Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I submit for the Record an October 31 Reuters article that describes a recent protest that occurred in Morocco.

The story opens with the following description: ``About 900 Moroccan rights activists took to the streets in Rabat on Sunday in a rare protest against what they call widespread rights abuses by the authorities, including illegal detention and torture.''

The government of Morocco has long sought to cultivate its image, employing high- powered U.S. lobbyists, as a beacon of tolerance in the Muslim world. This human rights protest is further evidence that Morocco isn't all that it claims to be.

Earlier this year the Moroccan government deported, without due process, dozens of U.S. citizens and foreign nationals, many of whom were engaged in vital humanitarian work--for allegedly proselytizing.

If the government of Morocco hopes to maintain its image, it is going to take more than some well-positioned lobbyists.

Moroccans Stage Rare Human Rights Protest

RABAT (Reuters)--About 900 Moroccan rights activists took

to the streets in Rabat on Sunday in a rare protest against

what they called widespread rights abuses by the authorities,

including illegal detention and torture.

Protesters chanted: ``Shut down illegal detention centres

now!'' and ``Where is the respect for rights and truth?''

Officials were not immediately available to comment on the

protest but the government has repeatedly said that its

commitment to improve and protect human rights is

irreversible.

Morocco won international praise for an improvement in its

human rights record since reformist monarch Mohamed VI took

over in 1999 from his father Hassan during whose rule

hundreds of people were tortured and killed at the hands of

the government.

But local human rights groups at home and abroad argue that

the country's rights record has deteriorated since 2003 when

it mounted a crackdown against militants linked to al Qaeda.

``The reality of human rights conditions totally belies the

government's claim of improvement. Illegal detention, torture

and crackdowns on press freedom are pervasive now,'' said

Abdeslam Abdelilah, Vice-President of the independent

Moroccan Human Rights Association (AMDH).

Independent journalists and security officials at the scene

estimated the number of demonstrators at around 900. Security

forces have in the past broken up similar protests but they

did not interfere in Sunday's demonstration.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, we are saddened about the passing of our former colleague, Representative Owen Pickett, who served the Second Congressional District of Virginia from 1987 to 2001.

Owen was a respected and principled leader. Sometimes we really never get to know each other in this institution, and sometimes it is at the latest, sometimes almost never.

Owen was a good man, a decent man, very honest, very ethical, and very, very committed to the military. He was a tireless representative of the best interests of the Norfolk and Virginia Beach areas.

We extend our deepest sympathies to his wife, Sybil, his three daughters, and his family. I just want to say ``Well done, thou good and faithful servant.''

[From the Virginian-Pilot, Oct. 29, 2010]

Owen Pickett: A Practical Man

Tributes to Owen Pickett poured forth from members of both

political parties after his death Wednesday at the age of 80.

That was testament to the respect that Pickett commanded

from Republicans and Democrats across Hampton Roads and

Virginia. For decades, he persuaded people of all persuasions

to set aside their differences and accomplish important tasks

with courage and good humor.

His ecumenical politics and practical bent attracted fans

of every stripe and generation. No name comes up as

consistently in Editorial Board interviews when candidates

are asked which local leader they admire.

``I am deeply saddened to learn of the passing of my good

friend Owen Pickett,'' said Gov. Bob McDonnell. ``Owen

dedicated his life to public service. He was a patriot. He

served the commonwealth in the House of Delegates and our

nation in the House of Representatives. That was his passion:

service.''

A centrist Democrat and fiscal conservative, Pickett spent

14 years representing Virginia Beach in the House of

Delegates. In 1986, he won election to Congress as the

representative for Virginia's 2nd District, succeeding the

similarly moderate G. William Whitehurst, a Republican.

In Washington, as in Richmond, Pickett burnished a

reputation for being steady and unassuming, courtly and

nonpartisan. Colleagues described him as an effective

legislator who toiled behind the scenes as an advocate not

just for military service members but for all of Hampton

Roads.

Proof isn't limited to the 2nd District. The U.S.

Customhouse in downtown Norfolk, for example, wasn't even

part of Pickett's territory, but that didn't stop him from

securing the federal funds needed to renovate it. Today, the

building bears his name.

After leaving Congress in 2001, Pickett devoted himself to

the community, spreading around some $200,000 in leftover

campaign funds to local charities and causes.

In Virginia Beach, where he made his home for more than

half his life, Pickett helped found the Meals on Wheels

program, the Virginia Beach Hospice and the Oceana Lions

Club. He was president of the Princess Anne Rotary and

Ruritan clubs and in 2003 was honored with the Virginia Beach

Jaycees' First Citizen award.

But even outside elected office, Pickett retained

influence. He spent his final years offering advice to any

who sought it, whether they were Democrats, such as U.S. Sen.

Jim Webb and Rep. Glenn Nye, or Republicans, including

McDonnell and state Sen. Jeff McWaters.

``When I was trying to decide whether to run for state

Senate, I called Congressman Pickett and he encouraged me to

do so,'' McWaters said. ``Though we sit on different sides of

the political aisle, this never seemed to matter as much to

him as getting the job done.''

For a practical man like Pickett, there may be no higher

praise.

