Floor Statements

My conscience has compelled me to come to the floor today to voice concerns I have with the influence Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, has on the political process in Washington. My issue is not with ATR's goal of keeping taxes low. Like Ronald Reagan said, and I believe, ``The problem is not that the people are taxed too little; the problem is that government spends too much.''

I want to be perfectly clear: I do not support raising taxes on the American people. My concern is with the other individuals, groups and causes with whom Mr. Norquist is associated that have nothing to do with keeping taxes low.

Among them:

One, Mr. Norquist's relationship with Jack Abramoff. Mr. Abramoff essentially laundered money through ATR and Mr. Norquist knew it.

Two, his association and representation of terrorist financier and vocal Hamas supporter Abdurahman Alamoudi. He also is associated with terrorist financier Sami al-Arian, who pled guilty in 2006 to conspiring to provide services to Palestinian Islamic jihad.

Three, Mr. Norquist's lobbying on behalf of Fannie Mae.

Fourth, Mr. Norquist's representation of the Internet gambling industry.

Fifth, Mr. Norquist's advocacy of moving Guantanamo Bay detainees to the United States, including 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Simply put, I believe Mr. Norquist is connected with or has profited from a number of unsavory people and groups out of the mainstream. I also believe that Mr. Norquist has used the ATR ``pledge'' as leverage to advance other issues that many Americans would find inappropriate and, when taken as a whole, should give people pause.

I raise these concerns today in the context of dealing with the future of our country. America is in trouble. Unemployment is over 9 percent. Housing values continue to decline. Retirement accounts are threatened. The American people are worried. Yet Washington is tragically shackled in ideological gridlock. Some are dead set against any change to entitlement programs, while others insist that any discussion of tax policy is off the table.

We are at a point today that the tsunami of debt in America demands that every piece of the budget be scrutinized, and that means more than just cutting waste, fraud and abuse and discretionary programs. The real runaway spending is occurring in our out-of-control entitlement costs and the hundreds of billions in annual tax earmarks in our Tax Code. Until we reach an agreement that addresses those two drivers of our deficit and debt, we cannot right our fiscal ship of state. Everything must be on the table, and I believe how the ``pledge'' is interpreted and enforced by Mr. Norquist is a roadblock to realistically reforming our Tax Code.

When Senator Tom Coburn recently called for eliminating the special interest ethanol tax subsidy, who led the opposition? Mr. Norquist. Have we already forgotten the battle over earmarks from last year? Unlike an earmark included in an annual appropriations bill, tax earmarks are far worse because, once enacted, they typically exist in perpetuity. Have we really reached a point where one person's demand for ideological purity is paralyzing Congress to the point that even a discussion of tax reform is viewed as breaking a no-tax pledge?

I understand that some may not agree with what I say. I know many are not aware of Mr. Norquist's associations. But my conscience compels me to speak out today. Reasonable people can differ on the merits of pledges--and I respect those differences--but the issue is with the interpreter and the enforcer of a pledge. William Wilberforce, the British parliamentarian and abolitionist, famously told his colleagues: ``Having heard all of this, you may choose to look the other way, but you can never again say you did not know.''

I urge my colleagues to read my full statement in the Record, which will also be posted on my Web page, going into greater detail on the issues I have raised.

Mr. Speaker, I submit my correspondence with the administration on my call for an Afghanistan/Pakistan Study Group. My letters to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta of August 31, 2011, and September 15, 2011, follow:

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, August 31, 2011.

Hon. Leon Panetta,

Secretary of Defense, The Pentagon,

Washington, DC.

Dear Secretary Panetta: I know you care deeply about the

men and women in uniform fighting in Afghanistan. That's why

I am disappointed that no one from your staff has contacted

former Ambassador Peter Tomsen, an expert on Afghanistan, to

meet with him, as I requested in my letter to you of August 1

(enclosed).

Ambassador Tomsen's new book, The Wars of Afghanistan, is

receiving positive reviews, including the enclosed review in

the recent edition of Foreign Affairs. The review praises the

book as providing an in depth description of the social

structure of Afghanistan and the mistakes repeated by

numerous foreign countries that have tried to help establish

military and political cohesion in the country. The review

states, ``Whether one agrees with Tomsen, however, there is

no denying that his descriptions of Afghanistan's society and

politics are a valuable foundation for any discussion of how

the country should be governed. * * * Given Tomsen's track

record, Americans should give a respectful hearing to his

call for a thorough policy reformulation--something beyond

tweaks to troop numbers and counterinsurgency tactics.''

I believe this book should be required reading for you and

your team at the Pentagon. Ambassador Tomsen is ready and

willing to lend his expertise to this important effort and I

again ask that you or your staff meet with him.

Leon, I renew my call that you use your discretion as

secretary and create the Af/Pak Study Group. We owe it to the

men and women serving and the families and spouses at home to

ensure we have the correct strategy. After 10 years of

fighting, it is time to have a fresh set of eyes examine U.S.

strategy. Far from a sign of weakness, creating an

independent Af/Pak study group would show the nation that we

are doing everything possible to achieve our goals in this

region.

I would welcome the chance to speak with you on this

matter.

Best wishes,

Sincerely,

Frank R. Wolf,

Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I submit correspondence regarding the Afghanistan/Pakistan Study Group and provide the following examples of support for this important initiative from David Abshire, president of the Center for the Study of the Presidency, and a moving letter from a constituent and mother whose children have served in the military in recent years.

Center for the Study of the

Presidency and Congress,

Washington, DC, June 1, 2011.

Hon. Frank Wolf,

House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Frank: To say that the May 2, 2011 targeted

elimination of Osama bin Laden by a team of U.S. Navy SEALs

was welcome news would be the understatement of the 21st

century. The death of a terrorist icon that had directed the

murder of thousands of American, European, and Muslim

civilians has also caused almost immediate speculation as to

what his demise will mean for the international mission in

Afghanistan.

Within hours of President Obama's announcement of bin

Laden's death, pundits and politicians from both the Right

and Left are calling for a speedier withdrawal in the wake of

the al-Qaeda leader's demise. However, many are concerned

that such a move would risk reversing the gains that have

been made by our nearly ten-year military effort and could

cause Afghanistan to once again remerge as a destabilizing

pariah that violates human rights and threatens international

security.

As the country becomes increasingly divided over the issue

of our involvement in Afghanistan, many questions have been

raised regarding our relationship with Pakistan. Despite

spending billions in aid and security assistance, America's

approval rating in Pakistan is a mere 17%. Furthermore the

discovery of Osama bin Laden in a compound located less than

a mile from the Pakistan Military Academy has dramatically

amplified concerns that elements of the Pakistani Inter-

Services Intelligence service may be maintaining links with

al-Qaeda and other violent extremist organizations. While

many understand that cutting off or reducing aid to Pakistan

would be risky, the American public is unlikely to tolerate

continued perceived double-dealing on the part of the

Pakistani security services. New creative and independent

thinking is needed to overcome the current deadlock.

