Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize The Frederick County Public School District for its pursuit of bettering its science education programs. I visited Sherando High School in Stephens City on April 19 and saw firsthand how the school and its students are improving and excelling the fields of math and science.

Kelley Aitken, the Frederick County Public Schools Supervisor of Science and Visual Arts, explained that ``the school division's science curriculum is moving from a fact/knowledge level of thinking to one which is based on conceptual understanding and application.'' The teachers have been provided with information from the University of Virginia's faculty on how to develop inquiry-based lesson plans.

The school district has also changed its curriculum requiring students in grades six through eight to complete inquiry-based science projects every year. It is the district's hope that by engaging the students in middle school they will be able to carry that understanding and passion for science throughout their education. Mrs. Aitken also explained a number of community partnerships that the school district has developed. These include DuPont, the Blandy Experimental Farm, the Alice Ferguson Foundation, and Valley Health, which provide students with hands-on instruction in science.

After Mrs. Aitken's presentation I was honored to meet with and learn about the students who have excelled in the district's science programs. I heard from three high school students and one middle school teacher about their experiences. The first student was a senior who worked with the Pulsar Search Collaboratory (PSC), where he discovered a pulsar, a highly neutralized neutron rotating star. The senior along with the high school's Astronomy Club, analyzed data from the National Radio Astronomy Observatory in West Virginia. The student is going to pursue his interest in science at James Madison University.

The next student, a sophomore, explained her project, which examined the effect of chemicals and pesticides on the regeneration

of planaria. The student will be competing in the International Science Engineering Fair (ISEF) in Los Angeles, California, in May. The next student, a junior, will also be competing in the fair for her second year in a row. The student used the Eratosthenes's Theory, to determine the diameter of the earth.

A sixth grade teacher in the district's Robert E. Aylor Middle School, in Stephens City explained the Discovery Education online science module, which is used throughout the district in the middle schools. He explained that the program is used to let the students interact and manipulate investigations as they are learning science material.

At the end of my visit, Superintendent Patricia Taylor was awarded the Discovery Education's Visionary District Award by the Vice President for Discovery Education. I am proud to have such an outstanding school in my district. I congratulate the school for recognizing the importance of providing our youth with the tools to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering and math.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and commend my dear friend and our former colleague, Ambassador Tony Hall, for his devotion to those less fortunate. Ambassador Hall went on a 28-day fast after learning of proposed budget cuts for programs that help those less fortunate domestically and abroad.

Here are some comments that he made regarding his recent fast:

``Back in 1993, as a Member of Congress, I went on a 22-day fast to protest the lack of conscience of the U.S. Congress towards poor and hungry people. Now, almost twenty years later, the stakes are even higher. That's why on March 28, 2011--almost one month ago--I stopped eating and started fasting, calling on friends and colleagues from across the country and around the world to join me.

``This coming Easter Sunday I will stop fasting. The Hungerfast campaign is coming to an end, but the movement to ensure our leaders don't balance the budgets on the backs of poor and hungry people is only getting started.

``But before moving forward, I want to pause for a moment to look back on what we have accomplished together, and to express my gratitude for all the ways people have broken out of their normal routines--going above and beyond--in order to make the Hungerfast movement possible.

``Hungerfast has brought together a large and diverse coalition of partners; Meals on Wheels and the ONE Campaign. World Vision and MoveOn.org. Christian, Jewish and Muslim organizations breaking out of business as usual to call their constituencies to fasting, prayer and personal sacrifice.

``With over 36,000 Americans, including 28 Members of Congress, committed to fasting, prayer and other forms of serious personal sacrifice, the HungerFast movement will have repercussions long into the future; it has not only set the stage for our ongoing budget debate, it has moved all of us into deeper levels of solidarity with those who Jesus called, `the least of these.''

As the Congress continues the budget process, we must carefully consider proposals that impact the most vulnerable. Scripture (Proverbs 19:17) tells us, ``He who is kind to the poor lends to the Lord.'' And in the New Testament Jesus talks a lot about the poor. In Matthew 25 he says that if we ignore the poor and hungry it is the same as ignoring him.

It is imperative that we all work together rein in our nation's unfunded liabilities to ensure that resources are available to help society's neediest and most vulnerable members.

Mr. Speaker, I have been one of the strongest supporters of Washington Dulles International Airport and Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport as well as the Dulles Corridor Metrorail Extension project. I was one of the original sponsors of the 1986 legislation that transferred from the federal government the operations of Dulles and Reagan. I worked with former Senators John Warner and Paul Trible, former Governor Linwood Holton, and former Secretary of Transportation Elizabeth Dole to enact that important law that created the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, MWAA. For nearly 25 years MWAA has operated effectively, governed by board members who were pillars of the community and understood the importance of the success of both Dulles and Reagan.

After the airports authority was created, both Reagan and Dulles prospered. In the past 25 years, Dulles has become the economic engine for not only northern Virginia, but the entire Commonwealth. Without a successful international airport drawing global traffic and myriad businesses, the region would not be nearly as successful as it is today. Metrorail access to the airport and fast-growing Loudoun County will attract more businesses, create new jobs and ease congestion on area roadways. Dulles Rail being completed on time and at or under original cost estimates is key to many more decades of success.

While I have been extremely pleased observing MWAA's achievements over the past two decades, I believe continued success is now threatened by a board of directors that has lost sight of its primary mission of serving airport passengers and residents of the surrounding communities. For many years MWAA was run by competent and dedicated professionals such as Jim Wilding and Jim Bennett. As current CEO Lynn Hampton prepares to retire, the search process for her replacement conducted by the current board of directors has been a study in poor management and political horse trading. When the board voted to advance the nomination of Nathaniel Ford, the deciding vote was cast by proxy by a then board member who was under house arrest in the Ivory Coast.

This problem arose because under the current law, board members serve until their replacement is confirmed. While this may have worked in the past, in my opinion the law is being abused to keep political favorites in office, even if their service is suspect. The leadership void at MWAA also is reflected in the planning for Phase 2 of Dulles Rail. Under the current board, costs have greatly exceeded original estimates, with more likely to come with the board's April 6 decision to build an underground station at Dulles Airport.

Because of these concerns about the direction of MWAA today, I am introducing legislation to make changes to the 1986 law that established the regional operating authority for Dulles and Reagan National airports. This legislation will amend the original statute to give Virginia a majority on the MWAA Board of Directors by increasing the number of Commonwealth appointees from five to nine. With both airports located in Virginia and with northern Virginia residents and local governments providing the lion's share of the revenue for the Dulles Rail project, it is only fair that the majority of the board be Virginians. The bill will also prevent board members from serving past the end of their appointment, and will establish that board members can be replaced at any time by the respective executives who appoint the board: the governors of Virginia and Maryland, the mayor of the District of Columbia or the president of the United States. I believe these changes are critical if we are to ensure that MWAA will once again function as originally intended and in the best interests of northern Virginia. Phase 2 will require nothing less than the most qualified board possible to be a success.

It is imperative that these changes to the original law be enacted quickly, and I hope that the committee of jurisdiction will expedite review of the legislation. If the current leadership is allowed to stay in place, it will very likely continue to make decisions that add to the cost of Phase 2 and further jeopardize not only MWAA's bond rating, but the success of both airports under their control. The respective executives simply must have the ability to appoint new board members as soon as possible to prevent the current board from turning Dulles Rail into a failed project.

