Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, it is an unusual day in which the cosponsor of a bill, not in just this Congress but in the previous Congress, comes to oppose the final passage. It is not that I object to the people of the District of Columbia gaining a vote in this body, just the opposite. For two Congresses I have worked with Chairman Davis, now Ranking Member Davis, to achieve that.

It is that, for whatever reason, in this Democratically controlled Congress, we have lost democracy. In the regular order of the two committees, amendments were offered, some were passed, some failed. One that was passed was one of mine. It intended to make clear the Maryland relationship to the District of Columbia. It was a

fairly small technical amendment. The Democrat majority, led by Speaker Pelosi, chose to strip that out of what was brought to the floor, to my amazement, but not amusement. And then when I offered the same amendment to the Rules Committee, they voted not to allow it. So that which was voted in the committee of jurisdiction was stripped out by the leadership and then refused to be considered in the body of the whole. That is without any democratic fairness.

I am not here to complain about process. I believed it was an essential piece of language when this legislation was considered. So without it, I feel I am compelled not only to vote against it, but to seek alternate remedies for future legislation.

We cannot, in this body, Madam Speaker, allow the Speaker of the House or the House majority leader to simply eliminate the tradition of how we do business in order to reach democratically produced legislation. So I will be voting against this bill, and it will be a vote against the kind of heavy-handedness that led to this bill being less than it could have been.

I object.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment and for the exact same reason that my colleague on the other side of the aisle opposes it.

We have a predicament that we are dealing with in this very committee, in the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. We are dealing with global warming. The $2 billion-plus that we spend every year, and scientists like Jim Hansen and others who have been out there saying what they want to freely, the way they want to, and they have done this at a time in which there is an allegation of a problem. Quite frankly, it is amazing that when I Google, I get tens of thousands of hits on a scientist who is talking about why global warming is a threat, why we have to do things quickly, and yet there is some theory that we have stifled science.

By treating science separately in the whistleblower status, we are doing a disservice to every scientist and treating them adversely, separately and differently. This simply wants to return us to a procedure that we had before, one that has worked. In fact, Jim Hansen, who will be before our committee next week, and others have gone through a vetting process and then proceeded to make freely the speeches they wanted to make. There has not been a need for whistleblower. In fact, scientists are free to express their opinions now, and that is appropriate; they can do it under the existing guidelines.

This amendment seeks to return us to what was a functioning system, one in which we supported science, and scientists have been free to say what they want to. There may be edits going up the process that the gentleman on the other side of the aisle objects to, but there were edits under the previous administration.

I urge support of the Sali amendment, recognizing that, in fact, this would be a sword that could cut both ways and the future could be adverse to the very scientists it seeks to assist.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 107, which calls for the immediate and unconditional release of Israeli soldiers held captive by Hamas and Hezbollah.

On July 19, 2006, I and the three Members of Lebanese ancestry joined together to introduce H. Res. 926 in response to the unprovoked attack and kidnapping by Hezbollah. This resolution condemned Hamas and Hezbollah for engaging in the reprehensible terrorist act of taking hostages, affirmed Israel's right to conduct operations to secure the release of hostages, and urging the protection of innocent life and civilian infrastructure.

H. Res. 107 sends an important message that the terrorist leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah must recognize. The United States has not forgotten the kidnapped Israeli soldiers or those responsible for their kidnapping including the states who support the terrorist groups.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to note for the record that this resolution expresses ``strong support and deep interest in achieving a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through the creation of a viable and independent Palestinian state living in peace alongside of the State of Israel,'' as well as ``vigorous support and unwavering commitment to the welfare and survival of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state with secure borders.''

While I fully support the commitment to the welfare and survival of the State of Israel, I have some reservations about this body expressing its support for a nation embracing a specific religious character. My concern is that in some situations, such expression of an endorsement of a particular religion or ethnicity could be used to exclude others which is, of course, not the intention of this resolution.

