Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 145, as amended, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to thank the sponsor of this legislation, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, for her leadership on this issue and for her work in addressing the North Korean threat.

Earlier this month, North Korea carried out a missile launch using ballistic missile technology in direct defiance of the international community. This important resolution condemns North Korea's launch, and it calls on the North to live up to its commitments, to adhere to its international obligations and to deal peacefully with its neighbors.

North Korea's missile launch is a blatant violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions 1718 and 1874, and we urge the Security Council to take strong and concerted action to demonstrate that Pyongyang's actions are completely unacceptable. In particular, we call on China and Russia to work constructively with other members of the Council to show that the international community is united in condemning North Korea's provocative behavior.

North Korea is only further isolating itself with its irresponsible action, and the development of ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons will never bring the real security and acceptance by the international community that the regime so desperately wants. Instead of pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into its so-called space program, nuclear programs, and massive military, North Korea should instead work to feed its own citizens and improve its dismal economy.

We must continue to remain vigilant in the face of North Korean provocations and fully committed to the security of our allies in the region, so I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 3331, the Intercountry Adoption Universal Accreditation Act of 2012, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to thank Senator Kerry and my colleague from New Jersey, a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Sires, for their hard work on this legislation.

This bill ensures American families adopting children will be protected from unethical and fraudulent practices by international adoption agencies. For years, conflicting country-by-country standards have plagued the international adoption process, causing harm to adoptive children and families.

The bill would expand accreditation standards to cover all international adoptions. Presently, those standards apply only to adoptions from countries that are parties to the Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, known as the Hague Convention.

Accreditation standards help prevent the sale of children, thwart fraudulent financial practices, and ensure transparency in fees and the adoption process. They also encourage agencies to employ staff with professional qualifications and training.

This is a commonsense bill that should have been enacted long ago. Less than half of all families adopting internationally are protected by the Hague Adoption Convention process, and we want to make sure that we protect all families that open their homes and hearts to children in need of loving families. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I don't see the one individual who asked to join me in speaking on this, so I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise in support of S. 2318. I want to join my chairman in commending the author of this legislation, Senator Kerry, and my friend and colleague, Ed Royce, the incoming chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, who authored the House version of this bill and fought long and hard for it.

The chairman has described the legislation and the existing law. The bill makes two key changes in existing law. They're small, but they're very important modifications to the rewards program.

It would authorize payments for the arrest or conviction of those engaged in transnational criminal activity, including intellectual property, piracy, money laundering, trafficking in persons and arms trafficking.

Transnational organized crime poses a growing threat to U.S. economic and national security interests. According to U.N. estimates, these criminal enterprises generate hundreds of billions of dollars in illicit revenues every year. Expanding the rewards program to cover this activity is manifestly in our interest.

Second, this legislation would expand the universe of individuals targeted for their involvement in gross violations of international humanitarian law, including genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Specifically, this bill would cover all individuals indicted by international tribunals for violations of international humanitarian law, not just those indicted by the existing tribunals for Rwanda, Sierra Leone, and the former Yugoslavia. The change is strongly supported by the Departments of Defense and State.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, as negotiations to avoid the ``fiscal cliff'' enter the final stages, it is important that we keep in mind the potentially devastating consequences of across-the-board cuts. This is true not only for domestic programs, but also for foreign assistance,

which represents less than one percent of the Federal budget and is one of the most cost-effective ways of protecting our interests across the globe. Today, more than ever, our health, security, and prosperity depend on a world in which basic human needs are met, fundamental rights and freedoms are respected, conflicts are resolved peacefully, and the world's resources are used wisely.

In this regard, I commend to my colleagues an excellent op-ed by Sharon Waxman, vice-president of the International Rescue Committee. Her article in The Hill, ``Don't Let Foreign Aid Fall Off the Fiscal Cliff,'' outlines the importance of foreign aid in saving lives and easing suffering for millions around the world.

[From The Hill, Nov. 30, 2012]

Don't Let Foreign Aid Fall Off the Fiscal Cliff

(By Sharon Waxman)

With the presidential election behind us, attention has

turned to the impending ``fiscal cliff''. By New Year's Day,

the Obama Administration and Congress must identify $1.2

trillion in savings between spending cuts, revenue increases

and entitlement reform. Otherwise, most federal programs will

be cut by a staggering 8.2 percent.