My primary interest is to see the project completed on time and at or under budget and I believe the board's decision to opt for an underground station at Dulles Airport could be disastrous. Since the announcement, Fairfax and Loudoun counties have indicated that they will not assume the extra costs of the underground station. If the local governments withdraw Phase 2 funding, the project will be in serious jeopardy.

The underground station also is opposed by nearly every elected official representing northern Virginia residents, including the Fairfax and Loudoun boards of supervisors, the Herndon Town Council, Virginia Secretary of Transportation Sean Connaughton and Governor Bob McDonnell. Independent groups such as the Washington Airports Task Force, Dulles Corridor Rail Association, the Northern Virginia Regional Commission, the Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce, the Virginia Chamber of Commerce and AAA Mid-Atlantic have all spoken out against the underground station. For a board member to recently state, ``I think the board is committed to the underground station as best for the community at large'' shows astonishing hubris and a willful avoidance of reality.

Recent Phase 2 cost estimates are extremely troubling. While original projections put the cost of Phase 2 at $2.5 billion, the cost spikes to at least $3.5 billion under the plan approved by the MWAA board. With such dramatic cost increases before a contract is even awarded, some have expressed concerns about the creditworthiness of the bonds that will be issued to pay for Phase 2. Airport authorities nationwide have been placed on notice that bond ratings could be lowered in the future. An additional $300 million or more for Dulles Rail could be a troublesome sign for the bond markets. I fear an increase in borrowing costs could effectively kill the project in the design phase.

Considering all this information, I do not believe that the current board of directors is acting in the best interests of the northern Virginia residents who will be forced to underwrite costs for Phase 2 through increased tolls on the DTR and increased revenue from county coffers. The underground station will add at least $300 million to the overall cost of Phase 2. When long-term financing costs are included, the underground station could end up

adding closer to $500 million to the project. It is my understanding that tolls on the Dulles Toll Road could reach $10.25 in 2020, eight- and-a-half years from now. The initial toll projection issued by MWAA had tolls reaching $11.25 by 2047. As the cost of Phase 2 goes up, so will the tolls.

A recent Washington Post editorial indicated that commuters could be forced to pay as much as $4,000 a year to use the toll road by 2020. Add in the tolls on the Dulles Greenway and my constituents' transportation costs could be higher than their monthly car payments. It will be the parents taking their children to school and soccer practice, the business owner that uses the DTR on a daily basis to make deliveries, the realtor who will see home sales decrease due to the higher transportation costs and the commuters to Tysons Corner who will shoulder the heavy burden of the MWAA board's recent decisions.

I want both MWAA and Dulles Rail to be successful. Because of that, Representative Tom Latham, chairman of the House Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, and I have asked the U.S. Department of Transportation Inspector General, IG, to conduct an audit of the operations of the MWAA board. I am pleased that the IG's office will begin this audit in the near future. Outside of the actual composition of the board, it is my hope that the audit will examine the governance structure of MWAA and determine if it operates with the transparency necessary for an organization tasked with such important responsibilities.

In the meantime, I urge support for my legislation to update the board's composition and appointment structure to reflect today's realities.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize three local schools that have excelled in robotic competitions. These three teams participated in the Robotics for Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology (FIRST), regional tournament in Richmond on April 8-9, where 64 teams competed.

The local schools represented--Highland High School in Warrenton, RoboHawk-Team 3373; Fresta Valley Christian School in Marshall, Team 1731; and Battlefield High School in Haymarket, Team 1885 ILITE squad-- are all local schools and teams that participated in the regional tournament.

The FIRST robotics program offers students a chance to design a robot from scratch. Their mission is to ``inspire young people to be science and technology leaders, by engaging them in exciting mentor-based programs that build science, engineering and technology skills, that inspire innovation, and that foster well-rounded life capabilities including self-confidence, communication, and leadership.'' The students receive a box of parts with no instructions, just a specific goal that their robot must reach. Then, the students have to design the robot to complete certain tasks for the competitions. The students are allotted a six-week period to build their robots and must bag and tag them before the tournament.

The students are responsible for obtaining mentors and sponsors to raise the $5,000 that is needed to receive a starter kit from FIRST. Their mentors are usually parents who work in the field of engineering and are role models and an inspiration to the students.

At the regional tournament in Richmond, there were three different competition rounds. The first round was autonomous, where the pre- programmed six-wheel robot had to act independently of its operators and place rings on pegs in order to gain points. The second round consisted of the operators having the robot place tubes on the scoring racks. The final and most difficult round, according to the Battlefield team, was having a minibot climb up the rack and place tubes at a faster and higher rate than the original robot.

I congratulate all the teams for participating in such a hands-on engineering and scientific educational experience, with special mention to the Fresta Valley Christian School for making it to the quarterfinals of the competition. I also congratulate Battlefield High School for placing second in the regional tournament. I congratulate and commend the two teams for their participation in the National Championship, which was held in St. Louis April 27-30.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize and pay tribute to J. Warren Geurin, a former congressional staffer and member of the Loudoun County School Board. Warren passed away April 30, at the age of 65 after having battled cancer for several months. Warren began his career on the Hill as the Minority Investigator on the House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, serving our former colleagues Congressman Gene Taylor and Congressman Trent Lott. From 1980 to 1991 Warren served as a Minority counsel to the U.S. House Committee on Rules, working for former Congressmen Taylor, Lott, and Del Latta. Warren concluded his time on the Hill as legislative counsel to Congressman Chris Smith. In 1992, Warren was appointed by President George H.W. Bush as Director of Congressional Affairs to then U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Andrew Card.

Following Warren's congressional service, he worked in the private sector and later went on to serve as a three-term member of the Loudoun County School Board. Despite his diagnosis and worsening condition, Warren proved to be an inspiration, serving as chairman of the Committee on Academies and as a member of the Personnel Committee and the Minority Student Achievement Advisory Committee. Throughout his time on the School Board, Warren tirelessly advocated for children and Loudoun Schools and it was through his efforts which led to the successful completion of renovation projects at all of the schools in his district.

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, it is my pleasure to honor the life of Mr. J. Warren Geurin, a great public servant, model citizen and a personal friend of mine. Warren will be honored and remembered by many, especially his widow, Susie; his two children Jennifer and Jeff; his many friends, colleagues and all who knew him.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the work that federal employees do, day in and day out, to make our country a better place.

Federal employees are on the front lines working to ensure that our government is running as efficiently and effectively as possible to provide the services taxpayers expect. They make our nation a safer and better place. They work in every congressional district of the country and thus it is incredibly appropriate that we honor their service this week.

Whether it's the FBI agent working to find a kidnapped child, the DEA agent keeping drugs out of schools, or the DOJ attorney prosecuting a child molester--all are federal employees graciously serving our nation.

We must also remember that there are intelligence agents risking 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 who serve as federal employees. The first American killed in Afghanistan, Mike Spann, was a CIA agent and a constituent from my congressional district. Imagine the dangers a CIA employee or an FBI agent working side by side in Afghanistan with the U.S. military must encounter. A year ago January, I attended funerals for some of the seven CIA agents who were killed by a Taliban suicide bomber at Forward Operative Base Chapman near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

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

The Immigration and Custom Enforcement agent who was killed and the two who were shot this past February outside of Mexico City were federal employees.

