Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support this very important effort to award the Congressional Gold Medal to Aung San Suu Kyi. She is one of the most honorable advocates for democracy and human rights the world will ever know. Ms. Suu Kyi is the world's only Nobel Peace Prize winner to remain a political prisoner. Ironically, the daughter

of Burma's revolutionary hero is herself a captive in the very country that her father freed from colonial rule.

I want to take this opportunity to thank my colleague and good friend from New York (Mr. Crowley) for being a leader on such an important matter. His drive and commitment to awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to Ms. Suu Kyi is not only impressive, but it is a true testament to his character. I am honored that he reached out to me to help drive this measure.

Mr. Speaker, Burma's military junta has held Aung San Suu Kyi captive for most of the 18 years she has spent inside that country. In fact, she was placed under house arrest in 1989, after she formed the National League for Democracy. And even after that party won the decisive election in 1990, with Ms. Suu Kyi elected as Prime Minister, the junta continues to not recognize the election results and the fact that the people have spoken. Except for brief occasions, Ms. Suu Kyi has remained a prisoner. She even was not allowed to attend her husband's funeral and remains separated from her children.

In September of this year, the Burmese people held the largest peaceful protests that country has seen in the past 20 years. They protested the poor economic decisions of the junta as well as the continued denial of democratic and human rights of the Burmese people. An estimated 100,000 people marched through Rangoon, peacefully demanding the release of Aung San Suu Kyi. The world watched and hoped that this time the Saffron Revolution would lead to meaningful change. But, rather than listening to its people, the regime of Than Shwe turned its guns against the people, as they did in 1988. The U.N. Special Envoy for Human Rights reported recently that at least 31 people were killed in September and over 1,000 people remain incarcerated.

Last week, we gathered here in this House to pass a bill sponsored by two champions of freedom, my good friends Mr. Lantos, chairman, and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The Block Burmese JADE Act of 2007 can be an important tool to add even more pressure to the regime to change its ways, particularly if our government encourages more countries to adopt similar economic sanctions. I note that the European Union is following a similar approach in response to the killings. Even Burma's immediate neighbors have issued strong statements condemning the massacre.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are outraged and disgusted by the severe use of force on the protestors and the continued detention of Aung San Suu Kyi. Shortly after the protest, the Subcommittee on Asia, Pacific, and Global Environment, on which I serve as ranking Republican member, with Congressman Eni Faleomavaega as chairman, held a hearing on the situation in Burma. We heard dramatic testimony from experts within the administration and from nongovernmental organizations. All the witnesses agree that Burma's fall from a prosperous country to pariah state was a direct consequence of the dictatorship.

So that is why we are here today, to state for the record that it is time the military junta recognize the will of the Burmese people, and of most countries of the world, and open the door for true reconciliation. By awarding Ms. Suu Kyi the Congressional Gold Medal, we Americans send a strong message that totalitarianism in Burma needs to come to an end.

I urge all Members to support H.R. 4286 so that we can voice our full support for Burma's first daughter and for all the people of Burma. This will remind the military junta of the American people's unwavering support for Aung San Suu Kyi. We need to pass the bill so there can be no mistaking our support.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise to raise awareness about a mental health concern that is afflicting our brave veterans. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is an illness that can have devastating consequences if not treated. For too long, those suffering from PTSD have been unfairly stigmatized. On December 12, 2007, Mike and Kim Bowman traveled from their home in northern Illinois to testify about the immeasurable tragedy their family has suffered as a result of the suicide of their son Specialist Tim Bowman.

Specialist Tim Bowman was 23 years old when he lost his battle with PTSD only eight months after returning from active duty in Iraq. The Department of Veterans Affairs needs to do more to ensure that all members of the armed services receive the care and attention they deserve. Mike and Kim's story is one that is all too often repeated around the country. As Mike Bowman said in his testimony, ``we must all remove the stigma that goes with a soldier admitting that he or she has [PTSD].''

I enclose for the Record the testimonies of Mike Bowman and author Ilona Meagher. I encourage all Members to read their statements and judge for themselves the level of the mental heath challenges that exists. It is time that this country recognizes what is going with PTSD and takes appropriate action now. No one should suffer a day longer.

Testimony of Mike Bowman

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my wife and I are

honored to be speaking before you today representing just one

of the families that lost a veteran to suicide in 2005.

As my family was preparing for our 2005 Thanksgiving meal,

our son Timothy was lying on the floor of my shop office,

slowly bleeding to death from a self inflicted gun shot

wound. His war was now over, his demons were gone. Tim was

laid to rest in a combination military, firefighter funeral

that was a tribute to the man he was.

Tim was the life of a party, happy go lucky young man that

joined the National Guard in 2003 to earn money for college

and get a little structure in his life. On March 19th of 2005

when Specialist Bowman got off the bus with the other

National Guard soldiers of Foxtrot 202 that were returning

from Iraq he was a different man. He had a glaze in his eyes

and a 1000 yard stare, always looking for an insurgent.

Family members of F202 were given a 10 minute briefing on

PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) 2 months before the

soldiers returned and the soldiers were given even less. The

commander of F202 had asked the Illinois Guard command to

change their demobilization practices to be more like the

regular army, only to have his questions rebuffed. He knew

that our boys had been shot up, blown up by IED's (Improvised

Explosive Device), extinguished fires on soldiers so their

parents would have something to bury, and extinguished a fire

on their own to save lives. They were hardened combat

veterans now, but were being treated like they had been at an

extended training mission.

You see our National Guardsman from F202 were not out

filling sand bags. They departed in October of 2003 for 6

months of training at Ft's Hood and Polk. On Tim's 22nd

birthday, March 4, 2004, Foxtrot left for Iraq where they

were stationed at Camp Victory. Their tour took them directly

into combat including 4 months on ``the most dangerous road

in the world'', the highway from the airport to the green

zone in Baghdad. Tim was a top gunner in a humvee. Tim as

well as many other soldiers in F202 earned their Purple

Hearts on that stretch of road known as Route Irish. We are

STILL waiting for Tim's Purple Heart from various military

paperwork shuffles.

