Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 6621.

The bill being considered is being promoted as a technical corrections piece of legislation, and by and large that's exactly what it is. But also, there is one provision in this bill that raises significant concerns and needs to be addressed. I would ask my friend from Michigan perhaps to consider this and perhaps reconsider his position on the bill, because I'm sure he does not know about this.

Our country's patent system has long been one of the strongest in the world.

One of its basic tenets has been the steadfast adherence to the principle of total confidentiality of a patent application until the patent is granted. Congress has repeatedly stood by that principle even though there have been many powerful forces in this country trying to eliminate that concept, but we've stood by this principle that these applicants should have confidentiality as their application works its way through the patent system. It prevents the big guys with money and power from attacking and neutralizing the little guys with genius but few resources.

H.R. 6621 threatens to disrupt this longstanding practice and principle by requiring the United States Patent and Trademark Office to submit a report to Congress on certain patent application sections. This report, as mandated by this bill, will include information about the applications that have been traditionally kept confidential, including the name of the inventor, which has always been confidential to prevent these inventors from attack by very powerful interests who would steal their invention.

While the technical contents of the applications would be most likely not included in the report, this legislation

requires the PTO, in their report to Congress, to report the names of the applicants.

There is a requirement to report the names, so this bill requires in this report to have the names of the applicants and other identifying information that could be used by powerful outside groups--yes, read that foreign and multinational corporations--to make these applicants potential targets even before their patent is granted.

Anonymity could easily be accomplished by a simple change to one section of this bill. Perhaps the PTO could create a unique identifier for each applicant so that they could easily be tracked but without giving risk that the public would know about this and be able to identify the inventor.

We can make this a good bill. We just need to take a couple words out of it or one small section out of it, because as the ranking member suggested, it does a lot of good, but it does a lot of harm, much more harm, unless we take this out of the bill.

So I would ask my colleagues to oppose this legislation until it is perfected so we are not going to hurt the little inventors and hurt our country's ability on the technology front by trying to make a few technical corrections to the way the Patent Office does its job.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 825, a resolution providing for the concurrence by the House in the Senate amendments to H.R. 2838, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2012, with an amendment.

For many years I have directed my district staff in Huntington Beach, California, to organize regular briefings for me as well as public informational meetings about homeland and border security, particularly security of the coastline I have the honor to represent in Congress. On April 4 of this year, I had one such briefing in the American Legion Post in Newport Beach that featured presentations by the Department of Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis, U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Border Patrol. The briefings were attended by police, sheriff, fire and marine safety personnel from San Diego to Los Angeles.

These briefings are always foremost in my mind when I urge my colleagues in Congress to summon the political will to stop giving our country away by failing to enforce our borders. The southern California shoreline is the destination for a brazen invasion of contraband and illegal labor smugglers by sea. The brazenness is exceeded only by the shocking multiplier effect of violent crime to persons and property that emanates from the ``stash'' (safe) houses and sweat shops that proliferate along a clandestine network extending north from San Diego.

The stakes have been rising in recent years as hundreds of ``panga'' boats ply the waters of Orange County's most treasured beachfront locations, looking for scouts and convoys forward positioned to make a pick-up of exploited workers or drugs shipments. Some panga boats are small, seating 6 to 8 passengers, and sometimes the boats are huge and hold up to 40 people. To suggest it is a sophisticated operation would be an understatement. That is why we enlist the public as well as our protective law enforcement services to spread the word of warning and alert the citizenry to the threat we face as individuals and as a society.

On December 2, 2012, we were tragically reminded of what is at stake when news from the U.S. Coast Guard reached my desk that a brave member of the United States Coast Guard, Chief Petty Officer Terrell Horne III, was killed in action while defending our coastline from the wave of unlawful foreign incursions. As I did in my letter to Admiral Papp, Commandant of the USCG, I want to convey here the most heartfelt condolences from my family and me, as well as millions of Americans living on this coastline, to Chief Petty Officer Home's family, to the crew of the Cutter Halibut on which Petty Officer Horne served, and to the larger USCG community.

Reports indicate that Chief Petty Officer Horne was in a chase boat pursuing a panga when it turned and rammed his craft, killing him and injuring other USCG members doing

their jobs for us. This violence against our coastal defenders is yet another wake up call to America, sounding anew a warning that we must as a nation summon courage to defend our border equal to the devotion to duty Chief Petty Officer Horne exemplified. There was no price he was unwilling to pay to protect our nation, and we must honor him by rising in the same degree to the cause for which he died.

