Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my deepest condolences to the people of the Philippines in the aftermath of what was possibly the strongest typhoon in recorded history to ever hit land. As many as 10,000 people are feared dead and 600,000 displaced.

As chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I am committed to helping the people of the Philippines recover and rebuild. The U.S. is providing $20 million in immediate humanitarian assistance. As we speak, the U.S. Navy and Marines are working hand in hand with their Filipino counterparts in the rescue and recovery process.

Mr. Speaker, the situation in the Philippines is dire. American assistance in post-disaster relief is often the difference between life and death. Even as we speak, the American people are opening their hearts and making contributions to the relief effort.

We stand with the people of the Philippines as they begin the long road to recovery. The United States and the American people are by your side. Today, we are all Filipinos, and we share the unimaginable grief that many of you in the Philippines are feeling right now.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 102nd National Day of the Republic of China (Taiwan). Also known as ``Double Ten Day,'' this important anniversary marks a special occasion for the good people of Taiwan.

Taiwan is a modern-day success story that exemplifies the prosperity and opportunity that comes from a strong commitment to the rule of law, democracy, and human rights. I know that the people of Taiwan are rightfully proud of these achievements, and I will stand with them to preserve the free and open society that exists there. Indeed, Taiwan has come a long way in a short time. This is why it is more important than ever to strengthen the United States' relationship with Taiwan.

The U.S.-Taiwan relationship is the cornerstone of American foreign policy in the Asia-Pacific region. Earlier this year, I led the successful bipartisan effort to end over four decades of isolation for Taiwan at the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), because safety in international air travel should not be held hostage to geopolitics. I commend the President for signing this important legislation into law, and I am even more excited that as a direct result of our efforts in Congress, Taiwan has finally been invited to participate in ICAO this year. It is the first time since 1971 that this has happened.

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. enjoys a very positive and productive economic relationship with Taiwan. It comes as no surprise that Taiwan is America's 11th largest trading partner. In fact, in my home State of California, the two-way trade with Taiwan is even more significant, particularly with so many Taiwanese visitors travelling to the U.S. under the Visa Waiver Program. Given the importance of our trading relationship, I urge the Administration to quickly finish the ongoing U.S.-Taiwan Trade and Investment Framework Agreement negotiations and move on to a broader, more comprehensive Bilateral Investment Agreement with Taiwan.

As we join with the people of Taiwan in celebration of Double Ten Day, it is important to remember that the bond between the U.S. and Taiwan remains vibrant and strong. As a longtime friend of Taiwan, I know that Taiwan's national day is a very special occasion for Taiwanese people living all over the world. So, as we mark the 102nd National Day of Taiwan, let us salute the strong friendship between the U.S. and Taiwan, and let us recognize the shared strengths that make this relationship one of the most important.

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following exchange of letters on H.R. 3233, between myself and the Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

House of Representatives,

Committee on Foreign Affairs,

Washington, DC, October 2, 2013.

Hon. Bob Goodlatte,

Chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary, Rayburn House

Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your consultation with the

Foreign Affairs Committee on H.R. 3233, which temporarily

extends the period during which certain Iraqis previously

employed by the United States Government may be granted

special immigrant status. I agreed to the Foreign Affairs

Committee being discharged of our referral so that the bill

could be promptly considered on the House floor this evening.

I am writing to confirm our mutual understanding regarding

the Foreign Affairs Committee's continuing Rule X legislative

jurisdiction over portions of H.R. 3233, which is not

affected by that waiver decision.

I appreciate your assistance in expediting this important

legislation for floor consideration.

Sincerely,

Edward R. Royce,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2848) to authorize appropriations for the Department of State for fiscal year 2014, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and place any extraneous material into the Record on this measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Department of State Operations and Embassy Security Authorization Act is a measure to provide our diplomats with the tools that they need to do the job effectively, as efficiently as possible, as safely as possible, and it has been over 10 years now since the last Department of State authorization bill was passed into law. Now in the interim, our ability to exercise oversight and push for reform within the Department has been eroded. That is why it is so essential that we get this authorization into law--because it is not good for Congress; it is not good for the Department; it is not good for the taxpayer. Authorizing these programs is going to increase our oversight ability. It will improve Members' ability to legislate new programs. It will save money. It will reform old programs. And when we do not authorize, as you know, departments are less accountable; they can drift.