As the country struggles to find the appropriate way

forward in Afghanistan and Pakistan, I am heartened by your

efforts to establish a bipartisan and independent

Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group that will take a

comprehensive look at America's current and future role in

the region.

I had the privilege of helping organize the Iraq Study

Group (ISO), which the proposed Af-Pak Study Group would be

modeled after, and feel that a similar such effort would be

of great help today.

Such a group can provide an effective unifying rallying

point that will enable the country to come together in

support of a comprehensive strategy that will guard our

interests in the region and foster a more stable and secure

world.

With warm regards,

Sincerely yours,

David Abshire.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to my colleagues' attention a powerful hearing that the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission--of which I am a co-chair--held on September 22, 2011 to discuss the humanitarian atrocities that are taking place in Sudan, including Darfur.

I submit for the record the moving testimonies of two of the panelists--former member of Congress, the Honorable Thomas H. Andrews, and Ms. Jehanne Henry of Human Rights Watch. I hope that my colleagues will take a moment to read these testimonies and realize that the atrocities mentioned are taking place and continue to take place today.

The United States must not turn a blind eye to this part of the world.

[Human Rights Watch, Sept. 22, 2011]

Testimony to the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission regarding Sudan

(By Jehanne Henry)

Good morning, Chairman McGovern, Chairman Wolf and

distinguished Members of the Tom Lantos Human Rights

Commission. Thank you for inviting me to this important

hearing on Sudan, particularly in view of new conflict and

human rights abuses occurring in Southern Kordofan and Blue

Nile states as we speak.

I was asked to speak on my recent visit to Southern

Kordofan. I will keep my comments brief and ask that our

August 30 report on the situation in Southern Kordofan be

submitted for the record.

As you are aware, South Sudan seceded from Sudan on July 9,

following a January referendum under the terms of the 2005

Comprehensive Peace Agreement. While these events transpired

relatively smoothly, new conflicts erupted in key areas north

of the border, where the reforms envisioned in the peace

agreement never occurred.

Weeks after Sudan militarily overtook the disputed border

area of Abyei in late May, in violation of the CPA, fighting

between government and SPLA forces broke out in neighboring

Southern Kordofan, home to large ethnic Nuba populations with

longstanding ties to the SPLM.

The fighting broke out amid growing tensions over disputed

state elections, in which Ahmed Haroun--who is wanted by the

International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes

against humanity in Darfur--claimed a narrow victory for

governor. The two parties also disagreed over the terms of

troop withdrawals under the security arrangements in the CPA.

According to witnesses we interviewed and other sources,

government forces shelled civilian areas, shot people in the

streets and carried out house-to-house searches and arrests

based on lists of names of known SPLM supporters in the first

weeks of fighting. Many people I interviewed saw dead bodies

and evidence of looting and burning as they escaped the town.

The witness accounts are consistent with many of the

findings in an August 15 report by the Office of the High

Commissioner for Human Rights, which documents unlawful

killings and attacks on civilians and other serious human

rights violations that could amount to war crimes and crimes

against humanity.

In late August, I visited Southern Kordofan. Although

government restrictions prevented us from visiting Kadugli

itself and other government-controlled areas, we visited many

towns and villages deep in the Nuba Mountains, where hundreds

of thousands of people have taken refuge from fighting and

ongoing indiscriminate bombing by the Sudanese government.

While I was there, I saw government planes circling

overhead on a near-daily basis, sometimes multiple times per

day. I also saw three bombs falling out of an aircraft, and

heard them explode a few kilometers away. We investigated 13

air separate strikes in Kauda, Delami, and Kurchi areas--a

small fraction of the total number of air strikes in Nuba

Mountains--in which bomb fragments brutally killed at least

26 people, including women and children, and injured 45

others, maiming many for life.

According to those we interviewed, there were no military

targets in areas where bombs fell. None of the incidents we

investigated occurred close to front lines or in areas of

active combat. The type of munitions used and the manner in

which they were delivered--unguided, dropped from high

altitudes--are further evidence that the bombings were

indiscriminate and therefore unlawful.

The bombing is ongoing, and has a devastating impact on the

Nuba population. People forced out of their homes now live in

harsh conditions under boulders, in caves, on mountaintops,

under trees, and in the bush far from towns where they fear

being struck by bombs. They lacked sufficient food, medicine,

and shelter from the rains--many are now eating berries and

leaves, and their children are suffering from diarrhea and

malaria. Many we met were separated from

family members living in government controlled areas.

Humanitarian groups estimate that more than 200,000 people

have been displaced, either by the outbreak of fighting in

early June, by ongoing fighting along several front lines,

and by the ongoing bombing campaign. The number may be

higher, as heavy rains and lack of fuel for vehicles and

security concerns restricted access to many SPLM-North-

controlled areas.

Yet the Sudanese government has blocked humanitarian

assistance to opposition areas as well as many government-

held areas. On August 20, aid groups tried to carry out an

assessment but were allowed only to Kadugli town. On August

23, President Al-Bashir publicly stated that no international

groups would be allowed in. Indeed, Sudan has done everything

possible to ensure there are no ``eyes and ears'' on the

ground. It has prevented journalists, researchers, diplomats

and UN staff from visiting the area, and forced the UN

peacekeepers to leave.

In recent weeks, this conflict has spread to neighboring

Blue Nile state and the government has clamped down on SPLM-

North across the country, arresting more than 100 suspected

supporters, banning political parties, and restricting media

coverage of the conflicts. We have credible reports that the

government is bombing civilian areas in Blue Nile also. Tens

of thousands of people fled their homes.

Sudan faces many political challenges: growing dissent from

marginalized populations in its peripheries; active conflicts

in two border states and in Darfur, for eight years running;

and it has lost one-third of its territory and faces serious

economic challenges. Unfortunately, its leaders have chosen

to respond to these challenges through repression and armed

conflict rather than by upholding rights, opening political

space, pursuing democratic reforms.

The United States has shown leadership. Ambassador Rice

condemned the violence early on and requested UN reporting on

human rights violations. The state department has also

condemned the continued aerial bombing. This continued

leadership is critical.

The United Nations Security Council and the Africa Union

have yet to even condemn the violations, despite the evidence

of indiscriminate bombing and despite the UN High

Commissioner for Human Rights warning that war crimes and

crimes against humanity may have occurred in Southern

Kordofan.

We urge the US to press for: a strong condemnation of the

ongoing violations in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile; an

international monitoring presence, with a requirement for

continued human rights monitoring; and a full and independent

investigation into violations of international human rights

and humanitarian law.

Finally, the US needs to remain steadfast in making no

concessions to Sudan given these ongoing and serious

violations.

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I submit my correspondence with the administration on my call for an Afghanistan/Pakistan Study Group. My letters to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta of July 19, 2011; August 1, 2011; and August 8, 2011 follow:

House of Representatives,

July 19, 2011.

