Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I submit a letter I sent to Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Dianne Feinstein opposing the President's nomination of Mr. Matthew Olsen to lead the National Counterterrorism Center.

House of Representatives

July 14, 2011.

Hon. Dianne Feinstein,

Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Hart

Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Feinstein: I write in opposition to Mr.

Matthew Olsen's nomination to serve as director of the

National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), which is located in

my congressional district. I believe Mr. Olsen exercised

questionable judgment and made misleading statements while

serving as the special counselor to the attorney general and

executive director of the Obama Administration's Guantanamo

Review Task Force, where he led the interagency process to

implement the president's executive order that led to the

release of a number of dangerous terrorist detainees held at

the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. Dozens of high risk terrorist

detainees recommended for release by the task force led by

Mr. Olsen were released abroad to dangerously unstable

countries, including Yemen, Somalia and Afghanistan.

As then-ranking member and now chairman of the House

Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations subcommittee--which

funds the Justice Department, Federal Bureau of

Investigations, Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Marshals Service and

which helped fund the NCTC's predecessor, the Terrorist

Threat Integration Center--I was disturbed by decisions and

statements made by Mr. Olsen in 2009 while he led the task

force. These concerns have deepened based on new information

that has come to light in recent articles from Newsweek, The

Washington Post, The National Journal and The Weekly

Standard. These reports have raised troubling questions about

Mr. Olsen's leadership of the task force and his actions in

response to White House influence.

Additionally, my personal interactions with Mr. Olsen, as

well as these subsequent news reports, lead me to conclude

that he was not forthright with the Congress and may have

changed detainee assessments under political pressure from

administration officials. I believe these are troubling

concerns which deserve a thorough investigation and should

give the Senate serious pause as it considers who should lead

the NCTC. I have visited the NCTC on several occasions and

have met with a number of its former directors, as well as

the former and current directors of National Intelligence. I

have seen firsthand the critical work that is done by the

center and fully understand the need for an independent,

capable and principled director to lead the operation.

There are three concerns that have led me to oppose Mr.

Olsen's nomination. First, it is clear to me that in order to

achieve the president's promise to close Guantanamo Bay

during his first year in office, Mr. Olsen may have been

susceptible to the immense political pressure placed on the

interagency task force to re-classify detainee threat levels.

Second, it has become clear that Mr. Olsen's task force may

have altered some detainee assessments--overturning

Department of Defense assessments--in order to clear and

expedite the release of a large number of detainees. Third, I

have recently learned that Mr. Olsen was not forthright with

me and my staff about the effort to release a number of

Uighur detainees to northern Virginia in 2009. Attached is a

white paper that addresses these concerns in greater detail.

Leading the NCTC is a serious responsibility and requires a

director that is exceptionally experienced, forthcoming,

trustworthy and has good judgment. The analyses and

recommendations provided by the NCTC have direct bearing on

the safety of the American people. The director must be able

to withstand political pressure from all sides, facilitate

the complete and straightforward sharing of information and

ensure unbiased analysis. I do not question Mr. Olsen's

professional qualifications for this position, but from my

observations of his recent leadership positions, I believe

that he lacks the judgment to lead the NCTC.

I am willing to testify about my concerns during your

committee's upcoming confirmation hearing for Mr. Olsen.

Please do not hesitate to contact me at 202-225-5136 to

discuss any of this information.

Best wishes.

Sincerely,

Frank R. Wolf,

Chairman, Commerce-Justice-Science Subcommittee, House

Appropriations Committee.

Summary of Concerns Regarding Mr. Olsen's Leadership and Actions as Executive Director of the Obama Administration's Guantanamo Review Task

Force

1. Questionable altering of Guantanamo Bay detainee assessments

I am concerned about new information reported by The Weekly

Standard about the assessments of detainees who were

transferred abroad in 2009. Throughout that year, I

repeatedly wrote the president and attorney general

expressing concern over the release of certain detainees

believed to be threats by the Department of Defense (DOD). I

was also deeply concerned that detainees were being released

to dangerously unstable countries, such as Yemen, Somalia and

Afghanistan. Despite my warnings in the fall of 2009,

detainees continued to be released to these countries until

the administration was forced to halt releases to Yemen

following the attempted attack by the Christmas Day bomber,

who trained in Yemen with al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

According to a July 13, 2011, article in The Weekly

Standard, ``[Olsen's] task force approved most of the

detainees remaining at Guantanamo for transfer, clearing the

way for the Obama administration to empty most of the

detention facility's cells. But a review of leaked detainee

threat assessments reveals that many of the detainees

approved for transfer [by Olsen's task force] were deemed

``high'' risks by Joint Task Force Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO),

which oversees the detention and interrogation of detainees.

Moreover. JTF-GTMO recommended that most of these detainees

be retained in U.S. custody--precisely the opposite of the

task force's recommendations.''

The article continues, ``In its final report, dated January

22, 2010, Olsen's task force reported that 126 detainees, out

of a total of 240, were 'approved for transfer.' Olsen's task

force approved roughly 2 out of every 3 (65 percent)

Guantanamo detainees for transfer, JTF-GTMO recommended that

approximately 1 out of every 4 (25 percent) be transferred.''

There is one case in particular that serves as a good

example of the troubling discrepancy between Olsen's

recommend release of a detainee that JTF-GTMO considered to

be ``high'' risk. In early 2010, I wrote White House

counterterrorism adviser John Brennan about one detainee,

Ayman Batarfi, whom the DOD believed to be closely connected

to al Qaeda's anthrax program. Brennan forcefully rejected my

concerns about Batarfi. However, as a recent Weekly Standard

article notes:

``A recently leaked threat assessment prepared at

Guantanamo draws into question the Obama administration's

analysis of a detainee [Batarfi] who was transferred to Yemen

shortly before all future transfers to the unstable nation

were suspended.''

``Brennan decided to answer Wolf's challenge by sending a

letter on White House stationery to then-House speaker Nancy

Pelosi on February 1, 2010. ABC News obtained a copy of the

letter and published it online. Brennan wrote:

`During the briefing on January 13, Representative Wolf

made allegations that one detainee repatriated to Yemen had

been involved in weapons of mass destruction. As it has done

in every case, the task force thoroughly reviewed all

information available to the government about this individual

and concluded that there is no basis for the assertions

Representative Wolf made during this session. I am attaching

a classified addendum to this letter that addresses these

concerns directly.'

``But a recently leaked April 29, 2008, threat assessment

prepared by Joint Task Force Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO) contains

numerous references to Batarfi's ties to al Qaeda's anthrax

program. These connections were made through a known al Qaeda

front named al Wafa, which employed Batarfi and provided

cover for al Qaeda's pre-9/11 pursuit of an anthrax

capability . . .

``For all of these reasons, and more. Batarfi was deemed a

`high risk' who is `likely to pose a threat to the U.S.. its

interests, and allies' by the JTF-GTMO team. Batarfi was also

considered to be of `high intelligence value.' ''

This newly leaked 2008 assessment raises serious questions

about why Olsen's task force didn't include the DOD's

information about Batarfi's ties to the al Qaeda anthrax

program as well as their judgment that Batarfi was, in fact,

``likely to pose a threat to the U.S.'' This information

raises questions about the integrity of the task force's

review and whether undue political pressure to release more

detainees led task force members to doctor detainee

assessments.

The Weekly Standard's Thomas Jocelyn succinctly posits in

the July 13, 2011, article, ``It is clear that the Guantanamo

Review Task Force, headed by Matthew Olsen, approved a large

number of `high' risk transfers. The senators presiding over

Olsen's confirmation hearing may want to ask: Why?''

