Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it is with pride I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 473, supporting the goals and ideals of Gynecologic Cancer Awareness Month and particularly the Gynecologic Cancer Foundation.

This marks the 15th anniversary in 2006 of the Gynecologic Cancer Foundation. It is that foundation that has such a long and proud history of serving women in America through educational programs and to provide up-to-date information on the prevention and early detection and treatment of these reproductive cancers, cancers that will affect over 77,000 American women this year alone.

It was in 1999 that September was first declared Gynecologic Cancer Awareness Month, and each September since then the Gynecologic Cancer Foundation has embarked on an intensive education program to reach women with an important message:

First, get to know your family history. Second, conduct a cancer-risk assessment. Third, ask questions, educate yourself about these deadly cancers. Last, make an appointment for an annual gynecologic cancer screening test.

Mr. Speaker, every 7 minutes a woman is diagnosed with gynecologic cancer. In 2006, over 77,000 women will be diagnosed with gynecologic cancer; and, unfortunately, over 27,000 women will die, many of them because they didn't have early diagnosis. Too many women are dying because of the lack of early diagnosis. Education and early detection are the keys to saving women's lives and reducing this terrible statistic. If diagnosed in the early stages, the 5-year survival rates for these cancers are over 95 percent.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important awareness program. We have done a wonderful job throughout the years as Americans in shedding light on other deadly diseases, including breast cancer; but this remains a silent killer.

I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland), I thank the Speaker of the House, and urge passage of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the amended version of H. Res. 1017, introduced by my colleague Tom Lantos, which affirms support for the sovereignty and security of Lebanon and the Lebanese people.

Mr. Speaker, what this resolution now does is urge the Government of Lebanon to request assistance from the international community for military and other forms of support in securing their border with Syria, in order to end the flow of weapons to Hezbollah.

I want to thank Chairman Hyde for his instrumental role in negotiating language that addresses these concerns and enables the Government of Lebanon to engage and work closely with the international community so as to prevent another crisis in the region.

This resolution recognizes the courageous efforts made by many Lebanese in their independent uprising on March 14, 2005 and commends the democratically elected Government of Lebanon for their ongoing efforts to restore

sovereignty and security throughout all its territory.

Despite the remarkable achievements of the so-called Cedar Revolution, the Government of Lebanon continues to experience challenges to its rule. Targeted killings of public figures and the recent conflict between Hezbollah and Israel illustrate the dangers to Lebanon's stability. Furthermore, the increasing polarization and divide of the country's confessional communities demonstrates the need for a serious national dialogue that will deal with Lebanon's domestic struggles.

The provocative unilateral actions implemented by Hezbollah this past summer is evidence of the destructive influences Syria and Iran continue to play in Lebanon. The people of Lebanon and their government did not have any say in the destruction and heartbreak that was imposed upon their nation, yet they must be the ones to pay the price. In a clear indication that Hezbollah is willing to use its weapons internally, unless the current form of government is changed, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said he would only consider giving up its weapons when a strong, capable and just state was in place. This would strongly undermine Lebanon's democratic structures and could potentially lead to civil war and instability in the whole region.

Lebanon seeks to build itself up once again from beneath the ashes of war and destruction. In the absence of a regional peace, this may very well be the last opportunity to save Lebanon from a failed state scenario.

The United States has a vital interest in ensuring the security of a liberal democratic regime. It is important that United States assistance to Lebanon play a strategic role in strengthening Lebanon's central governing institutions that will ultimately lead to an empowered government that is able to meet the demands of all its citizens and comply with its international commitments and the major themes in this resolution.

In addition, to security assistance that enables the Lebanese Armed Forces to secure its borders, assistance needs to be targeted toward the passage of a new electoral law and increasing reforms in the Ministry of Justice. The electoral commission has submitted their review and now the Lebanese parliament needs to respond. A more representative electoral law will defy the modes of traditional sectarian leadership in Lebanon that have lead to deadlock and stalemate.

These steps are vital to restoring and maintaining Lebanon's sovereignty and security by reducing the influence of Iran and Syria over Hezbollah and contributing to a broader representation of all Lebanese.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time and look forward to the passage of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief, not because this is not a great piece of legislation. I am very proud of the work we have done on a bipartisan basis in our committee, but because the fact is, this is a piece of legislation whose time has come.