As Members know, the Department's failings on security were laid bare in Benghazi, Libya. The Accountability Review Board, looking into Benghazi, found:

Systemic failures and leadership and management

deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State

Department resulted in a special mission security posture

that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to

deal with the attack that took place.

That was the finding; the local guard force in place to protect Benghazi was inadequate.

The closure of 21 U.S. embassies in August and the recent closure of our embassy in Beirut demonstrate the continued threat to our facilities and personnel overseas. Indeed, this week, the Department renewed its global terrorism alert for U.S. citizens. This is why this bill authorizes full funding for embassy security.

One of the principal functions of the Department is to protect our facilities and personnel that are stationed overseas. The other body, our colleagues in the Senate, have also introduced legislation on embassy security, and we have been in consultation with them because we intend to have this signed into law.

This legislation carries much of the same language, including:

One, language requirements for diplomatic security personnel in line with the ARB report recommendations. We need the security personnel to be able to speak that local dialect.

Two, implementation of the expanded marine security guard program, including a plan to deploy these additional personnel and station them appropriately. We need the marines at the gate. We need to be able to guard the gate. It needs to be reinforced.

Three, authority to protect soft targets overseas.

Four, regulations for the reemployment of personnel to fill staffing gaps at high-risk, high-threat posts. We need that personnel to be able to get that retraining to speak the local dialect in order to help protect that facility.

Importantly, this bill contains a provision, championed by committee members Mr. Radel and Ms. Frankel, which will award local security guard contracts now on the basis of best value rather than lowest cost. For our highest threat posts, we need only the highest quality security personnel, not personnel that's going to flee in the face of a threat.

This bill also requires the Department to develop contingency plans for increasing security at high-threat posts. These plans must include options for employing additional military personnel and equipment to bolster security in response to a threat, as well as plans for a rapid deployment of assets in response to an attack. We need a rapid response force to be stood up so that they can be called into action if there's a threat in this part of the world to our consulates and to our embassies.

The strong emphasis on embassy security in this legislation, H.R. 2848, and the legislation that's over in the Senate is timely and responsive to urgent needs. Working in a bipartisan manner, this bill was able to authorize full funding for embassy security while still producing a fiscally responsible product.

Overall, this bill is a 9 percent cut from the fiscal year 2012 level, and this includes a cut of nearly 22 percent, that's $2.4 billion, in Department administration costs. Further savings to the taxpayer have been achieved by placing a cap on pay for those personnel stationed overseas by closing a bureaucratic loophole that allowed personnel to draw both a pension and a salary, except in the most extenuating of circumstances, by capping the amount of paid time off for employees and authorizing current employees to fill staffing vacancies. By doing it that way, we negate the need to hire more Foreign Service Officers.

So this bill also reforms some of the core management functions of the Department by prohibiting those convicted of fraud or embezzlement or theft or other offenses from receiving government contracts in the future. The bill also prohibits funding for the proposed Foreign Affairs Security Training Center unless there's an independent feasibility study that's completed and presented to the appropriate congressional committee.

This bill also has strong bipartisan support. When I say ``strong,'' Mr. Engel and myself have worked with Members on both sides of the aisle. We took some 11 amendments. We've worked out the differences. We got bipartisan support in the committee, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation so it can be promptly sent to the Senate and then on to the President for his signature, thereby ensuring that our embassies and personnel stationed abroad are protected at a time of their greatest need.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), chairman of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations and, I would add, Mr. Speaker, the author of important State authorization and embassy security laws in past Congresses.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).

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

I want to assure the gentleman from Virginia, and all Members here, Mr. Speaker, that this committee has been highly attentive to the Benghazi attack. Indeed, that's one of the reasons we're here on this bill.

To the gentleman from Virginia who spoke earlier, I would just note that if standing up a new Foreign Affairs Training Center in his district, as has been proposed, is a good use of our limited fiscal resources, then he has nothing to fear from this bill.

While there have been proposals to completely prohibit such an expenditure, they are not included in this legislation. But what our bill does do is it requires an independent feasibility study first, to assess whether current facilities are inadequate, before we spend the better part of a billion dollars on a completely new facility.

If the gentleman from Virginia is suggesting he's opposed to this legislation, then I would point out that initial estimates by the Department of State are that this new facility could cost up to $950 million--and at least $450 million.

I would also call attention to the Members of this body that Congress has not received a copy of any feasibility studies related to the proposed new Foreign Assistance Training Center--FAST-C, as it's called.