Both Israeli and Palestinian leaders have expressed their preference for a viable two-state solution and, as such, I support this joint goal and the independent peaceful aspirations of both peoples because the parties have made these decisions on their own and not because I support the preeminence of any particular religion.

Mr. Speaker, point of order.

Point of order. My understanding of the rules is that we cannot have Members speaking to each other. Mr. Speaker, my understanding is this colloquy was not allowed. Mr. Speaker, can we please admonish people to address the Speaker.

Madam Chairman, in this body, everyone is allowed an opinion. My opinion is I am going to vote to preserve the secret ballot and I will vote for Ranking Member McKeon's amendment.

But I think we also have to recognize that truth has to be told. Just a moment ago, I heard one of my colleagues say that Republicans hadn't raised the minimum wage in the 12 years they were in the majority. Of course, 1997 was in those 12 years. That was the last time it was raised, and 2006, this body, Republicans led to raise the minimum wage. It didn't get out of the Senate. That happens.

Interestingly, Members taking credit for raising the minimum wage, it has only left the House. It hasn't gone one inch further than it did in the last Congress, when Republicans led the way to raise the minimum wage. So, please, you are entitled to your opinion, but not your facts.

I am concerned today that on a partisan basis, the Democratic Party, here and on other initiatives, including looking into putting a disclosure requirement when a preacher in a church says, ``I think you ought to vote your conscience,'' that is going to become public if they have the disclosure.

I think there is a pattern of trying to make public for purposes of intimidation, and all I can say is shame on the Democratic Party.

Madam Speaker, today, the U.S. House of Representatives unanimously passed H.R. 556, which reforms and modernizes the process by which the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States reviews national security issues pertaining to foreign acquisitions.

I commend the bipartisan House Financial Services Committee for putting together a strong bill that encourages and respects a general policy of openness toward foreign investment, but also protects our national security from new threats in a post 9-11 world.

This legislation makes clear that in reviewing foreign government acquisitions of critical U.S. energy infrastructure, such as pipelines and Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) facilities, the United States will not turn a blind eye to foreign governments that use energy assets as a political, economic or foreign policy weapon.

As the Committee's report states, we expect ``. . . that acquisitions of U.S. energy companies or assets by foreign governments or companies controlled by foreign governments--including any instance in which such foreign government has used energy assets to interfere with or influence policies or economic conditions in other countries in ways that threaten the national security of those countries--will be reviewed closely for their national security impact. If such acquisitions raise legitimate concerns about threats to U.S. national security, appropriate protections as set forth in the statute should be instituted including potentially the prohibition of the transaction.''

Unfortunately, recent actions on the part of the government of Russia demonstrate why such protections are needed. One need only ask officials in the Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, Georgia and many countries throughout Europe whether the Russian government--through its state-owned oil monopoly, Rosneft, and gas monopoly, Gazprom--uses its energy assets to ``interfere with or influence policies or economic conditions'' in their countries. If Gazprom or Rosneft tries to acquire critical energy infrastructure here in the United States, the CFIUS review process should carefully review the acquisition in order to determine the impact on our own national security, and I commend the bipartisan authors of this legislation for demanding nothing less.

I commend the Financial Services Committee for recognizing that the reforms and procedures detailed in H.R. 556 ``stand in stark contrast to actions taken by some foreign governments, where expropriations of assets, often in the energy sector, have occurred arbitrarily, without justification, and without recompense for U.S. investors.''

As many of my colleagues know, U.S. investors throughout the country lost approximately $6 billion when the Russian government effectively re-nationalized Russia's largest privately-owned energy company, Yukos, and expropriated its assets without compensation to its owners or shareholders.

Now, for the first time since the Russian government's expropriation without compensation of Yukos, and President Vladimir Putin's

ruthless strategy of using Russian energy assets to apply economic and political pressure on neighboring countries and the West--including the disruption of oil and gas supplies--the Congress has recognized that if the Russian Government or its subsidiary companies seek to acquire critical U.S. energy infrastructure, Russia's coercive energy policies and its potential threat to the energy security of the United States must be considered as part of the CFIUS review process.

