Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, what are we doing?

The bill before us today, which would extend the expiring payroll holiday for 10 more months, exemplifies all that is wrong with Washington. No wonder the American peoples' faith in Congress is at an all-time low.

First, the agreement steals $93 billion from the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for a 10-

month extension of a temporary program that was supposed to expire two months ago.

Second, there is no offset for this new spending. It adds $93 billion to the deficit this year--money we will have to borrow from countries like China, which is spying on us, taking our jobs and has terrible record on human rights.

Third, this bill only asks for sacrifice from a small number of Americans--federal employees and postal workers--to pay for the unemployment insurance extension and the Medicare ``doc fix.''

Fourth, this ``holiday'' has proven to have little impact on economic growth and job creation, while significantly growing our deficit.

Finally, the House Appropriations Committee led efforts to cut $95 billion in spending in the 2011 and 2012 fiscal year appropriations bills. This bill undoes all of the discretionary spending cuts achieved by the House in one fell swoop.

As chairman of the Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations subcommittee, I have cut $11 billion from the budgets of the Commerce and Justice departments since Republicans reclaimed the majority. These were difficult cuts, but necessary to start reining in our unsustainable deficit and debt. And they will be completely undone after today's vote.

Have we already forgotten the debates over the deficit last year?

A year ago, we hoped to consider $4 trillion in debt reduction under the Bowles-Simpson Commission and the ``Gang of Six'' proposals. By the summer, we were voting on the Budget Control Act, which established a supercommittee charged with finding an additional $1.2 trillion in savings over 10 years.

Now, the White House and Congress are going in the other direction and choosing to spend away the $95 billion in deficit reduction actually achieved last year.

This is shameful.

The American people are right to be disappointed that the President and the Congress have walked away from every serious deficit reduction effort.

They should be appalled that both sides have joined together to spend more money and weaken Social Security.

This agreement is giving away the store. And for what? A payroll ``holiday'' that most Americans haven't even noticed, according to a recent nationwide poll.

Our country is going broke. The national debt is over $15 trillion and is projected to reach $17 trillion by the end of this year and $21 trillion in 2021. We have annual deficits of over $1 trillion. We have unfunded obligations and liabilities of $65 trillion. We are going the way of Greece.

Why are we voting to extend a policy that does nothing more than steal from the Social Security Trust Fund, which is already going broke?

Social Security is unique because it is paid for through a dedicated tax on workers who will receive future benefits. The money paid today funds benefits for existing retirees, and ensures future benefits. Because you pay now, a future worker will pay your benefits. That is why, until December 2010, this revenue stream was considered sacrosanct by both political parties.

Social Security is already on an unsustainable path. Today's medical breakthroughs simply were not envisioned when the system was created in 1935. For example, in 1950, the average American lived for 68 years and 16 workers supported one retiree. Today, the average life expectancy is 78 and three workers support one retiree. Three and a half million people received Social Security in 1950; 55 million receive it today.

Every day since January 1, 2011, over 10,000 baby-boomers turned 65. This trend will continue every day for the next 19 years. Do these numbers sound sustainable to anyone?

The Social Security Actuary has said that by 2036 the trust fund will be unable to pay full benefits. This means that everyone will receive an across-the-board cut of 22 percent, regardless of how much money they paid into the system.

Does it make sense that everyone, regardless of income, will get money from this ``stimulus?'' Does anyone think that Warren Buffet or Jimmy Buffet changed their buying habits as a result of this temporary suspension?

Or did General Electric's CEO, Jeffery Immelt, the head of President Obama's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness who recently shipped GE's medical imaging division from Wisconsin to China, really benefit from this ``holiday?''

We all know what needs to be done to address the deficit and debt and that is why I have supported every serious effort to resolve this crisis, including the Bowles-Simpson recommendations, the Ryan Budget, the ``Gang of Six,'' the ``Cut, Cap and Balance'' plan and the Budget Control Act.

I also was among the bipartisan group of 103 members of Congress who urged the supercommittee to ``go big'' and identify $4 trillion in savings. I continue to work with my colleagues to advance the Bowles- Simpson report. I voted for the Balanced Budget Amendment. Since 2006, when George Bush was in office, I have introduced my bipartisan legislation, the SAFE Commission, multiple times in hopes of dealing with this problem.

While none of these solutions were perfect, they all took the necessary steps to rebuild and protect our economy. In order to solve this problem, everything must be on the table for consideration: 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 and loopholes that cost hundreds of billions of dollars annually.

Some of the pay-fors in today's bill could be better used to address our deficit, such as the profits from the spectrum auction. Another pay-for that was previously proposed, and signed into law last December, raised the rates that mortgage lenders can charge on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loans. This 10 basis point increase makes a home loan more expensive for thousands of individuals looking to buy a house, while doing nothing to further reform these two lending entities. But rather than putting these offsets to good use, we're spending them away for a 10 month extension of this ``holiday.''

But the bill before us now is even worse than what was previously considered because the biggest portion, the $93 billion cost of the payroll holiday, is not being offset. Once again, only a small segment of our society--federal employees and postal workers--are being used to pay for the other measures wrapped into this proposal.

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. Eighty five percent. 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.

Has anyone fully considered the impact that this legislation will have on our ability to recruit qualified individuals to the CIA, the NSA, the National Reconnaissance Office and the National Counter Terrorism Center?

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

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

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

Or the impact on the Border Patrol?

Or the impact on NASA, its astronauts, engineers and scientists?

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

Federal employees are currently working under President Obama's two- year pay freeze as they do their part to address our deficit. But to ask them to spend the rest of their careers paying for a 10 month policy? That doesn't make sense.

Leadership from both parties has said that extending this payroll ``holiday'' is paramount. I see what has happened. We all know that the President has used the power of his bully pulpit to push for the policy. Just look at the headline of this morning's National Journal Daily: ``Payroll Deal Hands Victory to Obama.'' But he missed the opportunity to support his own Bowles-Simpson Commission to seriously deal with the deficit.

The fiscal tsunami that is coming demands that we make tough decisions. Should laws be passed just because they are perceived as popular? I regret that months have been spent on this flawed policy instead of tackling the difficult choices to address our nation's massive unfunded spending obligations.

There is never a convenient time to make hard decisions. The longer we put off fixing the problem, the worse the medicine will be and the greater the number of Americans who will be hurt. I understand that many feel they need help. But, as many have said, ``there's no such thing as a free lunch.''

America is living on borrowed dollars and borrowed time. We must stop leaving piles of debt to our children and grandchildren.

We can't afford this debt financed spending. I voted no on this policy in 2010. I voted no on this policy on December 13. I voted no on December 20. And I vote no today.

Mr. Speaker, I submit a piece authored by Chinese dissident Yu Jie which ran in yesterday's Washington Post. His words are deeply alarming about the extent of China's reach in the U.S. He rightly laments the lack of ``visionary politicians, such as Ronald Reagan, to stand up to this threat.'' I couldn't agree more.

[From the Washington Post, Feb. 13, 2012]

The Myth of China as a Harmless Tiger

(By Yu Jie)

Chinese dissident writers exiled to the West today get a

very different response than Soviet writers received not so

long ago.

In 1975, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger advised

President Ford not to meet with writer Alexander

Solzhenitsyn, warning in a memorandum that doing so would

offend the Soviet Union. Now, similar views are held not only

by pragmatic politicians but also by multinational

corporations with large investments in China as well as

universities and foundations with inextricable links to

China.

The Chinese communist regime's penetration of the West far

exceeds that of the former Soviet Union. In the Cold War era,

the Soviet Union was blocked behind the Iron Curtain; there

were few links between Soviet and Western economies. An

average American family would not be using products ``made in

the USSR.'' Today, China is deeply embedded within the

globalized system. An American recently wrote an interesting

book detailing a year of her refusal to buy products that

were ``made in China'' and the many difficulties she

encountered as a result of this decision.