On the chopping block is foreign assistance, which provides

lifesaving aid to millions of vulnerable people, including

Syrian refugees fleeing horrific violence and seeking safety

and help in neighboring countries. The consequences of having

the budget axe fall on foreign aid at this time could be

dire.

The Syrian conflict is in its 20th month and displacement

into Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq has more than tripled

during the last three. By year's end, it's estimated that

700,000 Syrian refugees will be spread out across the region,

overwhelming the communities hosting them and fueling a

humanitarian crisis.

Last week, I visited a hospital wing in Amman, Jordan,

filled with Syrian refugees. There, I met a father from Homs

who had been out buying bread when his neighborhood came

under siege. Now he is paralyzed from the chest down from

shrapnel wounds. His wife and eight-year-old son keep vigil

at his hospital bed, day and night. Their alternatives are

few. They either move to a refugee camp, a grim prospect as

winter approaches, or become part of a massive, underserved

and desperate urban refugee population.

Meanwhile, other large-scale humanitarian emergencies have

worsened or unfolded in the past year.

An estimated 18 million people are food insecure in

Africa's Sahel region because of chronic poverty and crushing

drought, and four million children are malnourished. In Mali,

conflict in the north, which has caused the displacement of

some 400,000 people, has exacerbated its food crisis.

Violence in Blue Nile and Southern Kordofan states of Sudan

has forced 175,000 refugees to flee to South Sudan and an

additional 65,000 to Ethiopia.

Violence continues to spiral in eastern provinces of the

Democratic Republic of Congo, where fighting repeatedly

uproots communities, disrupts food production and shuts down

health services. And whenever conflict escalates there, so

does violence targeting women. Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, a

humanitarian crisis has worsened, with unrest and natural

disasters uprooting more than half a million people.

All told, more than 44 million people are currently

displaced by conflict around the world--the highest number in

15 years.

My organization, the International Rescue Committee, is on

the ground in these and other conflict and disaster zones,

responding to pressing humanitarian needs. We see firsthand

how foreign assistance is saving lives and easing the

suffering of countless people.

The need for the United States to respond to global

humanitarian emergencies is increasing exponentially at the

very time that across-the-board cuts may go into effect.

While we appreciate the daunting budget decisions ahead,

foreign aid represents less than one percent of all federal

spending, and non-war foreign assistance has already been cut

by 15 percent over the last two years. An additional 8.2

percent reduction in foreign aid will undoubtedly cut the

very programs that enable the United States to respond to

human suffering and foster economic growth and stability. It

will put millions of lives at risk and set the U.S. back

years in its effort to lift people out of poverty and reduce

dependency. Such cuts would be shortsighted and would not

solve America's fiscal woes.

America's continued leadership in foreign policy and

foreign assistance is critical, but it cannot happen on a

shoe-string budget. The U.S. government must have the right

tools at its disposal to conduct effective diplomacy,

encourage development and provide humanitarian assistance to

effect positive change in areas where it's desperately

needed.

In the weeks ahead, we hope the Administration and Congress

will reach an agreement that moves America off this

precarious fiscal cliff while preserving America's leadership

in foreign assistance and its commitment and ability to

protect the world's most vulnerable.

Mr. Speaker, as negotiations to avoid the ``fiscal cliff'' enter the final stages, it is important that we keep in mind the potentially devastating consequences of across-the-board cuts. This is true not only for domestic programs, but also for foreign assistance, which represents less than one percent of the federal budget and is one of the most cost-effective ways of protecting our interests across the globe. Today, more than ever, our health, security, and prosperity depend on a world in which basic human needs are met, fundamental rights and freedoms are respected, conflicts are resolved peacefully, and the world's resources are used wisely.

In this regard, I commend to my colleagues an excellent op-ed by Sharon Waxman, vice-president of the International Rescue Committee. Her article in The Hill, ``Don't Let Foreign Aid Fall off the Fiscal Cliff,'' outlines the importance of foreign aid in saving lives and easing suffering for millions around the world.

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce the Global Partnerships Act of 2012, a bill to establish a framework for effective, transparent, and accountable United States foreign assistance.

This legislation represents the culmination of nearly five years of effort, starting in March 2008 when I assumed the chairmanship of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. In reviewing the vast array of issues and problems that demanded the Committee's time and attention, I decided that reform of our antiquated foreign aid system should be high on the agenda.