The National Security Foreign Investment Reform and Strengthened Transparency Act of 2007 strikes the right balance. It strongly encourages foreign investment in the United States without unnecessary and reasonable restrictions by companies that engage in responsible commercial activities and practices. However, H.R. 556 also makes it clear that energy-related infrastructure is critically important to our national security, and those companies that wish to acquire our infrastructure must adhere to internationally recognized standards of commercial conduct.

Mr. Speaker, I was here on the floor yesterday and thought I would only speak once. As I heard the debate of thoughtful Members on both sides of this issue, I was reminded of something I said yesterday that needed to be said again. Although the people you are hearing from mean well on both sides, less than a third of the Members speaking on this House floor served in the U.S. military, although everyone was eligible, and less than a third have traveled to Iraq, although everyone was eligible. Perhaps we will give the freshmen a pass.

This is, in fact, a debate by people who are not military experts. I count myself among those, who although I served in the military and have been to Iraq, I am not a military expert. I don't pretend to play one on television and before the American people, and yet that is what we are doing here for four solid days.

We are in fact, pretending to be military experts. Well, Mr. Speaker, this morning I had a military expert in my office, Staff Sergeant Bain. He is only a staff sergeant. How is he an expert? He is just finishing 3 years in Walter Reed, 3 years of recovery from terrible wounds. He came in doing a very good job with his artificial leg. He came in and shook my hand, even though he cannot feel with that hand.

All I could do was thank him for his service and hand him a coin and wish him well in his civilian life. But he took the time to tell me that he disagreed with the President sending 20,000 troops to Iraq.

He said, I am sorry I can't be there for that. He said, they ought to send 100,000. What we did there we need to finish. Staff Sergeant Bain got it right. The United States military and its experts believe we need to get this finished and get it right.

Now, the staff sergeant is 3 years out of Iraq, so I will forgive him for not being sure about whether it should be 20,000, as our military leaders, including General Petraeus, have asked for, or whether it should be 20,000 more if necessary, or 100,000. But it is important that Staff Sergeant Bain be heard.

Because in fact what you have here are a bunch of people, most of whom did not serve in the military, most of whom have not bothered to go to the combat zone, and those of us who did for the most part had a relatively quick tour in and out. We have not experienced what our troops have experienced.

And I know there is some disagreement among those who have been there. But, Mr. Speaker, I ask the American people to ask a vet of this war, their own vet, their own neighborhood, and they are going to find out they want to win this peace just as they won the war.

They toppled Saddam, and now they are being told to cut and run. That is what this is leading to. Mr. Speaker, we cannot do that and we know it. And yet for political expedience this body is pretending to be military experts.

Mr. Speaker, I will close simply by reminding this body of something we do know about. This is a body filled with people who understand history. Under fascism; we took on Japan, Germany, Italy and their allies. And it took 4 years before we did it, while they grew, and 4 years to defeat them. And it took a decade or more to turn those countries into functional democracies.

Yet America stayed the course. And we had troops deployed there and we have troops deployed there today, even though they are functional democracies.

Mr. Speaker, for more than 50 years we fought the other ``ism,'' communism. China, the Soviet Union, and the rest of the Soviet Bloc stood there threatening annihilation, but the American people put up with unspeakable amounts of money and significant loss of military lives, over 100,000 in two side battles of the Cold War.

We spent countless billions. Sometimes as much as 50 percent of our government's budget went to the military. And we did it. Now we are being asked to deal with radicalism. And I cannot name a country of radicalism. And I cannot say radical Islam or radical Islamic fascism, I simply say radicalism, because these radicals come from different sects of Islam, but they have one thing in common: They seek to conquer countries to put an ``ism'' onto them that is not of their choosing, and without freedom.