Every day courageous men and women of the USCG are on the front line of the struggle to restore the rule of law in the navigable waters of our nation. As the daily assault on our coastal communities escalates, the USCG stands between us and lawlessness on the open seas and along the shorelines where our very civil order now is under siege. This tragic loss of one of American's finest is the terrible price we pay to turn back those emboldened to violate our border security and threaten our homeland in desperate criminal enterprises, profiting from trafficking in drugs and human beings.

Unyielding in our vigilance against these modern day pirates and slave traders, we pause to mourn the loss of a fellow American whose service to our nation humbles us and deepens our resolve to prevail against the perpetrators of violence and crime making landfall on our coast from the sea.

That can and must be done to honor Chief Petty Officer Horne and all those who have sacrificed all so we may remain a sovereign nation and free people. We owe it to Terrell Horne and each and every one of our fallen heroes. I again urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 825 in honor of Terrell and all those who sacrifice so much for all of us.

I would say that I have big shoes to fill, but I don't think I will ever be able to fill Congressman Lewis' shoes. He has a list of accomplishments that I just don't know anybody else in this body who has more to be proud of and more over the years who's meant as much to me as Jerry Lewis.

When he talked about the dam, I happen to represent an area in California, Orange County, California, in which that man, because of what he did, with Mr. Calvert at his side, has built the Santa Ana River project that protects tens of thousands of homes from flood damage, and it was due to their hard work. I was supporting them, but they were providing the leadership that got that through the Congress.

So today we are saluting Jerry Lewis, but also saluting the other Members who are not going to be with us next year:

Wally Herger, who was here earlier, a man who fought so long and hard for the timber industry and the economic well-being of Northern California;

Dan Lungren, who is a highly principled person who we all look to, a man with strong religious and principled positions, you can't help but admire him, and a man who was the attorney general of the State of California as well as then running for Congress twice. I might add that I took Dan Lungren's seat when he decided not to run for Congress and run for higher office in the State of California;

Dave Dreier, who is one of the best liked people here in the United States Congress--besides Jerry Lewis. I will have to say, Dave Dreier is one of the nicest guys. And he has had such authority in his hands, and it is very hard to be as nice as Dave Dreier is and to hold the authority he has as chairman of the Rules Committee;

Brian Bilbray, he is leaving us as well. Brian, from San Diego, I have had a lot of problems with Brian because before he was elected, I was the best surfer in the United States Congress. Of course, there were no other surfers at that time, so that accolade really wasn't as important. But then Brian comes along and spoils that little braggadocio that I was able to do. Brian has been so active on science issues. I have worked closely with him on small modular reactors and on water quality for our coastline;

Mary Bono Mack is perhaps one of the most lovely Members of Congress that I can imagine. She has been hardworking. She came here with her husband. Her husband, as we know, had an accident. She was elected in his seat and has done a terrific job ever since she took office in this very tragic way, but she made the most of it. She has done wonderful things for the Inland Empire in California;

And finally, Elton Gallegly, who represents the area of southern California up in the area where you have the Reagan Library, which is located in his district. Elton Gallegly was a mayor before he came to the House of Representatives. He represents more than just about anybody else here of that promotion, that natural evolution of someone who has been active in their community, was elected to local office, and then came to serve his time in Washington to put those skills to use for his country.

So all of these people have made huge contributions. It's been my honor.

Before I came to work here, for 7 years I worked in the Reagan White House. I worked for President Ronald Reagan. I thought that was going to be the greatest honor of my life, and it was. But I can tell you, right up there alongside that, it's been an honor working with these people I have just described, and Mr. Calvert as well. But my colleagues like Wally Herger, Dan Lungren, Dave Dreier, Jerry Lewis, Brian Bilbray, Mary Bono Mack, and Elton Gallegly, it has been my honor and the joy of my life to have worked alongside wonderful people like this trying to make our country and our world a better place.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Chairman Ralph Hall for his leadership on the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology; for his decades of selfless service to our country; and for his dedication to this esteemed body.

Today, Chairman Hall became the oldest Member to ever cast a vote in the House of Representatives. He has served in the House for 32 years, occupying the same seat that was once occupied by Speaker Sam Rayburn. Ralph's energy is legendary, second only to his sharp wit, and I hope to have half as much energy as he has when I reach his age.

His service to America started when, as a 19-year-old from Texas, he joined the United States Navy in 1942. Lieutenant Hall served as a pilot for the duration of World War II, and he has never stopped vigorously fighting for our nation.

