Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 957) to amend the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 to expand and clarify the entities against which sanctions may be imposed, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and our distinguished senior ranking member, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, for their sponsorship of this bipartisan measure and for their leadership on the issue of Iran.

The dangerous Iranian regime presents us with the overriding long- term issue facing the entire Middle East. The scoundrel, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and his theocratic cohorts are working to destabilize security worldwide with their nuclear weapons program. They are targeting Israel specifically through sponsorship of terror groups. And according to Tehran's own claims, several batteries of missiles.

So the most important foreign policy security aim of the United States Government must be to prevent nuclear weapons from ever falling into the hands of Iran. It would destabilize the entire world. That is why the Foreign Affairs Committee has repeatedly passed bills to choke the regime in Tehran so it never gets to that point.

If there is one long-term lesson of the Iraq war, Mr. Speaker, it is that all other means must be exhausted before military use is employed. This is what we aim to do in the Iran issue, tough sanctions, cooperation with our allies, and diplomacy.

The amendment to the Iran Sanctions Act before the House today restores text that was in the original version of the Iran Sanctions legislation passed overwhelmingly by the House last session. Unfortunately, following White House negotiations with the Republican majority at the time, this provision was removed from a subsequent version of the bill that actually became law.

This amendment plugs critical loopholes, actual and potential, for the current legislation that could allow Iran to conduct an end-around on our sanctions. The legislation is intended to truly and fully deprive Iran of revenue it needs to fuel its nuclear weapons program.

The bill before us would fortify current law and enhance the ability of our government to deter foreign investment in Iran's energy industry. It expands the definition used to apply to businesses so that we may restrict anyone and everyone intending to help fuel Iran's sham of an energy industry.

It is more than lamentable that the administration, in fact, has never once availed itself of the potent tools that the Iran Sanctions Act offers to deter such investment. But the administration can rest assured that we will hold its feet to the fire in this session.

For the sake of U.S. interests and for world peace, both the executive branch and the Congress must do everything in its power to prevent the emergence of a nuclear-armed Iran. Congress cannot do it alone. So it is for these reasons that I again commend my dear friend, the ranking member, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, for her cosponsorship of this bipartisan legislation and her leadership in the noble effort to prevent a fanatical regime from acquiring nuclear weapons has been outstanding.

As a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I am proud to be part of that effort. I strongly support this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), one of the senior members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade

Mr. Speaker, again, I want to commend the gentlewoman from Florida as the author of this bipartisan legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 136) expressing the sense of Congress regarding high level visits to the United States by democratically-elected officials of Taiwan, as amended.

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

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

I rise in strong support of this resolution, and I would first like to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) for introducing this important resolution.

Mr. Speaker, Taiwan was once a politically backward, authoritarian state

living under the cloud of martial law and serious human rights abuses. In the matter of a few short decades, it has transformed itself into a thriving and energetic democracy that is a shining beacon for human rights all over the Asian-Pacific region.

Based on our mutual commitment to freedom and democracy, the U.S.- Taiwan relationship has blossomed in step with Taiwan's own revolution. Our two nations now share a complex web of economic, political and strategic ties that only deepen over time.

A fundamental element of our burgeoning relationship is our people- to-people ties. With open arms, we have welcomed Taiwan's businessmen, its students, its scientists, and its artists. My recollection is over 90,000 students from Taiwan attend our colleges and universities throughout our country.

But when it comes to Taiwan's democratically elected leaders, the United States, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, has repeatedly slammed the door in their face. Why, when the Government of Taiwan is a key player in the Asia-Pacific region, do we prevent their highest-level decision makers from even traveling to the United States?

This ill-considered policy toward Taiwan's democratically elected leadership is due to one simple fact: Our policymakers in the White House and State Department cringe in fear that Beijing or the People's Republic of China will be upset if we welcome Taiwan's leaders to our Nation.

To say that this reasoning is wrongheaded is an understatement. Welcoming Taiwanese officials does not mean that we have abandoned the One China Policy nor recognize or endorse Taiwan's secession from China. It is simply an acknowledgement that Taiwan is a democracy, and we treat democratically elected officials with respect.

High-level visits also advance our policy of maintaining peace in the Taiwan Strait through diplomacy and negotiation. Taiwan's leaders need to hear firsthand that the American people strongly support Taiwan and hope for a peaceful, mutually acceptable outcome to the tensions across the Taiwan Strait.

The current, antiquated policy cuts us from valuable opportunities to gather information and exchange views on matters of critical importance to the United States; it reduces the ability of both the Taiwanese and the American people to strengthen economic and cultural ties; and it limits American access to world leaders who play a direct role in the interest of the United States. Perhaps most profoundly, Mr. Speaker, our outdated policy is profoundly disrespectful to the leadership of a democratic friend of the United States.

This resolution expresses the sense of Congress that the restriction on travel for high-level elected and appointed officials from Taiwan to the United States should be lifted so we can strengthen our crucial relationship.

I recall years ago when Taiwan's first elected President, Mr. Lee, was invited by his alma mater, Cornell University, where he obtain his doctorate degree in agricultural science. There was a whole bunch of problems created due to the fact that an elected leader from Taiwan wanted to visit his alma mater, Cornell University, and he was prohibited simply because he was an elected official.

Mr. Speaker, this is a commonsense resolution which I strongly support and urge my colleagues to support.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for her kind remarks, and I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) who could not make it because of travel problems. Quoting also from the words of Confucius, there are many acquaintances but very few friends, and I believe we are one of the few friends Taiwan has, and we should continue that relationship.

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) for his eloquent statement in support of this resolution

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished chairman of our House Foreign Affairs Committee, my good friend and chairman, Tom Lantos, and also our senior ranking member, Ms. Ros- Lehtinen, for their leadership and efforts in bringing H. Res. 121 to the floor today.

I also want to thank our colleagues, and the gentleman from California especially as the chief sponsor of this legislation, which has the support of some 146 Members, both Republicans and Democrats, fully supporting the provisions of this resolution.

I also want to note, this resolution was previously passed by the International Relations Committee in the last Congress, under the able leadership of our previous chairman, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hyde.

And I would be remiss if I did not also mention the name of another gentleman from Illinois, my good friend Mr. Lane Evans, who was also a champion of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 121 seeks to express the sense of the U.S. House of Representatives that the Government of Japan should formally acknowledge, apologize and accept historical responsibility in a clear and unequivocal manner for its Imperial Armed Forces coercion of teenage girls and young women into a sexual slavery, euphemistically known as ``comfort women,'' system during its colonial and wartime occupation of Asia and the Pacific islands from the late 1930s throughout the duration of World War II.

On February 7 of this year, the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific and the Global Environment held a hearing on H. Res. 121, the first time ever in the history of the United States Congress that three surviving ``comfort women'' testified for the record.

Ms. Lee Yong-Soo is with us today, and I want to especially commend her and Ms. Koon Kim Lee and

Ms. Jan Ruff O'Herne for their courage and their faith and their belief that one day their story would be told and, in part, their suffering would be set right.

I encourage the world to read their moving testimony, which has brought us to this moment when the United States of America will stand arm in arm with these noble women in demanding an official apology from the Government of Japan.

The comfort women system organized, managed and administered by the Imperial Army of Japan is considered one of the 20th century's most extensive cases of human trafficking and ignored violations of human rights. It was unprecedented in its cruelty and magnitude as teenage girls and young women were raped, systematically beaten, tortured, drugged, mutilated and sometimes even murdered.

According to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, soldiers of the Japanese Imperial Army abducted and forced some 200,000 young teenage girls and young women from Korea, from China, from the Philippines, from Indonesia, from the Dutch Indies, and other women, forced them into sexual enslavement and abuse.