Madam Speaker, I submit certain sections of the testimony of Mr. Christopher Coates before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in which he discusses the unequal enforcement of federal voting laws by political and career officials in the Department of Justice.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of my colleagues the use of U.S. taxpayer financed foreign aid to expand Chinese influence around the world.

It recently came to my attention that the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) has awarded Chinese state-owned enterprises millions of dollars in contracts to build roads, construct schools, and erect airports in countries with MCC compacts. On June 30, Reuters reported that ``China's Sinohydro Corporations signed a contract with Mali to build a new airport for the capital, Bamako, a $71.6 million project'' financed by the MCC. This is not an isolated incident.

China's Sinohydro Corporation was also awarded a contract for construction work in Tanzania. Furthermore, according to news reports, on September 9 and 10 the MCC signed contacts with a Chinese state- owned construction company to renovate and expand 13 schools in Namibia. Thousands of dollars have been awarded to Chinese state-owned enterprises in Ghana for infrastructure construction. The list goes on.

According to the Treasury Department, China now holds $846.7 billion in U.S. debt making China our largest banker. At a time of economic hardship at home, the United States should not be giving U.S. taxpayer dollars to China through foreign assistance.

Furthermore, the U.S. should not be subsidizing countries with abysmal human rights records. The State Department's 2009 Human Rights Report states that the Chinese ``government's human rights record remained poor and worsened in some areas'' during the reporting period. The report goes on to cite violations including the severe cultural and religious repression of ethnic minorities, the detention and harassment of human rights activists, extrajudicial killings and the use of forced labor.

China perpetrates gross human rights abuses outside of its borders as well. In 2008, the international non-governmental organization, Human Rights First, found that China sold over $55 million worth of small arms to the genocidal regime of Omar al-Bashir in Sudan. According to the U.S. Campaign for Burma, China is one of the largest arms suppliers to the brutal Burmese military regime which has been implicated in gross human rights violations including murder, rape and the use of child soldiers.

Today, I sent a letter to the inspector general of the Millennium Challenge Corporation asking that he open an investigation into the extent to which Chinese state-owned enterprises have been involved in receiving grant awards through the MCC and determine if such actions are in violation of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003. I look forward to the inspector general's report and will continue to monitor this issue closely.

Madam Speaker, I submit a copy of my September 23, 2010, letter to Attorney General Holder strongly supporting the decision of Mr. Christopher Coates to comply with a subpoena to appear before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Mr. Coates contacted me prior to his testimony to share this information and he requested all applicable federal whistleblower protections.

I also submit a portion of Mr. Coates' testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in which he discusses the unequal enforcement of federal voting laws by political and career officials in the Department of Justice.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, September 23, 2010.

Hon. Eric H. Holder, Jr.,

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

Dear Attorney General Holder: I write to strongly support

Mr. Christopher Coate's decision to comply with a federal

subpoena to appear before the U.S. Commission on Civil

Rights. I also wanted to make you aware that prior to

appearing before the commission, Mr. Coates contacted me to

share similar information relating to the equal enforcement

of federal voting laws.

Mr. Coates has every right to bring this information to a

Member of Congress as well as a responsibility to comply with

the commission's subpoena, despite the department's

obstruction. I trust that Mr. Coates will face no

repercussion for his decision and expect you to inform

political and career supervisors to respect his decision.

As you are aware, the 1912 Anti-Gag Legislation and

Whistleblower Protection Laws for Federal Employees

guaranteed that ``the right of any persons employed in the

civil service . . . to petition Congress, or any Member

thereof, or to furnish information to either House of

Congress, or to any committee or member thereof, shall not be

denied or interfered with.'' (37 Stat. 555, 1912; codified at

5 U.S.C. 7211, 1994)

Additionally, you should be aware that federal officials

who deny or interfere with employees' rights to furnish

information to Congress are not entitled to have their

salaries paid by the taxpayers. As ranking member on the

House Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations subcommittee, I

assure you that I take this statute very seriously and will

do everything in my power to enforce it should any negative

actions be taken against Mr. Coates as a result of his

decision to contact Congress and appear before the

commission.

A copy of this letter and Mr. Coate's testimony before the

commission will be submitted to the Congressional Record for

public review.

Sincerely,

Frank R. Wolf,

Member of Congress

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with my colleagues the text of a letter I sent today to President Obama, Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen, and all other parties in the administration charged with executing the war effort. I will enclose in my correspondence to the administration a copy of a letter from a constituent who is a mother of six children, all of whom are currently serving or have served in the U.S. military.

I submit for the Record a copy of my original letter to the President as well as a copy of the letter from my constituent.

My letter today to the administration will read, in part, ``I implore you to consider my constituent's views--the views of an `American mother with children glad to serve our country,' and to move swiftly to establish an Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group, modeled after the Iraq Study Group, to bring `fresh eyes' to the war effort in Afghanistan.

``The group would be comprised of nationally known and respected individuals who love their country more than their political party and would serve to provide much-needed clarity to a policy that increasingly appears adrift.