At a time when our headlines are dominated by urgent crises and new openings abroad--whether it's the rebellion in Syria, the humanitarian catastrophe in Congo or the transition in Burma--some have questioned why I would choose to focus on foreign aid reform. The answer is really quite simple: because our foreign assistance laws have a significant impact on our ability to respond to all of those events.

Regrettably, over the past few years we have witnessed an increasingly destructive and divisive assault on our foreign assistance program and on U.S. international engagement more broadly. It is easy to find fault with the current system, but rather than taking cheap shots and mindlessly slashing programs, I believe it is incumbent upon us to find a responsible way to fix them.

It makes no sense that, under the current system, it is almost impossible to give small grants directly to local groups that are leading the way towards peaceful, democratic change. Our diplomats and development professionals shouldn't have to sit at their desks writing reports that duplicate information that is easily available on the Internet. There ought not to be situations where two agencies are doing the same thing in the same place and aren't even aware of it--or worse yet, undermining each other's efforts.

I recognize that there have been many attempts over the years to correct the problems with U.S. foreign assistance, which include bureaucratic fragmentation, program incoherence, and obsolete, inconsistent and rigid laws. I regret that this process has taken much longer, and proven much more complicated, than I originally anticipated. The easy road would be to leave foreign aid reform to the Administration, and wash our hands of any responsibility to update and repair the laws under which these programs are carried out. But such inaction is neither wise nor consistent with our obligations as lawmakers.

The bill I submit today lays the foundation for real progress. It sets forth a comprehensive framework for advancing American interests by working in cooperation with other countries to make our world a better, safer place.

The Global Partnerships Act of 2012 replaces both the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, which covers economic and development assistance, and the Arms Export Control Act, which deals with arms sales and military aid. Together, these Acts, like this proposed rewrite, cover the full spectrum of foreign assistance programs, from development and democracy to peace and security. Each type of assistance has its own title in the bill, which describes the specific purposes, goals and objectives to be achieved.

This bill is the result of a long and complex process involving repeated consultations with interested groups, relevant committees, international partners, and federal agencies. We held hearings and roundtable discussions, issued concept notes and discussion papers, solicited written feedback, visited programs in the field, and read the academic research. Last September, we posted a draft bill on the Committee website and received detailed comments from hundreds of organizations, both individually and as coalitions. This bill encapsulates not only the direct feedback we've received in those forums, but also many of the recommendations of the Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development and the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, or QDDR.

The most fundamental change that this bill would make is to transform the donor-recipient relationship to one of equal partners working toward mutually agreed and mutually beneficial goals. Instead of dictating what needs to be done from Washington, we will listen to what our local partners and our own development professionals are saying, and we will hold both sides accountable for achieving results. Instead of doing things ``for'' another country, we will build their capacity for self-reliance. Sometimes our partners will be national governments; other times we will join up with non-governmental organizations, businesses or local communities. But our aid is unlikely to have a long-lasting impact unless the people most directly affected feel they have a stake in its success. That's what we call ``country ownership'', and that's why we're calling this the ``Global Partnerships Act''.

Second, this proposal would convert assistance from an input- oriented process, where the primary issue is how much we spend, into an outcome-oriented process, where the focus is on what we achieve. Two programs that were initiated by the Bush Administration--the HIV/AIDS effort known as PEPFAR, and the Millennium Challenge Corporation or MCC--have successfully pioneered this approach. Congress would be consulted from the outset, to build consensus over goals and priorities and establish agreement on what would constitute success.

To make this transformation, this bill brings more facts and evidence into the foreign aid process. Whether the purpose of our aid is to promote economic growth, stabilize a fragile peace, or ensure that a long-time ally is able to defend itself, our funding decisions should be based on reliable information about impact and performance rather than on hunches and intuition. Without solid empirical data about what works, it is impossible to ensure that our money is being effectively spent and achieving the desired results. And without evidence that our programs are having a significant, positive impact, we will lose the support and confidence of the American people.

There is a danger, of course, that the desire for tangible results could be misconstrued as a preference for short-term gains that can be quantitatively measured. This would be a grave mistake. Development is a long-term process, and no amount of goal-setting, indicator- selection, or measurement will give us a quick win. Objectives like promoting democracy are notoriously difficult to measure, and impossible to impose from without. We must always remember that monitoring and evaluation are tools to an end, not substitutes for good policy.