Today the Government of Japan contends that it has apologized and accepted responsibility for its atrocities. But it wasn't until 1980s and the 1990s that major publications in Japan began to describe the details of the comfort women, and it also wasn't until 1992 in response to these developments that Japan's Chief Secretary, cabinet secretary, Yahei Kono, issued an official statement. After a 2-year period, the foreign ministry of Japan conducted this research, and it did make the admission.

I would include for the Record the full statement of Chief Secretary Kono regarding the 2-year study by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

In 1993, after a two-year study by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, under the supervision of the Chief Secretary of Cabinet, an equivalent to the Chief-of-Staff of the White House, Mr. Yahei Kon stated:

The Government of Japan has been conducting a study on the

issue of wartime ``comfort women'' since December 1991. I

wish to announce the findings as a result of that study.

As a result of the study which indicates that comfort

stations were operated in extensive areas for long periods,

it is apparent that there existed a great number of comfort

women. Comfort stations were operated in response to the

request of the military authorities of the day. The then

Japanese military was, directly or indirectly, involved in

the establishment and management of the comfort stations and

the transfer of comfort women. The recruitment of the comfort

women was conducted mainly by private recruiters who acted in

response to the request of the military. The Government study

has revealed that in many cases they were recruited against

their own will, through coaxing coercion, etc., and that, at

times, administrative/military personnel directly took part

in the recruitments. They lived in misery at comfort stations

under a coercive atmosphere.

As to the origin of those comfort women who were

transferred to the war areas, excluding those from Japan,

those from the Korean Peninsula accounted for a large part.

The Korean Peninsula was under Japanese rule in those days,

and their recruitment, transfer, control, etc., were

conducted generally against their will, through coaxing,

coercion, etc.

Undeniably, this was an act, with the involvement of the

military authorities of the day, that severely injured the

honor and dignity of many women. The Government of Japan

would like to take this opportunity once again to extend its

sincere apologies and remorse to all those, irrespective of

place of origin, who suffered immeasurable pain and incurable

physical and psychological wounds as comfort women.

It is incumbent upon us, the Government of Japan, to

continue to consider seriously, while listening to the views

of learned circles, how best we can express this sentiment.

We shall face squarely the historical facts as described

above instead of evading them, and take them to heart as

lessons of history. We hereby reiterated our firm

determination never to repeat the same mistake by forever

engraving such issues in our memories through the study and

teaching of history.

As actions have been brought to court in Japan and

interests have been shown in this issue outside Japan, the

Government of Japan shall continue to pay full attention to

this matter, including private researched related thereto.

The Kono statement is often cited as Japan's official apology, although it was never endorsed officially by any of Japan's prime ministers and members of cabinets. At the time the chief cabinet secretary was considered part press secretary, part chief of staff but never an official member of cabinet, nor can he ever present himself as an acting prime minister.

2001, Prime Minister Koizumi issued a statement. However, only statements approved by the cabinet and not the prime minister, are a definitive expression of government policy in Japan. Without the approval of the cabinet, all declarations of contrition are considered only personal views.

I want to close my statement and to say this: Someone once said, ``The greatness of a nation is not necessarily measured by its accomplishments, by its ability, but by its ability to face honestly its mistakes of the past and then take appropriate action to correct them.''

I sincerely hope that this will be taken seriously by our good friends and the leadership of the Government of Japan.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Tom Lantos of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and our Senior Ranking Member, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, for their leadership and efforts in bringing H. Res. 121 to the floor today. I also want to thank our colleague, the gentleman from California, Mr. Honda, for his sponsorship of this bill which has the bipartisan support of some 146 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives.

I also want to make note that this resolution was previously passed by the International Relations Committee in the last Congress under the able leadership of our previous Chairman, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Henry Hyde. I would be remiss if I did not also mention the name of our former colleague and friend, Mr. Lane Evans also from Illinois, who championed this bill for years.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 121 seeks to express the sense of the U.S. House of Representatives that the Government of Japan should formally acknowledge, apologize, and accept historical responsibility in a clear and unequivocal manner for its Imperial Armed Force's coercion of teenage girls and young women into sexual slavery, euphemistically known as the ``comfort women'' system, during its colonial and wartime occupation of Asia and the Pacific Islands from 1930s and through the duration of World War II.

On February 15, 2007, the Foreign Affairs' Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific and Global Environment held a hearing on H. Res. 121, and, for the first time ever in the history of the U.S. Congress, three surviving comfort women testified for the record.

Ms. Young Soo Lee is with us today and I want to especially commend her and Ms. Koon Kim and Ms. Jan Ruff O'Herne for their courage and their faith and their belief that one day their story would be told and, in part, their suffering would be set right. I encourage the world to read their moving testimony which has brought us to this moment when the United States of America will stand arm in arm with these noble women in demanding an official apology from the Government of Japan.

The ``comfort women'' system, organized, managed and administered by the Imperial Army of Japan, is considered to be one of the 20th century's most extensive cases of human trafficking and ignored violations of human rights. It was unprecedented in its cruelty and magnitude as teen-age girls and young women were systematically raped, beaten, tortured, drugged, mutilated, and sometimes murdered. According to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, soldiers of the Japanese Imperial Army, abducted and forced some 200,000 young teenage girls and young women from Korea, China, the Philippines, Indonesian, Dutch, and other women--forced them into sexual enslavement and abuse.

Today, the Government of Japan contends that it has apologized and accepted responsibility for its atrocities. But it wasn't until the 1980s and 1990s that major publications in Japan began to describe the details of the ``comfort women'' system and that countries occupied by Japan also began to speak out about it. I wasn't until 1992, in response to these developments, that Japan's Chief Cabinet Secretary Yohei Kono issued a statement.

This ``Kono Statement'' is often cited as Japan's official apology although it was never endorsed officially by any of Japan's prime ministers and their cabinets. At the time, the Chief Cabinet Secretary was considered part Press Secretary, part Chief of Staff, and never an official member of Cabinet, nor can he ever present himself as an Acting Prime Minister.

In 2001, Prime Minister Koizumi issued a statement. However, only statements approved by the Cabinet, not the Prime Minister, are a definitive expression of government policy in Japan. Without the approval of the Cabinet, all declarations of contrition are considered only personal views.

Interestingly, as this topic has gained widespread attention as result of February's hearing, both the Japanese government and press have ignored the fact that Members of Congress now understand both Japan's legislative system and history of the Comfort Women tragedy. We are not ignorant, as some reporters have suggested. We know what does and does not constitute an official apology. We are also aware of the propaganda being churned out by the Japanese press intent on revising history by denying the validity of the ``Comfort Women'' controversy.

This year, Prime Minister Abe denied the existence of sexual slave camps. Then he retracted his statement because of pressure from leaders of the Asia-Pacific region. Now he says that he ``respects'' the finding of the Kono Report of 1993. What does this mean?

I have a special love and affinity for the people of Japan. But more sacred to me is our obligation to emphasize the fact a systematic abduction and raping and abuse of women as a weapon of war is totally unacceptable, and I believe the people of Japan agree. In fact, it can be argued that H. Res. 121 reflects the will of the Japanese people. In the only survey that the Japanese press appears to have published on the Comfort Women issue, in 2001, Fuji TV's Hodo asked respondents if they thought Japan has apologized sufficiently. 43.8 percent answered no, 37.2 percent answered yes.

Some may say the past is the past and that the U.S. is also an offender and violator of human rights. Maybe this is so. But nowhere in recorded history has the U.S. military command as a matter of policy issued a directives allowing for the coercion of teenage girls and young women into sexual slavery or forced prostitution. On the other hand, this is exactly what the Japanese military high command did and it is an affront to truth for any government to downplay its history.

Civilized society cannot allow history to be revised or denied under any circumstances. Regardless of what bearing this, or any other issue, may have on bilateral relations, or U.S. foreign policy, civilized society has a moral obligation to remember, to give voice to those who have suffered, to pay living tribute to victims past and present, to defend human rights. Otherwise we run the risk of holocaust.