When CBS News broke the story about Veterans suicides, the

VA took the approach of criticizing the way that the numbers

were created instead of embracing it and using it to help

increase mental health care within their system. Regardless

of how perfectly accurate the numbers are, they obviously

show a trend that desperately needs attention. CBS did what

NO government agency would do; they tabulated the veteran

suicide numbers to shed light on this hidden epidemic and

make the American people aware of this situation. The VA

should have taken those numbers to Capitol Hill asking for

more people, funding, and anything else they need to combat

this epidemic. They should embrace this study as it reveals

the scope of a huge problem, rather than complaining about

its accuracy. If all that is going to be done with the study

is argue about how the numbers were compiled, then an average

of 120 soldiers will die every week by their own hand

until the VA recognizes this fact, and does something

about it.

The VA mental health system is broken in function, and

understaffed in operation. There are many cases of soldiers

coming to the VA for help and being turned away or

misdiagnosed for PTSD and then losing their battle with their

demons. Those soldiers, as well as our son Timothy, can never

be brought back. No one can change that fact. But you can

change the system so this trend can be slowed down

dramatically or even stopped.

Our son was just one of thousands of veterans that this

country has lost to suicide. I see every day the pain and

grief that our family and extended family goes through in

trying to deal with this loss. Every one of those at risk

veterans also has a family that will suffer if that soldier

finds the only way to take the battlefield pain away is by

taking his or her own life. Their ravished and broken spirits

are then passed on to their families as they try to justify

what has happened. I now suffer from the same mental

illnesses that claimed my son's life, PTSD, from the images

and sounds of finding him and hearing his life fade away, and

depression from a loss that I would not wish on anyone.

If the veteran suicide rate is not classified as an

epidemic that needs immediate and drastic attention, then the

American fighting soldier needs someone in Washington who

thinks it is. I challenge you to do for the American soldier,

what that soldier did for each of you and for his country.

Take care of them and help preserve their American dream as

they did yours. To quote President Calvin Coolidge, ``The

nation which forgets its defenders will be itself

forgotten.''

I challenge you to make the VA an organization to be proud

of instead of the last place that a veteran wants to go. It

is the obligation of each and every one of you and all

Americans, to channel the energies, resources, and the

intelligence and wisdom of this nation's Best and Brightest

to create the most effective, efficient and meaningful

healthcare system for our men and women who have served. You

must find a way to remove the stigma that goes with a soldier

admitting that he or she has a mental problem. We have the

technology to create the most highly advanced military

system, but when these Veterans come home, they find an

understaffed, underfunded, and underequipped VA mental health

system that has so many challenges to get through it, that

many just give up trying. The result is the current suicide

epidemic among our nation's defenders, one of which was

Specialist Timothy Noble Bowman, our 23 year old son,

soldier, and hero.

Our veterans should and must not be left behind in the

ravished, horrific battlefields of their broken spirits and

minds. Our veterans deserve better!! Mr. Chairman, this

concludes my testimony. Thank you.

Testimony of Ilona Meagher

Chairman Filner, Ranking Member Buyer, and other

distinguished members of the Committee, I thank you for the

opportunity to appear before you today.

To open, I'd like to briefly share my thoughts on why it is

that I believe I'm here. I am not only someone who's spent

the past two years researching and writing about post-

traumatic stress in our returning troops, I'm also a

veteran's daughter. My father was born in Hungary, served two

years in antitank artillery as a Hungarian Army conscript,

fought against the Soviet Union on the streets of Budapest

during the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, and later fled to

America where, in 1958, he again became a soldier, this time

wearing a United States Army uniform, and serving as a combat

engineer stationed in Germany.

My father's unique experience of having served on both

sides--East and West--in such differing armies during the

Cold War, gave him a unique perspective on military life.

And so, growing up, my sisters and I often heard my father

say, ``You can always tell how a government feels about its

people by looking at how it treats its soldiers.''

Looking at our returning soldiers and their widely-reported

struggles with the military and VA health care systems they

rely on, of being stigmatized from seeking care or of being

placed on lengthy VA waiting lists when they need immediate

help--some even committing suicide before their appointment

dates arrive--have raised this citizen's alarm bells.

We have had a ``see no evil, hear no evil'' approach to

examining post-deployment psychological reintegration issues

such as suicide. After all we have learned from the

struggles of the Vietnam War generation--and the ensuing

controversy over how many of its veterans did or did not

commit suicide in its wake--why is there today no known

national registry where Afghanistan and Iraq veteran suicide

data is being collected? How can we ascertain reintegration

problems--if any exist--if we are not proactive in seeking

them out?

As late as May 2007, Department of Veterans Affairs

spokeswoman Karen Fedele told the Washington Post that there

was no attempt to gather Afghanistan and Iraq veteran suicide

incidents. ``We don't keep that data,'' she said. ``I'm told

that somebody here is going to do an analysis, but there just

is nothing right now.''

Meanwhile, the Army reported its suicide rate in 2006 rose

to 17.3 per 100,000 troops, the highest in 26 years of

keeping such records. At long last, the Associated Press

revealed that the VA is finally conducting preliminary

research. They've tracked at least 283 OEF/OIF veteran

suicides through the end of 2005, nearly double the rate of

the additional 147 suicides reported by the DoD's Defense

Manpower Data Center.

Looking only at the these suicide figures from the VA (283)

and the DoD (147), there have been at least 430 Afghanistan

and Iraq veteran suicides that have occurred either in the

combat zone or stateside following combat deployment. Lost in

the VA and DoD counts are those veterans who have returned

from their deployments, are still in the military and not yet

in the VA system. The DoD says they do not track those

incidents, and I assume neither does the VA because these

veterans are not yet on their radar.

Yet even with this omission, many of these 430 confirmed

suicides are a result of our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and

should--but won't--be listed with the DoD's official OEF/OIF

death toll of 4,351. It bears mentioning: Currently 10

percent of the overall fatal casualty count of these wars is

due to suicide.

