Floor Statements

Madam Chairman, on rollcall No. 292, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Waters

Madam Chairman, on rollcall No. 293, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mrs. Capito

Madam Speaker, on April 24, 1915, the Ottoman Empire set out on a campaign to exterminate the Armenian people. Between 1915 and 1923, the numbers were horrific. One and a half million Armenians were murdered and 500,000 deported from their homelands. At the end of these eight years, the Armenian population of Anatolia and Western Armenia was virtually eliminated, becoming one of the 20th century's darkest chapters.

While acknowledging the role played by the Ottoman Empire in killing Armenians, some have laid doubt to the claim of genocide, citing the subsequent deportation of the survivors as merely a movement of a people from one land to another. Henry Morgenthau, the U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire from 1913-1916, saw it much differently. In his memoirs, Morgenthau recalls that the Turks, ``never had the slightest idea of reestablishing the Armenians in (a) new country'' knowing that ``the great majority of those would . . . either die of thirst and starvation, or be murdered by the wild Mohammedan desert tribes.''

I recall Morgenthau's words here because he saw first hand the atrocities wrought on the Armenians, and he had been told by Turks that they understood quite well that they had handed down a death sentence to the Armenian people. The Turks not only knew of what they were doing, but spoke quite freely of it. Eighty years later, however, many are still unwilling to recognize the killing for what it was: genocide.

The U.S. has long been a global leader in promoting human rights around the world. On the issue of the Armenian genocide, however, we lag behind. The French, Swiss, Swedish, Germans, and even the Russian governments recognize the Armenian genocide properly. As a global leader in human rights, it is imperative for the U.S. to stand on principle and recognize the annihilation of the Armenians.

However, it is no less important today to recognize the Armenian genocide for what it is. The deafening silence that came in its wake set the stage for a century that saw genocides occur in Europe, Africa, and Asia. While the Armenian genocide was the first of the 20th century, the blind eye cast to the slaughter of Armenians was a point used by Hitler who asked his joint chiefs of staff, ``Who . . . speaks today of the [their] annihilation?''

To the critics who say that we should not dwell on history, I say it's much harder to get tomorrow right if we get yesterday wrong. The world's strength to oppose killing today is made greater by accountability, for actions present, but also past. It's weakened by denial of accountability of past acts. Not recognizing the Armenian genocide, as such, does just that.

Mr. Speaker, there is an issue of critical concern to the human rights movement around the world and a critical concern to the continent of Africa. And it is because tonight, I just want to report, that the country of Zimbabwe is in very, very grim and dire shape. President Robert Mugabe has plundered his country, driving it to ruin. And you know a little bit about the violence that you have seen on television over the last 72 hours. A once prosperous economy has been devastated by misrule; inflation is running at 200,000 percent per year, and life expectancy there has been driven down to a mere 34 years.

This was once a major agricultural exporter to the rest of Africa, but many Zimbabweans are now facing starvation because Mugabe has kicked productive farmers off his land. His regime has used food as a weapon; he rewards backers; he starves and punishes opponents. As Karl Marx said: Those who will not obey will not eat.

Today, after 28 years of misrule, Mugabe is trying to steal the election, cracking heads to extend his reign. Defeated at the ballot box, the regime has simply refused to release official election results. And, instead, what has it done? It has stepped up its violence against the people across the countryside. It has arrested and killed its political opponents. 3,000 families have been forced from their homes. The torture chambers are full. Human rights groups report on those dead and those tortured to death. Ominously, the regime has charged the opposition presidential candidate with treason, and we know what that means, a charge that could signal the beginning of massive violence against the majority that supported the movement for democratic change.

We should remember that this is the same Robert Mugabe that engineered a massacre in Southern Zimbabwe in Matabeleland in the early 1980s, and he used North Korean troops, North Korean trained troops. Those in the countryside can show you the wells, as they showed us, where those North Korean troops of the fifth brigade directed the local villagers be thrown down alive down those wells and be killed. And that spate of killing took thousands and thousands of lives across the country. So, this is an autocrat who has stopped at nothing. And he has allies.

As we speak, a Chinese freighter is adrift somewhere off the western coast of Africa looking for a friendly port to unload a shipment destined for Zimbabwe. And in the hull of that ship is 3 million rounds of AK-47 ammo, 1,500 rounds of 40 millimeter rockets, 2,703 rounds of 60 millimeter mortar bombs. This cargo could quickly turn Zimbabwe into a killing field.