The bill also aims to make aid more strategic, in the sense of having a clear goal and a plan and timetable for pursuing it. We still need to preserve flexibility to respond quickly to changing situations on the ground. But for the most part, our aid suffers from a lack of clarity on what constitutes success and how we will know when we achieve it.

We also need to provide much greater transparency about what we are doing--not only for the American public, who deserve to know how their taxpayer money is being spent, but also for the intended beneficiaries, who can tell us whether the aid is reaching them and meeting the agreed objectives.

Let me say a few words about what is not included in this legislation. The first thing is spending levels. The bill contains no authorizations of funds, no mandatory spending, no entitlements, no recommended levels of appropriations. It is designed to change the way we provide assistance, rather than to dictate how much or to whom. It would not supersede the regular authorization and appropriations process.

Second, for the most part we did not include country-specific or region-specific provisions, which would distract from the main purpose of creating a new structure for assistance. Except for a few key sections, most of which were part of the old Foreign Assistance Act and required continuation, we have tried to write a generic framework that can withstand the test of time.

It is true that some of the reforms I have mentioned are already being implemented by the Administration. USAID has reinstituted a process for developing 5-year country strategies, with clearly defined goals and indicators. The Millennium Challenge Corporation has just released its first set of rigorous, independent impact evaluations, which provide important lessons for the broader development community. And under the policy guidance of the National Security Staff, the Department of State and USAID created the Foreign Assistance Dashboard, a website that enables users to examine, research, and track aid investments in a standard and easy-to-understand format.

But each of these initiatives needs to be codified, accelerated and expanded. Without legislation, these improvements could be terminated or rolled back at any time. And none of them contain any requirement or standards for congressional consultation.

Through legislation, we engage in a process of give-and-take, consensus and compromise that is absent when the Administration charts its own course. Proceeding without congressional buy-in only increases the chances that each initiative will be second-guessed, blocked or reversed. And it risks triggering the same vicious cycle that created this vast web of convoluted rules and tortuous procedures, leading to waste, inefficiency, and increasing paralysis.

To overcome the fear and inertia that have made progress on reform so elusive, we must begin by building public awareness and clearing up misperceptions about foreign assistance. Many Americans think that foreign assistance accounts for 15 to 20 percent of the federal budget, when in truth it's just 1 percent, and less than half of that goes for humanitarian and development programs. People who don't understand what foreign assistance does or how it helps them, or who have no confidence that it works, are unlikely to support it, particularly in this economic environment. The failure to communicate the importance of foreign assistance only leads to calls for more cuts while ignoring the real solutions.

In this period of belt-tightening and economic uncertainty, some seem to think that foreign assistance is a luxury we can no longer afford. However, with one out of five American jobs tied to international trade, and our fastest growing markets--accounting for roughly half of U.S. exports--located in developing countries, America can't afford a course of isolation and retreat. Our economic fate is interconnected with the rest of the world, and the collapse of developing economies will unavoidably mean our own decline.

For all these reasons, it's time to overhaul not just the legislation, but also the terms of the debate on foreign assistance. We must recognize the historic achievements that have occurred with the help of our foreign aid programs--the eradication of smallpox from the face of the earth, the Asian miracle that began with the Green Revolution, the millions of lives that have been saved and the human rights that have been won. Of course, aid alone cannot solve all the world's problems, but it is one of the best, safest and least expensive tools at our disposal.

Today, more than ever, our health, security, and prosperity depend on a world in which basic human needs are met, fundamental rights and freedoms are respected, conflicts are resolved peacefully, and the world's resources are used wisely. There is no escaping our obligations to help foster this environment. Not only are we morally bound to do so, but our economic and political interests demand that we address widespread poverty and chaos in the world.

Our creditors and competitors understand this. China is aggressively investing in the very countries that steep budget cuts may force us to abandon. We will soon come to regret it if we fail to share our knowledge and

promote our values in the very places where they are in greatest demand.

I have said it before but it bears repeating: aid is not a gift. The United States provides foreign assistance because it serves our interests. Helping countries become more democratic, more stable, more capable of defending themselves and better at pulling themselves out of poverty is just as important for us as it is for them. Our task therefore, is to make sure that we provide this assistance in the most efficient and effective way.

