Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support and as a cosponsor of H. Res. 575, which states that Hamas and other terrorist organizations should not participate in upcoming January 2006 legislative elections held by the Palestinian Authority. The aims and principles of Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other terrorist groups are incompatible with the democratic process. Hamas has continually called for the destruction of Israel by any means, and their involvement in elections puts the road map process for peace in the Middle East in jeopardy.

The foundation of the peace process was based upon the Palestinian Authority's acknowledgment of Israel's right to exist as a sovereign nation and their duty to end terrorist attacks from Palestinian soil. The first stage of the road map process calls on the Palestinian Authority to disarm all terrorist groups and their infrastructure. I am extremely disappointed that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has made such limited progress in dismantling the terrorist infrastructure in the Palestinian territories.

The Palestinian Authority has the ability to dismantle terrorist groups, as their security forces dwarf the size of the Hamas militia by nearly 10 times. A recent survey indicates that the vast majority of the Palestinian people support an immediate end to all forms of violence. The Palestinian Authority has a unique opportunity under a new President to renounce all forms of terrorism, and move towards securing a lasting peace settlement in the Middle East.

Just as the United States will not negotiate with terrorists, neither will Israel. Should members of Hamas become part of the Palestinian Government, the United States would have to reassess its financial assistance to, and its diplomatic relations with, the Palestinians.

I welcome competitive elections in the Palestinian Authority. However, no functioning democracies permit terrorist organizations to participate in elections. Germany, Italy, Turkey and many other nations all prohibit any terrorist groups from participating in elections. In Iraq and Afghanistan, members of the former Ba'ath Party and the Taliban must renounce any links or support for the former regimes. Egypt and Jordan do not support the existence of Hamas or other terrorist organizations. I call for President Abbas to dismantle the terrorist organizations in the Palestinian territories and to meet his obligations under the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support and as a cosponsor of H. Res. 487, supporting the goals and ideals of Korean American Day. This resolution marks the upcoming 103rd anniversary, on January 13, 2006, of the day that the first Korean immigrants arrived in the United States.

Today we acknowledge and celebrate the economic, academic and cultural contributions made by the immigrant Korean community to the United States. Korean Americans have made a significant and positive impact in this country, in the proud tradition of immigrants that for generations have traveled to come to the United States.

I am pleased to work with various Korean American groups in my State of Maryland that have helped new immigrants gain access to social services, health care, and continuing education programs that allow them to prosper in America. I am also pleased that many groups are working to assist qualified legal permanent residents to become U.S. citizens and to participate in local, State, and national elections.

I call on my colleagues to recognize the contributions made by Korean Americans and to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me this time, and thank him for putting together a substitute that makes sense, that is an important bill. Yes, it is important to extend the expiring tax provisions, and the Rangel substitute does that. Research and development, the work opportunity tax credit, all the important tax provisions that will expire, the substitute extends those provisions. That is important.

The Rangel substitute does another thing that is extremely important. It deals with the alternative minimum tax affecting 16 million of our taxpayers of the 19 million that are under the alternative minimum tax. That is very important to get done. And the Rangel substitute deals with that. The Rangel substitute deals with other inequities in the Tax Code, correcting them and getting them done right. But the substitute does one more thing that is very important to be done, and that is it is fiscally responsible. It does not add to the national debt. We have huge deficits, and where do you think we get our money in order to pay the bills? Money is coming, not from foreign investors or U.S. investors, it is coming primarily from foreign-owned banks who are buying our currency not because it is a good investment, they are buying it in order to have a favorable exchange rate with the U.S. dollar so that they can send more products here into the United States.

It is important that we be fiscally responsible, that we do not add to the deficit. The Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan group that is only interested in trying to deal with the national debt, said that tax cuts need at a minimum to be offset, that we should not add to the deficit through the tax bills.

The Rangel substitute pays for these tax reliefs. It is fiscally responsible. It not only provides relief in the Tax Code that we need to provide for the taxpayers of this country, it does not burden this Nation and the future generations. And by the way, it is also good for growth. Our deficit hurts growth in this country. The Rangel substitute is sensitive to the need for us to make sure that we are on the right glide path to create jobs in our economy. Mr. Speaker, this is the right thing to do. We want to provide tax relief, but we should do it in a way that does not burden our children and grandchildren.