2. Political pressure on the Guantanamo Bay Detainee Task Force

I am concerned about political pressure placed on Olsen and

the task force by administration officials. Although the

administration asserts that the task force was independent,

it is clear that the task force reported directly to the

White House and participated in meetings led by White House

chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. According to the April 23, 2011,

Washington Post article:

``In late April [2009], Obama heard some jarring news

during a Situation Room meeting with the interagency task

force reviewing the case of every detainee at Guantanamo.

``The president asked Matthew G. Olsen, the Justice

Department lawyer heading the task force, approximately how

many Guantanamo detainees could be prosecuted, according to

administration officials.

``Probably fewer than 20, Olsen said.

``The president seemed peeved that the number was so small,

in contrast with the optimistic predictions during his

election campaign that nearly all of the remaining detainees

could face trial or be transferred. The number would

eventually rise to 36.''

I am concerned that pressure from White House officials may

have led Olsen and his task force to inflate the number of

cases eligible for prosecution from ``fewer than 20'' to the

36 that were ultimately provided to the administration. The

nearly 100 percent increase in the number of cases brought

forward for prosecution following the president's comment

merits a serious review of whether political pressure led the

task force to alter its independent assessment of detainees.

The recent Weekly Standard analysis notes, ``[Olsen's] task

force approved only 35 percent of the detainees for

indefinite detention or prosecution, whereas JTF-GTMO

recommended that roughly 75 percent be retained in DoD

custody.'' This dramatic shift

in the number of cases recommended by Mr. Olsen raise serious

questions about whether pressure from the president and other

administration officials led him to inflate the number of

detainees recommended for trial.

3. Misleading Congress about the transfer of Uighur detainees to the

United States

It has become clear that the administration was directing

Mr. Olsen to intentionally withhold information from members

of Congress and he willingly complied with their

inappropriate direction. According to Newsweek The Washington

Post and The National Journal, the administration was

planning a secret transfer and settlement of at least two

Uighur detainees to northern Virginia in April 2009. Each of

these reports indicates the degree to which the White House

attempted to hide this effort from the Congress and the

public.

According to a May 2009, article in Newsweek, White House

officials are alleged to have been particularly concerned

about Republican members of Congress being made aware of the

secret transfer. Newsweek reported, ``As part of their

efforts to shut down the Guantanamo Bay detention center,

Obama Administration officials were poised in late April to

make a bold, stealthy move: they instructed the U.S. Marshals

Service to prepare an aircraft and a Special Ops group to fly

two Chinese Uighurs, and up to five more on subsequent

flights, from Gitmo to northern Virginia for resettlement. In

a conference call overseen by the National Security Council,

Justice and Pentagon officials had been warned that any

public statements about Gitmo transfers would inflame

congressional Republicans, according to a law-enforcement

official who asked not to be named discussing internal

deliberations.'' (This operation appears similar to the

administration's secret transfer of Somali terrorist Ahmed

Abdulkadir Warsame to New York City for civilian trial on

July 5 after spending two months on a U.S. Navy ship).

It has recently come to my attention that I was misled

about the status of the transfer of the Uighur detainees in

April 2009. This information confirms the Newsweek report

that career federal employees were explicitly directed to

hide this information from members of Congress, especially

Republican members.

During an April 22, 2009, meeting in my office with members

of the Guantanamo Bay Detainee Review Task Force, including

Mr. Olsen, I inquired about the status of the potential

transfer of Uighur detainees to the United States. Mr. Olsen

indicated that a decision had not yet been reached on the

transfer of the detainees. None of the other career or

political officials in the meeting countered Mr. Olsen's

assertion.

That is why I was deeply concerned to learn in an April

2011, Washington Post article, that the final decision on the

transfer of the Uighur detainees had been made during a White

House meeting eight days before my meeting with Mr. Olsen.

According to The Washington Post article, ``The first

concrete step toward closing the detention center was agreed

upon during an April 14, 2009, session at the White House.

`It was to be a stealth move . . . They were going to show up

here, and we were going to announce it,' said one senior

official, describing the swift, secretive operation that was

designed by the administration to preempt any political

outcry that could prevent the transfer.''

Following the publication of this article in April, I

personally called Mr. Olsen to ask whether he was aware at

the time of my meeting with him on April 22, 2009, that a

decision had already been made on the transfer of the

detainees. He told me that he had been aware of the decision

prior to our meeting.

I believe that I was intentionally misled by Mr. Olsen and

other administration officials during my April 22 meeting

with the task force. I also am concerned that the attorney

general did not acknowledge that a decision had been made

when he appeared before the House Commerce-Justice-Science

Appropriations subcommittee the following day. That is why I

was surprised when my office was notified by a career federal

employee that the administration was misleading the Congress

and planned to secretly transfer the detainees around May 1,

2009.

As Newsweek reported, ``Then on May 1, Virginia GOP Rep.

Frank Wolf got tipped off. Furious, he fired off a public

letter to President Obama, charging that the release of the

Uighurs--Muslim separatists opposed to the Chinese

government--could `directly threaten the security of the

American people.' White House officials were not happy . . .

The flight never took off.''

Mr. Speaker, I submit a copy of my Egypt trip report.

Purpose

On June 26-28 I visited Egypt to meet with U.S. and host

government officials and key civil society actors,

specifically to address human rights and religious freedom

concerns, especially during this critical time of transition.

Meetings

I met with U.S. Ambassador Margaret Scobey and received a

modified country team brief from embassy staff. I spoke with

U.S./Western print correspondents and saw Tahrir Square--site

of recent pro-democracy protests.

I met with nearly a dozen Christian, Muslim, Baha'i, and

youth activists, including a leading evangelical minister,

Coptic youth leader and prominent Baha'i blogger.

I also discussed the country's transition with political

activists, including 2005 presidential candidate and former

political prisoner Ayman Nour, who is again seeking the

presidency.

I discussed interfaith dialogue with Sheikh Al-Azhar Ahmed

Al-Tayyeb, the leading scholar in Sunni Islam, and met with

Muslim Brotherhood official Essam El-Errian to caution the

group to respect religious freedom.

I worshiped in a Coptic Orthodox Church and visited St.

Mary's Church in Imbaba (a Cairo suburb) which had been

destroyed by radical Islamists on May 7. I also met with a

woman who runs an orphanage and social services organization

for the Christian ``zabaleen'' (trash collectors) in Cairo.

I met with Deputy Foreign Minister Wafaa Bassim and other

representatives of the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs

and raised concerns about human rights and the prospects of a

transition to a true democracy.

In my meetings with Egyptian government officials, I

mentioned that this year I had introduced bipartisan

legislation, H.R. 440, (which now has 75 cosponsors) that

would create a Special Envoy position at the State Department

to focus specifically on the challenges faced by religious

minorities in key countries in the Middle East, including

Egypt. The legislation was introduced in January, prior to

the political unrest in Egypt, but has arguably never been

more needed. Ancient religious minority communities, among

them Coptic Christians, are important moderating influences

and are critical to the future of a democratic and

pluralistic Egypt.

I met with representatives of non-governmental

organizations (NGOs) including the National Democratic

Institute (NDI) and International Republican Institute (IRI).

Human Rights and Religious Freedom

Coptic Orthodox and other Christians told me that they

feared sectarian violence in the current political vacuum,

and were concerned about continued discrimination in

government hiring and building churches. They said that they

welcomed the Government of Egypt's announced intention to

draft a Unified Places of Worship Law, but cautioned that the

few details that had emerged thus far indicate that the draft

needs much work before it genuinely puts mosques and churches

on equal footing.

