew,'' he

said.

The town has rallied around the Quins and their daughters,

Phoebe and Sarah. Brad Quin is a former president of the

Locust Grove Homeowners Association and Betsy Quin serves on

the board of the HOA's Architectural Review Board. He has

been in the college and university world all his life and in

admissions and worked for the College Board. Betsy Quin was

in the reference department at Rust Library in Leesburg.

Mayor Bob Lazaro and his wife Carolyn are friends and

neighbors of the Quins, whom Lazaro called ``pillars of the

community.'' He credited Brad Quin with being ``the horse

power'' behind the Purcellville Volunteer Fire Department's

recruitment effort that has led to a doubling of the size of

the company.

This week, the support of the 100-strong company, the town

and area residents are helping the Quins deal with the loss

of their first-born child.

Capt. Quin's squadron will have a memorial service for him

Friday, which his parents will attend before returning to

Purcellville. Brad Quin said he hopes the Corps will release

his son's body soon. He will return home with a Marine Corps

escort, flying into Reagan National Airport where the

Washington detachment of the Marine Corps will hold an

arrival ceremony before the long trip back to Purcellville to

Hall Funeral Home.

Looking back on his son's life, ``He was the kind of kid

who didn't really require much correction from us,'' his

father said, noting Michael Quin seemed to have the ability

to naturally make good choices in life. Before 9/11

patriotism welled up in the country, Michael was like other

kids of his generation--dedicated to his family, sisters,

studies and his soccer team.

Brad Quin has been in the college world all his career, but

was somewhat surprised by his son's choice of the Naval

Academy, not the most obvious fun and typical fraternity

college opportunity. ``But he wanted to express what he

wanted to be as a person,'' he said.

Michael Quin seemed to have this sense of looking at

``something else down the road,'' to his decision to join the

Marine Corps, his father said. When Brad Quin asked him why

he had applied to join the Corps, his son seemed to

appreciate the support system the force represented, the way

its members gave each other total support no matter their

function or level within the Corps.

At the Naval Academy, it was tough going at first. The

curriculum is heavy on science, and students graduate with

bachelors of science degrees, even if you're studying history

and Spanish, as Michael Quin did. But he sucked it up, did

what he was supposed to be as a plebe--invisible.

``I could see he was growing, and he had this sense of

something else coming down the road,'' his father said,

noting that perception has been borne out by statements

posted on the website set up to collect memories and

tributes, www.michael

quin.com.

As a 2nd lieutenant, Michael Quin chose to be a naval

aviator. He learned to fly planes first at the naval base at

Pensacola, FL, before moving on to helicopters.

Intermittently, during training, he hooked up with a

squadron in Atlanta, GA, and there was a mutual adoption.

When after two years the young 2nd Lieutenant was ``winged''

Dec. 2, 2008, they all supported him. His parents' pride in

those naval aviator's wings of gold ``is more than you can

imagine,'' Brad Quin said.

From there, Capt. Quin immediately went to the West Coast

where the Marine Corps were forming new squadrons. He rose

through the ranks to 1st Lieutenant in command of his first

ship, then to captain. He was No. 1 in the Marine Corps'

flight school, where he chose to fly Hueys.

His closeness to and support of others was noticeable

during a tough time in which additional training and

certifications were needed to join a helicopter ``fraternity

of very capable guys,'' his father said.

His commanding officer was a ``tough, square-jawed Marine,

with a call sign of `Beast,' '' Brad Quin said. When the CO

called him last Friday, after introducing himself, he

revealed he had lost six of seven pilots from his squadron.

There were 100 Marines working on the aircraft. When the

lieutenant colonel said he had asked the crews to tell him

about Capt. Quin, the officer himself became choked with

emotion. There was enormous support and liking for Michael

Quin, whom the crews thought one of ``those rare young

captains,'' who didn't denigrate them but lived out the

tradition that everyone supports those who do the dirty work.

For Brad and Betsy Quin, it is comforting to know that a

wizened gunnery sergeant told his CO that in all his life in

the force, ``he was the best.''

For now, it is the support of the Purcellville community

that is a huge comfort. Brad Quin is a volunteer certified

firefighter, vice president and chairman of membership for

the company.

``How supportive everyone has been, the fire department and

the town, just like a big family.''

The loss has hit home in Purcellville and in the fire

company. To lose your life when you're ``training to do what

you do is horrific,'' Purcellville Volunteer Fire Company

Chief Bob Dryden said. To be one of the top students in

flight school, as Michael Quin was, and ``this is the way you

go out after spending all that time--it's not fair.''

Dryden has been in constant touch with the Quins. ``Once we

know the final date [for burial in Arlington], the company

will begin its planning in earnest,'' something along the

lines of the plans and ceremony for Mace two years ago.

``We'll welcome him home in the proper way,'' Dryden said.