I urge my colleagues to support the Rangel substitute.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of the U.S.- Bahrain Free Trade Agreement. This agreement reflects a bipartisan effort to make a deal that is worthy of broad support both in terms of the process used and the substance of the agreement.

I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) for his help in this agreement. I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) for his persistence in keeping us focused on getting this agreement completed this year. I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for his help with the USTR and with the administration in pointing out the importance of making some additional changes. I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) for his contributions in regards to this bill.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, Congress uses an expedited process when it considers trade agreements. As a result, Congress gives up a lot of its prerogatives, and it is absolutely critical that in giving up these prerogatives that the administration consult and work very closely with the Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle in negotiating, entering into, and submitting to Congress the implementing legislation.

Well, in regards to the U.S.-Bahrainian agreement, much of the work was done prior to the beginning of this year; and, quite frankly, there was not as close a relationship with Congress as I wanted to see. There were things that were not complete then when the agreement itself had been finished. But thanks to Ambassador Portman, thanks to the help from the majority side, we were able to continue consultation with Congress on both sides of the aisle prior to the submission of the implementing legislation.

As a result, we now have an agreement that incorporates the important provisions that deal with worker rights as well as dealing with the issue of the boycott against Israel; and I want to compliment the process and the manner in which we have been able to complete this agreement.

On substance, the U.S.-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement is a good agreement for several reasons. First, the agreement provides substantial market access for U.S. service providers, immediate duty- free treatment for all currently traded consumer and industrial products, and duty-free treatment of nearly all U.S. agricultural exports.

This is a good model for other agreements in the region and around the world.

Second, Bahrain has taken truly historic steps by disavowing all aspects of the Arab League boycott against Israel. Not only the primary, but the secondary and tertiary boycotts. This should be the template that we use in all negotiations and free trade agreements in that region. That is exactly what the United States should be demanding.

The third reason why this is a good agreement is that Bahrain has adopted major reforms in its labor code and is committed to making further reforms. In 2002 Bahrain enacted legislation that for the first time gave workers in Bahrain the right to belong to trade unions and to strike.

Last month in an exchange of letters with the United States Government, the government of Bahrain made several additional commitments that would ensure its laws are in full compliance with basic international standards.

Mr. Speaker, let me just point out that the process we use is that we identified certain weaknesses in the operation of the Bahrainian reform laws as it related to workers' rights. Bahrain now is committed by letter and interpretation to comply fully with the ILO standards in four of those areas. There are two additional areas that really require consultation with the union because they only have a single union, and under ILO standards they need to have multiple unions and need legislation to be enacted.

Bahrain had filed earlier this week two of those laws to make it clear that it is not only going to be the manner in which the government enforces the laws, but the underlying laws themselves will be in compliance with ILO standards. We also are permitted under this agreement to use the agreement in the event that we believe that they have not carried out their commitment. So this does reflect what we should be doing on workers' rights.

We can consider a matter arising under the FTA labor chapter if in fact Bahrain does not carry out its commitments as spelled out in the exchange of letters. This will allow the United States to initiate formal consultation with Bahrain on these commitments on the procedures outlined in article 15.6 of the agreement.

Finally, the USTR is committed to report periodically to Congress on Bahrain's fulfillment of its labor commitments. The USTR is further prepared to invoke article 15.6 procedures if Bahrain fails to carry out any of these commitments.

Mr. Speaker, I would note that the Bahrainian actions stand in contrast to some of the CAFTA countries that actually weakened or proposed weakening their laws after the CAFTA agreement was signed. Unlike the CAFTA countries, Bahrain is a country that is heading in the right direction with regards to labor reforms.

For all of these reasons and for the reasons that have been outlined by my colleagues, I would urge my colleagues to support this agreement. It opens up a market in a very important part of the world. It offers us a template for moving forward in the Middle East by using economics to bring peace and prosperity to that region, which is clearly in the interest of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 7 minutes to my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Levin) who has been one of the leading members of the Ways and Means Committee and the Trade Subcommittee on insisting that trade agreements include protection for workers' rights.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just remind my colleagues that we are talking about a free trade agreement with Bahrain, a country whose size is about the same as the city of Austin, Texas, and of course a very important country within the Middle East.