``Candidly, after reading yesterday's Washington Post piece adapted from Bob Woodward's Obama's Wars, I have serious concerns that the needed clarity about our aim in Afghanistan ever existed within the administration. Woodward writes, `Even at the end of the process, the President's team wrestled with the most basic questions about the war, then entering its ninth year: What is the mission? What are we trying to do? What will work?'

``These are sobering questions--but they are questions that must be answered, and the Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group is just the means to arrive at these answers in a way that honors our men and women in uniform.

``In the halls of Congress or the White House, at Foggy Bottom or the Pentagon, public discussions can at times be detached from the actual lives that are most directly impacted by the decisions being made. This couldn't be further from the case for this mother. She doesn't have that luxury when it comes to the war in Afghanistan. And we mustn't either.

``This is not a matter of politics--or at least it ought not be--for it is always in our national interest to openly assess the challenges before us and to chart a clear course to victory. Frankly, I've been deeply troubled by Woodward's reporting which indicates that discussions of the war strategy were infused with political calculations. An Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group could help redeem what was clearly a deeply flawed process.''

I close with a line from my constituent. She said, ``The casualties suffered aren't just numbers to me. Each name, each face, represents a family who is paying the ultimate price--the loss of a son or a daughter, brother or sister, father or mother; a family that will never be the same. Therefore, I wholeheartedly support the formation of an Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group in the hope that it will help to turn the tide of this war and lessen the number of casualties as well.''

I hope the President and his advisers will heed the eloquent words of this military mother who has six children serving and another child is married to a marine. And many have served in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

August 4, 2010.

Hon. Barack H. Obama,

The President,

Washington, DC.

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

catastrophic and deliberate terrorist attack on our country,

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

that decision and have the utmost confidence in General

Petraeus's proven leadership. I also remain unequivocally

committed to the success of our mission there and to the more

than 100,000 American troops sacrificing toward that end. In

fact, it is this commitment which has led me to write to you.

While I have been a consistent supporter of the war effort in

both Afghanistan and Iraq, I believe that with this support

comes a responsibility. This was true during a Republican

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

today.

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

firsthand the deteriorating security situation. I was deeply

concerned that Congress was failing to exercise the necessary

oversight of the war effort. Against this backdrop I authored

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

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

nationally known figures who were brought together with the

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

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

for Strategic and International Studies, and the Baker

Institute for Public Policy at Rice University--and charged

with undertaking a comprehensive review of U.S. efforts

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

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

While reticent at first, to their credit President Bush,

State Secretary Rice and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld came to

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

Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee

Hamilton. Two members of your national security team,

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and CIA Director Leon

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

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

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

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

ideas were adopted. Retired General Jack Keane, senior

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

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

Aside from the specific policy recommendations of the panel,

the ISG helped force a moment of truth in our national

conversation about the war effort.

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

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

In recent days I have spoken with a number of knowledgeable

individuals including former senior diplomats, public policy

experts and retired and active military. Many believe our

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

urgent need for what I call an Afghanistan-Pakistan Study

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

holistically, given Pakistan's strategic significance to our

efforts in Afghanistan and the Taliban's presence in that

country as well, especially in the border areas.

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

in chief. You are well acquainted with the sobering

statistics of the past several weeks--notably that July

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Afghanistan parallels are imperfect at best, the shadow of

history looms large. Eroding political will has

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

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

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

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

left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even

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

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

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

is fundamental. We must soberly consider the implications of

failure in Afghanistan. Those that we know for certain are

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

Taliban with an open staging ground for future worldwide

attacks, and a destabilized, nuclear-armed Pakistan.

Given these realities and wavering public and political

support, I urge you to act immediately, through executive

order, to convene an Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group modeled

after the Iraq Study Group. The participation of nationally

known and respected individuals is of paramount importance.

Among the names that surfaced in my discussions with others,

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

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

Bob Kerrey and Sam Nunn; former Congressman Duncan Hunter;

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

Defense James Schlesinger, and General Keane. These names are

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

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

up to the task.

I firmly believe that an Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group

could reinvigorate national confidence in how America can be

successful and move toward a shared mission in Afghanistan.

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

past weekend, it was unsettling to hear conflicting

statements from within the leadership of the administration

that revealed a lack of clarity about the end game in

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

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

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

the American people and their elected representatives do not

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

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

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

Afghanistan who are also facing dwindling public support, as

evidenced by the recent Dutch troop withdrawal, and would

give them a tangible vision to which to commit.

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

believe that Americans of all political viewpoints, liberals

and conservatives alike, and varied opinions on the war will

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

administration's support of the Iraq Study Group, which

involved taking the group's members to Iraq and providing

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

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

in our national interest to openly assess the challenges

before us and to chart a clear course to success.

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

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

once again pause and remember that horrific morning nine

years ago when passenger airlines became weapons, when the

skyline of one of America's greatest cities was forever

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

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

recent days believe that time is of the essence in moving

forward with a study panel, and waiting for Congress to

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

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

convene this group in short order, and explain to the

American people why it is both necessary and timely. Should

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

offer an amendment by whatever vehicle necessary to mandate

the group's creation at the earliest possible opportunity.

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

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

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

improve the situation and protect American interests.'' The

same can be said of Afghanistan.

I understand that you are a great admirer of Abraham

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

that pitted brother against brother, and father against son.