Hon. Leon Panetta,

Secretary of Defense,

The Pentagon, Washington, DC.

Dear Leon: I write today concerning the U.S. mission in

Afghanistan and Pakistan. My amendment, which gives the

Secretary of Defense the authority to establish an

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

the House-passed FY 2012 Defense Appropriations bill. I

pressed for the amendment because I believe fresh eyes are

needed now to examine the situation on the ground and the

overall U.S. mission.

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

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

Gates served on the ISG and know better than most the

benefits it provided after three years of fighting in Iraq.

Now that the U.S. is in its 10th year in Afghanistan, I

believe a similar effort is necessary.

Before he was appointed as ambassador to Afghanistan, Ryan

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

Ambassador Ronald Neumann and Jim Dobbins from the RAND

Corporation. American men and women are fighting and dying in

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

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

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

military forces nothing less.

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

movement building in Congress in favor of pulling troops out

of Afghanistan. An amendment offered by Rep. Jim McGovern

earlier this year to the National Defense Authorization Act

to accelerate U.S. departure from Afghanistan was narrowly

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

amendment would have passed. I have talked to several members

who voted against the McGovern amendment who are seriously

concerned about the war in Afghanistan and could change their

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

I also believe it is critical that Afghanistan be examined

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

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

have a clear understanding of how Pakistan is influencing

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

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

funeral bombed, Karai advisor Jan Mohammed Kahn was murdered,

and militants attacked and laid siege to the Intercontinental

Hotel in Kabul. The enclosed article printed recently in the

Washington Post states, ``. . . optimism and energy vanished

long ago, gradually replaced by cynicism and fear. The

trappings of democracy remained in place . . . but the

politics of ethnic dog fights, tribal feuds and personal

patronage continued to prevail.''

The men and women serving in Afghanistan deserve to have

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

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

authority as secretary and move quickly to create this study

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

Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and he

has offered to coordinate the group with professionals with a

wide range of expertise.

I would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you to

discuss this important initiative and look forward to working

with you to ensure we are successful in Afghanistan and

Pakistan.

Best wishes.

Sincerely,

Frank R. Wolf,

Member of Congress.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I rise in strong support of H.R. 2608, to provide the continuing resolution for the initial weeks. And I want to be sure that we keep the government open. And by passing this bill, we will keep the government open.

This bill is needed to keep vital government services and programs operating past the end of the fiscal year on September 30. As the gentleman from Kentucky has stated, the Committee on Appropriations has made great progress in moving 11 of the 12 annual bills. However, additional time is needed for the consideration of the other.

This continuing resolution, for anyone who questions it, conforms to the spending reduction targets that were agreed to by the House, the Senate, and the White House. It's exactly the same number, and so no reason to vote against it. Specifically, the bill sets an annual rate that reduces overall discretionary spending by 1.5 percent from fiscal year 2011.

In addition, the bill provides disaster funding to provide much- needed assistance to individuals and communities suffering from hurricane and flood damage. The State of Virginia has been hit, as many others.

I urge all my colleagues to vote for this bill. By voting for the bill, we will keep the government open.

The American people sometimes think this institution and this town is dysfunctional. We can ensure that we can do our work. Pass this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have been writing President Obama and administration officials since August 2010 outlining my concerns about the progress of the war in Afghanistan and asking that an Afghanistan/ Pakistan Study Group be established to engage outside experts to bring fresh eyes to U.S. strategy in South Asia.

It's now over a year later and the administration continues to balk at any suggestion for such a panel to be formed. Yet we continue to read headlines every week reporting about casualties among our brave troops and stepped up attacks by the Taliban, including assassinations of Afghan leaders.

I firmly believe that success in South Asia requires a complete reexamination of U.S. policy with both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Establishing the Af/Pak Stud Group will demonstrate that U.S. political leaders and government officials are willing to take whatever steps necessary to ensure we have the best strategy for long-term success in South Asia.

I will begin today to insert in the Record my correspondence with the administration on this matter. My letter of August 4, 2010, to the president follows:

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, August 4, 2010.

Hon. Barack H. Obama,

The President,

The White House, Washington, DC.

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

catastrophic and deliberate terrorist attack on our country,

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

and have the utmost confidence in General Petraeus's proven

leadership. I also remain unequivocally committed to the

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

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

this

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

been a consistent supporter of the war effort in both

Afgahnistan and Iraq, I believe that with this support comes

a responsibility. This was true during a Republican

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

today.

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

firsthand the deteriorating security situation. I was deeply

concerned that Congress was failing to exercise the necessary

oversight of the war effort. Against this backdrop I authored

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

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

nationally known figures who were brought together with the

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

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

for Strategic and International Studies, and the Baker

Institute for Public Policy at Rice University--and charged

with undertaking a comprehensive review of U.S. efforts

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

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

While reticent at first, to their credit President Bush,

State Secretary Rice and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld came to

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

Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee

Hamilton. Two members of your national security team,

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and CIA Director Leon

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

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

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

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

ideas were adopted. Retired General Jack Keane, senior

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

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

Aside from the specific policy recommendations of the panel,

the ISG helped force a moment of truth in our national

conversation about the war effort.

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

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

In recent days I have spoken with a number of knowledgeable

individuals including former senior diplomats, public policy

experts and retired and active military. Many believe our

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

urgent need for what I call an Afghanistan-Pakistan Study

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

holistically, given Pakistan's strategic significance to

our efforts in Afghanistan and the Taliban's presence in

that country as well, especially in the border areas.

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

in chief. You are well acquainted with the sobering

statistics of the past several weeks--notably that July

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Afghanistan parallels are imperfect at best, the shadow of

history looms large. Eroding political will has

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

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

of Foreign Wars National Convention, you rightly said,

``Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so

again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an

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

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

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

it is fundamental. We must soberly consider the implication

of failure in Afghanistan. Those that we know for certain are

chilling--namely an emboldened al Qaeda, a reconstituted

Taliban with an open staging ground for future worldwide

attacks, and a destabilized, nuclear-armed Pakistan.

Given these realities and wavering public and political

support, I urge you to act immediately, through executive

order, to convene an Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group modeled

after the Iraq Study Group. The participation of nationally

known and respected individuals is of paramount importance.

Among the names that surfaced in my discussions with others,

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

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

Bob Kerrey and Sam Nunn; former Congressman Duncan Hunter;

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

Defense James Schlesinger, and General Keane. These names are

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

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

up to the task.

I firmly believe that an Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group

could reinvigorate national confidence in how America can be

successful and move toward a shared mission in Afghanistan.

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

past weekend, it was unsettling to hear conflicting

statements from within the leadership of the administration

that revealed a lack of clarity about the endgame in

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

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

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

the American people and their elected representatives do not

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

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

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

Afghanistan who are also facing dwindling public support, as

evidenced by the recent Dutch troop withdrawal, and would

give them a tangible vision to which to commit.