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, let me thank all of my colleagues who participated in this debate. Let me, once again, remind those who are following this debate that we are talking about a free trade agreement with Bahrain, a country which is about the same size as the city of Austin, whose total trade with the United States is measured in terms of a couple hundred million dollars. It is a country with a high standard of living for that region whose economy produces $19,000 plus per capita of GDP, which is about 4 times higher than we had in dealing with the CAFTA countries. It is also a country that imports labor and helps actually the economy of the region because of its economic opportunities.

I mention that so we can put this agreement in context. Many of my colleagues who have spoken of concern have talked about concern on economic policies related to trade here in the United States, and I join them on many occasions, particularly as they are referring to problems that we are having with trading partners. But that is not the issue that we have before us today.

The issue we have before us today is an agreement with a single country, Bahrain. One issue that we need to be concerned about is whether this agreement will not only advance the traditional barriers to trade by eliminating them, such as tariffs and some of the nontariff barriers, but how does it deal with issues that are becoming more important, such as workers' rights.

On the traditional barriers of tariff and nontariff issues, I have not heard

any debate against this agreement. This agreement, in fact, removes barriers so that U.S. companies and U.S. manufacturers and U.S. farmers will have greater access to the market of Bahrain.

In regards to workers' rights, I agree with my colleagues that have spoken of concern about trade agreements. I think it is time that we graduate international labor standards to core provisions within the trade agreements, and that we have enforcement within the trade agreements.

But I think in judging Bahrain, we need to use the standard that we have used, and that is, does this Nation measure up to international labor standards. The answer to that question is yes. They have passed major reform in 2002. They have acknowledged the difficulties with those laws that need to be changed. They have issued interpretations to comply with ILO standards and have introduced laws that will correct the additional standards, and they have agreed to allow us to use the trade agreement to make sure that in fact these new laws are not only passed, but in fact, Bahrain is living up to ILO standards.

That to me is good faith with an ally, and one in which we can move forward and should move forward. So I think Bahrain has passed the test on an agreement that we should support, but at times there is more than just the economic issues that affect our country that we should be looking at whether we move forward with bilateral regional trade agreements.

In Bahrain's case, I think the evidence is overwhelming. We need to expand opportunities in the Middle East. The best chance for peace in the Middle East is if we can open up the economic opportunities of that region, and Bahrain offers us a country that has stepped forward and offered leadership. In repealing the boycott against Israel and saying that it wants to have open trade in the region, they will now be the fourth nation in that region that we will have a free trade agreement with. We have Jordan, Israel and Morocco. So this represents an opportunity to advance U.S. interest in stabilizing a region of the world that has been of major interest to the United States.

So for all these reasons, this agreement with a very small country that will have minimum impact on the economic activities of this country, I think it will be positive, but it will be minimum because of the size of the country, but represents progress as to how we should evaluate trading relations with other partners. Are they willing to remove barriers? Are they willing to respect international labor rights? Are they willing to be a good neighbor in the region to advance peace and stability? In each of these instances, Bahrain passes this test, and I urge my colleagues to support this agreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, the tenth anniversary of the Dayton ``General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina'' is being commemorated here in Washington, in Dayton, Ohio, and in various European capitals.

Despite its shortcomings, the Dayton Agreement has, in fact, formed the basis for maintaining peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina and building a country devastated by a horrible conflict that included atrocities on a scale not seen in Europe since World War II. The very fact that discussions now center on moving beyond the confinement of Dayton's provisions through constitutional reform is a confirmation of the agreement's success. This success, as is widely known, did not come easily but required constant pressure from the international community.

One area of particular concern to me has been the necessity, recognized in Dayton, to cooperate fully with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, located in The Hague and commonly known as ICTY, in order to punish those responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. Officials in Republika Srpska, one of the two political entities into which Dayton divided Bosnia and Herzegovina, have been particularly recalcitrant in this regard, and most persons captured in this entity have been through the efforts of NATO-led peacekeeping units. Officials in Serbia have also resisted cooperating with The Hague in transferring indictees and providing access to evidence and witnesses.

Fortunately, a combination of outside pressure--including conditionality on assistance and on Euro-Atlantic and European integration--and increasing revelations of the true nature of the Milosevic regime and its activities have led to considerable improvements in the last year. Many more individuals have now been taken into custody. Both in Bosnia and in Serbia, it is increasingly recognized that cooperation with international tribunal will not go away as a demand of the international community. Some go a step further and note that the same criminal circles which harbor persons indicted for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide also undermine democratic institutions and thwart economic recovery. Some, but too few, also see it as a moral necessity to recognize the horrors that were committed in name of the nation.