Won't the American people stand here today with the Congress representing them and stand against this ``ism'' for at least as long as we stood against fascism and at least as long as we stood against communism?

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be modified at page 1, line 6, after the word ``Iraq'' to include ``personnel from the United States Intelligence Community who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably worldwide to counter radical jihadists.''

Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Madam Speaker, does that mean that unanimous consent cannot be offered?

Madam Speaker, further point of inquiry. My understanding is that a unanimous consent request is always in order separate from the rule. Is that not correct?

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, that makes it very clear that in fact even if there is no objection to including the brave men and women who operate, often without weapons, who operate behind enemy lines, who in fact are part of our Intelligence Community, they cannot be included in this resolution. It is a sad day when democracy does not even include that which there is no objection to from being considered.

Notwithstanding that, Madam Speaker, I think it is extremely important that we deal with the limited strict language we have been offered, and, in the spirit of that strict language, I must oppose it. I must oppose it because in fact on a strict basis this resolution, if heeded by the administration, says stay a failed course of action.

Madam Speaker, it is amazing that the election very clearly told us in November that the American people were not comfortable with the conduct of this war; that in fact on both sides of the aisle, people were calling for a bolder vision, a vision that was more aggressive diplomatically and militarily. In fact, two Presidential candidates, Senator Hillary Clinton and,

in fact, Senator McCain, are and have been saying we should have had more troops early, we should have more troops now. It is amazing that in fact the one thing this resolution is saying is stay the course, make no changes.

Further, regardless of what my Democrat colleagues would say today, the next step after ``Mr. President, we will not send more troops,'' is, ``Mr. President, we will not send more tanks; Mr. President, we will not send further personnel and intellectual gatherers to understand our enemy; Mr. President, we won't send more translators; Mr. President, we cannot and will not support more body armor; Mr. President, we will not support this war on terror throughout the region.''

Those are the next steps, because you can't simply say, as this resolution tries to, stay the course. Do nothing. No increases, no decreases. Support the troops, but send them no more.

That makes as much sense as telling the people at the Alamo, stay the course. That wasn't the right solution at the Alamo. At the Alamo they should have either increased their forces so that they could have sustained the bombardment, or withdrawn.

We, in fact, are in a position where the President has made a multitude of new initiatives, one of which includes additional troops to help relieve those tired troops, to help bring the force level up to a level similar to exactly what Presidential candidates on both sides of the aisle were clamoring for just a few weeks ago and throughout the election.

Madam Speaker, one of the other things that just amazes me, today I took a little time and I checked out how many Members of Congress served in the military. It turns out it is less than one-third. I checked out how many Members went to Iraq in the previous Congress. It turns out less than one-third.

The fact is that we are considering a resolution as though we were General Petraeus, a man who was unanimously confirmed in the Senate just a few days ago, and deployed to support and defend our troops and this effort, who is solidly convinced that we have to do more and do it better and who is there to do it and was unanimously confirmed.

In closing, Madam Speaker, only here, with less than one-third of the Members having gone and seen what is going on in Iraq, less than one- third having served in the military, even at a minor level of lieutenant or captain or private, have the hubris to say that we have to not add, not subtract, just keep the exact same number that we and the American people believe is not getting the job done. That is exactly what this resolution is claiming to do. We are not given an alternative in any way, shape or form.

So, Madam Speaker, there is no choice on either side of the aisle. Whether you believe we should have more or we should have less, nobody believes that we should stay the exact course with no change, and that is what this is asking for.

So I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to realize that in fact this resolution calls for the one thing that the American people most object to, and that is unchanged staying the course at this level. The American people called on us in November to do something bolder, to bring peace in the region, and I call on you to vote down this resolution just exactly to do that

Mr. Speaker, it is not good to talk process in the House of Representatives. I keep hearing that. But when the process that you are talking about is the execution of our right in a democratic society to speak and make a difference, then it is necessary to speak on process.