China has played a similar role elsewhere, fueling other African violence, showing contempt for African lives. It provided the machetes to the Hutu militia to carry out its 1994 genocide. Beijing is arming the government in Sudan, which is committing genocide in Darfur with those weapons. It does this for political influence and Beijing does it for economic gain, especially oil and mineral wealth. China is currently Zimbabwe's largest investor and second largest trading partner, where it secures much needed natural resources for China. But it is also its armory.

But the thing I have to reported tonight is that China is running into roadblocks, because last week South African port and truck workers refused to move this 70-ton weapons shipment to Zimbabwe. They were made aware of it by an investigative journalist. Their strike was backed by the South African union movement which said: South Africa cannot be seen to be facilitating the flow of weapons into Zimbabwe at a time when there is a political dispute and a volatile situation.

The spokesman was being diplomatic. South African labor has been one of the few to pointedly and vocally criticize Mugabe's tyranny. They despise the tyrant to their north and they called for an international boycott of this ship. And this is an inspiring event.

In the early 1970s, a labor leader at a Polish port stood up as well. Lech Walesa faced off against Soviet tyranny, demanding democracy and freedom for his native Poland.

This week, South African port workers said they weren't going to play any role in Mugabe's next slaughter. Their action hasn't brought down a tyranny, but it may have been the beginning of one's fall. For years, Mr. Speaker, neighboring countries have set back applauding Mugabe despite the many Zimbabweans he has beaten and killed. The South African government has been an offender in this. It has even given Mugabe means of cover. President Thabo Mbeki recently called the election normal, and denied the crisis in Zimbabwe. His government would have allowed the Chinese armed shipment to transit South Africa, but China decided to avoid the hassle at South African ports. This diplomatic support from South Africa and others has bolstered Mugabe at home. But, in the meantime, the neighbors have taken their lead. Their opposition has snowballed: Mozambique has said no. Namibia has said no. We hope tomorrow Angola says no, and sends this ship laden with its weapons back to China.

Mr. Speaker, let me just make the observation that today is Tax Day, and effectively what we are doing to the American taxpayers is making them jump through more hoops. Certainly if they have an HSA, and the costs of this program are projected to be about a half a billion dollars a year, what we are going to be doing, what we are doing in bringing this bill to the floor, is enacting burdensome bureaucratic regulations that are going to undermine those health savings accounts which have been proven successful at slowing the growth of health costs and cutting insurance premiums for millions of individuals and small businesses. And my colleague has just listed all the business groups that are opposed to this legislation.

The question I guess I have is in the last session, we had a largely bipartisan bill that the Republicans put forward, with Democratic support, 407-7 it passed. But now we have this provision dropped into this bill that cripples health savings accounts. Now I know we have a philosophical difference of opinion on whether we want to keep health care private and do it through the marketplace, or whether we want to have a government nationalization and takeover of health care. What I am sharing with you is if you cripple HSAs in this way, I guess you do build momentum for a government takeover of health care. But that is not going to make savings for the American consumers.

HSAs are effective in reducing costs for the consumer. And I have got to tell you, these new burdens are unnecessary. They are inefficient. They are inconsistent with the flexibility purposely afforded HSAs at their inception. These provisions undermine efforts by employers, individuals and insurers to reduce health care costs and improve health outcomes.

How is it possible that we are going to consider a program here where it will take longer to receive reimbursements and will require individuals to come up with money out of their own pocket, potentially hundreds of dollars, on occasion $1,000 or so, at one time under this new proposal?

I just think that this new step of independent substantiation frankly helps only one company, or a very limited number of companies who offer such bureaucratic systems and imposes costs on all of the rest. This is going to increase the costs for the banks, for the account administrators, and for the individual who uses them. And it is going to be passed on to the consumers.

So we do complain about the charges which banks and other commercial lending institutions pass on to their customers. But why have this provision that is going to increase those costs on the consumer? This does not make sense. Health savings accounts were created to reduce the growth of health care costs. And they have achieved some noteworthy successes. But this bill is going to lead to increased health care costs for individuals by crippling HSAs. Don't taxpayers have enough to worry about on Tax Day?