There are valid concerns that the FAST-C center is not needed and the same functions could be achieved by collaborating with the Department of Homeland Security Federal Law Enforcement Training Facility. Further, I would point out that the Federal Law Enforcement Training Facility has quoted a price nearly 50 percent lower than what it would cost to build the new FAST-C facility.

Now, before State moves forward, the Congress needs more information, and the Department of State needs to demonstrate more due diligence on this endeavor, especially in light of the recent facility construction debacles that we've seen around the world, including in Afghanistan.

I would further point out that in July, the State Department noted ``ongoing serious fiscal challenges'' and the need for ``additional due diligence in determining how to move forward with the FAST-C facility at Fort Pickett.''

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, there are serious questions about whether the existing DHS facility in Glynco, Georgia, could be used at a much lower cost to the American taxpayer.

We all understand the responsibility to represent our districts, but it should not come at the cost of blocking legislation that will answer the need, in terms of security, for our personnel overseas. Again, I would point out that this does not prohibit such an expenditure. It merely requires an independent feasibility study to assess whether or not it is appropriate.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

I thank Mr. Engel, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would point out again that, in the past, State Department authorization bills that have passed the House--even under suspension--have failed due to inaction in the other body. Now, because of the strong bicameral interest in embassy security, we have an opportunity to break this bad habit and return to our core responsibility.

Congressman Engel from New York and myself have discussed these issues not only with our Members, but with Members of the Senate. If enacted, this bill of course will only be the fourth time in the last 17 years that Congress has passed a State Department authorization.

We need to seize this opportunity to move meaningful legislation at a time when Members of this body and in the Senate understand that this is a chance to direct this issue of embassy security and provide that additional security.

I very much want to express my appreciation for the collaboration I've had with Mr. Engel, our ranking member, on this piece of legislation. This is a bipartisan bill, as he shared with you. Together, we have worked to incorporate the ideas of the members of our committee. A large number of those committee members have offered amendments that are in this legislation.

So to conclude, I would point out that H.R. 2848 is a strongly bipartisan measure. It is fiscally responsible; it is constructive in its reforms; and it is deliberate in its efforts to keep our personnel stationed overseas as safe as we can keep them.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2449) to authorize the President to extend the term of the Agreement for Cooperation between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Korea Concerning Civil Uses of Nuclear Energy for a period not to exceed March 19, 2016.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include any extraneous material on this measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, over the past six decades, the United States and South Korea have built a strong and enduring alliance, which is the cornerstone of peace, the cornerstone of security in the Asia-Pacific region.

Ever since the dark days of the Korean war, our two nations have stood side by side to meet some of today's most pressing challenges. The alliance between our two countries is a model for global partnership in every field, whether it's in the economic field or political or concerning security.

And earlier this year, my good friend, the ranking member, and I led a bipartisan delegation to South Korea to reaffirm our Nation's steadfast commitment to the good people of South Korea. It was during this visit that we witnessed the tremendous sacrifice that South Koreans made in order to live in freedom.

The ranking member and I stood by the wreckage of the naval ship Cheonan, paying our respects to the 46 South Korean sailors who perished as a result of the unprovoked North Korean attack, a poignant reminder of the constant threat that our two nations face.

When Madame Park Geun-hye, the first woman to be elected President of South Korea, addressed a joint session of Congress, she honored the deep sacrifice that Americans have made in protecting her beloved nation. I was pleased to serve on the host committee when she visited the Congress.

Madam Park and her delegation were warmly received when in southern California as part of her official visit to the United States.

Today, South Korea is at the forefront of global innovation, with the world's 13th largest economy; and as a result of the landmark U.S.- South Korea trade agreement, South Korea is our seventh largest trading partner.

One of the most important areas of our close economic cooperation is commerce and, particularly, commerce in nuclear energy. And that is why, Mr. Speaker, it is so important that the Congress approve this piece of legislation before us today.

South Korea's nuclear energy sector is extensive. It's critically important to its economy. Its 23 operating reactors produce one-third of the nation's electricity. In an effort to secure greater energy independence, the government plans to double this figure over the next two decades, with 11 more power plants to be completed.

Much of South Korea's nuclear infrastructure is of American origin, and U.S. businesses provide millions of dollars' worth of spare parts and services every year to that nation. That is one of the reasons expansion of this vital sector will be good for the U.S. economy as well.

South Korea also plans to become a major nuclear exporter in the international market. Given the truly global nature of this industry, American suppliers stand to make considerable gains as well.