On the surface, the West has profited from its trade with

China. Western consumers can buy vast amounts of cheap

Chinese products. However, fundamental values of the West are

quietly being eroded: Who knows whether the American flag

flying outside your home was manufactured by inmates in

Chinese prisons or by child labor?

I arrived in the United States a month ago, thinking I had

escaped the reach of Beijing, only to realize that the

Chinese government's shadow continues to be omnipresent.

Several U.S. universities that I have contacted dare not

invite me for a lecture, as they cooperate with China on many

projects. If you are a scholar of Chinese studies who has

criticized the Communist Party, it would be impossible for

you to be involved in research projects with the Chinese-

funded Confucius Institute, and you may even be denied a

Chinese visa. Conversely, if you praise the Communist Party,

not only would you receive ample research funding but you

might also be invited to visit China and even received by

high-level officials. Western academic freedom has been

distorted by invisible hands.

I believe that China is a far greater threat than the

former Soviet Union ever was; unfortunately, the West lacks

visionary politicians, such as Ronald Reagan, to stand up to

this threat. President Obama might perceive the Chinese

Communist Party as a tiger that does not bite and, hence, is

looking forward to Vice President Xi Jinping's visit this

week. Will Obama, a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, openly

request that China release Liu Xiaobo, a Nobel Peace laureate

imprisoned by the Communist Party? Why did Secretary of State

Hillary Rodham Clinton have the courage to meet with Burma's

Aung San Suu Kyi but not to meet with Liu? Is it because

Burma is weak, while China is strong?

The Chinese Communist Party remains a tiger that will bite.

For working on human rights with Liu Xiaobo, after he was

awarded the Nobel Prize, I was tortured by the country's

secret police and nearly lost my life. Since then, dozens of

lawyers and writers have been subjected to brutal torture;

some contracted severe pneumonia after being held in front of

fans blowing cold air and then being baked by an electric

furnace. The secret police threatened me, saying that they

had a list of 200 anticommunist party intellectuals whom they

were ready to arrest and bury alive. Over the past year, the

number of political prisoners in China has increased, and the

jail sentences have become longer--yet Western voices of

protest have become weaker.

Harsh internal repression and unrestrained external

expansion are two sides of the same coin. The Chinese

Communist Party recently vetoed the U.N. Security Council's

resolution on Syria because killings not unlike those

committed by Damascus continue in Tibet.

More than a century ago, Westerners described China as a

``sleeping lion''; today, it is the West that has fallen

asleep. As an independent writer and a Christian member of a

``house church,'' I have the responsibility to tell the

truth: The Chinese Communist Party is still a man-eating

tiger.

Mr. Speaker, as a Penn State graduate, I would like to add to this evening's special order on the career of Joe Paterno by sharing a column by Bill Kline that ran in newspapers across the country following Paterno's death.

[From the Tribune, Jan. 23, 2012]

Paterno Built Penn State On, Off the Field

(By Bill Kline)

Every great man has a flaw.

Critics of Joe Paterno, who died Sunday at 85, will cite at

least one flaw of the legendary Penn State football coach--

what they will call his poor moral judgment in the Jerry

Sandusky sex-abuse scandal involving the Second Mile charity

and Penn State.

That assertion might be argued for decades, as JoePa's

proponents will say that he did nothing wrong and did what he

was supposed to do a decade ago when he received information

about his former assistant coach Sandusky--Paterno told his

superiors and asked them to look into it.

But whatever side of the argument you support, know this

about Joseph Vincent Paterno: No one did more for Penn State

University and, in turn, its hundreds of thousands of

students--not just for the athletes--over the past six

decades. And likely no one ever did more for Penn State in

the 157-year history of the institution built on former

farmland in rural central Pennsylvania.

You see, rightly or wrongly, Penn State had an image of an

agricultural college when Paterno arrived on campus in 1950--

and even to some degree when he became head coach in 1966.

Paterno not only raised the profile of the Penn State

program, he raised the profile of the university itself. And

it was not just wins on the football field that helped Penn

State become the national university it is today.

Paterno helped in many other ways, too, most notably

leading the charge to raise money for Penn State's library,

its endowment, to pay for professors, to pay for academic

scholarships, to pay for new buildings and just in general

for academic purposes. And Joe and his wife Sue donated their

own money, too, having given more than $5 million to Penn

State over the years.

JoePa's support of academics and the success of his team

combined to make Penn State a desirable place for students--

not just athletes. Penn State's enrollment has exploded over

the years to 85,000, including those at its satellite

campuses. Some years, 70,000 or more high school seniors

apply for the 7,000 or so freshman-class openings at Penn

State's University Park campus.

Penn State has become a strong academic institution--not

just a strong football program--in large part because of Joe

Paterno. For example:

Since 1966, when Paterno became head coach, Penn State's

endowment has grown from practically nothing to $1.67 billion

as of 2007.

Paterno's fund-raising efforts have resulted in about $2

billion for Penn State.

The University Park campus has nearly doubled in size since

1966.

He probably was the most underpaid coach, relatively

speaking, in the history of big-time college football, last

fall making less than all but one other coach in the Big Ten

Conference.

He won the National Heritage Award of the Anti-Defamation

League for his role as humanitarian and philanthropist.

Paterno was named Sportsman of the Year by Sports

illustrated.

He has produced 74 Academic All-Americans, and Penn State

football consistently is a national leader in the percentage

of its players who graduate--and that includes high

graduation rates for minorities, too.

He measured the success of his teams not in wins and

losses, but how those players later influenced society as

teachers and surgeons and engineers and leaders.

And through it all, Penn State remained a force on the

football field and was doing just fine.

Two of Paterno's last three recruiting classes were ranked

in the top 11 nationally, according to the recruiting site

scout.com.

Since 2005 Penn State's winning percentage under Paterno

was better than his all-time winning percentage.

He captured two Big Ten titles since then and was unbeaten

in conference play and in first place in the Big Ten's

Leaders Division when he was ousted in November because of

the Sandusky scandal.

And Paterno, of course, set yet another record last fall

with his 409th career victory.

But victories and championships--and flaws--should not be

how we remember Joe Paterno. He would not want that.

Joe Paterno should be remembered as an educator who truly

placed academics before athletics.

He should be remembered for building 18-year-old boys into

men and productive members of society.

And he should be remembered for building a university that

benefits all.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize National Marriage Week, which begins today and concludes on Valentine's Day. I am a strong supporter of traditional marriage, which is the basis of the American family. The purpose of National Marriage Week is to encourage spouses to rededicate themselves to each other and towards strengthening their marriages. Strong marriages allow children to flourish and provide a safe structured environment for emotional, spiritual, personal and professional development.

The family is the cornerstone of our society and I encourage all Americans to take this week to focus on their spouse and commit to strengthening their marriage.

Mr. Speaker, in 1994 I was part of a delegation, organized by Christian Solidarity International, that visited Nagorno-Karabakh, Armenia, and Azerbaijan.

In Nagorno-Karabakh, I saw horrible conditions: doctors operating without anesthesia using only a stiff dose of cognac; land mines planted by the retreating Azeri army which resulted in injury and amputation of limbs of women and children as well as soldiers and people living in hazardous partially bombed-out apartment buildings in the cities and in lean-tos among the debris of demolished villages.

Upon my return, I urged Congress not to forget the long-suffering people of Nagorno-Karabakh. And I rise today to do the same.

In 1921, Joseph Stalin, then the comissar for nationality affairs in the Transcaucasia Bureau of the Communist Party, declared Nagorno- Karabakh to be an autonomous region controlled by Azerbaijan as part of his divide and rule strategy. Historically, the majority of the population in Nagorno-Karabakh has been Armenian and the people have always had close ethnic, religious and familial ties with Armenia.