In my meetings with Baha'i leaders we discussed the

community's continued difficulties in securing government

documents like birth and marriage certificates. I intend to

pursue this matter further with the Egyptian Government,

pressing them to rescind the 1960 decree that closed Baha'i

assemblies and seized their assets.

In my meetings with Christian and secular Muslim democracy

activists, I was informed that Islamist elements in Egypt

seek an Iran-like theocratic state. Some interlocutors

worried that the Egyptian Army favors Muslim Brothers and

Salafists. Many agreed that if Islamists were to win in the

upcoming elections they would allow ``one man, one vote, one

time,'' thereby making their electoral victory irreversible.

While meeting with senior representatives of the Muslim

Brotherhood (MB) I sought to press them on their intentions.

I raised concerned about the application of shariah law,

especially as it relates to the rights of minorities, and

made it clear that my concerns were shared by many in

Washington. Freedom-loving people the world over should be

very concerned if the MB comes to power in Egypt. We must not

close our eyes to their stated plans.

Democratic Transition

Some Egyptian activists and most religious freedom

advocates were pessimistic about the transition to date and

prospects for a free, tolerant, and democratic government

after elections.

Several of these activists stressed that the best way to

counter Islamists in the short run is to first draft a

constitution and delay elections until democratic parties

have formed and become operational. One activist went so far

as to say that he was 80 percent sure Egypt would become an

Islamist state akin to Iran unless the current transition

process and timeline is altered.

Activists also said that secular, pro-democracy parties

need to take additional steps to get organized and build

support across the sectarian divide. One human rights

activist underscored the long-term importance of secular

education and more interaction between Christian and Muslim

youth.

Recommendations

In light of the meetings I had and the insights I gained, I

came away with a number of broad-based policy

recommendations:

The U.S. Government should encourage the Egyptian

Government to temporarily delay parliamentary elections,

currently scheduled for September. Under the Mubarak regime

free speech and freedom of assembly were curtailed, sectarian

divisions were stoked and the press was restricted--some of

these issues remain under the current transitional government

and are not conducive to a healthy electoral process. In

fact, at present, the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) and remnants of

the former ruling party are best positioned for victory, in

part because they are better organized and funded. We must

recognize that elections are but a component of a true

democracy and guard against the impulse to move too swiftly

in a direction that would likely guarantee an MB victory.

When the elections are held, independent international

election monitors must be present and must be granted

unfettered access to polling stations, etc. In my meetings

with the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs I stressed that

the credibility of any future election, whenever it takes

place, would hinge on the involvement and presence of

international observers. The importance of independent

monitors and observers was underscored during my meetings

with NDI and IRI. Their insight and election expertise is

invaluable.

The United States must seriously consider conditioning U.S.

foreign assistance, specifically military assistance, to

Egypt. Since the Camp David Peace Accords, Egypt has received

over $60 billion in U.S. foreign assistance--the second

largest overall recipient of such funding. Given the Mubarak

regime's human rights and religious freedom abuses, I have

long believed this assistance should be conditioned on

improvements in these areas. I understand that Egypt is a

proud country with a rich history. However, at this time of

historic transition in Egypt and tight budgetary times at

home, U.S. taxpayer dollars ought not be given to a

government that will persecute its own people. Aid to Egypt

should be conditioned upon the government respecting and

upholding universally recognized human rights norms. This is

especially important as Egypt moves toward crafting a new

constitution. It is imperative that this constitution is

fully secular and include, among other things, religious

freedom protections. Ultimately, foreign assistance,

especially of this magnitude, is a key leverage point and

should be used accordingly, particularly with the Supreme

Council of the Egyptian Armed Forces (SCAF).

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the U.S. embassy personnel, outgoing

Ambassador Margaret Scobey, Peter Shea, my control officer,

and Liz Colton for their assistance in making this trip

possible and for their dedicated service to their country.

I would also like to acknowledge the good work of the press

in Egypt, some of whom I had the opportunity to meet. At a

time of such monumental and rapid change they clearly had a

read on the national pulse and their reporting of events in

real time is critical.

I would also like to thank the many civil society

representatives I met, but for security reasons have opted

not to mention by name, who gave a candid and courageous

assessment of the challenges facing their country.

Conclusion

The Egyptian people have endured much over the years. The

State Department's annual human rights report released in

April found the following:

The government limited citizens' right to change their

government and extended a state of emergency that has been in

place almost continuously since 1967. Security forces used

unwarranted lethal force and tortured and abused prisoners

and detainees, in most cases with impunity. Prison and

detention center conditions were poor. Security forces

arbitrarily arrested and detained individuals, in some cases

for political purposes,

and kept them in prolonged pretrial detention. The executive

branch exercised control over and pressured the judiciary.

The government partially restricted freedom of expression.

The government's respect for freedoms of assembly,

association, and religion was poor, and nongovernmental

organizations (NGOs) continued to face restrictions.

In the face of decades of human rights and religious

freedom abuses under the Mubarak regime, successive U.S.

administrations, including the Obama administration, failed

to advocate for those whose voices were being silenced. Many

pro-democracy activists and religious minorities that I spoke

with while in Egypt felt abandoned by the West.

At this historic time of transition, we must not make that

mistake again. While there is a palpable sense of

anticipation and even hope about what the future might hold

for the Egyptian people, the outcome is far from guaranteed.

There are reliable reports of human rights abuses and

political repression following Mubarak's resignation. For

example, a recently released Congressional Research Service

report indicated that:

The SCAF has warned news organizations that it is illegal

to criticize the military in the press. A military court

sentenced a blogger (Maikel Nabil) to three years in prison

for insulting the military. Others have criticized the SCAF

over press reports that female detainees in military custody

were subject to ``virginity tests'' by doctors.

Given the nature and extent of U.S. assistance to Egypt

over the years, the U.S. military has developed good

relations with the Egyptian military and we should leverage

those ties as Egypt looks to transition from military to

civilian rule. It will be critical for Secretary of Defense

Leon Panetta and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, among others, to

engage with the SCAF.

Ultimately, I believe that the majority of Egyptians of all

faiths want democracy. The question is will it be taken away

from them after a single election?

Their yearning for true freedom and democracy must not be

underestimated. We have a responsibility to stand with them

and help them realize their aspirations.

Mr. Speaker, I submit an article which recently ran in the BBC regarding the unfolding tragedy in Sudan.

On the eve of the birth of a new nation in South Sudan, Khartoum is once again perpetrating acts of violence against its own people--this time in Southern Kordofan.

First-hand accounts emerging from the region are chilling . . . door to door executions, reportedly based on ethnicity and political affiliation; Antonov bombers leaving a trail of devastation in their wake, mass displacement.

The world says, ``never again,'' and yet in the face of mounting atrocities, where is the outrage?

[From BBC News, June 23, 2011]

Sudan's South Kordofan: ``Bombings, Blood and Terror''

More than 70,000 people are said to have fled violence in

Sudan's South Kordofan state, where the government says it is

disarming rebels. The region borders South Sudan, a largely

Christian and animist region, which is due to gain

independence from the mostly Arabic-speaking, Muslim north on

9 July.

There is concern about the humanitarian crisis and the

alleged atrocities being committed. The area has effectively

been cut off by the military and not much has been heard from

people in the area. One aid worker who has just left the

region told the BBC's Will Ross about his experiences:

It is terrifying. The civilians try to hide but generally

they run in panic and hence, sadly, there are many casualties

who die because of shrapnel. There are bombings and shellings

every day in different areas.

There is a plane called an Antonov which circles high in

the sky and keeps coming over. Then there is the whistle of

the bombs as they fall. You have a few seconds to run but you

do not know if it is going to fall on you or not. The sounds

of the explosions are huge and sometimes the craters they

leave are five or six metres across.