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

believe that Americans of all political viewpoints, liberals

and conservatives alike, and varied opinions on the war will

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

administration's support of the Iraq Study Group, which

involved taking the group's members to Iraq and providing

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

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

in our national interest to openly assess the challenges

before us and to chart a clear course to success.

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

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

once again pause and remember that horrific morning nine

years ago when passenger airlines became weapons, when the

skyline of one of America's greatest cities was forever

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

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

recent days believe that time is of the essence in moving

forward with a study panel, and waiting for Congress to

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

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

convene this group in short order, and explain to the

American people why it is both necessary and timely. Should

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

offer an amendment by whatever vehicle necessary to mandate

the group's creation at the earliest possible opportunity.

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

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

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

improve the situation and protect American interests.'' The

same can be said of Afghanistan.

I understand that you are a great admirer of Abraham

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

that pitted brother against brother, and father against son.

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

with strong, oftentimes opposing viewpoints. Historians

assert this served to develop his thinking on complex

matters. Similarly, while total agreement may not emerge from

a study group for Afghanistan and Pakistan, I believe that

vigorous, thoughtful and principled debate and discussion

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

will only serve the national interest. The biblical

admonition that iron sharpens iron rings true.

Best wishes.

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

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

harm's way and to the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I submit a letter that I sent to Attorney General Holder on the report by the Office of Inspector General on the ``extravagant and wasteful'' spending on conference planning and refreshments.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Appropriations,

Washington, DC, September 20, 2011.

Hon. Eric H. Holder, Jr.,

Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.

Dear Attorney General Holder: I was deeply concerned to

read the Audit of Department of Justice Conference Planning

and Food and Beverage Costs, which was released today by the

Office of the Inspector General. This report details the

Acting Inspector General's finding that DOJ spent more than

$120 million on 1,832 conferences over two years, including

``extravagant and wasteful'' spending on food and beverages.

In one egregious example that occurred during your tenure

as Attorney General, the Department spent $16 on each of 250

muffins served at an Executive Office for Immigration Review

conference. In another case, the audit found that neither the

Office of Justice Programs nor the Office on Violence Against

Women required event planners to track and report salary and

benefit costs on contracts totaling more than half a million

dollars.

As Chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee that

funds the Justice Department, I am troubled about the

financial mismanagement that has taken place at the

Department during the same period in which this country has

weathered a severe recession and a tenuous economic recovery.

It is clear that while American taxpayers were tightening

their belts and making difficult financial decisions, the

Department was splurging on wasteful snacks and drinks as

well as unnecessary event planning ``consultants.''

Over the last year, the House Appropriations Committee has

had to make difficult choices about deep spending reductions

to reflect the austere budget environment. Appropriations for

the Department were reduced by 2.8% overall in fiscal year

2011, and are reduced by another 3.4% in the House-reported

bill for fiscal year 2012, a total reduction of more than

$1.7 billion over two years.

Clearly there is still more work to be done to address

wasteful spending at the Department. I expect you and other

Department officials to immediately address the OIG's

recommendations, and renew efforts to root out and eliminate

wasteful spending practices such as those detailed in this

report.

Sincerely,

Frank R. Wolf,

Chairman, House Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science

and Related Agencies.

Mr. Speaker, I submit a letter that I sent to Attorney General Holder on the closure of additional Federal Prison Industries factories and warn of the gradual collapse of this important work program for prison inmates. I urge the attorney general to take immediate action to bolster the program.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Appropriations,

Washington, DC, September 20, 2011.

Hon. Eric H. Holder, Jr.,

Attorney General, Department of Justice, Washington, DC.

Dear Attorney General Holder: As you know, on September 13,

2011, the Federal Bureau of Prisons announced the closure of

UNICOR operations at eleven institutions and the reduction of

personnel at two other institutions. These actions are

expected to result in the elimination of 74 staff positions

and 325 inmate jobs. Unfortunately, this is a result of the

UNICOR Board of Directors'

projection that the corporation would suffer losses of $23

million in FY 2012 unless changes were made.

These drastic reductions lead me to believe that you are

presiding over the collapse of Federal Prison Industries

(FPI). While I have worked to include language in the

Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations bill to bolster

FPI, it takes more than Congressional leadership to ensure

that this institution will weather the challenging economic

climate. What is needed is strong executive leadership to

encourage other Federal agencies to purchase goods

manufactured in UNICOR facilities.

Therefore, I ask that you lead a corresponding effort to

reverse this trend of downsizing at FPI. In prisons, work is

dignity, and it is essential for prisoners' rehabilitation

and successful reentry into society. Inmates need to learn

skills and behavior that will enable them to succeed in a job

outside of prison. There is no excuse for not ensuring that

every Federal prisoner has a job. By working with OMB and

other agencies, DOJ can assist in finding new or expanded

opportunities for FPI in Federal contracts.

Restoring FPI should be at the center of any plan to

improve reentry programs for Federal prisoners. I would

appreciate hearing from you promptly about ways you and the

Department can exercise leadership within the Executive

Branch to restore FPI and create more meaningful work

opportunities for Federal inmates.

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I want to thank Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ros-Lehtinen; ranking member, Mr. Berman; the Human Rights Committee chairman, Mr. Smith, who's been a champion on all of these issues from the very first day he got in here; and their staffs. The staffs have made all the difference in the world.

I want to particularly thank the chairman's staff, Yleem Poblete and Doug Anderson, for their help, and also the leadership on both sides and my side, and the leadership staff who have really tried to work this and get this thing through. I'm going to say some things that hopefully are not too controversial, but I do want to thank them for getting this thing out and getting it moving because, if it didn't move today, it may very well come to an end.

I rise in support of this critical legislation to reauthorize and reform the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. The sad truth, though, Madam Speaker, this bill has been held hostage by the other body--and keep the word ``hostage'' out there as we think in terms of what this bill would do and what's taking place around the world. And if we do not pass this bill in this form today, the likelihood of this Commission shutting down is very, very high.

I wish I could name--I know the House rule--and I would name the members over there if anyone asks me, but it's being held hostage. Some in the other body are now saying that even these are not the changes that they would like to see to the Commission. And, quite frankly, I believe that some over there and this very administration would not mind seeing this Commission shut its doors.

This was a bipartisan issue for years. Scoop Jackson, the leader, Jackson-Vanik, President Reagan. To my side, Reagan said the words in the Constitution were a covenant to the entire world, not just to the people in Philadelphia in 1787 but to the entire world. And yet religious freedom, often referred to as the first freedom, is central to our American values and should be featured prominently in foreign policy.

But, sadly, the constituency for human rights and religious freedom issues is growing smaller and smaller in Washington and in this Congress. These issues have become second-class citizens in this Congress and in this town. There are no big law firms downtown. They're representing the Saudis. They're representing the Chinese. They're representing filth and garbage in certain cases, but no one represents human rights and religious freedom.

