Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, while I support comprehensive tax reform, I do not support the flawed legislation presently before us. I have repeatedly said it is long past time to close tax loopholes, end the practice of tax earmarks and lower tax rates on American families and employers. I support a long-term ``doc fix'' to ensure that doctors continue to accept Medicare patients. I support the Keystone XL pipeline and efforts to reform unemployment insurance, all of which are included in this bill. However, these are not the central issues of the legislation we are considering today.

The issue today, as defined by both political parties and the president, is whether or not a temporary--and costly--one-year payroll tax ``holiday'' should expire at the end of the month. The real issue is whether it is responsible for Washington to further shortchange the Social Security Trust Fund at a time when it is already on an unsustainable path.

This ``holiday'' is a raid on Social Security, 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 retiree will pay your benefits. That is why, until last year, this revenue stream was considered sacrosanct by both political parties.

Raw facts demonstrate that 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?

I recently asked a group of McLean High School students and a group of young James Madison University alumni whether they believed that they would receive Social Security benefits when they retire. Not one hand was raised. Not a single one.

The Social Security Actuary has said that by 2037 the trust fund will be unable to pay full benefits. When this time is reached, everyone

will receive an across the board cut of 22 percent, regardless of how much money they paid into the system.

Let me repeat. Under our current path, within 15 years all Social Security benefits will be cut by 22 percent.

Granting another tax holiday is unwise. It puts the existing benefits of those 55 million Americans who currently receive Social Security at risk to continue a failed ``stimulus'' policy.

Last December, when unemployment stood at 9.4 percent, the president touted the ``holiday'' as a one-year measure that would help cure our economic ills and would spur economic growth.

Yet here we are again. After spending most of the year above 9 percent, unemployment has dropped to 8.6 percent. But that belies the primary driver of this change: 315,000 Americans simply stopped looking for work. Nobody can say with a straight face that the payroll tax ``holiday'' has had a meaningful impact on the unemployment rate, nor would it if extended for another year.

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 General Electric's CEO, Jeffery Immelt, who is also head of President Obama's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness?

I opposed the legislation creating the Social Security tax ``holiday'' last year for similar reasons. I just cannot support an extension that further compromises the stability of the Social Security Trust Fund.

Real structural reforms are needed to stabilize Social Security. Past experience shows that Congress will spend the next 10 years figuring out how to spend the money designated as offsets for today's bill on other projects. It won't be used to pay for the bill. Knowing this, I cannot in good faith support a measure to raid the trust fund without comprehensive reform to the system.

The expiring payroll tax ``holiday'' is costing Americans $112 billion. To pay for it, we are borrowing 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.

Our 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.

We all know what needs to be done 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 that cost hundreds of billions of dollars.

Because the extension of the payroll tax ``holiday'' is not part of a comprehensive tax and entitlement reform package, it ignores the bigger picture: everything must be on the table to enact sweeping reforms to right our fiscal ship of state.

Does anyone really think that this will only be a one-year extension? I suspect that at this time next year Congress will once again be considering another costly extension. And what will happen the year after that?

If past precedent holds, the 10-year price tag of this ``holiday'' will come to about $1.2 trillion. The supercommittee was unable to agree to any deficit reduction plan, let alone their $1.2 trillion goal. The consequences of this failure will be severe.

Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz said that the coming across-the-board cuts to our defense capabilities, as a result of the supercommittee's failure, are akin to having major surgery performed by a plumber. The Commonwealth of Virginia will feel particular pain from these defense cuts. Bloomberg Government reported that Virginia is the number one recipient of defense spending.

How will the Congress pay for this extended tax cut and still make the needed cuts to our deficit and debt?

I feel as if Washington exists in a parallel universe. After months of passionately debating the importance of reducing the debt, the president and Congress are now using all the ``easy'' and ``quick'' offsets to extend a one-year temporary tax break that's barely, if at all, improved the economic indicators.

Senator Tom Coburn recently said that ``the question the American people ought to ask is where is the backbone in Washington to actually pay for these extensions in the year the money's spent.'' I think it's clear that the backbone doesn't exist.

Leadership starts at the top, and the president has repeatedly failed to address our Nation's deficit. Earlier this month, the president drew a line in the sand and said Congress shouldn't go home until the payroll holiday is extended.

He has not drawn that line for the doc fix, which is necessary to ensure that doctors will accept Medicare patients.

He has not done that for unemployment benefits.

He has done the opposite on the Keystone XL pipeline, postponing the decision for yet another year, until after the next election.

Above all, he has not drawn a line in the sand for a comprehensive deficit reduction plan. In fact, he has spent most of the year running from serious deficit reduction efforts, including the one proposed by his own fiscal commission. He has not proposed significant changes to entitlement programs or embraced comprehensive tax reform.

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 a proposal that moves us closer to Europe's instability.

Instead of using these bipartisan offsets to pay down our deficit, we're increasing spending and using these offsets to maintain our unacceptable levels of debt. The American people should be deeply troubled that Congress and the president cannot find any bipartisan agreement to save our country, but they can still come together to increase spending and shortchange Social Security. There is something fundamentally wrong with this picture.

Compounding my belief that the tax ``holiday'' will not be fully paid for, I do not agree with some of the offset measures that have been included, absent comprehensive reform.

Some would have the one-year tax ``holiday'' financed through a long- term, structural attack on federal employees. Federal employees work side-by-side on the front lines with our military personnel fighting the Global War on Terror in locations such as Iraq and Afghanistan. They put their lives at risk daily to defend our national interests.

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. Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents are working to stop the flow of illegal immigrants and drugs across our borders.

The medical researchers at NIH 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 National Institutes of Health, 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 immediately following last week's shooting are federal employees. These are but a few examples of the vital jobs performed by federal employees.

We can't balance the budget through discretionary cuts alone. We have to address the spiraling costs of entitlements, because, to paraphrase the infamous bank robber Willie Sutton, that's where the money is. If you care about cancer research, if you care about national defense, if you care about road improvements or if you care about the poor, you should care about entitlement reform. We must reform these programs to preserve them for future generations. Otherwise, they will be made unrecognizable through forced, significant cuts or eliminated altogether.

Last December, the leaders of the president's bipartisan fiscal commission, Erskine Bowles and former Senator Alan Simpson, wrote to the president and leaders of Congress, ``Our growing national debt poses a dire threat to this nation's future. Ever since the economic downturn, Americans have had to make tough choices about how to make ends meet. Now it's time for leaders in Washington to do the same.''

Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this measure and will vote ``no'' as I did last December.

Let's put these offsets towards real deficit reduction and move forward with serious efforts to deal with our unsustainable spending.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the following law enforcement officers who have been honored by the Horse Shoe Curve Benevolent Association for their service to their communities and continued willingness to put their lives on the line to protect public safety.

Virginia State Police Trooper Pamela M. Neff serves the citizens of Clarke, Frederick, and Warren counties. Trooper Neff has done an outstanding job of removing intoxicated drivers from the road during her tenure with the force and has receive much notoriety for her efforts. Trooper Neff has also provided invaluable guidance and instruction to newer troopers and has consistently made sound decisions with regard to violations enforcement. Furthermore, her excellent investigative skills and her knowledge of the laws of Virginia enhance her ability to effectively communicate with the community.

Virginia State Police Trooper Daniel J. Scott serves the citizens of Frederick County. Trooper Scott has served the Virginia Department of State Police as a trooper, breach alcohol operator and field training officer. Trooper Scott provides critical guidance to less seasoned troopers. In addition, his investigative skills have also been recognized by his fellow officers. Trooper Scott's service to the community is a true testament to his dedication to this important work.

Correctional Officer Franklin D. Garris Jr. serves as a housing unit security officer with the Northwestern Regional Adult Detention Center. Officer Garris is responsible for more than 50 inmates on a regular basis. Over the past several years, Officer Garris has demonstrated himself to be among the most disciplined and conscientious officers on the staff and has been serving as a field training officer. Officer Garris has performed superbly and is recognized by his peers as an exceptional officer whose dedication is unmatched.

Officer Stephen Hossack serves the Mount Weather Police Department. Officer Hossack is a knowledgeable and professional police officer, displaying a strong dedication to the mission. Officer Hossak's contributions to the department's explosive K-9 program have enabled its teams to improve critical training. Officer Hossack is well informed and has the knowledge and skill to handle this complex work.

Edgar Allen Sibert serves as a lieutenant in the Frederick County Sheriff's Office. Lt. Sibert also serves as the north end team leader of the Northeast Regional Drug and Gang Task Force, where he supervises undercover investigators assigned from Winchester, Frederick, and Clarke counties. A majority of Lt. ``Big Al'' Sibert's career has involved working with drug investigations. Lt. Sibert has shown outstanding dedication to the citizens he serves. These qualities make him an outstanding officer.

Detective Lisa Hyde serves the Winchester Police Department. Detective Hyde has been instrumental in the development, implementation and successful completion of the Winchester Police Department's Timbrook Youth Reporting Center. Detective Hyde has designed and implemented the standard operating procedures for the programs. Detective Hyde has an undeniable love for the community's youth and this is reflected in her ability to carry out such a long and painstaking process as the development of the Timbrook Youth Reporting Center. In addition to maintaining this program, Detective Hyde also manages a criminal case load as a Winchester Police Department Detective and serves as a team leader on the Winchester Police Department's Crisis Intervention Team.

Deputy Allen Mason serves the Clarke County Sheriff's Office. Deputy Mason began working for the sheriff's office in communications and has advanced to the rank of deputy. Deputy Mason has also worked as a school resource officer. Recently, Deputy Mason responded to a call regarding an elderly lady wandering around a rural area of the county. He was able to find and return the lady to the safety of her family who expressed deep appreciation for Deputy Mason's kindness and professionalism.

Corporal Tim Bristol serves the Berryville Police Department. Corporal Bristol has taken an active leadership role within the department and constantly looks for ways to improve and motivate members of the department. Corporal Bristol has been involved in the reorganization of the department's field training program and worked tirelessly to make sure those coming into the department are professionally mentored and equipped with the tools and resources necessary.

Deputy Steve Alger serves the Winchester Sheriff's Office. In August 2010 Deputy Alger was assisting mall security apprehend several subjects who had repeatedly stolen comforters and home furnishings when a fight began. The subject was able to climb into a vehicle and when Deputy Alger continued his pursuit, he

was struck by the van driven by the suspects. Although his injuries were minor, this incident demonstrated that Deputy Alger was determined to prevent the escape of these criminals, who were apprehended the next day. Deputy Alger goes above and beyond what is required of his job duties.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor and privilege to recognize these officers for their courage, strength and service to their local communities.