For example, in 2009, a consortium of Korean companies was selected to build four nuclear power reactors in the United Arab Emirates, a deal worth $20 billion. Of this total, American companies will earn up to $2 billion for this project alone through sales of equipment and of services. It is estimated that this one project will support 5,000 jobs in 17 States.

The ability of American companies to export to South Korea's nuclear power sector rests upon our two countries' 40-year-old nuclear cooperation agreement, which expires on March 19, 2014. The U.S. and South Korean negotiators are currently negotiating a long-term extension of this agreement.

But to prevent an unnecessary interruption that would have a major negative impact on our alliance with South Korea and on U.S. exporters alike, Ranking Member Engel and I introduced this bipartisan legislation to extend the existing agreement for 2 years, to March 19, 2016. The State Department is in support of this legislation.

Testifying earlier this year on behalf of an extension, a top State Department official told the House Foreign Affairs Committee:

An extension would also ensure there is no lapse in our

ongoing civil nuclear cooperation, preserving stability and

predictability in our joint commercial activities.

This bill is a simple extension of the existing agreement--with no modifications or changes--that will allow negotiators time to focus on substance instead of the clock.

The Foreign Affairs Committee voted unanimously in favor of the bill, which now has a total of 41 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation so that it can be sent to the Senate and then on to the President for his signature and thereby ensure that the cooperation between our two countries in this vital area can continue without interruption.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), chairman emeritus of the Foreign Affairs Committee, who currently chairs the Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), chairman of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific.

Mr. Speaker, I think we have one final Member who wishes to speak on this. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), a member of the Foreign Affairs, Judiciary, and the Oversight Committees.

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

I just want to stand in solidarity with the remarks of Mr. Meeks of New York. We're both in complete agreement here, as we've discussed in the past, about how vital this relationship is with South Korea. It is one that, for decades, we've stood side-by-side as South Korea and the United States have tried to promote policies in that region in defense of freedom, to support democracy, to support human rights, and, at the same time, to support economic growth. I think it is just as important that we stand together to extend the U.S.-South Korea civilian nuclear energy agreement.

So I would urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation. I think it is critical not only to our friend and ally, but I would say, without this bill, tens of thousands of American workers would be at a grave disadvantage. This bill extends, without modification, the existing agreement between the U.S. and South Korea for 2 additional years so that the current negotiations can continue uninterrupted.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 301) to provide for the establishment of the Special Envoy to Promote Religious Freedom of Religious Minorities in the Near East and South Central Asia, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and that they also might have the ability to include extraneous material on this resolution in the Record.

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

I rise in support of this legislation because this legislation provides for a very needed Special Envoy to Promote Religious Freedom of Religious Minorities in the Near East and in South Central Asia.

This bill, introduced by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), is substantially identical to one which we brought up last year and tried to get out of both bodies; it was H.R. 440. This body passed that legislation by more than 400 votes.

Sadly, in the 2 years that have elapsed since then, the dangers motivating this bill have only grown more acute. In many areas of the Middle East, the first freedom, as we called it, the freedom of religious liberty, is disregarded.

Minority communities are not merely under threat; those communities are now under attack. From Afghanistan, to Iran, to Syria, to Egypt and elsewhere in these regions, religious minorities have been increasingly subjected to unconscionable--often violent--persecution. These alarming trends are occurring in the midst of growing regional instability as brutal regimes and terrorists and insurgents seek to assert control over populations and seek to enforce their ideologies by use of fear, by use of brute force.

As the bloody civil war rages in Syria, ancient Christian communities are being forced to flee the lands they have inhabited for centuries in the midst of this bloody civil conflict.

In Egypt, Coptic Christians have experienced unspeakable abuses at the hands of radical Muslim groups and have been fleeing their country in droves to escape further violence. I have met with many from the vibrant Coptic Christian community in southern California.

In Iran, more than 500 Baha'is have been arbitrarily arrested since 2005 by the Iranian Government. In Pakistan, 80 members of the Muslim Ahmadiyya sect were killed by terrorists in their places of worship in 2010, in addition to consistent incidents of violence and even judicial persecution of Christians there. Many of us are aware of the violations of the rights and the deaths of the Shi'a minority there as well.