I applaud the efforts of those brave persons representing non- governmental organizations who have helped to document the atrocities which have taken place and increased public awareness of what really happened. I am also pleased to know that, ten years after Dayton, a War Crimes Chamber in the Courts of Bosnia and Herzegovina has been established and, with continued assistance, will relieve ICTY's work load and continue its work as necessary. Together, prosecuting war crimes will provide justice to the victims, strengthen the rule of law in the region, and hopefully serve to deter future war criminals from committing crimes against humanity.

There would be added enthusiasm for commemorating Dayton, however, if it were coupled with the arrest and transfer of Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic, who have been indicted by ICTY particularly for their responsibility regarding the genocide at Srebrenica in July 1995. The House commemorated the anniversary of that horrific event in which almost 8,000 individuals, mostly men and boys, were massacred in the days following an assault on the undeclared ``safe haven.'' Other at- large indictees also must be arrested and transferred.

I therefore use this time, the commemoration of the Dayton Agreement signed ten years ago, to call upon those authorities in Serbia and in the Republika Srpska entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina to do the right thing, apprehend the remaining indicted persons, transfer them, and erase this as an outstanding issue not only in our bilateral relations but as an obstacle to integration. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, I call upon my colleagues to continue to support efforts that require consideration of ICTY cooperation as a determinant of U.S. policy.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 2017, the Torture Victims Relief Reauthorization Act of 2005, to reauthorize and increase funding for the treatment of torture victims. As the ranking member of the Helsinki Commission I was pleased to be an original co- sponsor of this legislation, which was introduced by Chairman Chris Smith.

The international community must aggressively address the issue of torture. The U.S. Government estimates that about 400,000 survivors of torture live in the United States, oftentimes after escaping persecution abroad for their political or religious beliefs.

This bill would help provide funding for 27 treatment centers in the United States and almost 200 treatment centers in other countries through the U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID. The bill authorizes $90 million for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 for the Department of Health and Human Services, USAID, and the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture.

In my congressional district in Maryland, the Advocates for Survivors of Torture and Trauma, ASTT, organization is one of the 27 nationwide treatment centers that is supported by this legislation. The Baltimore- based group was formed in 1994, and consists of physicians, psychologists, social workers, and human rights advocates who assist in supporting the victims of torture from all over the world. The center treats patients from Maryland, Washington DC, Pennsylvania and Delaware. Over the past 5 years this group has seen its client base increase from 25 patients to 181 patients. The vast majority of their patients are from Africa, although they also serve clients from Asia, Europe, Latin America and the Middle East. These individuals have been subjected to a horrifying range of physical and psychological torture. ASTT provides crucial psychological assessment and counseling to victims, works with other organizations to provide legal assistance to asylum seekers, and seeks to educate physicians and health care workers on how to identify and distinguish torture victims from other victims of violence. I congratulate and commend ASTT on their efforts.

Torture victims require specialized treatment and counseling, and therefore it is critical that today we reauthorize the Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998, TVRA, in order to meet the growing demand for treatment services provided by U.S. centers. U.S. centers have witnessed a significant increase in patients since the TVRA was enacted: from 935 in 1999 to 3,664 in 2002.

The reauthorization of this legislation would ensure that victims continue to receive the treatment that they so desperately need and that centers will be able to expand their existing programs to treat more survivors. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker I rise in support and as a co-sponsor of H. Res. 438, which urges member states of the United Nations to stop supporting resolutions that unfairly castigate Israel and to promote within the United Nations General Assembly more balanced and constructive approaches to resolving conflict in the Middle East.

Israel is a critical strategic ally of the United States and is the only true democracy in the Middle East. The United States and Israel are built on a common set of core democratic principles and operate under the rule of law. The United States and Israel must continue to work closely together to eliminate terrorism and foster the spread of democracy and economic prosperity throughout the Middle East.

The state of Israel, founded shortly after the Holocaust, serves as a safe haven and strong voice for Jews around the world.