This bill was voted unanimously out of the Judiciary Subcommittee and brought to the floor on suspension because in fact all of the details necessary to make a good piece of legislation were worked out with the community that will need it, use it, and benefit from it.

That includes members of the Federal bench, the AO, the Administrative Office of the judicial branch. It also includes both branches here in the Capitol and members from the administration. I believe this is an example of bipartisan work at its finest.

I thank my coauthor on this, Mr. Schiff, for working tirelessly on this, and for his good words. I would particularly like to thank the chairman, Mr. Sensenbrenner, and Mr. Conyers for taking the work we did in subcommittee as sufficient and bringing it quickly to the floor.

Last but not least, I very much want to thank the staff of the subcommittee and the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee, who encouraged us all along the way, held the necessary hearings, and have told us to do this and then do more.

Mr. Speaker, as the chairman said, I am one of the newer members to the Select Intelligence Committee. But I am not any longer one of the newer Members to Congress, because I was here on September 11. I saw as we evacuated the Capitol. I saw as the Pentagon burned. I saw as America rallied, asking us to make sure this didn't happen again.

Today, we are considering some commonsense, limited reforms that are necessary. They are necessary because, on both sides of the aisle, we want to make sure that we codify in law what will be done, that we minimize executive order but maximize the ability of the executive branch to meet its obligations to the people.

H.R. 5825, if it weren't the eve of election, would clearly be just another commonsense reform done on a bipartisan basis. But we are in the midst of an election.

I have been on the Judiciary Committee since I came as a freshman 6 years ago. I am very concerned about civil rights, about protecting Americans' civil rights. And if I could just take a minute to get beyond the partisanism for a moment, I am also an Arab American. I am exactly the group that is likely to have to think about is my call to Yemen or to Lebanon or to Jordan or any of the other expanded places that I have family and friends, is that going to be potentially monitored? I have thought about that. I have soul searched it for myself and for many millions of people like myself in the United States who are Americans born and raised but, in fact, have friends and family abroad.

I am comfortable with this bill. I am comfortable with the parts that are unclassified, and I am comfortable with what I have learned on a classified basis. That doesn't come easy, but I have made the effort to do so. I am supporting this bill because it is the right thing to do to make all Americans safe, and it is the right thing to do to make sure that we never again have to apologize to the American people for September 11.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Palomar College on their 60th anniversary.

Palomar College is one of the most comprehensive community colleges in the United States, offering North County, San Diego residents more than 300 degree and certificate programs for transfer to four-year universities, job training, and personal enrichment. Its commitment to lifelong learning and its status as a cultural center for northern San Diego County make Palomar College a tremendous educational asset to California and the Nation.

Palomar began with only 100 students; the first classes were held on September 23, 1946, on the campus of Vista High School in Vista, California. It has since grown to become one of our State's largest community colleges. Palomar College now has an enrollment of over 30,000 students and is widely respected for its excellent programs, faculty, administration, the success of its students, and the service it provides to the communities of northern San Diego County.

Mr. Speaker, because of Palomar College's dedication to education and the improvement of individuals, I want to recognize and honor this institution of higher learning. I congratulate and applaud Palomar College upon the observance of its 60th anniversary and for the valuable contribution it makes to our society and to the future of its students.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6160, the More Border Patrol Agents Now Act of 2006.

This legislation takes an important step toward making our borders more secure and our country safer. More agents along our Nation's borders will lead to better enforcement of our immigration laws. The President's commitment of 6,000 more Border Patrol agents in the next two years is a good start to enhancing border security, but if these agents cannot be easily hired, or if current Border Patrol agents are lost to other employment, this enhanced security cannot be maintained.

Personnel concerns should not be a factor limiting the effectiveness of the Border Patrol.

H.R. 6160 addresses some of these concerns. By streamlining the hiring process and offering recruitment and retention bonuses, H.R. 6160 takes steps to ensure that the Border Patrol will be an effective first line of defense at our borders.

