Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay respects to the passing of my friend Marie Harris. Let this congressional insert serve as a tribute to her memory and celebration of her meaningful life.

Marie Harris came to Pacoima in 1960 from Detroit where she successfully co-owned the Elite Boulevard House of Fashions and captured the ``Formal Award'' in a nationwide competition from the National Association of Fashion and Accessory Designers, Inc. Her professional success continued as she transferred her membership with this organization to the Los Angeles Chapter and served as Fashion Coordinator, spearheading the unforgettable Designers Showcase at the Beverly Hilton in 1963 and 1964. She began tireless efforts producing a series of Designers Showcase Fashion Shows to help raise funds to build a new edifice and educational unit of the Parks Chapel AME Church in Pacoima, and continued her work in the fashion world by becoming a columnist for the North East Valley Post writing two columns weekly, ``Fashions LTD'' and ``Kaleidoscope'' society scoop.

Marie was known for her spirit of volunteerism and unwavering dedication to public service. In 1980, Marie was appointed to the Mayor's Committee on the city's Bicentennial Celebration in the Sepulveda Basin, which motivated her to produce the Back to Pacoima Expo at the Hansen Dam Amphitheater to honor Pacoima's trailblazers. One of the many results of Marie's work in Pacoima was the naming of ``Plaza of the Stars,'' a major shopping center located at Glenoaks and Van Nuys Boulevards.

Marie has a history of community involvement and her invaluable service has made an indelible mark on the San Fernando Valley. She was on the Board of Directors for the Economic Alliance of the San Fernando Valley Vision 2020 and the Commissioner for the Children's Museum and Commission for the San Fernando Valley Fair. She was aptly recognized as Woman of the Year by Assemblyman Richard Katz, and later appointed as an Honorary Mayor of Pacoima by former City of Los Angeles Councilman Ernani Bernardi.

Marie was a devoted mother, and wife for the past fifty years to Alvin Harris, deceased in January 2001. She is survived by her three children Sidney Alvin, Rolene Marie, Alton Keith and five grandchildren.

I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the life of Marie Harris.

Madam Speaker, I would like to call the attention of my colleagues in the Congress to a successful meeting of the Transatlantic Legislators' Dialogue, TLD, in New York City from December 4-7, 2009. Chairwoman Shelley Berkley led a strong bipartisan delegation, which included Vice-Chairman Cliff Stearns, Vice-Chairman Jim Costa, Gary Ackerman, Xavier Becerra, Dennis Cardoza, John Duncan, Jr., Eliot Engel, Virginia Foxx, Bart Gordon, Jay Inslee, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Ron Klein and Loretta Sanchez. I wish to recognize these members for their thoughtful contributions to an informed and productive exchange of views with Members of the European Parliament.

The Transatlantic Legislators' Dialogue serves as the formal response of the European Parliament and the U.S. Congress to the commitment in the New Transatlantic Agenda of 1995 to enhance legislative ties between the European Union and the United States. The TLD involves biannual meetings between American and European legislators in order to foster transatlantic discourse and exchange views on topics of mutual interest. Given the recent adoption of the Lisbon Treaty and the additional powers it provides to the European Parliament, it is even more important that legislators engage in this dialogue in order to seek joint solutions to the pressing issues facing citizens on both sides of the Atlantic.

Participants at the New York meeting held extensive discussions about the financial crisis and international trade. The debate was informed by presentations from the Obama administration, including Michael Froman, Deputy National Security Adviser for International Economic Affairs, and Mark Sobel, Acting Assistant Secretary for International Affairs at Treasury. The TLD emphasized the need for a strong and coordinated transatlantic policy response, while reiterating the importance of the Transatlantic Economic Council, TEC, as a framework for cooperation.

Considerable attention was paid to foreign policy issues. TLD participants engaged in vigorous debate about the Middle East, hearing the administration's perspective from Jeffrey Feltman, Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs. Other foreign policy debates focused on Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Iranian nuclear threat, relations with Russia, and the Balkans. These deliberations were further enhanced by the delegation's meetings on the final day of the TLD at the United Nations with Ambassador Susan Rice and Under- Secretary-General for Political Affairs B. Lynn Pascoe.