Mace was killed Oct. 3, 2009, along with seven other U.S.

soldiers, defending the Camp Keating outpost in the Nuristan

province of Afghanistan against more than 300 Taliban and

other insurgents. Mace was a 2005 Loudoun Valley graduate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Brian Lamb, the founder and CEO of C SPAN, who recently announced his decision to retire.

Mr. Lamb founded the non-profit educational network 34 years ago and since then has worked tirelessly to bring live coverage of government and politics to the American people. Before Mr. Lamb created C SPAN, most Americans had to rely exclusively on news reports about what their representatives said and did in Washington. Because of his vision, millions of Americans everyday can see and hear government in action for themselves. I have had the privilege of working with Mr. Lamb over the years and I am a proud supporter of his efforts to make government transparent and accessible.

I commend Mr. Lamb for his vision, humility and his commitment to educating Americans about history and the government. I wish him all the best in his future career endeavors. I commend the following article to my colleagues.

C SPAN Founder Lamb Steps Down After 34 Years

(By Paul Farhi)

Want to know just how purposefully un-glamorous and

resolutely non-partisan is C SPAN, the pioneering public-

affairs TV network founded by Brian Lamb in 1978?

Consider this: In countless appearances spanning thousands

of hours of interviews and call-in programs, Lamb has never

once uttered his own name on the air. Too showy. Too much

like regular TV, which is what Lamb, a stolid Hoosier, has

always sought to avoid.

``No one does that here,'' he protested on Monday. ``We

just don't do it. It's always been part of our mission not to

make us the center of attention . . .. We're the antithesis

of everything you see on commercial television.''

So Lamb, typically, also wasn't making a big deal about the

news C SPAN buried in the second paragraph of a news

announcement it issued in the dead of Sunday evening: that

after 34 years as C SPAN chief executive, he's stepping down

from running the Washington-based operation he conceived and

built.

Lamb, 70, isn't fading away entirely. He'll continue as

executive chairman of the nonprofit organization and as host

of ``Q & A,'' his Sunday interview program. He also plans to

continue teaching, primarily at Purdue University, his alma

mater.

But he's handing over day to day operations to two

successors in waiting: current co presidents Rob Kennedy, 55,

and Susan Swain, 57, both longtime C SPAN hands.

``This has been something I've wanted to do for a while,''

Lamb said. ``I wanted an orderly transition when everyone was

ambulatory and standing up, with some thought behind it.''

Lamb was a young naval officer in the 1960s who used to

slip over to the Capitol from the Washington Navy Yard to

watch floor debates in the House and Senate. He later served

as a telecommunications staffer in the Johnson and Nixon

administrations and as a press secretary for Colorado Sen.

Peter Dominick (R).

As the Washington bureau chief of the cable TV trade

magazine Cablevision in the 1970s, Lamb cooked up the idea

for a network that would cover, with utter dispassion, the

congressional debates that he'd witnessed during his Navy

days. Lamb rustled up the money from some public relations

conscious cable barons and set about convincing the House to

let TV cameras onto the floor.

C SPAN, which stands for Cable Satellite Public Affairs

Network, was among the first nationally distributed cable

channels, following after the debut of HBO, Showtime, Pat

Robertson's CBN Network, and WTBS, Ted Turner's ``super

station.'' It is now composed of three networks, plus a

Washington radio station (WCSP, 90.1 FM), and a massive and

historically rich video archive of congressional sessions,

hearings, speeches, campaign rallies, think tank conferences,

author interviews and what haveyous from C SPAN over the

years.

Lamb holds the distinction of being the only one of those

early network founders not to become a billionaire from his

creation. On the other hand, he says, ``I never wanted to be

rich. I wasn't the slightest bit interested in that.''

He had to settle instead for helping to revolutionize the

political culture of Washington. What MTV did for popular

music--that is, helped make it theatrical and visual--C SPAN

did for Congress and the wonks who follow it.

C SPAN's gavel to gavel coverage of the House changed the

spontaneous, freewheeling debates on the floor into more

scripted and polished speeches played for the TV cameras,

said Charles Johnson, a former House parliamentarian. Members

became conscious that their words weren't just going into the

Congressional Record; they now had an audience at home,

leading to charts and props and camera friendly displays that

hadn't existed before.

It also led to an increase in grandstanding. In 1984, the

fiery, after hours speeches of a young Republican backbencher

named Newt Gingrich (R Ga.) so angered House Speaker Tip

O'Neill (D Mass.) that he ordered the House cameras (then as

now under House control) to pan the empty chamber in an

effort to embarrass Gingrich.

Nevertheless, after disdaining to follow the House for more

than six years, the Senate finally relented and let C SPAN

carry its proceedings live in 1986.

Having the cameras on hand ``changed the quality of the

oratory,'' said Johnson, avoiding direct judgment on whether

it did so in a good or bad way.