In the years leading to the breakup of the Soviet Union, the Karabakh Armenians petitioned in 1987 for inclusion of Nagorno-Karabakh in the state of Armenia. In 1991, they petitioned for independent state status. To date, the situation remains unresolved.

Shortly after the break-up of the Soviet Union, Armenians in Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh endured great hardship, including pogroms in Sumgait (February 1998), in Kirovabad (November 1988) and in Baku (January 1990).

A January 19, 1990, New York Times article described the Baku pogrom as a ``massacre.'' That same article also pointed to the violence in 1988, when, ``armed Azerbaijanis rampaged through the town of Sumgait and slaughtered 32 people, mostly Armenians.''

These horrific acts of targeted violence are as deplorable today as they were more than two decades ago. Tragically, tensions remain high in the region. A January 16 Bloomberg article reported that, ``Azerbaijan is buying up modern weaponry to be able to regain control of the breakaway Nagorno-Karabakh region quickly and with few losses should peace talks with neighboring Armenia fail, President Ilham Aliyev said.''

Such acts of aggression would have a devastating impact. It is critical that the U.S. works toward a lasting, peaceful and democratic solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

Madam Speaker, I do not believe that Members of Congress should receive a pay raise, and that is why I am voting for this bill. However, today's bill isn't just a vote on whether or not to freeze salaries for Members of Congress. The second part of this legislation extends the pay freeze for federal employees for a third consecutive year. This gives me serious pause. These issues should not be tied together. There should be one vote on Member salaries and a separate vote on extending the pay freeze for federal employees.

I am concerned that the language in this bill pertaining to federal employees' pay has not been considered through the normal process. I'm not arguing that freezing Members' salaries needs a hearing. That's obvious. Freezing our pay doesn't need to be vetted.

Federal employees are the issue. This bill has been rushed to the floor less than a week

after being introduced. No hearings have been held. Only 40 minutes of debate are being allowed. No amendments are permitted.

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

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

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

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

Or the impact on the Border Patrol?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Federal employees who are not in harm's way on a daily basis are also dedicated public servants. The medical researchers at the National Institutes of Health working to develop cures for cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's and autism are all federal employees. Dr. Francis Collins, the physician who mapped the human genome and serves as director of the NIH, is a federal employee. The National Weather Service meteorologists who track tornadoes and hurricanes, as well as the FDA inspectors working to stop a salmonella outbreak, are federal employees.

It is cheap grace to claim that today's legislation will in any way address our Nation's fiscal obligations. The national debt is over $15 trillion. It is projected to reach $17 trillion next year and $21 trillion in 2021. We have annual deficits of more than $1 trillion. We have unfunded obligations and liabilities of $65 trillion. This bill does not even direct the Congress to use the ``savings'' from today's bill to be used for deficit reduction or any other particular purpose.

I am concerned that this vote is merely an attempt to position the House to use federal employees as a ``pay-for'' to fund the further extension of the payroll ``holiday'' legislation that is currently before a conference committee.

This is wrong. And my vote today to freeze Members' salaries should not be construed in any way to indicate that I would support such a position from the conference committee. Let me be clear, the payroll ``holiday'' should expire on schedule at the end of this month. It does nothing more than steal from the Social Security Trust Fund, which is already going broke. And, according to recent polling reported by The Hill, most Americans haven't noticed any benefit from this ``holiday.''

Social Security is unique because it is paid for through a dedicated tax on workers who will receive future benefits. The money paid today funds benefits for existing retirees, and ensures future benefits. Because you pay now, a future worker will pay your benefits. That is why, until last year, this revenue stream was considered sacrosanct by both political parties.

Social Security is on an unsustainable path. Today's medical breakthroughs were simply not envisioned when the system was created in 1935. For example, in 1950, the average American lived for 68 years and 16 workers supported one retiree. Today, the average life expectancy is 78 and three workers support one retiree. Three and a half million people received Social Security in 1950; 55 million receive it today. Every day since January 1, 2011, over 10,000 baby-boomers turned 65. This trend will continue every day for the next 19 years. Do these numbers sound sustainable to anyone?

The Social Security Actuary has said that by 2036 the trust fund will be unable to pay full benefits. This means that everyone will receive an across-the-board cut of 22 percent, regardless of how much money they paid into the system.

After months of passionately debating the importance of reducing the deficit, the president and Congress are now continuing to advocate for a payroll ``holiday'' that's barely, if at all, improved our economic outlook and further contributes to our crushing debt burden.

And does it make sense that everyone, regardless of income, will get money from this ``stimulus?'' Does anyone think that Warren Buffet changed his buying habits as a result of this temporary suspension? Or did General Electric's CEO, Jeffery Immelt, the head of President Obama's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness who recently shipped GE's medical imaging division from Wisconsin to China, benefit from this ``holiday?'' Leadership from both parties have stated that extending this policy is paramount. I regret that time is being spent on a flawed policy instead of tackling the difficult choices to address our nation's unfunded spending obligations.

We all know what needs to be done to address the deficit and debt and that is why I have supported every serious effort to resolve this crisis, including the Bowles-Simpson recommendations, the Ryan Budget, the ``Gang of Six,'' the ``Cut, Cap and Balance'' plan and the Budget Control Act.

I also was among the bipartisan group of 103 members of Congress who urged the supercommittee to ``go big'' and identify $4 trillion in savings. I voted for the Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, which would have established critical institutional reforms to ensure that the federal government lives within its means. In addition, since 2006, I have introduced my own bipartisan legislation, the SAFE Commission, multiple times.

While none of these solutions were perfect, they all took the necessary steps to rebuild and protect our economy. In order to solve this problem, everything must be on the table for consideration--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 and loopholes that cost hundreds of billions of dollars annually.

Yet on the floor today, the Congress won't even, at a minimum, commit the savings from this bill towards deficit reduction. There is something fundamentally wrong with this scenario.

I've always had a policy where my staff in Washington, Herndon and Winchester were treated the same as federal employees. They work hard. But when federal employees faced furloughs, so did my staff. And because federal employees work under a pay freeze, my staff is working under a pay freeze. I have always felt that federal employees, and congressional staff, committee and leadership staff, should be treated equally. I feel that the moral choice has always been to treat everyone equally.

Above all, we should not let today's vote distract us from having the difficult conversations that are necessary to ensure that programs and services are reduced in a manner that responsibly lowers the deficit. There is never a convenient time to make hard decisions, but the longer we put off fixing the problem, the worse the medicine will be and the greater the number of Americans who will be hurt. America is living on borrowed dollars and borrowed time. We must stop leaving piles of debt to our children and grandchildren.

It was disappointing to hear the president deliver a campaign speech from the floor of this House during the State of the Union. It is disappointing that this House is now following his lead.

Federal employees live, work, pay taxes, liaise with contractors and businesses, and spend the money that is driving the private sector growth here in Virginia. We shouldn't use them as offsets for a failed policy that steals from Social Security.

Voting to freeze member pay is the easy thing to do. Let's be sure that today's actions don't distract us from the tough choices ahead. We should let the payroll ``holiday'' expire on schedule. We should put everything on the table--including discretionary spending, tax earmarks and loopholes, defense spending, and entitlements to address our nation's debt. We should be balancing our books to eliminate the need for sequestration. It's time to get to work.

Let's not continue to kick the can down the road as we wait for a better political moment. I stand ready to continue to work with my colleagues to find real, comprehensive reforms to our spending, tax, and entitlement systems to ensure that these programs exist. Our children and grandchildren deserve nothing less.

Mr. Speaker, I submit a copy of a letter I received from the assistant secretary for legislative affairs at the State Department in response to a December 13, 2011, letter to President Obama expressing my disbelief that the administration had granted the necessary waiver for the genocidal government of Sudan to obtain legal representation from Mr. Bart Fisher, a lawyer in Washington. I also submit the December 13 letter to the president.