Burning hot pieces of jagged metal, the shrapnel, go flying

across the air and if you are not below the surface in a hole

or a dug-out you are at huge risk.

Blood and flies

Then there are the MiGs [planes] which come in very, very

fast and low. These fire

rockets and they are terrifying because they are on top of

you before you know it. You have no warning.

They are very loud and so the terror that this incites in

people, even if you survive these attacks, is enormous.

They can continue for hours on end. You can imagine how

awful that is for women and children and men, rural farmers

who have no military background whatsoever. And when they

sense that this is not an enemy from outside that is

attacking, this is their own government, they just do not

understand why this is happening.

There are so many poignant, heartbreaking stories.

A local farmer was lying on the floor of a hospital in

enormous pain, with a large piece of shrapnel that had gone

through his leg, with blood and flies over him. Again and

again he was asking the same desperate questions: ``Why is

our president doing this to us? Why is he bombing us?''

He kept saying: ``This is wrong''.

Then there was a young man who had fled a village that was

attacked and when the SAF [northern] troops withdrew, he

found to his horror that his wife and children had been

abducted by the army.

With anguish in his voice he said he would rather have been

killed than his wife and child taken.

``I don't know what they will do to them, I don't think I

will see them again,'' he said.

No less than 75,000 people have been displaced, and because

the bombing and shelling is continuing, that number is

probably going up every day.

This is not a war of north versus south--this is about a

people within north Sudan who want a peaceful existence in

the north just with social and economic opportunities and

access to justice.

The Nuba, a large percentage of whom are Muslims, feel

their future is with north Sudan.

The people of South Kordofan, both the Nuba and people from

the nomadic Arab tribes, feel marginalised by Khartoum. They

feel they are not granted basic human rights.

House-to-house executions

The area offers a remarkable alternative vision of how

Christian and Muslims and animists can live together. I have

witnessed after Eid, the Christians bringing breakfast for

their Muslim brothers and sisters, and at Christmas and

Easter all the people from the mosque coming to say

``congratulations''.

But people there feel the government in the last few weeks

has revealed it has no interest in allowing a political

solution that gives rights to an alternative voice in the

north, where there is religious tolerance and Christians and

Muslims living together.

There is so much anguish. People say they don't want war

but they say until the policies of Khartoum change, they see

no alternative.

They are asking for help from all northern Sudanese to come

back from this madness and have a look at how to build a

peaceful, tolerant society in the north.

We are getting very strong reports that house-to-house

executions are going on by internal security forces where

summary executions are taking place based on ethnicity,

political affiliation and even how black you are. These are

civilians, intellectuals, teachers, community leaders,

Muslims and Christians, and often they are killed by their

throats being slit.

This may be only the beginning and it could well continue

for many months and intensify. There is a complete lack of

access--we learnt that the only airstrip that was left had

been bombed and we have heard the government of Sudan will

shoot down UN flights operating in South Kordofan so

humanitarian flights are no longer an option.

We know that there is no access from the north by road so

we are looking at a population that is now effectively

besieged--without access to services or humanitarian aid and

who are under fire.

I fear the government has started these military operations

to try to ensure that opposition voice is completely squashed

before the 9 July, so that no thought of help of any sort

could come from the south, knowing that the emerging republic

of South Sudan would be very unwilling to get involved as it

would endanger their independence.

The great majority of Nuba people that I have spoken to are

very worried the Egyptian forces that make up a large

percentage of the UN peacekeepers are not seen as

sufficiently neutral. Their cultural and religious background

and their behaviour and attitude towards black Nuba people

are unhelpful.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Colonel Ronald Light and the men and women of the Army Corps of Engineers Middle East District, MED, located in Winchester, Virginia, for the support they have provided for troops deployed overseas.

Colonel Light, commander of the MED, has had a distinguished military career since his graduation from The Pennsylvania State University in 1981. As an officer, he has completed the Engineer Officer's Basic and Advanced courses, the Combined Arms Services Staff School, the Command and General Staff Officer Course, and the U.S. Army Airborne School, while earning a Master's Degree in National Security and Strategic Studies at the U.S. Naval War College.

For his service, Colonel Light has been awarded the Legion of Merit, a Bronze Star, five awards for Meritorious Service, two Army Commendation medals, the Army Medal of Achievement, the Iraq Campaign Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, among others.

As the senior engineer commander responsible for reconstructions in Al Anbar and Baghdad provinces in Iraq, he managed the award of 194 projects valued at $1.32 billion and completed contracts worth an additional $782.4 million.

Since Colonel Light assumed command at the MED in 2009, employment has approximately doubled from 250 to 500 personnel. The MED employs 427 civilians comprising 23 nationalities, 53 advanced degrees and 24 different languages all dedicated toward the goal of preparing combat theaters for members of the military. The MED employs local accountants, architects, attorneys, paralegals, engineers, property managers, security specialists, and many others.

The MED has proved extremely beneficial not only to the U.S. Military, but also to Winchester and the Shenandoah Valley. The MED partners with local civic organizations, churches and school groups to help carry out many critical engineering projects abroad. The integration of the military and the surrounding communities will create a precedent for more companies to locate in Winchester and the Shenandoah Valley, recognizing the presence of a trained workforce and relative proximity to our nation's capital.

Colonel Light and the MED's dedication to the armed forces has advanced the mission of all military units in forward theaters of combat. We express our appreciation to the dedicated individuals staffing the MED for their service and honor them as the best our military officers and civilians have to offer.

Mr. Speaker, China recently rolled out the red carpet, pictured behind me, for Sudanese President Omar Bashir, an internationally indicted war criminal facing charges on 10 counts, including murder, extermination, forcible transfer of population, torture, and rape.

Prior to the visit, I wrote a letter to President Hu Jintao urging the Chinese Government to withdraw their invitation. Not only is Bashir wanted for his role in genocide in Darfur, but, as I speak, atrocities are unfolding against Christians in the Nuba Mountains--reliable reports of door-to-door targeting and killings, mass graves, Antonov bombers indiscriminately shelling civilian populations.

Consider this reality: Bashir is a wanted war criminal. His murderous aims are unchanged. The Chinese Government treats him as a friend and extends every diplomatic grace. And China owns our debt.

What is wrong with this picture? An indicted war criminal with the President of China.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a great sense of urgency to call attention to the unfolding nightmare taking place in Sudan right at this very moment.

I submit for the Record an article today from the New York Times describing the heinous actions taken by the Sudanese Army against their own people. The article quotes an American official as saying that without mediation, ``you're going to have massive destruction and death in central Sudan, and no one seems able to do anything about it.''

Indeed, no one seems to be doing anything about it.

Have we forgotten the tragic history of Rwanda? Of Darfur? Are the Nuba people destined to the same grim fate? Have we learned nothing from these previous mass annihilations of people?

The New York Times reports that, ``United Nations officials in Southern Kordofan, the state that includes the Nuba Mountains, estimate that dozens have been killed in aerial bombings in the past two weeks and maybe dozens more in extrajudicial killings. Nuban officials put the civilian death toll in the hundreds.''

The story continues, ``Sudanese soldiers are planting land mines in several towns, United Nations officials said, and possibly digging mass graves. Many people in the mountains are Christian, and church officials say Christians have been attacked and churches burned.''

The Times piece echoes reports I heard last week from a young man who was a former intern in my congressional office. He has been living and working in Sudan for the past two years and is in continuous touch with people on the ground in Sudan, including in areas that have been virtually cut off from the outside world.

In the face of this tragedy, the administration is AWOL. The press is hardly covering the story. Congress is barely engaged.

What more will it take?

Time is running short and the situation is grim. The world must not continue to turn a blind eye to slaughter.