Lamb says he doesn't care either way: ``If there's a public

meeting, there ought to be cameras there,'' he says. ``Those

meetings are paid for by we, the taxpayers. People should be

able to see what [the elected officials] look like, what the

buildings look like, what language they're using.''

Through all those decades, Lamb has been the continuous

thread: unflashy, unemotional, ``a video Buddha, television's

most stationary being,'' in the words of one magazine writer.

In 23 years of hosting ``Booknotes,'' his author interview

show, for example, he notes that he never missed a single

Sunday night, for 52 weeks every year. In total, he's logged

more hours on national TV than perhaps any person in America.

He's not bragging about that, of course. Or much else.

``I never thought the person on top here mattered all that

much, except to keep the rhythm of the place going,'' he

said. ``We've established a good transition. I don't think my

departure will be more than a blip on the radar screen.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share troubling information that has come to my attention about Huawei, a Chinese telecom firm which is attempting to increase its market share in the U.S.

Yesterday, The Wall Street Journal reported that, ``Huawei's network business has thrived at the expense of struggling Western network companies,'' and is ``quietly building and investing in its own brand of high-end smart phones and tablets.'' But many Americans may not be aware that numerous government reports have linked Huawei's corporate leadership to the People's Liberation Army, raising serious concerns about its products being used for espionage by the Chinese Government.

Last week, respected national security reporter Bill Gertz wrote:

New information about Chinese civilian telecommunications

companies' close support of the Chinese military and

information warfare programs is raising fresh concerns.

That is why both the Bush administration and the Obama administration have repeatedly intervened to block Huawei's growth. Huawei is controlled by the same government that jails Catholic bishops and Protestant pastors, oppresses the Uyghur Muslims, has plundered Tibet, and that is providing the very rockets that Sudanese President Bashir is using to kill his own people.

Mr. Speaker, the American people have a right to know whether their government is doing everything it can to protect their cell phone and data networks from foreign espionage and cyberattacks. As Huawei increases its lobbying presence in Washington, the American people should be fully aware of the firm's intimate links to the PLA and the serious concerns of our defense and intelligence community.

I rise today to share troubling information that has come to my attention about Huawei, a Chinese telecom firm, which is attempting to increase its market share in the United States and around the world. Numerous government reports have linked Huawei's corporate leadership to the Chinese intelligence services and the People's Liberation Army (PLA), raising concerns about Huawei networks and devices being subject to espionage by the Chinese government.

These connections are particularly noteworthy given Huawei's rapid rise as a telecom giant. According to an article in yesterday's Wall Street Journal, ``Huawei Technologies Co. has almost doubled its work force over the past five years as it strives to become a mobile technology heavyweight.''

The article also noted that, ``Huawei's network business has thrived at the expense of struggling Western network companies such as Alcatel- Lucent Co. and Nokia Siemens Networks. Initially, Huawei supplied low- cost phones to telecommunications operators in the West under their own brand, but over the past year, Huawei has also been quietly building and investing in its own brand of high-end smartphones and tablets.''

Huawei executives make no secret of their goal to dominate the telecom market. In a March 6, 2012, interview with the technology news Web site, Engadget, Huawei device chief Richard Yu said, ``In three years we want Huawei to be the industry's top brand.''

However, Huawei's growth in the U.S. market should give all Americans serious pause. Last week, respected national security reporter Bill Gertz wrote in the Washington Free Beacon that, ``New information about Chinese civilian telecommunications companies' close support of the Chinese military and information warfare programs is raising fresh concerns about the companies' access to U.S. markets,'' according to a report by the congressional US-China Economic and Security Review Commission. ``One of the companies identified in the report as linked to the People's Liberation Army (PLA) is Huawei Technologies, a global network hardware manufacturer that has twice been blocked by the U.S. government since 2008 from trying to buy into U.S. telecommunications firms.''

The congressional report noted that, ``Huawei is a well established supplier of specialized telecommunications equipment, training and related technology to the PLA that has, along with others such as Zhongxing, and Datang, received direct funding for R&D on C4ISR [high- tech intelligence collection] systems capabilities.''

The report further added, ``All of these [Chinese telecom] firms originated as state research institutes and continue to receive preferential funding and support from the PLA,'' the report said.

Huawei's efforts to sell telecom equipment to U.S. networks have long troubled the U.S. defense and intelligence community, which has been concerned that Huawei's equipment could be easily compromised and used in Chinese cyberattacks against the U.S. or to intercept phone calls and e-mails from American telecom networks.

According to a 2005 report by the RAND Corporation, ``both the [Chinese] government and the military tout Huawei as a national champion,'' and ``one does not need to dig too deeply to discover that [many Chinese information technology and telecommunications firms] are the public face for, sprang from, or are significantly engaged in joint research with state research institutes under the Ministry of Information Industry, defense-industrial corporations, or the military.''