I have written various administration officials at the State Department, Treasury and the White House since I learned of this indefensible development. Every response I have received to date attempts, unsuccessfully, to put my mind at ease by assuring me that the U.S. government has a ``firm policy of denying authorization to U.S. persons who seek to lobby or provide public relations services on behalf of the Government of Sudan for the lifting of sanctions or for any other purposes.'' However, the administration argues that ``Our system allows even the worse actors to receive legal advice on how to comply with our laws and to challenge sanction enforcement actions in court.''

I don't agree with their analysis. But even if I did, the restrictions on representation that the administration claims to have in place are inconsistent with what Mr. Fisher is actually being permitted to do. Mr. Fisher wrote me a letter claiming, ``Although the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has granted my law office a license, that license does not authorize any lobbying activities, and my office will engage in none. We will respond (emphasis added), however, to requests, for information from Members of Congress or the Obama Administration.''

As I pointed out in a December 15, 2011 letter to Treasury Secretary Geithner, I never requested information from Mr. Fisher. And yet, in the letter to my office, he tries to convince me, as a member of Congress, not anyone involved in court proceedings with the Government of Sudan, that the current sanctions regime should be altered. How can this not be understood to be lobbying?

Meanwhile, on Monday, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations (UN) Susan Rice sent a strongly worded letter to the president of the UN Security Council about the tragedy presently unfolding in Sudan-- specifically in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile. Rice wrote, ``It is clear that the Government of Sudan has instituted a deliberate policy to prevent humanitarian agencies from reaching vulnerable civilians impacted by the conflict. She said that the people of these regions have been pushed to the ``brink of a major humanitarian crisis.'' She warned of ``famine conditions'' and concluded, ``A humanitarian disaster of this magnitude is unacceptable in any circumstance. It is particularly shameful when the path to averting large-scale loss of innocent lives is so clear. Mr. President, this crisis can be addressed by the Government of Sudan, if it were to allow the United Nations and other relied organizations immediate and unimpeded access to vulnerable civilians across Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile.''

I would argue that that is not the only thing that is shameful. This administration is splitting hairs. It is blind to its own inconsistency. I agree wholeheartedly with Ambassador Rice's analysis. And yet, the administration, in the face of past crimes against humanity and genocide and present actions which jeopardize the lives of thousands of people, has given the Government of Sudan the privilege a legal representation in our nation's capital--representation which constitutes lobbying.

The administration must reverse course and revoke Mr. Fisher's license lest Secretary Clinton, Secretary Geithner and President Obama be complicit in aiding a genocidal government.

U.S. Department of State,

Washington, DC, January 12, 2012.

Hon. Frank R. Wolf,

House of Representatives.

Dear Mr. Wolf: Thank you for your letter of December 13,

2011, to President Obama and your subsequent call to

Secretary Clinton concerning reports that the Government of

Sudan has attempted to retain a lobbyist to represent its

interests in the United States. While we cannot comment on

specific cases, the United States government has a firm

policy of denying authorization to U.S. persons who seek to

lobby or provide public relations services on behalf of the

Government of Sudan for the lifting of sanctions or for any

other purpose. There are no current Office of Foreign Assets

Control (OFAC) licenses allowing U.S. persons to lobby or

provide public relations services on behalf of the Government

of Sudan.

We also recognize the importance of due process and

opportunity for redress under the Sudan sanctions regime. Our

system allows even the worst actors to receive legal advice

on how to comply with our laws and to challenge sanction

enforcement actions in court. However, such legal services do

not include lobbying activities. There are investigation and

enforcement mechanisms in place to ensure compliance with

U.S. sanctions, which include the possibility of civil and

criminal penalties for violations of sanctions regulations.

We hope this information is helpful in addressing your

concerns. Please feel free to contact us further on this or

any matter of concern to you.

Sincerely,

David S. Adams,

Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, every federal employee has repeated the following oath: ``I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.''

Within the past month, northern Virginia residents have attended services for two federal law enforcement officers who have died in the line of duty: U.S. Park Police Sergeant Michael Andrew Boehm of Burke, Virginia, and National Park Service Ranger Margaret Anderson, who previously lived in Lovettsville, Virginia, before her post in Washington State.

I urge all members to read Washington Post columnist Joe Davidson's piece entitled ``Park ranger's death highlight the risks in federal law enforcement,'' which I am submitting for the Record. This piece highlights the sacrifices made in 2011 by 13 federal law enforcement officers who died in the line of duty, including: Senior Special Agent John Capano, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; Special Agent Daniel ``Danny'' Lee Knapp, Federal Bureau of Investigations; Officer Bart Child, Fort Huachuca Police Department; Special Agent Timothy S. Briggs, Federal Bureau of Investigations; Border Patrol Agent Eduardo Rojas, Jr., Customs and Border Protection; Border Patrol Agent Hector R. Clark, Customs and Border Protection; Senior Officer Specialist Christopher Cooper, Bureau of Prisons; Deputy Marshal John Perry, U.S. Marshals Service; Park Ranger Julie Weir, National Park Service; Deputy Marshal Derek Hotsinpiller, U.S. Marshals Service; Special Agent Jamie Zapata, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and Park Ranger Chris Nickel, National Park Service.

Their sacrifices remind us that many federal employees are repeatedly put in dangerous situations. According to the Office of Personnel Management, since 1992, nearly 3,000 federal employees have paid the ultimate price while serving their country. 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. Customs and Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents are working to stop the flow of illegal immigrants and drugs across our borders. Federal firefighters work to protect federal lands and mitigate the spread of deadly fires.

Federal employees who are not in harm's way on a daily basis are also dedicated civil servants. The medical researchers at the National Institutes of Health working to develop cures for cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's and autism are all dedicated federal employees. Dr. Francis Collins, the physician who mapped the human genome and serves as director of the NIH, is a federal employee.

The National Weather Service meteorologist who tracks hurricanes, and the FDA inspector working to stop a salmonella outbreak, are federal employees. The ATF agents who were in Blacksburg, Virginia, immediately following last month's shooting are federal employees. These are but a few examples of the vital jobs performed by federal employees.

I thank all federal employees for their service to our nation, and know that all my colleagues are grateful to the families of those who have died while working to ensure that our country is a safer and better place.

[From the Washington Post, Jan. 4, 2012]

Park Ranger's Death Highlights the Risks in Federal Law Enforcement

(By Joe Davidson)

In a stark reminder of how dangerous working for Uncle Sam

can be, 13 federal law enforcement officers died in 2011.

Then the new year began with the murder of an officer in an

otherwise peaceful park.

Margaret Anderson, a ranger with the National Park Service,

was gunned down in Washington state's Mount Rainier National

Park on New Year's Day.

The day before, John Capano, an agent with the Bureau of

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agent, was killed

in Seaford, N.Y., as he tried to stop a pharmacy thief.

Capano, 51, who was off-duty at the time, apparently was

mistakenly shot by another law enforcement officer, according

to the Associated Press and New York media reports.

Last Thursday, Daniel Knapp, a 43-year-old FBI agent,

drowned in Puerto Rico while trying to assist a distressed

swimmer.

A day earlier, U.S. Park Police Sgt. Mike Boehm was buried.

Boehm suffered a heart attack while on duty Dec. 16, trying

to assist a man who plummeted from the Key Bridge in

Georgetown.

Kevin Bacher, a ranger who served with Anderson at Mount

Rainier, said she ``always had a smile and always had a kind

word and would bend over backward if you needed something.''

Anderson, a 34-year-old mother of two girls who was married

to another ranger, probably would have been more than willing

to assist even the likes of Benjamin Colton Barnes. But the

24-year-old Iraq war veteran allegedly shot her before she

could even get out of her car. He then fled into the woods,

where he developed hypothermia and drowned in a creek.

Before transferring to Mount Rainier in 2008, Anderson was

assigned to the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical

Park in Hagerstown.