I look forward to continuing to work with him in the future, and God- willing, he'll be here for 32 more years, continuing to cast every vote the right way.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and all of the Members of the House join me in honoring Chairman Ralph Hall for his leadership, his service, and his dedication.

The Soviet dictatorship collapsed over two decades ago. Being someone who spent a considerable time of my life opposing Soviet communism, I have been disappointed to see that many of my own colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, have never gotten the Cold War out of their mind. So many of us in this body have been treating democratic Russia as if it is still the Soviet Union.

Over the years, we should have established this level of cooperation, especially the economic cooperation that we're codifying today. This should have been established long ago. Instead, what happened was the people stuck in the Cold War kept vilifying the Soviet Union and exaggerating every shortcoming while at the same time ignoring similar flaws, for example, in China. The human rights abuses in China are outrageous, but yet we have moved forward time and again to expand their ability to make money on us, even to steal our technologies with a one-way free trade policy with China.

We need to make sure that the people of Russia know what we're saying today: that the Cold War is over, that we need to march forward together to meet the challenges of both of our countries, and that we will open up our economy in economic cooperation with you so that we can stand together and prosper and so that we can also deal with the challenges of an ever more powerful and aggressive China and radical Islam, which is as great a threat

and kills as many Russians as they do Americans. The Russian people have to know that after today we have left the Cold War behind; we will quit vilifying the Soviet Union and holding them to a different standard than we do other countries simply because in the past they were our enemies.

Madam Speaker, I gladly step forward to endorse this expansion of freedom of trade between our peoples.

I rise in support of the rule and of this legislation, and note that the classified nature of that margarita formula should never be disclosed to an enemy of the United States, of course; but we will be glad to transmit that information to colleagues on the other side of the aisle in a spirit of bipartisanship.

I do rise in support of this rule and H.R. 6156, the legislation to grant permanent normal trade relations status to Russia.

During the 1980s, as it was just mentioned, I worked for Ronald Reagan in the White House and was part of a team dedicating ourselves to bringing down the Soviet dictatorship. I might add that Dave Dreier was an ex officio member of that team.

Today's Russia is not yesterday's Soviet Union. That's the most important message. Over 20 years of reform have created an imperfect country, yes, but also a new Russia with a relative free press and churches that were once closed by the Communists which are now filled with those who would gather to worship God.

Many here in the United States have not appreciated the dramatic change and continue to view Russia as if it were the Soviet Union 30 years ago.

Well, what we do today is long overdue. Our protracted refusal to grant Russia permanent normal trade relation status has been counterproductive and hypocritical. Counterproductive for years because it's been an unnecessary barrier to better bilateral relations between our two countries. Hypocritical because over a decade ago we had rushed to give most favored nation status to Communist China, which still continues to be the world's worst human rights abuser.

All the arguments made to refuse it to Russia have always applied one hundredfold to Communist China. However, I have not heard the critics of this bill calling for an end to our trade status with Communist China, which I might add, human rights in China is worse today than when we granted most favored nation status to them.

If we want to have a real debate about trade, the place to start is with Communist China and not be looking at a democratic Russia. PNTR for

China has cost millions and millions of jobs over the decade. Our trade relations with Russia will benefit both of us, both the people of the United States, as well as the Russian people.

So how then can we justify such a pro-Communist China policy, which has had no political reform, and not giving it to Russia, which has had dramatic political reform?

Two decades ago, while I was working in the White House, I was arguably one of the Soviet Union's worse enemies. But my boss, Ronald Reagan, never wanted the people of Russia and the people of the United States to be enemies. He envisioned, once the Communist Party had been discarded, that our two peoples would one day be friends and trading partners and, yes, even allies.

Russian society has moved far from the Cold War. It is past time that we do the same. We need to reach out to them, stand together against an alarming rise of power in Communist China and against radical Islamic terror, which targets Russians as well as Americans.

Thus, I encourage my colleagues to join me in voting and pass this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I would like to thank Chairman Hall for the great leadership that he's provided to our committee, and also Mr. Costello, who will be voluntarily leaving this body, and he has done such a fine job. Both of these gentlemen deserve accolades for the wonderful job they've done for America's science and space programs, as well as for our country as a whole. So, thank you both very much.

I rise in support of H.R. 6586. It extends the commonsense limitations on liability exposure for commercial space launches.

A few years ago when I was the chairman of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, the FAA was directed to provide an ongoing analysis of the rationale for and potential unintended consequences of this indemnification provision.