In fact, in 2009, the Washington Post reported that the National Security Agency ``called AT&T because of fears that China's intelligence agencies could insert digital trapdoors into Huawei's technology that would serve as secret listening posts in the U.S. communications network.''

Over the last several years, Huawei's top executives' deep connections to the People's Liberation Army and Chinese intelligence have been well documented. As Gertz summarized in his article, ``A U.S. intelligence report produced last fall stated that Huawei Technologies was linked to the Ministry of State Security, specifically through Huawei's chairwoman, Sun Yafang, who worked for the Ministry of State Security (MSS) Communications Department before joining the company.''

That is why senior administration officials in the Bush and Obama administrations have repeatedly intervened to block Huawei's access to U.S. networks. ``In 2008, the Treasury Department-led Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) blocked Huawei from purchasing the U.S. telecommunications firm 3Com due to the company's links to the Chinese military,'' Gertz reported. ``Last year, under pressure from the U.S. government, Huawei abandoned their efforts to purchase the U.S. server technology company 3Leaf. In 2010, Congress opposed Huawei's proposal to supply mobile telecommunications gear to Sprint over concerns that Sprint was a major supplier to the U.S. military and intelligence agencies.''

It's not just Huawei's longstanding and tight connections to Chinese intelligence that should trouble us. Huawei has also been a leading supplier of critical telecom services to some of the worst regimes around the world. Last year, the Wall Street Journal reported that Huawei ``now dominates Iran's government-controlled mobile-phone industry . . . it plays a role in enabling Iran's state security network.''

Gertz reported that Huawei has also been ``linked to sanctions- busting in Saddam Hussein's Iraq during the 1990s, when the company helped network Iraqi air defenses at a time when U.S. and allied jets were flying patrols to enforce a no-fly zone. The company also worked with the Taliban during its short reign in Afghanistan to install a phone system in Kabul.''

Mr. Speaker, given all of this information, there should be no doubt Huawei poses a serious national and economic security threat to the U.S. It is no secret that the People's Republic of China has developed the most aggressive espionage operation in modern history, especially given its focus on cyberattacks and cyberespionage.

Perhaps that is why Beijing has ensured that Huawei is able to continue its global market growth by ``unsustainably low prices and [Chinese] goverment export assistance,'' according to January 2011 congressional report on the national security implications of Chinese telecom companies. Due to China's secrecy, the full extent of Huawei's subsidies are not be fully known. But given its unrealistically low prices, it remains unknown whether Huawei is even making a profit as it seeks to dominate the telecom market. Why would the Chinese government be willing to generously subsidize such unprofitable products?

Earlier this year, The Economist magazine published a special report on Communist Party management of Chinese corporations. The Economist reported that, ``The [Communist] party has cells in most big companies--in the private as well as state-owned sector--complete with their own offices and files on employees. It holds meetings that shadow formal board meetings and often trump their decisions''

The Chinese even have an expression for this strategy: ``The state advances while the private sector retreats.''

Author Richard McGregor wrote that the executives at Chinese companies have a ``red machine'' with an encrypted line to Beijing next to their Bloomberg terminals and personal items on their desks.

Last year, the Financial Times reported that the PLA has even documented how it will use telecom firms for foreign espionage and cyberattacks. A paper published in the Chinese Academy of Military Sciences' journal noted: ``[These cyber militia] should preferably be set up in the telecom sector, in the electronics and internet industries and in institutions of scientific research,'' and its tasks should include ``stealing, changing and erasing data'' on enemy networks and their intrusion with the goal of ``deception, jamming, disruption, throttling and paralysis.''

The same article also documented the growing number PLA-led cyber militias housed in ``private'' Chinese telecom firms. The article reported on one example at the firm Nanhao: ``many of its 500 employees in Hengshui, just south-west of Beijing, have a second job. Since 2005 Nanhao has been home to a cybermilitia unit organized by the People's Liberation Army. The Nanhao operation is one of thousands set up by the Chinese military over the past decade in technology companies and universities around the country. These units form the backbone of the country's internet warfare forces, increasingly seen as a serious threat at a time of escalating global cybertensions.

Senior U.S. military and intelligence officials have become increasingly vocal about their concerns about the scope of Chinese espionage and cyberattacks. According to recent testimony given before the Senate, Defense Intelligence Agency chief General Ron Burgess said, ``China has used its intelligence services to gather information via a significant network of agents and contacts using a variety of methods . . . In recent years, multiple cases of economic espionage and theft of dual-use and military technology have uncovered pervasive Chinese collection efforts.''

Last year, the reticent Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive issued a warning that, ``Chinese actors are the world's most active and persistent perpetrators of economic espionage.'' The counterintelligence office took this rare step of singling out the Chinese due to the severity of the threat to U.S. national and economic security.