``When I think of Margaret's tenure here, I think of her

big smile. But she also was a no-nonsense law enforcement

officer,'' said Kevin Brandt, the park's superintendent.

Unlike many officers, she became an emergency medical

technician ``to provide that important service to visitors,''

he added. ``She had a real love of nature. . . . She was a

consummate ranger. She was everything that you'd want a

ranger to be.''

Anderson's death points to the perils that rangers face.

``This tragedy serves as a reminder of the risks undertaken

by the men and women of the National Park Service and law

enforcement officers across the Department every day,'' said

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.

Rangers are far more than park tour guides in peculiar

hats. Particularly in remote parks, they carry out a variety

of critical duties, including fighting fires, saving lives

and being the cops many of them are authorized to be. There

are two types of rangers, those with law enforcement powers

such as Anderson, and interpretive rangers who have some of

the same responsibilities but don't carry guns, wear body

armor or confront killers.

Generally, guns and bulletproof vests are not necessary,

because national parks are safe places. ``Margaret Anderson's

case was incredibly tragic for us, but it was very rare at

the same time,'' said National Park Service Director Jon

Jarvis.

Like Anderson, many park service employees have a strong

sense of mission and devote their careers to protecting

America's natural resources. ``The Park Service . . . is a

big family,'' said Jarvis, himself a 35-year Park Service

veteran. ``To lose one of the family is devastating to us.''

While its people are devastated, he said, the Park Service

``also will evaluate the situation in extraordinary detail to

see if there is anything we can do to prevent this from

happening in the future.''

The 13 officers who died in the line of duty, including

deaths from job-related illness and accidents, compares with

just four in 2000 and 17 in 2007, according to the Officer

Down Memorial Page, a nonprofit organization. ``These

officers selflessly put themselves in harm's way to protect

their fellow Americans,'' said Office of Personnel Management

Director John Berry. ``All Americans are saddened by their

loss, and grateful for the courage every Federal law

enforcement officer shows daily as they keep our nation

safe.''

For all of the sadness the deaths bring, the killings of

officers also generate understandable anger. When Jaime J.

Zapata, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

agent, was killed in Mexico in February, Homeland Security

Secretary Janet Napolitano did not mince words:

``Let me be clear: Any act of violence against our ICE

personnel--or any DHS personnel--is an attack against all

those who serve our nation and put their lives at risk for

our safety.''

Officers lost in the line of duty last year

Thirteen federal law enforcement officers died in the line

of duty in 2011, according to the Officer Down Memorial Page,

a nonprofit organization. In addition to officers who were

killed by gunfire, as National Park Service Ranger Margaret

Anderson was on Sunday, the list includes officers who died

because of job-related illnesses, such as heart attacks, or

in vehicle and other accidents.

Senior Special Agent John Capano, Bureau of Alcohol,

Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Dec. 31, New York.

Special Agent Daniel ``Danny'' Lee Knapp, FBI, Dec. 29,

Puerto Rico.

Sgt. Michael Andrew Boehm, U.S. Park Police, Dec. 16,

District of Columbia.

Officer Bart Child, Fort Huachuca Police Department, Aug.

18, Arizona.

Special Agent Timothy S. Briggs, FBI, May 31, Kentucky.

Border Patrol Agent Eduardo Rojas, Jr., Customs and Border

Protection, May 12, Arizona.

Border Patrol Agent Hector R. Clark, Customs and Border

Protection, May 12, Arizona.

Senior Officer Specialist Christopher Cooper, Bureau of

Prisons, April 7, Kansas.

Deputy Marshal John Perry, U.S. Marshals Service, March 8,

Missouri.

Park Ranger Julie Weir, National Park Service, Feb. 24,

Nebraska.

Deputy Marshal Derek Hotsinpiller, U.S. Marshals Service,

Feb. 16, West Virginia.

Special Agent Jaime J. Zapata, Immigration and Customs

Enforcement, Feb. 15, Mexico.

Park Ranger Chris Nickel, National Park Service, Jan. 29,

Utah.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize and pay tribute to former Czech president and play-wright Vaclav Havel. He began as one of Czechoslovakia's best-known dissidents as he pushed for democratic change during the dark days of the Soviet Union. He went on to become the first president of the Czech Republic.

I submit for the Record an article from Monday's Washington Post where post columnist Michael Gerson, recalled Havel's message to a joint session of Congress in which he urged Americans to put ``morality ahead of politics'' and to foster ``responsibility--responsibility to something higher than my family, my country, my company, my success.'' This same message could not come at a more timely moment. I commend it to my colleagues.

[From the Washington Post, Dec. 19, 2011]

Havel's Revolution of Truth

(By Michael Gerson)

As the heroes of the Cold War walk off into the mist--

Ronald Reagan, then John Paul II, now Vaclav Havel--each

departure makes that world more distant and foreign. But it

is too early for forgetfulness, which would also be

ingratitude.

Once in a nightmare, European dissidents lived in prison,

in whole nations that were prisons. They were confirmed to

mental hospitals by governments sustained through the

promotion of mass delusion. They were forced to make

confessions of imagined crimes by regimes that were criminal

enterprises.

And then the government of Czechoslovakia went a step too

far. In 1976, it arrested a band called The Plastic People of

the Universe for offenses against cultural conformity. This

was a perfect symbol of communism: a system that could not

tolerate the unauthorized singing of songs. The regime's

stupidity undermined its capacity to intimidate. Havel--a

countercultural intellectual and rock fan--co-founded the

Charter 77 human rights movement. Never has bad popular music

been put to better use.

In history's great refutation of historical pessimism,

Europe's nightmare turned out to be a ``fairy tale''--a

phrase Havel used to describe his experience. On Oct. 27,

1989, Havel was sent to prison for the fourth time. That

December, 300,000 Czechs turned out in Wenceslas Square to

chant, ``Havel to the Castle!'' By New Year's Day, Havel

could declare, ``People, your government has returned to

you!'' In February, he addressed a joint session of Congress

as the leader of a free Czechoslovakia. It was four months

from prisoner to visiting president.

Havel helped overthrow communism by discrediting its

central tenet. Scientific socialism taught that history is

the outworking of massive economic and social forces that the

individual could not hope to budge. Ideals, Marx sniffed,

were ``phantoms formed in the human brain.'' As Winston

Churchill might have said of Havel: Some phantom. Some brain.

Havel relentlessly exposed communist ideology as a confidence

game, a Ponzi scheme, dependent on broad deference to obvious

lies. One ideal--a commitment to truth--proved to be a lever

long enough to move the world.

Reading back over Havel's landmark 1978 essay, ``The Power

of the Powerless,'' is like wading through molasses scattered

with diamonds. The intellectual jargon is thick--and then

comes a crystalline phrase, a perfectly polished insight.

Communist regimes require people to ``live within a lie,''

demanding dehumanizing rituals of loyalty. He describes his

country as plastered with slogans but lacking in genuine

belief. ``Each person,'' he says, ``somehow succumbs to a

profane trivialization of his inherent humanity.'' They drift

together ``down the river of pseudolife.''

Yet in a society ruled by lies, truth gains a ``singular,

explosive, incalculable political power.'' The desire to live

authentically is the equivalent of a fifth column--a

revolution hidden in a whole society. Truth advances in a

political speech, in a hunger strike, in a play, in a song.

``It is a bacteriological weapon, so to speak,'' says Havel,

``utilized when conditions are ripe by a single civilian to

disarm an entire division.'' Havel was a historical prophet

of the first order--and the fulfillment of his own prophesy.

``Living within the truth,'' according to Havel, is an

inherently moral enterprise. It requires sacrifice, which

presupposes a ``sense of responsibility'' for others--a

belief in love, friendship and compassion. In the company of

John Paul II and Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Havel believed that

political renewal starts in moral and personal renewal. In

one letter from prison he wrote, ``But who should begin? Who

should break this vicious circle? The only possible place to

begin is with myself . . . . Whether all is really lost or

not depends entirely on whether or not I am lost.''