Mr. Speaker, I submit a copy of Jay Nordlinger's recent piece in National Review highlighting the plight of Chinese dissident Chen Guangcheng.

Nordlinger writes, ``Many people in the world regard Chen as one of the greatest men we have known in the last decade.'' His courageous exposure of China's brutal one-child

policy earned him the ire of the communist government. He and his family have suffered immensely. His current fate is unknown.

Nordlinger rightly calls a Chen a hero and reminds us that Chen is but one of countless other dissidents languishing in Chinese prisons. Their names may not be known to us, but their struggle is no less real.

The United States must boldly and consistently stand with men and women like Chen who yearn for the basic human liberty and dignity that is our birthright as Americans.

[From the National Review, Nov. 28, 2011]

A Hero of Us All

(By Jay Nordlinger)

Last month, there were reports that Chen Guangcheng was

dead. That they had at last killed him. ``They''? China's

ruling Communists, who have tormented Chen for years. Other

reports said, No, he is not dead: just in very bad shape. Any

report about Chen is now impossible to confirm or deny. The

authorities are not letting anyone from the outside see or

talk to him.

Many people in the world regard Chen as one of the greatest

men we have known in the last decade. These admirers work on

the assumption that Chen is alive. A furious international

campaign is under way to save him.

Chen was born on Nov. 12, 1971, in the Linyi area of

Shandong Province. When a year old, he contracted a fever,

which left him blind. Just a peasant, he educated himself,

including in the law. He was ready and available to help

people. Jianli Yang, a dissident now in America, calls him a

``born leader,'' someone who has always cared for others and

whom others respond to.

To the extent he could, Chen helped the disabled petition

for their rights. He helped farmers, too. In the worldwide

press, he has been known as ``the blind lawyer,'' or ``the

barefoot lawyer,'' or ``the blind rural activist.'' Many

Chinese throughout the country know him simply as ``the blind

man.''

What gained him his fame, and torment, was his exposure of

one fact: In the year 2005 alone, in just the Linyi area,

there were 130,000 forced abortions and sterilizations. These

procedures are brutal. Moreover, relatives of those who

escaped the procedures were detained and tortured. Harry Wu,

a long-famous dissident working in America, says that few

outside China really understand the consequences of the one-

child policy. Jing Zhang, another dissident, associated with

the Boston-based group All Girls Allowed, points out that

Chen touched one of China's most sensitive nerves.

He organized a class-action suit against local Party

officials. At first, the government in Beijing seemed pleased

with him. In China, believe it or not, forced abortion and

forced sterilization are illegal, officially. Beijing

signaled that it would punish the guilty locals. But Chen was

getting attention in the international press, celebrated as a

whistleblower, and a blind peasant, at that. This displeased

Beijing, which left Chen to the mercies of the local

officials.

They seized him in March 2006. They harassed, detained, and

beat members of his family and his lawyers. To him, they did

worse. Eventually, they gave him a trial, but it was the

usual sham. For example, his lawyers were forbidden to

attend. Chen's wife, Yuan Weijing, said, ``There isn't much

hope. . . . We live in a nation without law, a nation without

morality.'' He was sentenced to four years and three months

in prison.

There, he faced what political prisoners can be expected to

face. He was beaten over and over. He went on hunger strikes.

He was denied medicine.

His wife, sometimes under house arrest, sometimes not, did

all she could to help him. The months before the Beijing

Olympics in 2008 were especially bad for dissidents and other

``troublemakers,'' although Western supporters of those

Olympics had said the Games would do wonders for China's

liberalization. The guard around Yuan increased from ten men

to 40. She wrote a letter to Chinese president Hu Jintao,

calling herself ``nothing but a rights defender's wife.'' She

told of the humiliations she and her family endured.

The West protested too, in various ways. At the U.N., there

were ``working groups'' and ``special rapporteurs.'' The

State Department and the EU uttered their peeps.

Organizations were good enough to give Chen awards, in

absentia. Nothing moved the Chinese government.

He was released from prison in September 2010 and confined

to his home in the village of Dongshigu. This sort of

confinement is known as ruanjin, or soft detention, but it

has been very hard. Chen and his family have been watched

constantly and subjected to escalating abuses. In February,

he managed to have a video smuggled out to the West. It was

publicized by a group in Texas called the China Aid

Association, which said that the video had come courtesy of a

``sympathetic government source.''

In the video, Chen described the circumstances in which he

and his family were being kept, and he said, ``The thing we

need to do now is conquer terror'' and expose practices that

are ``lacking in human conscience.'' He said he was ``fully

prepared'' to be tortured after the video's release, but was

``not afraid.'' Yuan Weijing spoke too, saying that her

family was in danger. With a breaking voice, she expressed

the hope that friends would take care of their children,

Kerui and Kesi, if something happened to them, the parents.

What happened immediately is that Chen and Yuan were beaten

to a pulp. A letter from Yuan, made available in June, told

us the following:

More than ten men covered me totally with a blanket and

kicked my ribs and all over my body. After half an hour's

nonstop torture, I finally squeezed my head out of the

blanket. I saw more than ten men surrounding Chen Guangcheng,

torturing him. Some of them twisted his arms forcefully while

the others pushed his head down and lifted his collar up

tightly. . . . Guangcheng was not able to resist and passed

out after more than two hours.

The letter details a great deal more.

Infuriated by the video, the authorities did their best to

ensure that nothing could get in or out of the Chen home.

They removed the family's electronics and sealed the windows

with metal sheets. They installed surveillance cameras. They

plundered the house of almost everything, down to family

photos, toys, and Chen's white cane. The goal was to isolate

the family completely.

Over the months, a stream of visitors have trekked to

Dongshigu, hoping to see Chen. These include writers,

lawyers, advocates for the disabled, and ordinary citizens.

They also include foreign diplomats and journalists. All have

been repulsed by teams of thugs at the four entrances to the

village. These thugs--a mixture of policemen and their

hirees--have detained, beaten, robbed, and shot at the would-

be visitors. Many of these incidents are meticulously

documented.

Impossible to document, of course, is Chen's condition at

the moment. But we know for sure that beatings, malnutrition,

and illness have taken their toll. The question is, To what

degree? Chen's supporters in China and around the world are

redoubling their efforts in his behalf. Some people are

risking a journey to Dongshigu on November 12, Chen's 40th

birthday. There is also a ``sunglasses campaign.'' Chen, like

many blind people, wears sunglasses, and supporters are

donning their own sunglasses and having their picture taken,

to be posted on the Internet. It is a gesture of solidarity,

a way of getting Beijing's attention.

There is also pressure on an American movie company.

Relativity Media has just started filming 21 and Over in, of

all places, Linyi. They must be within shouting distance of

Dongshigu. The company is working in cooperation with the

same Party officials who are brutalizing Chen. The movie,

according to publicity, is a ``hilarious comedy'' about ``two

childhood friends who drag their straight-arrow buddy out to

celebrate his twenty-first birthday the night before an all-

important medical school interview.'' And ``when one beer

leads to another, the evening spirals into a wild epic

misadventure of debauchery and mayhem that none of them will

ever forget.''

The same press release quotes Zhang Shajun, a key Party

official. He welcomes his ``good friend Ryan Kavanaugh and

his great company Relativity'' and promises to ``provide the

best service possible in order to help make the movie

successful worldwide.'' Naturally, human-rights groups have

asked Relativity Media to use whatever leverage it has to

help Chen Guangcheng, or at least inquire into him. The

company has so far seemed disinclined.

On another front, Jianli Yang has written the State

Department, asking it to bar from entering the United States

a Party official named Li Qun. Li studied at the University

of New Haven in Connecticut, and even served as an assistant

to New Haven's mayor. Now, according to Yang, he is the Party

official chiefly responsible for Chen's ordeal.

Have international protests done any good at all? Reggie

Littlejohn, president of Women's Rights Without Frontiers,

says yes: ``I believe Chen would be dead by now but for

people in the West speaking out for him.''

Across China, Chen is a symbol of human rights, like Gao

Zhisheng, another lawyer, who has been ``disappeared,'' and

Liu Xiaobo, the political prisoner who is also the 2010 Nobel

peace laureate. But Sharon Hom of Human Rights in China makes

a point that is depressing and inspiring at the same time:

There are many, many like Chen, Gao, and Liu, but whose names

are unknown to us. They languish in prisons, ``black jails,''

psychiatric wards, and other dark places. They have stuck

their necks out for their rights and all people's.

Why do they do it? Why do they risk, or guarantee, the full

wrath and murderous power of a dictatorship? Of Chen

Guangcheng, Harry Wu says, ``He had to tell the truth.

Simple. He had no choice but to tell the truth. That is why

people appreciate him, and why the government hates him.''

Perhaps Chen's blindness gave him an extra dose of compassion

and courage. Perhaps not. In any case, there is someone much

like him in Cuba, the blind lawyer and activist Juan Carlos

Gonzalez Leiva. The bravery of such people is hard to account

for. But it can be admired.

In that video, released earlier this year, Chen said, ``A

society that is not built on a foundation of fairness and

equality, but instead relies on bullying and violence, cannot

possibly maintain lasting stability.'' He is probably right

about that. Yet think how many suffer and die in the

meantime.

Mr. Speaker, the Fiscal Year 2012 Consolidated and Continuing Appropriations Act contains important changes to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, MWAA, board.

I have been concerned with the actions of the board and have proposed several changes to the structure and function to increase transparency and accountability. Under the new law, members of the MWAA board will no longer be able to serve past the end of their term and all could be replaced for ``cause.'' The changes also increases the size of the board from 13 to 17, with Virginia getting two new appointments and Maryland and the District of Columbia each getting one additional board member.

The changes are fair, providing the governors of Virginia and Maryland and the mayor of the District of Columbia the same authority the president already has under existing law to replace members of the board.

The changes will improve accountability. Until now, board members served until their replacement takes office. There was an incident earlier this year where a board member whose term expired in January 2009 and had not been replaced was voting by proxy from Africa. He was finally replaced in April 2011, more than two years after his term expired. A replacement has yet to be named for a board member whose term expired in May 2010. A third board member's term ends at the end of November and it is unclear if the replacement process has begun.

Board members need to be replaced when their terms end. It's not their fault that they aren't being replaced but if the officials making the appointments know that the seat is going to be vacant, this reform will provide more of an incentive to make appointments in a more timely fashion.

These airports are the economic engine for the region. With MWAA responsible for the Dulles rail project, ensuring that Virginia has

more say and that board members are more accountable is more important than ever. Everything possible must be done to keep the rail project on budget to keep the tolls as low as possible.

Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell wrote Representative Tom Latham and Representative John Mica in strong support of these changes. I submit Governor McDonnell's letter for the Record as well.