Dismissing the issue of veteran suicide in the face of this

data is negligent and does nothing to honor the service and

sacrifice of our veterans and the families and communities

that literally are tasked with supporting them once they

return.

Yet, prior to last month's CBS News investigation, which

revealed that 120 veterans of all wars committed suicide

every week in 2005 and that 20-24 year old Afghanistan and

Iraq veterans are two to four times more likely to commit

suicide than their civilian counterparts, the scope of the

problem has been largely unknown because no one with proper

resources and access to do the compiling of data came forward

to do so.

In my written testimony, I've included 75 suicides that I

and other citizen journalist colleagues have been tracking

since September 2005 and which today reside in the ePluribus

Media PTSD Timeline.

Offering only a small and incomplete sliver of insight into

how some of our returning troops are faring on the home

front--especially in light of the fact that at least another

355 incidents could be added among them according the the VA

and DoD--I believe that they collectively tell an even

greater tale about the failure of us as individuals and as a

society to ensure that our returning warriors are cleansed

completely from the psychological wounds of war.

They also reflect the failure of our government

institutions to protect those who protect us.

While I realize that these distressing stories are the

exception and not the rule, to our exceptional military

families having to deal with the deterioration of a loved one

they thought had safely returned from combat, they are the

rule. In 1956, the same year that my parents fled to this

incredible country, the 84th Congress--in the very House that

we sit in today--had this to say in a presidential commission

report on veterans' benefits:

``The Government's obligation is to help veterans overcome

special, significant handicaps incurred as a consequence of

their military service. The objective should be to return

veterans as nearly as possible to the status they would have

achieved had they not been in military service . . . and

maintaining them and their survivors in circumstances as

favorable as those of the rest of the people. . . . War

sacrifices should be distributed as equally as possible

within our society. This is the basic function of our

veterans programs.''

I am not a pedigreed expert or a government official

seasoned in testifying before you, but those who are from the

GAO and the Congressional Research Department and even the

Veterans Administration itself, have sat in this very seat

over the years and told you we are falling far short in

providing the resources and programs our returning troops and

military families need to successfully return to their

personal lives following their service to the nation.

To those who resist hearing the cold hard truth of where we

are today, I'd like to say: The time is here to stop fighting

the data, and to start fighting for our troops.

This is America. We can do better. We must do better.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, the subject of our Special Order this evening is our dear friend, Henry Hyde.

Mr. Speaker, I would yield to Congressman Rohrabacher from California.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, Congressman Ray LaHood.

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

I recognized the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentlelady from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt) for 5 minutes.

Before I formally recognize her, I noted with great interest that when Mrs. Schmidt was elected to Congress in that special election, I don't think there was a time that I came in when Henry wasn't here that Congresswoman Schmidt wasn't seated right next to him talking to him, listening to him, and observing his spirit. And it is most appropriate that she speak about this

great American this evening. I recognize Jean Schmidt.

I recognize the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) for 5 minutes.

I yield to the Congressman from Arizona, Trent Franks, 10 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the remaining time that we have.

Okay. I'll claim 5 minutes for myself.

I was elected to this Congress in 1992, was sworn in in 1993, and never got used to the name Congressman. When someone said Congressman, I would turn around and I'd look for Henry

Hyde. I thought that you had to be here an unnamed number of years and garner the utmost respect of your colleagues before you could be called by that name, Congressman.

And I had the opportunity to work with Henry. I recall in either 1993 or 1994, when it was going to be very difficult because of some procedural problem for Henry Hyde to offer the Hyde amendment, and the only way that he could do that was through unanimous consent of this body. It was on I believe an appropriations bill. I sat next to Henry Hyde at this table to my immediate right, and he turned to me and he said, Don, if I can't offer this amendment, tens of thousands of children will die. And I was numbed by what he said, and also by the immense power that one person could have to intervene in the lives of those who had not, who could not see the light of day because of their circumstances.

The chairman of the Appropriations Committee, William Natcher, from Mississippi stood up in a very noisy Chamber, and he said, I ask unanimous consent in this body that the Hyde amendment be allowed in order. And I remember him peering over those glasses, this man from Mississippi who never missed a vote on the floor of the House of Representatives. One person could have said, I object, and no one did. And Henry Hyde offered the amendment that particular afternoon and it passed this body and went on to become part of the continuing law forbidding the use of taxpayers' funding for abortions. I shall never forget the sweat that was emanating from his body, how his hands were being wrung together. And I never thought it possible that one person could make that much of a difference in the United States Congress. And he made the difference to people who could never vote for him. He just did it because he said that this is the right thing to do.

And there were other occasions in my career as a Member of Congress where I would see him stand up. And when Henry Hyde stood up to speak, this noisy body of 435 independent contractors would become very quiet and listen to Henry Hyde. When the Contract with America was penned, and he handled several bills dealing with that very difficult piece of, series of legislation, in the section on product liability he allowed me to give the concluding speech on the floor because one of the companies that I represent back in Rockford, Illinois, had gone out of business on the 100th anniversary because it was sued over a machine that it had manufactured 50 years earlier. And sitting on the desk of the president of that great company was a summons starting a suit over a machine that was manufactured at the time of the House of Romanov when it ruled Russia. And he gave me the honor of giving the concluding speech on that very difficult topic.

You ask yourselves, where are the Henry Hydes of America today? Where are the orators of this House? And no one stands up because they're gone.

I would recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Peter Roskam, for as much time as he would consume.

Reclaiming my time, there are some great Henry Hyde stories. The first time I met him was in his office in your congressional district, and he was wearing this incredible Hawaiian shirt, and sticking out of his pocket was this oversized cigar. I had never seen a cigar that big in my entire life. And he was a connoisseur of his cigars. And I remember one time my Chief of Staff had given me this cigar. He said, ``I got this and you've got to give this to Henry Hyde the next time you see him.'' So I was carrying this cigar in my pocket, and I needed him to sign a document, and he signed the document, and I said, ``Henry, I've got this cigar for you.'' And I think his eyes got bigger than that cigar.

What a sense of humor, what a joy, what a thrill to have served with him. We are honored and blessed to have served with somebody by the name of Henry Hyde of Illinois.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 24 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, December 5, 2007, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 211, commemorating World Diabetes Day on November 14, 2007.