According to the analysis, the two options before us then were to extend this liability provision, which has never cost the American taxpayer a dime, or option number two--though unintended--would be to give a competitive advantage to China and other foreign launch providers. This, of course, is the same choice that we are making today. If we give foreign rocket companies such an advantage, then we are costing American jobs while undermining both our economy and our national security.

Back in 2004, I authored the current regulatory regime for human spaceflight, which has worked well beyond our expectations.

Recently, in cooperation with our majority whip, Mr. McCarthy, and my friends on both sides of the aisle, we extended that regime as the Science Committee's part of the recent FAA reauthorization bill. It would be very tempting to try to revisit that regulatory issue or some other provisions with this legislation.

So, I would like to thank Chairman Palazzo for offering a bill that asks only the critical question before us: do we extend launch indemnification, or do we hand the launch industry completely over to foreign competitors?

The choice is clear. The answer is clear. America must remain the preeminent space-going Nation, which means we need to pass H.R. 6586, and I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the Ethnic Baloch people live in an area of South Asia now claimed by Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan. In Pakistan in particular, they comprise an important segment of the population and live in the least developed province, despite an abundance of natural resources. Until the arrival of the British Empire, the Baloch people organized themselves in a confederation with local tribal chiefs holding power. When India and Pakistan were partitioned the Baloch people desired to return to their own sovereign state, but were prevented by the Pakistani military led government. Baloch aspirations for independence have been checked by force and their basic human rights have been denied by the Pakistani state. The Pakistan government and military is dominated by members of the Punjab ethnic group.

The first major Baloch uprising occurred in 1973 and was crushed two years later. The Baloch again resisted their Pakistani Punjabi occupiers by force beginning in 2005. A low-level insurgency continues to this day. Pakistan's elite refuses to release their grip on the strategic coastline or the natural riches of Balochistan which they and their ally, Communist Chinese exploit.

The Pakistani security services, which are overwhelmingly made up of Punjabis, use violence against civilians to intimidate the Baloch population. One particular grotesque method of intimidation is called ``kill and dump.'' That is when the body of a man or woman who has disappeared is later dumped in a busy section of a town for all the people to see. Many of the bodies show extreme signs of torture and are badly mutilated.

I submit for the Record a document titled, ``Some of the Souls in Traumata'' which reputedly documents 2,251 Baluchis who have been ``disappeared'' by the Pakistani security services or who died while in custody.

This abysmal human rights record of the Pakistani government is shameful. It is even worse because American foreign and military aid money contributes to strengthening the security forces which kill innocent Baluchis. The Baluch people have a right to self-determination and not to live under the control of Islamabad, if they choose.

Mr. Speaker, a copy of this report can be viewed at: http:// gwank.org/Some%20of%20 the%20souls%20in%20traumata.pdf.

Mr. Speaker, even though the Science Committee prides itself on bipartisanship, at times, the discussions got a little heated. Luckily, we've had Jerry Costello there to help cool things off. Jerry's business-like approaches and pleasant smile have always been a positive factor in getting things done. Unlike so many of us, Jerry likes to listen as much as he likes to talk. This unique characteristic actually enabled him to disagree in a very agreeable way.

In short, even those of us who do not agree on particular issues, respect and like Jerry Costello. He will be missed on both a personal and professional level. I wish him the best because he has been one of the best.

Madam Speaker, as we commemorate the monstrous crime committed against America on 9/11, let us remember the plight of a heroic figure who helped us bring justice to those who murdered our fellow citizens on this day 11 years ago. I speak of Dr. Afridi, the man who risked his life to provide the intel our forces needed to locate and eliminate Osama Bin Laden, who now languishes in a jail in Pakistan.

There has been no resolution through this Congress nor public effort by the United States government to support Dr. Afridi in this, his hour of need. He has been tortured. His family has been attacked, and he is still in a desperate situation.

It behooves us as Americans to state in a unified and loud voice to his Pakistani captors, ``Dr. Afridi should be freed.'' The continued incarceration of Dr. Afridi affirms to all Americans that Pakistan is not our friend but instead is a partner in terrorism of especially those terrorists who are murdering our fellow Americans. Our motto today must be ``Free Dr. Afridi.''

Dr. Afridi was asked why he risked his life to help in the efforts to bring Bin Laden to justice. His answer was that he respects and loves us, the American people.

On this 9-11 commemoration we need to express our outrage that Pakistan has incarcerated and tortured this hero in the war against terrorists.

Certainly, not one cent should ever be given to Pakistan in American aid, now that they're exposed for their evil terrorist deeds.