I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule so we can fix this bill and provide a little relief to hardworking Americans on April 15.

Mr. Speaker, there are many reasons why what the majority is doing today is gravely harmful to our security. Colombia is a close ally under siege. And as The Washington Post points out today: ``Score this action as a boost to Venezuela's agenda of destabilizing democracy in Colombia.''

By all accounts, the Colombian agreement is a big plus for American exports and American employment. What the majority is doing is giving near free-market access to Colombia and taking nothing for our workers. This agreement would cut tariffs 80 percent on U.S. beef, and 15 percent on U.S.-tractors.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res.1077.

I would like to first commend the Speaker on her timely resolution that calls on the Government of the People's Republic of China to end its crackdown in Tibet and to open a dialogue with His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

Importantly, this resolution calls on the Chinese Government to release all Tibetan prisoners who were detained for their nonviolent expression of opposition to Chinese policy towards Tibet, something with which I very much agree.

In 2002, the Tibetan Policy Act was ushered through Congress under the leadership of former chairmen Lantos and Hyde, and signed into law. Amongst its components was a U.S. commitment to the economic and cultural preservation of Tibetans inside Tibet. I believe that this resolution reaffirms this commitment.

For decades, Beijing has oppressed the Tibetan people. As the State Department's most recent annual report on human rights found, tight control on religious expression and denial of other basic human rights are cause for serious concern. China's further crackdowns on peaceful protestors of the Olympic torch relay serve to further affirm the State Department's report.

At the center of international media coverage of China's crackdown on Tibetan Buddhism is Radio Free Asia, a non-profit broadcast corporation that provides alternative news sources in repressive countries. In addition to covering the abuses wrought against the Tibetans, Radio Free Asia has also documented the Chinese destruction of precious Tibetan religious relics and manuscripts. It is not just the ethnic discrimination against Tibetans that gives me pause, but also the efforts to erase their culture.

I commend Radio Free Asia on their tireless efforts to broadcast truth, and I commend you, Madam Speaker, on your work on this resolution.

Many have described the crisis: HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria. These take countless lives every day, especially on the continent of Africa. These diseases devastate families, they devastate communities, and nations. This bill is titled the ``Leadership Act,'' and it is titled that way because it honors two former Foreign Affairs Committee chairmen who indeed did show leadership in forging this legislation 5 years ago. And, with this act, the United States will continue to lead in tackling these killer diseases.

As others have said, this legislation did not come together easily; and the reason it is difficult is because many people have strong views on how best to fight these diseases. This bill is a compromise. It would have been far easier to hold onto positions, probably, but that would have gotten no bill. But, instead, those working on it did the hard work to craft a policy that most everyone could support.

Frankly, had it not been done, it would have been a sharp rebuke to the work Chairman Hyde and Mr. Lantos did 5 years ago. Tens of millions of people around the world would have lost, and America would have lost. That we are in this position now, to continue these two men's legacy, is due to the dedication of Chairman Berman and Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen. I particularly appreciate their inclusion of a provision I had recommended prohibiting foreign countries, foreign governments, from taxing our aid, and I thank them for that provision.

While endorsing the policy, the bill's authorization level is a great concern, as others have expressed. I have conferred with enough people working in the field and been in enough African countries to doubt the ability to productively absorb this very large funding level, which is well over the administration's request.

And while these are devastating diseases, these countries face many other public challenges, some deadly, which may be shortchanged. Our country has many public health needs, too. That leads me to believe that this would be a better bill if it conformed more closely with the level the administration, which has gotten real results, thinks it could best spend.

I believe this bill's authorization level will be addressed in our recommittal motion which will be offered for a vote before this House.

So again, I thank Chairman Berman and Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen.

Madam Speaker, I'd like to express reservations about H. Res. 997.

NATO expansion is not a casual affair. We're talking about adding countries whose

security we're committing American lives and treasure to defend. While this resolution only endorses the beginning of a membership process, it sets the stage for expanding vital American security concerns. At a time when some Americans are questioning our growing security commitments around the globe, should we be moving to ensure Ukraine and Georgia's security?

We must be realistic about the state of NATO. The organization is not well. In Afghanistan, most NATO member states haven't answered the call, choosing not to provide troops or to provide troops only for very limited missions. One observer noted that, ``The inability or unwillingness of certain nations to shoulder the burden of NATO's obligation in Afghanistan is ripping the heart out of the alliance . . .'' I'm not convinced that adding new members, each with diverse interests, aids in rebuilding NATO's consensus. Expansion doesn't always mean strengthening.