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

with strong, often times opposing viewpoints. Historians

assert this served to develop his thinking on complex

matters. Similarly, while total agreement may not emerge from

a study group for Afghanistan and Pakistan, I believe that

vigorous, thoughtful and principled debate and discussion

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

will only serve the national interest. The biblical

admonition that iron sharpens iron rings true.

Best wishes.

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.

Madam Speaker, on Monday, the King of Morocco travelled to New York to address the UN General Assembly Summit on the Millennium Development Goals, which seek to improve the quality of life for people around the world. I urge Obama Administration officials to seize this opportunity to meet with the King and raise the plight of the dozens of U.S. citizens that have been expelled from or denied reentry into Morocco without access to due process.

As a result of the deportations a number of humanitarian organizations which were run by U.S. citizens and provided vital community services have been shuttered: Individuals such as Eddie and Lynn Padilla of Colorado who worked in an orphanage caring for young Moroccan children who were abandoned at birth; and Michael Cloud of Texas, who ran therapy centers for children with disabilities across the country; and scores of American teachers and educators who sought to improve access to education for Moroccan children.

Many of these individuals resided legally in Morocco for decades and had a deep love for their adopted country. Their work supported Millennium Development Goals such as child health and universal education. In his address to the General Assembly on Monday, the King of Morocco expressed his support for and commitment to these lofty goals. Meanwhile, his government turned out dozens of U.S. citizens and foreign nationals whose work supported the same goals for which the King professed his support.

If the King of Morocco is truly serious about his commitment to achieving the Millennium Development goals, his government should immediately and unconditionally allow those expelled or denied reentry to return. The U.S. government should press for nothing less.

Madam Speaker, I submit a statement from the Sudan Catholic Bishops' Conference (SCBC) titled, ``A Message of Hope and a Call to Action.'' The bishops gathered in Juba in July on the eve of an historic time for the people of Sudan as they approach the referendum in January 2011.

(Addressed to all the people of Sudan, the Sudanese leaders, and all

people of good will)

``The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has

anointed me to bring glad tidings to the poor. He has sent me

to proclaim liberty to captives and recovery of sight to the

blind, to let the oppressed go free, and to proclaim a year

acceptable to the Lord.'' (Luke 4:18-19)

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Virginia Airborne Search and Rescue Squad Air-Wing in Manassas, VA. This organization is the only all volunteer airborne search and rescue squad in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Established in June 2009, the squad is licensed by the Commonwealth of Virginia, Office of Emergency Medical Services, as a non-designated area and statewide airborne rescue squad. The organization provides many airborne EMS, fire, rescue, and law enforcement airborne services including a helicopter equipped with trained search and rescue pilots and flight officers who are on call around the clock.

It has trained and dedicated volunteer members of the community, consisting of law enforcement officers, professional firefighters and EMTs, pilots, flight officers and many former U.S. military personnel, all providing their time, effort, and funding to ensure the safety of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia, District of Columbia, and state of Maryland. The squad is Project Lifesaver certified and equipped and ready to respond to a lost child or elderly adult registered with Project Lifesaver.

The leadership team includes Kevin C. Rychlik, chief of operations, president and CEO, and Ann Rychlik, chairman of the Board of Trustees, both prominent business leaders in our community.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the vision, sacrifice and dedication of those individuals and organizations that have worked together to create the Virginia Airborne Search and Rescue Squad.

Madam Speaker, I want to share with our colleagues the untimely passing of a brave and heroic man who made the cause of fighting for the people of Tibet his life's calling.

Daja Wangchuk Meston served as my guide when I traveled to Tibet in 1997. Accompanied only by my late chief of staff Charlie White and Daja, I was at the time just the second sitting member of the U. S. House of Representatives to visit Tibet since the Chinese occupation began in 1959. We traveled with U.S. passports and on tourist visas issued by the government of China. At no time did anyone ask nor did I make known that I was a member of Congress. Had I done so, I am sure that my visit would not have been approved, just as other members of Congress requesting permission to visit Tibet have been turned down.

I couldn't have made the trip without Daja. He knew the Tibetan people and their struggles against iron-fisted Chinese rule. He opened the doors for my meetings with persecuted monks, men and women on the street and others who risked their personal safety and well-being to steal a few moments alone with me to reveal the unspeakably conditions in Tibet and to petition help and support from the West. He later paid the price for his heroism when he returned to Tibet to investigate the Chinese government's population resettlement program underwritten by the World Bank. He was subsequently captured, tortured and imprisoned by Chinese authorities, and badly injured when he tried to escape by jumping from a window. He endured a harrowing experience before his release.

In our search for modern-day heroes, Daja Wangchuk Meston is a true hero. I am thankful that I had the opportunity to know him. I submit for the Record a moving account of Daja's life written by Linda Anna Mancini, coordinator of the Boston Tibet Network, who worked closely with Daja. The Boston Tibet Network links various Tibetan support groups, local individuals, national and international organizations, and the Tibetan Association of Boston.

Daja Wangchuk Meston was beautiful in his modesty, strength

and honesty. Powerful in his choices. This hero would not be

called by that title when he was with us, but now that he has

left us, I feel compelled to name him the hero that he was.