The search for a cure for diabetes is a cause close to my heart. Both my parents were afflicted with the disease, which now strikes 246 million people worldwide. Without early screening, prevention and awareness, this number is expected to rise to 380 million by 2025. In the United States, diabetes is the sixth leading cause of death. Across the world, diabetes is the fourth leading cause of death, with 80 percent of diabetes cases now being found in the developing world. The case for diabetes awareness is so compelling that President Bush recently declared November 2007 to be National Diabetes Month. I would like to add his recent remarks on the subject to the Record.

It is clear that action must be taken to slow the pace of what can only be described as an epidemic of diabetes. This year, the theme of the World Diabetes Day Campaign focuses on raising awareness of diabetes in children and adolescents. More than 200 children get diabetes every day, making it one of those most chronic diseases of childhood. Additionally, this demographic faces unique challenges when diagnosed with diabetes, as the disease can interfere with the normal developmental tasks of childhood and adolescence, which include succeeding in school and transitioning to adulthood. Through raising awareness, the World Diabetes Day Campaign focuses on improving early screening to catch early incidences of diabetes in children and promoting healthy lifestyles to prevent the onset of Type 2 diabetes.

I am proud to lend my support to H. Con. Res. 211. Together we can limit the incidence of this debilitating disease by spreading the message of awareness, treatment and prevention. I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution.

National Diabetes Month, 2007--A Proclamation by the President of the

United States of America

Diabetes is a debilitating disease that affects millions of

Americans of all ages and all walks of life. National

Diabetes Month is an opportunity to raise awareness about

risk factors, prevention, and treatment of this serious

disease.

Diabetes is a chronic illness that leaves the body unable

to produce or properly use insulin to maintain healthy blood

glucose levels. The two most common forms of the disease that

affect our citizens are Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes. Type 1

diabetes, once known as juvenile diabetes, is usually

diagnosed in children and young adults who are unable to

produce insulin and require daily medication. Type 2

diabetes, the most common form of the disease, is often

attributed to lifestyle risk factors and can be controlled by

a modified diet, regular physical activity, and medication.

Americans can take steps to control the disease and lower the

risk of complications such as heart disease, stroke, and

kidney disease by maintaining healthy eating and exercise

habits, and consulting with a doctor about diabetes testing.

My Administration is committed to providing better care for

people living with diabetes and furthering efforts to find a

cure. We have supported research initiatives and education

programs that encourage healthy living, and we have also

modified Medicare coverage to include diabetes screenings.

This year, the National Institutes of Health estimates that

more than $1 billion will be spent on diabetes research. By

working together, we can help identify problems early, manage

them before they grow worse, and help ensure more Americans

live longer, healthier lives.

Throughout National Diabetes Month, we recognize the

medical professionals, scientists, researchers, and all those

whose efforts have made a positive difference in the fight

against diabetes. By raising public awareness, we can help

combat the effects of diabetes in our society and bring hope

to children and families living with this disease.

Now, therefore, I, George W. Bush, President of the United

States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by

the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby

proclaim November 2007 as National Diabetes Month. I call

upon all Americans to learn more about the risk factors and

symptoms associated with diabetes and to observe this month

with appropriate programs and activities.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this

thirty-first day of October, in the year of our Lord two

thousand seven, and of the Independence of the United States

of America the two hundred and thirty-second.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement.

According to the International Trade Administration, approximately 91 percent of U.S. exports to Peru are manufactured products. Currently, all of these goods are assessed high tariffs--in some instances at double-digit rates. Peruvian manufacturers are not assessed any tariffs when selling to the U.S. market. This market-opening trade agreement levels the playing field for America's manufacturers by eliminating high tariffs on all U.S. manufactured goods within 10 years. Eighty percent of Peruvian tariffs on consumer and industrial goods would be eliminated immediately upon this agreement coming into force.

To put the cost of these tariffs into perspective, a Caterpillar off- highway truck made in Illinois used for mining exported to Peru costs the end-user an additional $100,000 because of the tariffs. This agreement eliminates this duty immediately. Because Peru does not have a free trade agreement with Japan, H.R. 3688 gives a competitive advantage to Caterpillar over its global competitors such as Komatsu of Japan. The northern Illinois district I am proud to represent has many suppliers to Caterpillar, many of them small manufacturers, selling about $150 million worth of product each year. Having an agreement like this insures the long-term viability of the manufacturing jobs at these firms that may not even know that their product they make eventually finds its way to export markets like Peru.

Madam Speaker, this agreement will greatly benefit other manufacturers of Illinois as well. In 2001, Illinois machinery manufacturers exported $65.8 million worth of goods to Peru. In 2006, that number more than tripled to $198.2 million. Our manufacturers were able to do this in spite of the high tariffs. Imagine what they will be able to do when these tariffs are removed! The independent International Trade Commission estimates that U.S. exports to Peru will increase by $1.1 billion once this agreement is fully implemented. We have seen examples of other market opening agreements that resulted in increasing U.S. exports. Since the adoption of the market-opening agreement with Chile in 2004, U.S. exports to Chile leapt by 33 percent in 2004, 43 percent in 2005, and 38 percent in 2006! Our trade agreement with Australia also helped boost U.S. exports ``down under'' by 25 percent in just two years.

I urge my colleagues to support America's manufacturers by voting ``yes'' for this agreement.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3355 requires the Treasury Department to offer low-cost subsidized Federal loans to State reinsurance funds. This bill employs the lesser used loan approach for States, rather than block grants or emergency funding, the usual methods of Federal assistance.

The concept of the loan is unique from a block grant, as a loan implies a temporary extension of funds with agreed-upon terms of repayment. The concept of a loan also implies that there are consequences for those who do not abide by the terms of the loan, such as ineligibility to receive additional loans should one become delinquent on a current loan. It is not in the lender's interest to lend money to someone who has proven that he or she will not pay it back according to the contracted terms.