Mr. Speaker, this week we will spend 4 days on the Iraq resolution. I say ``the'' Iraq resolution because it has already been crafted by Speaker Pelosi; it already is a final product. The only thing left to do is in fact to vote on it because we will not be allowed to amend it; the rule will be a closed rule. Democracy and speech and debate will not in fact change anything. The final vote will be exactly at the end of the week where it was at the beginning. That is wrong. Republicans never did that when we held the Speaker's gavel. Democrats should not do that as they hold the Speaker's gavel.

The right to amend and the right to debate that leads to a better bill is a right of this democracy, and this body has been reduced by the taking of that right.

Mr. Speaker, there are few things in this body that truly transcend party lines. The respect for the Constitution and our obligations under it clearly are the most important among them.

The Constitution makes it clear that inventors and authors and artisans are entitled to protection for a limited period of time under the Constitution. And yet, if it takes years to get through a patent case and only to have it reversed 30 to 40 percent of the time, much more often if it is a first-time case before a Federal judge, then justice is not only delayed but in some cases denied if you don't have the ability, after paying maybe $2 million, to pay another $2 million to go through the appeal process. Therefore, it is essential at the district court that the judges get it right the first time.

Under the Markman decision, a Federal judge must decide what the patent means. It is incredibly technical often to decide what 5,000 claims, sometimes looking thicker than the Bible and the Koran put together, really mean; and yet that is an obligation of the judge. Those obligations may be in the areas of mechanical engineering, electrical engineering. It could be chemical. It could be bio. It could be so technical as to require outside experts just to decipher some of the language. And yet we ask a Federal judge, most often the one who has just ascended to the bench, to take on these patent cases. This bill is designed to reduce the times in which the most complex cases get before the least prepared and sometimes even the least willing Federal judges.

It also is an example of something that has been used in other ways, but appropriate here: a theory that you must mend it, not end it. We have an obligation, and the Federal courts with us have an obligation, to deal with intellectual property properly because it is a right under the Constitution, and yet it is broken. My colleagues, Mr. Schiff as the cosponsor but, more broadly, Ranking Member Smith have been supportive. The now chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Berman, helped all along the way. Mr. Conyers has been supportive, both in the last Congress and this Congress, in getting this bill out; and Senator Leahy and Senator Feinstein are working on the Senate side for a counterpart.

This type of legislation is narrowly crafted but deals with the exact problems we are facing. Let me just give you one example, Mr. Speaker. Most Americans understand in the last Congress the RIM or BlackBerry case, a case in which for years the litigation continued on and we were dealing with over half a billion dollars of final damages. Reversal after reversal, decision and indecision. That shouldn't happen when we are dealing with billions of dollars.

This legislation seeks to spend only $5 million a year to check out the feasibility of what would probably be only $50 or $60 million in total a year to make our Federal courts able to deal with what turns out to be tens or hundreds of billions of dollars of commerce.

Therefore, I hope that because we pass this early and, I trust, unanimously once again, that we will be able to deal with the Senate, bring this to the President's desk, and begin working with the courts to implement it.

Last but not least, an unusual ``thank you.'' Justice Breyer was a major part of this discussion from the earliest stages, and as somebody who, while as a Senate staffer, was considered to be the father of the Fed circuit, his opinion that there needed to be a fix in the district court so as not to have to take from the district courts the very jurisdiction that we speak of here today, was crucial to the development of this bill.

I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for this bipartisan support.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 34, a bill to establish a pilot program in certain United States district courts to encourage enhancement of expertise in patent cases among district judges. Congressman Adam Schiff and I have worked together on this legislation since the last Congress, and I am grateful for the chance to move this legislation forward today.

The high cost of patent litigation is widely publicized, and it is not unusual for a patent suit to cost each party over $10,000,000. Appeals from district courts to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit are frequent. This is caused, in part, by the general perception within the patent community that most district court judges are not sufficiently prepared to hear patent cases. I drafted this legislation in an attempt to decrease the cost of litigation by increasing the success of district court judges.