In addition, the delegates talked about the challenge of climate change and energy security with Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. They also discussed a range of civil liberties issues, including American travel regulations and President Obama's efforts to close Guantanamo.

In conclusion, I submit the joint statement that was agreed upon by American and European legislators at the 67th TLD meeting held in New York. This document emphasizes the importance of continued transatlantic dialogue and cooperation in jointly addressing current financial and foreign policy challenges

Transatlantic Legislators' Dialogue, 67th Meeting of Delegations From the European Parliament and the United States Congress, Joint Statement

(By Shelley Berkley, Cliff Stearns, Jim Costa, Elmar Brok, Sarah

Ludford, and Niki Tzavela)

We, the Members of the European Parliament and the United

States House of Representatives, held our 67th

Interparliamentary meeting (Transatlantic Legislators'

Dialogue) in New York City, from 4-7 December 2009.

Building on the joint statement issued following our last

meeting in Prague on 18-20 April 2009, we reasserted the

importance of regular dialogue on the pressing political,

social and economic challenges that affect citizens on both

sides of the Atlantic. We agreed to report back to our parent

bodies on the content and outcome of our discussions in New

York, with an emphasis on the areas where joint efforts are

likely to produce positive outcomes.

The Transatlantic Legislators' Dialogue appreciated the

Lisbon treaty's entry into force, with its enhancement of the

powers and competences of the European Parliament in areas

such as International Trade and Justice and Home Affairs, as

well as the appointment of an EU President and High

Representative. We expressed our desire to continue building

on the political momentum created by the election of new

administrations in Europe and the United States in order to

further strengthen the transatlantic relationship.

We called for continued collaboration between legislators

in the U.S. Congress and the European Parliament on

legislation and issues of common concern, formalising lines

of communication and information-sharing between EU and U.S.

legislators to promote compatible legislation reflecting

transatlantic cooperation through the work of the committees,

in full respect for each side's sovereignty.

We discussed a wide array of international political

questions such as the situations in the Middle East,

Afghanistan/Pakistan, the Balkans, Russia and Iran's nuclear

programme.

We also examined a wide array of issues of common interest,

including global concerns relating to Energy and Climate

Change, Financial Services and International Trade. We

examined how the United States and the European Union could

best cooperate in matters of Civil Liberties and Justice and

Home Affairs.

Our conclusions are as follows:

International Political Issues

(a) Peace in the Middle East requires a durable ceasefire,

an immediate and unconditional end to terrorist attacks on

Israel, a functioning and effective government in the

Palestinian Territories and the resumption of the obligations

under the roadmap, including an end to incitement and a

solution for the question of settlements. The goal is a

secure Jewish state of Israel and a viable Palestinian state,

living side by side.

(b) We held a strong debate exchanging a wide array of

views between and within the delegations on the strategy for

Afghanistan/Pakistan announced by President Obama on 1

December 2009, which provided a new impetus for renewed

international commitment to confronting the ongoing

challenges of security, terrorism, governance, corruption and

socio-economic reconstruction. We look forward to the

international conference on Afghanistan that will be held on

28 January 2010 under the auspices of the UN. The EU and the

U.S. should enhance their cooperation and support, foster

burden-sharing, work to improve the coordination and

effectiveness of Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs), and

seek to help build critical infrastructure across

Afghanistan. Maintaining the stability and cooperation of

Pakistan is equally important as well.

(c) On Iran, the dialogue noted the recent, troubling moves

by the Iranian Government regarding its nuclear programme,

affirmed that a nuclear armed Iran is unacceptable and

expressed its concern about the human rights situation in the

country. We urge the leaders on both sides of the Atlantic to

develop a common policy and unite the international community

to meet this threat, including strong sanctions, if it

continues to fail to comply with its international

obligations in the nuclear area.