This bill contains no prohibition on continued lending to States that are delinquent on loans authorized under this bill or extended through other Federal entities as found in other Federal loan programs. This consequence free-lending program will also allow States that choose to ignore the repayment responsibility to treat the loans as being in a state of eternal deferral, and expose the taxpayer to a tremendous amount of risk.

My amendment seeks to protect the taxpayer by insuring that Federal loans go only to States with a proven track record of fiscal responsibility. Specifically, this fiscally responsible amendment will disqualify States that are delinquent on any Federal disaster loans from receiving additional loans under this program.

H.R. 3355 already entitles these States to subsidized loans at below- market rates from the Federal Government. It only makes sense that they should be held to the same responsible standard that applies in the private market and elsewhere in the Federal Government. Without this standard, the loan program becomes no different than a block grant or a taxpayer-financed giveaway.

H.R. 3355 requires very little of the States in the way of mitigation to reduce the cost to taxpayers. By ensuring that States act responsibly before receiving another subsidized loan, my amendment is a small but important step towards protecting the interest of the tax- paying Americans that will be funding this bill.

I urge support for this amendment and would cite as precedent TANF

funds, for example, under title 42, chapter 7, a failure to timely repay a Federal loan fund for State welfare programs, if the Secretary determines that a State has failed to repay any amounts borrowed from the Federal loan program, then they become ineligible or that the amounts they receive in the future are deducted to pay the prior amounts that are due.

I would urge support of this amendment. This makes sure that this is a loan program and not a grant program.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

It's obvious that the gentleman agrees with me on the absolute necessity of making sure that this is a loan program and not a grant program. This amendment simply gives more teeth to the assurance that the gentleman gave us as to the language that is in the bill. Therefore, I would suggest that he agree with the amendment.

Thank you.

I actually concur with what the gentleman from Florida said. But what he was talking about was in terms of the traditional FEMA emergency funds. That's not the topic of this bill. Those funds are totally separate and independent of the topic that we have here.

What we are talking about is making loans to the reinsurance fund of the State. We're not talking about emergency grants under FEMA, nor are we talking about emergency loans under the Small Business Administration for purpose of reconstruction or for loss of business, et cetera. This is an entirely separate program to make sure that the reinsurance fund of each State remains solvent.

What we are saying here is that we want to make this as ironclad as possible that this not become a grant program but that it is a loan program. And the only way to make sure that that is the case is that those States that are delinquent as to repayment on these funds simply do not qualify to accept any more funds. What that does is it places the responsibility upon the States to come up with a plan themselves in order to make sure that their reinsurance fund would remain solvent.

Is it FEMA money?

Right. FEMA doesn't lend money to the States.

Under this program. If you are in default under this program, then you are not eligible to receive further moneys.

But it is set up under the State. What reassurance can you give that these loans will be paid and paid on time? That's what I am trying to get at.

I think the gentleman and I agree on the fact that the loan should be repaid and not be a grant, but I think we disagree fundamentally on how it would be administered. That's why this amendment is a backup amendment to make sure that the loans are repaid.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, on Monday, November 5, 2007, I was unable to return to Washington in time to vote because of unexpected flight delays at Chicago O'Hare International Airport. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 1034, dealing with closing portions of the Fiscal Year 2008 Defense Department appropriations conference, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 1035, dealing with the National Heroes Credit Protection Act, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 1036, dealing with recognizing and honoring the contributions of Native American veterans.

Offered By: Mr. Manzullo

Amendment No. 1: Page 15, line 2, strike ``and''.

Page 15, line 5, strike the period and insert ``; and''.

Page 15, after line 5, insert the following new paragraph:

(6) the qualified resinsurance program and the State

authorizing the program are not delinquent, as determined by

the Secretary, with respect to any payment due under any loan

previously made under this Act or under any other loan

provided by any agency or establishment of the Federal

Government to the program or the State for assistance in

connection with a natural or other major disaster.

Mr. Speaker, I come from northern Illinois, an area that has over 2,500 factories. I've spent about three-fourths of my time in Congress dealing with manufacturing issues and traveled the world working on different projects that have different processes, and this bill is really, really bad for people who are interested in keeping manufacturing jobs in the United States. Therefore, I rise in opposition to the rule governing the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007.

Twenty-six amendments from both Democrats and Republicans were submitted, but only seven were approved for the House for debate for 10 minutes apiece. The bill proposes to make huge changes to an important sector of our economy, and the bill, therefore, deserves more than a little over 2 hours of debate.

If the underlying bill is enacted as currently drafted, it poses an unacceptable threat to the health of our manufacturing and defense industrial base. Without agriculture, mining and manufacturing, we become a Third World Nation.

U.S. mining operations provide approximately 50 percent of the metals needed by American manufacturers. Everybody in Congress, Mr. Speaker, interested in manufacturing needs to listen to this, because if this bill passes, this makes us more dependent upon China to get our minerals for manufacturing.

Many of these minerals, gold, silver, copper, platinum, molybdenum, beryllium, titanium, zinc, magnesium and nickel are used in manufacturing applications from industrial motors to satellites. Thus, the core of our industrial minerals is what we're discussing today. Over the past few years, the cost of these raw materials has gone through the roof. We're putting the viability of our manufacturers in America at stake.

When I chaired the Small Business Committee, I held two historic hearings on the spike in metal prices and what it means for manufacturers, both large and small. No one recommended at those hearings that we should make it more difficult, and thus more expensive, to mine in the United States.

Many of the alternative sources of these minerals are also located in countries that are not close allies of us. Many of these minerals are also critical for the production of defense equipment. I'm concerned that we may find that just as America's energy security is largely dependent on the goodwill of OPEC, our national security will be largely dependent on China's goodwill as we compete for the metals and rare Earth minerals that feed our defense industrial base.

Over half of the high-end magnet production that contains aluminum, nickel, and cobalt comes from China, and 100 percent of the rare Earth minerals used in magnets is found in China. The magnets are used in advanced missile guidance systems such as JDAM.

I'm not aware of anybody that has claimed that the increased regulatory burden, an 8 percent gross income royalty interest in new production and a 4 percent increase on retroactive production, will help to improve the domestic supply of minerals or help lower their costs.