Numerous times, I have met with Border Patrol agents in and around my district in Southern California. On several occasions, the issue of the age limit for new hires has been brought up. Currently, the Border Patrol is covered under law enforcement retirement provisions, meaning new hires must be under the age of 40, unless they presently serve or have previously served in a position covered by federal civilian law enforcement retirement. This precludes retired members of our armed forces from employment by the Border Patrol if they are 40 years of age or older. Because of this arbitrary provision, the Border Patrol is unable to hire extremely qualified individuals, many of whom would need little further training to be effective Border Patrol agents. It is my hope that Congress will address the age limit issue so even more qualified agents can be hired.

I want to thank Mr. Rogers for his leadership on this issue. I would also like to thank Chairmen King and Davis and both the Homeland Security and Government Reform Committees for responding to the needs of the Border Patrol Agency so it can better secure our Nation's borders.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1017) affirming support for the sovereignty and security of Lebanon and the Lebanese people, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the amended version of House Resolution 1017, introduced by my colleague and friend, Mr. Lantos, which affirms support for the sovereignty and security of Lebanon and the Lebanese people.

Madam Speaker, what this resolution now does is urge the government of Lebanon to request assistance from the international community for military and other forms of support in securing their border with Syria in order to end the flow of weapons to Hezbollah.

I want to thank Chairman Hyde for playing an instrumental role in negotiating language that addresses these concerns and enables the government of Lebanon to engage with and work closely with the international community so as to prevent another crisis in the region.

The resolution recognizes the courageous efforts made by many Lebanese in their independent uprising on March 14, 2005, and commends the democratically elected government of Lebanon for their ongoing efforts to restore sovereignty and security throughout its territory.

Despite the remarkable achievements of the Cedar Revolution, the government of Lebanon continues to experience challenges to its rule and sovereignty. Targeted killings of public figures and the recent conflict between Hezbollah and Israel illustrate the dangers of Lebanon's inability to control its borders and to provide sovereign support for all of its people. The war between Israel and Hezbollah was not a war between Lebanon and Israel, but it was a war all the same that Lebanon felt.

Tonight, with this resolution, we are providing the encouragement and support to ensure that Lebanon is able to assert its sovereignty and, as such, assert its ability to live in peace with its neighbors.

Madam Speaker, there is no greater role this Congress can play than to send a message, as we are here tonight on a bipartisan basis, to the people of Lebanon that their democracy, founded in 1943 and reestablished less than a year and a half ago, is a priority of this Congress and that we will stand in support of the Lebanese people and a democracy.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I will close by noting that this is a very special evening tonight in this resolution. There are only four Arab American Members of Congress, Charles Boustany, Ray LaHood, Nick Rahall, and myself. It is uncommon for the kind of bipartisan support between all of us to come together on something. But the importance of Lebanese sovereignty and of a stable Lebanese democracy bring us together, and they are all cosponsors of the bill along with the gentleman, Mr. Lantos.

In listening to Mr. Lantos, I have to say that never before have the two of us agreed so much on what must be done. The only thing that I noted when he was talking about the borders between Lebanon and Syria was that even today there are borders between Lebanon and Syria that have never been identified under an international law, and that is something, too, that a sovereign, stable, and able to enforce its own borders Lebanon would quickly be able to go to the United Nations and assert its fair international border; and I look forward to that.

Last, in closing, I share with the gentleman from California and all the Members of Congress the call that he made for the return of the hostages taken from Israeli sovereign territory that in fact began the conflict that we are today trying to end forever by establishing a sovereign Lebanon, and part of that sovereignty will be to ensure that those Israeli soldiers are returned from Lebanon back to Israel, to their parents, to their families.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6095, the ``Immigration Law Enforcement Act of 2006.'' This legislation takes an important step toward greater prosecution of human smugglers, known as ``coyotes,'' and I thank Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner for bringing this legislation before us. This legislation also authorizes State and local cooperation with Federal immigration enforcement efforts, as well as helping to end the catch-and-release of criminal aliens.

I have spoken about the need for increased prosecution of coyotes many times. I have corresponded numerous times with the Attorney General on the subject imploring increased prosecution. Last year I introduced the Criminal Alien Accountability Act that would stiffen the penalties for coyotes and other criminal aliens. My legislation was incorporated in large part into H.R. 4437, the ``Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005,'' which passed the House last December. However, major roadblocks impeding the prosecution of coyotes remain, and they are the lack of acceptance of these cases by U.S. Attorneys and a lack of uniform prosecution guidelines among the U.S. Attorney offices along the southern border.