(d) Relations with Russia should involve constructive

cooperation on challenges and threats, including security

matters, disarmament and non-proliferation, along with

respect for democratic principles including human rights

standards, and adherence to international law. The dialogue

expressed concerns about Russia's continued failure to comply

with the 2008 ceasefire agreements with Georgia negotiated by

French President Sarkozy, as well as the potential for

another energy dispute with Ukraine this winter. We also

cited the need to enhance mutual trust between the

transatlantic partners and Russia. We welcome the ongoing

U.S.-Russia negotiations on arms reduction and look forward

to Russia's membership in the WTO, once those negotiations

are satisfactorily completed, with all its legal obligations.

(e) Challenges remain in our efforts to integrate the

Western Balkans into a united Europe. Cooperation between the

United States and the European Union remains the most

effective way to encourage political and economic development

in Kosovo as well as to facilitate constitutional reform in

Bosnia, and ensure respect for the rule of law, including

cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for

Yugoslavia, throughout the region.

Energy and climate change

We agreed that the Copenhagen Conference is one of the

biggest challenges for international cooperation. We welcomed

the announcement of President Obama's personal involvement in

the COP-15 Summit in Copenhagen.

We discussed the common goal to provide the necessary

stimulus for sustainable economic growth, promoting green

technologies and creating new jobs.

We discussed how the EU and the U.S. could work together to

reach an international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas

emissions by setting ambitious reduction targets for

industrialised countries and identifiable actions by

developing countries. We discussed cap-and-trade systems and

the need to avoid incompatible emission trading systems to

pave the way to a transatlantic, and ultimately a global

carbon market. We noted the link between tackling climate

change and addressing energy security and economic growth,

recognizing that the fight against climate change could also

be an opportunity to create new jobs and sustain economic

growth.

We welcomed the creation of a new EU-U.S. Energy Council at

the last EU-U.S. Summit in order to strengthen the dialogue

on strategic energy issues of mutual interest, foster

cooperation on energy policies and further improve research

collaboration on sustainable and clean energy technologies.

We look forward to the Energy Council deliberations feeding

the TEC process and we consider this as another area where

the TLD can develop further.

Financial Crisis

We examined the consequences of the global economic and

financial turmoil. We agreed that the crisis requires a

strong and coordinated policy response by the U.S. and the

EU. Recovery plans currently being adopted are critical in

mitigating the effects of the crisis: approaches chosen

should be compatible, strengthen financial supervision to

ensure confidence in the system, avoid protectionist

measures, and avoid distortions of competition in the

transatlantic marketplace.

We discussed the role of international cooperation in

financial regulation and supervision, including better crisis

prevention and management, and agreed that the EU and U.S.

should cooperate on the reform of international financial

institutions.

We are pleased that the G-20 leaders have decided to give

the emerging countries, within the International Monetary

Fund, a position commensurate with their weight in today's

global economy so as to ensure support for the developing

world and to achieve the Millennium Development Goals.

Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs

We welcomed the ``Washington Declaration'' on 28 October

2009 on enhancing transatlantic cooperation in the area of

Justice, Freedom and Security within a context of respect for

human rights and civil liberties. We expressed the hope that

it will provide a framework to replace the ad hoc approach of

the last decade on data collection and sharing arrangements

(PNR, SWIFT, MoUs linked to visa waiver, etc.) with a more

strategic approach of law enforcement and judicial

cooperation through the Mutual Legal Assistance and

Extradition Agreements and through developing an agreement on

data protection.

We discussed President Obama's desire to close the

Guantanamo detention facility within a year, taking note of

the offer by several European countries to accept Guantanamo

inmates and encouraging the U.S. and the EU to continue

seeking joint solutions to combat terrorism.

The dialogue also discussed the EU-U.S. negotiations to

extend the Visa Waiver Programme to the remaining EU member

states. We hope that the U.S. visa waiver programme will be

extended to all EU citizens as soon as possible, when the

criteria have been met. An exchange of views took place on

the recent adoption of the U.S. Travel Promotion Act.

In light of the concerns about the Safe Port Act raised by

port operators and the trade community, in particular with

respect to the cost/benefit ratio of the scanning

requirement's possible negative effects on competitiveness

and on transatlantic trade flows, we were of the view that

the U.S. Administration should re-examine this legislation.