Our manufacturing workers are the best and most productive workers in the world. They have been beset by cheap labor overseas, rising energy costs, unfair trade practices. And now this Congress, this Congress, Mr. Speaker, will make it more difficult for the American worker to keep his job in manufacturing because this Congress will make the raw materials so expensive that what will happen, the U.S. mining companies may go out of business, and then we will be totally dependent on foreign countries to keep up the mineral supply for our manufacturing base.

This is an issue that if you vote ``yes'' on this rule, if you vote ``yes'' on the bill, it will destroy America's manufacturing jobs. Maybe I get too passionate when it comes to protecting America's manufacturing jobs. I've visited hundreds and hundreds of factories throughout the world to make sure that the United States is way out front in technology and innovation, and in fact, when I hear so much talk going on on the other side of the aisle about innovation, about competitiveness, then you come right back and the very feedstock for American manufacturing you want to tax out of business.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill for American workers. This is a bad bill for American workers. This is a bad bill for American workers because it says let's just tax the minerals you need to make things that go out the door out of business. You might as well put another tax on natural gas. In fact, the Democrats did the same thing by taking away the tax break for exploration of natural gas, which is 80 percent of the feedstocks for plastics.

And so here we are again, this Congress destroying American manufacturing jobs. Vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the Small Business Contracting Program Improvements Act (H.R. 3867). The aims of this legislation are noble. The purpose of this bill is to make a variety of changes--some long overdue--to several of the sub-small business federal contracting goals.

I commend the authors of H.R. 3867 for strengthening the procurement set-aside program for service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses in Title I. I also praise the effort to finally get the women's procurement program off the ground. During my tenure as chairman of the Small Business Committee, I was proud of my bipartisan work to pressure the SBA to implement this initiative. However, I remind my colleagues that under the new leadership of the administrator of the Small Business Administration, SBA, Steven Preston, more action has been taken in the past year to implement the women's procurement program than in the previous seven since the program was first created. The SBA is near completion of a final rule, which will pass constitutional muster, on the women's procurement program. Thus, I counsel continued patience and I hope that Title III in H.R. 3867 will not be needed.

However, I am disappointed that the increase in the size in contracts available to small manufacturers awarded without competition is not significantly increased. While Section 204 of H.R. 3867 provides a long-overdue inflationary increase to the contract limitation level for other small businesses, from $3 million to $5.1 million, the size for small manufacturers is increased by just $500,000--from $5 million to $5.5 million. This small increase diminishes the value of this benefit to U.S. small manufacturers, particularly as compared to other small businesses. To keep up with inflation and provide an equivalent benefit, this contract limitation should be increased to $8.5 million for small manufacturers.

This bill also unfortunately pits two sets of small businesses against each other--a minority small business development program 8(a) versus a procurement preference program that encourages small businesses to develop and hire local workers in economically-distressed areas of the country, otherwise known as Historically Underutilized Business, HUB, Zones. When I was chairman of the Small Business Committee, I never brought a bill to the House floor that helped one set of small businesses at the expense of another group of small businesses, particularly those

firms that are committed to redeveloping economically-distressed areas in both urban and rural America.

H.R. 3867 makes the 8(a) program more attractive while putting more hurdles in front of the HUBZone program. This is ironic because the Federal government has never met the 3 percent goal for HUBZones since its creation in 1996 but routinely meets and exceeds the 5 percent goal for minority or Small Disadvantaged Businesses, SDBs, of which 8(a) firms is a part.

A key blow to the HUBZone program is contained in Section 101(b) of H.R. 3867. This provision makes the HUBZone program discretionary or optional on the part of Federal contracting officers. This will only further discourage the use of HUBZone firms by the government to fulfill its procurement needs.

H.R. 3867 also requires an on-site inspection by SBA personnel of a small business to confirm HUBZone status prior to the award of their second program-related contract. Because of the limited resources at the SBA, this could delay the completion of contracts by weeks, if not months, while the HUBZone firm awaits this audit. Again, a Federal contracting official would be disinclined to use a HUBZone firm if it meant a longer time before a Federal agency would receive the good or service that was put out to bid. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, CBO, estimates that this provision alone would cost $62 million over the next 5 years to complete 5,000 on-site visits that would be performed each year. There are other ways to accomplish the same goal of making sure that HUBZone firms are in compliance with all the requirements of the law, including a closer review by the SBA of HUBZone applications, an expedited protest process by other small businesses, and enhanced criminal and civil penalties for false or misleading statements.

Finally, H.R. 3867 prohibits HUBZone construction firms from participating in projects more than 150 miles from its headquarters location. This would put a severe competitive disadvantage to HUBZone firms located in rural areas from performing work on Federal Government construction contracts located far away.

In the northern Illinois congressional district I am proud to represent, two entire mostly rural counties--Carroll and Stephenson-- are HUBZones. Also, HUBZones are located in certain urban parts of Winnebago County, mostly in the city center areas of Rockford along the Rock River that have suffered from the closure of numerous manufacturing facilities. This bill would put a further competitive disadvantage to any HUBZone firms located in the 16th District to compete for Federal business located even as close as the nearest major Federal procuring center in Illinois--Scott Air Force Base, which is about 300 miles away from Rockford and Freeport, Illinois.

While claiming to correct alleged abuses and fraud in the HUBZone program, H.R. 3867 opens up the 8(a) program to potential abuse by increasing the economic disadvantage threshold test above the average rate of inflation and applying this test only once upon entry into the program. The current economic disadvantage threshold level, which has not been changed since 1988, is $250,000. I agree that this level needs to be increased to compensate for inflation. However, H.R. 3867 raises this level to $550,000 even though the rate of inflation since 1988 would produce a result of $440,000, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Also, the SBA currently applies this wealth test annually to ensure that the 8(a) program truly serves economically disadvantaged small business owners. Eliminating this yearly test could potentially lead to fraud if a wealthy person seeking entry into the 8(a) program is creative in shifting around their assets. H.R. 3867 would also allow multi-millionaires to remain in the 8(a) program for 10 years once they pass the first economic disadvantage test.