Doctors who tend to our veterans and wounded warriors in veterans hospitals and who are developing new prosthetic devices to help them recover, medical researchers at NIH working to develop cures for cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, and autism--all are dedicated federal employees. These are individuals who could find more lucrative jobs in the private sector, but who are committed to public service. Dr. Francis Collins, the physician who mapped the human genome and serves as director of the National Institutes of Health, is a federal employee. The National Weather Service meteorologist who tracks hurricanes, the SBA staffer who helps a new business start up, the FDA inspector working to stop a salmonella outbreak--all are federal employees.

Though they often receive little praise for the work they do, federal employees provide many of the services that make this nation great. Today I thank them for their hard work and service to our country.

Mr. Chair, as we debate the House budget resolution today, I ask my colleagues: are you here to make a point, or are you here to make a difference?

We have reached a tipping point in our country's financial future. Our nation is pushed to the edge of a fiscal cliff. We are over $14 trillion in debt. CBO projects that the President's budget request will cause net interest payments to skyrocket over the next 10 years--from $260 billion in 2012 to $931 billion in 2021. If we continue on our current path, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest payments to service the debt will consume all government revenues within 14 years. We're borrowing 41 cents on every dollar. And we're borrowing from nations such as China and Saudi Arabia that do not share our values or national priorities. Moody's has warned that our coveted AAA bond rating could be at risk in as little as a year. We've seen what a downgrade can do to foreign economies, and we must not let that happen here.

Seeing the signs about our nation's financial future, I introduced legislation almost five years ago--during the last Republican House majority--to create an independent bipartisan commission to address unsustainable federal spending, putting everything on the table for discussion--entitlements, all other spending programs and tax policy-- and like the Department of Defense's Base Realignment and Closure Commission process, Congress would be required to vote up or down on the commission's recommendations. An iteration of this legislation became the blueprint for President's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, or the Bowles-Simpson Commission.

The President appointed the Bowles-Simpson Commission. He established their working parameters in a manner that, quite frankly, I believed was designed to doom it to failure. Despite this, the report released last December by the commission was supported by a bipartisan majority of the commission's 18 members. It makes clear that addressing the debt and the deficit isn't just a simple exercise in rooting out waste, fraud and abuse, eliminating earmarks, and reining in discretionary spending. Those, to be sure, are important reforms, but alone don't come close to solving the debt and the deficit crisis. Reform must begin with entitlements and other mandatory spending and must also include all other sacred cows, including tax reform and defense spending.

Until two days ago, the President barely acknowledged the work of his commission. He didn't help them assemble the necessary 14 votes to send their recommendations to Congress. Then, he walked away from his commission's recommendations, first by not expressing any views on their report, then silence during the State of the Union, and again silence in his FY 2012 budget request. On Wednesday, the President finally started to recognize the seriousness of this problem. His leadership is needed. But I was disappointed that he failed to offer specific solutions, and seemed more interested in staking out political positions than finding common ground. I hope his call for negotiations across the aisle to develop a legislative framework are successful, but this seems like yet another instance where the President is sidestepping the recommendations of his own fiscal commission.

I believe that the Bowles-Simpson proposal offers the way forward for the most comprehensive and realistic solution to our nation's fiscal problems. I have repeatedly said that, while there are some changes I would make in the plan, if a version of the Bowles-Simpson plan were given a vote on the House floor, I would vote for it. But we don't have that choice in the House.

My friend Jim Cooper, whom I have partnered with over the past four years to offer a bipartisan way forward to address the nation's financial crisis, initially planned to offer the principals of the Bowles-Simpson proposal as a substitute amendment to be considered today. Recognizing that the President's recent speech has inflamed partisan passions, he withdrew the amendment so as not to undercut efforts underway in the Senate by the so-called Gang of Six. Had the Cooper substitute been offered, I would have voted for it, even though I did not agree with every part of it, such as the reconciliation instructions Mr. Cooper had for the committee of jurisdiction over the federal workforce. I would have voted yes to indicate my continued support for the principals of the Bowles-Simpson commission. Mr. Cooper has engaged in the kind of bipartisan cooperation that we must have, the kind of forthright, realistic conversation about our nation's fiscal future in which we must engage across the aisle, across the Capitol and down Pennsylvania Avenue if we are to have any hope of coming up with a credible plan to protect the future of our children and grandchildren.

I see the Ryan proposal as an honest attempt to provide a blueprint to continue the conversation on our country's financial future and move forward so that a conference with the Senate can produce a budget plan that ensures our national security and protects the programs on which so many Americans rely. The Ryan bill may not pass the Senate, but I commend the chairman of the House Budget Committee for his courage in putting forth a bold proposal to address our nation's skyrocketing and unfunded financial obligations. While his focus is not the ``everything on the table'' approach I prefer, I believe Mr. Ryan could provide an opening to force both chambers and the President to deal with entitlement spending that is consuming the federal budget. He deserves credit for taking on an issue so many in Congress would rather continue to kick down the road.

It's easy to stand in the well of the House and criticize any legislation. As I look at Chairman Ryan's measure, I don't agree with every provision. I believe there are some critical issues that are missing and things that must be changed, and there are several things that I do not support and will not support if authorizing legislation is offered to implement his budget blueprint.

As I have stated, I believe everything must be on the table for discussion, starting with all entitlement spending, discretionary program spending, and tax policy. But we have reached the moment of truth for the kind of country we will leave to our children and grandchildren. Therefore, I will vote for the Ryan budget so that we can continue to move this process forward and continue the discussion.

This proposal would put our nation on course to reduce all of the publicly held debt by 2060, a feat not reached since Andrew Jackson's presidency. Relative to the President's proposal, it cuts $6.2 trillion. Under this plan, within four years, we would reach primary balance on our debt, which the President's proposal never attains.

Reaching primary balance, which is when revenue is greater than spending less interest

payments, is an important milestone that reduces a grave national security threat. This budget blueprint calls for significant reductions in discretionary spending, for reduced tax rates, and for repeal of the health care reform law. Significantly, Mr. Ryan's plan says we can no longer ignore the trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities that consume our budget. There may be disagreement on the significant changes in Medicare and Medicaid entitlement programs that he proposes, and while his plan is silent on changes needed to reform Social Security entitlements, it does recognize that need. Mr. Ryan has pulled the curtain back on the mandatory spending elephant in the room that we can no longer ignore.

As I have stated, I will vote for the Ryan budget so that we can move forward to fulfill our responsibility to come up with a budget for this fiscal year. We must avoid the recent fiasco we endured which brought us to the brink of a government shutdown because of the failure by the majority in the last Congress to produce a budget.

That being said, I believe the Ryan budget comes up short in a number of areas. I will mention just a few.

First, it misses an opportunity by not fully addressing the Social Security program's growing deficit. For the first time this year, with the Baby Boom generation starting to retire, more is being paid out in benefits than is coming in. I always ask students whether or not they expect to receive Social Security benefits upon retirement. Three years ago, one or two students would answer in the affirmative. Now, no one does. In calling for Social Security to be on the table, my sole motivation is to protect all those in or near retirement and to ensure that the Social Security program remains strong for future generations. The Ryan budget is lacking here.

Second, the Ryan plan, I believe, unfairly targets the federal workforce. I believe that federal employees know that spending must be reduced to ensure that our country's financial future remains strong, and I believe that public servants would be the first in line to make the sacrifices needed. But the massive budget situation we face, I believe, calls for shared sacrifice that does not single out any one area of the federal budget.

