Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I think all in this Chamber agree that health care costs continue to weigh heavily on Americans. But, unfortunately, this trillion dollar government takeover will make matters worse.

Medicine will be rationed via politics under this act. The cost of private insurance for those not getting the government subsidy will undoubtedly skyrocket. It's going to potentially double for a lot of people.

Economists of all political affiliations will tell you that the greater government's thumb, the greater government's role in health care, the more the bureaucracy that's going to come out of it, the higher it's going to drive costs. And this bill would create a costly new entitlement.

It's going to centralize the decisions on what constitutes insurance. It's going to impose mandates on individuals, including up to 5 years' prison time for noncompliance if you're not in the scheme, and mandates on employers. And it adds hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes all without regard to the fundamental problem.

We can take steps to bring greater choice and competition to health care. But, instead, this bill is about government dominating the market and it's about an unsustainable debt that's added to the future.

Mr. Speaker, freedom to choose your own health care plan is what is at stake here. The drumbeat for entitlement, for government control of health care, for a health choice commissioner who will decide himself

essential benefits, for setting a precedent that will devolve into a rationing of medicine through politics, this is driven by an appetite for a government-run economy that is blind to the consequences.

One of those consequences is a $1.3 trillion cost in this bill. Another is the job-killing mandates and the cuts to senior Medicare plans, including a gutting of Medicare Advantage that is in this bill. The cost of the tax increases on business. How high can we stack these taxes? We have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. We will see the consequence in higher unemployment.

Should health care be nationalized, medical rationing is inevitable, and we will see the adverse effects on economic growth and opportunity, unfortunately, that will be left.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I rise in support of this resolution, of which I am a cosponsor, and to note that for 60 years, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty has been basically a free press for societies suffering authoritarian rule, and that is the intent.

The RFE/RL has said that this model of surrogate broadcasting irritates authoritarian regimes, inspires democrats and creates greater space for civil society, and that is the goal. Vaclav Havel and others have testified to the role that the radios played in bringing down the Iron Curtain.

As noted in the resolution, Warsaw Pact intelligence went to great lengths to silence these broadcasts. We have heard some of the examples of the correspondents who were murdered and the headquarters that were bombed.

RFE/RL has expanded its work to countries that are critical to today's national security challenges. Shortly after September 11, the House passed legislation establishing Radio Free Afghanistan, RFE's brand in that country. Actually, I authored that legislation. And today, with 50 percent market share, it is the most popular radio station in the country, offering an alternative to the Taliban's dark leaflets and the type of radio that people hear in that part of Central Asia and South Asia from the Taliban.

The Iranian regime has targeted RFE/RL broadcasts. They have spent a

lot of money to jam those broadcasts. RFE/RL has still managed to provide valuable coverage of the recent uprising there, allowing Iranian democrats to know that they are not alone in this world.

These broadcasts are all the more important now that the administration has muffled itself when it comes to the Iranian democratic movement. As it trims back on programs supporting democracy- seeking Iranians, one expert notes that the administration views the green revolution as a wrench in the works of nuclear negotiations with the Iranian regime.

These broadcasts could be greatly complimented by the White House bully pulpit. They aren't.

A divide between the broadcasters and the diplomats is not new, frankly. In the 1960s, Washington moved to improve relations with Ceausescu's Romania, despite its abysmal human rights record, but RFE kept a spotlight on Bucharest, irritating some of the diplomats. Today, it keeps a spotlight on Tehran's transgressions--the jailing, the abuse, the murder of those who abuse the regime.

Importantly, this resolution commends the employees and reporters of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty for their services and acknowledges their sacrifices. Just as the communist police took steps to prevent the truth from penetrating their house of lies, so has the Iranian regime.

The Iranian Government harasses the journalists for RFE/RL's Persian service, its headquarters in Prague, and their families back in Iran. Those inside Iran who might provide the station with information have been threatened. This fall, two young journalists with the service were killed and a third went into a coma when their car was struck by a truck outside of Prague.