Some interested parties have stated that the original 1986 law that established MWAA is a compact between Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia and that any changes to the structure of the board must be approved by all three localities. I want to state clearly that this is not true.

The independent and well-respected Congressional Research Service has told my office that the MWAA statute has been amended twice in 1991 and in 1996, specifically in response to court decisions involving the Board of Review. It is my understanding that neither change required the consent of MD or DC.

The Practitioner's Guide to The Evolving Use and the Changing Role of Interstate Compacts provides everything else necessary regarding the authority of Congress to enact subsequent legislation that has an effect on approved interstate compacts. Sections of this publication support the claim that Congress remains free to change federal laws, even if those laws have adverse effects on compacts that Congress has specifically consented to.

The relevant sections of the Practitioner's Guide to The Evolving Use and the Changing Role of Interstate Compacts are too long to include here today, but can be found on pages 43-47.

These changes to the MWAA board will improve its function, governance, accountability and transparency and provide greater input for those with a large stake in the successful completion of the Dulles Rail project. Washington Dulles International Airport and Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport drive economic growth in northern Virginia and the entire Capital region. The MWAA board must operate successfully to ensure the success of both Dulles International and Reagan National Airports and the Dulles Rail, ensuring tolls on local drivers are kept to a minimum.

Commonwealth of Virginia,

Office of the Governor,

Richmond, VA, August 8, 2011.

Hon. Tom Latham,

House of Representatives, Rayburn Building, Washington, DC.

Hon. John Mica,

House of Representatives, Rayburn Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairmen Latham and Mica: I write you today to

respectfully ask for your endorsement and support for changes

to the Washington Metropolitan Airports Authority Board of

Directors being proposed by Congressman Frank Wolf. As you

are aware, MWAA, which was created through an interstate

compact between Virginia and D.C., as authorized by Congress,

maintains and operates Reagan National Airport and Dulles

International Airport pursuant to a lease agreement with the

federal government. MWAA is also responsible for maintaining

and operating the Dulles Toll Road and the Dulles Greenway

and construction of the Dulles Corridor Metrorail Extension

Project.

These facilities are all located within the Commonwealth of

Virginia and have a tremendous impact on our economy and

transportation network. All funding for the airports, and the

current metrorail to Dulles project, is provided by the

Commonwealth or its subdivisions, and the federal government.

Despite this fact, as chief executive I have no effective

mechanism for effectuating a change or providing oversight

when the MWAA Board takes action which may be adverse to the

interests of the Commonwealth and its citizens. Neither do

the other stakeholders in the District of Colombia, Maryland

or the federal government. Each appointee to the MWAA Board

serves for a period of six years and remains on the Board

until a successor is chosen. Neither the federal statutes,

nor the respective jurisdictional statutes enabling the

interstate compact provide a mechanism for removing a Board

member, since they do not currently serve at the pleasure of

the Governor. This lack of oversight essentially allows

members of the Board to potentially act in accordance with

their own goals and directives for MWAA without consultation

with or allegiance to the leaders and taxpayers in the

Commonwealth and the other member jurisdictions.

Congressman Wolf is seeking changes to rectify this lack of

oversight by providing the Chief Executives of each of the

member jurisdictions and the President with greater authority

in appointing and removing members to the Board.

Specifically, members would serve at the pleasure of the

appointing executive, and the appointing executive would be

provided the authority to remove a board member at any time

with or without cause. Furthermore, as referenced above, all

of the facilities under MWAA's control are located within the

Commonwealth of Virginia. Currently, however, Virginia only

has five of the thirteen seats on the board. As such, the

Commonwealth should be granted three additional seats on the

MWAA Board, increasing the number of Board members

representing Virginia and its interests from five to eight.

These changes would provide me and future governors the

ability to ensure that MWAA's policies and directives are in

accordance with the best interests of Virginia's citizens.

I wholeheartedly support the changes proposed by

Congressman Wolf, and, again, I respectfully urge you to do

so as well. Should you have any questions or wish to further

discuss this matter, please do not hesitate to contact either

myself or Virginia Secretary of Transportation Sean T.

Connaughton at your convenience.

Sincerely,

Robert F. McDonnell,

Governor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share testimony that I gave earlier this month to the House Foreign Affairs Committee's subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations regarding the economic, security and moral consequences of sharing advanced technology with China.

House Foreign Affairs Committee--``Efforts to Transfer America's Leading Edge Science to China''--Testimony of Congressman Frank R. Wolf

(R-VA), Wednesday, November 2, 2010

Thank you Chairman Rohrabacher for calling this important

hearing on China's espionage and the violation of the law by

the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy

(OSTP).

I have been very troubled by this administration's apparent

eagerness to work with China on its space program and

willingness to share other sensitive technologies. I want to

be clear: the United States has no business cooperating with

the Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) to help develop its space

program. We should also be wary of any agreements that

involve the transfer of technology or sensitive information

to Chinese institutions or companies--many of which are

controlled by the government and the PLA.

Space is the ultimate ``high ground'' that has provided the

U.S. with countless security and economic advantages over the

last 40 years. As the victor of the Cold War ``space race''

with the Soviet Union, the U.S. has held an enormous

advantage in space technology, defense capabilities, and

advanced sciences--generating entirely new sectors of our

economy and creating thousands of private sector jobs.

China has developed its own space program at a surprising

pace, having gone from launching their first manned

spacecraft to launching components for an advanced space

station in just ten years.

But the Chinese space program is being led by the People's

Liberation Army (PLA)--and to state the obvious, the PLA is

not our friend as evidenced by their recent military posture

and aggressive espionage against U.S. agencies and firms.

That is why I was troubled to learn from the press last

fall about NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden's imminent

departure for a weeklong visit to China to discuss areas of

cooperation between NASA and the PLA space program. I was

equally concerned to learn that Dr. John Holdren, head of the

White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP),

had spent 21 days in China on 3 separate trips in one year--

more than any other country. Very little information about

these cooperative agreements with China were being provided

to Congress and the American people.

So, I included language in section 1340 of the Fiscal Year

2011 Continuing Resolution preventing NASA and OSTP from

using federal funds ``to develop, design, plan, promulgate,

implement or execute a bilateral policy, program, order, or

contract of any kind to participate, collaborate, or

coordinate bilaterally in any way with China or any Chinese-

owned company.''

The provision in the omnibus appropriations bill was agreed

to by Republican and Democrat conferees. It passed both

houses with bipartisan support and was signed into law by

President Obama in April. The provision was clear,

unambiguous and noncontroversial.

However, less than one month after its enactment, I learned

that Dr. Holdren and OSTP had defied the provision. Even more

troubling is that he withheld information about his intention

to do so during his appearance before the House Commerce-

Justice Science Appropriations Subcommittee when we

discussed, among other things, the implementation of section

1340, and Dr. Holdren's participation in the U.S.-China

Strategic and Economic Dialogue, from May 6-10.

That is why I asked the Government Accountability Office

(GAO) to investigate this violation and issue an opinion. I

also asked GAO to determine whether the Office of Legal

Counsel opinion provided by the Justice Department to justify

this violation was legitimate.

In its October 11 opinion, GAO found, ``The plain meaning

of section 1340 is clear. OSTP may not use its appropriations

to participate, collaborate, or coordinate bilaterally in any

way with China or any Chinese-owned companies.''

Further, GAO found that, ``OSTP's participation in the

Innovation Dialogue and S&ED contravened the appropriations

restriction,'' and added that, ``OSTP does not deny that it

engaged in activities prohibited by section 1340.''

The GAO finding also rebuts a September 19 memorandum

prepared by the Justice Department's OLC on the

constitutionality of the provision. GAO stated, ``In our

view, legislation that was passed by Congress and signed by

the President, thereby satisfying the Constitution's

bicameralism and presentment requirements, is entitled to a

heavy presumption in favor of constitutionality.'' GAO

continued, ``Determining the constitutionality of legislation

is a province of the courts,''--not, I would add, the White

House counsel's office or the Department of Justice.

Finally, the GAO finding clearly notes, ``As a consequence

of using its appropriations in violation of section 1340,

OSTP violated the Antideficiency Act. . . By using its fiscal

year 2011 appropriation in a manner specifically prohibited,

OSTP violated the Antideficiency Act. Accordingly, OSTP

should report the violation as required by the act.''

I also wrote Attorney General Eric Holder asking him to

hold Dr. Holdren to full account for his violation of the

Anti-Deficiency Act by ensuring that he complies with all

reporting requirements and other provisions of that law.

I take the GAO findings very seriously. Following the law

is not voluntary for Administration officials. That is why

Dr. Holdren should commit today to full compliance with

section 1340 and publicly acknowledge his error in

participating in the bilateral conference with the Chinese

government.

Now I'd like to take a few minutes to put the

administration's posture toward China in the broader context

of the Chinese government's grave human rights abuses,

espionage efforts and detrimental economic policies.

In June 1989 peaceful pro-democracy demonstrators gathered

in Tiananmen Square. They were met with a brutal crackdown.

As events unfolded, the world was captivated with the now

famous image of the ``Tank Man'' . . . a lone student

protestor who stood his ground in the face of an advancing

Chinese tank. To this day his fate is unknown.

During my first trip to China in 1991, with Congressman

Chris Smith, we visited Beijing Prison Number One where

authorities informed us that approximately 40 Tiananmen

Square protestors were behind bars. We left with a pair of

socks, made by the prisoners, for export to the West.

Tellingly, the image of the ``Tank Man'', while famous

around the globe, is virtually unknown within China thanks to

the Great Firewall which censors so-called ``offensive''

speech. It is estimated that China employs between 30,000 and

50,000 special Internet police.

Shockingly, the country has a thriving business of

harvesting and selling for transplant kidneys, corneas and

other human organs from executed prisoners. An August 27,

2009 Los Angeles Times article reported, ``In a rare

acknowledgment of a practice that has until recently been

shrouded in secrecy, the state-run newspaper said 65% of

organ donors were executed prisoners . . .'' The image here,

from a 1994 BBC story, is of PLA officers preparing to

execute prisoners--China leads the world in executions. Later

footage from the same story captures an unmarked van driving

toward the prison to harvest the organs from the executed

prisoners and transport them to a local hospital.

Like many repressive regimes throughout history, the

Chinese government maintains a brutal system of labor camps.

The State Department's annual human rights report found that,

``Forced labor remained a serious problem . . .''

Famed Chinese dissident Harry Wu spent nearly 20 years in

Chinese gulags. In Congressional testimony earlier this year,

Wu said, ``When I finally came to the U.S. in 1985, although

I was already 48 years old, that was the first time in my

life that I felt truly free.'' He concluded by urging

``President Obama and the U.S. Congress to be bold and take a

firm stand against China's human rights abuses.''