The Charter of the United Nations--adopted after the end of World War II--states that the U.N. was founded to ``maintain international peace and security'' and ``develop friendly relations among nations.'' The Charter also states that ``[this] Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.''

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the United Nations has utterly failed to live up to the principles and obligations of its charter when it comes to its treatment of Israel. The United Nations has a long history of singling out Israel for unfair, biased, and one-sided criticism and treatment. Let me mention just a few examples. Israel is the only country that has three special committees set up to support propaganda against it. Israel is the only country that has had its own agenda item dealing with its alleged human rights violations in annual meetings of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, in contrast to all other countries which are combined into a separate agenda item. Israel is the only member nation of the United Nations that has consistently been denied full admission to its regional grouping, which violates the U.N. Charter guarantee of ``sovereign equality'' and denies Israel the right to fully participate in all U.N. functions.

Out of the ten emergency special sessions called by the United Nations General Assembly, six have related to Israel. During last year's session of the U.N. General Assembly, the body adopted a total of 71 resolutions by roll call vote, 21 of which (roughly 30 percent) criticized Israel. These resolutions are biased and one-sided, and I am disappointed that the U.N. has not focused its efforts on condemning and bringing an end to Palestinian terrorist attacks launched against Israel.

Finally, I want to cite the recent bipartisan task force report issued in June 2005 entitled ``American Interests and U.N. Reform: Report of the Task Force on the United Nations.'' The report, authored by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, found that ``systematic hostility'' against Israel is ``routinely expressed, organized, and funded'' within the U.N. system, which treats Israel as a ``second-class citizen.''

Mr. Speaker, the United Nations has a critical role to play in the 21st century in its role as peacekeeper, election monitor, and humanitarian relief provider. The U.N. has also made great strides in promoting the rule of law and democracy. Unfortunately, the U.N. to date has not played a constructive role in resolving conflict in the Middle East, and the U.N. allowed itself to be hijacked by those with a political agenda. I have also written to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and expressed my concerns about anti-Semitic statements made by U.N. officers, and have urged him to follow the lead of the Helsinki Commission and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in combating anti-Semitism. I hope today's resolution will cause the U.N. and its member states to reevaluate their attitudes toward Israel and to reflect on how they can use the U.N. to make a constructive and meaningful contribution to international peace and security.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, tonight the House leadership is making a second attempt at passing its 2005 budget reconciliation bill. This is still the wrong bill at the wrong time for America, and I will oppose it.

We have heard a host of arguments from the majority in support of this bill, which will cut vital Federal programs by approximately $50 billion over 5 years. Some have made the case that higher deficits hurt our Nation's economy. I agree, but although this bill is titled the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, it will do nothing to ease our deficit situation.

H.R. 4241 is part of a larger strategy by the House leadership resolution that calls for a total of $106 billion in additional tax cuts. This strategy includes $70 billion in reconciled tax cuts and $36 billion in unreconciled tax cuts. The spending cuts in this bill are the initial step. The majority intends to follow tonight's vote with a tax cut bill. After the tax cuts are passed and in place, there will no funds available to pay for hurricane relief. In the end, the House leadership's charade will not reduce the deficit; it will make the deficit even larger than it is today.

In the weeks after Hurricane Katrina devastated the land and the lives of so many on the gulf coast, many lawmakers said they had a newfound understanding of the extent and depth of poverty in America. They also said that the photographs from New Orleans, particularly those taken at the Superdome and the Convention Center, had demonstrated that government does have an important role in lifting Americans out of poverty. There seemed to be bipartisan support for authentic, meaningful approaches to addressing the plight of poor Americans. I would hope that this sentiment still remains. But if it does, it is not evident in the majority's reconciliation bill that is on the House floor tonight.

This bill reduces access to health care for the poor. It contains $11.9 billion in cuts to Medicaid, including cuts of $8.8 billion that are borne by low-income beneficiaries through higher cost-sharing and new premiums. It also gives the States the green light to eliminate periodic health care examinations and the treatment of conditions picked up by those examinations for many of America's neediest children. Maryland's Medicaid rolls cover 430,000 children and health services for 90,000 of them will be jeopardized by this provision. Approximately $2.5 billion of the Medicaid cuts will affect elderly Americans, who will lose access to nursing home care through tougher restrictions on eligibility.