The Global Partnerships Act of 2012 is the first comprehensive proposal to adapt our laws to reflect the lessons we've learned over the past 50 years. Previous reform efforts in the early 1990s sought to revise and streamline our statutes and repeal Cold War barnacles, but they did not fundamentally alter the way that we plan, manage, and carry out assistance programs. I recognize that there is not enough time to consider and pass this legislation in what remains of the 112th Congress. However, I believe this legislation offers a valid and constructive starting point for the future, and that is why I am so pleased that my distinguished colleague and good friend from Virginia, Mr. Connolly, is joining me in introducing the bill today. He is well- acquainted with the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and acutely aware of the need for reform, and I am confident that he will take a leadership role in moving this process forward in the next Congress.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6156, the Russia and Moldova Jackson-Vanik Repeal and Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012.

The Jackson-Vanik amendment is a good example of the power of legislation to promote positive change. In 1974, when it was adopted, the right to emigrate was being denied to many people in many non- market countries, most notably the Soviet Union.

By limiting normal trade relations, Jackson-Vanik helped pressure countries to change their restrictive immigration policies, and in the case of the Soviet Union, to allow the immigration of Soviet Jews and many other groups previously precluded from leaving to go to the United States to Israel and to other countries.

We continue to have very serious concerns about the human rights situation in Russia, but as the specific root causes of Jackson-Vanik no longer exist, it has been waived for Russia every year since 1989.

The important piece of legislation we are considering today repeals the Jackson-Vanik amendment with respect to Russia and Moldova, grants Russia permanent normal trade relations, and includes an important new provision to address human rights violations in Russia. Adherence to accepted standards of both trade and human rights are important to America and to a fruitful U.S.-Russia relationship.

Russia joined the WTO in August of this year, and is now subject to WTO fair-trade disciplines and dispute resolution procedures. Enactment of this bill is necessary for U.S. exporters to benefit from the WTO rules and the enhanced market access in pursuing trade with Russia. It will also afford us an additional mechanism to protect intellectual property rights, including over the Internet.

Although Russia once was a small player in world trade, its imports have shot up by 80 percent since 2005, 20 percent just last year. If we don't pass this bill, American companies will be operating at a disadvantage and have a harder time tapping into this growing market.

This is also an important step for strengthening democratic norms in Russia. Over the past several years, the Russian people have demonstrated a new-found confidence in questioning their government. We hope that increased trade with Western nations, including the U.S., will bring greater transparency to the Russian economic system, and it will help grow the middle class, which is at the forefront of demanding improved democratic governance and the rule of law.

Regrettably, Russia remains one of the least free countries in Europe, and it is important that we continue to raise serious concerns about its dismal record on democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.

In addition to Sergei Magnitsky's tragic death, we are deeply concerned about a range of human rights violations including extrajudicial killings, detention, torture of those expressing opposing views, the serious irregularities in elections, and legislation enacted by several city councils, including Saint Petersburg, to restrict the rights of Russia's LGBT community.

The Magnitsky provisions would place restrictions on the financial activities and travel of Russians connected to various human rights violations. The names of these human rights violators would be publicly available, unless the administration determines that the individual must be placed on a classified list.

The intent of these provisions is for the administration to use the classified list only under the prescribed set of circumstances outlined in the bill, and our expectation is that the use of the classified list will be the exception, not the rule.

Madam Speaker, I support this legislation and encourage my colleagues to support it as well.

I reserve the balance of my time.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

The gentleman from Massachusetts is the cochair of the Tom Lantos Commission on Human Rights; but I think particularly I want to recognize him because, in addition to everyone named so far, a very key player in all of this has been this gentleman from Massachusetts, and he has made tremendous efforts on these Magnitsky provisions.

So as we now move this bill to passage, I recognize chairman of the Tom Lantos Commission on Human Rights, a gentleman who has worked on this bill for 3 years and who has been a leader on human rights issues all over the world. With thanks for his efforts and passion over this part of the legislation, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, that is also my understanding. The intent of Congress is to place people in the classified annex only if the President determines and justifies to the relevant committees that it is vital for the national security interests of the United States.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time both sides have.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Europe and Eurasia Subcommittee, my friend from New York (Mr. Meeks).

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time and simply need time to close.