Today, I want to commend my colleagues for their support and to call upon the Prime Minister of Japan and his Cabinet to issue a formal apology. No amount of money, not even payments set up by private Japanese contributions or the Asian Women's Fund, can atone for the suffering of the thousands of women victimized at the hands of Japan's Imperial Forces before and during, World War II.

While I support any woman's right to lay claim to these funds, I do not believe the Japanese government should suggest that a monetary payment can make right a moral wrong. So, for me, any and all discussions about the Asian Women's Fund sufficing as an act of apology falls short of what is relevant.

What is relevant is that Japan acknowledge, apologize, and accept historical responsibility for its Imperial Armed Force's coercion of teenage girls and young women into sexual slavery during its occupation of Asia and the Pacific Islands during WWII.

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by sharing with my colleagues this statement--someone once said that, ``The greatness of a nation is not necessarily measured by its accomplishments, but by its ability to face honestly its mistakes of the past, and then take appropriate action to correct them.''

Again, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 188) condemning the attack on the AMIA Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in July 1994, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, 13 years ago this month, 85 innocent people lost their lives in the bombing of a Jewish cultural center in Buenos Aires. Today we commemorate the profound pain of the families who had their loved ones brutally taken from them. We also recall the shock felt in Jewish communities throughout the world at this ferocious attack on innocent lives in a city where Jewish people had previously felt secure. But with consideration of this resolution today, we not only commemorate but we demand justice. It is absolutely imperative that the international community push ahead with the critical investigation to bring the perpetrators to justice.

Mr. Speaker, just last fall the state prosecutor of Argentina concluded that the attack had been approved in advance by Iran's Supreme Leader and by the highest officials of the Iranian Government. The former Iranian Ambassador to Argentina actually provided key information in planning to carry out this vicious attack.

There is a new leader in Tehran these days. He is no less anti- Semitic and no less menacing, but he threatens to develop infinitely more dangerous weapons than those used to perpetrate the slaughter in Argentina.

Mr. Speaker, the United States cannot and will not allow the reckless Iranian leader Ahmadinejad to obtain nuclear capabilities. There is also little doubt that the Iranian masterminds in 1994 called upon their Hezbollah thugs to execute their nefarious plans. We also know that the Hezbollah terrorist cell that carried out the attack received financial and logistical support from sympathizers in the tri-border region between Paraguay, Argentina, and Brazil. The suicide bomber himself may have entered South America and traveled to the Argentina capital through this lawless frontier.

Mr. Speaker, although nothing like the bombing has been replicated in South America since 1994, supporters and facilitators of Islamic terrorist organizations have gathered in scattered outposts throughout the western hemisphere. Operating from hard-to-reach areas in Chile, Colombia, Venezuela and Panama, these individuals lend financial and logistical assistance to terrorist organizations in the Middle East.

Mr. Speaker, although these isolated communities have yet to grow into operational cells of Islamic terrorists, the threat to regional security remains strong and requires constant vigilance. We must redouble our efforts to root out terrorist fund-raising networks in the western hemisphere and to unearth the growing web of links between terrorist financiers and narcotic traffickers.

This important resolution encourages the Government of Argentina to continue its pursuit of the criminals in the bombing, and it calls upon the General Assembly of INTERPOL to uphold and implement international arrest warrants recently issued for the Hezbollah and Iranian operatives.

Mr. Speaker, only by taking the investigation of the AMIA bombing to its ultimate conclusion, the capture and punishment of those who planned it, will we show Iran, Hezbollah, and those who support terrorism that we are serious about combating it. International terrorists have demonstrated that they will not rest in pursuit of their villainy. This resolution once again puts them on notice that they will fail whether they are in the Middle East or in the Americas.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this important measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do want to commend my good friend, the gentlelady, as the prime sponsor of this resolution.

I yield.

I have no problem with that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my good friend, my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute just to say that I do want to thank the gentleman from Ohio for his concerns about this proposed legislation. But as my good friend has stated, this is not in any way to suggest that this is giving more ammunition to the current administration to suggest that we're going to attack Iran in the near future.

I, for one, and I'm certain that every member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, am going to scrutinize and screen this very, very carefully on any formal proposal coming from the administration as far as taking arms against Iran

Mr. Speaker, I don't have any further speakers.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to insert into the Congressional Record a letter signed by 24 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives in recognition of our dear friend, His Excellency Kanat Saudabayev, who on May 15, 2007, was appointed by President Nursultan Nazarbayev as Secretary of State for the Republic of Kazakhstan. Prior to his appointment, His Excellency Saudabayev served as Ambassador of Kazakhstan to the United States.

In gratitude for his service, in honor of his appointment, and with confidence that he will spare no effort in serving the people of Kazakhstan, we include the following letter to be made part of our Congressional history:

His Excellency Kanat Saudabayev,

Secretary of State, Republic of Kazakhstan,

Ak Orda, Astana.

Dear Mr. Secretary: It is with pleasure that we commend you

on your new appointment as Secretary of State of the Republic

of Kazakhstan which we note is one of the highest positions

in your country which ranks fifth in seniority, behind the

President, the Prime Minister and the Speakers of both

Houses.

We also applaud your six and a half years of service in

Washington as Ambassador of Kazakhstan to the United States.

During your tenure, you advanced U.S.-Kazakhstan relations by

strengthening friendship between our peoples and cooperation

between our countries. The United States and the people of

Kazakhstan have much to be proud of from your long career of

selfless service.

We acknowledge your invaluable contributions as a

distinguished diplomat and esteemed statesman, and we are

confident that in your new position you will take an active

part in fostering our strategic partnership.

We wish you well and convey to you our sincere appreciation

for your service. You will be missed.

Sincerely,

Tom Lantos, Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Eni

F.H. Faleomavaega, Chairman, Subcommittee on Asia, the

Pacific, and the Global Environment, Alcee L. Hastings,

Chairman, U.S. Commission on Security and Cooperation

in Europe, Chris Cannon; Jim McDermott; Phil English;

Darrell E. Issa; Robert Wexler; Pete Sessions; Jim

Saxton.

Patrick J. Tiberi; Shelley Berkley; Madeleine Z.

Bordallo; Maurice D. Hinchey; Albio Sires; Charlie

Melancon; Robert D. Aderholt; Tom Price; Edolphus

Towns; Gregory W. Meeks; Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon;

Ellen O. Tauscher; Eddie Bernice Johnson; Donna M.

Christensen.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 395) supporting the ideals and values of the Olympic movement.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution, and yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would first like to commend our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), for introducing this important resolution.

The Olympics are, first and foremost, about sports, athletes from around the world uniting in their love of their games and their commitment to free and fair competition.

But the Olympics are also an important global forum where athletes, trainers and leaders and spectators from around the world come together to participate in and observe the greatest competition on Earth. The games epitomize the spirit of global harmony and cooperation among nations.

For over 100 years, the modern Olympics movement, in sponsoring the games, has built understanding by bringing athletes together around the world in open competition and by forging new bonds of friendship, solidarity and sportsmanship.

Given the current state of global affairs, we all have learned a lot from the Olympic participants and from the symbolism of the peaceful assemblage of people from all different walks of life.

It is with this harmonious sentiment that Mr. Lamborn's resolution recognizes the significance of the Olympic movement in global understanding.

This resolution is particularly timely as we approach the 2008 games in Beijing, China, and encourages China to act responsibly in accordance with the spirit of this Olympics.

This bill also recognizes the proud history of our own U.S. Olympic Committee, which has coordinated the development of young athletes in the United States and sent so many of them to represent our country with amazing poise.