Free Dr. Afridi should be our cry on this commemoration of 9-11.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, it is fortuitous now that I rise for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with the gentleman from Florida on an issue that deals directly with the C-17, I might add.

I rise today to voice my concern over recent and devastating wildfires that have enveloped massive amounts of land throughout our country. The ruin caused by these wildfires has consumed 2.1 million acres, destroyed over 1,600 homes, killed 7 people, and threatened many more. This recurring problem, caused by dry conditions, hot weather, and ample fuel, tests the limits of our current Federal, State, and local firefighting resources.

When homes and lives are on the line, I believe we should take all possible action to protect lives and property, including the deployment of Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve resources when appropriate. We oftentimes think of the Department of Defense as an entity that should be aimed at defending our Nation from foes abroad, but the fact is that there are enormous resources held by the Department of Defense, such as cargo planes that are capable of assisting in many other efforts, including firefighting efforts, which threaten the lives and property of our people.

For example, one specific concept, named the Precision Container Aerial Delivery System, or PCADS, needs only an additional $2.6 million in funding to complete its already years-long evaluation of this technology. Unfortunately, however, DOD has not committed this meager sum to finish evaluating PCADS, despite the authority to do so.

What are PCADS? They essentially allow any military cargo plane that has a ramp in the back--mainly, our C-17s and our C-130s--to assist in wildfire efforts without having to modify the airplane at all. This means the C-17s and the C-130s, of which we have right now many stationed all over the country, could be deployed to help extinguish wildfires at a relatively low cost, creating a new and enormous firefighting capability. As I say, it's at a minimal cost.

Basically what we're talking about is a huge container system in the back that is made out of cardboard and a water balloon, which will permit putting them onto the C-17s and the C-130s to rolling right on 1,000 pounds of water per container. These C-130 pilots and C-17 pilots are already trained to drop these things, and without modifying the airplane, they could become an enormous resource to fighting fires throughout our country without adding any extra cost after this $2.6 million for the final test.

I, therefore, have one simple request: to the extent that the Department of Defense is capable of exploring new, innovative, cost- effective, and promising firefighting technologies that can be used for our civilian population, but especially for the firefighting capabilities that can aid in support, as I say, firemen's requests throughout our country and from the State and Federal level, I urge the Department of Defense to do so to the degree that it can.

I now yield to the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Florida.

Yes, I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

In the past, in order to achieve the goal that you have outlined, we needed to reconfigure the inside of these C-130s and have special C-130s deployed.

This new PCAD system, which we can roll on enormous amounts of water in these little container systems, which is 1,000 pounds of water per container, can be dropped without reconfiguring the C-130s or the C- 17s.

I have one last note. Will the gentleman yield?

There's been a series of tests to show this is very effective. One more series of tests will cost $2.6 million and can deploy these. I believe it will increase the value of our C-130s and C- 17s to the point that we can actually maybe charge a little bit more money when we sell the C-17s, which will be far more than the $2.6 million for this final test. It will pay for itself, not to mention the property damage that we can protect against.

I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, first of all, let me note that our goal after the vicious terrorist attack on the United States on 9/11 was to eliminate Osama bin Laden and to clear Afghanistan, which had been the staging area of the 9/11 attacks, of Osama bin Laden's allies, who happened to have been the Taliban.

My fellow colleagues, Osama bin Laden is dead. The Taliban were cleared from Afghanistan years ago. So it is time for us to declare victory and to bring our troops home. It is not time for us to declare that there is going to be an extension of the deployment of our troops and to leave them there to expend their lives for a cause that has already been decided. They have done their duty. We have accomplished the mission. Let's have a victory parade, not an extension of deployment.

Why are we in this predicament? Why are we even discussing $88 billion and perhaps hundreds, if not thousands, of more American lives being sacrificed halfway around the world, in some canyon somewhere, where some young

American loses his life or loses his legs? Why are we even discussing the expenditure of the billions of dollars that we really need so much here at home if, for nothing else, than to help bring down this level of deficit spending?

Why are we in this position now? Why are we not recognizing this? First of all, let's just note that we are now in a situation where year after year it is taking place after we've actually accomplished our goals in Afghanistan, and our troops are still there losing their lives. It's almost like a ``Twilight Zone'' episode. It is worse than some of the situations that we saw in Vietnam that degenerated year after year after year of America's deployment of forces there. We don't need to spend this money. We don't need to lose their lives. We just need to say we've done our job and come home. Who are we watching out for?