This bill reduces access to higher education. It contains $14.3 billion in reductions to Federal student loan programs over 5 years, by increasing the interest rates and imposing a new 1 percent origination fee on all loans.

This bill will hurt many families who rely on child support payments. It reduces the Federal match for child support administrative costs from 66 percent to 50 percent, eliminating $4.9 billion in help for the States to enforce child support orders. The majority, which claims to want to help our States, is shifting the cost of enforcement to them. It will not save money in the long run, and it will hurt struggling single parent families across America.

As a result of this bill, fewer children in foster care will be eligible for payments, and $577 million will be cut from these funds. This bill will also limit food stamp eligibility to only those households who are receiving cash assistance through TANF, and requires that legal permanent residents live here for 7 years, rather than the current 5 years, before they can receive food stamps. The result will be $844 million less in food stamp assistance to low-income families.

The legislation before us is also making it harder for some of the most disadvantaged Americans, those who receive Supplemental Security Income, SSI, to receive assistance. It imposes an extra level of review for certain disability determinations and for those who are found eligible after lengthy delays, this bill requires that retroactive payments are spread out over a longer period of time, for a total savings of $732 million.

So in the name of paying for hurricane relief, we cut funding for the programs that would help the neediest Americans, including many of the gulf coast citizens who were affected by that disaster.

At this time of economic uncertainty for our country, the so-called Deficit Reduction Act places the burden on the shoulders of the American families least able to carry it. It is clear that this legislation will make painful cuts, and when combined with the tax legislation will increase deficit problems that we face, and so I must vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, tonight I am disappointed by the limitation placed on debate on the U.S. role in Iraq.

Congress needs to have a real and meaningful debate on the future role of the U.S. military in Iraq as we approach the third anniversary of our invasion of Iraq. Congress should take seriously its obligation to oversee our military forces.

I voted against giving the President the authority to go to war in Iraq. I have been an outspoken critic of the President's handling and planning for the Iraq War, and have criticized both the pre-war intelligence used by the President and the failure of the President to plan a realistic transition from a dictatorship to a democracy in Iraq with our allies.

I commend the Senate for the debate it had this week in which real policy options were reviewed in a serious and responsible manner. I agree that 2006 should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, and that Iraqi security forces must take the lead in protecting its citizens. U.S. military forces should not stay in Iraq any longer than required, and Congress must insist on measurable benchmarks for bringing our troops home.

Our soldiers have paid the heaviest price in Iraq: thousands are dead, and tens of thousands are wounded. The American taxpayer has already invested hundreds of billions of dollars. Mr. Speaker, our soldiers deserve better than the resolution we are considering this evening. The American people deserve a Congress that will give serious consideration to how we can safely bring our soldiers home.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we are considering this resolution today. I am deeply concerned by Russia's failure to effectively confront piracy of DVDs, music, and software. Last year, U.S. companies lost $1.7 billion as a result of Russia's failure to crack down on piracy.

This is not a new problem. Each year since 1997, the administration has cited Russia in its annual Special 301 Report for failing to adequately protect and enforce intellectual property rights; and, unfortunately the problem is getting worse rather than better.

In 2004, Russia's illegal optical disc production capacity continued to increase so much so that Russia is now supplying other countries with pirated products. Pirated discs produced in Russia have been found in more than 27 countries. The largest commercial Web site of pirated music is also based in Russia, and the Russian prosecutors have refused to initiate a criminal investigation to shut it down.

Mr. Speaker, piracy of intellectual property in Russia means lost jobs and opportunities here at home for American workers and businesses, and it must be stopped. I believe that Congress must send a strong message to Russia that the United States will not stand by while Russia robs U.S. workers and businesses of their intellectual property.

The resolution we are considering today would put Russia on notice that it risks losing its preferential trade benefits under the GSP program if it fails to improve its protection of intellectual property rights. The resolution also would put Russia on notice that Congress takes its intellectual property rights violations seriously and will consider whether Russia is making meaningful progress on this issue when we consider whether to grant Russia Permanent Normal Trade Relations status.

I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson), the co-author of the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this very important resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 523, which condemns the recent threats against Israel made by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The Iranian President recently delared that ``Israel must be wiped off the map,'' described Israel as ``a disgraceful blot [on] the face of the Islamic world,'' and declared that ``[a]nybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury.''