I'm delighted that the House will today take this opportunity to recognize the anniversary of the founding of the modern Olympic movement on June 23.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the gentleman for his statement, and to honor the spirit of the Olympic movement, and especially that the great State of Colorado hosts the resources and the facilities that allow our athletes from all over the country to come and to train and to prepare adequately for this important global event.

And I cannot help but to reflect on some of the history and how important are some of the events that were classical as far as the Olympics were concerned. And I want to share with my colleagues one of the great personalities that have come out of this, a gentleman by the name of Jim Thorpe, who was a descendent, who was a Sauk and Fox Indian, American Indian, a descendant of a great warrior chief and athlete himself, Black Hawk, Jim Thorpe. It is very interesting in the annals of the Olympic games. In 1912, when he won the Olympics, several gold medals in the Olympics there, and he was approached by the King Gustav of Belgium, and he said, Sir, this is what the king said to Mr. Thorpe. Sir, you are the greatest athlete in the world. And Thorpe, never a man to stand on ceremony, answered and simply said, Thanks, King.

Jim Thorpe was one of the greatest athletes in the world. He played baseball, he played football, in fact, in 1950 he was named the greatest American football player. And then another accolade that was given to this great athlete, Olympic athlete, the greatest overall male, at least by the Associated Press in 1950.

Jim Thorpe, unfortunately, was suspended in terms of the medals that he won during the Olympics supposedly because he had played professional baseball. Supposedly, this is what he was accused of.

Well, later on his medals were restored.

But given the fact that this is one of the great personalities that have evolved from the spirit of the Olympic movement, another gentleman that I want to share with my colleagues historically was a gentleman by the name of Jesse Owens, a son of Alabama, but raised in the State of Ohio, in Cleveland, Ohio, specifically.

It was in the 1936 Olympics, 1936 Olympics in Berlin, Germany, and there was this problem that some of our friends from Germany, particularly Adolph Hitler, had this very interesting concept about the supremacy of the white Aryan race. And this African American athlete went there and won four gold medals, to the extent that it was very ironic.

Here, Jesse Owens could not even train together with his white counterparts, the members of the Olympic Committee, representing the United States of America. And yet, when he got to Germany, in the midst of 110,000 spectators in that stadium there in Berlin, ironically Owens was allowed to travel and stay in the same hotels as whites in Germany, and yet was denied the same privilege here in our own country.

The fact is even noted that after a New York ticker tape parade that was given in his honor in New York City, that Owens had to ride the freight elevator to attend a reception for him at the Waldorf Astoria.

I think it's worth noting that this gentleman, humble as he was, one of the greatest athletes, one of the greatest athletes coming from our country, again the spirit of the Olympics, where race, color, creed or religion should have no barrier, and yet this great American set a tremendous example of what he did in 1936.

Unfortunately, as well, in 1968, at the height of the civil rights movement, the Olympics that took place in Mexico, where gentlemen by the name of Tommy Smith and John Carlos demonstrated in their own way, of course they were highly ridiculed by the media; and it was their way of showing that something was wrong here in America. African Americans were not given the same civil rights and liberties as all other Federal Americans, as is guaranteed supposedly by the U.S. Constitution.

They made a display of their concern that in America, that something was wrong in our country. And I think they were later honored by the San Jose State University for the fact that they stood up for principle, not because they hated the Olympics or being athletes, but because of that.

Then the Olympics of 1980, we had a very serious problem when the Soviet Union attacked Afghanistan. And President Carter then issued a very interesting statement. You pull out of Afghanistan or we're going to boycott the Olympics. That's exactly what happened in 1980. And unfortunately, all our athletes who trained so hard for that 4-year period just wasted that whole energy and time unfortunately. But because of political reasons.

And here's one of the ironies, Mr. Speaker, that the United States was joined in this boycott with Japan, West Germany, China and Canada. And guess who didn't join us? Great Britain, France, Greece. Very, very interesting host of supposedly our allies and friends as a matter of principle in terms of what the Soviet Union did in 1979.

And then what happened in 1984? The Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact members turned around and boycotted the Olympics in Los Angeles.

In the 1988 Olympics in Korea, Mr. Speaker, it was my privilege to lead the first delegation of my territory, as members of the Olympic Committee, believe it or not, in the Olympic organization, in Seoul, Korea. And what an awesome and powerful force it was to show the world community in terms of showing these athletes who prepare for so long and so hard that they could share not only their talent but, more than that, their fellowship with each other.

Now, in the advent of what is happening seriously in terms of what we are trying to do in Darfur, the moment now among some of the leaders and others in the world is to boycott the Olympics in China because some feel that China is not doing enough to put pressure on the Sudanese Government to stop the genocide, to stop the genocide in Darfur, where over 400,000 lives have already been lost because of that terrible crisis of genocide, and over 2 million refugees have already been sighted because of this terrible incident's happening, and the fact that China receives 70 percent of its oil supply from Sudan and the fact that China also supplies arms to the Sudanese Government.

It is a very serious issue. And, unfortunately, like I said, I wish we lived in a perfect world where we can separate the politics from athletics, but this is not the reality that we are faced with.

And I am also making an urgent plea to our good friends from China, the leaders of China, to put pressure on the Sudanese Government, put pressure on the Sudanese Government to stop the genocide in Darfur.

Again, I want to commend my colleague and good friend for his support and for the sponsorship of this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 676) to provide that the Executive Director of the Inter-American Development Bank or the Alternate Executive Director of the Inter-American Development Bank may serve on the Board of Directors of the Inter-American Foundation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this proposed legislation.

The Inter-American Foundation is an important agency of the United States Government that strengthens relations between the United States and Latin America and makes significant contributions to economic development and civil society throughout the region. The foundation, which also receives contributions from the Inter-American Development Bank, primarily funds partnerships among grass-roots and nonprofit organizations and businesses and local governments. These partnerships are directed at improving the quality of life of poor people and strengthening civic participation, accountability, and democratic practices.

The foundation is therefore a vital agency that bolsters Latin America and ought to have the full support of relevant agencies and bodies, especially the Inter-American Development Bank.

The bill before the House today comes to us from the Senate. It simply makes explicit that the executive director of the Inter-American Development Bank should be eligible for appointment to the board of the Inter-American Foundation. While it was previously assumed that the head of the bank could be appointed to the foundation board, such eligibility was never codified in the law.

This bill is a technical fix that our good friends, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Biden; and the senior ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Lugar, believe that this law should be installed.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Colorado, for his most eloquent statement.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 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 resolution (H. Res. 418) recognizing and welcoming the delegation of Presidents, Prime Ministers, and Foreign Ministers from the Caribbean to Washington, DC, and commending the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) for holding the Conference on the Caribbean.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution.

Let me first commend my distinguished friend and colleague, also a senior member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Eliot Engel, chairman of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, for introducing this important resolution, which welcomes an impressive delegation of Presidents, Prime Ministers, and Foreign Ministers from the Caribbean to Washington, DC for the Conference on the Caribbean.

Mr. Speaker, the Caribbean nations are as varied and stunningly exquisite as anywhere in the world. We are pleased to have a strong relationship with the Caribbean Community, also known as CARICOM, the free trade association that unifies these states.

For the first time in its history, through the coordination of the Caribbean Community, the State Department and Congress, the Conference of the Caribbean is convening in Washington. The Foreign Affairs Committee is pleased to be meeting with the members of this delegation when they convene here on June 19 through June 21. They will also be meeting with President Bush as well as members of the House Ways and Means Committee and the Congressional Black Caucus.

This is to be a historic meeting that ushers in a new era of cooperation between the United States and the nations of the Caribbean, an area of the world often neglected.

The United States and the countries of the Caribbean can enhance collaboration in several important areas, including mutually beneficial trade and economic relationships; battling crime, drugs, and terrorism; and combating the spread of diseases including HIV/AIDS. This will also be a golden opportunity for the Caribbean nations and the United States to cooperate on new and clean energy production technologies.