But boldness is hardly the order of the day when it comes

to U.S. policy. The same could be said of some U.S.

companies.

In 2006, Congressman Chris Smith and the late Congressman

Tom Lantos, himself a Holocaust survivor, convened a hearing

in which they publicly challenged the Internet giant Yahoo!

to look beyond the bottom line, and consider the moral

implications of their complicity in imprisoning Chinese

dissidents.

New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof authored a piece

after the hearing writing, ``Suppose that Anne Frank had

maintained an e-mail account while in hiding in 1944, and

that the Nazis had asked Yahoo for cooperation in tracking

her down. It seems, based on Yahoo's behavior in China,

that it might have complied.''

Yahoo isn't the only U.S. company to come under fire for

pursuing business interests at the expense of human rights. A

May 22 New York Times article, reported that Cisco,

``customized its technology to help China track members of

the Falun Gong spiritual movement . . .'' There are multiple

suits pending against Cisco.

These allegations reflect a worrying trend. American

companies ought to represent American values. Instead, it

seems that time and again major U.S. corporations are

embracing Chinese government policies that are completely at

odds with what America represents.

China, in turn, exports its repressive technologies to

likeminded governments. An October 27, Wall Street Journal

piece reported that the Chinese telecom giant Huawei ``now

dominates Iran's government-controlled mobile-phone industry

. . . , it plays a role in enabling Iran's state security

network.''

It seems that not only is the U.S. failing to change China,

but rather, China is changing us.

Is it any surprise considering what China is spending on

high-powered lobbying firms in this town?

According to a January 9 Washington Post story, in recent

years China has, ``tripled the amount it spends on lobbying

firms . . .'' But well-heeled lobbyists can't explain away

China's abysmal human rights record.

Thousands of political and religious prisoners languish in

prison.

According to the Cardinal Kung Foundation, currently every

one of the approximately 25 underground bishops of the

Catholic Church is either in jail, under house arrest, under

strict surveillance, or in hiding.

Protestant house church pastors are routinely intimidated

and imprisoned. The recently released annual report of the

Congressional-Executive Commission on China found the

government placed 500 members of the Shouwang Church under

``soft detention'' between the fall of 2010 and the fall of

2011.

David Aikman, former Beijing bureau chief for TIME

magazine, authored a piece noting: ``The crackdown on

Christians is part of a rising tide of repression against

dissent that's often accompanied by interrogations and

torture.''

Since March, 10 Tibetan Buddhist monks and nuns have set

themselves aflame in desperation at the abuses suffered by

their people. One such nun is pictured here. Recently

cameramen smuggled out video footage, still frame shot here,

of Chinese police in full riot gear carrying automatic rifles

and iron bars outside of the monastery where several of the

self-immolations occurred.

Rebiya Kadeer--a fearless advocate for the Uyghur Muslims

in China--spent two years in solitary confinement before

being exiled to the U.S. in 2005. Following her release, two

of her sons were unjustly arrested and subsequently sentenced

to lengthy prison terms. Chinese authorities continue to use

Rebiya's children and grandchildren as pawns in an effort to

silence her.

We have seen that the Chinese government is unmoved and in

fact emboldened in its ongoing repression while at the same

time experiencing explosive economic growth.

We have seen our own short-sightedness in making the

protection of basic liberties and the advancement of rule of

law secondary to unfettered market access and normal trade

relations.

These flawed policies have strengthened the oppressors and

enabled China to advance economically at our expense. Every

Member here represents constituents whose very livelihood has

been negatively affected by China's blatant economic

espionage and predatory, protectionist and illegal practices.

Meanwhile, U.S. companies are increasingly sending American

jobs to China. General Electric's health-care unit recently

announced it was moving the headquarters of 115-year-old X-

ray business to Beijing. Ironically, the head of President

Obama's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness is GE Chairman

Jeffrey Immelt.

According to a March 24 New York Times article, GE paid

zero taxes in the U.S. in 2010. Meanwhile, the Congressional

Research Service found that the Chinese State Tax

Administration and China Tax magazine jointly released a

number of lists of the top taxpayers in 2007 and GE featured

prominently. The Beijing subsidiary of GE was number 32 on

the top 100 taxpaying firms in the commercial services

sector. It is noteworthy that GE, which pays no federal taxes

in its home country, is honored for being a significant

source of tax revenue to China.

Our engagement with China has not only empowered the

government, failed to change their political system and

undermined our economic security it has fueled China's

military apparatus. Again, the president's ``jobs czar,''

Jeffrey Immelt, is at the center of these concerns.

An October 28 Defense News piece reported that, ``U.S.

aerospace companies may unknowingly be helping China's

military, according to a rough draft of the annual report on

China's military modernization by the U.S.-China Economic and

Security Review Commission, to be released in November.''

Specifically the article pointed to, ``last January's

announcement by General Electric and the Aviation Industry

Corporation of China (AVIC) that they would launch a joint

venture for integrated avionics'' and cited the Commission's

soon to be released report which indicated that China, ``has

a robust, largely military space program..'' with all but 13

of its roughly 70 satellites in orbit controlled by the

military.

A May 17 article in Wired.com reported that Chinese troops

have begun using a first-person-shooter video game,

``Glorious Mission,'' backed by the PLA, which stimulates

basic training in which the enemy is apparently the U.S.

military.

An April 11, Aviation Week article reported, ``The PLA has

made great strides toward implementing a strategy . . . to

deter or defeat U.S. forces in the Western Pacific.''

The 2010 annual Pentagon report cited earlier, found `` . .

. In the case of key national security technologies,

controlled equipment, and other materials not readily

obtainable through commercial means or academia, the PRC

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.''

Let's be perfectly clear about how China is advancing

militarily: they are utilizing ``other than legal means.''

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. According to a

2008 FBI statement, Chinese intelligence services ``pose a

significant threat both to the national security and to the

compromise of U.S. critical national assets.''

Their 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.''

These breaches in our national security infrastructure are

rampant and pose a very real threat. A May 14 Reuters story

indicated that, ``North Korea and Iran appear to have been

regularly exchanging ballistic missile technology in

violation of U.N. sanctions, according to a confidential U.N.

report . . . The report said the illicit technology transfers

had `trans-shipment through a neighboring third country.'

That country was China, several diplomats told Reuters on

condition of anonymity.''

China is also a major arms supplier and source of economic

strength to the regime in Khartoum. According to Human Rights

First, during the years of the worst violence in Darfur ``. .

. China sold over $55 million worth of small arms to

Khartoum.'' I was part of the first Congressional delegation

to Darfur. I heard the stories of rape, killing and

displacement. America provided humanitarian supplies to the

victims, while China provided arms to the perpetrators.

Meanwhile, Beijing rolled out the red carpet this year for

Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, an internationally

indicted war criminal. Bashir's crimes are not just a thing

of the past. The current assault by northern Sudanese forces

in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile states has displaced

thousands. There are credible news reports of targeted ethnic

killings and satellite images of what appear to be mass

graves.

Speaking of red carpet, President Obama, the 2009 Nobel

Peace Prize winner, welcomed Chinese President Hu Jintao with

a State Dinner in January at the same time that 2010 Nobel

Peace Prize winner, Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo, languished

behind bars. Meanwhile, the Dalai Lama was initially denied a

meeting with President Obama and then in February 2010 was

made to leave the White House through the back door to avoid

press.

In closing, there will come a day when the Chinese

communist government will fall--repressive, totalitarian

regimes always do. And when that day comes, books will be

written about who helped sustain this government in their

final days. Will U.S. companies feature in that narrative?

Will the U.S. government?

In 2001, a book was published titled, ``IBM and the

Holocaust.'' A New York Times book review describes how IBM

had ``global control of a technology that was enormously

helpful, indeed indispensable, to the Nazi machinery of war

and annihilation.'' The Times review quotes the author of the

book as saying that many companies did what IBM did. They

``refused to walk away from the extraordinary profits

obtainable from trading with a pariah state . . .''

Arguably that assessment rings true today. Only the pariah

state has changed.

Those in positions of leadership, be they in the private

sector or in government, do our country a disservice when

they gloss over or ignore the actions of the Chinese

government. They put us squarely on the wrong side of

history.

The Chinese government brutally represses its own people.

It persecutes people of faith. It censors the Internet. It

maintains labor camps.

The Chinese government actively engages in cyber-espionage.

It steals state secrets. It aligns itself with countries

directly at odds with U.S. interests. It supports genocidal

governments and buttresses rogue regimes.

There's a legal term, ``willful blindness,'' that aptly

described our dealings to date with China. Faced with these

painful truths, blindness is no longer an option.

In the words of British abolitionist, William Wilberforce,

``Having heard all of this, you may choose to look the other

way, but you can never again say that you did not know.''

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this conference report, which includes the fiscal year 2012 Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.

I want to thank my colleague and ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), for his support throughout this process. I also want to thank Senate counterparts, Senators Mikulski and Hutchison, and I also want to particularly thank Chairman Rogers of the full committee and Ranking Member Mr. Dicks. This was a very, very open process. Also I want to thank the CJS subcommittee staff, including Mike Ringler, Leslie Albright, Stephanie Meyers, Diana Simpson, Colin Samples and Scott Sammis, as well as Todd

Culligan in my office, and Darek Newby and Bob Bonner on the minority staff.

Working together, we were able to produce a conference report that reduces discretionary spending in line with the Budget Control Act, while the supercommittee works to control entitlement spending which is the primary driver of our unsustainable debt and reform the Tax Code.

The final CJS bill before the House is $583 million below--below-- fiscal year 2011 and $4.9 billion, 8.5 percent, below the President's request.

Since Republicans assumed the majority, we have reduced spending by more than $11 billion for agencies funded in the CJS appropriations bill.

At the same time, the bill also provides funding for a variety of critical national priorities. The conference report fully funds the FBI at $8.1 billion to protect the Nation from further terrorist attacks. The bill includes important increases for FBI national security programs and the investigation of cyberintrusions.

The bill also makes important progress in the fight against the horrible and pervasive crime of human trafficking. Human trafficking is spreading through this Nation, and this funding bill will also support State and local human trafficking task force activities and victim assistance services. The conference agreement will require--will require--each U.S. Attorney to establish a human trafficking task force.

In the Department of Commerce, the conference agreement includes new initiatives to bring jobs back to America, including a job repatriation task force and a new grant program to enable U.S. companies to bring off-shored activities back to economically distressed regions of this Nation. It is time for these American companies who have gone to China and Mexico to return home, particularly, I may say, GE, who just moved their health care facilities from Wisconsin to Beijing. They should come back to Wisconsin.