The U.S. Attorney's Office has stated in the past that it does not have the resources needed to fully prosecute arrested coyotes. For example, the Border Patrol was instructed to release known coyote Antonio Amparo-Lopez, an individual with 21 aliases and 20 arrests. Releasing a criminal such as this is completely unacceptable, and is demoralizing to the Border Patrol agents who work so hard to make the arrests in the first place.

I, along with Chairman Sensenbrenner, recently met with U.S. Border Patrol Sector Chief Darryl Griffin and U.S. Attorney Carol Lam in San Diego to discuss these problems. Our meetings demonstrated the differences in opinion between those who arrest human smugglers and those who prosecute them. Importantly, we learned that U.S. Attorney offices have varying prosecution guidelines for human smugglers depending on where the office is located. This causes smugglers to use access points in states with weaker prosecution standards, increasing the criminal element in those communities.

H.R. 6095 calls on the Attorney General to adopt uniform guidelines for the prosecution of smuggling offenses. This change could help lessen the burden on borders areas within the United States that currently are overrun by coyote operations, in addition to reducing smuggling in total. Additionally, H.R. 6095 authorizes 20 new U.S. attorneys for each year from FY 2008 through FY 2013 to help prosecute human smuggling offenses.

I will continue to work with others in Congress, the Administration, and the public at large to ensure the prosecution and removal of every criminal alien that is apprehended.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding to me. I am part of the class that came in and were freshmen, we were just getting our feet wet at that time in Judiciary and International Relations, when September 11 occurred. For the class of 2000 that came in with the President, this has been our entire career. So I don't have a reference point that is particularly good of how the House was before, but I did watch a profound change, a focus after September 11 that I am very proud of.

And I stand before this body today in hopes that after this election and after this resolution passes we will get back to being the Congress that we were after September 11. Because after September 11, we came together. We accepted the compromises necessary to go out and find out who killed us, who hated us, who wanted to kill us, who would be next, and where they would attack.

Today, serving on the Select Intelligence Committee, I am concerned that partisan bickering, that in fact those who want to change who runs the Congress or those who want to retain it have begun to look in those terms rather than in terms of how do we keep America safe.

So I look forward to this passage, I look forward to going back to work, and I look forward to in fact the Congress, on a bipartisan basis, coming back together in a way that we have not been. And I am deeply disturbed at some of the statements made here today, because I think that for those who listen throughout America, Mr. Speaker, they are going to hear that many are, like me, concerned for America, concerned that we come together and we continue to do the people's work of making this country safe in the war on terrorism. And I hope that those who speak out with other ideas are also considered.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the 31 years of dedicated service of Marine Corps COL. Paul C. Christian.

Colonel Christian is a native of Neenah, WI. While attending the University of Wisconsin-Platteville, Colonel Christian joined the Marine Corps Platoon Leaders' Class and underwent officer candidate training during the summers of 1973 and 1975. He was commissioned a Second Lieutenant in December 1975 upon graduation with a B.S. in Criminal Justice.

In March 1976, Second Lieutenant Christian reported to the Basic School, MCDEC, Quantico, VA. Upon graduation in September 1976, he was sent to NAS Pensacola, FL, for flight training. After receiving his designation as a Naval Aviator and promoted to First Lieutenant in November 1977, he was ordered to HML-267, Camp Pendleton, CA, for transition into the UH-1N. His duties consisted of CMCC/CMS Officer, Adjutant, Flight Officer, and Assistant Operations Officer. He was promoted to Captain in September 1980, and deployed twice to Marine Corps Air Station Futenma, Okinawa, Japan, with HML-267, Detachment Alpha.

In April 1982, Captain Christian became a ``Plank Holder'' upon the commissioning of HMT-303, where he served as the Administrative Officer and a Huey flight instructor. Ordered to SOMS, MCAS EI Toro, CA, in October 1982, he was assigned as a Search and Rescue Pilot, Officer-in- Charge of Air Freight/VAL, and Assistant Airfield Operations Officer. In October 1985, Captain Christian reported to 1st Battalion, 1st Marines, 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, as the Air Officer. During this period, he deployed to WESTPAC with BLT 1/1, 11th MEU.