Our relations with the Caribbean also hit very close to home as there are increasing numbers of Americans of Caribbean heritage making significant contributions to our culture here in America. I need only to cite a few that come to mind, and one of the gentlemen I had the privilege of meeting years ago was none other that Mr. Harry Belafonte, whose roots are also from the Caribbean. What about the late and former Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm, the first African American woman to run for President of the United States, and she certainly distinguished herself in representing her constituents from New York.

Also, at the meeting, I had the privilege of meeting with a gentleman by the name of Sidney Poitier from the Caribbean, of Caribbean heritage. And of course none other than former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and also former Secretary of State, Mr. Colin Powell, whose heritage is also from the Caribbean.

We need to continue to work on ways to strengthen the open markets and economic ties that have brought prosperity to many Caribbean nations that promise to lift up those in need. We all look forward to seeing some real tangible results coming out of this upcoming conference.

I urge my colleagues to give this resolution its fullest support.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend and colleague from Arkansas for his support of this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I forgot to mention as part of my commenting on this, the tremendous number of world-renowned athletes also coming from the Caribbean. I can only think of Bob Clemente from Puerto Rico. I know of one other, but I am going to get back to you on them, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my privilege to yield such time as he may need to the chief sponsor and author of this proposed legislation, my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague and chairman of our Subcommittee of the Western Hemisphere. Not only am I an original cosponsor of this important resolution, but also, as a member of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, it has been my privilege over the years to also visit some of our countries here in the Caribbean area. And as my friend from New York has said, sometimes we neglect these so-called small states.

A couple of weeks ago, I had the privilege of hosting several presidents and prime ministers from the South Pacific, from the Pacific region. Currently, in the United Nations they have what is known as a small states association, which is comprised primarily of states or countries from the Caribbean, and also from the Pacific region. And they number about a little over 42 members in the United Nations.

The point I wanted to make, Mr. Speaker, is these are sovereign, independent nations, and we are not to look at them as just because they're small, that they are not important as far as our national needs are concerned. We ought to be very sensitive to the needs of small states, no matter where they are.

I also want to note with a sense of irony that right in the middle of the Caribbean we have 4 million U.S. citizens living in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. I failed to mention that with my love and passion for the sport of golf, it was my privilege to meet a couple of years ago the great golfer from Puerto Rico, Chi Chi Rodriguez. I stated earlier Sammy Sosa. We have so many names here, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to share with my colleagues and my good friend from Arkansas, tremendous contributions of talent coming from the Caribbean region. I don't need to say them in terms of the wealth of talent coming from the Caribbean as far as the sport of baseball is concerned. I just want to share that note with my colleagues.

And again, I want to commend my good friend, the chairman of our Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere. We look forward to meeting with these presidents and prime ministers coming from the Caribbean region.

Mr. Speaker, 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 resolution (H. Res. 295) recognizing the strong alliance between the Republic of Korea and the United States and expressing appreciation to the Republic of Korea for its efforts in the global war against terrorism, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in strong support of the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, let me first commend our distinguished colleague and former member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), for being the author of and introducing this important resolution.

Mr. Speaker, the strong alliance between the United States and the Republic of Korea has been a pivotal relationship in world affairs since our involvement when we fought side by side in the Korean war over half a century ago. Out of that conflict was born one of the most significant dividing lines of the Cold War, a demilitarized zone on the 38th parallel that splits the Korean Peninsula and marked the divide between Communist Asia and democratic Asia. The partnership between our two countries held this line for decades. Today we help maintain a stable peace in Southeast Asia.

In the post-Cold War period, the Republic of Korea has remained a steadfast U.S. ally. It has contributed troops and pledged reconstruction funds for Iraq, and its forces are deployed in Afghanistan. As a key member of the six-party talks to denuclearize North Korea, it shares an important responsibility for broader security in Northeast Asia. Today we are committed absolutely to compelling the dangerous North Korea regime to eliminate its nuclear program.

Overall, South Korea is a key partner and an ally in the challenge of combating world terrorism. The combination of emerging terrorism threats and the North Korean challenge makes this resolution particularly important today.

I certainly want to commend my good friend, Assistant Secretary Christopher Hill of the State Department, for his diligence and efforts in negotiating with the North Koreans in the six-party talks. I would be remiss if I did not also recognize a most significant contribution made by the Republic of China and the help that they have contributed in bringing the North Koreans to the negotiating table and for which the negotiations are now ongoing, hopefully to bring about a resolution to this important problem.

In economic realms, Mr. Speaker, the U.S. relationship with the Republic of Korea is one of our strongest in Asia. The Republic of Korea was one of the original East Asian Tigers and served as a model for other countries in Asia with its booming economic growth in the seventies, eighties and nineties. South Korea now is the United States' seventh largest trading partner in the world.

This resolution honors the close alliance between the United States and the Republic of Korea and recognizes South Korea's important contributions to fighting not only terrorism around the world, but also welcomes a strengthening and deepening of the relationship between our two countries and our peoples.

Mr. Speaker, when I was in Vietnam, I remember vividly the presence of some 50,000 soldiers from South Korea who served alongside us, the U.S. forces. I kind of like to say now you know where your real friends are.

I am reminded of a Chinese proverb: there are many acquaintances, but very few friends. South Korea was one of those few friends who was willing to put their action where their talk is; and the fact that 50,000 soldiers were there fighting along U.S. forces and in that terrible conflict that we faced in Vietnam, I cannot help but express my personal commendation and appreciation to the leaders and to the people of South Korea when they were there with us when we needed help.

I visited South Korea several times and I consider them the most industrious people on this planet. There are over 1 million Korean Americans living in our country today, some among the most prominent in the areas of science and doctors. They have become lawyers, engineers and are in all types of businesses. I have a very strong affection for the Korean people and those fellow citizens who happen to be of Korean ancestry.

So I think this resolution is most fitting. Again, I commend my good friend, the gentleman from New York, for offering and proposing this resolution.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, again I want to commend and thank my good friend for his eloquent statement and add that this is not a partisan piece of legislation. It is fully bipartisan. I certainly commend not only our distinguished chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Lantos, but also our senior ranking member, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, for their support of this proposed legislation.

It is ironic that we are dealing with several pieces of legislation, earlier on being the Olympics, and now we are dealing with South Korea.

I remember years ago when I attended the Olympics in 1988 in Korea, I ran into a gentleman who is a Korean American by the name of Dr. Sammy Lee. I asked him why this Samoan American was so good in the art of diving, perhaps one of the greatest Olympic divers ever in the history of the Olympics, whose name is none other than Greg Louganis. I asked Dr. Sammy Lee, why is it that Greg Louganis was such a great Olympic diver? He said, Eni, look at his legs. They are Samoan legs, and the reason for this is that it gives him the ability to jump higher than any of his Olympic competitors. And because he can jump higher than anybody, that is what gives him the opportunity to accomplish more difficult flips than any of the other divers. By the way, Dr. Sammy Lee was also the trainer for Greg Louganis in the Olympics in 1988.

Another note of interest is that when I talked to Dr. Sammy Lee when he was training for the Olympics, he could not even train together with his fellow white Americans while he was training for the Olympics. Can you believe that? So he had to invent what high diving boards were supposed to look like, whether it be going on cliffs or other high platforms to allow him to practice his diving ability. And guess what? He got the gold medal for the United States for the Olympics, a Korean American, Dr. Sammy Lee.

I just wanted to make that as a note of interest for my colleagues and also in view of the fact that we have talked about the Olympics and we have talked about South Korea.

Again, Mr. Speaker, this resolution is very important to show our sense of appreciation, especially to the good leaders and the people of South Korea, how much we care about them, how important they are, how important they are to our strategic and our economic interests in that important region of the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) not only as chief sponsor of this proposed legislation, but also for her leadership and her compassion and commitment in the field of human rights for fellow human beings all over the world.