For all of these alarming reasons, this legislation is at least as timely as it was 2 years ago. I commend our colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), for bringing it to our attention.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science, cochairman of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, author of this bill, and long a spokesman for religious freedom for those of all creeds.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the spirit that Mr. Meeks articulated there, we Americans who cherish religious liberty and all people of goodwill who value the rights of conscience cannot remain silent in the face of this rising regional intolerance. I think, as he put it, and as Mr. Wolf and Ms. Anna Eshoo put so eloquently, I think it is time to bring about this Special Envoy to deploy in the Middle East. I thank Mr. Wolf for his leadership and certainly urge passage of H.R. 301.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 793) to support revitalization and reform of the Organization of American States, and for other purposes, as amended.

I would like to thank Mr. Meeks.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) and that she be able to control that time.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present on rollcall No. 445, passage of H.R. 367, the Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2013, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Affairs be discharged from further consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 222) recognizing the long-term partnership and friendship between the United States and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, working together towards peace and security in the Middle East, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment to the text of the resolution at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment to the preamble at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 850) to impose additional human rights and economic and financial sanctions with respect to Iran, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) one-half of my time and that he be allowed to control that time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, there is no higher national security priority than preventing a nuclear-armed Iran. Foreign Affairs Ranking Member Engel and I have worked closely in a bipartisan way to bring this legislation to the floor, and we do it with unanimous support of the members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, all Democrats and all Republicans on that committee. Indeed, 375 Members of the House are cosponsors of this legislation. That's the broad recognition that exists right now, that more needs to be done to stop Iran's nuclear program, which is a danger not only to us in the United States, but certainly to the region and to the world.

Today, we act with that sense of urgency, urgency because Iran's march to nuclear weapons continues. In less than 2 years, the International Atomic Energy Agency has told us that they have doubled in Iran the installed centrifuges at the facilities at Natanz and Fordo. They've doubled those from 8,500 to more than 15,700 centrifuges. And these new centrifuges, many of them are five times more powerful. They spin much faster than those earlier models.

A key facility is buried deep below a mountain, and Iran continues to stonewall the IAEA on its development of nuclear explosive devices. So Iran's intent to develop this weapons capability is very evident.

New President in Iran or not, I am convinced that Iran's supreme leader intends to continue on this path because that is what he says he intends to do; that is, unless sanctions bite to the point where the regime has to make a choice between compromise on its nuclear weapons program or the consequences of the sanctions on the regime.

That is why this legislation dramatically steps up the pressure on the regime in Iran:

It targets the energy sector by compelling countries that are currently purchasing oil from Iran to reduce their collective total by 1 million barrels per day within a year;

It targets additional sectors of Iran's economy;

It further denies the regime access to foreign currency reserves;

It effectively targets Iran's efforts to circumvent international sanctions against the shipping sector in the country;

Equally important, this legislation increases sanctions against Iranian human rights abusers, making clear that it's the Iranian people that we are siding with.

Only when the Iranian leadership truly feels a choice between maintaining power and obtaining the bomb does our diplomacy have a chance to succeed. And we know the Iran regime's view of the world, we know it only too well because its support of keeping the brutal Assad regime in power is self-evident. It has resupplied Hezbollah with 25,000 new rockets, which target Israel.

In recent years, there have been Iranian-sponsored attacks or plots uncovered by the Europeans in Bulgaria, also in India, Thailand, in Georgia, in Azerbaijan, in Cyprus, in Kenya, and even here in Washington, D.C. I'd hate to see an Iran emboldened by a nuclear weapon, but that is the course we are on unless we dramatically step up the pressure. So let's pass this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC, July 26, 2013.

Hon. Ed Royce,

Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Royce, I am writing with respect to H.R. 850,

the ``Nuclear Iran Prevention Act of 2013,'' which the

Committee on Foreign Affairs ordered reported favorably on

May 22, 2013. As a result of your having consulted with us on

provisions in H.R. 850 that fall within the Rule X

jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary, and your

agreement to support mutually-agreeable changes to the

legislation, I agree to discharge our Committee from further

consideration of this bill so that it may proceed

expeditiously to the House floor for consideration.

The Judiciary Committee takes this action with our mutual

understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 850 at

this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over subject

matter contained in this or similar legislation, and that our

Committee will be appropriately consulted and involved as the

bill or similar legislation moves forward so that we may

address any remaining issues in our jurisdiction. Our

Committee also reserves the right to seek appointment of an

appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate

conference involving this or similar legislation, and asks

that you support any such request.

I would appreciate a response to this letter confirming

this understanding with respect to H.R. 850, and would ask

that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be

included in the Congressional Record during Floor

consideration of H.R. 850.