I join my collagues in condemning these remarks and threats against the state of Israel. Iran should repudiate these statements. The United Nations Security Council should condemn these statements and censure Iran for its statements and policies aimed at destroying Israel. These despicable comments only serve to legitimize and fuel those that preach hatred and anti-Semitism in the Middle East.

Earlier this year we marked the 60th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration camps by Soviet Army troops, which served as a reminder of the consequences of allowing anti-Semitism to flourish. I have worked closely with my colleagues on the U.S. Helsinki Commission and my fellow parliamentarians in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to take measures aimed at eradicating the threat of anti-Semitism and hate throughout the world.

In 2004 the OSCE's Conference on Anti-Semitism produced the historic Berlin Declaration which condemns ``without reserve all manifestations of and attacks motivated by anti-Semitism,'' notes that anti-Semitism has ``assumed new forms and expressions . . . which pose a threat to democracy and the values of civilization,'' and ``declares unambiguously that international developments or political issues, including those in Israel or elsewhere in the Middle East, never justify anti-Semitism.''

Iran has actively supported numerous terrorist groups over the years and has attempted to undermine the peace process between the Palestinians and Israelis. Iran has funded suicide bombers and militant organizations that are seeking to kill and maim Israelis, including civilians. Iran is still seeking weapons of mass destruction, and has deceived the internatibnal community in the past about its intentions. Next month the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, will meet on this issue, and I would urge the IAEA to refer this matter to the U.N. Security Council for the consideration of sanctions.

The House should also take up and pass legislation to strengthen the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA). I was pleased to support the five-year extension of ILSA when it was considered by th House Ways and Means Committee in 2001. H.R. 282, the Iran Freedom Support Act would repeal the sunset of ILSA, close some loopholes in ILSA, provide assistance to pro-democracy organizations in Iran, and require ILSA to remain in effect until the President certifies to Congress that Iran has permanently and verifiably dismantled its weapons of mass destruction programs and has committed to combating such weapons' proliferation.

I am pleased that the European Union, Canada, and Russia have condemned the remarks of the Irania President. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and to work with our allies to promote democracy in Iran, convince Iran to give up its pursuit of WMD, and fight anti-Semitism wherever it arises.

Mr. Speaker, Rosa Parks embodied the modern civil rights movement in the United States. Through her quiet determination to challenge a racist law by refusing to give up her bus seat to a white passenger, Rosa Parks sparked massive civil disobedience by fellow African-Americans in Montgomery, Alabama in 1955. Her arrest led to a year-long bus boycott and ultimately a Supreme Court decision that outlawed segregation on buses.

In a broader sense Rosa Parks was the conscience of our nation, who forced Americans to confront the racism in our government and society. Her case cried out for action, as our government struggled to implement the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee to provide ``the equal protection of the law'' to all citizens, regardless of race.

Civil rights historian and author Taylor Branch described Rosa Parks as a ``tireless worker and churchgoer, of working-class station and middle class demeanor.'' Her case raised the profile of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), where she was secretary of the local chapter. The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. seized on her case and over the next decade rose to national prominence by leading the effort to enact historic civil rights and voting rights legislation in Congress.

America bestowed its highest honors on Rosa Parks later in her life, including the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal. Her life and legacy shows us that one person can change the course of history by courageously standing up for what is right. We must honor her legacy by continuing the fight for civil rights and equality under the law, to insure that all Americans, regardless of race, have the opportunity to pursue the blessings of liberty.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to mourn the recent passing of Rabbi Herman N. Neuberger, the president of the Orthodox Ner Israel Rabbinical College in Baltimore, Maryland. I have known Rabbi Neuberger for many years and have counted on his friendship and advice. The death of Rabbi Neuberger is a tremendous loss for our entire community. Rabbi Neuberger was one of the foremost leaders of Orthodox Jewry in the United States, and was internationally recognized for his accomplishments.

Born in 1918 in Germany, Rabbi Neuberger was the youngest of three children. In 1938 he fled to the United States, on his own, as the Nazi regime began its rise to power in Germany. During World War II he helped to erect Ner Israel's first building on Garrison Boulevard in Baltimore.