And March 8, 2012 Washington Post article described how, ``For a decade or more, Chinese military officials have talked about conducting warfare in cyberspace, but in recent years they have progressed to testing attack capabilities during exercises . . . The [PLA] probably would target transportation and logistics networks before an actual conflict to try to delay or disrupt the United States' ability to fight, according to the report prepared by Northrop Grumman for the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.''

We are beginning to witness the consequences of this strategy. According to a March 13, 2012 New York Times article, ``During the five-month period between October and February, there were 86 reported attacks on computer systems in the United States that control critical infrastructure, factories and databases, according to the Department of Homeland Security, compared with 11 over the same period a year ago.''

In an interview with the New York Times, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said, ``I think General Dempsey said it best when he said that prior to 9/11, there were all kinds of information out there that a catastrophic attack was looming. The information on a cyberattack is at the same frequency and intensity and is bubbling at the same level, and we should not wait for an attack in order to do something.''

A 2010 Pentagon report found ``. . . In the case of key national security technologies, controlled equipment, and other materials not readily obtainable through commercial means or academia, the People's Republic of China resorts to more focused efforts, including the use of its intelligence services and other-than legal means, in violation of U.S. laws and export controls.''

The report also highlighted China's cyber-espionage efforts. The U.S. intelligence community notes that China's attempts to penetrate U.S. agencies are the most aggressive of all foreign intelligence organizations.

Notably, Chinese espionage isn't limited to government agencies. In an October 4 Washington Post article, Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, remarked, ``When you talk to these companies behind closed doors, they describe attacks that originate in China, and have a level of sophistication and are clearly supported by a level of resources that can only be a nation-state entity.''

This prolific espionage is having a real and corrosive effect on job creation. Last year, the Washington Post reported that, ``The head of the military's U.S. Cyber Command, Gen. Keith Alexander, said that one U.S. company recently lost $1 billion worth of intellectual property over the course of a couple of days--`technology that they'd worked on for 20-plus years--stolen by one of the adversaries.' ''

That is why, in February 2012 testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence FBI Director Robert Mueller said that while terrorism is the greatest threat today, ``down the road, the cyber threat will be the number one threat to the country.''

Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that Huawei is one face of this emerging threat. And the American people have a right to know whether their government is doing everything it can to protect their cell phone and data networks.

As Huawei increases its lobbying presence in Washington, members should be fully aware of the firm's intimate links to the PLA and the serious concerns of our defense and intelligence community.

Verizon, Sprint, AT&T, T-Mobile and other U.S. network carriers should not be selling Huawei devices given these security concerns. But if they do, they have an obligation to inform their customers of these threats. This is especially important when carriers are selling Huawei phones and tablets to corporate customers.

They have a right to know that Beijing may be listening.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life and legacy of Congressman Donald Payne.

As as public servant, Congressman Payne has consistently stood with the forgotten people and causes. He has championed their plight and advocated on their behalf, perhaps none more so than the long-suffering people of the southern Sudan.

For years, Congressman Payne advocated for self-determination for the people of South Sudan, who had endured great hardship at the hands of the government in Khartoum. He was also the leading voice in urging States in the U.S. to divest from companies doing business in Sudan in light of the government's horrific human rights abuses.

Congressman Payne was the sponsor of the congressional resolution calling attention to the horrors unfolding in Darfur, a resolution which was rightly labeled as ``tragedy,'' ``genocide.'' The list goes on and on.

I had the honor of being with Congressman Payne in Nairobi, Kenya, in 2005 for the historic signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement which marked the end of a brutal civil war between the north and the south which spanned 21 years and claimed the lives of more than 2 million people. Congressman Payne labored for years to see that day arrive. No one did more than Don Payne to bring about the new country, which is now the country of southern Sudan.

He, fittingly, returned to South Sudan in July of 2011 to join the people of that land in celebrating their long-awaited independence, a fulfillment of the promise. Upon being chosen to be part of the official U.S. delegation, Congressman Payne issued the following statement. He said:

As a ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs

Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights, I

have been committed to helping Sudan achieve peace and

justice.

Indeed, he was committed. Congressman Payne worked hard. He traveled to the region countless times. He experienced the people suffering, and then he acted. Congressman Payne heard the people suffering and never chose to look the other way.

My thoughts and prayers are with Congressman Payne's family as they grieve, and Congress will profoundly miss his voice, as will thousands of others around the world.

Mr. Speaker, just today we heard reports that two more American servicemembers in Afghanistan were gunned down by the very security forces they are helping to train. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident. Last week, two Army officers were gunned down inside the Afghan Interior Ministry. Attacks by Afghan soldiers and security forces have accounted for nearly 70 deaths since 2007.