International Trade and WTO negotiations

We agreed that trade is as central to the EU-U.S.

relationship as it is to world recovery. We call upon the

European Commission and the United States to redouble their

efforts to bring the Doha Round of world trade talks to a

successful conclusion.

We believe that international trade can make a contribution

to the restoration of world economic growth and that work to

integrate and harmonise EU and U.S. trade practices will lead

to a global improvement in living standards and will help

secure quality jobs in both the European Union and in the

United States.

We believe that participation by Congress and the European

Parliament in the Parliamentary Conference of the WTO and in

its Steering Committee would enhance cooperation at a global

level. We, therefore, call on the leadership of both bodies

to take appropriate steps in order to allow us to collaborate

in this context.

Development of Transatlantic Economic Council

We reiterated our commitment to the Transatlantic Economic

Council (TEC), stressing its utility as a framework to

achieve a barrier-free market and for macro-economic

cooperation between both partners. We welcomed the results of

the meeting held on 27 October, particularly the extended

dialogue between the Administrations with legislators that

identified past challenges

and future opportunities. We discussed progress made over the

past year in promoting transatlantic economic integration,

including investment, accounting standards, regulatory

issues, the safety of imported products, and the enforcement

of intellectual property rights.

As we told our Administrations during the recent TEC

meeting, transatlantic economic cooperation must be more

accountable and transparent. In order to help achieve this

objective, the schedules of TEC meetings, agendas, roadmaps

and progress reports should be agreed upon between the core

stakeholders as early as possible and then made public. Such

measures are crucial to developing a clear and transparent

process for setting the agenda of the TEC, extending the TEC

to new sectors, and establishing a roadmap. We continued to

encourage the EU and U.S. executive branches to facilitate

more active participation by members of the U.S. Congress and

the European Parliament in the TEC process, in particular via

the TLD, especially for a pre-legislative dialogue between

the respective committees of Congress and the European

Parliament. TLD members should be full partners in the

Transatlantic Economic and Energy Councils.

We note that on the European side, responsibility for

coordinating the TEC will pass from the European Commission's

Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry to its

Directorate-General for Trade. We believe that this can

provide a new impetus toward removing barriers to trade and

investment and on fostering competitiveness in the

transatlantic market.

Strengthening the TLD

We agreed that a working group should come up as soon as

possible with a list of concrete proposals for the further

work of the TLD. We noted the recent document written by the

Atlantic Council of the United States along with several

other policy think tanks, entitled ``Shoulder to Shoulder:

Forging a Strategic U.S.-EU Partnership.'' We supported

several of the recommendations in the document and will use

them as a starting point. For example:

U.S. Members of the TLD should be drawn from both House and

Senate. U.S. House members should be appointed by the Speaker

of the House.

The U.S. Congress should open an office in Brussels. The

office would service the TLD and monitor legislation

affecting U.S. interests. We noted the European Parliament is

opening an office in Washington in January 2010.

The TLD should convene a joint consultative committee on

the extraterritorial implications of domestic legislation;

and focus regular exchanges on upstream regulatory

legislation.

The TLD should hold joint hearings and conduct joint study

tours to areas of common concern, for instance to the Middle

East.

The U.S. Congress and the European Parliament should ensure

regular contacts between appropriate staff, not simply in

foreign affairs-related work but across the board in key

areas of mutual engagement.

The TLD should spearhead a new generation of internships in

Congressional and European Parliament offices. Each

Congressional office should offer to host one intern from the

EU; each European Parliament office should offer to host one

intern from the United States.

In conclusion, we reaffirmed our commitment to

strengthening the transatlantic relationship and working in

partnership to solve common challenges. We pledged to

continue improving the effectiveness of our dialogue in order

to realize the full potential of our invaluable

interparliamentary relationship, as well as to ensure the

relevance of the TLD's work to the European Parliament and

the United States Congress.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Gilbert Alvarez on the occasion of his retirement from the Hansen Dam Aquatic Center. Mr. Alvarez is being honored by his many colleagues, family and friends for his dedicated career and longtime commitment to the City of Los Angeles.