I cannot help but stand here on the floor and share with my colleagues some of the thoughts that came to my mind when my colleague from California was explaining about the provisions of this important legislation.

Usually I am not a person who gets emotional watching movies, but recently I watched the movie ``Freedom Riders.'' I cannot help but recall the experience that these teenagers in Long Beach went through, and how creative this teacher was in trying to get kids who were from basically low-income areas and who had no idea or concept what it means to read. Somehow the teacher was able to get these high school students to read ``The Diary of Anne Frank.'' It got to the point where the students became so interested in what happened when they read this book, ``The Diary of Anne Frank,'' that they invited a Holocaust survivor to speak to them in Los Angeles. She testified personally what it meant to be not only a prisoner but I would say a slave during the Nazi period and the terrible time that the Jewish people went through during that period of their history.

I thank Chairman Lantos not only for his leadership, but as a Holocaust survivor himself, I cannot think of a better person who can share with our colleagues what it means to be part of that period and the pain and suffering 6 million Jews went through during that process.

I recall a statement made by one of the great poet philosophers, Santayana, who said: ``Those who don't remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'' Some say why should we worry, this happened in the past. Why worry about it. I think we have to remember so these things never happen again.

Yes, I visit the Holocaust Museum and what do I say: Never again. Never again. That racism and bigotry and hatred should never be a part of the legacy of our great Nation.

I commend my friend from California for bringing this resolution before the Members for their consideration, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise to support the proposed rule to bring this bill, H.R. 65, for consideration. And I certainly would like to commend my good friend, the gentleman from New York, who's managing this legislation, and my good friend from Florida, the opposition, for their being here and to deliberate on the importance of this bill.

Madam Speaker, this is not a Republican or a Democratic piece of legislation. I say this because this bill has the absolute support of the chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources, Mr. Rahall, and also the senior ranking member, the distinguished gentleman from Alaska, Mr. Don Young. So we have bipartisan support to this proposed bill. In fact, over 215 Members have already sponsored this proposed legislation.

And I would be remiss if I did not give special commendation for the outstanding job that the gentleman from North Carolina has put in trying to bring this legislation for the last 6 years I believe, the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. McIntyre. And I do commend him very much for his leadership and for his sensitivity in bringing this legislation out to the floor.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 65 would extend Federal recognition status to the Lumbee tribe of North Carolina. Several studies undertaken by the Department of the Interior have consistently concluded that the Lumbees are a distinct self-governing Indian community historically located on the Lumbee River in North Carolina.

This legislation is long overdue. Indeed, Congress passed the Lumbee Act of 1956. On its surface, one would deduce that this law was to provide Federal recognition to the Lumbee people. Instead, Congress perversely added a provision making the Lumbee Indian people ineligible for the services provided by the United States to other federally recognized tribes.

Today, we are simply here to rectify this injustice. This bill was reported by the Natural Resources Committee by a vote of 24-7. The tribe agreed to the provision that no gaming operation is ever to be part of their operations if they are ever to be recognized.

Madam Speaker, finally, I would note that the tribe has sought recognition through the current administrative procedure which was developed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which, by the way, was done through Federal regulation. It was not done by statutory mandate by the Congress. But this is not an option for them.

In 1989, the Associate Solicitor for Indian Affairs at the Department of Interior made the determination that the Lumbee Indian people are not eligible for the current process, and the fact that we have to go back to the provisions of the Lumbee Act of 1956. So there is no other option to obtain justice for these people, Madam Speaker.

And let me note that Congress is empowered to recognize Indian tribes, just as we have recently done for the Virginia Indian tribes. There are some 560 federally recognized Indian tribes in our country, and of those, Congress recognized 530 of them.

Madam Speaker, the times that I've met with the many members of this distinguished tribe, they noted to me, they say that many of them have fought, members of that tribe have fought in the defense of our Nation. And for a population of 53,000, and I believe six members of this tribe have already died from this terrible conflict that we're faced with now in Iraq. And to me, that is a way to show the patriotism, and we owe the people this recognition, I submit, Madam Speaker.

I urge my colleagues to support the proposed rule and pass this proposed bill, H.R. 65.

Madam Speaker, I do want to say I do have the highest respect for my good friend and colleague who has just taken the floor. In fact, I do want to commend him as a former Peace Corps volunteer for the islands of Fiji. And, as I said, I don't question some of the dialogue or the conversations or part of the Congressional Record that was taken from previous Congresses and other Members of Congress in the previous years in dealing with the issue. But let me share with my colleagues the situation of how we have dealt with the American Indians.

Madam Speaker, I submit our first policy, our first national policy, was to kill the Indians. Get rid of them.

Following that, our next policy was let's assimilate the Indians, make them all part of America.

And then, guess what? The next policy was to terminate the Indians. Don't give them any sense of recognition as a people.

These are our national policies in eras and periods of how we have dealt with Native Americans. So now the fourth policy that we now enunciated is let's find a system or procedure of how we can recognize them as Indian tribes.

Let me share with my colleagues what happened on that specific day when we held a hearing on the Lumbee Indians. This was years ago. One of the tribal chiefs of the Lumbee Indians testified before our committee and said they had to examine their teeth, their teeth, to see if they looked like Indians and having a certain structure of their facial features to make them look like Indians.

I must submit, Madam Speaker, the process that my good friend talks about was not developed until 1975 and thereafter. And the very person who wrote the regulation where these Indian tribes had to meet seven criteria in order for this Indian process to be completed and they would say now you are federally recognized, well, the person who wrote that regulation made a submission before our committee and said, even I would not have been able to submit an application if this is what we have to go through as the process. It is the most expensive process that we have had to burden Indian tribes to come up with.

And I must say, Madam Speaker, with all due respect to my good friend from Connecticut, I don't doubt his sincerity in terms of what he said. The process has failed. There is no question. But we have just recognized four or five Indian tribes from the State of Virginia. So how does that make it different in the State of North Carolina for this tribe, the Lumbee Indians? Over 100 years these people have been fighting for recognition, and they deserve that recognition, Madam Speaker.

Let me give a bit of history to my colleagues. We held 389 treaties with the American Indians, and guess what? We broke every one of them. That is the kind of history that we have had in dealing with Native Americans. They deserve better, Madam Speaker.

Again, I urge my colleagues to support this rule. Support this legislation.

Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Speaker, I just want to say to my good friend that I did submit proposed legislation to rectify the process that has failed. But, unfortunately, we have still not taken up the legislation, so I want to try it again.

I will submit to my good friend, Madam Speaker, the situation that, dealing with the Lumbee Indians, the Congress did formally recognize them in 1956 and there was no process in place.

I want to thank the distinguished chairman of our committee and also the distinguished senior member, senior ranking member of our committee, the gentleman from Alaska, for their bipartisan support of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 65, the proposed legislation to federally recognize the Lumbee Indian tribe of North Carolina. I commend my good friends and colleagues from North Carolina, especially my good friend, Mr. McIntyre, for his perseverance, his leadership and his determination to provide this long-overdue Federal recognition to the Lumbee Tribe. This is a bipartisanship bill. This is not a Republican or a Democratic bill.

Specifically, H.R. 65 extends Federal recognition to the Lumbee Tribe and specifies that tribal members will be eligible for Federal benefits. The bill expressly prohibits the Lumbee Tribe from conducting gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act or any Federal law. The bill also provides the State of North Carolina with jurisdiction over all civil and criminal matters on land owned by or held in trust for the Lumbee Tribe.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is long overdue. The existence of the Lumbee Tribe as a distinct Indian community is beyond question. They are descended from the Cheraw and related tribes in North Carolina, and they have lived along the Lumber River since the first white settlers lived in the area. Even today, the tribal members live in a tightly knit community, mostly in Robeson County, North Carolina. Lumbees have been recognized by the State of North Carolina since 1885, and the tribe has been seeking Federal recognition for nearly 120 years.