H.R. 34 establishes a pilot project within at least five district courts. Under the pilot, judges decide whether or not to opt into hearing patent cases. If a judge opts in, and a patent case is randomly assigned to that judge, that judge keeps the case. If a case is randomly assigned to a judge who has not opted into hearing patent cases, that judge has the choice of keeping that case or sending it to the group of judges who have opted in. To be a designated court, the court must have at least 10 authorized judges with at least 3 opting in.

The core intent of this pilot is to steer patent cases to judges that have the desire and aptitude to hear patent cases, while preserving random assignment as much as possible. Each of the test courts will be assigned a clerk with expertise in patent law or the scientific issues arising in patent cases, and funding is also allocated to better educate participating

judges in patent law. The pilot will last no longer than 10 years, and periodic studies will occur to determine the pilot project's success.

I am happy to say that H.R. 34 is supported by software, hardware, tech and electronics companies, pharmaceutical companies, biotech companies, district court judges, the American Intellectual Property Law Association, and the Intellectual Property Owners Association among others.

This legislation is a good first step toward improving the legal environment for the patent community in the United States. H.R. 34 should not, however, be taken as a replacement for broader patent reform. We still need to address substantive issues within patent law, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on that broader effort as well.

I thank Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers and Ranking Member Lamar Smith, as well as Intellectual Property Subcommittee Chairman Howard Berman and Subcommittee Ranking Member Howard Coble for all of their efforts in moving this legislation. I also thank Committee staff David Whitney and Shanna Winters for their counsel during the development of H.R. 34.

I encourage all of my colleagues to support H.R. 34.

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

Mr. Speaker, H. Con. Res. 44 is and should be about the NAACP, but it is also about a history of a struggle, not just the 98 years that the NAACP has been pushing and prodding this body, the courts and the executive branch for fairness for all people, all people in the United States, but for the history of this struggle. Whether it is the Marbury v. Madison decision, or the dreaded Dred Scott decision, the Court has had to be prodded by the public, the Congress has had to be prodded by the public, and, yes, just as with Harry S. Truman, the President has had to be prodded by the public. No organization in American history has sustained the consistent legacy of being an effective prod to the government greater than the NAACP.

So I join with my colleagues on a bipartisan and undoubtedly bicameral

basis to celebrate this 98 years and the struggle that it represents.

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

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

I rise in support of H. Res. 122 which recognizes the tragic significance of Executive Order 9066 signed by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to authorize the internment of Japanese Americans at the beginning of World

War II. The resolution also highlights the injustices forced on Italian Americans and German Americans during this same period.

In 1942, President Roosevelt authorized the Army to evacuate more than 100,000 Japanese Americans from the Pacific Coast States, including Washington, Oregon, and my home State, California, and also Arizona. This grossly blunderbuss approach to maintaining America's security serves, especially today, as a continuing reminder that the civil rights of American citizens should never be lost in the midst of the chaos of war, not even in a war on terror.

President Roosevelt authorized the mass expulsion and incarceration of Japanese Americans, and these are American citizens, by signing Executive Order 9066 on February 19, 1942. A few minutes ago, I spoke about the prodding of this body, the prodding about the Presidency and the prodding of the courts. This ill-fated action unfortunately was supported by this body, the one on the other side of the Dome and, yes, the U.S. Supreme Court. Had any of us recognized our burden of freedom and democracy and taken it to heart, this could not and would not have happened.

The tragic misuse of this power was met with an equally powerful response, but unfortunately, it was too late.

In 1976, President Gerald Ford issued Proclamation 4417, in which he said, ``Learning from our mistakes is not pleasant, but as a great philosopher once admonished, we must do so if we want to avoid repeating them.'' We recently put to rest President Gerald Ford, but there was no action that Gerald Ford ever did as President more significant than this one. President Ford, in apologizing and taking back the misconduct perpetrated on American citizens so long ago, has set a high standard for it ever happening again.