So there are all the Members who have agonized and pushed and pulled and want to kill this. I'm concerned because as we stand here today and debate, and you've got to know this, Iraqi Christians are being killed. People who speak the same language as Jesus, the Aramaic language, and more biblical activity took place in Iraq than almost any other country other than Israel, they're being killed; and Iraqi women are being forced to do terrible things in order to keep their families.

And there are some who don't want this bill to pass. They never talk about the Iraqi Christians. Yet many of them supported the Iraqi war and yet they say nothing.

The Baha'is in Iran and Egypt are being marginalized, and I never hear a word said.

Chinese Bishops. I can remember Congressman Smith took Holy Communion from Bishop Su. Bishop Su was arrested and has never been seen since, maybe once being forced into a public security police car and taken away.

Protestant pastors are being arrested today as we speak in China, and yet this doesn't really seem to bother this place. It's almost like, Well, you know, what are we going do? You know, man does not live by bread alone. These are important issues. Go back to Scoop Jackson. Go back to Ronald Reagan. Go back to the Constitution. Go back to the Declaration of Independence.

Shabaz Bhatti, the Christian minister in the government, was gunned down because of his faith, because he was a Christian. The Ahmadiyya Muslims in Pakistan are being persecuted. They're going through a very, very difficult time. There are the Coptic Christians. I was in Egypt in July, and the Coptic Christians--8.5 million--are going through a very difficult time.

As Mr. Smith just said, anti-Semitism is running rampant. Anti- Semitism is running rampant in this world, and yet there are some who are trying to kill this Commission, for some reason, over in the other body. We're having such a hard time.

The Buddhists in Tibet, they can't even have a picture of the Dalai Lama. Hu Jintao, who is the current President of China, was the one who cracked down on Tibet and raided all those monasteries, and yet, with this bill, some are just saying, Well, you know, I don't know, and I don't know, and I don't know.

Though this bill is not what we originally planned, the Commission has said they can live with these provisions so that the Commission may remain a reliable voice for the world's persecuted

people. As Mr. Smith said, there probably is not a time that you do need this Commission more than now. Since the passage of this legislation, religious freedom has been elevated at times in U.S. foreign policy, but it still does not enjoy the preeminence it deserves.

Sadly, a strong U.S. voice on these critical issues has arguably never been more needed. The Commission faces extinction at the end of the month. Members of Congress know, if you knock this bill down, if you want to kill this Commission and if they vote ``no,'' it will go out of business by the end of this month if the Congress fails to pass it.

Just yesterday, as Mr. Smith said, the State Department released its annual International Religious Freedom Report. In the report, several challenges to religious freedom were pinpointed. People around the world continue to face violent extremist attacks, apostasy and blasphemy laws, repression, and anti-Semitism. According to a Pew Research Study released in 2009, one-third of all nations, containing 70 percent of the world's population, severely restrict religious freedom.

I want to thank again Ms. Ros-Lehtinen and Mr. Berman and my good friend Mr. Smith and their staffs.

I don't know what we would say to the Christian community around the world and to the Baha'is and to those concerned about anti-Semitism and the Buddhist community in Tibet and the Uyghurs in China if this thing fails to pass. They would say, What's taking place in Washington? Why is this no longer an issue that this Congress and this administration care about? So I would hope we should pass it. I think we should have a roll call vote. Every Member should stand up and explain what they're going to do.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ros-Lehtinen, Ranking Member Berman, Human Rights Subcommittee Chairman Smith, and their staffs for working tirelessly in a bipartisan manner to continue to fight for those who are persecuted for their religious beliefs. I would like to particularly thank the chairman's staffers, Yleem Poblete and Doug Anderson, for their help. Thank you also to our leadership for bringing this bill to the floor.

I rise in support of this critical legislation to reauthorize and reform the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF). The sad truth is that this bill has been held hostage in the other body, and if we do not pass this bill in the form it is in today, the commission will shut down.

Some in the other body are now saying that even these are not the changes they would like to see to the commission, and quite frankly, I believe that some over there and this very administration would not mind if the commission were to shut its doors.

Religious freedom, often referred to as the first freedom, is central to our American values and should be featured prominently in U.S. foreign policy. Sadly, the constituency for human rights and religious freedom issues is growing smaller and smaller in Washington and in Congress. These issues have become second class citizens in this Congress.

I am deeply concerned because, as we stand here and debate this bill, Iraqi Christians are being killed, Baha'is are being marginalized in Iran, Chinese bishops and Protestants pastors sit in jail, Christian and Ahmadis continue to be repressed in Pakistan, Coptic Christians are having a difficult time in Egypt, and anti-Semitism is growing around the world.

Though this bill is not what we originally planned, the commission has said they can live with these provisions so that the commission may remain a reliable voice for the world's persecuted people.

Recognizing that this critical issue and other human rights related issues are often relegated to the sidelines within the State Department, I authored legislation more than 10 years ago, in 1998, to establish the International Religious Freedom Office at the State Department, headed by an ambassador at-large, and to create the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF)--an independent, bipartisan Federal Government commission, charged with monitoring the status of freedom of religion or belief abroad and providing policy recommendations to the President, Secretary of State, and Congress.

Since the passage of this legislation religious freedom has been elevated within U.S. foreign policy. But it still does not enjoy the preeminence it deserves. And sadly, a strong U.S. voice on this critical issue has arguably never been more needed. USCIRF faces extinction at the end of this month if Congress fails to pass the bill before us today and it is not signed into law.

Just yesterday, the State Department released its annual International Religious Freedom Report. In the report, several challenges to religious freedom were pinpointed. People around the world continue to face violent extremist attacks, apostasy and blasphemy laws, repression, and anti-Semitism. According to a Pew Research Study released in December 2009, one-third of all nations, containing 70 percent of the world's population, severely restrict religious freedom.

This legislation will reauthorize the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom until September 30, 2013. USCIRF, unlike the State Department, is unencumbered by the impulse to maintain good bilateral relations above all else . . . an impulse which sadly can result in critical issues of religious freedom being sidelined in the pursuit of broader foreign policy goals.

USCIRF regularly holds briefings and hearings on and off the Hill and is frequently called upon to provide expert witness testimony to Congress.

Just in the last year the commission has taken a leadership role on a series of key issues. It was quick to recognize the strategic importance and courageous voice of the late Shabaz Bhatti, Pakistan's federal minister of Minorities Affairs, an outspoken critic of his nation's draconian blasphemy laws.

During a critical time for the people of Sudan, the USCIRF issued special recommendations on the implementation of the historic Comprehensive Peace Agreement.

It made a series of policy recommendations aimed at preserving and protecting Iraq's besieged religious minorities.

It has actively worked with dozens of Hill offices on combating the ``defamation of religions'' resolution before the United Nations.

In short, ensuring that the commission is reauthorized is of paramount importance. In a Constitution Day speech, President Ronald Reagan famously described the United States constitution as ``a covenant we have made not only with ourselves, but with all of mankind.''

Passage of this legislation will go a long way in helping us keep that covenant. I urge my colleagues' support. We must let the world know that the U.S. Congress continues to believe in the importance of protecting the first freedom for every person in this world.