I regret that the Ryan proposal seeks to make government service an unattractive career choice by freezing pay levels, which the President has already frozen for two years, for an additional three years; by imposing drastic hiring restrictions, and by changing retirement plans. Unlike their counterparts in state government, federal employees pay Social Security taxes and contribute to their pensions. The Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund is not facing insolvency.

Federal employees are on the front lines working to ensure that our government is running as efficiently and effectively as possible to provide the services taxpayers expect. We must be careful in budget plans that we first do no harm in our vital efforts to attract, recruit and retain the best and brightest for public service. Day in and day out, federal employees make our nation a safer and better place.

The FBI agent working to find a kidnapped child, the DEA agent keeping drugs out of schools, the DOJ attorney prosecuting a child molester, other law enforcement and intelligence agents risking 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--all are federal employees. The first American killed in Afghanistan, Mike Spann, was a CIA agent and a constituent from my congressional district. Imagine how a CIA employee or an FBI agent working side by side in Afghanistan with the U.S. military would feel knowing that his or her pay would be frozen for five years. A year ago January, I attended funerals for some of the seven CIA agents who were killed by a Taliban suicide bomber at Forward Operative Base Chapman near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. The Washington Post has reported on ``the post 9/11 brain drain at the CIA.''

The Border Patrol agent shot and killed in Arizona this past December who was working to stop the flow of illegal immigrants across our southern border, the Immigration and Custom Enforcement agent who was killed and the two who were shot this past February outside of Mexico City, doctors who tend to our veterans and wounded warriors in veterans hospitals and who are developing new prosthetic devices to help them recover, medical researchers at NIH working to develop cures for cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, and autism--all are dedicated federal employees who I'm sure could find more lucrative jobs in the private sector, but who are committed to public service. Dr. Francis Collins, the physician who mapped the human genome and serves as director of the National Institutes of Health, is a federal employee. The National Weather Service meteorologist who tracks hurricanes, the SBA staffer who helps a new business start up, the FDA inspector working to stop a salmonella outbreak--all are federal employees. As we consider ways to find budget savings, it is important to remember the jobs federal employees perform.

The third area in which I believe the Ryan budget could be improved is providing for the needs of the most vulnerable in our society. As the Congress deals with the budget, we must always do it in a way that does not neglect the needs of the poor. Scripture (Proverbs 19:17) tells us, ``He who is kind to the poor lends to the Lord.'' And in the New Testament Jesus talks a lot about the poor. In Matthew 25 he says that if we ignore the poor and hungry it is the same as ignoring him.

Are we giving false hope to the neediest of our society by refusing to acknowledge that society's safety nets have such gaping holes in their finances that they will collapse within 20 years? We must carefully consider proposals that impact the most vulnerable. The budget before us assumes that program cuts can be absorbed by projecting that unemployment levels will drop to an unheard of 2.8 percent in 10 years. This would be the lowest levels since 1953. I believe this is unrealistic when considering the unemployment rate has historically been 5 percent.

The fourth area of concern with the Ryan budget is its lack of a reform plan to make the tax code fairer and simpler. This budget takes some steps forward, but it could be improved by forcefully calling for a closer examination of tax expenditures, as was detailed by the Bowles-Simpson Commission.

Our colleagues across the Capitol may have the comprehensive Bowles- Simpson plan as a budget choice, and I applaud the efforts of six senators who are working across the aisle to translate this proposal into legislative text. I wholeheartedly support the work of Saxby Chambliss, Republican of Georgia; Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia; Mike Crapo, Republican of Idaho; Richard Durbin, Democrat of Illinois; Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, and Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota.

It is disappointing that some have attacked these senators for daring to engage in a discussion putting everything on the table. Regretfully, this seems to be a tried and true technique whenever an attempt to reform the tax code is made.

Senator Tom Coburn is an honest, ethical, decent, member of Congress with whom I served when he was in the House. One of our nation's leading conservative budget hawks, who may have as good, if not a better record than most members of the House and Senate on tax policy, he is currently leading an effort to eliminate one of the more recognizable tax expenditures, the credit given to the producers of ethanol. This is a tax credit that many, such as the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, think should be eliminated. Ethanol, through tax credits, tariffs, and friendly regulations, is one of the most subsidized industries in the United States. The government has created a perverse policy in which farmers are incentivized to grow corn to produce a ``dirty fuel.'' Food prices rise because this domestic crop does not enter our food supply.

Yet Americans for Tax Reform, led by Grover Norquist, has been engaging in bullying tactics designed to stop Senator Coburn's effort and exert undue influence on this process. This is the same Grover Norquist who, according to Senate Report 109-325, ``Gimmie Five--An Investigation of Tribal Lobbying Matters, allowed disgraced and convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff to use ATR as a conduit to finance grassroots lobbying campaigns. When this occurred, ATR kept a cut for itself. Watch the documentary Casino Jack It's all there.

We will never be able to reform the tax code if any attempt to eliminate a tax expenditure--spending through the tax code--is equated to a tax increase. Senator Coburn has called out ATR and Mr. Norquist, pointing out that by this logic, ``reducing provisions in the code such as the Earned Income Tax Credit would constitute a violation of your pledge [to oppose tax increases] unless it was `offset' by another so- called `tax cut,' such as an expansion of the ethanol subsidy. That is hardly sound conservative economics.''

On March 24, the New York Times reported that General Electric, which posted a profit of $14.2 billion, of which $5.1 billion came from operations within the United States, did not pay any taxes to the federal government. Not only did they owe nothing to the federal government, they claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion. Many provisions used by their accountants were initially designed as short-term tax breaks to spur economic growth. But as frequently happens, such as with the ethanol subsidy, once a tax cut is enacted, it is nearly impossible to eliminate. If this is not an example of the need to fully reexamine our tax code, I don't know what is. That's why everything in our budget discussion must be on the table.

There is never a convenient time to make hard decisions, but the longer we put off fixing the problem, the worse the medicine will be and greater the number of Americans will be hurt.

America is living on borrowed dollars and borrowed time. As a nation we are moving

closer and closer to the edge of the financial cliff. A few steps forward and we will start a free fall into a canyon of debt which could be the economic death of America as we know it.

Is that what we want for our children and grandchildren?

Have we lost the national will to make tough decisions that may require sacrifice?

Have we lost the political courage to reject the partisan and special interest demands and do what is right for our country?

This is an American issue; not a Republican issue or a Democrat issue. I will continue to work to try to achieve balance in our budget plan. Our goal must be a bipartisan document that can pass the House and the Senate. Is the Ryan plan perfect? No. But it at least recognizes the road that we must take. How we get there is the conversation we must continue to have because the financial future for our children and grandchildren is at stake.

I urge my colleagues to heed the wisdom of the father of our country at his farewell address in 1796. President George Washington admonished his fellow countrymen: ``We should avoid ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden of which we ourselves ought to bear.''

I want to begin by acknowledging and thanking the Speaker and his staff--I think John Boehner has done an incredible job--and also Mr. Rogers and the appropriations staff on both sides of the aisle for their good work. This has never really been done before.

I rise in very strong support of the bill that provides the appropriations for the Defense Department and other agencies. The bill before the House is the long-overdue conclusion to the fiscal year 2011 appropriations process which the previous Congress had failed to really address. The new Congress has crafted a package of thoughtful and necessary reductions to discretionary spending which will put the country back on a path of fiscal responsibility.