Uncomfortably, Havel also applied this moral vision to the

prosperous nations of the West. He criticized ``a selfish

cult of material success'' and ``the absence of faith in a

higher order of things.'' Consumerism and relativism, he

warned, could also strip people of humanity and

responsibility. Even the wealthy and powerful can live within

the lie. In his speech to Congress, Havel urged Americans to

put ``morality ahead of politics'' and to foster

``responsibility--responsibility to something higher than my

family, my country, my company, my success.''

American intellectual Noam Chomsky called Havel's speech an

``embarrassingly silly and morally repugnant Sunday School

sermon''--itself a statement both silly and repugnant.

The Czech Republic had this rare advantage: Its leading

intellectual believed in the ideals of Western civilization.

And by his faith in civilization, he helped to save it.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose motions regarding a conference because I do not support any of the costly proposals to extend the temporary payroll ``holiday,'' which destabilizes the Social Security Trust Fund and does nothing to enact the needed long-term structural reforms necessary to right our fiscal state of ship.

Our country is going broke. The national debt is over $15 trillion. It is projected to reach $17 trillion next year and $21 trillion in 2021. We have annual deficits of approximately $1 trillion. We have unfunded obligations and liabilities of $62 trillion.

The Social Security Actuary has said that by 2037 the trust fund will be unable to pay full benefits. This means that everyone will receive an across the board cut of 22 percent, regardless of how much money they paid into the system.

Washington is dysfunctional. After months of passionately debating the importance of reducing the deficit, the President and Congress are now advocating for a policy that's barely, if at all, improved our economic outlook and further contributes to our crushing debt burden.

My floor statement from December 13, which I have reposted on my Web site, further explains my opposition to the underlying legislation.

During his 1796 farewell address, George Washington admonished his fellow countrymen: ``We should avoid ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden of which we ourselves ought to bear.'' The Congress should heed his advice.

I voted ``no'' on this policy last December. I voted ``no'' on this policy last week. And I vote ``no'' today.

I thank the chair very much for yielding.

I want to thank Representative Ros-Lehtinen and her staff for, really, being very dogged and persistent, and I want them to know how grateful I am. As people are for this bill, they should know that had it not been for them, we would not be here.

I also want to thank Mr. Berman and his staff. I want to thank Mr. Cantor and his staff for scheduling this. I want to single out Speaker Boehner and his staff because they were a part of this effort for the last several months, and they were very faithful, so I want to thank them. I also want to thank my staff for being involved in this for well over a year.

The Coptic Christians are going through a very difficult time. The Iraqi Christians are being killed, and difficult things are happening to them. In Tibet, the Buddhists are setting themselves aflame because of the persecution of the Chinese Government. The Catholic Church in China is under stress: 25 bishops are under house arrest. The Protestant House Church in China is being squeezed and persecuted. The Christians in Sudan, in the Blue Nile area, are going through genocide and are being killed because of their faith.

Interestingly enough, the original bill passed on the very last day of Congress a number of years ago, and history is repeating itself. The Commission has been a beacon of hope. With that, I just want to, again, thank all those who helped us get here.

Mr. Speaker, the conference report accompanying H.R. 2055 clearly states that Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has the ability to create the Afghanistan/Pakistan Study Group. I worked closely with members of the House and Senate to include the funding for this important panel and I am extremely pleased that it is now possible for it to become a reality.

Despite numerous requests for Secretary Panetta to create this panel using his existing

authority, he has steadfastly refused to do so. His letter of November 3, 2011, which I include for the Record, states that he believes ``fresh eyes'' have already been put on our mission and strategy in Afghanistan. He neglects to mention whether his definition of ``fresh eyes'' includes those who devised and implemented the current U.S. strategy. It is clear that his strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan has not yet been successful--and the American people are concerned about the outcome.

I also include for the Record my initial letter to President Obama outlining the importance of the Af/Pak Study Group, as well as letters of support from prominent foreign policy experts. This panel presents the Obama Administration with the opportunity to engage the brightest minds outside of government in reviewing current strategy in South Asia and bring their considerable experience to bear to ensure that we have the best possible strategy going forward in this vitally important region.

Mr. Speaker, Secretary Panetta now has clear ability and funding to create the Afghanistan/Pakistan Study Group. I believe we owe it to our servicemembers and their families to consider all opinions on how to achieve success in Afghanistan in Pakistan.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, August 4, 2010.

Hon. Barack H. Obama,

The President, The White House, Washington DC.

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

catastrophic and deliberate terrorist attack on our country,

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

and have the utmost confidence in General Petraeus's proven

leadership. I also remain unequivocally committed to the

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

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

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

have been a consistent supporter of the war effort in both

Afghanistan and Iraq, I believe that with this support comes

a responsibility. This was true during a Republican

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

today.

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

firsthand the deteriorating security situation. I was deeply

concerned that Congress was failing to exercise the necessary

oversight of the war effort. Against this backdrop I authored

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

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

nationally known figures who were brought together with the

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

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

for Strategic and International Studies, and the Baker

Institute for Public Policy at Rice University--and charged

with undertaking a comprehensive review of U.S. efforts

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

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

While reticent at first, to their credit President Bush,

State Secretary Rice and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld came to

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

Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee

Hamilton. Two members of your national security team,

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and CIA Director Leon

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

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

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

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

ideas were adopted. Retired General Jack Keane, senior

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

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

Aside from the specific policy recommendations of the panel,

the ISG helped force a moment of truth in our national

conversation about the war effort.

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

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

In recent days I have spoken with a number of knowledgeable

individuals including former senior diplomats, public policy

experts and retired and active military. Many believe our

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

urgent need for what I call an Afghanistan-Pakistan Study

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

holistically, given Pakistan's strategic significance to

our efforts in Afghanistan and the Taliban's presence in

that country as well, especially in the border areas.

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

in chief. You are well acquainted with the sobering

statistics of the past several weeks--notably that July

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Afghanistan parallels are imperfect at best, the shadow of

history looms large. Eroding political will has

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

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

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

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

left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even

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

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

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

is fundamental. We must soberly consider the implications of

failure in Afghanistan. Those that we know for certain are

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

Taliban with an open staging ground for future worldwide

attacks, and a destabilized, nuclear-armed Pakistan.

Given these realities and wavering public and political

support, I urge you to act immediately, through executive

order, to convene an Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group modeled

after the Iraq Study Group. The participation of nationally

known and respected individuals is of paramount importance.

Among the names that surfaced in my discussions with others,

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

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

Bob Kerrey and Sam Nunn; former Congressman Duncan Hunter;

former U.S. ambassador Ryan Crocker, former Secretary of

Defense James Schlesinger, and General Keane. These names are

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

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

up to the task.

I firmly believe that an Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group

could reinvigorate national confidence in how America can be

successful and move toward a shared mission in Afghanistan.

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

past weekend, it was unsettling to hear conflicting

statements from within the leadership of the administration

that revealed a lack of clarity about the end game in

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

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

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

the American people and their elected representatives do not

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

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

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

Afghanistan who are also facing dwindling public support, as

evidenced by the recent Dutch troop withdrawal, and would

give them a tangible vision to which to commit.

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

believe that Americans of all political viewpoints, liberals

and conservatives alike, and varied opinions on the war will

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

administration's support of the Iraq Study Group, which

involved taking the group's members to Iraq and providing

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

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

in our national interest to openly assess the challenges

before us and to chart a clear course to success.

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

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

once again pause and remember that horrific morning nine

years ago when passenger airlines became weapons, when the

skyline of one of America's greatest cities was forever

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

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

recent days believe that time is of the essence in moving

forward with a study panel, and waiting for Congress to

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

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

convene this group in short order, and explain to the

American people why it is both necessary and timely. Should

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

offer an amendment by whatever vehicle necessary to mandate

the group's creation at the earliest possible opportunity.