A resident of Southern California, Gilbert began his career with the City of Los Angeles, at the Department of Recreation and Parks, in the intermittent part-time position of Recreation Assistant. During his eleven years as a part-time employee, he held a myriad of jobs in West Wilshire, El Sereno, Yosemite Pools, served as a supply manager for the Metro Region, and held the positions of Pool Lifeguard and Pool Manager.

On May 23, 1999 he was selected as the first Aquatic Facility Manager in the City and the first supervisor of the newly rebuilt Hansen Dam Aquatic Center.

During Gilbert's tenure as the Manager of the Hansen Dam Aquatic Center, his diligence and oversight of the pool helped detect a leak that would have cost taxpayers millions of dollars had it gone unnoticed.

Furthermore, Mr. Alvarez created the annual Hansen Dam Triathlon, which introduced an activity that has greatly benefitted the community. Among his other achievements during the past thirty-seven years of service to the City of Los Angeles, Gilbert revived the Open Water Junior Lifeguard Program at Hansen Dam and Cabrillo Beach.

I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing Gilbert Alvarez a happy and productive retirement.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate my good friend Judge Joseph Wapner on the occasion of his 90th birthday. Judge Wapner is being honored by his many colleagues, family, and friends in celebration of his outstanding accomplishments, both in his distinguished legal and television career and his tireless dedication to public service.

Judge Wapner is a lifelong resident of southern California. After graduating from Hollywood High School, he earned his bachelors degree from the University of Southern California and his law degree from USC Law School. He served in World War II and was awarded the Purple Heart and Bronze Star for his tremendously courageous acts in that conflict.

After being appointed by Governor Pat Brown to the LA Municipal Court where he served for 2 years, he was elevated to the Los Angeles Superior Court, where he served until his retirement. During those years, Judge Wapner starred in the nationally syndicated program, ``The People's Court'' which made him a bona fide celebrity. Judge Wapner has also recently appeared as a judge in a ``Major League Baseball on Fox'' pregame People's Court parody segment called ``The Player's Court.'' He has starred, as well, in a number of influential political spots.

Judge Wapner also is the author of two well-received significant books, A View from the Bench and Judge Wapner's Guide to Small Claims Court. The latter tome is widely used as a helpful tool to navigate the intricacies of our legal system.

With an impressive list of civic organizations in which he takes an active interest, Judge Wapner is a highly respected member of the community. He is a member of the Board of Trustees of Alternative Living for the Aging, and serves as honorary chairman of the National Jewish Hospice. He is also the recipient of numerous honors and awards, including the Golden Glow Award from Senior Health and Peer Counseling and the Maimonides Award from the Legal Services Division of the Jewish Welfare Fund.

Judge Wapner and his wife, Mickey, have been longtime supporters of the Brandeis-Bardin Institute, and the construction of the Moelle Library and tennis and basketball courts at the institute stand as symbols of their generosity and leadership.

I ask my colleagues to join me in extending birthday greetings to my dear friend, Judge Joseph Wapner and in paying tribute to his dedication and outstanding contributions to our society.

Madam Speaker, we are honored to pay tribute to our friend, John R. Fishel on the occasion of his retirement from the Jewish Federation, and honor him for his decades of invaluable service to our community.

John has spent decades of his life at work with non-profit organizations and charitable groups. He has earned high esteem and respect for his diligence and hard work as well as his many achievements and contributions to these causes.

During his time with the Jewish Federation, his attentive management style, vision, and dedication resulted in many innovative projects which transformed the organization. He created the Tel Aviv/Los Angeles partnership, a new way to nurture a close relationship with Israel and bring the people of these two cities together. In recent years, he launched efforts to engage young Jewish professionals in The New Leaders Project, a civic leadership training program for young adults. Under his leadership, many valuable programs were developed, such as KOREH L.A., a literacy program and Fed Up With Hunger, a community-wide movement to end hunger in Los Angeles. His effective leadership was especially evident following the Northridge earthquake and the 1999 shooting at the North Valley Jewish Community Center. His work to encourage increased support for Israel was on display during the second Intifada and Israel's war with Hezbollah. His resilience in these times of trouble was a calming source of inspiration to the community.