The bill includes a total of $53.4 billion under the jurisdiction of the Commerce, Justice, Science Subcommittee, a reduction of $11 billion, or 17 percent, from fiscal year 2010 and a reduction of $7 billion, or 12 percent, from the President's request.

At the same time, the bill preserves strong funding levels for critical national priorities, such as FBI national security programs and the basic scientific research supported by the National Science Foundation, NIST and others.

Also, the bill includes the funding and language needed to allow NASA to move forward with the new space exploration programs that were outlined in the authorization bill. This takes care of NASA, and Members on both sides asked for it with regard to that.

There's also, I will let Members know, language prohibiting NASA and the Office of Science and Technology in the White House from participating in bilateral cooperation with China. The Chinese regime is engaged in an aggressive espionage program to steal sensitive technologies from the Federal Government and American companies. Every day, they engage in cyberattacks against sometimes almost all of the agencies, but also the Defense Department and Congress included.

This bill contains the tough but responsible decisions on discretionary spending that are necessary. It's easy to condemn and complain, but this is a good bill, and I urge all Members to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of my colleagues legislation I am introducing to create an Afghanistan- Pakistan Study Group, APSG, modeled after the Iraq Study Group, ISG, to bring ``fresh eyes'' to the war effort in Afghanistan which is now in its 10 year.

Last August, I began pressing the administration to convene an Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group. I submit a copy of my initial letter to the President.

In the letter, I outlined the genesis of the Iraq Study Group, ISG-- an idea which was born in 2005 after my third visit to Iraq, during which I witnessed firsthand the deteriorating security situation. While reticent at first, to their credit President Bush, Secretary of State 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.

It has been my hope that the Obama administration would come to view this bipartisan ``fresh eyes'' approach as something which is ultimately good for our men and women in uniform and good for the country as a whole.

Aside from the specific policy recommendations of the ISG, the formation of the group and the issuance of the report helped force a moment of truth in our national conversation about the war effort.

It was apparent last summer, and it is truer still today, that with roughly 100,000 U.S. troops presently in Afghanistan, no clear end in sight to our nation's longest running war at 10 years and counting, and public support for the war at an all-time low, a national conversation about Afghanistan is what is in fact urgently needed.

Before proposing this idea to the Obama administration I spoke with a number of knowledgeable individuals including former senior diplomats, public policy experts and retired and active military. Many believed our Afghanistan policy was adrift, and there was near unanimity that an Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group was needed. Among those distinguished individuals who embraced the idea was former Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker. I also sought input from senior foreign policy experts, among them former U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Ronald Neumann, who now serves as president of the American Academy of Diplomacy, regarding the implications of failure in Afghanistan. I submit for the record Ambassador Neumann's letter which lays out in sobering detail all that is at stake in that country.

I also submit for the record a letter I received last year from a constituent who is the mother of six children, all of whom are currently serving or have served in the U.S. military. She wrote of being troubled by ``how distant this war is for so many Americans'' and

she offered her wholehearted support for ``the formation of an Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group in the hope that it will turn the tide of this war . . .'' I shared this constituent correspondence, too, with the administration last September and again urged them to take action.

The war has remained distant for many Americans. It is rarely spoken of from the presidential bully pulpit. In fact a recent Fox News piece reported that ``The last time Obama specifically devoted a full public speech to Afghanistan was December 9, 2009, 16 months ago, when he announced at West Point that he was sending an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to that war-torn country.''

Further, the war is seldom covered in great depth in the news. And yet for the husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters who have sent off a loved one in uniform, the war in Afghanistan is anything but distant. It is uncertainty and sacrifice, it is separation and worry, it is life and death.

Despite my several letters to the President and other senior administration officials calling for a ``vigorous, thoughtful and principled debate and discussion among some of our nation's greatest minds,'' the idea for a study group has languished.

And so today I am introducing legislation to create an Afghanistan- Pakistan Study Group, comprised of nationally known and respected individuals who love their country more than their political party, and who would, I believe, serve to provide much-needed clarity to a policy that appears adrift at best and highly politicized at worst.

In reading Obama's Wars, I was deeply troubled by Bob Woodward's reporting which indicated that discussions of the war strategy were infused with political calculations. Woodward also wrote of an administration that ``wrestled with the most basic questions about the war . . . What is the mission? What are we trying to do? What will work?''

These are questions that demand answers.

I believe that Americans of all political viewpoints can embrace this ``fresh eyes'' approach--for it is always in our national interest to openly assess the challenges before us and to chart a clear course to success. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

August 4, 2010.

Hon. Barack H. Obama,

The President, The White House,

Washington, DC.

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

catastrophic and deliberate terrorist attack on our country,

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

and have the utmost confidence in General Petraeus's proven

leadership. I also remain unequivocally committed to the

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

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

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

have been a consistent supporter of the war effort in both

Afghanistan and Iraq, I believe that with this support comes

a responsibility. This was true during a Republican

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

today.

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

firsthand the deteriorating security situation. I was deeply

concerned that Congress was failing to exercise the necessary

oversight of the war effort. Against this backdrop I authored

the legislation that created the Iraq Study Group (ISO). 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 ISO and, in fact, served on the

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

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

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

ideas were adopted. Retired General Jack Keane, senior

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

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

Aside from the specific policy recommendations of the panel,

the ISG helped force a moment of truth in our national

conversation about the war effort.

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

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

In recent days I have spoken with a number of knowledgeable

individuals including former senior diplomats, public policy

experts and retired and active military. Many believe our

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

urgent need for what I call an Afghanistan-Pakistan Study

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

holistically, given Pakistan's strategic significance to

our efforts in Afghanistan and the Taliban's presence in

that country as well, especially in the border areas.

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

in chief. You are well acquainted with the sobering

statistics of the past several weeks--notably that July

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Afghanistan parallels are imperfect at best, the shadow of

history looms large. Eroding political will has

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

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

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

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

left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even

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

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

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

is fundamental. We must soberly consider the implications of

failure in Afghanistan. Those that we know for certain are

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

Taliban with an open staging ground for future worldwide

attacks, and a destabilized, nuclear-armed Pakistan.

Given these realities and wavering public and political

support, I urge you to act immediately, through executive

order, to convene an Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group modeled

after the Iraq Study Group. The participation of nationally

known and respected individuals is of paramount importance.

Among the names that surfaced in my discussions with others,

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

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

Bob Kerrey and Sam Nunn; former Congressman Duncan Hunter;

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

Defense James Schlesinger, and General Keane. These names are

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

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

up to the task.

I firmly believe that an Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group

could reinvigorate national confidence in how America can be

successful and move toward a shared mission in Afghanistan.

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

past weekend, it was unsettling to hear conflicting

statements from within the leadership of the administration

that revealed a lack of clarity about the end game in

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

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

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

the American people and their elected representatives do not

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

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

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

Afghanistan who are also facing dwindling public support, as

evidenced by the recent Dutch troop withdrawal, and would

give them a tangible vision to which to commit.

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

believe that Americans of all political viewpoints, liberals

and conservatives alike, and varied opinions on the war will

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

administration's support of the Iraq Study Group, which

involved taking the group's members to Iraq and providing

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

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

in our national interest to openly assess the challenges

before us and to chart a clear course to success.

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

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

once again pause and remember that horrific morning nine

years ago when passenger airlines became weapons, when the

skyline of one of America's greatest cities was forever

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

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

recent days believe that time is of the essence in moving

forward with a study panel, and waiting for Congress to

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

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

convene this group in short order, and explain to the

American people why it is both necessary and timely. Should

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

offer an amendment by whatever vehicle necessary to mandate

the group's creation at the earliest possible opportunity.