Again ordered to HMT-303 in October 1986, he was assigned as the Operations Officer and was promoted to Major in July 1987. In April 1988, Major Christian reported to HMLA-267 for duty as Executive Officer of Det. Alpha and deployed to MCAS Futenma. Upon returning from WESTPAC, he assumed duties in January 1989 as the Executive Officer of MWSS-372, MCAS Camp Pendleton. In January 1990, Major Christian was assigned as a student at the Armed Forces Staff College in Norfolk, VA.

Upon graduation in June 1990, Major Christian was ordered to the Conventional War Plans and Interoperability Directorate (J-7), Joint Staff, Pentagon, Washington, DC. During this tour, Major Christian served as an action officer for deliberate and crisis action planning. Promoted to Lieutenant Colonel in July 1993, he then reported to MAG- 39, MCAS Camp Pendleton, as the Operations Officer for MAG-39. From June 1995 to June 1997, Lieutenant Colonel Christian was the Commanding Officer, Aviation Ground Support Element, 3rd MAW, MCAGCC, 29 Palms,

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this acquisition by the Federal Government, because it is so consistent with how we as Americans have honored our war dead and those who have given in service to our country.

I just want to point out for a moment a picture of Mt. Soledad, of the actual cross, and then, Mr. Speaker, as you look at pictures of the other Federal sites, the amazing thing is how similar they are. These are sites which are not contested. They are not contested because our Founding Fathers didn't want the establishment of a religion, but they didn't want a godless society; just the opposite, they wanted a freedom for people to observe their God as they chose fit. Particularly when we deal with those who have fallen in support of this country, they should be free to honor them with or without symbols that they find comfort in.

I think, Mr. Speaker, as we consider this important piece of legislation, I think it is important that we realize that that cross is about men and women who have given their lives and a symbol that says they gave their life for their country. It is an arbitrary symbol, but it is not a symbol without meaning. It stands, like those crosses in faraway lands of Americans who fell in Tripoli, Americans who were buried at Normandy, and of Americans who have never been returned home from the sea. It stands as a symbol of their passing and their sacrifice.

Mt. Soledad, no one ever doubted that this was a war memorial. No one ever doubted that. In fact, people found comfort in this symbol to those men and women in San Diego, the home of both Marines and Navy, for more than 100 years. No one ever found that this was inappropriate to honor our dead. What they found was one person, one out of 2 million people, who said, I am offended, I want no cross. It offends me.

Mr. Speaker, the definition of offensive language and offensive behavior and signs like the swastikas and other symbols of hate are just that. They are unique symbols that people have no doubt are designed to offend.

This cross was never intended to offend. Just the opposite; it was intended to do what it does for the vast majority of San Diegans and people who come to our fair city. It honors our war veterans for the sacrifice they made. That is the symbolism it has. That is the reason that hundreds of thousands of people climb that hill every year to spend a moment to look at the cross, but, more importantly, to look at the pictures of the men and women throughout the lower part of this memorial who, in fact, are there on plaques to be observed and remembered for their sacrifice.

I ask full support of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding, and yielding, I note, time in opposition.

I will be voting for this important resolution, not because it is perfect. As a matter of fact, I think the one consistent thing that, Mr. Speaker, you are going to see tonight is not one, not two, not three, but all four of the Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle whose families emigrated from Lebanon basically 100 years ago or more are finding that this resolution does not say enough.

Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention and will be including in my remarks H. Res. 926, which was submitted as a draft to the Committee on International Relations and to the Subcommittee on the Middle East on which I serve on both.

For those who think that Members of Congress who come from Lebanese ancestry would somehow think differently than many of the rest, I would like to share just a few short portions.

First of all, the opening of the resolution: ``Condemning the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers by Hamas and Hezbollah, affirming the right of Israel to conduct operations to secure the kidnapped soldiers, urging all parties to protect innocent life and civilian infrastructure, and for other purposes.''

Many of the passages are similar, but some notably are different than the

resolution being considered tonight. It goes on to blame directly Nasrallah, the Secretary General of Hezbollah, responsible for these attacks and responsible for taking hostages.