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

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

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

improve the situation and protect American interests.'' The

same can be said of Afghanistan.

I understand that you are a great admirer of Abraham

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

that pitted brother against brother, and father against son.

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

with strong, often times opposing viewpoints. Historians

assert this served to develop his thinking on complex

matters, Similarly, while total agreement may not emerge from

a study group for Afghanistan and Pakistan, I believe that

vigorous, thoughtful and principled debate and discussion

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

will only serve the national interest. The biblical

admonition that iron sharpens iron rings true.

Best wishes.

Sincerely,

Frank R. Wolf,

Member of Congress.

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

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

harm's way and to the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased this morning that The Washington Post did a story on a shameful development here in Washington; namely, that Bart Fisher, a Washington lawyer, was granted a license by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, OFAC, at Treasury, to represent the genocidal government of Sudan. I submit a copy of the Post article for the record.

The Sudanese people have long been brutalized, marginalized, and terrorized by their own government. Yet, unbelievably, it seems the same regime has been afforded the privilege of legal representation in Washington by the Obama administration.

According to a news report earlier this week in Africa Intelligence, Mr. Fisher was hired with the express purpose of trying to ``lift American sanctions against it.'' In documentation posted on the Department of Justice Web site, it appears that Mr. Fisher was granted a license by the Office of Foreign Assets Control at Treasury to provide this representation, and that he plans to engage in political activities, among them ``representations, including petitions to U.S. government agencies regarding sanctions.''

I'm appalled that this has been permitted and someone or Mr. Fisher's political contributions were a factor. The administration should reverse this approval.

Martin Luther King famously said, ``In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.'' The Obama administration should remember the words ``the silence of our friends.''

What must the people of Sudan be thinking at this particular juncture when the administration struggles to find its voice on their behalf, while at the same time seemingly empowering the voice of their oppressors?

Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir's crimes are well known and documented. This is the same man that is accused by the International Criminal Court of five counts of crimes against humanity, including murder, rape, torture, extermination, and two counts of war crimes.

I've been to Sudan five times, including in July of 2004, when Senator Sam Brownback and I were the first congressional delegation to go to Darfur. We spoke with women who had been raped just days earlier. The Arab Janjaweed militias, armed by Khartoum, the government of Khartoum of Sudan, told these women that they wanted to make ``lighter- skinned babies.''

In addition to horrific human rights abuses and crimes committed by Bashir and his National Congress Party, Sudan remains on the State Department's list of State sponsors of terrorism. It is well known that the same people currently in control in Khartoum gave safe haven to Osama bin Laden in the early 1990s. Moreover, Khartoum was a revolving door for Hamas and other designated terrorist groups.

But Bashir's crimes are not merely a thing of the past. At the recent Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission hearing on the crisis in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile states in Sudan, a former Member of Congress and President of United to End Genocide, Tom Andrews, spoke about his experiences while visiting the region.

He said there were reports of ``Sudanese armed forces and their allied militias going door to door targeting people based upon their religion and based upon the color of their skin.'' And yet the Obama administration gives them the right to have somebody in this town represent them.

A recent delegation from the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom visited Sudan and met with refugees in Yida camp. They returned with similar reports. All of the pastors with whom they spoke said they fled southern Kordofan after learning that the Sudanese military was undertaking house searches for Christians and SPLM-North supporters.

We stand just blocks from a museum that cries out, ``Never again.'' Meanwhile, it appears that this administration is complicit in allowing a genocidal government to have an advocate in Washington.

The people who have the authority and the power to stop this from happening are President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, Secretary of the Treasury Geithner, Adam Szubin, who is the head of the office of OFAC, and David Cohen, the Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence at Treasury.

History will be the judge if they fail to act.

[From the Washington Post, Dec. 15, 2011]

Sudan Hires Washington Lawyer

(By Dan Eggen)

The Obama administration has allowed the Republic of Sudan

to hire its first U.S. lawyer in years, prompting strong

objections from human rights groups and some members of

Congress.

Bart S. Fisher, a veteran international trade lawyer, is

being paid $20,000 a month by Sudan to help the strife-torn

African nation in its attempts to have U.S. economic

sanctions lifted and be removed from the State Department's

list of terrorism-sponsoring governments, according to

federal registration documents.

The hiring has angered U.S. human rights activists and some

lawmakers because of the Sudanese regime's history of alleged

genocide and other atrocities against its citizens during a

decades-long civil war. Fighting has flared again this year

along the border with newly independent South Sudan,

displacing an estimated 400,000 people and prompting new

accusations of indiscriminate bombing and illegal killings by

the Khartoum government.

Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.), a longtime critic of the

Sudanese regime, attacked Fisher in the House and during a

news conference this week for agreeing to work for ``a

genocidal government'' that ``has blood on its hands.'' He

also said he suspected the administration may have issued a

license to Fisher because of the lawyer's past campaign

contributions to President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary

Rodham Clinton and other Democrats.

``I don't know how Mr. Fisher sleeps at night,'' Wolf said

on the House floor Tuesday, adding later: ``If he has

received one penny from the government of Sudan, he should

return it immediately.''

An alliance of activists, Act for Sudan, plans to picket

Fisher's Washington offices on Friday. ``Our government

should not be seeing this as the time to reward the

government of Sudan,'' said Act for Sudan spokesman Eric

Cohen.

Fisher said in an interview Wednesday that the objections

are misplaced and based on the erroneous idea that he is

working as a lobbyist. Under the terms of the license issued

by the Treasury Department, which enforces sanctions against

Sudan, Fisher may only represent the Khartoum government in

legal matters and is forbidden from lobbying or engaging in

public relations, records show.

``I am not a lobbyist,'' Fisher said. ``I am a lawyer, and

the Embassy of the Republic of Sudan is my client.''

The State Department has designated Sudan a state sponsor

of terrorism since 1993, when the United States imposed

sanctions on the country for harboring terrorists such as

Osama bin Laden. The restrictions remained amid persistent

allegations of genocide and other crimes during a 20-year

civil war. A fragile peace agreement in 2005 led to the

formation this year of the new nation of South Sudan.

The Khartoum regime has long sought ways to persuade the

U.S. government to lift its restrictions, including the

hiring of a Washington lobbyist in 2005, who was later

prosecuted for working on behalf of the country in violation

of sanctions.

The Washington Post reported in 2009 that the regime had

worked through the nation of Qatar to enlist the help of

former Reagan administration official Robert ``Bud''

McFarlane, who is now an adviser to Newt Gingiich's

presidential campaign.

Documents filed with the Justice Department under the

Foreign Agents Registration Act show that Fisher was hired

Nov. 1 to ``counsel and assist the Republic of the Sudan in

satisfying appropriate U.S. conditions to reduce and

eliminate the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations and related U.S.

laws.'' A license allowing the deal was issued by Treasury on

Nov. 16, records show.

The fee is $20,000 per month, paid quarterly. Fisher's wife

also received a gift of a purse and two candlestick holders

from the republic on Nov. 2, disclosure records show.

A Treasury official, speaking on background, said that the

agreement adheres to sanction guidelines because legal

representation, but not lobbying or public relations, is

allowed.

``Recognizing the importance of due process and opportunity

for redress, our regulations ensure that even the worst

actors have the opportunity to challenge the blocking of

their property before U.S. government agencies and courts,''

the official said in a statement.

Fisher said Sudan's government needs legal representation

to continue implementing the 2005 peace accord, which

includes complex negotiations over transportation and other

infrastructure issues with South Sudan.

``Is it controversial? Yes. But is it improper to have

counsel under the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution? I

don't think so,'' Fisher said. ``Why would they not have a

right to counsel like anyone else?''

Mr. Speaker, I submit remarks I delivered at a Sudan press conference today hosted by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.