[From the New York Times, June 20, 2011]

As Secession Nears, Sudan Steps Up Drive To Stop Rebels

(By Jeffrey Gettleman)

Nairobi, Kenya.--The Sudanese Army and its allied militias

have gone on an unsparing rampage to crush rebel fighters in

the Nuba Mountains of central Sudan, bombing thatch-roofed

villages, executing elders, burning churches and pitching

another region of the country into crisis, according to

United Nations officials and villagers who have escaped.

``The market was burning,'' said Salah Kaka, a mother of

four who trekked for days with thousands of others to a

mushrooming refugee camp after her husband disappeared during

an air raid. ``I dug ditches in the ground and hid the

children.''

Tens of thousands of rebel fighters have refused the

government's threat to disarm, digging into the craggy

hillsides. They are demanding political reform and autonomy,

a familiar refrain in Sudan's marginalized hinterlands that

has set off insurgencies in Darfur in the west, as well as

eastern and southern Sudan.

``This is going to spread like wildfire,'' said an American

official who was not authorized to speak publicly. Without

mediation, ``you're going to have massive destruction and

death in central Sudan, and no one seems able to do anything

about it.''

The Sudanese Army has sealed off the area and threatened to

shoot down United Nations helicopters. Sudan's forces

detained four United Nations peacekeepers and subjected them

to ``a mock firing squad,'' the organization said Monday,

calling the intimidation part of a strategy to make it nearly

impossible for aid agencies and monitors to work in the

region.

It seems that the Sudanese government, facing upheaval on

several fronts, especially with the southern third of the

country preparing to declare independence next month, is

determined to suppress the rebels and prevent them from

encouraging other restive areas to rise up.

Even after the southerners secede, countless fault lines

remain in northern Sudan. Non-Arab people in the Nuba

Mountains, Darfur, Blue Nile State, Kasala--and all the way

down the Nile to Egypt--have long been chafing against an

increasingly isolated government dominated by a small group

of Arabs and led by President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, a

war crimes suspect indicted by the International Criminal

Court.

``Bashir is facing enormous pressure,'' said E. J.

Hogendoorn, a program director at the International Crisis

Group. ``There are a number of areas that could rebel

again,'' he said, and the offensive in the Nuba Mountains

``may actually exacerbate resentment and inadvertently unite

armed opposition movements.''

United Nations officials in Southern Kordofan, the state

that includes the Nuba Mountains, estimate that dozens have

been killed in aerial bombings in the past two weeks and

maybe dozens more in extrajudicial killings. Nuban officials

put the civilian death toll in the hundreds.

Sudanese soldiers are planting land mines in several towns,

United Nations officials said, and possibly digging mass

graves. Many people in the mountains are Christian, and

church officials say Christians have been attacked and

churches burned.

``So many people have been made to leave their homes,''

said Ali Shamilla, liaison officer for the Nuba Relief,

Rehabilitation and Development Organization. ``Many are

living in caves.''

Witnesses said government soldiers were shooting ``the

black people,'' a reference to Nubans, who are often darker

skinned than the Arab-dominated military. Human rights groups

worry that this could begin a new round of ethnic cleansing,

given the wholesale destruction of communities that has been

part of how war is fought in Sudan.

Hundreds of thousands died in Darfur after the government

razed villages and armed militias to throttle rebels there,

leading to genocide charges against Mr. Bashir. Millions died

in the decades of civil war between north and south, under

many of the same tactics.

The same thing happened in Nuba. In the mid-1980s, southern

rebels opened bases in the Nuba Mountains. Residents who had

long felt discriminated against by the Arab rulers of Sudan

joined the southerners in droves.

The rulers responded by arming Arab militias--just as it

would in Darfur--and setting them loose on impoverished

villagers. Tens of thousands of civilians were killed and

villagers were incarcerated in ``peace camps,'' forced to

convert to Islam. Entire villages were wiped out.

``Nuba were often just shot on sight by Khartoum forces, no

questions asked,'' said Roger P. Winter, a former State

Department official, who testified Thursday during a

Congressional hearing on Sudan's future. ``Today, again, Nuba

are positioned for liquidation by Khartoum forces.''

This may sound hyperbolic. But as Julie Flint, an author

who first visited the Nuba area in 1992, argued, some of the

same men responsible for earlier atrocities in Nuba are in

charge once again, including Ahmed Haroun, the Southern

Kordofan governor, indicted by the International Criminal

Court for crimes against humanity connected to Darfur.

``A new war in Nuba threatens to be a replay of Darfur,''

Ms. Flint said.

The Sudanese government does not deny bombing Nuban

villages, arguing that the Nuba militia were supposed to

disarm but did not. One Sudanese official said the war could

go on ``for some years.'' Nuban militia leaders have vowed to

fight until there is ``regime change'' in Khartoum or

autonomy for Nuba.

Under the accords that set in motion the south's secession,

Nubans were supposed to hold ``popular consultations'' to

determine their future, but that has not happened. Now that

the south is on the verge of realizing its hard-fought goal--

independence many Nubans feel their demands have been

deferred.

In the north, oil had helped buy friends and woo enemies,

but huge economic uncertainties loom. The south has most of

the oil, and in any deal before the south splits off, the

north will almost certainly get less than it used to.

Already, riots have broken out in central Sudan's Arab

heartland, as Mr. Bashir has warned of austerity measures.

Many analysts say the recent military activity along the

north-south border, including the north's seizure of the

disputed Abyei area and its push in the Nuba Mountains, is

part of a hard-knuckled negotiation to secure more oil

revenue.

Southern Sudan's leaders are reluctant to go to war over

Nuba, but the southern-allied militiamen in Nuba are part of

the overall southern military command, so the south could be

dragged into the conflict.

During a recent meeting, the top Nuban militia commander,

Abdel Aziz al-Hilu, said that before any cease-fire he would

have to inform ``Chairman Salva,'' meaning southern

Sudan's president, Salva Kiir. Mr. Abdel Aziz also said that

if things don't change, ``fires will just break out

everywhere, here, in Blue Nile, in Darfur,'' according to

someone at the meeting.

``We, the people of Sudan, are ready to remove them,''

vowed Mr. Abdel Aziz, the person said. ``We have guns.''

Josh Kron contributed reporting from Parieng, Sudan.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to reestablish the legal public holiday for Washington's Birthday from the third Monday of February to the actual date of George Washington's birth on February 22.

I have long admired President Washington and have found inspiration in public service from studying his life. Unfortunately I have found that students today have a dearth of knowledge about our nation's beginnings and

the man from Virginia who led the colonies to form the union known as the United States of America.

Two-time Pulitzer Prize winning history author David McCullough recently observed, ``We're raising young people who are, by and large, historically illiterate.'' The 2010 National Assessment of Educational Progress, or Nation's Report Card, in U.S. history underscores that concern. Students in grades 4, 8, and 12 participated in the assessment. At each grade, students responded to questions designed to measure their knowledge of American history in the contexts of democracy, culture, technological and economic changes, and America's changing world role. The levels--Basic, Proficient and Advanced-- measure what students should know and be able to do at each grade assessed. At all grade levels, less than one-quarter of students performed at or above the Proficient level in 2010. Only 20 percent of fourth-graders, 17 percent of eighth-graders, and 12 percent of twelfth-graders performed at or above the Proficient level on the 2010 U.S. history assessment.

I believe Congress has unwittingly contributed to this lack of historical understanding by relegating Washington's Birthday to the third Monday of February to take advantage of a three-day weekend. We need to change the focus from celebrating sales at the mall to celebrating the significance of President Washington's birth to the birth of our nation.