It further, in its whereases: ``Whereas Iran, Syria, and elements of the Government of Lebanon have a well-documented history of supporting the terrorist groups responsible for these kidnappings.''

And, Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that the Lebanese Americans were the first to come out and say in no uncertain terms that the elements in Lebanese society, including those who were elected from the occupied south, not occupied by Israel any longer, but occupied by Hezbollah, did send representatives sympathetic to Hezbollah.

But I think what is not said in this resolution and has not been said well enough here tonight, in my opinion, is that the Cedar Revolution clearly denounced that direction. It went against the illegally reelected or illegally extended Presidency of Emile Lahoud, and it made very clear by backing the so-called Saad Hariri bloc, the bloc of the assassinated former Prime Minister in securing a multidenominational, across-the-board, including Shi'a, government that wants a sovereign, independent and peaceful Lebanon.

Unfortunately, the resolution we are considering tonight does talk about the failure of the Lebanese Government. I think that is fair, but it is only fair if we also include the failure of the United States Government.

We have provided nothing to the Lebanese since they bravely stood up to Syria, demanded their withdrawal, rioted in the street, were bombed and killed for their attempt to give themselves that freedom and liberty. We have not provided them any kind of capability of going to the south and enforcing. We have talked about it. We have planned to do it. The administration has prepared to do it. Our committees have explored it, but today, as of yet, we have not yet done what we must do.

Mr. Speaker, I call on this committee that is here today on this floor to dedicate itself to immediately upon us coming back to work in the morning begin the process of providing the lawful Government of Lebanon the ability to, in fact, send those troops to the south to, in fact, displace Hezbollah. It is going to take time, energy, money and training.

We are spending billions of dollars every month arming the Iraqi people so, in fact, they can replace a government that we had to topple. The Lebanese already toppled a government that had been a puppet of Syria and Iran for a long time, and they, in fact, were the movement that led to Syria being forced out after decades of occupation.

The Lebanese have earned the right, and this resolution in part says that, they have earned the right to have that ability, and we have to give them that ability.

So I go further than simply say I hope we will. I demand that if we care enough about the words we say in our resolution tonight and in H. Res. 926, which is the underlying document submitted by four Lebanese Americans, if we care enough to denounce Hezbollah for what they have, and Iran and Syria for what they have done, then we have to be willing to confront them in Lebanon, something we have not been willing to do.

So, tonight I stand with Israel's right to get its kidnapped soldiers back. I stand with Israel's right to reduce the ability of Hezbollah to rain rockets down on Israel, but I also stand with the people of Lebanon who have been traded like pawns again and again and say, yes, let us pass this resolution, but let us also start in the morning to do the job so that the next resolution, when it says the Lebanese Government has failed to do something, it will not also have the right to say the Lebanese Government did not have a snowball's chance in a summer in Hades of actually doing it.

A government with armored personnel carriers donated by the U.S. Government in the 1970s made of aluminum is not going to take on Hezbollah, not if tanks from Israel could not do it in 18 years.

So, yes, I am voting for this resolution. I appreciate the gentleman giving me time from the opposition, but I want to include H. Res. 926 in this debate, and I want to include the statement by the four Lebanese Americans that, yes, we will support Israel, but we want to support Lebanon's ability to be free and independent, and that will take a commitment starting tomorrow morning.

H. Res. 926

Whereas on June 25, 2006, Israeli Defense Forces Corporal

Gilad Shalit was kidnapped and taken hostage by a Palestinian

militant group that included members of the military wing of

Hamas;

Whereas Hamas political leader Khaled Meshaal, in Damascus,

Syria, has acknowledged the role of Hamas in holding Corporal

Shalit hostage;

Whereas on July 12, 2006, operatives of the terrorist group

Hezbollah carried out an attack in Israel, killing three

Israeli soldiers and taking two others hostage;

Whereas Hezbollah Secretary General Hasan Nasrallah has

acknowledged Hezbollah's responsibility for the attack and

taking hostages;

Whereas Iran, Syria, and elements of the Government of

Lebanon have a well-documented history of supporting the

terrorist groups responsible for these kidnappings;