The bill also includes important increases for fundamental scientific research. $7 billion is included for the NSF, an increase of $173 million. NIST research activities receive an increase of over 10 percent--math, science, physics, chemistry and biology, doing the things that make a difference to create jobs.

Research is a primary driver of innovation, growth and job creation, and these investments must be preserved, even in times of budgetary austerity.

The conference agreement includes $17.8 billion for NASA, including funding above the request for America's next generation space exploration system and for cutting-edge technology.

In closing, as other countries are challenging U.S. leadership in space, this conference report includes funding for a comprehensive independent assessment of NASA's strategic direction and agency management to chart a future course that is bold and achievable.

I urge support for the bill.

``General Electric, the Nation's largest corporation, had a very good year in 2010.''

These were the opening words of a March 24 New York Times article. The article continued to explain that GE paid zero taxes in the U.S. in 2010. Meanwhile, the Congressional Research Service found that the October 2008 issue of China Taxation magazine published top corporate taxpayers in the commercial services sector. The Beijing subsidiary of GE was No. 32.

While we don't yet have the data regarding GE's tax payments in China for 2010, it is noteworthy that GE, an American company, paid no Federal taxes in its home country last year while being honored for being a significant source of tax revenue to China--China with its horrific human rights abuses, persecution of people of faith, censorship of the press, cyberespionage, support of rogue regimes--like President Bashir of Sudan, where there is genocide taking place--and its increasingly aggressive military posture.

This should give the Congress pause.

It is particularly alarming in the midst of economic troubles at home, but my concern does not end there.

U.S. companies like GE are increasingly sending American jobs to China. General Electric's health care unit recently announced it was moving the headquarters of its 115-year-old x-ray business from Wisconsin to Beijing. Ironically, the head of President Obama's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness is GE chairman Jeffrey Immelt. Meanwhile, half of GE's workforce is overseas. He is creating jobs, but he is creating jobs in China.

In addition to national security ramifications, GE's posture toward China has economic implications here at home.

This week I wrote Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, urging him to conduct a national security review of the recently announced joint venture between General Electric, GE, and the Chinese firm AVIC to develop avionics systems for jets. This partnership is troubling for a number of reasons, including the rapid advances in Chinese aeronautics and space programs and the unprecedented Chinese threat from cyberattacks and espionage. Yet according to an August Washington Post article, GE has dismissed concerns about providing the People's Liberation Army with advanced avionics technology. Lorraine Bolsinger, chief executive of GE Aviation Systems, said, ``We are all in, and we don't want it back.''

Wow. Is this true? They don't want it back? They want to give technology to the People's Liberation Army? Statements like this fail to acknowledge reality.

According to a November 4 article from The Washington Post, the administration's Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive has issued a warning that, ``Chinese actors are the world's most active and persistent perpetrators of economic espionage.''

Prolific Chinese espionage is having a real and corrosive effect on job creation. Given the breadth and scope of this espionage, which is well documented by the U.S. intelligence community, GE's public assertion that they will be able to fully protect sensitive technology lacks credibility. Should the GE-AVIC joint venture proceed, there is no question that the sensitive technology involved will be completely compromised by the People's Liberation Army.

GE has a proud tradition as an American company, and it's past time for companies like GE to bring the jobs back to America. To date, there have been no plans from this administration to do just that; but when the House takes up the mini-bus appropriations bill later this week, that will change. I've worked to include provisions to help bring back manufacturing jobs to the U.S. from China and other countries. This can help State and local governments better compete for these jobs.

American workers are among the most skilled in the world. American ingenuity is our greatest strength. We can and must compete. It is time to bring the jobs home.

Mr. Speaker, I submit an October 27 Wall Street Journal article that summarizes Chinese telecom firm Huawei's role in enabling Iran's state security network. At the same time that the U.S. and its allies are increasing efforts to support pro-democracy and human rights activists, Huawei is empowering the Iranian regime to suppress these groups.

[From the Wall Street Journal, Oct. 27, 2011]

Chinese Tech Giant Aids Iran

(By Steve Stecklow, Farnaz Fassihi and Loretta Chao)

When Western companies pulled back from Iran after the

government's bloody crackdown on its citizens two years ago,

a Chinese telecom giant filled the vacuum.

Huawei Technologies Co. now dominates Iran's government-

controlled mobile-phone industry. In doing so, it plays a

role in enabling Iran's state security network.

Huawei recently signed a contract to install equipment for

a system at Iran's largest mobile-phone operator that allows

police to track people based on the locations of their

cellphones, according to interviews with telecom employees

both in Iran and abroad, and corporate bidding documents

reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. It also has provided

support for similar services at Iran's second-largest mobile-

phone provider. Huawei notes that nearly all countries

require police access to cell networks, including the U.S.

Huawei's role in Iran demonstrates the ease with which

countries can obtain foreign technology that can be used to

stifle dissent through censorship or surveillance. Many of

the technologies Huawei supports in Iran--such as location

services--are available on Western networks as well. The

difference is that, in the hands of repressive regimes, it

can be a critical tool in helping to quash dissent.

Last year, Egyptian state security intercepted

conversations among pro-democracy activists over Skype using

a system provided by a British company. In Libya, agents

working for Moammar Gadhafi spied on emails and chat messages

using technology from a French firm. Unlike in Egypt and

Libya, where the governments this year were overthrown,

Iran's sophisticated spying network remains intact.

In Iran, three student activists described in interviews

being arrested shortly after turning on their phones. Iran's

government didn't respond to requests for comment.

Iran beefed up surveillance of its citizens after a

controversial 2009 election spawned the nation's broadest

antigovernment uprising in decades. Authorities launched a

major crackdown on personal freedom and dissent. More than

6,000 people have been arrested and hundreds remain in jail,

according to Iranian human-rights organizations.

This year Huawei made a pitch to Iranian government

officials to sell equipment for a mobile news service on

Iran's second-largest mobile-phone operator, MTN Irancell.

According to a person who attended the meeting, Huawei

representatives emphasized that, being from China, they had

expertise censoring the news.

The company won the contract and the operator rolled out

the service, according to this person. MTN Irancell made no

reference to censorship in its announcement about its

``mobile newspaper'' service. But Iran routinely censors the

Internet using sophisticated filtering technology. The

Journal reported in June that Iran was planning to create its

own domestic Internet to combat Western ideas, culture and

influence.

In winning Iranian contracts, Huawei has sometimes

partnered with Zaeim Electronic Industries Co., an Iranian

electronics firm whose website says its clients include the

intelligence and defense ministries, as well as the country's

elite special-forces unit, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards

Corps. This month the U.S. accused a branch of the

Revolutionary Guards of plotting to kill Saudi

Arabia's ambassador to the U.S. Iran denies the claim.

Huawei's chief spokesman, Ross Gan, said, ``It is our

corporate commitment to comply strictly with all U.N.

economic sanctions, Chinese regulations and applicable

national regulations on export control. We believe our

business operations in Iran fully meet all of these relevant

regulations.''

William Plummer, Huawei's vice president of external

affairs in Washington, said the company's location-based-

service offerings comply with ``global specifications'' that

require lawful-interception capabilities. ``What we're doing

in Iran is the same as what we're doing in any market,'' he

said. ``Our goal is to enrich people's lives through

communications.''

Huawei has about 1,000 employees in Iran, according to

people familiar with its Iran operations. In an interview in

China, a Huawei executive played down the company's

activities in Iran's mobile-phone industry, saying its

technicians only service Huawei equipment, primarily routers.

But a person familiar with Huawei's Mideast operations says

the company's role is considerably greater, and includes a

contract for ``managed services''--overseeing parts of the

network--at MTN Irancell, which is majority owned by the

government. During 2009's demonstrations, this person said,

Huawei carried out government orders on behalf of its client,

MTN Irancell, that MTN and other carriers had received to

suspend text messaging and block the Internet phone service,

Skype, which is popular among dissidents. Huawei's Mr.

Plummer disputed that the company blocked such services.

Huawei, one of the world's top makers of telecom equipment,

has been trying to expand in the U.S. It has met resistance

because of concerns it could be tied to the Chinese

government and military, which the company denies.

Last month the U.S. Commerce Department barred Huawei from

participating in the development of a national wireless

emergency network for police, fire and medical personnel

because of ``national security concerns.'' A Commerce

Department official declined to elaborate.

In February, Huawei withdrew its attempt to win U.S.

approval for acquiring assets and server technology from

3Leaf Systems Inc. of California, citing opposition by the

Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. The

panel reviews U.S. acquisitions by foreign companies that may

have national-security implications. Last year, Sprint Nextel

Corp. excluded Huawei from a multibillion-dollar contract

because of national-security concerns in Washington,

according to people familiar with the matter.

Huawei has operated in Iran's telecommunications industry

since 1999, according to China's embassy in Tehran. Prior to

Iran's political unrest in 2009, Huawei was already a major

supplier to Iran's mobile-phone networks, along with Telefon

AB L.M. Ericsson and Nokia Siemens Networks, a joint venture

between Nokia Corp. and Siemens AG, according to MTN Irancell

documents.

Iran's telecom market, which generated an estimated $9.1

billion in revenue last year, has been growing significantly,

especially its mobile-phone business. As of last year, Iran

had about 66 million mobile-phone subscribers covering about

70% of the population, according to Pyramid Research in

Cambridge, Mass. In contrast, about 36% of Iranians had

fixed-line phones.

As a result, mobile phones provide Iran's police network

with far more opportunity for monitoring and tracking people.

Iranian human-rights organizations outside Iran say there are

dozens of documented cases in which dissidents were traced

and arrested through the government's ability to track the

location of their cellphones.

Many dissidents in Iran believe they are being tracked by

their cellphones. Abbas Hakimzadeh, a 27-year-old student

activist on a committee that published an article questioning

the actions of Iran's president, said he expected to be

arrested in late 2009 after several of his friends were

jailed. Worried he could be tracked by his mobile phone, he

says he turned it off, removed the battery and left Tehran to

hide at his father's house in the northeastern city of

Mashhad.

A month later, he turned his cellphone back on. Within 24

hours, he says, authorities arrested him at his father's

house. ``The interrogators were holding my phone records, SMS

and emails,'' he said.

He eventually was released and later fled to Turkey where

he is seeking asylum. In interviews with the Journal, two

other student activists who were arrested said they also

believe authorities found them in hiding via the location of

their cellphones.