The U.S. military did a report on this phenomenon, referred to as ``Green on Blue'' attacks, and determined that they are turning into a ``growing systemic threat'' to our military personnel in the region. These are not U.S. deaths from combat with Taliban and other insurgent groups, although some

of the perpetrators likely hold Taliban sympathies. These attacks are by the very forces our military is trying to train to take control of their own country--a significant component of the Obama administration's military draw-down strategy.

What are American forces to do when they doubt whether they can trust those who wear the uniform of an ally we are spending blood and treasure supporting? These attacks further complicate U.S. strategy.

Mr. Speaker, Congress and the Obama administration need to realize that these things are not going well in Afghanistan, and it has nothing to do with the capabilities of our troops. Not only are Afghan security forces gunning down their American advisers, terrorist and insurgent groups continue to find sanctuary in the tribal wilderness areas of Pakistan.

In January, the most recent National Intelligence Estimate painted a very bleak picture of the war in Afghanistan and the future of U.S. operations in the region. It reflects concerns that I've expressed numerous times to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, especially the importance of understanding Afghan tribal structures and the Pakistani military and intelligence services actively cooperating with two of the mostly deadly terror networks in the region.

Last week, The Washington Post reported that U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Ryan Crocker wrote a cable describing the fragile situation in the region. The cable described many of the problems in the region, including terrorist sanctuaries in Pakistan where militants continue training to attack U.S. forces. Ryan Crocker has a tremendous history in that region, having been Ambassador to Iraq, and also Ambassador to Pakistan.

Secretary Panetta has stated that U.S. forces are ``working hard with Pakistan to improve the level of cooperation'' so that terrorist groups no longer find safe haven in the country.

While I appreciate the hard work being done by our forces in the region, I'm afraid that the complexity of the evolving situation may necessitate that we take a very close examination of how we're operating.

Mr. Speaker, I do not have the answers to these extremely complicated and dangerous challenges; but last year Congress gave the Obama administration the ability to create an Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group, an independent panel of five Democrats and five Republicans who love their country more than they love their political party. The Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group would put their expertise to work and offer constructive recommendations to the administration to achieve our mission and to be successful in Afghanistan.

This panel would be modeled after the Iraq Study Group, which was convened during the worst violence in Iraq. The panel was formed only after 3 years of fighting in that country. It was called the Baker- Hamilton Commission. With the Iraq Study Group, it was an amendment that I offered, and I think it made a constructive difference. It was five Republicans and five Democrats. Secretary Gates served on the commission. Secretary Panetta served on the commission, Ed Meese. Fine people, distinguished people, people of integrity and good judgment; and they came up with some good recommendations. I have urged Secretary Panetta repeatedly to embrace this tried and tested model, this time for the Nation's longest war. Five Republicans, five Democrats, all people who are no longer involved in the political process but have understanding and knowledge both from a diplomatic and a military point of that region, both with Afghanistan and with Pakistan.

U.S. forces have been on the ground in Afghanistan for over 10 years now, and it is clear that things are not going well. Given the challenges I have discussed, I find it difficult to understand why Secretary Panetta and President Obama refuse to use the authority it has right now to establish the Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group. Such a group already has the support of Congress. This bill passed the United States Congress, and I ask what harm can come from a group of independent experts looking at our missions with fresh eyes, fresh eyes on the target. Secretary Panetta and the administration gets to select the group, the five Republicans and five Democrats, so those who serve on this study will be selected by the administration, and particularly by Secretary Panetta, who I have great respect for.

It's hard for me to understand why Secretary Panetta was willing to sit on the Iraq Study Group, which was going to evaluate a war that had gone on for 3\1/2\ years under a Republican administration, but is not willing to do the same thing to have an outside group look at a war that has now been going on for over 10 years.

This would be totally bipartisan. It would be objective. It would be fresh eyes on the target. Ryan Crocker before he was appointed Ambassador to Afghanistan supported this concept, and many very patriotic Americans have, with the idea of how can we be successful in Afghanistan and also in Pakistan.

I do not know what the recommendations of the panel would be. Maybe they will examine the current policy and determine that it is the best possible way to achieve success; but the fact remains that Congress provided the resources and the authority for the Obama administration to conduct an independent review, and they are refusing as of this moment to take action.

Again, it was interesting during the Iraq war, Secretary Rumsfeld was willing to have the Iraq Study Group go forward. General Peter Pace, who was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was willing to have the Iraq Study Group go forward. Condoleezza Rice, the Secretary of State, was willing to have the Iraq Study Group go forward. Mr. Steve Hadley, the National Security Adviser, was willing to have the Iraq Study Group go forward. They picked two outstanding Americans--probably could not have had finer people--former Secretary of State Jim Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton, who was co-chairman of the 9/11 Commission, was chairman of the Intelligence Committee, and has done a lot of very good things. It was a bipartisan effort.

Again, we had people like Secretary Gates, and we had Attorney General Meese; and they came together with a very constructive proposal. And as many Members may remember, the surge was in the Iraq Study Group. It was on page 73.