I have an amendment at the desk.

I have a modification at the desk, and I ask unanimous consent for its consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I want to personally thank Mr. Rogers and his staff for helping with regard to this amendment with regard to radicalization, and I also want to thank Mr. Ruppersberger. Also, as somebody who has served here for a number of years, I want to say that I don't think there have been two finer chairmen and ranking members of the Intelligence Committee since I've been here. I think it's very impressive to see that, and I just want everyone up here, particularly in the country, to know that.

Very briefly, Madam Chair, this amendment deals with radicalization. I won't go into the whole statement, but I will just read several examples of radicalization that have taken place in northern Virginia.

In October 2010, Farooque Ahmed from Ashburn, in my congressional district of Vienna, was arrested for allegedly plotting attacks on the Washington Metro system, targeting Metro stations to find optimal times to kill as many innocent people as possible.

In July 2010, Zachary Chesser, a graduate of nearby Oakton High School, which is very close to where I live, was arrested in New York en route to join al Shabaab in Somalia. Late last year, Chesser pled guilty to charges of providing material support to terrorists, communicating threats and soliciting crimes of violence, and was sentenced to 30 years in prison.

In November 2009, five American teenagers from Fairfax County, Virginia, were arrested in Pakistan, attempting to join militant Islamist organizations. They have been sentenced to 10 years in a Pakistan prison.

In November 2009, Virginia native Army Major Nidal Hassan attacked Fort Hood in Texas and was charged with the shooting deaths of 13 service men and women and civilians. Hassan was a graduate of Virginia Tech and grew up in Arlington County and Roanoke, Virginia.

In 2004, Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi from Falls Church, Virginia, was convicted on three charges of terrorist financing and conspiring to assassinate Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah and was sentenced to 23 years in jail.

In 2003, Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, a northern Virginia resident and the Islamic Saudi Academy's 1999 valedictorian, was arrested in Saudi Arabia and was later convicted in Federal District Court in Alexandria of conspiracy to commit terrorism, including a plot to assassinate President Bush. He was sentenced to life in prison.

Probably the number one terrorist threat today is Aulaqi, who is an American citizen and who went to college on American taxpayers' money. He was with a mosque in northern Virginia, in Falls Church, which used to be in my old congressional district. So this issue of radicalization is very important.

Again, I want to thank the chairman and his staff and Mr. Ruppersberger and his staff.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Colonel Francis H. Dillon, Jr., a constituent of mine from Great Falls, Virginia, for his 31 years of service to our nation as he approaches his 90th birthday on September 10. I also want to call attention to the fact that his entire family has followed his example of service.

Colonel Dillon served in the United States Army and began his service in 1943 during World War II in the 17th Airborne Division in which he saw combat action during the Battle of the Bulge, Operation Varsity, and the Allied invasion of Germany. He answered his nation's call a second time in 1950, recalled to active duty as an Intelligence Officer during the Korean War. Before retiring from the Army in 1974, he again served his country from 1968-1969 as he commanded the 525th Military Intelligence Group in Vietnam.

In 1947, Colonel Dillon married Martha Getz and together they raised seven sons. Through his example of selfless service, each one of Colonel Dillon's seven sons served in the Armed Forces of the United States. Four of his sons served as career Army officers; Major Francis H. Dillon III (ret.) 20 years, Colonel Peter J. Dillon (ret.) 28 years, LTC Dan P. Dillon (ret.) 26 years and LTC James R. Dillon (ret.) 20 years. Colonel Dillon's second son, Thomas C. Dillon, is a 1975 graduate of the United States Naval Academy and served on active duty in the Navy for nine years. Two of Colonel Dillon's sons served in the National Guard and United States Army Reserve. Sergeant Timothy D. Dillon served in the Connecticut National Guard for four years and the youngest of the seven sons, Major Douglas M. Dillon continues to serve in the United States Army Reserve as a Civil Affairs Officer. Colonel Dillon's sons have served in numerous overseas contingency operations including Operation Desert Shield/Storm, Kosovo, Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan) and Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Colonel Dillon has four grandchildren who are also current members of Armed Forces. Captain Peter J. Dillon Jr. serves as an Army doctor and is currently deployed to Afghanistan. Duncan Dillon is in his third year at the United States Air Force Academy, Timothy Dillon Jr. is a Private First Class in the Idaho National Guard and enrolled in the University of Idaho Reserve Officer Training Course program and granddaughter, Julie Dillon, just entered her first year at the United States Military Academy at West Point.

Two of Colonel Dillon's daughters-in-law have also served in the United States Army. Captain Patricia Dillon served for six years and LTC Maryanne Dillon (ret.) served for 20 years.

Mr. Speaker, I salute Colonel Francis H. Dillon, Jr. and offer the appreciation of a grateful nation to him and his family for their dedicated service to America.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to thank Chairman Ros- Lehtinen for her support, Mr. Berman for his support, and Mr. Smith for his help. I also want to thank some key staff members whose hard work and efforts on the bill have not gone unnoticed: Elyse Anderson, Kalinda Stephenson, Yleem Poblete, Steve Stombres, and also Kyle Nevins with the majority leader's office. They have been very, very helpful, and I am grateful for their help.

This past January, in the wake of increasing violence, targeted attacks, and heightened discrimination against Christians and other religious minorities in Iraq and Egypt, and persistent concerns in Afghanistan and Pakistan, among other nations, I introduced bipartisan legislation, H.R. 440, which would require the administration to appoint a special envoy to advocate for religious minorities in the Middle East and South Central Asia in order to make this issue a foreign policy priority.

Since introduction, this legislation has garnered widespread bipartisan support with nearly 80 cosponsors. I want to thank Anna Eshoo, the lead Democrat in the House, for her work on this. Also, companion legislation has been introduced now by Senators Roy Blunt and Carl Levin. The legislation has also been championed by a host of faith-based organizations and diaspora communities, who recognize the importance of ensuring that the vulnerable communities have an advocate within the U.S. Government and around the world.

Shortly before introducing this legislation, I chaired a hearing at the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission on the recent spate of attacks and the ongoing persecution of Christians in Iraq and Egypt. Commission members heard testimony about the increasing sectarian tensions in the two countries and the need for greater U.S. attention to the plight of religious minorities. The hearing was held prior to recent events in the Middle East which have, in some cases, created a political vacuum that have left religious minorities particularly vulnerable. I heard this fear expressed time and again during a recent trip to Egypt.

Religious minorities throughout the region, including those who are Jewish, Ahmadis, Baha'is, are under increasing pressure. In fact, many of these ancient faith communities have been forced to flee the lands that they have inhabited for centuries.

Consider some of the following:

Last October, at least 70 people were killed during a siege on Our Lady of Salvation Church in Baghdad, making it the worst massacre of Iraqi Christians since 2003.