Sudan Press Conference,

1 p.m., December 14, 2011, Rayburn Foyer

We are surrounded today by photos which convey a dark but

familiar story--Sudanese people, brutalized, marginalized and

terrorized by their own government.

And yet, it seems this same regime has been afforded the

privilege of legal representation in Washington by the Obama

administration.

Earlier this week, I was outraged to learn that the

genocidal government of Sudan led by Omar Hassan Bashir--an

internationally indicted war criminal--now has a lawyer, Mr.

Bart Fisher, on retainer in Washington.

According to a news report in Africa Intelligence, Mr.

Fisher was hired with the express purpose of trying ``to lift

American sanctions against it.''

In documentation posted on the Department of Justice Web

site, it appears that Mr. Fisher was granted a license by the

Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) at Treasury to

provide this representation and that he plans to engage in

political activities, among them, ``Representations

(including petitions) . . . to U.S. government agencies

regarding sanctions . . .''

If true, I am appalled that this has been permitted and

can't help but wonder if Mr. Fisher's political contributions

were a factor. The administration should reverse this

approval.

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

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

friends.''

I can't help but wonder what the people of Sudan are

thinking at this particular juncture when the administration

struggles to find its voice on their behalf, while at the

same time seemingly empowering the voice of their oppressors.

Would we even dream of allowing Milosevic, Karadzic or

Gaddafi to have representation in the nation's capital?

Bashir's crimes are well-known and documented. This is the

same man that is accused by the International Criminal Court

of five counts of crimes against humanity, including murder,

rape, torture, extermination, and two counts of war crimes.

I've been to Sudan five times, including in July 2004 when

Senator Sam Brownback and I were the first congressional

delegation to go to Darfur. We spoke with women who had been

raped just days earlier.

The Arab janjaweed militias, armed by Khartoum, told these

women that they wanted to make ``lighter skinned babies.''

In addition to horrific human rights abuses and crimes

committed by Bashir and his National Congress Party (NCP),

Sudan remains on the State Department's list of state

sponsors of terrorism. It is well known that the same people

currently in control in Khartoum gave safe haven to Osama bin

Laden in the early 1990s. Moreover, Khartoum was a revolving

door for Hamas and other designated terrorist groups.

But Bashir's crimes are not merely at thing of the past as

we will hear in greater detail today. At a recent Tom Lantos

Human Rights Commission hearing on the crisis in Southern

Kordofan and Blue Nile states in Sudan, former Member of

Congress and President of United to End Genocide, Tom

Andrews, spoke about his experiences while visiting the

region.

He said that there were reports of, ``Sudanese armed forces

and their allied militias going door to door targeting people

based upon their religion, and based upon the color of their

skin.''

Let me repeat that . . . people were being targeted for

killing based upon their religion and the color of their

skin.

According to the USCIRF delegation that recently visited

Sudan and met with refugees in Yida camp, all of the pastors

with whom they spoke said they fled Southern Kordofan after

learning that the Sudanese military was undertaking house

searches for Christians and SPLM-N supporters.

If this were happening in southern France, the world would

be outraged. The world would take action. And yet, this story

rarely features above the fold.

We stand just blocks from a museum that cries out ``Never

Again.'' Meanwhile, it appears that this administration is

complicit in allowing the genocidaire Bashir an advocate in

Washington.

Which begs the question, who lobbies for the people whose

faces are represented in this room?

Yesterday I wrote the president along with the Departments

of State Treasury and Justice requesting immediate

clarification about this matter and will continue to press

them--just as I have done during previous administrations.

I am submitting this correspondence and relevant

information into the Congressional Record for all to see.

We must not be silent in the face of this injustice.

If President Obama, Secretary Clinton and Secretary

Geithner stand by and allow this to happen, history will be

their judge.

Mr. Speaker, I was appalled and outraged to learn yesterday that the genocidal government of Khartoum has hired a lobbyist to represent its interests here in Washington.

On December 10, a publication called ``Africa Intelligence'' reported that the Sudanese Government has put a lobbyist on retainer with the express purpose of trying ``to lift American sanctions against it.''

The article further reported that the law office of Bart S. Fisher would be paid $20,000 a month plus expenses to represent this genocidal government, a government which literally has blood on its hands.

I don't know how Mr. Fisher sleeps at night. Considering the follow: Sudan's president, Omar Hassan Bashir, is an internationally indicted war criminal. Bashir is accused by the International Criminal Court of five counts of crimes against humanity--including murder, rape, torture, and extermination--and two counts of war crimes.

But Khartoum's crimes are not simply a thing of the past. In a recent hearing before the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, a witness with the NGO Human Rights Watch testified about the situation on the ground in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile states in Sudan, saying: ``According to witnesses we interviewed and other sources, government forces shelled civilian areas, shot people in the streets and carried out house-to-house searches and arrests based on lists of names of known Sudan People's Liberation Movement supporters in the first weeks of fighting.''

My office has received regular, reliable reports from individuals on the ground echoing these claims. We have learned of ongoing aerial bombardments in Blue Nile and Southern Kordofan states. We have heard of nightmarish accounts of extrajudicial killings, illegal detention, disappearances, and indiscriminate attacks against civilians. Furthermore, evidence gathered through satellite imagery by the Satellite Sentinel Project shows at least eight mass graves found in and around Kadugli, the capital of Southern Kordofan.

Literally thousands have fled the violence, which begs the question, Who is their lobbyist? They are in desperate straits having left behind their entire lives. Who is their lobbyist? They are facing malnutrition and prolonged displacement. Who is their lobbyist?

To put a human face on these questions, consider this picture taken by a Voice of America photographer of a malnourished child with a feeding tube inserted in his nose in an attempt to get him the sustenance he so desperately needs. He is one of roughly 25,000 people in the Yida refugee camp that have fled the fighting in Sudan and crossed the border in South Sudan.

I ask Mr. Fisher, the lobbyist: Where is the child's lobbyist, the lobbyist for this child?

Today I am sending a letter to President Obama, the State Department, the Justice Department, and the Treasury Department seeking immediate clarification on what appears to be an indefensible situation.

According to news report and the Foreign Agents Registration page of the Department of Justice Web site, Mr. Bart Fisher is representing the Government of Sudan. Was he granted a license from the Office of Foreign Assets Control at Treasury, as is required to represent the genocidal country of Sudan given the U.S. sanctions which are in place against it? If not, is his representation a violation of law? If so, why would the Obama administration allow this to move forward?

There are many questions which demand answers. But one thing is clear: it appears that Mr. Fisher's contract with the Government of Sudan went into effect in November. If he has received one penny from the Government of Sudan, he should return it immediately; or better yet, he should donate it to one of the NGOs seeking to serve the suffering Sudanese people in Yida refugee camp who have been brutalized by their own government, i.e., Mr. Fisher's client.

[From the Africa Intelligence, Dec. 10, 2011]

Khartoum Hires a Lobbyist in U.S.

The Sudanese government has just taken on a lobbyist in

Washington, United States to try to lift American sanctions

against it. The Law Office of Bart S. Fisher summarised the

contract in a letter to the Sudanese embassy in Washington

dated November 1, stating that its work would be carried out

within the limits of the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations, for

a fee of $20,000 a month plus expenses. Bart Fisher is a

longstanding lobbyist for China and for Chinese companies,

combining the legal defence of its clients and lobby

activity. In the case of Sudan, he will advise Khartoum on

how to obtain the reduction or cessation of U.S. sanctions

and the removal of the country from the State Department list

of State Sponsors of Terror. It will also aid the Sudanese

Embassy in Washington in the requisite legal procedures.

Fisher will have work to do, since the contract was signed on

10 November just as military tension is growing on the border

with Southern Sudan and a coalition of 66 organisations in

the United States, Act for Sudan, recently asked President

Barack Obama to impose a no fly zone over Darfur, South

Kordofan and Blue Nile, to prevent Khartoum from attacking

the civilian population.