This is the information war happening today. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and its sister surrogates are keeping us in the game. As technology evolves, they can and need to do better, while staying true to their support for freedom and respect for human rights and for the rule of law.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution, which condemns the illegal extraction of Madagascar's natural resources, although it does so without identifying who's doing the extracting, which I think I'd like to comment on.

I have traveled to Madagascar; and as the co-chairman of the International Conservation Caucus, I have seen the pristine habitat of this island. It has got a very unique biodiversity, as has been mentioned. Ninety percent of the species there are endemic to that island, and that's one of the reasons a lot of people call Madagascar the ``eighth continent.'' It is because it is so unique in this way. And the inhabitants of that island rely very heavily on that biodiversity and on biotourism as an industry. The biotourism draws about $400 million a year. So preserving Madagascar's unique beauty is important not just from an ecologic standpoint; it's also very critical as an economic necessity, basically, for many of the inhabitants of that island. And, rightfully, this resolution condemns the act. It condemns the litany of natural resource degradation that's occurred.

But it's important that it mentions the plundering of precious forests. Unfortunately, from my standpoint there's no mention of who is doing the plundering or where these resources are being sold.

From my standpoint, this would be similar to condemning an act of terror without naming the terrorist.

This resolution would be greatly strengthened by including such information. Reports that I have read from Global Witness identify rosewood taken out of Masoala National Park as being for sale in China. That is the destination of the illegal logging.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution but also to take a closer look at China's role at resource exploitation in Africa and across the developing world. I chaired the Africa Subcommittee for 8 years. I can tell you, the picture of China in Africa is not pretty, and this action in Madagascar is one more example of it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise as well in support of this resolution, calling on the U.S. Government and the international community to address the humanitarian needs of the Sri Lankan internally displaced Tamil community, and I think the needs are very great.

The Sri Lankan Government routed the Tamil Tigers, a U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organization, earlier this year. This terror group has left a rather bloody trail in South Asia, and that trail, frankly, has even led to our shores.

The Tamil Tigers perfected the use of suicide bombers. They invented the suicide belt. They assassinated two world leaders. They've pioneered the

use of women in suicide attacks. The Tigers have fund-raised in the United States. In recent years, the FBI has arrested men attempting to export shoulder-fired missiles and other sophisticated weapons to the group.

Frankly, the FBI reports the Tamil Tigers are among the most dangerous and deadly extremists in the world. An estimated 280,000 ethnic Tamil Tigers were displaced from their homes due to the fighting earlier this year, and they are now in refugee camps. The condition of these camps are grim. They are crowded. They are dirty. They lack basic necessities. NGO reports that come to us show severe water shortages. Many Tamils have had to line up for up to 5 hours to receive even meager food rations.

It is important that we continue to monitor the human rights conditions in these camps. Abuses must be checked. Although progress has been slow up until recently, I was very pleased to read a BBC report the other day that between 2,000 to 3,000 people are now leaving the camps every day. This is progress, although I am sure it is not fast enough for some.

On this point, I think we should be clear. The Sri Lankan Government should be working to release civilian displaced persons in an expeditious manner, not the terrorist population that may be 10,000 strong, hiding out in the camps. These are the same terrorists that used civilians as human shields and employed lethal force to prevent civilians from fleeing the previous fighting. The Tamil Tiger infrastructure must be rooted out even as we support the effort to release the civilian displaced persons in this expeditious manner.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

What brings us here today, of course, is this resolution, intended to address a longstanding problem but really brought to light again earlier this month when we had nine young bloggers in Vietnam, all of them convicted under Article 88 of the Government of Vietnam's statute, which the interpretation of Article 88 is in direct conflict with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which the Government of Vietnam is itself a signatory.

So what is happening is that Article 88 is now being used in Vietnam as just a tool to basically criminalize what they call propaganda against the state, but which is simply the free speech rights which are recognized everywhere else and to which Vietnam is a signatory to the agreement. It is being used to go after anyone who argues against the concept of a one-party state. So, if you get into the realm of religious liberty or you get into the realm of freedom of association, freedom of speech, you suddenly run afoul of this Article 88 and you find yourself facing a long prison term. That is why I rise in support of House Resolution 672, because what this bill does is call on the Government of Vietnam to release those imprisoned bloggers and basically to respect Internet freedom.