Sure, these countries have committed troops in dangerous areas, for which they should be commended. But a hard headed analysis must ask whether those commitments would be maintained once NATO membership was achieved?

Expansion is divisive among some of the longest-standing NATO members. This week in Bucharest, Germany has objected to the process this resolution endorses, effectively stopping it. Chancellor Merkel's government cited concerns over political unrest in Georgia, and the lack of support for joining NATO among Ukrainians. Others ask, rightly, ``What's the rush?''

First and foremost, we should ask ``What's in our national security interest?'' Secondarily, we should ask ``What's in the best interest of NATO?'' I am not convinced that expanding NATO to these two countries advances those causes. That's why I reluctantly oppose this resolution backed by my colleagues and friends.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to oppose the rule. As I think you know, we are going to end up in a circumstance here, according to our Director of National Intelligence, where, for the first time, frankly, this refusal to protect our telecom companies, who face some 40 lawsuits and billions of dollars, our refusal to allow for the protection for them to defend themselves will end up stopping the intelligence professionals from conducting surveillance of foreign persons in foreign countries. It's really because they cannot read the minds of their terrorist targets and guarantee that they would not call the United States or one of their people in the United States.

Unfortunately, sometimes they do. Mahmood Karimi came into this country in the trunk of a car over the border of Mexico after paying $5,000. He was the brother, by the way, of the Hezbollah general in southern Lebanon who launched the attacks there.

I was in Haifa in August, and the Prime Minister of Israel, by the way, told me that one of his great concerns was the advantages that had been given up and the knowledge that had now become known to the terrorists. He said one of the reasons we are having such difficulty with Hezbollah is because they now know how the United States, how other countries were able to apprehend the information before these attacks came.

But in any event, the brother of the individual who was launching those attacks some years ago actually came into the United States. I am certain somehow he got phone calls out of Beirut, and I am sorry if we violated his constitutional rights. I know there is the assumption that once a foreign agent from a foreign country is in this country, we don't have the right to monitor and violate his civil rights.

Here is what I do know about this individual: I know that he did manage to get through our southern border in my State. I know that somehow we apprehended him up in Detroit. I know that

once we did, we found 50 of his cohorts who were part of the Hezbollah cell.

Now, I am not making the allegation that we used this kind of intelligence in order to apprehend him, because, frankly, I don't know how we apprehended him. I only give you that example to say these are the types of individuals who are operating. He was trained by Iran; he was trained by foreign intelligence. He was here in the United States, and I imagine in one case out of 1,000, when someone is trying to make a phone call from Beirut to their agent, let's say in Syria, occasionally that call might come into the United States because there might be a foreign agent here.

The point I want to make is that this is, frankly, more protection than Americans get under court-ordered warrants in Mob and other criminal cases. The issue we are debating, frankly, is pretty important. It's an issue of life and death, frankly, as far as I am concerned.

I serve as the ranking member of the Terrorism and Nonproliferation Subcommittee. That there have not been attacks on our soil since 9/11 is due to the improved surveillance in real-time that we are able to conduct against foreign terrorists.

Now, that good record in no way should lead us to discount the jihadists, because the image of Osama bin Laden's allies operating in some remote terrain somewhere may give the impression that our foes are isolated. I want to share with you, because of the Internet our foes are not isolated. We are confronting a virtual caliphate. Radical jihadists are physically disbursed, but they are united through the Internet. They use the tool there to recruit and plot their terrorist attacks. They use electronic communications for just such a purpose, and they are very sophisticated in that use.

How has the West attempted to confront that? Well, the British used Electronic surveillance in real-time and they used it last year to stop the attack on 10 transatlantic flights. They prevented that attack a year ago by wiretapping. The French authorities used wiretaps to lure jihadists basically into custody and prevented a bomb attack.

Given this threat, it is unfathomable that we would weaken our most effective preventive tool. That's exactly what this bill does, in the opinion of Admiral McConnell, whose job it is to protect our security. Admiral McConnell said that we are actually missing a significant portion of what we should be getting. Now, he has served both Democratic and Republican administrations with distinction.