Iraq's once vibrant Christian community population has been reduced by at least half since 2003. This would be tragic under any circumstances, but it is especially so given the rich ancestral heritage of this indigenous community.

Apart from Israel, the lands and peoples of modern-day Iraq are mentioned with greater frequency in the Bible than any other country. Abraham, Jonah, Nineveh, Esther, and Daniel all hail from Iraq. The Christians of Iraq today still speak Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke.

In Afghanistan and Pakistan, countries where the United States has invested its treasure and the lives of countless brave American soldiers, persecution of Christians runs rampant.

On November 7 last year, a Pakistani court sentenced Aasia Bibi, a Christian mother of five, to death for the crime of blasphemy. Only after intervention by the international community was her execution delayed. Her fate still remains, at this moment, unclear.

Pakistan's blasphemy laws are often used to victimize both religious minorities and Muslims. Earlier this year, Punjab's influential Governor, Salman Taseer, was shot and killed by his own bodyguard, who reportedly told police that he, quote, killed Mr. Taseer because of the Governor's opposition to Pakistan's blasphemy law.

In April, Pakistan's Federal Minister for Minority Affairs, Shahbaz Bhatti, a heroic man of faith whose courageous and outspoken leadership against his nation's draconian blasphemy law made him a prime target of extremist Islamist elements in his country, was assassinated. Bhatti was the only Christian member of the Pakistani Cabinet.

In an interview with The Washington Post's Fred Hiatt, Shahbaz Bhatti ``urged Americans not to forsake or forget'' Pakistan's suffering religious minority community.

Members of the Jewish faith continue to experience discrimination and persecution throughout the region. The Special Envoy for Anti-Semitism, Hannah Rosenthal, has noted that Holocaust glorification ``is especially virulent in the Middle East media.''

If the international community fails to speak out, the prospects for religious pluralism and tolerance in the region are bleak. I urge my colleagues' support for this bill, and again thank the leadership on both sides for making this legislation a priority. I am hopeful that this bill will overwhelmingly pass the House and send a clear and unequivocal message to both the persecutors and the persecuted that the United States of America stands with those whose most basic freedom-- the right to

worship according to the dictates of conscience--is under assault.

Mr. Speaker, I submit additional concerns about the President's nomination of Matthew Olsen to lead the National Counterterrorism Center.

During a May 7, 2009, Senate hearing, Attorney General Eric Holder said,``With regard to those you would describe as terrorists, we would not bring them into this country and release them, anyone we would consider to be a terrorist.''

It is now well known from numerous press accounts, including Newsweek, The Washington Post, and National Journal, that the Obama Administration's Guantanamo Review Task Force, led by Matthew Olsen, recommended the transfer and release of at least two Uyghur detainees, who were members of a recognized terrorist group, to the United States in April 2009. The secret transfer was to take place on or around May 1, 2009.

The Uyghur detainees held at Guantanamo Bay are trained terrorists and members or associates of the Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM), a designated terrorist group affiliated with al Qaeda, as designated by both the U.S. government and the United Nations. Whether their intended victims were Chinese or Americans, a trained terrorist is a terrorist, under U.S. immigration law.

According to testimony and government documents, many of the Uyghur detainees have admitted to training at ETIM camps in Tora Bora under the direction of ETIM leader Abdul Haq prior to their capture by Pakistani authorities in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan.

By recommendation of the task force led by Mr. Olsen, the Uyghur detainees were to be secretly settled in an apartment in northern Virginia under an unknown immigration statute. The immigration status of these detainees remains one of the critical unknown questions surrounding this failed effort. A careful reading of U.S. immigration law shows a broad and strict ban on the entry of any member of a terrorist organization.

As a former special counselor to the attorney general, Mr. Olsen should have been well aware of the strict statutory restrictions that would bar the admission of any alien who is affiliated with a recognized terrorist organization into the U.S. As the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence considers Mr. Olsen's nomination to lead the National Counterterrorism Center, they should carefully consider his judgment in recommending the legally-questionable secret release of the Uyghur detainees into the U.S.

Under Title 8, Chapter 12 of U.S. Code on ``Inadmissible Aliens,'' the law clearly and unconditionally bars a member, representative or associate of a recognized terrorist organization from receiving any sort of visa, refugee or asylum to the U.S. The law prohibits entry to the U.S. for any individual who has ``engaged in a terrorist activity'' or is ``a representative of a terrorist organization,'' ``a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity,'' ``is a member of a terrorist organization,'' ``endorses or espouses terrorist

activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization,'' or ``has received military-type training from or on behalf of any organization that, at the time the training was received, was a terrorist organization.''

The only limited exception to this strict ban is for the attorney general to exercise ``parole'' status into the U.S. for a limited amount of time in the case of ``significant public benefit.'' If this option were to be exercised, it would conflict with the administration's stated intent to permanently settle the Uyghur detainees in the U.S. It also would raise serious questions about whether the task force, led by Mr. Olsen, recommended the settlement of terrorist detainees would have ``significant public benefit.''

The ETIM is a terrorist group that uses violence against civilians for the creation of an independent, Islamic state--in the image of the Taliban's Afghanistan--in the Xinjiang region of China. The group is linked to a number of terrorist attacks in China during the mid-1990s, including several bus bombings that killed dozens and injured hundreds of innocent civilians, as well as threats of attacks against the 2008 Olympics in Beijing. Over the past decade, the group has predominantly operated out of Afghanistan and Pakistan and has developed close links with al Qaeda and the Taliban.

On August 19, 2002, then Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage designated the ETIM as ``a terrorist group that committed acts of violence against unarmed civilians.'' The group was designated by the State Department under Executive Order 13224, ``Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism,'' which defines terrorist as ``activity that (1) involves a violent act or act dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure; and (2) appears to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, kidnapping, or hostage-taking.'' In 2004, the State Department further added the ETIM to the ``Terrorist Exclusion List'' (TEL) under section 411 of the USA Patriot Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-56), which prohibits members of designated terrorist groups from entering into the U.S.

Later in 2002, the U.S. Embassy in Beijing reported that two members of the ETIM were deported from Kyrgyzstan after allegedly plotting to attack the U.S. embassy there. Following the attempted attack, the U.S., Peoples Republic of China, Afghanistan, and Kyrgyzstan asked the United Nations to designate the ETIM as a terrorist group under Security Council resolutions 1267 and 1390, which provide for the freezing of the group's assets.

In April 2009--the same month the release of the Uyghur detainees was being planned--the Obama Administration added the current leader of the ETIM (also recognized as the ETIP), Abdul Hag, to terrorist lists under Executive Order 13224, following U.N. recognition of Haq, under Security Council Resolution 1267, as an individual affiliated with Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, or the Taliban. According to Stuart Levey, Treasury under secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, ``Abdul Haq commands a terror group that sought to sow violence and fracture international unity at the 2008 Olympic Games in China.''