Mr. Speaker, the one-party Communist government in Hanoi is a serial human rights abuser. Citizens are denied basic rights, such as the right to freedom of religion, the right to freedom of speech. And like most despotic regimes, Hanoi seeks to censor all information that it deems in any way damaging to a one-party state.

As longtime dissident Dr. Nguyen Dan Que correctly stated some years ago, he said, ``The state hopes to cling to power by brainwashing the Vietnamese people through stringent censorship and through its absolutist control over what information the public can receive.''

These are the actions of a totalitarian tower that has no respect for the rights of the individual citizen. Those last words were mine.

Newspapers, television and radio stations remain under strict government control in Vietnam, of course. Now, with a greater percentage of the population seeking an alternative way to express itself, seeking a way to even communicate in ideas, the government has dramatically stepped up its campaign to confront and to curtail the country's vigorous blogosphere because, in Vietnam, just like in the United States, the young Vietnamese really enjoy the ability to use the Internet to engage in a simple dialogue between each other with respect to ideas.

International press freedom groups rank Vietnam alongside China and Burma, right now today, as the riskiest countries for bloggers; and as you saw, human rights groups are increasingly speaking out about the violent nature of the crackdown in Vietnam on human rights.

As I have, there are those of us who have traveled to Vietnam. In the past, I met with the venerable Thich Quang Do, with Le Quang Liem and with others who have been involved in the issue of religious freedom. We saw the consequences of monks who had been beaten, some of whom had been killed. Certainly, many of them were under arrest for attempting to counter the state with respect to their assertion--Father Ly would be an example--that the state should not rewrite religious text.

For the Buddhist faith, this is a particular problem because the Communist Party in Vietnam is trying to change their faith by rewriting the text. The reason the venerable Thich Quang Do is under such pressure and is under such constant attack by the state is that he objects to this. He says religious freedom should exist in this society without control by the state.

Certainly, Bui Thanh Hieu and Pham Doan Trang would agree with this because these two bloggers were detained after writing in opposition to policies by the Vietnamese Government. Now, what were they writing about? They were writing about an environmental issue, about the new bauxite mining project in Vietnam's central highlands.

Chinese mining in this region has already caused severe environmental damage, and that damage comes at the sole expense of the local residents in this area because this is the area that grows much of the coffee, rubber and so forth in Vietnam. So, now, with the runoff from these mines and the way in which it's polluting the local lakes and the way in which it's killing off the vegetation, basically, you've created a no-man's area. It is absolutely incapable of supporting any crops in the future in much of this area.

Dieu Cay, another prominent blogger, also knows the lesson well, as he was sentenced to 2 years for running a series of articles, exposing what? Exposing government corruption.

Now we have another introduction of Chinese bauxite mining on top of what is already occurring that is going to cause further environmental damage in the central highlands. What you basically have is the state's cracking down in Vietnam, saying nobody can tell the people about what's happening to their land, that nobody can tell the people

about the health hazards to their children in this region as a result of the state's making this decision to invite the Chinese in to do this kind of bauxite mining.

Hanoi knows that its grip on power is shaky and that the ideas that these journalists spread carefully chip away at the monopoly on power which the state has. That's why they spend so much time trying to shut them out. The practice of detaining these bloggers for spreading ideas like freedom and democracy is very odious.

We are here today to call on the Communist Government to end this practice. That is what this resolution does. It calls on the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam to release these imprisoned bloggers and to respect Internet freedom.

I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentlelady from Florida.

As cochairman of the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian Americans, I rise in support of House Resolution 603, recognizing the 140th anniversary of the birth of Mahatma Gandhi.

Today, we give special remembrance to one of the most revered people of the last century. Preaching nonviolence, Gandhi dedicated his life's work to helping others. As a leader in the Indian National Congress, Gandhi led campaigns to ease poverty. He led the campaigns to expand women's rights. And of course he is remembered for his efforts to build religious amity. Above all else, however, Gandhi worked tirelessly to free his nation and helped direct India into a new era of democracy.