There is a reason the birthday of President George Washington is the only legal federal holiday observed for a president of the United States. He is called the ``father of our country'' because he is without compare in our nation's history. We need to reestablish Washington's Birthday on the actual date of his birth to honor his legacy and in doing so call upon schools across the nation to focus on Washington as the soldier, legislator, and president who shepherded our young nation through war, political turmoil, rebellion and expansion as no other single individual was capable of doing.

Washington's Birthday has been celebrated since the final days of the Revolutionary War. French and American troops paraded through Newport, Rhode Island, in 1781 and celebrations were held in Richmond, Virginia, in 1782. Organized by French General Rochambeau and others who knew him personally, these celebrations drew special attention to the bravery, courage, leadership and perseverance of the Revolutionary War hero.

From the beginning of our country, the importance of this day has been recognized. As President James Buchanan said in 1860, ``. . . when the birthday of Washington shall be forgotten, liberty will have perished from the earth.'' In response, President Rutherford B. Hayes signed legislation in 1879 that made Washington's Birthday a holiday for District federal workers. The holiday was extended to all federal workers in 1885.

This legislation I introduce today is not without precedent. In 1975, Congress amended the Uniform Monday Holiday Act and President Gerald R. Ford signed legislation into law returning the annual observance of Veterans Day from the fourth Monday in November to its original date of November 11, beginning in 1978.

The Uniform Holiday Bill signed in 1968 and effective in 1971 was intended to ensure three-day weekends for federal employees by celebrating four national holidays on Mondays: Washington's Birthday, Memorial Day, Veterans Day, and Columbus Day. Originally called Armistice Day to mark the signing of an Armistice on the 11th hour, of the 11th day, of the 11th month in 1918 that ended World War I, the date of November 11 holds historic and patriotic significance as a day of thanks and remembrance for all veterans. The law change brought widespread public protest and 46 states refused to recognize any day other than November 11 to honor the sacrifice made first by World War I veterans and subsequently by all veterans. The restoration of the observance of Veterans Day to November 11 not only preserves the historical significance of the date, but helps focus attention on the important purpose of Veterans Day as a celebration to honor America's veterans for their patriotism, love of country, and willingness to serve and sacrifice for the common good.

Likewise, we need to restore the observance of Washington's Birthday to February 22 to preserve the date of his birth for history and to focus attention on his life of service and duty to his country. Even George Washington's home state of Virginia, where he was born and raised, which he served in elected office, where he accepted General Cornwallis' surrender, and where he is buried, celebrates Washington's Birthday in accordance with the Uniform Monday Holiday Act. I believe all school children in every state should dedicate February 22 each year to learning about our greatest leader, foremost patriot, first president and the only six-star general in the nation's history.

George Washington began his career in public service in the Virginia militia, eventually promoted to Colonel in command of the Virginia Regiment. He served as a voluntary aide-de-camp to British General Edward Braddock as part of the ill-fated Monongahela expedition before resigning his commission in 1759 and returning to Mount Vernon.

His military career earned him a seat in the Virginia House of Burgesses representing Frederick County, Virginia. The 10th Congressional District, which I currently represent, includes the City of Winchester, where the building that housed his office still stands. In 1774, Washington was a natural selection to be one of Virginia's representatives at the First Continental Congress. During the Second Continental Congress in 1775, he was unanimously chosen to lead the Continental Army and subsequently led a team of young officers through eight years of war against the most powerful military in the world. Perhaps Washington's greatest accomplishment during the Revolutionary War was building a professional army and keeping it together during long stretches of inactivity.

After the peace treaty was signed in Paris in 1783, Washington set perhaps one of the most important precedents in our history. When he resigned his commission in the Continental Army, Washington made it clear that the military was subordinate to the civil government. Washington had gone to great lengths to observe this subordination during the war years, and made sure that this act solidified its importance. Desiring simply to retire in peace to Mount Vernon, Washington voluntarily handed over the reins of power to the elected legislature.

But despite his desire to stay a private citizen, he left Mount Vernon in 1787 to serve as the president of the Constitutional Convention because he felt that his country needed him. The power of his presence was perhaps the single most important factor in bridging the divide between the disparate interests of the newly created states. Through eight years of war and the voluntary relinquishment of power, the American people and his peers trusted Washington, noting that if he supported the new Constitution, it was worthy of adoption. This trust overcame the objections of many who continued to have problems with the document until passage of the Bill of Rights.

After the Constitutional Convention adjourned, Washington again made plans to permanently leave public life. But as he closely monitored the ratification process at Mount Vernon between 1787 and 1788, Washington became resigned to the fact that he was the only person that could hold the new union together. Washington moved to New York to take the position of chief executive after he received word that he had been unanimously by the Electoral College. To this day, Washington is the only president to be elected unanimously, first in 1789 and again in 1792.

Perhaps most importantly, Washington set the precedent of presidents serving a maximum of two terms. This precedent was followed by the following 31 presidents, until Franklin Roosevelt won a third term in 1940 and a fourth term in 1944. It is important to understand that historically, most victorious revolutionary generals grabbed as much power as possible and served as long as they possibly could. Washington, whose devotion to serving his country was only outdone by his love of his family, broke with this dubious tradition and began 219 years of peaceful transitions of power.

President Washington exemplifies the best that America and Americans have to offer the world; principled leadership, personal bravery, a sense of duty and public service, patriotism, recognition of our unique role in world history, and a reverence for his Creator. His enduring service deserves to be remembered on his actual birthday.

This legislation is supported by George Washington's Mount Vernon Estate and its executive director James Rees. A copy of his letter appears below.

Mr. Speaker, it is only right that we hold February 22 as a date of reverence to commemorate the unique person without whom the tide of American history may well have taken a different turn. I urge my colleagues to join in cosponsoring this legislation to forever honor President George Washington's Birthday.

George Washington's

Mount Vernon,

Mount Vernon, VA, June 21, 2011.

Hon. Frank Wolf,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Wolf: I would like to thank you for

introducing legislation to restore the nation's official

observance of George Washington's Birthday to February 22,

the actual date of his birth 279 years ago. We are writing

today in strong and enthusiastic support of your efforts.

Today many states, the media, advertisers and the general

public have abandoned recognition of Washington's Birthday

and replaced it with a commercial ``shopping holiday'' that

leaves American history and patriotism by the side of the

road. The holiday

was far more meaningful when it revolved around George

Washington, and schools were able to focus on his sterling

example of character and leadership. We look forward to the

day, when once again, February 22 is marked by patriotic

festivities and lessons about the life of George Washington,

which can teach and inspire American leaders of today and

tomorrow.

As our nation's foremost founding father, Washington is

relevant to each new generation because his prominent

character traits--undaunted courage, unabashed patriotism,

reasoned judgment, a profound sense of civic responsibility,

and a deep, selfless commitment to country--never go out of

style. Educating the children of America about the life and

leadership of George Washington is an important investment in

the future of our nation.

Your efforts are particularly important because as noted

author and historian David McCullough has said many times, we

are ``raising a generation of historically illiterate

children.'' Surveys and focus groups over the years tell us

that most Americans--particularly young Americans--know the

face of Washington because they see it every day on their

dollars and quarters, but they don't know much more about

him.

Why should we be concerned? Because George Washington was

the most important, the most effective, the most powerful

leader of our nation's founding era, and the shining example

of his life is needed today more than ever.

To those like you who know and respect George Washington,

it is crystal clear that many today have drifted so far from

his standards of leadership that there is a real cause for

concern for the future of our nation. We believe that George

Washington is the best example of leadership and character

the nation has ever known; therefore, it is our duty, our

responsibility and our privilege to teach today's leaders and

young people about George Washington's leadership with the

hope that they will follow in his footsteps. Your legislation

will be a significant step in that direction.