The State Department ended up basically stealing victory out of the jaws of defeat. We won this years ago. Years ago the Taliban were cleared out of Afghanistan. Now we find the situation getting worse. I've been in Afghanistan. I fought with the mujahadeen against the Soviets there personally. Over the years, I was deeply involved with Afghan policy, and people know that. The longer we stay there, the more enemies we're going to make for the United States.

It's going to be harder for us to get out next year than it is for us right now, and we will have made more enemies out of those people when they see foreign troops. Who cares if there is someone in a canyon far away screaming that he hates America? So what. Our guys are going out there right now and investigating situations like that and putting their lives on the line because someone was heard to say good things about the Taliban in some desolate canyon somewhere. What a waste of American lives. What a waste of our resources. On top of it, our State Department has created a system of government--we created a system of government--for the Afghan people, and we're shoving it down their throats now, the most highly centralized and corrupt system of any government in this world. Mr. Karzai is creating a kleptocracy in Afghanistan. No matter how much we're trying to help, that money is disappearing. We're not able to accomplish it, even though the money is going out.

We should recognize that we cannot make history for the Afghan people. They will have to make it for themselves. We have cleared Afghanistan of the Taliban. We have eliminated Osama bin Laden. The Afghan people will now have to shape their own destinies. It is not up to us to expend more of the lives of our young people in order to get the goal that we want, especially when we know now that our government is allied with such a corrupt regime that it will never succeed.

It is time for us to cut the spending, get the troops home as soon as we can, and not waste the lives of more of our people.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment that was offered by Congressman Poe, which I understand may well be reintroduced once the wording is worked on a little bit by the end of this discussion. Let me just then move forward with my support for Judge Poe's amendment and the basic concept that he's presented, which is to eliminate funding for Pakistan.

Basically, we need to end the charade once and for all that we are buying Pakistani cooperation against terrorist forces in South Asia. Pakistan isn't with us in the war against terrorism. They are at war with us by supporting and funding the very terrorists that we are up against. Pakistan, at best, is a war profiteer, collecting a ransom by taxing our military supply lines that pass through their country. They are laughing all the way to the bank. They are also laughing as their military intelligence, the ISI, takes huge sums of money that they are getting from us and then passing it on to terrorists and radical Islamist elements who are killing their neighbors and killing American military personnel.

After our SEALs went to get Osama bin Laden, the Pakistan military took the wreckage of our downed stealth helicopter and gave it for study to the Communist Chinese. Then they arrested and imprisoned the Pakistani doctor who risked his life to help us find bin Laden. Dr. Afridi still languishes in a Pakistani dungeon even as we speak here today. Some of us understand that this Pakistani doctor--and I hope we should all understand this--is an American hero. He risked his life to bring justice to the murderers of 3,000 Americans who died on 9/11. It is a shame that we even consider giving Pakistan billions of dollars of aid while they keep Dr. Afridi in a dungeon. Who else will ever cooperate with us in the future? Who's going to work with our military overseas, knowing that that's the way we treat people who commit heroic acts? We shouldn't give the Pakistanis one penny until Dr. Afridi is free.

Just recently, I was contacted by a distraught individual in Pakistan asking for help in locating a missing Baloch leader. Sadly, this Baloch leader is probably already dead--another victim of the Pakistani government's ``kill and dump'' policy by which they repress their own people.

We have to understand we have lost over 2,000 American military personnel in Afghanistan. But who has been supporting the side that has been killing our people? The Pakistanis have inspired and supported these very insurgents. They were the creators of the Taliban. And after 9/11, they played us for fools ever since.

Yesterday, this House passed a bill that Pakistani's Haqqani Network should be listed as a terrorist organization. That terrorist organization has been helped and supplied by some members of the Pakistani military. We should have quit bankrolling this rotten regime a long time ago. We should end the charade.

There are people in South Asia that are our friends. Due to the Cold War, we allied ourselves with Pakistan a long time ago, and we were told they were the bulwark against radical Islam. That was a lie. But during the Cold War, we needed them in the fight against the Soviet Union. The Cold War is over. We should ally ourselves with people who share our values and cherish, as we cherish them, a friendship between free people. As I say, we should go towards India, now that the Cold War is over, to help establish a new type of relationship in South Asia that will preserve the peace and preserve the equilibrium in that part of the world.

It is ridiculous for us to continue to support that country, that government that is the basis of support for the most radical elements of radical Islam and the terrorist units that are killing our people and killing their people throughout the world. If we're having trouble getting out of Pakistan, it's because the Pakistanis are on the wrong side. And we all know it. We shouldn't give one more penny thinking we're going to buy their friendship. They disdain us for it. They think we're weaklings for it.