Most critically, H.R. 3867 does not deal with the fundamental problem in the 8(a) program cited in numerous SBA Office of Inspector General reports that 50 percent of the dollars obligated against 8(a) contracts went to a mere 1.7 percent of the 8(a) firms and over 70 percent of the eligible firms received no 8(a) contract benefit at all. Finally, H.R. 3867 also does not deal with the problem of large Alaska Native Corporations, ANCs, being able to participate in the 8(a) program and receive sole-sourced multi-million dollar contracts.

Because of these and other problems, the Bush Administration has issued a statement strongly opposing H.R. 3867, which I include for the Record. Thus, I respectfully urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation in order for these problems to be fixed.

Statement of Administration Policy--H.R. 3867--Small Business

Contracting Program Improvements Act

The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 3867, which would

modify the small business procurement programs of the Small

Business Administration. The Administration appreciates the

intent of H.R. 3867 to improve these programs and reduce the

potential for fraud and abuse. However, the Administration

believes that a number of the bill's elements would be

burdensome or undesirable. In addition, some provisions of

the bill raise significant constitutional concerns. The

Administration looks forward to working with Congress to

remedy the issues identified below.

The bill also eliminates the upper asset limit on economic

disadvantage for continued participation in the program,

essentially allowing an individual regardless of their wealth

or income to continue participating in the program for a full

10 years. The bill would raise the asset-test bar for

eligibility of individuals for the 8(a) program from $250,000

to $550,000, excluding equity in their home or their

business. As the 8(a) program is designed to reach

economically disadvantaged small business owners who have

diminished credit opportunities, the Administration believes

opening the program to small business owners with higher net

worth will divert 8(a) contracting opportunities well beyond

the original intent of the program.

H.R. 3867 would place a number of burdensome requirements

on the HUB Zone contracting program. The bill would prohibit

rural and Native American HUB Zone firms from obtaining

construction contracts more than 150 miles from their HUB

Zone principal office. The bill would also require on-site

evaluation of all HUB Zone firms prior to the award of their

second program-related contract. This provision would create

a large burden on the Small Business Administration, as these

firms are widely distributed and often located in rural

areas. The firms are already required to certify their status

prior to award of a contract, and false certification is a

felony with significant penalties. Also, the Small Business

Administration currently has a protest mechanism in place to

ensure the eligibility of firms for HUB Zone contracts.

The Administration is supportive of sections of H.R. 3867

that punish false representation of a firm as being owned by

service-disabled veterans and provisions that attempt to

assist such firms in the Federal contracting process.

However, the Administration is concerned about provisions

that would require that certain small business preference

programs take priority over other small business preference

programs.

H.R. 3867 would also increase dollar thresholds for

setting-aside non-competitive contracts in several of these

programs. Competition is a proven way of obtaining the best

performance and value for the government. Accordingly, any

non-competitive thresholds increase should be based on the

actual rate of inflation as reflected in regulatory changes

instituted by the SBA.

While the Administration supports opportunities for women-

owned small businesses (WOSBs) to compete for Federal

contracts, it opposes the bill's constitutionally suspect

creation of gender-based set-asides. In order to withstand

applicable equal protection standards, determinations of

under-representation that form the basis of set-asides must

be carefully controlled to assure that the pool of WOSBs

deemed available for the contracting opportunities in

question is limited to businesses that are eligible to

perform those contracts. The bill's provisions for the

identification of industries in which WOSBs are under

represented does not appear to satisfy that standard.

Additionally, authorizing individual agencies to make

determinations of under representation that will result in

contract set-asides based on sex will exacerbate such

constitutional concerns, since it is unlikely that such

determinations will be based upon the kind of thorough

statistical analysis required by the courts to justify such

set-asides under applicable case law.

Additionally, the bill's apparent expansion of the business

categories that will be eligible for race- or ethnicity-based

preferences in Federal contracting programs is subject to

strict scrutiny under governing equal protection standards.

Unless these provisions are supported by a sufficiently

current legislative record demonstrating that they are

narrowly tailored to further a compelling government

interest, such provisions may be vulnerable to constitutional

challenge.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1612. S. 1612 is legislation which significantly increases the enforcement and deterrent effects of sanctions and export control violations imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, otherwise known as IEEPA.

Through this law, the President may respond to unusual and extraordinary threats originating in substantial part outside of the United States by, among other things, prohibiting transactions associated with particular entities or countries.

In other words, IEEPA authorizes the President to impose economic and financial sanctions against certain foreign threats to the U.S. and our interests around the world. An example of success was the use of these tools to bring North Korea back to the bargaining table to eliminate their nuclear program.

IEEPA is also vital to U.S. national security because it continues the expired Export Administration Act in full force, allowing the Department of Commerce to carry out its mission of ensuring sensitive goods and technologies do not fall into the hands of our adversaries. It is important to keep the EAA in force so violators do not escape the penalties of the law on a mere technicality.

I would like to take the time to respectfully remind the administration that IEEPA brings the entire Export Administration Act into force, not just certain provisions.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation would remove existing barriers to meaningful enforcement of U.S. sanctions against terrorist financers, proliferators of weapons of mass destruction, Iran, Sudan, and other threats under IEEPA.

Current penalties under IEEPA do not constitute an effective deterrent to entities that violate the law by engaging in prohibited transactions.

The legislation will remedy that problem by increasing civil penalties from $50,000 to $250,000 and increasing criminal penalties for willful violations to $1 million with a maximum jail sentence of 20 years.

Mr. Speaker, while I strongly support this increase in penalties to willful and

knowing violators, I have expressed concern that these increased penalties may be applied without taking into account unintentional, accidental, or inadvertent violations by companies that are trying to comply with the law.

I have since been assured by the Departments of Treasury and Commerce that they will not abuse this new authority, and I include for the Record the letter sent to me by Under Secretary of Commerce Mancuso.

Department of Commerce,

Washington, DC, September 26, 2007.