Sincerely,

Bob Goodlatte,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the esteemed majority leader.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the chairman emeritus of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the author of the previous Iran sanctions legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Global Human Rights.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Nonproliferation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton), who helped forge this legislation, H.R. 850.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, the centrifuges are, indeed, spinning. And it is Mr. Rouhani as chief negotiator who met the international community with delay, with more centrifuges, more missiles, more stonewalling. And as my colleagues have pointed out, during that campaign he was the hand-picked candidate of the Ayatollah, one of eight hand-picked candidates because reformers were not allowed to run, was the one on the campaign who said--who boosted--about how he, as chief negotiator in Iran, didn't suspend enrichment but instead completed the program.

This is the individual who, when he chaired Iran's National Security Council between 1989 and 2005, was at the table when Iran masterminded the 1994 bombing of the Jewish center in Buenos Aires. He is the individual who gave the order and boasted of it; the man who called on the regime's besieging militia to attack the students in 1999 and crush them, in his words, crush them mercilessly, crush them monumentally--a thousand arrested; hundreds tortured; 70 disappeared; many, many killed. This is the nature of that man. Do not misunderstand his intentions. That's why we need this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I, along with the Gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Cotton, recognize that this critical legislation requires countries still purchasing oil from Iran to reduce their combined imports by 1 million barrels per day within a year. Iran's energy sector provides the regime the resources needed to fund its nuclear weapons program. We remain extremely concerned with the pace of Iran's nuclear program. Some estimate that Iran may achieve a nuclear weapons breakout capability next year.

For this reason, we remain committed to sending the toughest possible sanctions bill to the President's desk, as quickly as possible.

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1897) to promote freedom and democracy in Vietnam.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

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

This bill, which we rise in support of, H.R. 1897, is the Vietnam Human Rights Act of 2013, and it is authored by the chairman of the Africa, Global Human Rights, and Health Subcommittee, Mr. Chris Smith of New Jersey.

And I thought I would just take a moment and, as a prelude, talk about the efforts that Mr. Smith has put in over the years, not just to the issue of human rights but, in particular, identifying those most at risk, identifying those who are held captive in prison, and taking the personal effort to go and try to visit them in these horrible conditions which they find themselves in.

I remember him saying to me once, Can you imagine what it is like for someone who's a prisoner, a prisoner because he attempts to speak out for some modicum of free speech, or for religious liberty, and he finds himself there in confinement, not knowing, when they open that door, when they come for you, what they might do to you next, not knowing what type of torture might be applied?

It takes a strong constitution for a Member of this House, year after year after year, to continue to go to bat for those who are held in captivity, those who are subject to show trials and then disappear. And part of his efforts have been to pass this particular legislation because he's concerned with the magnitude of what is happening in Vietnam, but also what he has seen with his own eyes with respect to some of those victims.

Over the years, the Foreign Affairs Committee has held many hearings on this subject, and if these hearings have had one consistent theme, it's the deterioration of human rights. And I think this is the thing we really find most regrettable: that at a time when we hoped that Vietnam might change its policies, it actually has regressed.

And we've heard from the witnesses of the use of the government by government agents, by militias--some call them thugs--who use everything from electric batons to metal prods to beat those who are demonstrating in Vietnam and who are in the process of speaking up for religious liberty or speaking up for the rights of free speech.

And now it's gotten to the point that any young person who dares to blog those words, ``freedom of speech,'' those words, ``democracy,'' anyone who publishes material promoting democracy or criticizing totalitarian rule, faces so many years in jail. It is so disproportionate, it is so ridiculous to put a young person in jail for 6 or 7 years because they blog on democracy.

But the thing that I think Chris Smith and I and others here, Eliot Engel, find so objectionable is the physical abuse that they are subject to in confinement.

So, as we say, religious freedom is also under attack with freedom of speech. Residents of Con Dau, Da Nang, have suffered severe violence. I've seen some of the photographs of the consequences of these beatings with batons and electric rods during a May assault at the hands, again, of Vietnamese Government officials. And again, this was because the parishioners attempted to protect their historic Catholic cemetery from seizure by the government.

We have over 350 Montagnard Christians who remain in prison for their beliefs, and other religious groups.

When I was in Vietnam, I talked to the leader of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, the venerable Thich Quang Do, who was under house arrest, and Le Quang Liem, another. He was the leader of the Hoa Hao Buddhists at the time. He has subsequently, in a protest, been beaten so badly I don't think he can carry on a conversation today.

The Cao Dai Buddhists face severe persecution from the government, the communist government there.