The ETIM's relationship with al Qaeda has grown since it was invited by the Taliban to conduct training in Afghanistan in the late 1990s, followed by the move of the ETIM headquarters from the Xianjang region to Kabul in September 1998.9 By 2005, Abdul Haq had been admitted to al Qaeda's ``Shura Council and on November 16, 2008, an al Qaeda spokesman ``stated that a Chinese citizen named `Abdul Haq Turkistani' was appointed by Osama bin Laden as the leader of two organizations--`al Qaeda in China' and `Hizbul Islam Li-Turkistan.'' This appointment was also confirmed by Abu Sulieman, a member of al Qaeda.

It is abundantly clear that the Uyghur detainees held at Guantanamo Bay are affiliated with the ETIM and trained under Abdul Haq in 2001. According to the detainees' sworn statement to U.S. authorities, many acknowledged that they had trained in an ETIM training camp in Tora Bora from June to November 2001 and at least one confirmed, ``The person running the camp was named Abdul Haq.''

Following the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in fall 2001 cooperation between the ETIM and the Taliban increased. It is reported that the ETIM's leader prior to Abdul Hag, Hasan Mahsum, ``led his men to support Taliban and fight alongside them against U.S. and the coalition forces. On 2 October 2003, Hasan Mahsum was killed, along with 8 other Islamic militants, by a Pakistani army raid on an al Qaeda hideout in South Waziristan area in Parkistan.''

Additionally, a January 2008 al Qaeda in Afghanistan publication, ``Martyrs in Time of Alienation,'' identified 120 ``martyrs''-- including five Uyghurs from Xianjiang and who trained in Tora Bora--who fought with the Taliban in Afghanistan against U.S. troops. One is reported to have been killed fighting U.S. forces during the invasion in 2001. Hasan Mahsum confirmed, prior to his death in 2003, that ETIM members trained and fought with al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan.

In addition to their affiliation in a designated terrorist organization and association with al Qaeda leader Abdul Hag, these detainees fervently believe in the creation of a Taliban-style Islamist state in northwestern China and do not share American values of respect, tolerance, and religious pluralism. In fact, one recent press account stated that, ``Not long after being granted access to TV [at Guantanamo], some of the [Uighurs] were watching a soccer game. When a woman with bare arms was shown on the screen, one of the group grabbed the television and threw it to the ground, according to the officials.''

Reports indicate that the ETIM's philosophy has dramatically evolved as a result of their training and cooperation with al Qaeda and the Taliban over the last decade. According to two experts, Rohan Gunaratna and Arabinda Acharya, ``In the post-9/11 era, ETIM began to believe in the global jihad agenda. Today, the group follows the philosophy of al- Qaeda and respects Osama bin Laden. Such groups that believe in the global jihad do not confine their targets to the territories that they seek to control . . . [The ETIM] is presenting a threat to Chinese as well as Western targets worldwide.''

Although the Uyghur detainees may not have been considered ``enemy combatants'' by the Obama Administration, U.S. immigration law clearly bars the admission of members of recognized terrorist groups. The Senate should carefully consider the legal steps that Mr. Olsen and his task force recommended be used to bring the ETIM detainees into the U.S. for permanent settlement. If his task force advocated exploiting limited ``parole'' entry for the detainees with the intended goal of permanent settlement, it would go against the letter and spirit of the law.

Mr. Speaker, America is in crisis mode today. We are up against a deadline to increase our nation's $14.3 trillion debt limit to meet its financial obligations.

There was initial hope some weeks ago that with the president finally leading the talks with Republican and Democratic leaders in the House and Senate, we would see a plan to reverse the spending spiral. But we've been waiting and waiting and watching and watching for that puff of white smoke to come over the White House to signal to the American people that their government leaders have come together and agreed on a plan and disaster has been averted. Regrettably, we still wait as the debt clock ticks toward the nation's default.

What has been so frustrating to me to watch over the past months is that everyone knows that our country is awash in red ink, everyone knows that our country is spending and borrowing too much, everyone knows that entitlement spending is unsustainable, everyone knows that job creation is stagnant with unemployment today hovering around 9 percent. I've been sounding this alarm for five years.

Everyone knows all this and yet here we are today without the president, who has been leading the debt negotiations, putting pen to paper on a plan for all to see. But the House today is saying to the American people that we can't continue to sit around and wait as our debt grows and the risk of national decline and a downgrading of our nation's credit rating become visible over the horizon.

The House today has a plan before it. The majority Republicans are offering the Cut, Cap and Balance plan. It reduces spending now, caps future spending and says we must balance our budget. Is it a perfect plan? No. I don't agree with all the numbers and the priorities. There are changes I would make and different policies I would include.

But we are at the point today that we cannot allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good. We have to lay down a marker, move the process forward and continue to work for a balanced plan to put America on a path to financial responsibility.

As we listen to some call for a plan that includes more ``revenue,'' I want to be clear that I don't support raising taxes on American families. I believe any responsible plan must take a look at reforming and simplifying the tax code to allow hard-working Americans to keep more of their own money and to spur individual savings and small business job creation.

A balanced plan also must look at the reasons that have allowed the ethanol industry to become one of the most subsidized industries in the United States and other businesses to flourish because of direct spending through earmarks in the tax code. We must also look at certain tax earmarks and expenditures on the books which allow entities, such as General Electric, to not only owe no federal taxes, but to also claim a multimillion dollar tax benefit.

I also believe a balanced plan must include a mechanism to force Congress and the president to live within our nation's means. That's

why I have long supported a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

As I mentioned earlier, I have been trying to get the attention of Congress and past and present administrations on the debt crisis facing our country. My message has been simple: If America continues on its debt and deficit track, we edge closer and closer to the financial cliff and cede our standing as the world's leading nation.

I have called for a bipartisan solution that puts all options on the table and fully addresses ways to reverse our current deficit spending track and also our nation's unfunded obligations, which are the real drivers of our debt. This includes all entitlements--Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--and other mandatory spending, defense spending, discretionary spending, and tax policy, namely the closing of tax loopholes and tax earmarks.

The Bowles-Simpson commission offered a plan with everything on the table, and I was anxious to have the chance to vote on it, but the president, as did the Congress, walked away from the report last December of the very group he created. I was pleased to see the ``Gang of Six'' senators pick up the broad outlines of Bowles-Simpson and continue to work together this year on a comprehensive deficit reduction plan. The news earlier today that the Gang of Six has offered a path forward and that a large group of senators from both sides of the aisle is reacting positively to the plan is very encouraging.

I do not want the United States to default from a failure to raise the debt limit. The full faith and credit of the United States is on the line. Without an agreement, the cost to every American to borrow will rise, from home loans to car loans to student loans; the checks the Treasury writes will pick winners and losers.

It is precisely because the stakes are so high that I vote today for H.R. 2560 with the fervent hope that it will force the president and the House and Senate to come together and embrace a realistic and balanced deficit and debt reduction plan like the one recommended by Bowles-Simpson and the Gang of Six that puts our nation on sound financial footing for not only today, but for our children and grandchildren's generations.