This legislation is necessary to remedy the inequity created by this very institution. The Congress of the United States of America passed a law in 1956 which federally recognized the Lumbee Tribe but at the same time prohibited the application of Federal programs available like it has done for other American Indian tribes. This act has been interpreted in the courts as conveying Federal recognition and termination of the tribe at the same time but has prevented the Department of Interior from providing Federal recognition to the Lumbee Tribe through the administrative process. As a result, the only recourse available for this tribe is to seek relief from the Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I need not remind my colleagues that the authority to deal with all matters affecting the welfare and needs of the first Americans or American Indians is expressly stated under provisions of clause 3, section 8, article 1 of the Constitution of the United States.

I want to share with my colleagues some questions, perhaps, that may have been raised concerning the proposed legislation.

``Question: Is this the first time the Lumbee Tribe has sought Federal recognition?

``Answer: No. This tribe first sought Federal recognition through a petition submitted to Congress in 1899 and in 1956. Congress formally recognized the Lumbee Tribe. However, it effectively terminated its relationship with the tribe at the same time by denying them access to the benefits and privileges that accompany Federal recognition. Since that time, the tribe has had substantial interaction with the Congress. The tribe has also petitioned the Bureau of Indian Affairs for recognition through its administrative process. The Bureau denied this petition, indicating that the tribe is not eligible for the process because of Congress' prior action.

``Question: Why is the tribe not going through the administrative process,'' as it was argued earlier by some of our colleagues?

``Answer: The administrative process is for those groups where it needs to be determined whether or not the group is an Indian tribe.''

I submit to my colleagues, we have not done a very good job in dealing with the first Americans, and I sincerely hope that this proposed legislation will rectify the situation that this tribe has been seeking for over 100 years.

I want to share this proposed bill, which will provide us with an opportunity to address this long-standing injustice that has been done to the Lumbee Indians. I support the Lumbee recognition bill because I believe it is consistent with our responsibility as Members of this great institution to give the members of the Lumbee Tribe their right to be recognized as truly an American Indian tribe.

Let's correct this inequity that has existed now for over 100 years and as a tribute to the six Lumbee Indian soldiers who died recently in the war in Iraq, for which they made the ultimate sacrifice and have given their lives in defense of our Nation. After 100 years, these people have been tortured enough.

I am reminded of the words echoed by a retired Marine general and former colleague from this body, the former gentleman from Guam, Congressman Ben Blaz, a good Republican and a very dear friend of mine. He said, also, this is a statement this gentleman made, his observation also of the unfair treatment of his people in some past history, and this is about sending all the tribes that we have here in America and I know are great warriors, because that's the inherent character of the first Americans. They are warriors.

This is what Congressman Ben Blaz says. ``We are equal in war, but not in peace.''

Give the Lumbee Indians what they deserve, recognition as they should get from this great institution.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to do a dialogue here.

I'm quite sure that our good friend, the senior ranking member from Alaska, as well as our chairman, previously, this House has passed recognition of the Lumbee people, the Indians, I think twice already in the time when even former Congressman Charlie Rose was a Member of this great institution. And if I recall, I would like to ask the gentleman, it did pass the House of Representatives. But what happened afterwards? Twice. And then it was referred to the Senate. Maybe my colleagues, our colleagues need to know, to

find out what happened when it went to the Senate. Twice we've passed this legislation and when it was referred to the Senate, what happened?

Absolutely, I yield.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 94, encouraging the elimination of harmful fishing subsidies that contribute to overcapacity in commercial fishing fleets worldwide and that lead to the over-fishing of global fish stocks.

I commend my esteemed colleague from Guam, the Chairwoman of the Natural Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans for submitting this concurrent resolution. She understands the severe impact that over-fishing has on our world's oceans and this resolution is an important step in gaining the cooperation of other nations in managing our shared ocean resources responsibly.

According to a 2006 scientific study, there may be no more commercial fish stocks left in the sea by 2050. As the report states, since 1950 29% of the world's commercial fish species have already collapsed. If we do not change our course and stop over-fishing, our children could be the first generation to face entirely empty oceans.

One major contributor to this precipitous decline in global fish stocks is the huge overcapacity of our global fishing fleets. By some accounts, the current fishing fleet capacity is 250% of what is needed to catch the maximum sustainable yield from the oceans. In many instances, this overcapacity is fueled by harmful subsidies provided by a limited number of foreign governments to their fishing fleets, leading to over-fishing, and ecologically unsound bottom-trawling in international waters.

Through our nation's laws, such as the Magnuson-Stevens Act, we have established a strong federal policy supporting sustainable fishing practices here in the United States. In order to successfully manage the world's limited ocean resources, however, we need to promote the elimination of these fishing subsidies with the cooperation of our neighbors in the world community. This Resolution is an important first step in developing a global plan to manage our oceans responsibly. Again, I thank my friend from Guam and I urge my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 94, encouraging the elimination of these harmful fishing subsidies.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce this Resolution expressing support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and urging the United States Ambassador to the United Nations General Assembly to support the adoption without amendment of the Declaration as adopted by the United Nations Human Rights Council on June 29, 2006.

There are over 300 million indigenous peoples throughout the world today, striving for international recognition of their collective

rights as they struggle to preserve their cultures, traditions, and social values. In their respective States, these indigenous groups face serious challenges of marginalization, discrimination, loss of lands, and lack of economic development in their communities.

The draft U.N. Declaration recognizes the rights of indigenous peoples to self-determination, freedom from discrimination, and freedom from forced assimilation. This Declaration would establish an international policy on indigenous rights and provide a framework for States in the treatment of their indigenous populations.

The U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, over 24 years in the making, is an important step forward in the advancement of stronger, more harmonious relationships between the indigenous peoples of the world and States. In many ways, the United States stands as a model for other nations as we support a Federal policy of self- determination for our own indigenous people. Passage of this Resolution, H. Con. Res. 156, would demonstrate our commitment here in Congress to support the rights of our indigenous people here and throughout the world. I urge my colleagues to join me and support H. Con. Res. 156.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 355) recognizing and welcoming the leaders of the Pacific Islands to Washington, D.C., and commending the East- West Center for hosting the Pacific Islands Conference of Leaders.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution.

I would like to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Texas, for his assistance in managing this important legislation now before our colleagues.

I would also like to thank our distinguished chairman of the House Foreign

Affairs Committee, Mr. Tom Lantos, for his support of this resolution which recognizes and welcomes the leaders of the Pacific Island nations to Washington, D.C., and certainly commends the East-West Center for hosting the Pacific Island Conference of Leaders.

The Pacific Island Conference of Leaders represents some 14 island nations, three French territories and three U.S. territories, including American Samoa. Each year these leaders meet at the East-West Center in Honolulu; but for the first time this year, this conference is being held here in our Nation's Capital.

Because this is a significant occasion, I want to thank our distinguished senior ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, as well as the ranking minority member of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific and the Global Environment, my good friend Mr. Manzullo, for their support of this resolution.

I also thank the 24 Members, our distinguished colleagues, who joined us in cosponsoring this historic resolution, including Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo of Guam. I also commend members of the Hawaii congressional delegation, Senator Daniel Inouye, Senator Daniel Akaka, Congressman Neil Abercrombie and Congresswoman Mazie Hirono, for their leadership in support of this legislation and other events and activities that will make the visit of our Pacific Island Leaders to Washington more meaningful and productive.