In early 2009, Siemens disclosed that its joint venture

with Nokia, NSN, had provided Iran's largest telecom,

government-owned Telecommunications Company of Iran, with a

monitoring center capable of intercepting and recording voice

calls on its mobile networks. It wasn't capable of location

tracking. NSN also had provided network equipment to TCI's

mobile-phone operator, as well as MTN Irancell, that

permitted interception. Like most countries, Iran requires

phone networks to allow police to monitor conversations for

crime prevention.

NSN sold its global monitoring-center business in March

2009. The company says it hasn't sought new business in Iran

and has established a human-rights policy to reduce the

potential for abuse of its products.

A spokesman for Ericsson said it delivered ``standard''

equipment to Iranian telecom companies until 2008, which

included built-in lawful-interception capabilities.

``Products can be used in a way that was not the intention of

the manufacturer,'' the spokesman said. He said Ericsson

began decreasing its business in Iran as a result of the 2009

political upheaval and now doesn't seek any new contracts.

As NSN and Ericsson pulled back, Huawei's business grew. In

August 2009, two months after mass protests began, the

website of China's embassy in Tehran reprinted a local

article under the headline, ``Huawei Plans Takeover of Iran's

Telecom Market.'' The article said the company ``has gained

the trust and alliance of Major governmental and private

entities within a short period,'' and that its clients

included ``military industries.''

The same month the Chinese embassy posted the article,

Creativity Software, a British company that specializes in

``location-based services,'' announced it had won a contract

to supply a system to MTN Irancell. ``Creativity Software has

worked in partnership with Huawei, where they will provide

first and second level support to the operator,'' the company

said.

The announcement said the system would enable ``Home Zone

Billing''--which encourages people to use their cellphones at

home (and give up their land lines) by offering low rates--as

well as other consumer and business applications that track

user locations. In a description of the service, Creativity

Software says its technology also enables mobile-phone

operators to ``comply with lawful-intercept government

legislation,'' which gives police access to communications

and location information.

A former telecommunications engineer at MTN Irancell said

the company grew more interested in location-based services

during the antigovernment protests. He said a team from the

government's telecom-monitoring center routinely visited the

operator to verify the government had access to people's

location data. The engineer said location tracking has

expanded greatly since the system first was installed.

An official with Creativity Software confirmed that MTN

Irancell is a customer and said the company couldn't comment

because of ``contractual confidentiality.''

A spokesman for MTN Group Ltd., a South African company

that owns 49% of the Iranian operator, declined to answer

questions, writing in an email, ``The majority of MTN

Irancell is owned by the government of Iran.'' He referred

questions to the telecommunications regulator, which didn't

respond.

In 2008, the Iranian government began soliciting bids for

location-based services for the largest mobile operator,

TCI's Mobile Communication Co. of Iran, or MCCI. A copy of

the bidding requirements, reviewed by the Journal, says the

contractor ``shall support and deliver offline and real-time

lawful interception.'' It also states that for ``public

security,'' the service must allow ``tracking a specified

phone/subscriber on map.''

Ericsson participated in the early stages of the bidding

process, a spokesman said. Internal company documents

reviewed by the Journal show Ericsson was partnering with an

Estonian company, Reach-U, to provide a ``security solution''

that included ``Monitor Security--application for security

agencies for locating and tracking suspects.''

The Ericsson spokesman says its offering didn't meet the

operator's requirements so it dropped out. An executive with

Reach-U said, ``Yes, we made an offer but this ended

nowhere.''

One of the ultimate winners: Huawei. According to a Huawei

manager in Tehran, the company signed a contract this year to

provide equipment for location-based services to MCCI in the

south of Iran and is now ramping up hiring for the project.

One local Iranian company Huawei has done considerable

business with is Zaeim Electronic Industries. ``Zaeim is the

security and intelligence wing of every telecom bid,'' said

an engineer who worked on several projects with Zaeim inside

the telecom ministry. Internal Ericsson records show that

Zaeim was handling the ``security part'' of the lawful-

interception capabilities of the location-based services

contract for MCCI.

On its Persian-language website, Zaeim says it launched its

telecommunications division in 2000 in partnership with

Huawei, and that they have completed 46 telecommunications

projects together. It says they now are working on the

country's largest fiber-optic transfer network for Iran's

telecom ministry, which will enable simultaneous data, voice

and video services.

Zaeim's website lists clients including major government

branches such as the ministries of intelligence and defense.

Also listed are the Revolutionary Guard and the president's

office.

Mr. Gan, the Huawei spokesman, said: ``We provide Zaeim

with commercial public use products and services.'' Zaeim

didn't respond to requests for comment.

Mr. Speaker, I share with the House today the sad news of the passing of iconic Winchester, Virginia, native, Benjamin Dutton, Jr., 86. Known as ``Mr. Winchester,'' Ben died November 9 at his home with his wife Jean, fondly called ``Whip,'' at his side.

A man of honor and the highest moral character, Ben was one of the finest Virginia gentlemen that I have ever known.

After Whip and their three daughters and their families, Ben's lifelong love was Winchester and especially the annual Shenandoah Apple Blossom Festival. He was one of the festival's longest serving contributors, holding positions of executive director, president, and board member. Ben continued to be involved in ``the Bloom'' up until his passing.

The son of the late Dr. Benjamin and Ann Dutton, Ben attended Winchester public schools, graduating from Handley High School in 1943. He served his country in the U.S. Army infantry from 1943-46 and afterward attended the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, receiving an A.B. degree in 1950. After college, he began a career in the insurance industry, serving as an agent in Louisiana and Roanoke, Virginia, from 1951-63. But the tug of his native city brought him back to Winchester in 1963 and he became associated with J.V. Arthur Inc. as a vice president and partner, retiring from there in 1987.

Never one to sit idly, Ben soon found a second career as a public servant. He first served as the field representative in the Winchester office of our former colleague, the late D. French Slaughter Jr., who represented Winchester and Frederick and Clarke counties until 1991 when the area was part of the 7th Congressional District, and later served in the same position for George Allen, who succeeded Congressman Slaughter for a year before his successful election as governor of Virginia. When redistricting in 1992 brought that area of Virginia into the 10th District, I was proud that Ben became a member of my constituent services staff in my Winchester office, serving for 15 years until his retirement in 2010.

Ben was a ``people'' person. When you met Ben, you became his friend for life. He had a warm and infectious smile and always made time for anyone who crossed his path. His foremost motivation in life was helping people and thousands of residents of Winchester and the surrounding area can attest to his servant's heart.

Ben also was a ``doer.'' He was involved throughout his long life in city government and numerous civic and community organizations. Among his citations of public recognition were the Outstanding Citizen Award from the Winchester-Frederick County Chamber of Commerce and the President's Award for Community Service from Shenandoah University. I will submit for the Record, Ben's obituary from the Winchester Star, which includes greater detail on Ben's illustrious life.

Ben truly fulfilled in his life the biblical praise: ``Well done, good and faithful servant.'' We are all better for having had the honor of knowing Ben and calling him our friend.

To Whip, his wife of 59 years, and their daughters Fay, Virginia, and Whipple, and their families, I express on behalf of the people of the 10th District our heartfelt sympathy and also our gratitude to you for sharing Ben with us.

Benjamin Blanton Dutton, Jr.

Benjamin Blanton Dutton, Jr., 86, died on Wednesday.

November 9, 2011, in his home in Winchester, Virginia.

Mr. Dutton was born in 1925, in Winchester, Virginia, the

son of the late Dr. Benjamin and Ann Dutton. He attended

Winchester Public Schools and graduated from Handley High

School, Class of 1943. Mr. Dutton served in the United States

Army, in the Infantry, from 1943-1946 achieving the rank of

Sergeant. He attended University of Virginia in

Charlottesville, Virginia where he received, an A.B. Degree

in 1950. He was employed by Hartford Fires Insurance Company

from 1951-1963 and served as Special Agent for The Hartford

in Louisiana and Roanoke, Virginia.

Mr. Dutton returned to Winchester in 1963 to become

associated with J. V. Arthur, Inc., as a Vice President and

partner, remaining in that position until his retirement in

June 1987. He was employed by Congressman D. French

Slaughter, Jr., as Field Representative in the Winchester,

Virginia office and served in that capacity until Mr.

Slaughter's resignation in November 1991. Mr. Dutton

continued as a Field Representative for Congressman George

Allen during his tenure In congress, from November 1991 until

December 1992. Mr. Dutton then became the Field

Representative for Congressman Frank R. Wolf from January,

1993 until April, 1995.

He served as Executive Director of the Shenandoah Apple

Blossom Festival from April 1995 until July 1997 and was then

rehired by Congressman Wolf as a Field Representative in

July, 1997 until his retirement in 2010.

Mr. Dutton was a member of Christ Episcopal Church in

Winchester, a member of the Winchester Rotary from 1963 to

present and served on the Board of Directors several times as

well as Secretary and Treasurer. He was active in the

Shenandoah Apple Blossom Festival since childhood and was

President of the festival in 1970, 1971, and 1972. He

volunteered as Executive Director in 1972 and currently is on

the Festival Board of Directors. Mr. Dutton was a two term

President of the Winchester-Frederick County Chamber of

Commerce, member of the Winchester Common Council for three

terms, from 1966-1978, Winchester Parking Authority from

1966-1990 and Chairman 1980-1990; Winchester Transportation

Safety Commission from 1968-1988. In addition he was a member

of and Secretary-Treasurer of the Winchester Regional Airport

Authority from 1987-1994; and served as Past Chairman of the

Salvation Army Advisory Board.

Mr. Dutton was an Honorary member of the Winchester Medical

Center Board; a licensed Amateur Radio operator and was

licensed as a Glider Pilot.

His Virginia State activities include past chairman, State

Insurance Board, Commonwealth of Virginia; past member, State

Fire Services Commission, Commonwealth of Virginia; Past

President, Independent Insurance Agents of Virginia, Inc.;

past member, Board of Directors, Virginia Financial Services

Corporation and past member, Regional Economic Development

Advisory Council for District 5, Commonwealth of Virginia.

He was Past President of the Independent Insurance Agents

of Winchester, Inc.; a member of the Board of Directors

Emeritus and the Wayside Theatre, Middletown, Virginia from

1976-1979; and currently a member of the Corporation of

Valley Health System, Inc and current member of the Advisory

Committee of the Institute for Government and Public Policy

at Shenandoah University.

Mr. Dutton was awarded the Honorable Order of Kentucky

Colonels in 1970; Outstanding Citizen Award, Winchester-

Frederick County Chamber of Commerce, 1975; Rotary

International Paul Harris Fellow; Winchester-Frederick County

Chamber of Commerce Transportation Award, 1992, and

Presidents Award for Community Service (Shenandoah

University), 2002.

He married Jean Rogers Whipple on June 14, 1952, in Vienna,

Georgia.