So why would Secretary Panetta, who was willing to judge activities for a war gone on for 3\1/2\ years during the Bush administration, not be willing to have 10 objective people that he proposes, not that the Congress proposes, not that any partisan group proposes, but that he would propose to bring fresh eyes on the target, to look to see how we can deal with the issue in Afghanistan and Pakistan and do it in a way to make sure that we are doing everything we can to protect the men and women who are serving so honorably and so well our Nation?

I believe also, Mr. Speaker, that it's a moral issue, too. I believe we owe this--we owe this to the men and women who are serving, and we also owe it to the families.

If other Members care, I would ask you to look at the language and then also write a letter to Leon Panetta. Leon Panetta is a good man. I served with him here in the House. He loves his country, and I think he is working very, very hard. The people serving in the military at the Pentagon are very committed and very capable people, but like anything else, sometimes a fresh approach, or fresh eyes, again, I think would be very good for our country and something that we owe to the men and women who are serving in the military and to their families.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

July 19, 2011.

Hon. Leon Panetta,

Secretary of Defense, The Pentagon, Washington, DC.

Dear Secretary Panetta: I write today concerning the U.S.

mission in Afghanistan and Pakistan. My amendment, which

gives the secretary of Defense the authority to establish an

Afghanistan/Pakistan (Af/Pak) Study Group, was included in

the House-passed FY 2012 Defense Appropriations bill. I

pressed for the amendment because I believe fresh eyes are

needed now to examine the situation on the ground and the

overall U.S. mission.

I envision the Af/Pak Study Group being modeled after the

Iraq Study Group (ISG). Both you and your predecessor Bob

Gates served on the ISG and know better than

most the benefits it provided after three years of fighting

in Iraq. Now that the U.S. is in its 10th year in

Afghanistan, I believe a similar effort is necessary.

Before he was appointed as ambassador to Afghanistan, Ryan

Crocker supported creating an Af/Pak Study Group, along with

Ambassador Ronald Neumann and Jim Dobbins from the RAND

Corporation. American men and women are fighting and dying in

Afghanistan. If we are asking them to put their lives on the

line daily, I believe we have an obligation to provide an

independent evaluation of the U.S. mission. We owe our

military forces nothing less.

I do not have the answers. But as you know, there is a

movement building in Congress in favor of pulling troops out

of Afghanistan. An amendment offered by Rep. Jim McGovern

earlier this year to the National Defense Authorization Act

to accelerate U.S. departure from Afghanistan was narrowly

defeated 204 215. If six members had changed their vote, the

amendment would have passed. I have talked to several members

who voted against the McGovern amendment who are seriously

concerned about the war in Afghanistan and could change their

vote if the situation on the ground does not improve rapidly.

I also believe it is critical that Afghanistan be examined

in tandem with the facts on the ground in Pakistan. It is

clear that in order to be successful in Afghanistan, we must

have a clear understanding of how Pakistan is influencing

U.S. operations. Just look at the recent news from the

region. Hamid Karzai's half-brother was murdered and his

funeral bombed, Karzai advisor Jan Mohammed Kahn-was

murdered, and militants attacked and laid siege to the

Intercontinental Hotel in Kabul. The enclosed article printed

recently in the Washington Post states, ``. . . optimism and

energy vanished long ago, gradually replaced by cynicism and

fear. The trappings of democracy remained in place . . . but

the politics of ethnic dog fights, tribal feuds and personal

patronage continued to prevail.''

The men and women serving in Afghanistan deserve to have

fresh eyes look at this region as soon as possible. With

House passage of the Af/Pak amendment, I ask that you use

your authority as secretary and move quickly to create this

study group. I have discussed my amendment with John Hamre at

the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and

he has offered to coordinate the group with professionals

with a wide range of expertise.

I would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you to

discuss this important initiative and look forward to working

with you to ensure we are successful in Afghanistan and

Pakistan.

Best wishes.

Sincerely,

Frank R. Wolf,

Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 556, a resolution condemning the government of Iran for its ongoing repression of religious minorities, including 34-year-old Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani. I was an original cosponsor of this resolution, and

thank my friend Congressman Pitts for introducing this important legislation.

Just this past week, Iranian authorities renewed an order of execution for Christian Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani, a young father of two. Pastor Nadarkhani was originally arrested in 2009 for protesting the teaching of Islam at the public school that his children attended. He was later charged with apostasy which carried a much more severe penalty. Since 2009 he has been subjected to repeated attempts to coerce him to recant his faith--which he has courageously refused to do. Rather, Pastor Nadarkhani's perseverance in the face of this injustice is a source of great inspiration. In a 2010 letter from prison, he wrote that the true believer, ``does not need to wonder for the fiery trial that has been set on for him as though it were something unusual, but it pleases him to participate in Christ's suffering. Because the believer knows he will rejoice in his glory.''