So what brings us here tonight is that Vietnam has actually taken steps backwards. As we heard from the witnesses who testified before our committee, in the first 6 weeks of this year, 40 dissidents have been convicted in show trials, more than all of last year. That's how bad things are deteriorating.

And that means that the communist government is not only eclipsing their past bad performance, but, paradoxically, the government is also actively pursuing a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council. That is why we need to

take this step and why passage of the Vietnam Human Rights Act is so important and why we've got to use what leverage we have. And part of that leverage is nonhumanitarian U.S. assistance to Vietnam. And we do that unless the Vietnamese Government improves its respect for human rights to meet specified requirements.

Let's send a message to that regime that the status quo is unacceptable. This bill does that. I strongly urge its passage.

And once again, I strongly commend and thank its author for his perseverance on this issue.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), chairman of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations, and the author of this bill.

In closing, I, again, want to thank my colleague, Mr. Smith from New Jersey, for his dedication to human rights in Vietnam, and for human rights in general, and for not only his work on this bill but, again, the time and energy that he has put into attempting to intervene on behalf of those who have been subject to these beatings that he has cited, to this maltreatment, to these long prison terms.

Last week, we had President Sang of Vietnam visiting Washington for the first official visit, I think, since 2007. While we've been assured that human rights were on the agenda during these meetings with the President and with the State Department, we did all we could to make certain that this time they were on the agenda. But I think the Vietnamese people need more than talk. And that is why we need to pass this legislation. It's a sign to all Vietnamese people that the U.S. is committed to the cause of human rights, but it is also leverage that can be used to guarantee some measure of attention from the regime.

This is Congress's chance to speak to those Vietnamese people who are yearning for freedom. It's our chance to do so by vocally supporting a human rights agenda in Vietnam. We've got to get this back on the agenda.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this important bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 41) encouraging peace and reunification on the Korean Peninsula, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the author of this bill and a hero of the Korean War, who served his country with valor during that tough campaign. After surviving an onslaught by waves of Chinese troops, he led his surviving comrades, while wounded, to safety from behind enemy lines, for which he was awarded a Purple Heart and also a Bronze Star for Valor.

I thank Mr. Rangel, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I would close my remarks by saying that I rise in strong support of this resolution.

I'd like to add my voice to others grateful for the sacrifices so many Americans made to protect the freedom of South Korea. And I again acknowledge the four Members of this House--Congressman Charlie Rangel, John Conyers, Sam Johnson, and Howard Coble--the veterans of that war, to thank them for their service in the Armed Forces.

I commend Congressman Rangel for offering this resolution here on the 60th anniversary of this special relationship that we have with South Korea. We recall that 22 nations came together to defend the Republic of Korea, and fighting stopped 3 years later with an armistice that still remains in place. 5.7 million Americans served during that conflict. As noted, the casualties were 56,000, if you count those missing and presumed dead. Over 100,000 Americans were wounded in that war. And 140,000 South Koreas were killed in action, many of whom fought side by side with American forces for the cause of freedom. But when you calculate the more than 3 million Korean civilians killed in that conflict, you begin to appreciate the enormity of the human loss.

The heroic deeds of these servicemen, both Korean and American, laid the foundation for that alliance that we speak of here that has lasted some 60 years, but also brought relative stability, as Mr. Rangel pointed out, to northeast Asia, and certainly laid that foundation for the prosperity that we see in Seoul and around the country today.

Yet Korea remains a divided peninsula. This is a calamity for the Korean people. The United States and South Korea have spent much of the last 20 years offering to engage North Korea with aid, with trade, and with diplomacy. All of these initiatives, unfortunately, have failed. And the North Korean response? Besides its aggressive behavior towards South Korea, the regime there continues to develop nuclear weapons, to test missiles, and to supply weapons to countries like Iran and Syria.

Mr. Chairman, we have tried many strategies. I think only one has worked, really, and that was financial pressure. I recall in 2005 when an Under Secretary of the Treasury caught North Korea counterfeiting $100 bills, so what he did was used the power of the U.S. financial system to cut off

Kim Jong Il's access to his vast offshore wealth. And while the North Korean people were starving at the time, as you know, the country's dictator had billions of dollars stashed away in foreign banks that suddenly he did not have access anymore to that money when the sanctions were put on the Banco Delta Asia. Blocking those accounts denied Kim Jong Il the cash he needed to sustain that vast police state, to sustain that million-man army, to pay for his nuclear weapons and his luxurious lifestyle.