Whereas President George W. Bush stated on July 13, 2006,

``[t]he democracy of Lebanon is an important part of laying a

foundation of peace'', that the government of Lebanese Prime

Minister Faoud Sinoria must not be undermined during the

current crisis, and that Syria and Iran must be held to

account for their shared responsibility in the recent hostage

taking; and

Whereas Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stated on July

12, 2006, ``All sides must act with restraint to resolve this

incident peacefully and to protect innocent life and civilian

infrastructure.'': Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) condemns Hamas and Hezbollah for engaging in the

reprehensible terrorist act of taking hostages;

(2) affirms the right of Israel to conduct operations, both

inside and outside its own borders and in the territory of

countries supporting the hostage takers, in pursuit of the

release of hostages;

(3) notes that all governments that have provided continued

support to Hamas or Hezbollah share responsibility for the

hostage taking and urges these countries to use all efforts

to secure the unconditional release of the hostages;

(4) urges all parties to protect innocent life and civilian

infrastructure;

(5) declares its continued commitment to aiding Israel and

the administration of President George W. Bush in battling

terrorism and securing the unconditional release of hostages;

and

(6) expresses its condolences to all innocent victims of

recent violence in Israel, Lebanon, and the Palestinian

territories and their families, including those of the three

Israeli hostages.

Mr. Speaker, as the G-8 meets in St. Petersburg this weekend to discuss important international issues, we should be mindful that the host nation Russia hardly deserves to be included in this accomplished group. The seven other participating countries are mature democracies with proven market economies that use the rule of law as the basis for civil society and display mutual respect across borders.

Unfortunately, Russia has yet to subscribe to these same principles. Russian President Vladimir Putin has placed energy security at the top of the G-8 agenda. However, with Russia being the dominant supplier of gas to Europe, leaders throughout that continent feel anything but secure. And for good reason. Just this week, Rosneft, the Russian oil company, is seeking validation through a public offering to raise $11 billion from mostly Western investors.

What makes this offering controversial is how Rosneft acquired its assets and that it is a state-owned entity. Rosneft's asset once belonged to the YUKOS Oil Company, a private company that prospered until the Kremlin directed attacks against its chairman, Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Using the pretext of past tax claims the Russian government put Mr. Khodorkovsky and other company of officers in prison and then arranged for the state takeover of the company. The case and subsequent actions were highly controversial and widely reported in the Western media at the time.

My Energy and Resources Subcommittee under the House Committee on Government Reform, recently conducted hearings on energy security and received credible testimony about the extra-legal, if not outright illegality, of the Russian government's actions regarding the YUKOS Company. We should remain concerned about how the Kremlin, which clearly controls almost all oil and gas exports to European and CIS countries, might use energy for political and foreign policy purposes.

My colleague, Mr. Lantos, shares my concerns and this week sent a letter to several U.S. financial institutions that may be contemplating participation in the Rosneft lPO, questioning whether investing in a state entity which has acquired its main assets under other than legitimate circumstances may be in violation of U.S. laws and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

For the benefit of my colleagues, I would like to ask that Mr. Lantos' letter be placed in the Record at this time.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives

Washington, DC, July 10, 2006.

Mr. James Dimon,

Chairman and CEO, J.P. Morgan Chase,

New York, NY.

Dear Mr. Dimon: I write regarding recent news accounts that

J.P. Morgan Chase may serve as an investment advisor or

otherwise participate in the initial public offering of

Russia's state-owned oil company, OAO Rosneft Oil Company

(``Rosneft''). I understand from these news reports that the

offering, currently estimated to be $8 billion to $13

billion, is to take place in mid-July 2006.

I am concerned that such transactions may violate federal

anti-money laundering laws and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

According to published reports, the largest portion of

Rosneft's assets was acquired in a transaction of

questionable legality I question whether financial

institutions that have access to the U.S. payments systems

should be engaged in transactions involving assets acquired

by a state entity under circumstances that are contrary to or

in violation of U.S. laws and acceptable market practices.

Given the source of Rosneft's assets, there are questions

about whether the proposed IPO would involve prohibited

proceeds as specified under 18 U.S.C. 1956 (``laundering of

monetary instruments''). Specifically, any financial

institution involved in the IPO could be at potential risk of

violating federal anti-money laundering laws aimed at

preventing the proceeds of theft, corruption or other forms

of unlawful activity from entering the payments system.