Surviving with his wife of 59 years, are three daughters,

Fay Dutton and her husband, Jim Moyer, Virginia Dutton, and

Whipple Rickman and her husband, Glen; and one grandson,

Benjamin Rickman.

A graveside service will be conducted at 11 a.m. on

Saturday, in Mount Hebron Cemetery, Winchester, Virginia,

with Reverend Webster Gibson officiating.

Memorial contributions may be made to Blue Edge Hospice,

333 West Cork Street, Suite 405, Winchester, Virginia 22601.

Arrangements are being handled by Omps Funeral Home,

Amherst Chapel, Winchester, Virginia.

Please view obituaries and tribute wall at

www.ompsfuneralhome.com.

Mr. Speaker, I submit New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof's recent piece highlighting the courageous work of Ryan Boyette in the Nuba Mountains of Sudan.

I had the privilege of meeting with Ryan when he was recently in town. At a time when few outside groups or media have access to the region, he has been an eye-witness to some of the atrocities presently occurring in that country.

Ryan has issued a compelling clarion call to action. Will we answer the call?

[From the New York Times, Oct. 22, 2011]

The Man Who Stayed Behind

(By Nicholas D. Kristof)

In the last few months, as you and I have been fretting

about the economy or moaning about the weather, Ryan Boyette

has been living in a mud-wall hut and dodging bombs in his

underwear.

Some humanitarian catastrophes--Congo, Somalia, Sudan--

linger because the killing unfolds without witnesses. So

Ryan, a 30-year-old from Florida, has made the perilous

decision to bear witness to atrocities in the Nuba Mountains

of Sudan, secretly staying behind when other foreigners were

evacuated.

I met Ryan a few years ago in Sudan, and even then he was a

compelling figure who spoke the local languages of Otoro and

Sudanese Arabic. An evangelical Christian deeply

motivated by his faith, Ryan moved to the Nuba Mountains in

2003 and worked for Samaritan's Purse, an aid group led by

the Rev. Franklin Graham.

Early this year, Ryan married a local woman, Jazira, a

health worker--and 6,000 joyous Nubans celebrated at the

wedding, along with Ryan's parents, who flew in from Florida.

It was clear that war was brewing in the Nuba Mountains.

The region had sided with South Sudan in the country's long

civil war, but now South Sudan was separating while the Nuba

Mountains would remain in the north. The people--mostly

Muslim but with a large Christian minority--supported a local

rebel army left over from the civil war.

In June, fighting erupted. The Sudanese government moved in

to destroy the rebel army and depopulate areas that supported

it. Aid organizations pulled out their workers. Ryan decided

that he could not flee, so when Samaritan's Purse ordered him

to evacuate, he resigned and stayed behind.

``A lot of people tried to convince me to leave,'' Ryan

remembers. ``But this is where my wife is from, this is where

I've lived for eight years. It's hard to get on a plane and

say, `Bye, I hope to see you when this ends.' ''

Ryan organized a network of 15 people to gather information

and take photos and videos, documenting atrocities. He used a

solar-powered laptop and a satellite phone to transmit them

to the West, typically to the Enough Project, a Washington-

based anti-genocide organization. He also supplied eyewitness

interviews that helped the Enough Project and the Harvard

Humanitarian Initiative find evidence of atrocities,

including eight mass graves, on satellite images. And he

helped journalists understand what was going on.

``He's irreplaceable,'' said Jonathan Hutson of the Enough

Project. ``There's no substitute for someone on the ground.''

Ryan tried to keep his presence in the region a secret, at

least from the Sudanese government, for fear that it might

seek to eliminate a witness. Once, a bombing seemed to target

his hut, but he heard the plane approaching and ran out in

his skivvies and took cover; the bombs missed, and he was

unhurt.

After the first few weeks, the killings on the ground

abated. But the government has continued the bombings.

``It's terrifying when they bomb,'' Ryan told me. ``You

don't feel safe at any time of day or night.''

The bombs typically miss and have killed fewer than 200

people, he says, but they prevent people from farming their

fields. Several hundred thousand people have been driven from

their homes in the surrounding state of South Kordofan, Ryan

says, and a famine may be looming.

``It's not a good time to have kids,'' Ryan quoted Jazira

as telling him. ``If we have kids, they'll just starve.''

Frustrated by the lack of attention for the Nubans' plight,

Ryan decided to return to the United States this month and

tell his story. He couldn't get a visa for Jazira in time--

obtaining an American visa for a spouse is a long and complex

process--so she is in a refugee camp for 15,000 Nubans in

South Sudan, struggling to address health needs there.

Meanwhile, in Washington, Ryan has testified before Congress

and met with White House officials.

Soon, he'll go back, rejoining Jazira and sneaking back

with her into the Nuba Mountains. It'll be more dangerous

than ever now that he has gone public, but he is determined

to give voice to the voiceless--and Nubans will do everything

to protect him.

In a world where leaders often pretend not to notice mass

atrocities, for fear that they might be called Upon to do

something, I find Ryan an inspiration. His eyewitness

accounts make it more difficult for the world to neglect a

humanitarian crisis in the Nuba Mountains--even if he does

need to brush up on his tech skills.

I asked Ryan if he planned to use Twitter.

``Twitter?'' he asked. ``I've been in the bush for nine

years, so I don't know how to use it.'' But he's planning to

learn.

I thank the chairman for recognizing me. I appreciate it very much.

I rise in strong support of the bill. It's very appropriate. The first person killed in Afghanistan was a civilian employee from my congressional district, a CIA employee, Michael Spann. I went to the funeral out at Arlington Cemetery. He was the very first person, and he was a civilian and gave his life there.

I also, about 7 or 8 months ago, went out to the agency where they had a memorial service--the President was there, as was Director Panetta--to remember the seven who were killed at that base there. You could see the young families and just the pain and the agony and the suffering. Also, the DEA; we lost three DEA people in Afghanistan fighting the drug wars. And you can go on, the Border Patrol and all the others. So I want to thank Mr. Hanna for the bill, thank the chairman for it, and thank the ranking member. This is important, I think, to do.

I want to thank the gentleman from New York, Mr. Hanna, for introducing this legislation, which authorizes the presentation of the United States flag to federal employees who have died in the line of duty.

According to the Office of Personnel Management, since 1992, nearly 3,000 federal employees have paid the ultimate price while serving their country.

Federal employees work side-by-side on the front lines with our military personnel to carry out the Global War on Terror in locations such as Iraq and Afghanistan. They put their lives at risk daily to defend our national interests.

The first American killed in Afghanistan, Mike Spann, was a CIA agent and a constituent from my congressional district. Imagine the dangers a CIA or State Department employee or DEA agent or an FBI agent working in Afghanistan with the U.S. military must encounter.

When I traveled to Afghanistan, I visited with FBI agents serving side-by-side with our military in the fight against the Taliban. DEA agents are also in Afghanistan and working to eradicate the poppy, which the Taliban and al Qaeda use as a primary source of funding in their operations. Last year, three DEA agents were killed in Afghanistan.

A year ago January, I attended funerals for some of the seven CIA agents who were killed by a Taliban suicide bomber at Forward Operative Base Chapman near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

Federal employees also put their lives on the line here at home. The Border Patrol agent shot and killed in Arizona this past December who was working to stop the flow of illegal immigrants across our southern border was a federal employee.

The three Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents who were attacked, including one who was killed, outside of Mexico City were federal employees.

Each federal employee repeats 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.''

We fly the flag to demonstrate our support for the values and principals found in the Constitution and expressed by this oath. I believe it is appropriate to allow for the presentation of the flag if an employee is killed because they represent this oath, which is why I am a proud cosponsor of this measure.

This legislation recognizes all unsung federal employees who work to ensure that our government is running as efficiently and effectively as possible to provide the services that taxpayers expect. I urge all members to support H.R. 2061.

Mr. Speaker, I submit a letter that I have sent to National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration administrator Jane Lubchenco in response to inaccurate and unconstructive remarks about the House Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations Subcommittee recommended funding for the Joint Polar Satellite System.

House of Representatives,

Ocober 26, 2011.

Dr. Jane Lubchenco,

Undersecretary for Oceans and Atmosphere,

Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.

Dear Dr. Lubchenco: I was disappointed by your recent

remarks to the Guardian newspaper accusing congressional

Repub1icans of endangering the Joint Polar Satellite System

(JPSS). I want you to know that your reported accusations

were neither accurate nor constructive.

According to the article, ``Republican budget-cutting

measures would knock out that critical capacity by delaying

the launch of the next generation polar-orbiting satellites,

said Jane Lubchenco.'' You are also quoted as saying, ``It is

a disaster in the making. It's an expression of the

dysfunction in our system.'' Your remarks mirror similar

comments made by deputy administrator Kathryn Sullivan to the

Washington Post earlier this summer.

Perhaps you are unaware that the Republican-authored House

FY 2011 bill recommended a higher level of funding for NOAA's

satellite acquisition account than the Democrat-authored

Senate bill despite the House having a lower allocation than

the Senate. Further, for FY 2012, the House Commerce-Justice-

Science Appropriations subcommittee recommended $901 million,

a nearly $430 million increase--91%--above the FY 2011 level

for JPSS. Despite having an allocation $2.5 billion higher

than the House, the Senate recommended an amount only

slightly above the House recommendation, $920 million. To my

knowledge, you have never criticized Senate funding levels

for JPSS. While the House did not provide the full $1 billion

requested, the House level is a significant amount of funding

given these austere budget times when other programs in the

Commerce-Justice-Science bill were significantly reduced or

eliminated altogether.

Finally, I would call your attention to the fact that any

gap in satellite data is not due to lack of funding,

``Republican budget-cutting measures'' or ``the dysfunction

in our system,'' but rather years of poor interagency

management that resulted in the cancellation of the National

Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System

(NPOESS) satellite program after being more than five years

behind schedule, twice as expensive with fewer satellites and

less capability. The caution shown by the Congress with

regard to funding the successor program, JPSS, is fully

justified in light of this record of waste and mismanagement.

I have noted below portions of September, 2011 GAO testimony

to the Congress on NPOESS mismanagement, from GAO-11-945T:

``When its primary contract was awarded in August 2002,

NPOESS was estimated to cost about $7 billion through 2026

and was considered critical to the United States' ability to

maintain the continuity of data required for weather

forecasting and global climate monitoring. However, in the

years after the program was initiated, NPOESS encountered

significant technical challenges in sensor development,

program cost growth, and schedule delays. By November 2005,

we estimated that the program's cost had grown to $10

billion, and the schedule for the first launch was delayed by

almost 2 years. These issues led to a 2006 restructuring of

the program which reduced the program's functionality by

decreasing the number of planned satellites, orbits, and

instruments. The restructuring also led agency executives to

decide to mitigate potential data gaps by using NPP as an

operational satellite. Even after the restructuring, however,

the program continued to encounter technical issues in

developing two sensors, significant tri-agency management

challenges, schedule delays, and further cost increases.