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

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

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

improve the situation and protect American interests.'' The

same can be said of Afghanistan.

I understand that you are a great admirer of Abraham

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

that pitted brother against brother, and father against son.

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

with strong, often times opposing viewpoints. Historians

assert this served to develop his thinking on complex

matters. Similarly, while total agreement may not emerge from

a study group for Afghanistan and Pakistan, I believe that

vigorous, thoughtful and principled debate and discussion

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

will only serve the national interest. The biblical

admonition that iron sharpens iron rings true.

Best wishes.

Sincerely,

Frank R. Wolf,

Member of Congress.

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

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

harm's way and to the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of the House legislation I am introducing to create an Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group, modeled after the Iraq Study Group, to bring fresh eyes to the war effort in Afghanistan, which is now in its 10th year.

Last August, I began pressing the administration to convene an Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group. While reticent at first, to their credit President Bush, Secretary of State Rice, and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld came to support the Iraq Study Group, ably led by bipartisan chairs, former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton.

It has been my hope that the Obama administration would come to view this bipartisan fresh eyes approach as something which is ultimately good for our men and women in uniform and

good for the country as a whole. Aside from the specific policy recommendations, the Iraq Study Group helped force a moment of truth in our national conversation about the war effort. It was apparent last summer and is still truer today that with roughly 100,000 U.S. troops presently in Afghanistan, no clear end is in sight to our Nation's longest running war, at 10 years and counting. Public support for the war is at an all-time low. A national conversation about Afghanistan is what is urgently needed.

Before proposing this idea to the Obama administration, I spoke with a number of knowledgeable individuals, including former senior diplomats, public policy experts, and retired and active duty military. Many believed, all believed our Afghanistan policy was adrift. And there was a near unanimous position that an Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group was needed. Among the distinguished individuals who embraced the idea was former ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker.

Sadly, the war has remained distant for many Americans. It is rarely spoken of from the Presidential bully pulpit. In fact, a recent Fox News piece reported, ``The last time Obama specifically devoted a full public speech to Afghanistan was December 9, 2009, 16 months ago, when he announced at West Point that he was sending an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to that war-torn country.'' And this Congress ought to be looking at this also.

Further, the war is seldom covered in great depth in the news. And yet, for the husbands and wives, and mothers and fathers, sons and daughters who have sent off a loved one in uniform, the war in Afghanistan is anything but distant. It is uncertainty and sacrifice, it is separation and worry, and many times it is life and death.

Despite my several letters to the President and other senior administration officials calling for a, quote, ``vigorous, thoughtful, and principled debate and discussion among some of our Nation's greatest minds,'' the idea for the study group has languished.

So today, after the Obama administration has neglected this, I am introducing legislation to create an Afghan-Pakistan Study Group comprised of nationally known and respected individuals who love their country more than they love their political party, and who would, I believe, serve to provide much needed clarity to a policy that appears adrift at best, and highly politicized at worst.

In reading ``Obama's Wars,'' I was deeply troubled by Bob Woodward's reporting, which indicated that discussions of the war strategy were infused with political calculations. Woodward also wrote of an administration that wrestled with the most basic questions about the war: What is the mission? What are we trying do? What will work? These are questions that demand answers. I believe that Americans of all political viewpoints can embrace this fresh eyes approach, for it is always to our national interest to openly assess the challenges before us and to chart a clear course to success.

I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation. This Congress, both political parties, cannot do what this administration is doing. We cannot ignore this issue.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Team B Act to confront the growing challenge of domestic radicalization and homegrown terrorist attacks. I believe that we must take a fresh look at how we can thwart domestic radicalization.

I have been concerned about and been following the issue of radical Islamic terrorism for nearly 3 decades. I visited the Marine barracks in Lebanon following the 1983 bombing that killed 241 American servicemen.

I closely followed the issue of terrorism with the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 and throughout the 1990s with the deadly attacks against our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, where yet another of my constituents was killed.

As a result, in 1998 I authored legislation creating the National Commission on Terrorism, also known as the Bremer Commission, and highlighted the threat from Osama bin Laden in my introductory remarks--years before many in our government fully understood the danger he posed.

I was the chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee that funds the FBI and Justice Department on September 11, 2001, and I worked closely with Director Mueller and his leadership team from 2002 to 2006 to transform its mission to deal with the terrorist threat.

I am now again chairman of that subcommittee and receive regular briefings on terrorism and the new and growing threat posed

by domestic radicalization and frequently visit the National Counterterrorism Center, which is located in my district.

According to the Congressional Research Service, there have been 43 ``homegrown jihadist terrorist plots and attacks since 9/11,'' including 22 plots or attacks since May 2009.

Director Mueller and the men and women of the FBI should be commended for their exceptional work in intercepting would-be terrorists before their attacks. They work tirelessly to protect our country and their record over the last decade speaks for itself.

But despite the FBI's success at disrupting plots under way, the U.S. does not have an effective or coherent policy to prevent domestic radicalization. According to a recent report by respected counterterrorism experts called Assessing the Terrorist Threat:

``The American melting pot'' has not provided a firewall

against the radicalization and recruitment of American

citizens and residents, though it has arguably lulled us into

a sense of complacency that homegrown terrorism couldn't

happen in the United States . . . By not taking more urgently

and seriously the radicalization and recruitment that was

actually occurring in the U.S., authorities failed to

comprehend that this was not an isolated phenomenon . . .

Rather, it indicated the possibility that even an embryonic

terrorist radicalization and recruitment infrastructure had

been established in the U.S. homeland.

That is why I am introducing this legislation to create a ``Team B'' to bring fresh eyes to U.S. domestic radicalization and counterterrorism strategy. The team would represent a new approach, which focuses not just on connecting the dots of intelligence, but to rethink the nature of threats to stay a step ahead in understanding how to break the radicalization and recruitment cycle that sustains terrorism, how to disrupt the global terrorist network and how to strategically isolate it.

During the Ford administration, then-CIA director George H.W. Bush created a ``Team B'' composed of outside experts to reexamine intelligence relating to Soviet capabilities. Their conclusions were markedly different than those reached by agency officials. Many of their assessments were used in the Reagan administration to deal with the Soviets--ultimately leading to the end of the Cold War.

Today, our intelligence community and federal law enforcement are so inundated with reports and investigations that they do not have the time or capacity to step back and strategically reevaluate the threat before us.

I believe a ``Team B'' would provide a tremendous service to both the agencies and the Congress in making recommendations on how we can disrupt domestic radicalization.

For more than a year, I have written numerous letters to the President and members of his national security team urging them to implement this proposal. They have not.

As respected Georgetown University professor Dr. Bruce Hoffman wrote for The National Interest in October 2010:

The logic behind Congressman Wolf's idea is simple and

makes eminent sense. Since both the U.S. intelligence

community and our national security and law-enforcement

agencies are overwhelmed with data, information and a

multiplicity of immediate ``in-box''-driven issues that

continually challenge their ability to think both

strategically and in terms of a patently evolving, dynamic,

multidimensional threat, the red team concept would represent

a new approach to counterterrorism that would potentially

enable the United States to stay one step ahead of our

adversaries' own strategy and tactics.

First, it would have a broader remit than the red team

exercises currently employed by individual agencies.