For a while, the world had his attention. For a while, he wanted to come back to the table. I think that approach worked. I suspect North Korea will only change when it's forced to change, and I think we must resurrect a successful strategy of financial pressure.

But, Mr. Speaker, today what we do, what we dedicate ourselves to is recognizing the 60th anniversary of the Armistice Agreement of the Korean War. Importantly, this resolution not only honors the service and sacrifices of the members of the Armed Forces, but it also reaffirms our commitment to the U.S.-Korea alliance. And this resolution sends a message that the U.S. goal remains that which thousands of Americans, including four of our Members, fought for; that goal remains peace on the Korean Peninsula.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and honor to recognize Patty Shay, who is retiring after 34 years of distinguished service to the U.S. House of Representatives.

Patty is the Director of Constituent Services and Office Manager for my office, and will retire on August 31, 2013. Patty began her career in civil service in 1977 with the office of Assemblyman Bill Dannemeyer and remained on staff after he was elected to Congress in 1979. Fourteen years later, Patty continued her service by joining my office when I succeeded Dannemeyer as Representative of the 39th District. By this time, Patty knew that she preferred casework and that the U.S. Service Academy process was her specialty.

Patty has enjoyed the challenge of helping people. Her motto is always, ``do the best that I can in the place where I am and be kind.'' Over her years of service, Patty has handled thousands of cases. And often, people will call after years have gone by and continue to say thank you.

Her favorite casework is the Department of Veterans Affairs, and in particular dealing with those who served in WWII. The stories told by these humble warriors left her forever grateful for the Greatest Generation.

Patty's true passion during her service was the U.S. Service Academy process. She developed a very structured nomination system in order to develop the young nominees, which has helped them to succeed at the academies. She became known as Mama Shay due to a Cadet from the 3rd class that attended West Point. Patty has worn this as a badge of honor. Many officers continue to write messages to Mom/Mama Shay today.

Through the years, the long line of Patty's kids that received appointments grew to 607. Of that number, 414 graduated and are serving all over the world today. Many have accomplished fulfilling military careers while others have become lawyers, doctors, or dentists. She feels privileged to know so many bright, capable nominees, and has been happy to provide them with support, guidance, and direction throughout the years.

As a testament to her work, Patty has received numerous public service awards including; the ``Duty Honor Country'' award by the West Point Society of Orange County; ``The Donald'' which is an award selecting the legislative staffer of the year by fellow Orange County staffers; and the ``Everyday Hero Award'' from the Fullerton Rotary Club. Patty is extremely thankful and grateful for the years she has spent in public service.

Patty has always kept family close and of the highest priority. Having raised two active boys as a single parent, she was constantly running from one event to another. Who knew this would be the prologue to her duties handling the Academy Nominations. Her non-stop

energy and attitude toward teaching and helping others has always translated into family. Now that her sons are grown, she continues that same philosophy with her three grandsons. She is constantly researching and providing pathways to higher learning for each of her grandsons. She does this by taking each one of their strengths individually and providing a specific learning goal for each one, which is very similar to the approach she uses to provide Military Academy Appointments each year. Patty loves sharing the accomplishments of her sons & grandsons to her many friends and extended family members. She stays in close contact with her sister, niece, and nephew who all live in Oregon and Washington.

So I ask all of my colleagues to join me in thanking Patty Shay for her service to Congress, and the Nation. I wish her all the best in her retirement.

Mr. Speaker, due to a runway accident at LaGuardia Airport in New York, I was unavoidably detained.

On rollcall No. 375 had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall No. 376 had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Personal Explanation

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my sincerest congratulations and happy birthday wishes to Mrs. Violet B. Hanna, who will be celebrating her 100th birthday on July 23.

Born in Los Angeles on July 23, 1913, to Albert Wogatzke and Ella Bussjaeger, Violet is the oldest daughter of nine children. She married William Hanna on August 6, 1936. She lovingly raised a family of two children, has seven grandchildren, and six great-grandchildren. She has enjoyed wonderful health all of her life. She was raised on a farm, was a straight A student, and was so devoted to family that after graduating from high school, she gave up a full scholarship to Occidental College to start working in L.A. to support the rest of her family in Imperial Valley.

Violet has witnessed momentous changes in our Nation's history. Her life reflects a contribution to that history. I hope her century of memories brings much pride and joy to herself and family members.

I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Violet on this remarkable milestone. I wish her a special day shared in the company of her family and friends, and all the best in the years ahead.