His methods to do this included leadership by example. It included his organizational ability. It also included peaceful civil disobedience as a tool and his power to persuade by force of argument. These were the ways in which he motivated those not only in his own nation, but around the world to this cause.

Having traveled to India during the second round of voting during India's recent election, the largest democratic display the world has ever seen, I would have to say that Gandhi himself would indeed have been proud of how far his nation has come. Under his guidance, India has become a pluralistic democracy of many religions and ethnic groups, I think probably as pluralistic as the United States. We are here today to help keep the spirit of Gandhi alive and to remember his remarkable achievements.

Before I close, I would also like to extend my best wishes to the millions of people that will celebrate Diwali this Saturday; I certainly hope it will be a joyous occasion.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 800, expressing condolences to the people and Government of the Philippines in the aftermath of the devastating storms that struck the Philippines.

Several weeks ago, Tropical Storm Ketsana and Typhoon Parma inundated the Philippines with heavy rains, forcing the evacuation of more than half a million people and killing more than 600. Typhoon Parma was particularly savage, making landfall twice--which of course complicated rescue efforts--and destroying much of the crop in one of the Philippines' main rice-producing regions.

While the loss of life from these storms is tragic, that tragedy is compounded by the survivors' loss of livelihood. U.S. troops have been quick to respond in the aid efforts, helping in rescue and clean-up missions.

So, again, we express our sincerest condolences to the people of the Philippines; and we let them know that their friend, the United States, stands with them in solidarity as they begin the process of recovering from this tragedy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, and I commend Chairman Berman for his Pakistan assistance legislation, which is the basis of the Senate bill that we are considering here. I also want to thank Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen for pressing the important issues that have made this a better bill.

There is no doubt that Pakistan is critical to America's security. Having made several trips to Pakistan, I observed that large parts of that country are a hotbed of radical jihadism. It's a country, of course, with a nuclear arsenal. And while its security situation has improved since last spring, Pakistan very much remains a country in crisis.

Pakistan is a partner, too. Any country receiving this amount of U.S. aid had better be one. But there can be no carte blanche. This bill's conditions on aid reflect years of bad experiences. It's only right that Pakistan not be proliferating, or covertly aiding militants, as an aid condition. It's only right that those positions are in that underlying bill that Chairman Berman has brought forward here. We should also proceed with the understanding that aid has the potential to worsen economic and political conditions.

Operating in Pakistan is very difficult. U.S. aid workers are limited in their in-country travels because of security. I have concerns about establishing too big a footprint in Pakistan, in other words, the so- called diplomatic surge. The fact is that if the U.S. isn't welcomed in much of Pakistan, it may not be the case that this addition of personnel on the ground is helpful. So I think a balance is needed in that, and that's an issue that I hope and trust that the State Department will reflect on.

I am pleased that the trade position, the provision on trade, that was added to this bill when it passed the House was dropped in the Senate. And the reason I am pleased with that is that that provision, allegedly a development-plus for Pakistan, was at best a do-nothing provision. Some argue it would actually decrease U.S./Pakistan trade. It's a shame that this Congress can't muster the will to liberalize trade with Pakistan, which would do far more for its development than development aid.

Finally, I would like to second my colleague's concerns about neighboring Afghanistan. Trends there aren't moving in our direction. It's past time for decisive action.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. What this resolution does is to express the condolences on our part to the people and Government of the Republic of China, Taiwan, in the aftermath of this very devastating typhoon that struck this region and that affected so many families.

Last month this typhoon ripped through South Asia, and it drowned that region in about 7 feet of rain. It killed over 600 people. Government officials called it the worst storm that has hit the island of Taiwan in over 50 years.

Later today, this House of Representatives is going to take up a resolution expressing condolences to the families of the individuals killed during the storms and floods in the State of Georgia. So we know all too well that these storms can be devastating, and so it is with sorrow that we take up these two resolutions today.