Today, we have just those threats among us and amidst us, so I am happy to support this to join with the ACLU and all the other organizations that daily fight this and recognizing that this should never happen again.

Last but not least, we are joined with our colleague, the widow of Bob Matsui, and I might note that as a freshman it was Bob Matsui who was on the Democrat side speaking about this issue firsthand. I am sorry that he is not with us today. I look forward to the statements of my colleague and his widow, because I believe that, in fact, this is something we must do every year so that it never, never, never happens again in my America.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

I would like to thank Congressman Honda. Mike and I came into this Congress together. We came in at a time of peace. We came in at a time in which remembering 59 years earlier the history of the Japanese internment was a little abstract and yet necessary. I think that it is no longer abstract, and I thank the gentleman from California, because Mr. Honda made it very clear that we have a clear and present danger in the same way.

It is easy to blame the Muslim community. It is easy to look at Arab Americans and say can we trust them.

I might point out something that is not in the body of the resolution but I know that Mr. Honda and I have talked about in the past. During the time in which we were incarcerating women and children and old men of Japanese ancestry, the young Japanese Americans were in Europe fighting and dying in record numbers, defending our country in the most decorated way of any unit of World War II. That is a separate remembrance but it cannot be separated from the fact that today Arabs and Muslims are fighting in the war on terror in Afghanistan, in Iraq and around the world.

They are in fact doing exactly the same thing. And I link the two because I believe that you don't respect history the way we are trying to today, if you don't link it to the present and the future, and you don't say we will learn from this terrible mistake. We can't undo what was done to the Japanese, Italian, and German Americans, but we can dedicate ourselves to ensure that this shall not happen again in this great Union.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 109, recognizing the historical significance of the Pinedale Assembly Center, the reporting site for over 4,823 Americans of Japanese ancestry who were unjustly interned during World War II.

The Pinedale Assembly Center is located 8 miles north of downtown Fresno, California, on vacant land. It is a stark place, as was the policy that was supported by Executive Order 9066 signed by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to authorize the tragic internment of Japanese Americans at the beginning of World War II.

The assembly center was encircled by a high chain-link fence, topped with three rows of barbed wire, and it caged American citizens whose only crime was their ancestry. Soldiers gave orders to citizens who should have been free; livelihoods were put on hold; uncertainty and fear punctuated each day. Thousands of law-abiding citizens who loved America and contributed to its strength had been trapped in endless rows of drab cell blocks.

The center serves as a symbol of America's stumbling. But our country has regained its footing. It has appropriately apologized for the tragic mistake of President Roosevelt's Executive Order 9066, and it is reaffirming its commitment, through this resolution before us today, to never forget its mistakes lest they be repeated.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

I would like to associate myself with the comments of Mr. Honda. I think it is very clear that you can't remember 65 years ago with the resolution and

not have a permanent, physical site for people to go to every day and realize what internment meant. So I join with my colleagues in supporting this resolution, urge its passage and recognize that this pairing of resolutions means a great deal, because it is only with something that the public can visit 365 days a year that we will, in fact, prevent this from happening again.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is not uncommon in this body to name post offices after former Members of Congress, national figures, Presidents and the like. But it is incredibly appropriate today to name a post office after two generations of hard work on behalf of that very post office.

As a member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, I have managed many bills for post offices, and in my 6 years I have not seen a more befitting naming of a post office. Because, in fact, it is this group of tireless workers for the Federal Government, often the butt of jokes, the postmasters and the postmen and postwomen, that make sure that our bills, our letters, our correspondence, and, yes, our junk mail, are delivered to us.

I think this is among the most appropriate pieces of legislation that I have had the opportunity to help manage. I urge the passage of this. I urge the people of this Congress to take note that we are, in fact, naming a post office after a postman this one time.

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

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

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