Hon. Donald A. Manzullo,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Manzullo: Thank you for your letter of

September 24, 2007, to Secretary Carlos Gutierrez expressing

your concerns over S. 2000, the Export Enhancement Act of

2007 (EEA), and S. 1612, the International Emergency Economic

Powers Enhancement Act, Secretary Gutierrez asked me to

respond to you on his behalf.

We share a concern for ensuring the vitality of American

businesses--small, medium and large, while keeping the most

sensitive U.S. goods and technologies out of the hands of

those who would do us harm. The Department of Commerce,

including the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), welcomes

your leadership in promoting the role of America's

manufacturing sector in sustaining our country's industrial

innovation and global competitiveness.

BIS is focused on ensuring that penalties for violations of

the dual-use export control laws and regulations are

appropriate. These penalties must not bear disproportionately

on small businesses that may have committed a minor,

inadvertent violation. With these goals in common, we can

work together to protect businesses while protecting America.

Passage of the EEA is an important step toward this goal,

and for this reason is a high priority of the Secretary.

Although you point out that S. 2000 would substantially

increase penalty levels for civil and criminal violations, we

believe that such levels are necessary to make these

penalties a more effective deterrent to companies that would

intentionally violate the law. Given the national security

issues involved, such as WMD proliferation, terrorism, and

military diversions, we must do all we can to make our export

controls effective.

Our intent is not to punish any business unfairly for

minor, accidental violations. As you know, BIS has

implemented a system that mitigates the penalty if certain

elements are met in each case of a violation. It is through

this system, as articulated in the BIS Penalty Guidelines

published in the Code of Federal Regulations in July 2007 (a

copy of which is enclosed for your review), that BIS ensures

that the penalty assessed is commensurate with the

infraction.

In civil cases, the published Penalty Guidelines set forth

several factors that may be considered when deciding ultimate

penalty amounts to be imposed, including;

1. whether or not the respondent submitted a voluntary

self-disclosure in the case;

2. whether the respondent had an export compliance program

in place at the time of the violation;

3. whether the respondent has a prior conviction for export

control violations; and

4. how cooperative the respondent is with the investigation

by export enforcement officials.

These, and other factors, are taken into consideration by

BIS when imposing penalties to ensure the punishment fits the

violation. Further, the Penalty Guidelines are drafted to

allow BIS to take into account company size and the nature of

the specific violations in a way that would warrant smaller

penalty amounts.

Additionally, BIS frequently conducts outreach to large and

small businesses to aid in the assessment of their export

compliance programs, and to address general compliance

questions. These visits and outreach programs provide

significant opportunities for the federal government and

exporters to have a dialogue on export controls, penalties,

and compliance concerns. To that end, I would like to offer

to visit your Congressional District and hold roundtable

discussions with business leaders and entrepreneurs.

We are working to create, administer and improve an

effective and flexible system of export controls that

recognize the unique situations that U.S. businesses,

particularly small businesses, encounter. Please do not

hesitate to contact me or Bill Houston on my staff at 202-

482-6002 at anytime. I value our relationship and look

forward to working together in the future.

Sincerely,

Mario Mancuso,

Under Secretary for Industry and Security.

Mr. Speaker, I have also expressed concern about the lack of understanding that most small businesses have concerning export controls and sanctions. Our sanctions and export control laws are the most complex in the world. I believe if we are truly to keep goods and services from embargoed countries, small businesses must have a better understanding of what those prohibited items are.

Educated self-governance by small businesses would greatly enhance IEEPA as a deterrent, far more than some of the minimal fines that are currently imposed.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with the Departments of Treasury and Commerce to make certain that small businesses clearly understand the law. IEEPA is an important tool in the effort to combat terrorist financing and other illicit activity, such as the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

I want to thank Chairman Lantos, Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen and obviously Subcommittee Chairman Sherman for the bipartisan way they have moved this measure. They have worked with the administration to address my concerns. I support passage of this critical improvement to our economic sanctions law.

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

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

Madam Speaker, the horrendous massacre that is taking place in Burma is despicable and unconscionable. Now is the time for Members of this House to condemn the military junta and support human rights by supporting my good friend, Representative Peter King's resolution on Burma.

On September 27, 2007 the military junta violated the sacred traditional sanctuary of Buddhist temples in mass coordinated pre-dawn raids. More than 200 monks were arrested. What we know is that at least five

monks, eight civilian protestors, and a Japanese photographer were killed by the army. But how many more were gunned down or dragged off in the middle of the night by the junta may never be known.

This resolution not only calls for the immediate and unconditional release of Nobel Peace Price laureate Aung San Suu Kyi but also for a restoration of democracy and human rights that has eluded the people of Burma for so long. The Rangoon Massacre only makes our call for the return to democracy ever more urgent.

Burma was once the richest country in Southeast Asia and the world's largest rice exporter. However, as a result of decades of corruption and gross mismanagement, Burma is now an economic failure. Countless Burmese are regularly victimized by human traffickers as they seek a better life outside the country. The junta's decision in August to hike fuel prices further threatened the people's livelihood. This led to the largest street demonstrations in two decades. So, instead of listening to the will of the people, the generals have only made things worse by cracking down violently.

Aung San Suu Kyi is the daughter of Burma's George Washington. Ms. Suu Kyi is the living symbol of Burmese democracy, and this year she turns 62. How much longer must democracy and freedom be held hostage?

President Bush, in his recent speech before the United Nations General Assembly in New York, announced plans for new U.S. sanctions against the military regime in Burma. I join the President in calling on the U.N. to act more decisively in the face of the unprecedented demonstrations taking place in that country. Now is the time for the world community to stand up for human rights and democracy.

Who else will join the U.S. in raising their voice against this injustice? Singapore has issued a strong statement on behalf of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. I commend them for this. However, more needs to be done. Burma's neighbors can make a real difference by letting the junta know that their actions will not be tolerated. China, India, and Russia must act too because the world is watching.

The U.S. Congress must speak loudly and clearly. Let there be no mistake. As the senior Republican on the Asia Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, I strongly and wholeheartedly urge passage of this resolution today. We must stand with the people of Burma; they have waited long enough and can wait no longer.