Congressman Wolf's idea is that this red team would have a

strategic counterterrorism mandate and would therefore look

at general, global patterns of terrorism rather than the use

and effects of individual tactics.

Second, it would be composed of nongovernment specialists

and experts representing a broad array of different

perspectives, backgrounds and opinions--the type of

``glorious amateurs'' described by General Donovan who once

populated the OSS but who would now be enlisted in the war on

terrorism.

Under Congressman Wolf's formulation, these persons would

advise and help inform the assessments of both the National

Intelligence Council (NIC) and Office of the Director of

National Intelligence by providing broad strategic analysis

of terrorism trends and patterns and their possible future

implications. In this manner, alternative assessments and

strategic counterterrorism analysis could be provided to the

Intelligence Community that would also help to avoid ``group

think.''

Mr. Speaker, for these reasons I believe this legislation would be a constructive step to address the evolving terrorist threat and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I submit the New York Times obituary of William J. Stuntz, an influential legal scholar, who died last week after a 3-year battle with metastatic colon cancer. He was 52.

I also submit a piece which Mr. Stuntz authored in 2009 for Christianity Today titled ``Three Gifts for Hard Times.'' Christianity Today re-ran the piece this month in honor of Stuntz's passing. In the face of great personal hardship, including chronic pain which plagued him for more than ten years, Mr. Stuntz found tremendous strength in his Christian faith, and wrote of it in ways both compelling and poetic. I commend it to my colleagues.

[From Christianity Today, Aug. 2009]

Three Gifts for Hard Times

(By William J. Stuntz)

Survivors of some horrible plague or battle often find

themselves wracked with guilt: Why did I live while so many

died? Though I had no battle scars, I used to feel a similar

sense of guilt. I married the only woman I've ever loved. We

have three terrific children. I have a secure job that I love

and that pays well. Sometimes I would ask God: Why have you

been so kind to me? Why have I gotten such an easy life?

I don't ask those questions anymore.

A little over nine years ago, while driving home from a

family vacation, my car got a flat tire. When I started to

change it, something nasty happened at the base of my back.

Ever since, my lower back and the top half of my right leg

have hurt. After two operations, dozens of injections,

physical therapy, psychotherapy, and thousands of pills, my

back and right leg hurt every waking moment, and most of

those moments, they hurt a lot. Living with chronic pain is

like having an alarm clock taped to your ear with the volume

turned up--and you can't turn it down. You can't run from it;

the pain goes where you go and stays where you stay. Chronic

pain is the unwelcome guest who will not leave when the party

is over.

A few months after my back turned south, my family and I

moved when I accepted a job at Harvard Law School. Our family

began to unravel. One of our children suffered a life-

threatening disease, and my marriage fell apart.

Those crises faded with time but left deep scars. Early

last year, in February 2008, another piece of bad news struck

me: Doctors found a large tumor in my colon; a month later,

films turned up tumors in both of my lungs. In the past year,

I've had two cancer surgeries and six months of intensive

chemotherapy. I've been off chemo for a few months, but I'm

still nauseous much of the time and exhausted most of the

time. Cancer kills, but cancer treatment takes a large bite

out of one's pre-diseased life, as though one were dying in

stages. Some of that stolen life returns when the treatment

stops. But only some.

Today, my back and especially my right leg hurt as much as

they ever have, and the odds are overwhelming that they will

hurt for as long as this life lasts. Cancer will very

probably kill me within the next two years. I'm 50 years old.

Such stories are common, yet widely misunderstood. Two

misunderstandings are worth noting here. First, illness does

not beget virtue. Cancer and chronic pain make me sick; they

don't make me good. I am who I was, only more diseased.

Second, though I deserve every bad thing that has ever

happened to me, those things didn't happen because I deserve

them. Life in a fallen world is more arbitrary than that.

Plenty of people deserve better from life than I do, but get

much worse. Some deserve worse and get much better. Something

important follows: The question we are most prone to ask when

hardship strikes--why me?--makes no sense. That question

presupposes that pain, disease, and death are distributed

according to moral merit. They aren't. We live in a world in

which innocent children starve while moral monsters prosper.

We may see justice in the next life, but we see little of it

in this one.

Thankfully, God gives better and more surprising gifts to

those living in hard times. Three gifts are especially sweet.

Redeeming Curses

First, God usually doesn't remove life's curses. Instead,

he redeems them.

Joseph's story makes this point. Joseph was victimized by

two horrible injustices: one at the hands of his brothers who

sold him into slavery, the other thanks to Potiphar's wife,

who falsely accused him of attempted rape. God did not undo

these injustices; they remained real and awful. Instead, God

used those wrongs to prevent a much worse one: mass

starvation. When Joseph later met with his brothers, he said

this about the transaction that started the train rolling:

``You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good.'' That

doesn't mean that slavery and unjust imprisonment are good;

rather, the point is that they produced good, and the good

they produced was larger than the wickedness that was visited

upon Joseph. Evil was twisted back on itself, like a gun

barrel turned so that it aims at the would-be murderer firing

the weapon.

Joseph's story foreshadows the central story of the

Gospels. The worst day in human history was the day of

Christ's crucifixion, which saw the worst possible punishment

inflicted on the One who, in all history, least deserved it.

Two more sunrises and the Son rose: the best day in human

history, the day God turned death itself against itself--and

because he did so, each one of us has the opportunity to

share in death's defeat.

That is our God's trademark. Down to go up, life from

death, beauty from ugliness: the pattern is everywhere.

That familiar pattern is also a great gift to those who

suffer disease and loss--the loss may remain, but good will

come from it, and the good will be larger than the suffering

it redeems. Our pain is not empty; we do not suffer in vain.

When life strikes hard blows, what we do has value. Our God

sees it.

A change in suffering's character

The second gift is often missed, because it lives in

salvation's shadow.

Amazing as the greatest of all gifts is, God the Son does

more than save sinners. Jesus' life and death also change the

character of suffering, give it dignity and weight and even,

sometimes, a measure of beauty. Cancer and chronic pain

remain ugly things, but the enterprise of living with them is

not an ugly thing. God's Son so decreed it when he gave

himself up to torture and death.

Two facts give rise to that conclusion. First, Jesus is

beautiful as well as good. Second, suffering is ugly as well

as painful. Talk to those who suffer medical conditions like

mine and you'll hear this refrain: Even the best-hidden forms

of pain and disease have a reality that is almost tactile, as

though one could touch or taste them. And those conditions

are foul, like the sound of fingernails on a blackboard or

the smell of a cornered skunk. Some days, I feel as if I were

wearing clothes soaked in sewage.

Some days--but not most days, thanks to the manner of

Jesus' life and death. Imagine Barack Obama putting on a bad

suit or Angelina Jolie wearing an ugly dress. The suit

wouldn't look bad, and that dress wouldn't be ugly. These are

incredibly attractive people whose attractiveness spills over

onto their clothing, changing its meaning and the way other

people respond to it. If Obama or Jolie wear it, it's a good-

looking outfit. If they wear it often enough, it becomes a

good-looking outfit even when you or I wear it. God's Son did

something similar by taking physical pain on his divine yet

still-human person. He did not render pain itself beautiful.

But his suffering made the enterprise of living with pain and

illness larger and better than it had been before. He

elevates all he touches. Just as his years of carpentry in

Joseph's shop lend dignity and value to all honest work, so

too the pain he bore lends dignity and value to every pain-

filled day human beings live.