Brave in the face of danger, with strength above tragedy,

Wangchuk was a hero. It was my honor to know him. Such a

beautiful man.

With so much sadness at his death, I look at his brave life

for comfort. While remembering his work, I can treasure his

dignity and all that he achieved. May the memory of his

beauty and achievements sustain his family and all who loved

him and cherish him still.

Certainly His Holiness the Dalai Lama is the most

significant treasure to Tibetans and Tibet supporters. He is

a great leader. And, as he knows, the actions of many others

also shed a light--Wangchuk was one, a bright light. We are

all indebted to him. The moment of his capture in Amdo in

1999 galvanized the Tibetan struggle into the unified grass

roots movement that has held strong since that time.

The Tibetan issue in itself is truly an ocean of suffering.

Each person's story is distinctive, whether born in Tibet, or

India, or the states--or, in Wanchuk's case, an American

raised as a Tibetan. Wangchuk was born in Switzerland, child

of Americans who traveled to Nepal where his mother placed

him with a Tibetan family and later, when he was 6, into the

monastery. His mother lived as a nun in India, while his

father returned to California burdened with great personal

challenges. At 17 Wangchuk left the monastery and came to the

states. After a few years, he attended Brandeis. How valiant

he

was when he first arrived, young teenager alone, wearing

jeans, not maroon robes. Looking for his birth family, an

education and his American self. He found his dear wife--they

understood too well both tragedy and exile. They courageously

trusted each other, shared love and pain and family, and the

struggle for human rights in Tibet.

It was the spring of 1999 when I met Wangchuk. He was

impressive, knowledgeable. We were just a group of people

interested in Tibet who gathered to share ideas. We formed an

alliance, the Boston Tibet Network (BTN) to share information

and be able to act on it. Present were Tibetan Buddhists,

folks from Amnesty, a scholar archivist of Tibetan Buddhist

texts, a Harvard professor, those interested in Tibet, in

Buddhism, in social justice. All concerned about the well

being of Tibetans in Tibet and those in exile, about human

rights and non-violent action. The network still exists, we

now know each other well and continue to work toward the same

goals.

A few months after our first meetings, Wangchuk went to

Tibet. He went in August to investigate, see what was

happening to the nomads in Amdo at the hands of the Chinese.

He was outstandingly brave to do this. He knew there was

danger. The Tibetan movement had learned that the World Bank,

contrary to their own mandate, had financed Chinese

population resettlement. Tibet supporters worldwide protested

loudly with marches and more. Bowing to international

pressure, the Chinese government said all were welcome to

visit and explore their nomad resettlement project which they

claimed was beneficial; yet the pattern was set--the Chinese

were perpetually hard about all things Tibetan. Wangchuk was

one of those who decided to take them at their word and go

and see their project.

Once there Wangchuk was quickly captured by the Chinese,

questioned and tortured. Despairing of ever being released,

he jumped from a window trying to escape. He was seriously

injured and held in a nearby hospital by the Chinese.

For BTN our first group action was to announce the terrible

news that Wangchuck was imprisoned. We begged the Chinese

government to release him and lobbied our own government to

assist in freeing him. The Chinese made his release

difficult, so Wangchuk's wife Phuntsok and their friend,

Carl, went to China to get him. A harrowing experience but

finally they returned to the states and he was admitted to

Brigham and Womens' Hospital for a long stay.

August of 1999, Wangchuk's imprisonment, his subsequent

injuries and release, world protests--all this was a pivotal

moment for the Tibetan movement. The World Bank relented to

demands and stopped the funding to the Chinese for nomad

resettlement in Amdo. The Tibetan movement was energized and

Tibet supporters became a strongly united grass roots

movement that has continued to grow powerful all these years

since.

Wangchuk was heroic to go to Amdo. He was brave when he

endured the endless surgeries needed to rebuild his shattered

feet. He was generous to write his autobiography ``Comes the

Peace'' and share his personal life, thoughts and feelings.

He was happy with his wife and their boutique ``Karma'' where

they shared workdays and he told stories to friends and

shoppers, and enjoyed his Newton Center community.

Yes, it hurts that he is not with us anymore, and that he

chose to leave us. But I am so grateful to have known

Wangchuk, he was a hero. Such an honest man, he took my

breath away. He is remembered well.

Madam Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of my colleagues to a letter I recently sent to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as well as reports from nongovernmental organizations, NGOs, regarding human rights and religious freedom in Morocco and the Moroccan occupied territory of Western Sahara.

Since March, dozens of U.S. citizens and foreign nationals have been expelled from Morocco without due process on charges of proselytism. In the wake of this action, I have repeatedly called on the board of the Millennium Challenge Corporation to suspend the $697.5 million compact with the government of Morocco. As Americans deal with tough economic times, it is unacceptable for U.S. taxpayer dollars to continue to flow into a country which flagrantly disregards the rights of U.S. citizens.

I am continuing to press the MCC to act decisively to suspend the compact with Morocco until the government of Morocco agrees to the return of all United States citizens affected by the expulsions, thereby sending a clear message that these actions by a purported ally will not be tolerated.