I especially want to thank also Governor Linda Lingle of the State of Hawaii for her support and for her co-hosting one of the important events that have been featured here while the guests are here in Washington.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to commend Dr. Charles Morrison, president of the East-West Center and members of his staff, Dr. Sitiveni Halapua, and Dr. Gerard Finin for their hard work in arranging meetings that are being held right now, as I speak, with officials of the U.S. Department of State and other agencies of the Federal Government.

I want to especially thank our Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, for taking the time from her busy schedule to meet with our guests from the Pacific, and also Assistant Secretary of State, Chris Hill, and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Glyn Davies, and their staffs for arranging appropriate meetings with other officials representing the various agencies of the administration.

Mr. Speaker, this is truly a historical day in our Nation's Capital. With the exception of Australia and New Zealand, this is the first time in our country's history that this number of leaders representing the Pacific region are here as a group to meet with us and to discuss issues that are mutually important to them, as well as to us.

It was only in the last half century that our Nation was engaged in one of the bloodiest wars ever fought in the Pacific. World War II was fought in two fronts, one in Europe and the other in the Pacific. In the islands of the Solomons, where Guadalcanal, as some of you may have heard, is located in the Pacific, so are the Marshall Islands, the islands of Samoa, the Philippines, Papua, New Guinea, Palau, Guam, Saipan, Tinian, Rota, Tarawa, Midway, Borneo, Okinawa, Iwo Jima and several others. People of the Pacific played critical roles in U.S. efforts to fight Japanese military forces in response to the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.

After World War II, with the exception of Guam, the United States unilaterally declared the rest of Micronesia as a strategic trust, which meant that these islands were placed under the jurisdiction and protection of the United States.

But a national debate also began as a result of the devastation and the loss of some 200,000 lives when we dropped two atom bombs by our military that conducted this arrangement, where two atom bombs were dropped on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

While the atom bombs brought an immediate end to World War II in the Pacific, scientists and political leaders in our country debated whether or not nuclear energy was to be used for military or peaceful purposes.

Although the military won its bid to conduct a nuclear testing program, the question was, where are we going to conduct the testing? Since it was obviously too dangerous to explode atomic bombs in any of the States in the continental United States, it was determined that a place far and away was needed, and thus the U.S. military command chose the Marshall Islands as the place to conduct our nuclear testing program.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that I am not sure if my colleagues are aware of the fact that the U.S. exploded some 67 nuclear bombs in the Marshall Islands. This also included the explosion of the first hydrogen bomb ever in the history of the world. In layman's terms, you must first explode an atomic bomb as a trigger to explode a hydrogen bomb. The hydrogen bomb that the U.S. exploded in the Marshall Islands in 1954 was known as the Bravo Shot, and it was measured as a 15- megaton nuclear device, a thousand times more powerful than the atom bombs we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I submit to my colleagues in the House, at the height of the Cold War, the people of the Marshall Islands made tremendous sacrifices of their properties and, above all, of themselves after being exposed to nuclear radiation. To this day, our government, Mr. Speaker, with all its honor and glory, has not made good our promises to properly compensate these people for the loss of their properties and to provide adequate medical care, especially to those who were directly exposed to nuclear radiation as a result of our nuclear testing program.

In the near future, I will be proposing a bill that will address the needs of the people of the Marshall Islands as a result of our nuclear testing program, and I am hopeful that my colleagues will support me in this effort.

Some of my colleagues have asked me, why should the United States take an interest in these small islands out there in the middle of the Pacific? I need not repeat myself on the importance of these islands during World War II, and I have just shared with my colleagues the tremendous sacrifices the leaders and the people of the Marshall Islands made for the success of our nuclear testing program. I have also pointed out the shameful neglect on the part of our Nation to properly address the property rights and health care needs of these people who were exposed. All of them were exposed to nuclear radiation.

Having said this, I want to reemphasize the Pacific Islands were valuable to our Nation during World War II, and, believe me, these nations will be valuable to us again in the future. We fool ourselves if we believe we do not need allies in a volatile region that covers one-third of the world's surface.

We need the Pacific Island nations as they need us. The people of the Pacific nations do not want handouts, but they want equal treatment, respect, and economic assistance will be beneficial to them as well as to us. The seabed minerals within the exclusive economic zones of these island nations are worth hundreds of billions of dollars, but their potential use is priceless if together we can find ways to harness these resources. The same can be said of their fisheries and marine resources, which will continue to be an inestimable worth as the world struggles to feed a growing population.

There are many other areas in which we can work together if we can begin to establish even a USAID program in the Pacific region. As chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific and the Global Environment, I look forward to working with my colleagues to bring about needed and necessary changes in our current relations with our Pacific Island neighbors.

On this historic occasion, Mr. Speaker, I also welcome these leaders to our Nation's Capital, and I urge my colleagues to support this proposed legislation.

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

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

I want to thank and commend my good friend, the gentleman from Texas, for a most eloquent statement and observations in terms of our relationship with these Pacific Island nations.

I recall years ago we took a congressional delegation. At that time, the chairman of our Asia and the Pacific Subcommittee of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Congressman Steve Solarz from New York; Congressman Bob Dornan from California; and myself. And we visited the various island nations and found out that we have become somewhat of a nation totally neglectful of our efforts to establish good relations with these island nations.

I recall we visited the Solomon Islands and specifically the Guadalcanal that most Americans have heard in the news of World War II, which was where some of the bloodiest battles were fought there by the Marines against Japanese forces. And in our efforts in trying to find out what can we do on behalf of our country in terms of how we can express a sense of token appreciation to the people of the Solomon Islands for the support they gave us during the famous battles that we had to endure during the war there in Guadalcanal. And in doing so, we came back and submitted to the Congress a proposal that what would be a good gesture on behalf of the people of America would be to build a parliamentary building for the Solomon Islands government. And in doing so, we provided the funding, and I was privileged and honored to accompany the good Senator from Rhode Island, Senator Chafee. And we went over to the Solomon Islands to dedicate this new parliamentary building and found out that Senator Chafee was a 19-year-old Marine fighting enemy forces in Guadalcanal, and it was quite a statement and a very moving experience that I had in noticing one of our national leaders, the great Senator from Rhode Island, revisited Guadalcanal where this battle was fought. And he was there as a 19-year-old Marine. And we did this, and the people of the Solomon Islands were very grateful that we were able to build this new parliamentary building as a token, as a gift, from the people of the United States to commemorate and to remember the tremendous sacrifices not only that our soldiers and our Marines made on these islands but also the support that the people of the Solomon Islands provided us in the war effort.

I also want to commend the Congress. I don't know if our colleagues are aware of the fact that, in 1960, Congress enacted special legislation to establish the East-West Center. And it was a tremendous effort to see what we could do to establish good relations between the East and the Asian countries and that of our own country. And that was the very purpose. To establish exchanges and to establish forums and symposiums to allow the leaders of the nations of Asia and the Pacific region to meet together with our leaders and to see if we could resolve some of the issues and problems confronting the region as well as our own Nation.

So with that, I wanted to just share those two points with our colleagues in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman from the Territory of Guam (Ms. Bordallo).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

I just wanted to add, as a matter of history here, it was during the 1970s, then-chairman of the House Subcommittee on Territories, the late Congressman Phillip Burton from San Francisco, who initiated the move in terms of finding out how the East-West Center was doing as far as the Pacific Islands were concerned. And as a result of the assistance also from then former Congresswoman Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, who served as a member of the Appropriations Committee, there was greater attention given to the needs of the Pacific Island nations. And I want to commend certainly the former Governor of the State of Hawaii, Governor George Ariyoshi, and the late Prime Minister of Fiji, Sir Ratu Kamisese Mara, for the outstanding leadership that they displayed and demonstrated in establishing this special program now allotting to the needs of our Pacific Island nations. Certainly Governor John Waihee and also Governor Linda Lingle were also very supportive of this effort.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank again my colleague from Texas for his compliments and the remarks concerning this resolution. And, again, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

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