I rise today to express my heartfelt condolences, especially because Taiwan and the United States have such a valued partnership. For over half a century, this close relationship has brought significant economic advantages, I think, as well as cultural and political advantages to the people of Taiwan and the United States. We have seen in mere decades Taiwan go from poverty to prosperity; and, of course, with the Taiwan Relations Act, Taiwan will remain a close ally of the United States. It is a country, one of the few, that has gone from U.S. aid recipient to international provider of aid across the globe. Without question, Taiwan is one of our key partners in Asia.

So again, we express our sincerest condolences to the people of Taiwan. This devastating typhoon may have ravaged the landscape and infrastructure, but it didn't rattle their will and determination.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. I rise in support of this bill. I just want to take a moment here to thank Chairman Berman and also Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen for their assistance in moving this bill so expeditiously to the floor. There is a timing issue here. We need to pass this out soon, and this, of course, will allow us to broadcast for an additional year. September 30 is the day on which this authority will expire. I wish we could do more. I do.

Earlier this year, as you know, Chairman Berman passed a State Department authorization bill out of this House that would have established permanent authority for RFA. The other body, the Senate, has yet to take up this legislation. We wish they would.

We can debate the merits of a long-term extension versus sunset repeal, but there is one thing certain in all of this, and that is that the target countries that we broadcast into, countries like North Korea and China, like Burma and Vietnam, they give no indication of allowing a free local press any time soon.

At a practical level, I understand that RFA's sunset restriction has hampered RFA's operations. It hampers the ability to go out and hire, obviously, on a permanent basis. You can't negotiate a lease or capital improvements and so forth. So it is important that we address this issue.

I think it is important that we focus on the success of Radio Free Europe-Radio Liberty and Radio Free Asia. Radio Free Asia was founded in 1996, and it attempts to replicate what RFERL did in Eastern Europe. Its mission is to act as a surrogate news service, performing as a free press would if it was allowed to operate in any of these countries. Quite simply, its broadcasts are devoted to the enlightenment of people, to letting people know what is actually happening in their country and around the world.

My interest in these broadcasts stems from a trip I took to Dresden, East Germany, years ago, where a man told me about the damage that these broadcasts were inflicting on Soviet tyranny and shared with me the effect that they seemed to be having, an effect without firing a shot, an effect in which the world was changed without the loss of a human life.

Surrogate broadcasts, mainly radio but increasingly these new media, provide people with the news and information about their countries that otherwise they couldn't possibly obtain. As one observer has noted, this type of broadcasting irritates authoritarian regimes. It inspires democracies. It creates greater space for civil society. Yes, it does. It does change societies.

Irritate totalitarian regimes? Yes, that has happened. China has attempted to erect a ``great wall of sound'' to block RFA transmissions. They are not successful, but they block some of them. Vietnam has heavily jammed RFA since the first days of the broadcast. You may not be able to get it inside the capital, but you can get it in the countryside.

We know what news these Communist regimes are afraid of. In North Korea, broadcasting such as this is one of the only sources chipping away at Pyongyang's propaganda machine. When I talk to defectors out of North Korea, as often as not they have listened to these broadcasts, especially the senior civil servicemembers. And military members who defect tell about how it changed their view of the world.

All around the globe, an information war is at play. Iran is spending heavily to block our broadcasting, while beaming its own message into Afghanistan and even the Balkans to sow division. Russia is broadcasting into southeastern Europe as well. Hugo Chavez is crippling local media while bolstering Venezuela's state broadcasts around Latin America, and he is preaching anti-Americanism with those broadcasts. Then there are the 150 sharia-friendly radio broadcasts in Pakistan's Swat Valley. Those are the broadcasts that the Taliban are making in Afghanistan and in northwest Pakistan.

So, from Caracas to Tehran to Pyongyang, these totalitarian regimes understand that controlling information is central to their being. Radio Free Asia is one of our pieces on this chess board.

I look forward to the passage of this legislation and to working with the chairman and ranking member to seek a more important standing for this critical organization.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes) for sponsoring this resolution. And this resolution recognizes the 75th anniversary of the passage of the Federal Credit Union Act and the vibrant Federal credit union community that was created as a result of this important piece of legislation. The purpose of this law passed back in 1934 was to make credit available and to promote savings through a national system of nonprofit cooperative credit unions.