Let's stand up for Dr. Afridi. Let's stand up and make sure that we are courageous in what we're doing in our policy and not trying to curry favor with gangsters that run a country like Pakistan.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I submit a speech by former House Member Joseph J. DioGuardi which highlights the disastrous effects Communism had for the Albanian population in the Balkans and the ongoing efforts of the people there to find healing. The following is a copy of those remarks.

Victims of Communism Memorial

The Honorable Joseph J. DioGuardi

I want to thank the leaders of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, especially Dr. Lee Edwards and Ed Priola. And, on behalf of all Albanians and freedom-loving people everywhere, I hasten to commemorate here today the historic deeds of the late Congressman Tom Lantos, who cofounded this Memorial with President George W. Bush, and who was the original architect of the full diplomatic recognition of Albania by the United States in June 1990 and the independence of Kosova in February 2008.

I also want to thank my good friend Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, who supported this memorial from the beginning, but could not be with us today.

My wife, Shirley Cloyes, a recognized Balkan scholar, is also here. She just wrote an article for this occasion, entitled ``The Denial of Memory: It Is Time for Albania To Confront Its Communist Past.'' Copies will be available for those who are interested at the reception.

Let me also introduce Pellumb Lamaj and Rajmond Sejko, survivors who spent years doing hard labor in one of the most brutal prisons in Communist Albania, called Spac. (You can read about their stories in Shirley's article.)

Annette Lantos, 22 years ago, almost to the day, your late husband, Tom Lantos, and I were the first U.S. officials in 50 years to enter the State of Albania, then still under the boot of communism. (You were with us on that historic day.) We went with a strong message, after crossing the border from Kosova, which was under the Serbian Communist regime's brutal occupation. We told Communist Dictator Ramiz Alia that the Berlin Wall had been torn down in October (1989), and that it was time to tear down the Communist iron curtain still separating Albania and the Albanian people from democracy, Europe, and the rest of the world. Annette, we started a movement. Within weeks, people were rushing into foreign embassies seeking asylum, and by September 1990, a huge boat loaded with thousands of freedom-seeking Albanians left the port of Durres for the shores of Italy, much like my father's Albanian ancestors did in the 15th century to escape the onslaught of the Ottoman Turks.

But here we are today--to pay tribute to the victims of communism all over the world. I want to say a few words about the most brutal atheistic Communist regime that held the Albanian people hostage in their country, which was turned into a prison through state-sponsored terror, with crimes against humanity as its hallmark. The Albanian people had fought hard against the Italian fascist regime under Mussolini and the German Nazis under Hitler. Their honor code of besa (trust/faith) gave them the strength, moral and physical, to save every Jew in Albania and over 2,000 who fled there from Yugoslavia and Western Europe for protection during the Holocaust. Unfortunately, the Albanian people were betrayed during World War II by a new leader, Enver Hoxha, who replaced Nazi occupation with the most brutal Stalinist Communist regime anyone could imagine, for 45 years.

Hoxha's aim was to kill the freedom-loving spirit of the Albanian people and to destroy their communal soul in favor of building a totalitarian state under the rule of his Communist Party. His psychopathic regime instilled fear and terror in every household--fear of strangers, fear of authority, and even fear of betrayal by family, friends, and neighbors seeking favor with Communist officials. Hoxha's regime created an inhuman lack of trust in anyone and everything. Husbands could not trust their wives, parents their children, and siblings each other. By breaking the ancient Albanian honor and trust code of besa, communism created a culture where one had to be constantly on watch and on guard, not knowing where the next threat to life, limb, and family might strike.

This horrible state of terror was ``formally'' abandoned in Albania in 1992, with the first democratic election. Nevertheless, two decades later, the scars of communism and the twin cultures of fear and corruption still linger in Albania. Political parties openly fight for power, and the spoils of corruption keep the country out of the European Union, while former Communist neighbors, such as Slovenia, Croatia, Romania, Greece, and Serbia, are either already in the EU or on the path to admission.

On behalf of the victims of communism in Albania, Mr. Ambassador (addressing Albanian Ambassador Gilbert Galanxhi), I am taking this opportunity to appeal to your government to bring real democracy to Albania, to apologize formally to the victims of communism and their families, to set up a truth and reconciliation commission, and finally to open the Communist archives for all to see, which will allow families to begin the long process of healing and restore trust in the government and its leaders.