Morocco's recent actions may seem surprising to many, but to those who have followed events in the Moroccan occupied territory of the Western Sahara, this is business as usual for the Moroccan government.

Yet the Obama administration has remained notably silent on these issues despite repeated calls from within the Congress to address these grave injustices. Just yesterday, the Senate Appropriations Committee passed its version of the FY 2011 State and Foreign Operations Appropriations measures which ``directed the Secretary of State to submit a report not later than 45 days after the enactment of this act, detailing steps taken by the Government of Morocco in the previous 12 months on human rights, including deportation of U.S. citizens in Morocco without due process of law, and whether it is allowing all persons to advocate freely their views regarding the status and future of the Western Sahara through the exercise of their rights to peaceful expression and association, and to document violations of human rights in the territory without harassment.''

I submit for the Record my letter to Secretary Clinton as well as reports by highly respected NGOs clearly illustrate Morocco's disregard for the basic principles of human rights and religious freedom as outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, July 28, 2010.

Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton,

Secretary of State,

Washington DC.

Dear Secretary Clinton: I write today to express my

continued concern about the situation involving Americans in

Morocco and urge you to issue a strong statement in support

of the American citizens whose lives have been uprooted by

the Moroccan government's recent actions. I ask that either

you or President Obama call on the Moroccan government to

unconditionally allow all those expelled or denied reentry to

return to Morocco.

Just yesterday, yet another U.S. citizen, Mike Hutchinson,

was denied reentry into Morocco. This came after repeated

assurances by the Moroccan government to the U.S. Embassy in

Rabat that the expulsion order issued to Mr. Hutchinson last

month had been suspended and he was free to reenter the

country at a time of his choosing.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Embassy in Rabat remained blissfully

unaware of the events unfolding at the airport. It is my

understanding the U.S. Embassy had been contacted and was

fully aware of Mr. Hutchinson's intentions to reenter Morocco

and had in its possession the details of his flight

itinerary. However, embassy officials failed to communicate

Mr. Hutchinson's planned reentry to the Moroccan government

to ensure his passage into the country.

The U.S. Embassy in Rabat has an obligation to defend and

protect American interests in Morocco. This instance

demonstrates a clear failure by U.S. government officials to

carry out their basic duties. An American embassy should be

an island of freedom which vigorously represents the

interests of the United States and its citizens. These events

clearly reflect that the U.S. Embassy in Rabat is falling

short of its obligations.

Despite all this, U.S. taxpayer dollars continue to pour

into Morocco through the Millennium Challenge Corporation

(MCC). The stated purpose of the MCC is to form

``partnerships with some of the world's poorest countries,

but only those committed to: good governance, economic

freedom, and investments in their citizens.'' As a

precondition to receiving MCC funds, the government of

Morocco was evaluated on 17 key indicators of eligibility.

A recent report by the Government Accountability Office

(GAO) on the Millennium Challenge Corporation found that on

the 17 key indicators ``Morocco met MCC's eligibility

criteria in 2005 and 2006 but has failed each year since.''

The failure of the government of Morocco to meet the criteria

for four consecutive years shows a clear unwillingness to

live up to the pledges made when awarded the MCC compact. The

recent expulsion and denial of reentry to U.S. citizens

engaged in work which provided humanitarian services to the

people of Morocco should erase any doubt about Morocco's

commitment to the core principles of the MCC.

It is unacceptable for U.S. taxpayer dollars to continue to

flow into Morocco under these circumstances. By failing to

suspend the MCC compact with Morocco, the United States sends

a message to the world that we are willing to turn a blind

eye to injustice, even when the interests of our own citizens

are at stake.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter and I

look forward to your response.

Best wishes.

Sincerely,

Frank R. Wolf,

Member of Congress.

Madam Speaker, I am introducing today the Bring Jobs Back to America Act, which would start the process of bringing real jobs back to America that have gone overseas during the last two decades.

My legislation will build on language I included earlier this year in the fiscal year 2011 Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill directing the Commerce Department to launch a job repatriation initiative to bring those jobs back home.

I believe that a strong manufacturing and technology development base is critical to job creation and the economic competitiveness of the United States.

Something has happened in our country. We're making fewer and fewer things. Today, everything seems to be labeled: ``Made in China.''

If you have ever taken the train from Washington, DC, to New York and looked out the window, you can see our empty factories. You pass through my old neighborhood in Philadelphia.

GE's switchgear factory used to be one block from my home. Now there's nothing there but an empty, littered field.

You pass through Trenton, New Jersey, and can see the famous bridge sign that reads: ``Trenton Makes, the World Takes.'' Trenton doesn't make anything anymore.

Last year, General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt noted that in recent years in the United States, ``Real engineering was traded for financial engineering.'' Immelt called on the U.S. to grow manufacturing jobs to comprise at least 20 percent of American jobs--nearly double the current level.

In this era of intense global competition, we must work aggressively to bring jobs that have gone overseas back home to the U.S. to immediately start growing the percentage of these jobs, as Immelt called for.

It's not enough to talk about creating jobs. We have to take immediate steps to create jobs.

I have been, and remain, a staunch supporter of free trade. Free trade has yielded benefits to the American people and our economy.

However, we have been far too slow in responding to our international economic competitors in this era of global markets and competition.