Faced with costs that were expected to exceed $14 billion and

launch schedules that were delayed by over 5 years, in August

2009, the Executive Office of the President formed a task

force, led by the Office of Science and Technology Policy, to

investigate the management and acquisition options that would

improve the NPOESS program. As a result of this review, the

Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy

announced in February 2010 that NOAA and DOD would no longer

jointly procure the NPOESS satellite system; instead, each

agency would plan and acquire its own satellite system.''

Your reported inaccurate and partisan comments are

unhelpful. I urge you to publicly correct these inaccurate

statements. I await your prompt response.

Best wishes.

Sincerely,

Frank R. Wolf,

Chairman, Commerce-Justice-Science

Subcommittee, Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I submit for the record a copy of Chuck Colson's recent Breakpoint Commentary which movingly speaks of the worsening conditions facing Egypt's Coptic community.

According to an October 25 Washington Post article, ``Attacks on Christians have significantly increased since the uprising. The violence on October 9 began when about 1,000 Christians tried to stage a peaceful sit-in outside the state television building.'' The Egyptian military forcefully broke up their protest leaving at least 21 Christians dead in the single deadliest incident since the end of the Mubarak regime.

This carnage is evidence of an ancient faith community which is increasingly under siege. Not only are Coptic Christians not reaping the promise of the so-called ``Arab Spring'' but as Colson writes, ``It's getting clearer for parts of the Arab world, its going to be a long, cold winter.''

The Obama administration must press Egypt's ruling generals to uphold the rights of the country's vulnerable minority communities. Their sustained presence in the region is crucial.

[Oct. 24, 2011]

Ionic Coptic Winter: Democracy and Christians in Egypt

On October 9, at least two dozen Christians were killed by

Egyptian police. Their only ``crime'' was in insisting that

they be treated in a manner consistent with what the ``Arab

Spring'' was supposed to be about.

It's getting clearer that for parts of the Arab world, it's

going to be a long, cold winter.

The killings happened during a march organized by Coptic

leaders to protest a church-burning by Islamists. The

military regime responded lackadaisically to this outrage,

just as it has to other outrages perpetrated against Egypt's

Christian minority.

The junta's response to peaceful protest was a combination

of tear gas, live ammunition, and armored vehicles ramming

into the

crowd. A few protestors threw rocks in response to the

attacks, which gave state-controlled media a chance to claim

that protestors started the violence and urge ``honorable,''

that is, Muslim, Egyptians to help the soldiers.

While I expect that kind of deception from Egyptian state-

run media, I am appalled by The New York Times'

characterization of the killings as ``sectarian violence.''

For the Times, Christians are only victims if they endure

violence without uttering the merest peep in protest. If they

protest or try to defend themselves, however feebly, the

Times paints them as the moral equivalent of their

persecutors.

The situation in Egypt has become so dire that one Coptic

bishop compares it to a ``dark tunnel of violence.'' Quoting

the Apostle Paul, he writes that he and his flock are ``hard

pressed on every side, yet not crushed . . . perplexed but

not lost, persecuted but not forsaken, struck down but not

destroyed.''

While they pray for the victims and the offenders, it's our

task to make sure they are not forsaken, which is what all

the euphoria over the ``Arab Spring'' threatens to do.

Lost in the buzz over democracy, Twitter, and Facebook, was

any recognition that ousting dictators and establishing

democracy are means, not ends. In other words, it doesn't

matter if you replace the rule of dictators with popular rule

if, in the end, Christians and other minorities become

targets for persecution and violence.

Our founding fathers, when they set out to ``establish

justice, insure domestic tranquility . . . [and] promote the

general welfare,'' knew the dangers of an unchecked majority.

That's why our Constitution is filled with checks and

balances--between the people and the government, and between

branches of government.

The ``Arab Spring'' has not resulted in greater justice and

increased tranquility for Middle Eastern Christians. As John

L. Allen wrote in the National Catholic Reporter, ``many

analysts wonder whether Christianity will be the first victim

of the new order taking shape'' in the Middle East.

There's no reason, as writer Rod Dreher reminds us, to

assume that democracy and religious tolerance go hand-in-

hand. On the contrary, recent history suggests that what the

so-called ``people'' often want is to mistreat the ``others''

in their midst.

Now, there is little standing between them and what they

want. If Christians resist, they are run over by armored

vehicles and blamed for their fate. While God has not

forsaken them, the world that cheered on the Arab crowds last

Spring seems intent on doing so.

Mr. Speaker, I submit for the record a copy of a letter I sent to all of the Board Members of the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) urging that Malawi immediately cease to be an MCC recipient in light of the government's decision to host Sudanese President Omar al-Bahsir--an internationally indicted war criminal. I also submit two news stories about the visit.

I take no comfort in the fact that on July 26, MCC placed a hold on Malawi's compact activities ``due to concerns about the government's commitment to good governance, rule of law, and human rights.'' This decision was made prior to Bashir's visit. If anything, Malawi's recent red carpet welcome of Bashir is further evidence that they are ill- suited to receive MCC funding, especially in the face of economic challenges here at home.

An October 20 BBC story reported that, ``Mr Bashir was welcomed by a military guard of honor when he arrived in the capital, Lilongwe, for a trade summit last weekend. . . .'' This is unconscionable--Bashir has blood on his hands from the genocide in Darfur as well as the unfolding atrocities in the Nuba Mountains.

And yet, the administration has been publicly silent. If Malawi's actions don't prompt a response, I don't know what does.

Martin Luther King famously said, ``In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.'' The long- suffering people of Sudan will not soon forget our silence.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, October 18, 2011.

Hon. Ron Kirk,

U.S. Trade Representative,

Washington DC.

Dear Mr. Kirk: I write today to share with you the enclosed

letter I sent to President Obama, Secretary Clinton, and Mr.

Yohannes last week. I am deeply concerned that the Malawi

government welcomed Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir on

Friday, essentially rolling out the red carpet for this

internationally indicted war criminal. I believe this should

be of concern to you, too.

As I stated in my letter, Malawi should be dropped

immediately from the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC)

compact. The MCC compact with Malawi should not just be put

on an operational hold but should be cancelled indefinitely.

The very thought of U.S. taxpayers providing money to a

country that has opened its doors to a wanted war criminal

should be reason enough to cancel both MCC and American

foreign aid funding altogether for Malawi.

As you know, Bashir is responsible for the deaths of

thousands of Sudanese people. If funding for Malawi is not

cancelled, the MCC will be complicit in aiding a country that

has supported a genocidal government and would henceforth

lack legitimacy and should be completely shutdown. The

American people should expect nothing less.

Bashir's warm welcome by the Malawian government is a clear

demonstration of its lack of commitment to good governance--a

core principle of MCC partnerships. Every time a country

allows Bashir to enter, it provides this war criminal with

credibility. The longer he is in office, the more people will

be killed.

Bashir is strikingly similar to Slobodan Milosevic, except

that this tragedy is not taking place in Europe but rather

among the poorest of the poor in Africa. As you may know, I

was one of only 16 Republicans to vote against a 1999

resolution to try to cease military operations in Yugoslavia

after President Clinton had intervened to end the genocide--

similar to that of what is taking place in Sudan today.

I have enclosed several new photos that I received from a

contact living in the Nuba Mountains. He continues to

document the destruction and terror inflicted upon innocent

people on a daily basis by Bashir's

troops. I have only sent four out of the hundreds of pictures

he has taken because many of them are too graphic to be

shared.

During these difficult economic times, we should not allow

scarce American tax dollars to support countries that empower

war criminals like Bashir. I look forward to your response

and hope you will use this opportunity to demonstrate that

the U.S. will stand up to those countries that help

perpetuate Bashir's rule.

Best wishes.

Sincerely,

Frank R. Wolf,

Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I submit an opinion that I have received from the Government Accountability Office that White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, led by Dr. John Holdren, is in violation of the law and the Anti-Deficiency Act due to its continued dealings with the Chinese government.

United States

Government Accountability Office,

Washington, DC, October 11, 2011.

Hon. Frank R. Wolf,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and

Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, House of

Representatives.

Subject: Office of Science and Technology Policy--Bilateral

Activities with China

This responds to your request for our opinion on the

propriety of activities undertaken in May 2011 by the Office

of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) with representatives

of the government of the People's Republic of China. Letter

from Representative Wolf to the Comptroller General (May 11,

2011) (Request Letter). Specifically, you point to meetings

with Chinese representatives during the U.S.-China Dialogue

on Innovation Policy (Innovation Dialogue) and the U.S.-China

Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED) held in Washington,

D.C., in May 2011. You ask whether OSTP violated section 1340

of the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing

Appropriations Act, 2011. Section 1340 prohibits the use of

OSTP appropriations for bilateral activities between OSTP and

China, or Chinese-owned companies, unless specifically

authorized by laws enacted after the date of the

appropriations act. Pub. L. No. 112-10, div. B, title III,

125 Stat. 38, 123 (Apr. 15, 2011).

As explained below, we conclude that OSTP's use of

appropriations to fund its participation in the Innovation

Dialogue and the S&ED violated the prohibition in section

1340. In addition, because section 1340 prohibited the use of

OSTP's appropriations for this purpose, OSTP's involvement in

the Innovation Dialogue and the S&ED resulted in obligations

in excess of appropriated funds available to OSTP; as such,

OSTP violated the Antideficiency Act, 31 U.S.C.

Sec. 1341(a)(1)(A).

Our practice when rendering legal opinions is to obtain the

views of the relevant agency to establish a factual record

and to elicit the agency's legal position on the subject

matter of the request. GAO, Procedures and Practices for

Legal Decisions and Opinions, GAO-06-1064SP (Washington,

D.C.: Sept. 2006), available at www.gao.gov/legal/resources .html. In this case, OSTP provided us with its legal views

and relevant supporting materials. Letter from General

Counsel, OSTP to Assistant General Counsel, GAO, Re: B-

321982, Office of Science and Technology Policy--Bilateral

Activities with China (June 23, 2011) (OSTP Response). We

also spoke by telephone with OSTP's General Counsel to ask

questions about OSTP's June letter. Telephone Conversation

with General Counsel, OSTP (Aug. 4, 2011) (August

Conversation). See also Letter from General Counsel, OSTP to

Senior Attorney, GAO, Re: Follow-up to August 4, 2011,

Telephone Call (Aug. 29, 2011) (OSTP August Letter).