For example, a most compelling lesson for young people

today is that George Washington served in the three most

important leadership roles in the founding era. Quite

remarkably, the Father of our Country was selected for each

of these jobs unanimously, and, contrary to the common

practice of the day, he gave up power and walked away from

each of the positions despite strong support for him not to

do so.

First, as Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army, he

surmounted incredible odds, never took a day off in eight

years of battle, and emerged victorious. But perhaps

Washington's greatest moment came when he halted an attempt

by his officers to overthrow the civilian government and make

him king. He then resigned from the military entirely and

returned to his life as a farmer at Mount Vernon.

With this resignation, Washington actually established a

new definition of power. Before George Washington the road

map was for great leaders to gain as much power as possible

and keep it. But Washington truly believed in the concept of

liberty--where the power rests with the people. He taught the

world how to relinquish power--what an important lesson for

the leaders of today.

Less than four years after his return to Mount Vernon,

Washington was drafted to be President of the Constitutional

Convention--because only he could bring the delegates

together. He was elected as our first President and after

serving two terms--he exited. He could have been elected

again and again but he peacefully transferred power

demonstrating that democracy really works.

Celebration of George Washington's Birthday on February 22

will help restore the position of the Father of Our Country

as ``First in War, First in Peace, and First in the Hearts of

his Countrymen,'' as Light-Horse Harry Lee said so many years

ago. George Washington's sterling example of character and

leadership provides the opportunity to refresh and inspire

our country as we face formidable challenges both at home and

abroad.

Sincerely,

James C. Rees,

President.

Mr. Speaker, I recently attended a wonderful event at Rocky Run Middle School in Chantilly, Virginia. The program brings World War II veterans together with 7th grade students for one-on-one interviews about the veterans' experiences during war.

The event was initiated 10 years ago by history teacher Jamie Sawatzky and for his efforts, he was selected as the Fairfax County Public Schools Teacher of the Year. Rocky Run Middle School is the only school in the region with this type of program.

The event was attended by 125 World War II veterans, representing all branches of the Armed Forces and nearly every theater of the war. I was touched to hear the recollections from so many members of the ``Greatest Generation'' who sacrificed so much to protect our nation's freedom. Students got to hear from Edward Connor, who served with the U.S. Army Air Corps in Papua, New Guinea, and Guadalcanal; Lucas Dargan, who served aboard a U.S. Navy destroyer in the north Atlantic guiding supply convoys; Donald Graul, a paratrooper with the 82nd Airborne Division who parachuted into Normandy on D-Day and was captured by the Germans, spending the rest of the war in a POW camp, and Richard Graff, who marched with the Army through France, Belgium, and Holland and met the Russian Army at the Elbe River.

These men, and many more, volunteered their time to share their views with today's students. With fewer and fewer World War II veterans still living, I applaud the efforts of these and all veterans who share this living history and make their memories part of children's learning experience and the historical record.

I also want to draw attention to the Rocky Run students, who recognize the importance of learning from previous generations. Knowing about one of the most traumatic episodes in world history and the sacrifice it required of all Americans, these students will have an appreciation of what it takes to preserve our nation's freedoms. The 7th graders of Rocky Run Middle School took on a challenging assignment and carried it out in a fashion of which we can all be proud.

There can be no better learning experience than combining the knowledge and experience of the ``Greatest Generation'' with the ``Latest Generation.'' I hope schools across America can learn from the example of Rock Run Middle School in Chantilly, Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, I recently attended a wonderful event at Rocky Run Middle school in Chantilly, Virginia. The program brings World War II veterans together with 7th grade students for one-on-one interviews about the veterans' experiences during war.

The event was initiated 10 years ago by history teacher Jamie Sawatzky and for his efforts, he was selected as the Fairfax County Public Schools Teacher of the Year. Rocky Run Middle School is the only school in the region with this type of program.

The event was attended by 125 World War II veterans, representing all branches of the Armed Forces and nearly every theater of the war. I was touched to hear the recollections from so many members of the ``Greatest Generation'' who sacrificed so much to protect our nation's freedom. Students got to hear from Edward Connor, who served with the U.S. Army Air Corps in Papua, New Guinea, and Guadalcanal; Lucas Dugan, who served aboard a U.S. Navy destroyer in the north Atlantic guiding supply convoys; Donald Graul, a paratrooper with the 82nd Airborne Division who parachuted into Normandy on D-Day and was captured by the Germans, spending the rest of the war in a POW camp, and Richard Graff, who marched with the Army through France, Belgium, and Holland and met the Russian Army at the Elbe River.

These men, and many more, volunteered their time to share their views with today's students. With fewer and fewer World War II veterans still living, I applaud the efforts of these and all veterans who share this living history and make their memories part of children's learning experience and the historical record.

I also want to draw attention to the Rocky Run students, who recognize the importance of learning from previous generations. Knowing about one of the most traumatic episodes in world history and the sacrifice it required of all Americans, these students will have an appreciation of what it takes to preserve our nation's freedoms. The 7th graders of Rocky Run Middle School took on a challenging assignment and carried it out in a fashion of which we can all be proud.

There can be no better learning experience than combining the knowledge and experience of the ``Greatest Generation'' with the ``Latest Generation.'' I hope schools across America can learn from the example of Rock Run Middle School in Chantilly, Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following article regarding the scope of Chinese espionage. The degree to which China spies on both its own people and foreigners is a reminder of the illegitimate security and economic practices of Beijing.

Chinese Spying Devices Installed on Hong Kong Cars

(By Albert Ding and Matthew Robertson)

For years now Chinese authorities have been installing

spying devices on all dual-plate Chinese-Hong Kong vehicles,

enabling a vast network of eavesdropping across the

archipelago, according to a Hong Kong newspaper.

The report in Apple Daily states that the recording devices

began being installed as ``inspection and quarantine cards''

in July 2007. They were installed without charge by the

Shenzhen Inspection and Quarantine Bureau on thousands of

vehicles.

Smugglers were the first to note something strange about

the devices. A source told Apple Daily that after the cards

were installed mainland authorities had no trouble picking

off the cars carrying illicit goods.

``For every ten cars we ran we only had [smuggled goods] in

three or four to reduce the risk, but the border agents

caught all of them. The accuracy was unreal!'' Apple Daily

quoted the smuggler saying.

The device, no larger than a PDA, is taped onto the

vehicle's front window. Protective tape covers the screws,

presumably to prevent tampering--though it didn't stop Apple

Daily from removing the devices, taking them to experts for

inspection, and presenting pictures of them splayed open on

their website, with neat graphics indicating the various

internal components.

Apple Daily says they took the device to a university

professor and a private investigator, both of whom attested

to the espionage potential of the units.

Zhang Dawei, identified as ``a private investigator of over

30 years,'' took a look at the device's internal structure

and told the Daily that the card could certainly be used for

eavesdropping.

An Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering at City

University of Hong Kong, Zheng Liming, took apart one of the

devices and confirmed that it can listen in on conversations.

And the range is extensive, he said. ``The signal receiving

range is up to 20km, which means if the device installer

wants to, they can listen even when the vehicles are in Hong

Kong,'' he said.

Two of the regions in Hong Kong where the device can

transmit data back to China are Sha tin and Tuen mun.

Much cheaper chips can be used to check inspection status

for simple border crossings, Zhang said, ``But this device

uses chips commonly found in Bluetooth and voice recording

devices, designed for receiving voice transmission.''

He thus thought it ``very likely'' that they were being

used for surveillance.

The Daily interviewed several Hong Kong drivers to gauge

their reactions; predictably, they were often irate.