The irony is that as much as American firms have offshored manufacturing and development jobs, they remain reliant on America for support. And with American unemployment hovering around 10 percent, it's time for some of these American firms to come home.

When an American plant manager in Mexico is kidnapped, the firm doesn't call the Mexican Federal Police, they call the FBI.

When the Chinese steal an American firm's intellectual property, the firm calls the U.S. Commerce Department.

It's time to bring some of these jobs home because America can be competitive in this global economy and it's the right thing to do. My legislation will start this process.

Overall, I believe that my bill helps to re-focus the United States to be more proactive and a smarter competitor in the global economy-- both in the short term and long term.

Specifically, this bill requires the Secretary of Commerce to set targets for job repatriation and creates multi-agency ``Repatriation Task Forces'' to identify American companies manufacturing abroad and work with states to bring jobs back to the U.S.

The goal is to bring back real jobs from overseas to the United States--jobs that are already created and an American could immediately fill.

This bill would require the Commerce Department to survey all American firms with significant manufacturing facilities in foreign countries, allowing the Repatriation Task Forces to proactively identify all firms interested in working with state and local governments to facilitate a mutually beneficial repatriation of jobs.

The bill would also comprehensively align federal resources in support of repatriation efforts. It allows state and local governments to use a variety of federal funding--at no new cost--to support job repatriation initiatives by state and local governments.

For example, my bill aligns Economic Development Agency (EDA) and National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) grants to allow state and local governments to use this funding for repatriation.

It would also direct the Secretary of Commerce and the IRS to quickly study and report on the merits of a new federal tax incentive to encourage repatriation.

In addition to repatriating jobs today, we must redouble our efforts to foster emerging technologies to create our manufacturing base of tomorrow.

For too long, the U.S. has failed to strategically monitor emerging opportunities and threats in our competitive global economy. We are starting to see the ramifications of this failure in the rise of China as an economic power.

My bill would reconstitute President Reagan's ``Project Socrates'' as an independent ``American Economic Security Commission'' to identify and monitor emerging technologies and global economic threats.

Project Socrates was initiated during the Reagan Administration to address America's competitiveness challenge and determine the source of the nation's declining competitiveness and develop programs to address the source of the problem.

Our Commission--composed of 12 business leaders and economists appointed by the majority and minority leaders--will similarly take a comprehensive and unbiased look at all of our global economic competitors--both strengths and weaknesses--and help inform the Congress on how to bolster American economic security.

This will ensure that we have an independent mechanism to monitor new opportunities and threats to ensure that America can capitalize on revolutionary technologies and create new jobs in the U.S.

The bill also provides stronger protections for American intellectual property and helps to expedite the patent process for cutting-edge new technologies developed by universities.

The faster we can secure our innovations and move them to market, the more jobs we can create in this country.

We can no longer afford to ride the coattails of yesterday's innovations; we have to identify and support the emerging technologies of tomorrow that will create American jobs.

The Chinese, Indians and other international competitors are actively monitoring new technologies and trends to support their firms. To date, we have not.

Are Americans willing to continue to sit idly by and allow the Chinese to dominate new industries at our expense?

Norm Augustine, the former chairman and CEO of Lockheed Martin, best captured the situation we now find ourselves in when he said:

In the technology-driven economy in which we live,

Americans have come to accept leadership as the natural and

enduring state of affairs. But leadership is highly

perishable. It must be constantly re-earned.

In the 16th century the citizens of Spain no doubt thought

they would remain the world leader. In the 17th century it

was France. In the 19th century, Great Britain. And in the

20th century it was the United States.

Unless we do things dramatically different, including

strengthening our investments in research and education, the

21st century will belong to China and India.

Author Richard McGregor wrote in his new book, The Party, that the Chinese government, ``still runs on Soviet hardware.'' It uses the full resources of the state to advance the interests of Chinese firms.

The Chinese are spying on us. They are launching millions of cyber attacks against American companies and the federal government every day.

The Chinese are funding the genocide in Darfur. They have Catholic bishops in jail, Protestant pastors in jail, and they have plundered Tibet.

If the U.S. is to be truly competitive in the global economy, we must be vigilant and proactive--in a manner that is consistent with our national interest and international treaties.

Madam Speaker, I urge swift passage of this legislation to help bring jobs back to the United States today and to lay the groundwork for tomorrow's manufacturing and technology base. We cannot afford to wait. Our international competitors aren't.

Madam Speaker, I submit an AFP article detailing a tragic story which illustrates the Chinese government's callousness and utter disregard for basic human rights.

AFP reports that China repatriated an 81-year old former South Korean prisoner of war who fled North Korea literally decades after first being captured.

China regularly repatriates North Korean refugees, in violation of their international obligations oftentimes sending these individuals back to certain punishment and possible death. The Chinese government simply doesn't care.

China Sends S. Korean POW Back to N. Korea

Seoul.--China has repatriated an 81-year-old former South

Korean prisoner of war who had fled North Korea decades after

being captured, a newspaper report and an activist said

Tuesday.

Dong-A Ilbo quoted an unidentified government official as

saying the man surnamed Jung was sent back despite intensive

diplomatic efforts by Seoul to bring him to the South.