Prior to his service at the Federation, he worked tirelessly as the top professional executive at the Allied Jewish Community Services (the local Jewish Federation) in Montreal, Canada, at the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS) and the Council Migration Services in Philadelphia, as planning associate at the Federation of Jewish Agencies of Greater Philadelphia, and as a resource developer for the Ohio State Department of Health.

Mr. Fishel graduated with a Bachelors degree in anthropology and a master of social welfare administration and policy from the University of Michigan. He and his wife, Karen, have one daughter, Jessica. They live in Cheviot Hills.

Madam Speaker and distinguished colleagues, we ask you to join me in saluting John R. Fishel for his impressive career and dedication to the community and The Jewish Federation, and to congratulate him on the occasion of his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 877) expressing support for Chinese human rights activists

Huang Qi and Tan Zuoren for engaging in peaceful expression as they seek answers and justice for the parents whose children were killed in the Sichuan earthquake of May 12, 2008.

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 as much time as I may consume.

I rise in strong support of this resolution. This resolution expresses support for two Chinese activists who have been crusading for answers and justice for the parents of the thousands of children killed in the Sichuan earthquake of May 12, 2008.

I would like to thank my friend the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) for introducing this resolution and for bringing the plight of these two activists to our attention.

This past August, Chinese courts held separate trials for Huang Qi and Tan Zuoren, both of whom sought to help the parents of children who died in the collapses of school buildings during the May 2008 earthquake in Sichuan Province. That devastating earthquake left almost 69,000 people dead and 18,000 missing. Five thousand three hundred thirty-five children were, according to official records, killed or missing in that earthquake.

The collapse of such a large number of schools, while nearby buildings remained standing, raised questions of shoddy construction. Chinese officials acknowledged that poor construction may have contributed to the buildings' collapse.

They also initially pledged to investigate the collapses and punish those responsible. But officials later were unwilling to honor those commitments and, even worse, responded with suppression and harassment.

Mr. Huang publicized the parents' demands on his human rights Web site, while Mr. Tan organized an independent investigation into the causes of the collapses. For their actions, the Chinese Government charged Mr. Huang with illegal possession of state secrets and Mr. Tan with inciting subversion. The pair's separate trials were reportedly marred by procedural irregularities and misconduct, and both

their trials have adjourned without verdicts issued.

Mr. Huang and Mr. Tan were engaged in peaceful activities guaranteed under China's constitution and international law, and this resolution urges the Chinese Government to protect their rights to freedom of speech, expression and association.

The resolution also calls on the Chinese Government to allow parents, concerned citizens and the media to conduct their own investigations into the school collapses, free from harassment or interference. I urge the Chinese Government to provide greater transparency regarding its own investigations into the building collapses and release any information it may have.

The parents of those children killed at the school during the earthquake deserve answers and deserve justice. Mr. Tan and Mr. Huang deserve our support for their efforts in trying to help those parents.

I strongly urge the resolution be supported.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), a former member of our committee and the sponsor of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega), the chairman of the Asia, Pacific, and Global Environment Subcommittee.

(Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a very distinguished member of our committee.

I am pleased to yield the gentlewoman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute simply to point out that the relevance of the size of the Democratic health care bill to the Republican alternative is, I think, limited to the ratio of people covered under the Democratic bill and covered under the Republican bill, about 10 to 1.

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 grounds that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 892) recognizing the 20th anniversary of the remarkable events leading to the end of the Cold War and the creation of a Europe, whole, free, and at peace.

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.

If, on January 1, 1989, anyone had predicted the events that would occur in Central and Eastern Europe during the following 12 months culminating in the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War, he or she would have been called a hopeless dreamer, a lunatic, or a naive revolutionary. And yet by January 1 of 1990, the region and indeed the whole world had fundamentally changed.

The events of 1989 were indeed remarkable, beginning with the opening of talks between the communist Polish Government and the Solidarity trade union in February and ending with the execution of Romanian dictator Ceausescu on Christmas Day.