Ms. Deng, who operates a real estate business, said: ``Even

if we hired a maid, we are not allowed to install a

surveillance camera in her room due to privacy issues! You

can't just do whatever you want.''

A senior manager in an unidentified company noted that

those who qualify for the dual license plate usually have

some financial clout. If their business conversations in the

car were recorded and the information shared, he said, it may

be enough to send people bankrupt.

HKBusiness.net, an online news site, says that businesses

that invested more than $1 million in mainland China and paid

more than 30,000 yuan in tax over the past year qualify for a

dual license plate.

Apple Daily quotes a source saying there are at least

20,000 cars with dual license plates, and tens of thousands

of trucks and buses.

A reporter from the newspaper went to the Shenzhen

Inspection and Quarantine Bureau and confronted them with the

accusations. Staff on duty flatly denied the idea, Apple

Daily said. Speaking Cantonese, they assured him that ``It's

not that high tech.''

Mr. Speaker, Marine Sergeant Sean T. Callahan of Warrenton, Virginia, made the supreme sacrifice for his country on April 23, 2011, while conducting combat operations in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Sergeant Callahan was assigned antitank missile duties and was with the 3rd Battalion of the 9th Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, based at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.

Sean joined the Marine Corps in March 2008 and received a combat meritorious promotion to the grade of sergeant on February 2, 2011. He deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom from August until October 2009. He deployed again in support of Operation Enduring Freedom in December, 2010. His awards include a Purple Heart, the Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Afghanistan Campaign Medal, Iraq Campaign Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Combat Action Ribbon, and Navy-Marine Corps Commendation Medal with Valor Device. Sean was escorted home from Dover, Delaware, by his brother, Corporal Daniel J. Callahan, who is assigned to the 1st Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion at Camp Pendleton, California.

Sean was born on Flag Day, June 14, 1987, in Manassas, Virginia, the youngest of four children. He grew up in Prince William County and graduated from Brentsville High School in 2005. He was an accomplished guitar player who loved music and went out of his way to encourage younger musicians to pursue their shared love of music.

Sergeant Callahan's leadership qualities, his loyalty and dedication all found a purpose when he joined the United States Marine Corps. He believed deeply in his calling to defend the freedoms granted in America and in the defense of dignity and freedom in other countries.

Sean was a true son of Virginia and will be deeply missed by those who knew and loved him.

Mr. Speaker, I missed the vote on Campbell amendment #54 to H.R. 1540, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. Had I voted, I would have voted ``no'' on the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to my colleagues' attention some extremely disturbing news coming out of Iran. Just this past weekend, a coordinated series of raids have been carried out on the homes of several Iranian Baha'is. An estimated 14 Baha'is have been arrested thus far.

According to a representative of the Baha'i International Community to the United Nations in Geneva, ``All of the targets were homes of individuals closely involved with the operations of the Baha'i Institute for Higher Education.'' This institution was created to provide young Baha'is an opportunity to pursue higher education after being systematically denied access to higher learning institutions by the Iranian government.

These attacks--and Iran's general policy of suppressing religious freedom--are unacceptable and must stop. The U.S. and the international community must vigorously speak out against these acts of injustice facing the nearly 300,000 Baha'is living in Iran today--a community which, according to the recently published report of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, ``has long been subject to particularly severe religious violations in Iran.''

We must not allow such atrocities to continue unnoticed.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of this amendment to recognize the remarkable work done by Federal employees in the intelligence community and by our Federal law enforcement officers. Their tireless work over the last 10 years led to finding Osama bin Laden and the raids on his compound which resulted in his death--an extraordinary victory in the War on Terror.

This important victory has come at a great cost to the brave men and women in our intelligence community and Federal law enforcement communities and their families. The first American killed in Afghanistan after 9/11, Mike Spann, was a CIA agent and a constituent from my congressional district. In January 2010, I attended funerals for some of the seven CIA agents who were killed by a Taliban suicide bomber at Forward Operating Base Chapman near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

As we recognize this important victory, we must also remember those Federal employees in our intelligence and Federal law agencies who continue to risk their lives every day on the front lines side by side with our Armed Forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other fronts in the Global War on Terror. The American people appreciate their sacrifice and tireless work to protect our country.

Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained and unable to be in the Chamber for two rollcall votes on H.R. 754 due to a meeting with constituents at the Loudoun County Chamber of Commerce.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the Rogers amendment and ``yea'' on the Gibson amendment.

Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Hinchey

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of my colleagues legislation I am introducing to amend the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA), including reauthorizing the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF). Religious freedom, often referred to as the first freedom, is of central import to the American experiment. As such it should feature prominently in U.S. foreign policy.

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 ten 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 USCIRF--an independent, bipartisan 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.

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. We need look no further than the daily newspapers to know that these statistics are not

mere numbers. Rather, they are sobering realities for millions of people of faith around the globe. Consider the following headlines from recent weeks alone: ``Chinese Christians Face Tense Easter in Beijing,'' ``Egyptian Copts, Reeling From Violence, Want Protection,'' ``Baha'i Citizens Are Forced to Leave Iran,'' ``Pakistan's Other Blemish: Anti-Religious Violence,'' ``Indonesia Pressured Over Ahmadiyah Muslim Sect Killings,'' and ``Thousands of Cameras Watch China's Uighurs, Inhibiting Discourse.''

The bill I introduce today will make a number of strategic improvements to the Religious Freedom Office at the State Department. To start, it places the ambassador-at-large in the office of the Secretary of State as opposed to burying it within the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. This change is more in keeping with the original intent of the legislation that Congress passed. Over successive administrations this critical position has not been treated with the seniority it deserves and this revised language will help rectify this problem.

The legislation also provides the ambassador with oversight and management authority of the IRF Office and other religiously oriented positions and programs at the State Department and carves out funding in the larger Human Rights and Democracy Fund to enable the IRF office to promote religious freedom through advocacy, reporting and programming. The legislation requires the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Department of Defense, Homeland Security, the Treasury and the U.S. Agency for International Development to issue a one-time report to Congress on the best uses of foreign assistance to promote religious freedom and religious engagement.

In addition the legislation requires religious freedom training for every Foreign Service Officer (FSO) and states that USCIRF must be involved in that training. American embassies abroad must be islands of freedom. Whether in Vietnam, China, Pakistan or Iraq--every FSO should be trained and committed to advocating for those whose voices have been silenced by their own governments. This mandatory training will help ensure that our diplomatic corps is equipped in this regard.

My legislation also strengthens the ``Countries of Particular Concern'' (CPC) designation process and effectiveness. CPCs are countries whose governments are found to have engaged in or tolerated particularly severe violations of religious freedom. The amended language will require that CPC designations are made 90 days after the issuance of the State Department's annual religious freedom report. One hundred and twenty days after a country has been designated a CPC, the Secretary of State must submit a report to Congress that identifies the action taken, the purpose of the action, and an evaluation of its effectiveness and impact. Also included is language tightening the President's waiver authority, so that indefinite waivers are not an option.

Very significantly, this legislation will reauthorize the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom until September 30, 2018. 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, as an independent, bipartisan Federal Government commission, has been a reliable voice for the world's persecuted people. It monitors and reports on religious freedom abroad and makes informed policy recommendations to Members of Congress, the President and the State Department, based in part on information gathered during extensive travel and meetings with senior foreign officials.

USCIRF regularly holds briefings and hearings for interested parties 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 Shahbaz 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, it also issued special recommendations on the implementation of the historic Comprehensive Peace Agreement. It has made a series of policy recommendations aimed at preserving and protecting Iraq's besieged religious minorities. It also 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 our founding documents which enshrine basic liberties, among them religious freedom, 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.