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

I think this is a very historic piece of bipartisan legislation. Just as Jackson-Vanik became a tool to deal with one aspect of a horrible set of policies by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, we now, using the Magnitsky legislation, deal with some very serious human rights issues remaining in Russia, but not in the context of restricting trade but in the context of deepening our economic relationship with Russia. I think what this legislation does altogether, in combination, is promote both that economic relationship and shared adherence to common standards of human rights democracy and the rule of law.

I urge its support, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in order to celebrate with the people of Taiwan as their National Day, October 10, 2012, approaches.

Earlier this year during the presidential and legislative elections, the Taiwanese people once again demonstrated to the world with a clear, ringing voice of freedom that they are a beacon of democracy to Asia and the world.

The United States and Taiwan continue to share a close partnership and an abiding friendship, and I congratulate the people of Taiwan on the occasion of their National Day.

I also would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Taiwan's representative to the United States, the honorable Jason Yuan, on being appointed to his new position as Secretary-General of Taiwan's National Security Council. He has served the interests of Taiwan with distinction during his time here in Washington, D.C., and I thank him for his service.

Mr. Speaker, due to my attendance at the funeral of a dear friend, I was unable to be present for votes in the House on Friday, September 21. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the Markey Amendment No. 1, Waxman Amendment, Markey Amendment No. 5, Jackson Lee Amendment, Markey Amendment No. 10, and the DeFazio Amendment. I would have voted ``nay'' on the Kelly Amendment, the McKinley Amendment, the Berg Amendment, and the Gosar Amendment. I would have voted ``yea'' on the Democratic motion to recommit, and ``nay'' on final passage of H.R. 3409.

Mr. Speaker, I'm joined by my colleagues Representatives Lamar Smith, John Conyers, Henry Waxman, Marsha Blackburn, and Jerry Nadler. We rise today to honor the life and memory of one of America's greatest musical treasures, Hal David. As a lyricist who teamed up with composer Burt Bacharach beginning in the late 1950s, Hal created an extraordinary body of hit songs which continue to touch the lives of countless people around the world.

Hal emerged from a humble immigrant family in Brooklyn. After serving in the Army's Entertainment Section during World War II, he began his songwriting career. He came to be the lyrical mastermind behind some of the 20th Century's most recognized and beloved songs. He composed the lyrics to such classic hits as ``Raindrops Keep Falling on My Head,'' ``What the World Needs Now Is Love,'' ``Always Something There to Remind Me,'' ``Do You Know the Way to San Jose,'' ``Don't Make Me Over,'' ``Anyone Who Had a Heart,'' ``The Look of Love,'' ``Walk on By,'' ``(They Long to Be) Close to You'' and many, many more.

Hal said that a lyricist must learn ``not to fall in love with his own lines.'' That may be true, but that hasn't stopped millions of music lovers like me, and others in every corner of the globe, from falling in love with them. Hal's lyrical genius earned him countless honors: four Academy Award nominations, with an Oscar for ``Raindrops'' in the movie Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid; a Grammy along with three songs in the Grammy Hall of Fame; and Gold and Platinum records. Additional accolades include induction into the Songwriters Hall of Fame and the Nashville Songwriters Hall of Fame, receipt of the Songwriters Hall of Fame Johnny Mercer and Visionary Leadership Awards, the Ivor Novello Award of the British Academy of Composers and Songwriters, and more. Just this past May, President Barack Obama presented the prestigious Library of Congress Gershwin Prize for Popular Song to David and Bacharach at a White House musical tribute.

Hal's work not only spans generations but also genres. He is the author of lyrics for the film scores of Alfie, What's New Pussycat, Casino Royale, The April Fools and Moonraker. His songs also appear in countless other movies, from Forrest Gump to Runaway Bride. Not limited to the screen, Hal's Broadway show, Promises, Promises, was nominated for a Tony Award and received a Grammy, and has enjoyed two successful runs on the Great White Way.

Hal's songs have been recorded by artists from across the musical spectrum, including Marty Robbins, Perry Como, Bobby Vinton, Gene Pitney, Dusty Springfield, Tom Jones, Herb Alpert, Jackie DeSharmon, B.J. Thomas, Frank Sinatra, Sarah Vaughan, the Fifth Dimension, the Carpenters, Barbra Streisand, and, most unforgettably, Dionne Warwick.