Rosneft's acquisition of assets from a publicly traded

company, OAO NK Yukos Oil Company (``Yukos''), in which

Americans had invested through American Depository Receipts

traded on the New York Stock Exchange, violated basic

principles and norms of free markets. Public accounts of the

transaction strongly suggest that Rosneft's senior officers

and directors, some of whom are senior officials of the

Russian government, personally profited from the theft of

these assets through their involvement in a sham transaction.

In that transaction, a front-company of unknown ownership

acquired the assets at billions of dollars below their market

value in a forced auction arranged by these very officials,

who in turn secured the prompt transfer of these assets from

the front-company to Rosneft--a sequence of events that have

raised serious questions of corruption.

Significant financial institutions and analysts have raised

ethical and legal concerns about the planned IPO due to the

history of the Rosneft assets. As you may know, F&C Asset

Management (``F&C''), based in London, on April 27, 2006

publicly announced that the Rosneft IPO raised serious

questions of governance and legal risk, which made it

impossible for F&C to be a participating investor. According

to F&C, the Rosneft IPO is burdened by its lack of

transparency and no ``credible assurances that it has

identified, and made adequate provisions for any liabilities

stemming from the acquisition of its Yuganskneftegaz asset

[the assets taken from Yukos].''

Independently, George Soros, an experienced investor in

Russia, has also found serious ethical issues pertaining to

the Rosneft IPO. As Soros wrote in The Financial Times on

April 26, 2006, Rosneft acquired its Yukos assets through

non-transparent sale by a front-company that ``won'' a rigged

auction of Yukos assets engineered by Russian authorities

under circumstances that made it impossible to determine who

profited 0 the transaction. As Soros wrote, the assets were

``not acquired directly. The auction was won by unknown

Russian company that sold itself within days to Rosneft.''

According to Mr. Soros, ``[t]he unknown owners made an

unknown amount of money on the transaction. The question is:

`Should an IPO be allowed to go forward without disclosing

the pertinent information?'.''

In amending the Bank Secrecy Act in 20 1 with the USA-

PATRIOT Act, the Congress emphasized the policy of ensuring

that every financial institution determine the beneficial

ownership of the assets involved in a transaction in order to

ensure that they are not illicit proceeds. We established a

risk-based system for due diligence in which we asked federal

regulators to ensure that financial institutions exercise

greater due diligence in high risk cases, such as when assets

are controlled by political figures, or those close to them,

sometimes known as ``politically exposed persons,'' in order

to guard against the risk that the financial institution

could be used to handle the proceeds of corruption.

I recognize that Bank Secrecy Act and Sarbanes-Oxley

compliance has become a continuing focus of all publicly

traded U.S. financial institutions and that your institution

has policies and procedures in place designed to protect the

institution from the risk of handling illicit funds. In

recent years, however, federal regulators have repeatedly

found cases in which major U.S.-regulated financial

institutions failed to undertake risk-based assessments

across every area of their business, with the result that

some significant risks had not been recognized in a timely

fashion.

There is no information publicly available to enable

Congress to assess the kind of due diligence that

participating U.S. financial institutions have done regarding

the underlying assets involved in the Rosneft IPO. We cannot

assess ow such institutions have determined that neither

corruption nor theft have been involved in Rosneft's

acquisition of this property. I recognize the Rosneft IPO is

only weeks away, but I urge you to take into account the

concerns outlined above, particularly as they relate to the

Bank Secrecy Act and Sarbanes-Oxley concerning any

transactions you contemplate in this regard.

Sincerely,

Tom Lantos,

Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, the district work period was especially meaningful for me going back to my district, Camp Pendleton being the center of it, and having a Fourth of July celebration in recognition of what our men and women in uniform have done and continue to do for our freedom and freedom around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today very concerned that in fact the tendency to put the mission first is beginning to affect adversely the welfare and well-being of the families of our servicemen back home. We have had record supplementals and record payments on defense.

Mr. Speaker, we need to make sure that the funds that we earmark and put toward military construction, family housing units and the health and welfare of our men and women's wives, husbands and children get to them.

Mr. Speaker, I hope this body will work with the Department of Defense to ensure that those funds are maintained at the level that we put them in. It is essential that our fighting men and women away in combat know their families are taken care of at home.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of my bill