This act established what is now the federal credit union system, and it created the Bureau of Federal Credit Unions, which eventually became the National Credit Union Administration. Its intent was to charter and to regulate Federal credit unions.

While much of the economic downturn originated in the financial crisis, credit unions, for the most part, did not play a major role in the excessive risk-taking, over-leveraging or lax underwriting standards. Unlike many of the other mortgage originators throughout the housing bubble, credit unions held most of the mortgages they originated. They held them in their portfolios. As of late last year, roughly 70 percent of credit union mortgage originations were held in portfolio with only 30 percent having been sold into the secondary market.

Because credit unions generally took a conservative approach to banking, they avoided many of the problems that we saw in other institutions. This approach has left them well-suited to play a significant role in the economic recovery.

Certainly, the 90 million credit union members nationwide will continue to rely on these institutions for their everyday banking needs. I think it is worth noting the impact credit unions have had on communities around the world. Credit unions provide a great opportunity for people to pool resources. Thereby, they create an important source of liquidity for personal or capital investment.

Serving on the Foreign Affairs Committee has given me the opportunity to work on issues impacting countries around the globe and to see credit unions at work around the globe. In this capacity, I have seen credit unions take shape and give hope to thousands looking for a better life.

Credit unions have helped and continue to help many African countries build a safe financial system for the first time. The fact of the matter is that credit unions work whether they're in Orange County, California or in Johannesburg, South Africa. They help families save hard-earned money, buy cars, purchase homes, and send their children to college. Indeed, credit unions are helping the futures of over 90 million members across this country and of countless others around the globe.

In closing, I would like to again thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes) for taking the lead on this resolution. Hopefully, the credit unions that have served so many communities around our country will continue to do great work.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend the success of the Asian American Hotel Owners Association (AAHOA). Founded in 1989, the AAHOA has grown to nearly 10,000 members who own more than 22,000 hotels valued at $60 billion. These small business owners have created or supported more than one million jobs. It is my understanding that their business acumen and dedication to the hospitality industry has made AAHOA a strong leader in the tourism sector of our economy.

It was my honor to attend AAHOA's national convention earlier this year, where its members celebrated 20 years of excellence and service to their respective communities. Many AAHOA members belong to their local chambers of commerce and network with pro-business associations. I share many of the concerns of AAHOA's membership, including card check, our spiraling deficit, excessive litigation, and the proposed expansion of government into the health care arena. This is not what our country needs. We need to allow private sector businesses, like AAHOA members, to do what they do best: grow the economy, create new jobs, and provide safe, reliable, and affordable hospitality for millions of travelers.

I want to recognize the officers and leadership of AAHOA for their service to the organization: Chairman Tarun S. Patel; Vice Chairman ChandraKant I. (C.K.) Patel; Treasurer Hemant D. (Henry) Patel; Secretary Alkesh R. (Al) Patel; past Chairman Ashwin (Ash) Patel; President Fred Schwartz; Washington District Regional Director and Co- Chairman of the Legislation Committee Paul (Prashant) Patel; Southwest Regional Director and Co-Chairman of the Legislation Committee Hitesh L. Patel; and Vice President for Fair Franchising and Government Affairs and General Counsel Laura Lee Blake.

I understand that the AAHOA donated more than $100,000 for the victims of Hurricane Katrina, contributed more than $25,000 for the victims of the Asian tsunami in 2004, they have helped open doors for investment opportunities in India, and they partnered with the United Service Organizations (USO) to create the ``101,000 Room Nights for America'' program, which provided complimentary rooms for deployed members of the U.S. Armed Forces.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to recognize AAHOA and the Indian American community and look forward to working together in the future.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010.