A foreign ministry spokeswoman said she had no information.

``The government made tremendous diplomatic efforts but he

was eventually sent back to the North,'' the source was

quoted as saying.

South Korea had contacted Chinese diplomatic authorities

more than 50 times since Jung's arrest, the daily said.

Choi Sung-Yong, an activist who campaigns for the return of

South Korean abductees, said Jung was forcibly returned to

the North in September last year, about a month after being

arrested in China where he was hiding.

He said Jung was arrested eight days after he fled the

North with the help of South Korean activists.

China repatriates escapees from North Korea as illegal

immigrants even though they can face harsh punishment back

home.

By Seoul's official account 494 South Koreans, mostly

fishermen, were seized in the Cold War decades following the

war. Seoul also says more than 500 prisoners of war were

never sent home after the Korean War armistice was signed on

July 27, 1953.

North Korea denies holding any southerners against their

will, even though some have managed to escape from the

hunger-stricken country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Yesterday the House passed a supplemental appropriations bill under suspension of the rules. I think--and I would ask somebody to look--I think this Congress, and every Congress has a history and has a name. I think this will be called ``the suspension Congress.'' We have taken more legislation up under suspension of the rules, without any opportunity for people to be offering amendments. I think whatever side you're on, whatever party you're in, there really ought to be the opportunity for Members to offer amendments.

And so I think, I don't know how you would do it, but I officially would request that maybe the Clerk of the House look to see how many bills at the end of this year were passed by suspension and to see if I was right by calling this ``the suspension Congress.''

We are now resorting to considering an odds and ends bill at the end again on suspension. This bill could clearly be put on our own bill. On July 12, the administration requested language to allow the Patent and Trademark Office to spend an additional $129 million in fiscal year 2010, with the desired effect being the reduction of backlogs in processing patent applications.

The bill before the House does that, and fully offsets the spending, as requested, with a rescission from excess amounts appropriated for the 2010 Census. The language in the bill differs somewhat from the language requested by the administration. I personally--and maybe others on the committee had--but personally I have not seen the bill until today after it had been placed on the suspension calendar. So you're going to bring a bill up under suspension and the minority, maybe other people in the minority, but we haven't been given the opportunity even to see it. Since there was no subcommittee or full committee consideration and no discussion with the minority prior to introduction, I don't know why the changes were made to the request. It sort of says we're not going to talk to the minority; we're not going to discuss these things. Frankly I would tell the Patent and Trademark Office, ``You haven't been up here to talk to anybody.'' Just because the party in power happens to be the majority party, this ought to be an issue of nonpartisan, or bipartisan working together. But again it all just sort of rolls out and comes up.

Finally, I would just say that this issue could have easily been addressed in regular order, either in committee markup or on the supplemental where I am sure the chairman, Mr. Mollohan, as we go to conference on a bill--and I appreciate the leadership of Mr. Mollohan on the committee--we could have rolled it in for timely action on the FY11 CJS appropriations bill. I don't know why we're doing it at this hour.

Secondly, anytime one party pushes the other party, and I would say this to my own party. If we ever get back into the majority, we ought to be sure that we treat the minority the way that we wanted to be treated when we were in the minority, because there were times past when we were in the majority that we maybe treated the minority in ways that we should not have treated them.

And so I would just say, speaking only for myself, but the party that I belong to, I think it's important if or when we return to the majority that we have respect for the minority, to notify them and tell them and do everything we possibly can to make sure that we're doing things in a bipartisan basis, particularly on bills that are not Republican or Democrat but are good for the country.

With that, I would reserve the balance of my time.

If the gentleman will yield, I just want the record to show that Mr. Mollohan and his staff have been very fair. And I would not want to have the connection of what I said earlier with regard to that. Mr. Mollohan and his entire staff have been very, very fair and have treated us very, very well. I didn't want that to be inferred.

With that, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Army Colonel George Juskalian, a constituent from Centreville, Virginia, for his dedicated service in World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. He passed away on July 4, 2010, at age 96, having served nearly 30 years on active duty.

Colonel Juskalian was one of the most highly decorated Armenian- American veterans to

ever serve in the U.S. Military. He also was a member of the Armenian Assembly of America. He joined the United States Army in 1939 and was called to active duty as a first lieutenant in 1940 and served with distinction in World War II. He continued to serve for three decades, as a battalion commander in combat in the Korean War as well as a military adviser in the Vietnam campaign.

He was in General Eisenhower's secretariat in the Pentagon between 1945 and 1948 and an adviser to the Imperial Iranian Army in Tehran. He was captured by the Germans in Tunisia and spent 27 months in prisoner of war camps in Italy, Germany, and Poland. He retired with the rank of colonel in 1967.

Colonel Juskalian received the Army's second highest award, known as ``the Legion of Merit,'' for non-combat service. He also received the Silver Star, the Bronze Star, the Army Commendation Medal, the Air Medal and the Parachutist Badge, and the combat Infantry Badge with a Star awarded for World War II and the Korean War.

Madam Speaker, I salute Colonel Juskalian for his patriotism and service to our Nation and express deepest sympathy to his wife Lucine and family on his passing.