Rabbi Neuberger affected the lives of many Jews in Baltimore, but he also helped Jews around the world escape from persecution. In 1976 he began bringing young Iranians back to Ner Israel for scholarship, and he encouraged them to return to the Middle East. After the 1979 Iranian revolution, Rabbi Neuberger

successfully persuaded the State Department to recognize Iranian Jews as political refugees, which allowed them to enter the United States. Many of the refugees became students of Rabbi Neuberger, who waived tuition for them. The school estimates that over the years roughly 1,000 people were brought to the United States due to the Rabbi's efforts.

Throughout his life Rabbi Neuberger also labored mightily to build bridges between different religious communities in Baltimore, understanding the critical importance of strengthening the inter-faith dialogue in this country to confront common problems.

Through his work over a half century, the campus expanded to include 90 acres and 800 students. Today Ner Israel teaches Talmudic Law and offers students numerous degrees, including a baccalaureate, master's, doctorate, Rabbinical Ordination and a teacher's diploma. Ner Israel is recognized as an accredited college by the state of Maryland, and its students may take courses at other colleges and universities in the Baltimore region and receive academic credits for their religious studies.

Rabbi Neuberger's family also contributed to his legacy at Ner Israel, as he is survived by five sons, three of which teach at the school.

Rabbi Neuberger had a tremendous impact on the spiritual, intellectual, and communal lives of thousands of Jews throughout the world. Rabbi Neuberger exemplified what it was to be a rabbi: someone with the wisdom to be a learned teacher and leader. His advice was sought out by community leaders of all faiths, and his wise counsel will be sorely missed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to Emmett C. Burns, Jr., who is an outstanding delegate to the Maryland House of Delegates and who has been awarded this year's Thurgood Marshall Legacy Award by the Baltimore City Branch of the NAACP.

It is most fitting that Emmett Burns is the recipient of an award named for our Nation's first African-American U.S. Supreme Court Justice. Thurgood Marshall, who was born in Baltimore, was one of the most important figures in our Nation's struggle for civil rights. As chief attorney for the NAACP, he successfully argued the Brown v. Board of Education case before the Supreme Court, ending legalized segregation of our Nation's schools.

Since 1995, Emmett Burns has been a leader in the Maryland House of Delegates for the rights of all Marylanders. Most recently, he was instrumental in the enactment of a law to rename Maryland's largest airport the Baltimore-Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport.

As former head and lifelong member of the Baltimore NAACP, he has been a role model for the African-American community, providing a strong voice for social justice and equality. I have known Emmett Burns for many years and I consider him a friend whose advice I seek and value.

I urge my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives to join me in congratulating Del. Emmett C. Burns on being this year's recipient of the Baltimore City NAACP Thurgood Marshall Legacy Award.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for being the leader in this body for us never to forget the Holocaust and the lessons of the Holocaust.

Let me thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for his leadership on the Helsinki Commission and on the International Relations Committee and speaking up about intolerance and fighting all forms of discrimination.

I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) for his leadership in bringing forward this resolution so that we can spend a few moments to commemorate the life of Simon Wiesenthal.

As has been pointed out, Simon Wiesenthal was a survivor from the Holocaust. He lost 89 relatives to the Holocaust and then decided to devote his life to bringing those responsible for the Holocaust to justice. As a result of his work, many people were brought to trial and held accountable for their roles in the Holocaust. It established a legacy that we will never allow people who are responsible for crimes against humanity to go unpunished.

Today, we have permanent centers for tolerance that Simon Wiesenthal was responsible for establishing. I have the honor of being the ranking Democrat on the Helsinki Commission. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) is our chairman. We are inspired by Mr. Wiesenthal's work in our fight to end all forms of intolerance and discrimination, including anti-Semitism; and we worked with Simon Wiesenthal in mind to establish international priorities to fight anti-Semitism. Our conference in Berlin in 2004 and the OSCE's 2005 conference in Cordoba, Spain in which the Simon Wiesenthal Center was a leading participant, all this helps develop the legacy of Simon Wiesenthal.

Civilized nations must pursue all those who promote or carry out acts of anti-Semitism, intolerance, or crimes against humanity. Politicians, teachers, and community leaders have an obligation to speak out against promoters of hate. Only through our continued vigilance can we ensure justice, deter future war crimes, and send the message that political and military leaders that promote or condone acts of genocide will face prosecution to the fullest extent of the law. This is how we should remember and honor Simon Wiesenthal's legacy.