Hal's notable achievements don't stop with his musical career. As ASCAP President and Chairman from 1980 to 1986 and as an ASCAP Board member for almost 40 years, Hal was a music industry leader and devoted much of his life to protecting the copyrights of music creators. He also led the Songwriters Hall of Fame as Chairman and CEO from 2001 to 2011, and was Chairman Emeritus at the time of his death.

Hal's philanthropic work in Los Angeles also made him a great asset to our community. He donated generously of his time and effort to charitable organizations. In addition, he and his wife, Eunice, were founders of the Los Angeles Music Center. In the fall of 2011, a fundraiser, Love Sweet Love, A Musical Tribute to Hal David, honored Hal's 90th birthday and benefited the Blue Ribbon Children's Festival and The ASCAP Foundation. It was the most successful ASCAP Foundation fundraiser to date, reflecting Hal's longstanding commitment to arts and music education.

Hal was a musical legend and one of the strongest advocates for music creators of the past century. He will be sorely missed, but thankfully, his songs live on.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in recognition of Carla Laemmle on the occasion of her 103rd birthday.

Carla is the niece of Carl Laemmle, who founded Universal Studios. She grew up on the Universal Studios lot in the early days of

the San Fernando Valley, the area I now represent. She began her long professional acting career at the age of 16 with an uncredited role as the prima ballerina in the original silent film version of the Phantom of the Opera, demonstrating her many years of training in classical dance. Carla is perhaps best known for her role in Dracula, starring Bela Lugosi. Her role in Dracula made her the person who spoke the first line of dialogue ever in a horror movie. She is now the last surviving cast member of both films.

Carla acted and danced in many more films, including Broadway Melody, in which she danced out of an oyster shell in a scene designed by famous artist and fashion designer Erte. That film became the first musical to win a Best Picture Oscar at the Academy Awards. And, more than eighty years after her debut on the silver screen, Carla will return to theaters soon in a new horror movie, Mansion of Blood.

Carla continues to make her home in Hollywood, CA--a place that is home for her in a way that few others will ever experience. She will celebrate her remarkable milestone with four generations of Laemmle family members, many of whom have remained in Los Angeles.

Please join me in wishing Carla a very happy birthday and many happy returns.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1410, as amended, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I'd like to thank the sponsor of this legislation, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, and the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Ms. Ros- Lehtinen, for their leadership on human rights and on this particular issue.

Despite Vietnam's transition to a more open economy, political and religious freedoms for the people of Vietnam remain severely curtailed. The bilateral relationship between Washington and Hanoi has deepened since diplomatic ties were established over 15 years ago, but lack of greater progress in protecting basic rights and civil liberties will limit closer cooperation in the future.

In a speech last year on the Obama administration's Asia policy, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated:

We have made it clear to Vietnam that if we are to develop

a strategic partnership, as both nations desire, Vietnam must

do more to respect and protect its citizens' rights.

The United States must use both diplomatic and economic leverage with Vietnam to promote political openness and improve human rights.

This bill, the Vietnam Human Rights Act of 2011, takes an important step in the right direction by prohibiting an increase in nonhumanitarian assistance to Vietnam above fiscal year 2011 levels unless Hanoi makes significant progress on these critical issues. The bill makes it clear to Vietnam that the only factor limiting aid is positive action by the Vietnamese Government on political, human, and religious rights.

The Government of Vietnam has an important choice to make. Will it protect human rights and provide religious and political freedom to its citizens, or will it shirk these responsibilities and forsake the closer relationship that it wants with the United States?

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Davis).

I have no further requests for time. If the gentlelady is prepared to close, I am prepared to relinquish my remaining time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1464.

I would like to thank the sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), as well as the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, for their leadership on this issue and for their work in supporting the plight of North Korean refugees.

Despite North Korea's efforts to appear ``strong and prosperous'' this year to celebrate the 100th birthday of the country's founder, vast numbers of its people live in dire conditions. Sadly, the North Korean regime's misguided priorities, pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into its so-called ``space program,'' its nuclear programs, and its massive military only underscore its cold-hearted callousness and blatant disregard for its own citizens.