Requesting Member: Representative Ed Royce

Bill Number: H.R. 3326

Account: Operations & Maintenance--Defense Wide

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: California State University

Address of Requesting Entity: 401 Golden Shore, Long Beach, CA 90802- 4210

Description of Request: To provide $3,600,000 for the Strategic Language Initiative. Our nation's defense, diplomatic, and business employers need affordable, accessible strategic language instruction programs. The five California State University (CSU) campuses originally comprising the Strategic Language Initiative (SLI) Consortium worked collaboratively between 2005 and 2007 to create an effective model capitalizing on campus language expertise, student heritage language diversity, and local linguistic communities in Arabic, Mandarin, Korean, Persian, and Russian.

No single university has the resources to meet this rapidly changing need for global and regional expertise in a wide range of world languages. National efforts have concentrated on developing flagship programs in languages such as Chinese, Arabic, Russian, and Korean, and creating demonstration materials for offering languages online. These efforts have not adequately tapped into the diverse heritage language communities in California, home to the densest concentration of linguistic and cultural diversity in the nation. Collectively, through the establishment of the CSU Consortium for the Strategic Language Initiative, the southern California campuses of the CSU system have collaborated to provide an innovative approach to intensive language learning that can be a model for other metropolitan consortia. These universities serve the most linguistically diverse populations in the country, with large heritage communities near different campuses, and collectively enroll over 100,000 students each year. Initial participating campuses are CSU Long Beach, Fullerton, Los Angeles, Northridge and San Bernardino. Preliminary assessment data collected from SLI participants showed an average language development progress that significantly exceeds traditional classroom and course-based program in Arabic, Korean, Mandarin, and Persian. Compared to other models of critical language development, the SLI Model is very cost- efficient and effective in advancing a large group of undergraduate and graduate students through several language proficiency levels across multiple campuses in a relatively short time period, for a fraction of the funding available to other programs. The Consortium's success in southern California can be enhanced by developing a similar model in northern California. This request would build the programs within the current Consortium, and add CSU campuses in San Francisco and San Jose. Lessons learned from the current 5 programs will shape the 2 new programs. The legacy of this federal investment will be an instructional model sustained by the CSU system that effectively responds to the national challenge to graduate more professionals with language and cultural knowledge and skills for an increasingly interdependent global world.

Requesting Member: Representative Ed Royce

Bill Number: H.R. 3326

Account: U.S. Army, Research, Development, Test & Evaluation (RDT&E) Legal Name of Requesting Entity: California State University, Fullerton

Address: 800 N. State College Boulevard, Fullerton, California 92831

Description of Request: Provide $2,000,000 to continue the Prader- Willi Syndrome

(PWS) Research project being led by the California State University, Fullerton. This funding would allow for the continuation of vital research on Prader-Willi Syndrome, which will help the Department of Defense and its many military families, with children affected by this disorder. More importantly, the research will serve as a resource to the Department for the treatment and study of obesity in general. The strong manifestation of obesity in children with PWS makes it an excellent model for the study and control of obesity in general. Military health experts have characterized the growing problem of obesity amongst active duty and potential recruits as a national security issue because of its overall impact on the health, performance, and readiness of our armed forces. Furthermore, obesity places a significant cost burden on the military and veterans' health care systems. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Army, RDT&E Account and consistent with the DoD mission.

Funding will be used to provide better understanding of how individuals with PWS progress from an initial failure to thrive to morbid obesity. Improved understanding of the various nutritional phases of PWS will not only benefit the treatment and management of PWS, but also provide valuable insights into obesity in general. Researchers will also test the effectiveness of various intervention programs.

Mr. Speaker, tort reform would create tens of billions in health care savings. There is no reform of the insane cost and arbitrary rewards of our malpractice system in this bill, because lawyers on the other side won't allow that in the bill.

Instead, according to the Congressional Budget Office, we have the Democrat proposal, with its public option, which will increase costs in excess of $1 trillion and will cover millions of individuals here illegally, which will drive additional illegal immigration and will drive future costs for health care in this country.

With the subsidized public option and existing businesses shifting out of their current plans into this subsidized public option, as many as 114 million individuals could lose their current insurance, leading to Federal bureaucrats, not patients and doctors, making important decisions about their treatment options.

I urge we revisit this proposal.