I would ask those so distrustful, go ahead, discount his estimate, cut them in half, say we lose one-third of our intelligence as a result of this bill passing and the problems that we foment with telecom companies around the world. I would argue that is too much to give up. I don't want to lose a single percent of our intelligence on terrorist communications. With nuclear and biological material floating around the globe, we don't have that margin of error.

Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize my alma mater, California State University, Fullerton, as it celebrates its 50th anniversary.

In 1957, California State University, Fullerton, was founded by an act of the California Legislature. The enrollment consisted of 452 students when the first classes were offered in leased quarters at Sunny Hills High School, prior to the College moving to temporary buildings on a permanent site in 1960.

Half a century after its founding, more than 185,000 graduates have successfully developed careers in hundreds of industries.

Each year, more than 36,000 students attend classes at Cal State Fullerton, choosing from among 105 different degree programs including 55 undergraduate, 49 graduate and a doctorate in education, at eight distinct colleges: arts, business and economics, communications, education, engineering and computer science, health and human development, humanities and social sciences, and natural sciences and mathematics, all of which provide an outstanding education to the students.

Its studies have led students to careers in teaching, nursing, business, the arts, communications, health care, engineering, sports, the sciences and more. Cal State Fullerton graduates have gone on to successful careers and community-building, and their impact is felt not only in the State of California and the Nation, but throughout the world. Among these graduates are Academy Award-winning actors and screenwriters, television news reporters, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists, successful novelists, doctors, lawyers, judges, teachers, professional athletes, entrepreneurs, legislators, scientists and business leaders and even a NASA astronaut who served on the crew of the Space Shuttle Endeavor that launched into space in August 2007.

Cal State Fullerton's student body also reflects the diversity of the State of California. As one of the most diverse campuses in the State, the university welcomes students of different ethnic groups, cultures and religions. In fact, many of these students are the first in their families to earn a university diploma.

The university received full accreditation from the Western College Association, later known as Western Association of Schools and Colleges, in 1961 and Cal State Fullerton now holds 14 national accreditations and associations.

In addition, ``Titan Pride'' has been the rallying cry for 12 national team championships in seven different sports.

Finally, Cal State Fullerton is known for its distinguished faculty, many of whom have garnered international and national reputations in their respective fields.

It is with great pride that I recognize Cal State Fullerton for 50 wonderful years.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I would like to take this opportunity to recognize my alma mater, California State University, Fullerton as it celebrates its 50th anniversary. In 1957, California State University, Fullerton was founded by an act of the California legislature. The enrollment at that time consisted of 452 students when those first classes were offered in leased quarters at Sunny Hills High School prior to the college moving to the temporary buildings that became a permanent site in 1960 in Fullerton. Half a century after its founding, more than 185,000 graduates have successfully developed careers in hundreds of industries.

Each year, more than 36,000 students attend classes at Cal State Fullerton, choosing from 105 different degree programs including 55 undergraduate, 49 graduate and a doctorate in education at eight distinct colleges: Arts, Business and Economics, Communications, Education, Engineering and Computer Science, Health and Human Development, Humanities and Social Sciences, and Natural Sciences and Mathematics, all of which provide an outstanding education to the students.

Its studies have led students to careers in teaching, nursing, business, the arts, communications, health care, engineering, sports, the sciences and more. Cal State Fullerton graduates have gone on to successful careers and their impact is felt not only in the State of California and the Nation but throughout the world. Among these graduates are Academy Award-winning actors and screenwriters, television news reporters, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists, successful novelists, doctors, lawyers, judges, teachers, professional athletes, entrepreneurs, scientists and business leaders and even a NASA astronaut who served on the crew of the Space Shuttle Endeavor that launched into space in August of 2007.

Cal State Fullerton's student body also reflects the diversity of the State of California. As one of the most diverse campuses in the State and in this Nation, the university welcomes students of different ethnic groups, cultures and religions. In fact, many of these students are the first in their families to earn a university diploma.

The university received full accreditation from the Western College Association in 1961 and Cal State Fullerton now holds 14 national accreditations and associations. In addition, ``Titan Pride'' has been the rallying cry for 12 national team championships in seven different sports.

Finally, Cal State Fullerton is known for its distinguished faculty, many of whom have garnered international and national reputations in their respective fields.