Thousands of North Korean children do not have families to care for them and are threatened with starvation and disease if they remain in North Korea or as refugees in neighboring countries, especially China. Many of the children that have fled the north are hiding and live in mortal fear of being caught and sent back to North Korea where they would face severe punishment and even death. Equally terrifying is the prospect of being sold into bondage by human traffickers in China.

As a beacon of hope for the rest of the world, the United States must do all it can to help these vulnerable and destitute children. That's why I'm proud to be a cosponsor of Mr. Royce's legislation, H.R. 1464, the North Korea Refugee Adoption Act. This bill calls on the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security to formulate and report to Congress on a strategy for facilitating the adoption of North Korean children by U.S. citizens. Passage of this bill will be the first step in helping the thousands of North Korean child refugees living alone in foreign lands, and it would provide a glimmer of hope to the American families who would welcome the opportunity to adopt North Korean orphans.

The impending passage of this bill speaks to the broad bipartisan consensus in Congress regarding the atrocious human rights situation in North Korea. As innocent men, women, and children flee the repressive North Korean regime at great personal risk, we have a moral obligation to assist them. H.R. 1464 is not merely about adoption, but also an issue of human rights for the North Korean people. We must continue working to ensure that the North Korean people are not forgotten and that orphaned North Korean children will get the care and support they need.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I urge support for the legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 484, as amended, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First, I want to thank the sponsor of the legislation, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez). For her entire time in this Congress she has been a passionate and eloquent spokesperson on behalf of the Vietnamese people and their right to have their political, individual, and religious rights. The same goes for the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, who in all human rights issues has been a true congressional leader.

This resolution calls on Vietnam's government to respect basic human rights for its people and to stop using vague national security laws as a pretext to arrest and detain citizens who peacefully advocate for religious and political freedom. This resolution demonstrates America's commitment to human rights, democracy, and the rule of law by calling on the Government of Vietnam to release all political prisoners, including activists, writers, and bloggers, who have been unfairly detained or sentenced. The names of over 40 of these political dissidents and activists who were peacefully expressing their views and posed no threat to Vietnam's national security are included in this resolution.

Vietnam must stop criminalizing free speech and peaceful political activism and begin upholding the universal declaration of human rights and the international covenant on civil and political rights to which it is a signatory.

As ties between the U.S. and Vietnam continue to develop and mature, Hanoi must understand that respect for the universal principles of democracy, freedom, and human rights remains a central part of our bilateral relationship. And more progress in these areas is needed before, as we have said before, that relationship can be taken to the next level. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I am pleased to yield such time as she may consume to the sponsor of this resolution, the gentlelady from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I'm prepared, if you're prepared to close, to yield back the balance of my time, and I will yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. Con. Res. 17 and yield myself such time as I may consume.

I'd like to thank the sponsor of the legislation, the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), and the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, for their leadership on this issue.

This resolution expresses the sense of Congress that Taiwan should be accorded observer status in the International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO. Taiwan has made significant progress in its economic and political development. Today, Taiwan is a leading trade partner of the United States and stands as a beacon of democracy in Asia.

However, Taiwan has been excluded from meaningful participation in ICAO, an international organization which is dedicated to ensuring safe and efficient air transportation around the globe.

Taiwan clearly deserves to be brought into ICAO as an observer--a status specifically recognized under ICAO's own rules.

Taiwan has jurisdiction over airspace comprising 176,000 square nautical miles and provides air traffic control services to over 1.3 million flights each year. It has the eighth largest airport in the world by cargo volume, and the 18th largest by the number of international passengers.

Taiwan's exclusion from ICAO has impeded Taiwan's efforts to maintain civil aviation standards to keep up with rapidly evolving international standards. It is unable to even contact ICAO for up-to-date information on aviation standards and norms, nor can it receive ICAO's technical assistance implementing new regulations or participate in ICAO technical and academic seminars.

Despite these impediments, Taiwan has made every effort to comply with ICAO's standards, but their continued exclusion not only hurts Taiwan, it puts the entire international aviation system at risk. Indeed, Taiwan's exclusion has prevented ICAO from developing a truly global strategy to address security threats.

With this resolution, Congress calls on the international community to grant Taiwan observer status at ICAO, not only to help Taiwan, but to ensure ICAO can fulfill its own mission and address international threats to aviation security. We call on the United States government to take the leading role at ICAO to assist Taiwan in gaining that status and look forward to working with our administration officials to track the development of these efforts.

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