The Shawshank Redemption is about a prisoner convicted of a

murder he didn't commit. That prisoner escapes by crawling

through a sewer line until he's outside the prison's walls.

The narrator describes the transaction this way: ``He crawled

through a river of [dung] and came out clean on the other

side.'' God the Son did that, and he did it for the likes of

me--so that I, too, and many more like me, might come out

clean on the other side. That truth doesn't just change my

life after after I die. It changes my life here, now.

The God Who Remembers

The third gift is the most remarkable. Our God remembers

even his most forgettable children. But that memory is not

the dry, lifeless thing we feel when one or another old

friend comes to mind. More like the passion one feels at the

sight of a lover. When Jesus was dying, one of the two

convicts crucified with him said this: ``Jesus, remember me

when you come into your kingdom'' (Luke 23:42). Jesus

responded by telling him that he would be in paradise that

very day. As we use the word remember, that story sounds off,

as though the thief on the cross and the Son of God were

talking past each other.

The story sounds off because to us, remembrance merely

means ``recall''--I remember when I connect a student's name

to her face, or when I can summon up some fact or the image

of some past event. That kind of remembrance is a sterile

enterprise, lacking both action and commitment.

In the Bible, remembrance usually combines two meanings:

first, holding the one who is remembered close in the heart,

and second, acting on the memory. When God repeatedly tells

the people of Israel to remember that he brought them out of

Egypt, he is saying much more than ``get your history

right.'' A better paraphrase would go like this: ``Remember

that I have loved you passionately. Remember that I have

acted on that love. Hold tight to that memory, and act on it

too.''

Job understood the concept. Speaking with God about what

would follow his own death, Job utters these words: ``You

will call and I will answer you; you will long for the

creature your hands have made. Surely then you will count my

steps but not keep track of my sin'' (14:15-16). Notice how

memory and longing are fused. Job longs to be free of his

many pains, which occupy his mind like a sea of unwanted

memories. God longs for a relationship with Job, and Job

knows it: hence, his belief that the Lord of the universe

remembers each of his steps. He is the Lover who will not

rest until his arms enfold the beloved. To Job, the curses

Satan has sent his way are a mighty mountain that cannot be

climbed, an enemy army that cannot be beaten. In the shadow

of God's love, those curses are at once puny and powerless.

Philosophers and scientists and law professors (my line of

work) are not in the best position to understand the

Christian story. Musicians and painters and writers of

fiction are much better situated--because the Christian story

is a story, not a theory or an argument, and definitely not a

moral or legal code. Our faith is, to use C.S. Lewis's apt

words, the myth that became fact. Our faith is a painting so

captivating that you cannot take your eyes off it. Our faith

is a love song so achingly beautiful that you weep each time

you hear it. At the center of that true myth, that painting,

that song stands a God who does vastly more than remember his

image in us. He pursues us as lovers pursue one another. It

sounds too good to be true, and yet it is true. So I have

found, in the midst of pain and heartache and cancer.

Mr. Speaker, today I wish to acknowledge the hard work and determination that Habitat for Humanity has provided for a deserving family in my district. Habitat for Humanity of Prince William County, Manassas, and Manassas Park purchased a three-bedroom townhouse in Manassas using funds from the Neighborhood Stabilization Program administered by the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development. The organizations began extensive renovations on the townhouse on October 9, 2010.

The deserving recipient is a single mother who offers support and care for her disabled mother, along with working full-time and caring for her son. With the high cost of living in northern Virginia, the mother believed that she would never be able to purchase a home. She learned about the Habitat for Humanity home ownership program and applied in November 2009. After 1,100 hours of volunteer labor by nearly 100 volunteers, the house was dedicated on April 2 to the woman and her family.

The family will purchase the home from Habitat at cost and finally be able to have a place to call home.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to recognize Habitat for Humanity for its continuing work to help make the American dream of home ownership come true and salute its volunteers and donors for their hard work. This deserving family looks forward to living in a safe and pleasant community.

Madam Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 1363, the Department of Defense and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2011.

I am voting today for H.R. 1363 because I do not support a government shutdown. H.R. 1363 will keep the government open. I am voting to ensure that federal employees are not pawns in a game of ``shut-down chicken.'' I am voting to ensure that FBI agents continue on the job. I am voting to ensure that DEA agents, ATF agents, U.S. Marshals, Border Patrol Agents, and CIA agents, are on the job. I am voting to ensure that tax returns filed by mail and loans to small businesses continue to be processed. I am voting to ensure that NIH research and clinical trials continue. I am voting to ensure that veterans will be able to receive walk-in services at clinics. I am voting to ensure that the government honors signed contracts. I am voting to ensure that federal employees, who are all essential, are able to continue to do the work they do, day in and day out, to keep our nation running.

I am also voting for H.R. 1363 because it funds the Department of Defense for the rest of the fiscal year. This bill provides economic certainty to our troops and their families at a time when they are sacrificing so much to support our military operations around the world. We also need to provide that economic certainty to the entire federal workforce and the American people who expect us to be on the job working for them. We need to reach an agreement on a spending plan for the remaining five and a half months of this fiscal year and get on with the business of producing a budget for FY 2012 with a resolve to continue to take steps to reverse our nation's mounting debt and deficit spending.

I am voting for H.R. 1363 because it cuts $12 billion in discretionary spending in one week. Twelve billion dollars. This may well be the largest one week discretionary spending cut ever passed through the House. The measure before us today is another responsible step in the right direction until a long term agreement is reached.

The House has acted. Again and again, House Republicans have voted to keep the government open by supporting continuing resolutions until a long-term solution for the rest of the fiscal year is reached. We are continuing to work to find a solution to the unfinished business left by the leadership of the previous Congress. Passing H.R. 1363 will enable us to move forward on the fiscal oversight needed to ensure long term, fiscal solvency.

I am voting ``yes'' today because this measure continues our efforts to tackle the debt while keeping the government open.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call to my colleagues' attention recent action in the Virginia General Assembly to designate February 4, 2011, and in each succeeding year, as ``Cancer Prevention Day'' in Virginia.

The Virginia Senate joint resolution introduced by Senator Jill Holtzman Vogel, who represents many constituents from the 10th congressional district, reads:

``Whereas, cancer is the leading cause of death around the

world; and

``Whereas, during the 10-year period from 1995 to 2004, the

rate of new cancer cases in Virginia increased by 10 percent;

and

``Whereas, the most common cancers in Virginia--prostate,

lung, and colorectal for men and breast, lung, and colorectal

for women--are also among the most preventable; and

``Whereas, the 2008-2012 Virginia Cancer Plan developed by

the Virginia Cancer Plan Action Coalition contains specific

goals and strategies related to prevention in the hopes of

reducing the rates of cancer in Virginians; Now, therefore,

be it

``Resolved by the Senate, the House of Delegates

concurring, that the General Assembly designate February 4,

in 2011 and in each succeeding year, as Cancer Prevention Day

in Virginia.''

I applaud Senator Vogel for her efforts to raise awareness in the Commonwealth on the fight against cancer, and also salute our mutual constituent Bill Couzens of Middleburg, founder and president of the nonprofit Next Generation Choices Foundation and the Less Cancer Campaign, who worked with Senator Vogel in the effort to secure passage of the resolution in the state legislature. As she noted, ``The more energy and resources that we direct toward awareness, education and prevention, the more lives we save.''