It is with great pride that I recognize Cal State Fullerton for 50 wonderful years.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I appreciate the opportunity.

Madam Speaker, opening these historical records on the Holocaust at this time, I think, is absolutely vital for the debate that is going on in the world today, when, ironically, you have a head of a state like President Ahmadinejad in Iran who simultaneously manages to say that the Holocaust never occurred and that we should have another Holocaust and that the Jewish people should be erased, that Jerusalem and Israel should be erased from the map. When you have the kinds of assertions that we read about, it is vital that those records be discussed by scholars, be surveyed by the families of those who lost loved ones, and that the debate be reengaged.

And the reason I say this is this weekend at Chapman University they had a program with 280 Holocaust survivors who had been interviewed by students and we heard the students' words about what they had learned about the Holocaust.

My father was present at that program, and he was also present and took photographs at Dachau when that camp was liberated and has since that time had to repeatedly engage those who deny the evidence of those eye-witnesses to history who recorded what had happened there. The words that he has written about this and the speeches that he has given in debate record the four ovens with the bodies stacked like cordwood next to the ovens and in the ovens and the thousands of human beings packed into railcars where they were left to starve to death. The fact that people today still engage us in this argument is why these archives must be turned over to researchers. As he said, when his generation is dead, the last eye-witnesses to this inhumanity will be gone and the Ahmadinejads and those who deny what happened in history will have a chance to try to repeat history.

One other point: the evidence uncovered here, the evidence exposed here, will help us better defend the Jewish people and to explain to some of our colleagues and to the world why it is the United States understands why the threats from people like Ahmadinejad are so dangerous.

I thank the gentleman, Madam Speaker. I rise also to support this resolution commemorating the 175th anniversary of the special relationship that we have with the Kingdom of Thailand. I am an original cosponsor of this resolution, but I think this resolution rightly points out the improving security relationship between our two countries.

What I would like to share with my colleagues here today is the growing cooperation in law enforcement that we are having with Thailand.

Madam Speaker, last week, Viktor Bout, the most notorious of international arms dealers, was brought into custody by Thai authorities. A criminal complaint was unsealed in New York detailing Viktor Bout's efforts to sell mass amounts of weapons to the FARC, a foreign terrorist organization that operates in Colombia.

He was arrested in the final stages of arranging a sale of millions of dollars of high-powered weapons, including 100 advanced shoulder- fired missiles capable of taking out airliners. With the cooperation of Thai authorities, the ``Merchant of Death,'' as Viktor Bout is known, is out of the game. He is being retired from the role he has played in the killings and maimings around the world. And this is good news to anyone who cares about checking strife in Africa, anyone who cares about stopping those who armed child soldiers, anyone who cares about checking support for transnational terrorists.

Because while many were attempting to stop conflicts across Africa, this is the individual who was pouring fuel on the fire. In U.N. report after U.N. report, Viktor Bout was cited as the chief sanctions buster, supplying arms to anyone who could pay. And I saw this up close when I chaired the Africa subcommittee and when I traveled across the continent. It is a bloody trail from Liberia and then across sub- Saharan Africa that he left.

Bout simultaneously, by the way, also managed to arm the Taliban while he was arming the Northern Alliance. As I said, he has had dealings with the FARC in Colombia, and he has been connected with Hezbollah. He is an international menace who needs to face justice, and we look forward to his expeditious extradition to the United States. And thank you to the Thai authorities, because they are the ones who took him into custody.

Madam Speaker, I rise to commemorate National Peace Corps Week and the 47th anniversary of the Peace Corps.

While much has changed in the world since the Peace Corps was created in 1961, its goals and ideals of promoting goodwill remain. Volunteers continue to provide invaluable services in 74 countries, serving as educators, technology consultants, environmental specialists, and business advisors.

At a time when extremism is sweeping through much of the globe, more than ever, we need these dedicated individuals.

As the former chairman of the House Subcommittee on Africa, I have had the opportunity to meet with several Peace Corps volunteers around the continent. The commitment these men and women have shown is extremely impressive and is to be commended.

During his trip to Africa last week, the President announced the return of Peace Corps volunteers to Rwanda, and he met with volunteers in Ghana, recognizing their work.

Madam Speaker, I have seen the valuable work the Peace Corps is doing in Africa, and throughout the world. It deserves our recognition and support.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 80, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''