As Shirley Cloyes DioGuardi, Balkan Affairs Adviser to the Albanian American Civic League, wrote in her October 2011 article, ``The Protracted Fall of Communism in Albania'':

``I have come to the conclusion in recent months that the biggest mistake in post-Communist Albania was that the criminals of the Hoxha era were not brought to trial and that the country never instituted a truth and reconciliation commission. . . . ''

Burying the Communist Albanian past has brought neither justice nor healing to those who suffered. If anything, it has continued their suffering. This reminds me of the Jewish survivors of the Holocaust who were forced to suffer in silence for years until Israel sought to fully reveal the traumatic legacy of Nazism and to shock the conscience of the world--beginning with the capture and trial in 1961 of Adolf Eichmann, one of the chief architects of Hitler's plan to exterminate European Jewry. In Albania, I believe that we need to start the process of healing the pain of the past (a past that is very much alive today) by obtaining from the Albanian government as full accounting as possible of the Hoxha era. The names of those persecuted, imprisoned, and executed by the Hoxha regime should be released to both the Albanian public and the international community.

I rise in support of the rule and rise in support of

I would say that luckily we are coming to our senses and having courage enough to stand up to this obstructionism by setting reasonable time limits for litigation and by setting a total review process for the issuing of permits to 30 months; 30 months is a very reasonable time.

The reforms that we put in place will ensure that American mineral mining projects are not indefinitely delayed by frivolous lawsuits or by unwilling bureaucrats, or by activists who, as I say, care more about the habitat of insects and lizards than they do about the well- being of the American people.

I come from California. I am a surfer, and I am in the water a lot-- anytime I can get out there. We have had offshore oil and gas reserves in the hundreds of billions of dollars available to us, but denied the people of California. Even as we cut the programs that our seniors and our children need, these radicals will not let us get to those oil and natural gas resources. That is a sin against those older people in California and the young people.

We need to clean up that situation. Whose side are we on? We're on the side of ordinary Americans leading a decent life, and that's what this bill is all about.

I rise in support of repeal.

Mr. Speaker, when Republicans had control of Congress and the White House during the previous decade, we failed to address America's major health care problems, which were rising costs and a lack of access to health care for millions of hardworking Americans. So we Republicans didn't do the job.

Never passing up a chance to expand the size and power of government over our lives, the Democrats have seized upon this opportunity to change the fundamental nature of health care in America. Instead of fixing the problem, they chose to change the system. It is significant to remember that even though there were serious issues that needed attention, most Americans at that time were satisfied with their health care coverage.

Nevertheless, ObamaCare passed this House by seven votes and the Senate with no votes to spare. And nobody had read the whole bill. What disturbs me the most is the largest percentage of Americans who were satisfied already with their health care are going to find out to their dismay that the quality of their health care under ObamaCare will go down and the costs will go up.

President Obama has promised those who are content with their current coverage that they could keep it. We now know that is not true.

Mr. Speaker, when Republicans had control of Congress and the White House during the previous decade, we failed to address America's major healthcare problems, which were rising costs and a lack of access to insurance for millions of hardworking Americans. So, we Republicans didn't do the job. Never passing up a chance to expand the size and power of government over our lives, the Democrats have seized upon this opportunity to change the fundamental nature of healthcare in America. Instead of fixing the problem, they chose to change the system. It is significant to remember that, even though there were serious issues that needed attention, most Americans at the time were satisfied with their health coverage. Nevertheless, Obamacare was passed in this House by 7 votes, and passed by the Senate with no votes to spare. What disturbs me most: a large percentage of Americans, especially the ones already satisfied, are going to find out, to their dismay, that the quality of their healthcare under Obamacare will go down and the cost will go up.

President Obama promised that those who are content with their current healthcare coverage could keep their insurance under Obamacare. It is now clear that's not true. Obamacare includes a provision imposing a tax on employers who cancel current coverage and dump employees into a government system. That tax is cheaper to the business than providing health insurance. So a large percentage of the American people will end up in the government system. This, then, takes the bulk of America out of a private system that has incentives built-in to bring down costs and improve quality and puts us into a government system, where inefficiency and bureaucracy are rampant.

Obamacare is not just a step in the wrong direction. It is a race in the wrong direction. The government, pursuant to Obamacare's dictates, has already hired 16,000 new IRS agents to intimidate small business. Is that a good use of healthcare dollars?

Let's commit ourselves to fixing the problems that confront us, by first undoing this behemoth bureaucratic nightmare that has been foisted upon us as a supposed solution.