Indeed, Pastor Youcef has faced a ``fiery trial.'' And now, according to a February 22 Fox New story, the latest developments mean that Pastor Youcef may be ``executed at any time without prior warning, as death sentences in Iran may be carried out immediately or dragged out for years.''

Pastor Youcef's case is just the latest example of Iran's attacks on basic human rights, including freedom of religion. In recent years, there has been a significant increase in Iran in acts of repression and discrimination against religious minorities including Bahai's and Christians. These actions show a continuing disregard by Iranian authorities for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as well as its own constitution.

In addition to supporting this resolution condemning Iran for these shocking and flagrant violations of fundamental freedoms, I call on the government of Iran to immediately and unconditionally release Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize and honor Willard ``Bill'' Lineweaver, who served as a mayor and councilman of Warrenton, VA. Mr. Lineweaver passed away on February 15, at the age of 89.

Bill Lineweaver was a great public servant, model citizen and a personal friend of mine. He will be honored and remembered by many, especially his wife, Elizabeth ``Bizz'', his three daughters Beth, Babs, and Bitsy, his many friends, colleagues and all who knew him.

Mr. Speaker I submit the following obituary.

[From Fauquier.com, Feb. 16, 2012]

Former Warrenton Mayor Lineweaver Dies at Age 89

Retired Warrenton businessman J. Willard ``Bill''

Lineweaver, who served on the Warrenton Town Council from

1959 until 1974, then was mayor from 1974 until 1998, died

Feb. 15.

Lineweaver, 89, had recently fallen at his home on

Winchester Street, suffering a head injury. He was taken

first to Fauquier Hospital before being transferred to the

ICU at the University of Virginia Medical Center in

Charlottesville.

He was later taken to a rehabilitation facility in

Lexington, Va., near the home of his daughter, Beth Knapp.

News of his death has shocked the community, as there was

great hope and expectation for his recovery and return to

Warrenton.

Lineweaver's nearly 40 years as a councilman and mayor of

Warrenton was unprecedented. In fact, he ran unopposed for

his last three terms on town council, as well as all six

terms as mayor.

He led the town through periods of great change, and after

his last term as mayor, he continued to be involved with

other important issues, including the acquisition and re-use

of Vint Hill Farms Station, the U.S. Army post east of

Warrenton.

Originally from the Shenandoah Valley, Lineweaver came to

Fauquier County when he was six years old. His father managed

Whitewood Farm near The Plains, and Lineweaver grew up on the

farm and attended public schools.

On Dec. 7, 1942, he enlisted in the U.S. Army. After Basic

Training, he was sent to Ft. Benning, Ga., where he received

training as a communications specialist and was promoted to

the rank of sergeant.

Home on leave, Lineweaver married the former Elizabeth

``Bizz'' Carter of Warrenton in May 1943.

His training complete, Sgt. Lineweaver was assigned to the

Antitank Company of the 393rd Infantry Regiment of the 99th

Infantry Division, and mid-October 1944, his unit was sent to

fight in the European Theater of Operations.

Shortly after arriving, the 99th was positioned along the

Seigfried Line near Krinkelt, Belgium, defending a 19-mile

front from advancing German forces.

On Dec. 16, 1944, the Germans launched what became known as

the Battle of the Bulge, a massive assault on the Allied

lines.

Sgt. Lineweaver's unit was pushed back to the hills west of

Krinkelt, where they held the line until the weather cleared

and Allied airpower stopped the attack.

Later, the 99th was involved in the battle for the Remagen

Bridge and the clean up of German resistance in the Rhur

Pocket during March and April 1945.

He was awarded the Bronze Star medal with three battle

stars and other military decorations for his combat service.

Returning home to Warrenton after the war, Lineweaver got

into the retail business, operating the H. B. Carter

furniture store on Main Street for many years.

In 1959, he was convinced by then-Mayor Richard Marriott to

run for town council and won, beginning a long career

representing the people of Warrenton, and later providing

vision and leadership as mayor.

In his role as mayor, Lineweaver became well known in the

commonwealth, serving on a number of statewide boards and

committees, and working with mayors of other towns and cities

sharing his response to the problems and opportunities as he

encountered in Warrenton.

He served as president of the Virginia Municipal League in

1988 89.

Celebrating their 68th wedding anniversary last May, Mr.

and Mrs. Lineweaver were the proud parents of three

daughters, six grandchildren and six great-grandchildren.

He was a long-time member of St. James Episcopal Church and

served as a vestryman for many years. He also belonged to the

Warrenton Rotary Club and the Fauquier Club.

Lineweaver's funeral will be held at 11 a.m., Monday, Feb.

20, at St. James Episcopal Church. The family will receive

friends from 1 to 3 p.m., Sunday, Feb. 19, at Moser Funeral

Home.