They began with a few ripples and became a tidal wave that swept throughout the region, toppling governments and destroying the walls, real and virtual, that had divided the continent of Europe for so many years.

The initial fissures had begun some years before, aided by the actions and policies of the United States and Western Europe, as well as the reform measures of glasnost and perestroika introduced by Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev. But the real cracks that led to the crumbling of the Wall and the entire regime were brought about by the courageous actions of the men and women of Central and Eastern Europe in 1989.

This resolution commemorates those events and those people:

The startling election victory of Solidarity, winning every seat it was allowed to contest in the lower House and 99 of 100 in the Senate;

The unprecedented decision by the Hungarian Government to open the border to Austria, enabling thousands of East Germans to flee to the West;

The amazing 400-mile-long human chain across Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, comprising 2 million citizens linking hands to protest Soviet rule and to demand restoration of independent statehood;

The ``Velvet Resolution'' in Czechoslovakia, which caused the resignation of the communist government and the free election of President Vaclav Havel;

The protests in Bulgaria that led to the end of the 34-year rule of Communist leader Zhivkov and the first free elections since 1946;

The uprising of the people in Romania against the efforts to arrest a popular priest and the brutal killing of innocent protesters that followed, that led to the deposing and the execution of Romanian dictator Ceausescu;

And, of course, the iconic event of 1989, the tearing down of the Berlin Wall and the joyous celebrations of people who were finally free.

Today these countries are important, vibrant, strong democracies, important partners in NATO and the European Union. I am proud to call them our allies and our friends. We have worked together to address the challenges in Afghanistan, the threats posed by terrorists and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the risks to our environment, to energy security and economic well-being. We share the same values and hope for the future.

We still have much work to do to resolve difficult issues remaining within Europe, but 20 years after it was considered inconceivable, the dream of a Europe, whole, free, and at peace is finally within reach.

I urge my colleagues to join me in commemorating the 20th anniversary of the remarkable events leading to the end of the Cold War and the creation of a Europe, whole, free, and at peace.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 867) calling on the President and the Secretary of State to oppose unequivocally any endorsement or further consideration of the ``Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict'' in multilateral fora, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to divide my debate time equally with the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Klein).

Could the gentlewoman, on her unanimous-consent request, which is not going to be entertained, yield to me?

I am told that as much as I would like to, because I am flooded with requests for time, and I think it's worthy of a longer debate that because of the schedule, the long delay today and the 1- minutes, the fact that tonight is an election night and a number of people have to get back to their districts, I cannot make such a unanimous-consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a member of the committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

(Mr. MORAN of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of our committee, the gentlelady from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the majority leader, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Madam Speaker, I plan to be the last speaker. Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that under the rules, I have the right to close, so I will reserve my time.

Parliamentary inquiry.

Is it not correct that I sought and received unanimous consent for extraneous material to be introduced into the Record related to this resolution?

Further parliamentary inquiry. Is it not correct that with the exception of items introduced of more than a certain page, wherein the cost has been to be established and leave sought, that large items can also be put into the Record as part of that unanimous consent request?

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

The question is raised by several of the opposing speakers: Why are we doing this now? What's the rush? And the only rush, because I would prefer we have more time, I prefer we have more discussion, is that tomorrow the General Assembly, in its rush to adopt a resolution to send this matter to the Security Council and to the international criminal courts if there is not an investigation within 90 days, is speeding to a judgment, and I personally think it is very important for us to act on this matter before the General Assembly meets, debates, and votes.

Secondly, there have been glowing tributes, and I am sure they are deserved, to the record, the resume, the judgment, the reputation of Justice Goldstone. Several of my favorite Supreme Court justices voted in a decision called Korematsu to pick up Japanese Americans who resided in different parts of the United States and put them into detention camps. They are still my favorite justices, but they made a mistake. A wonderful jurist can issue a flawed report, and I would suggest this is such a situation.

Next, let's talk about the Human Rights Commission. The U.N. Human Rights Council is obsessed with Israel. They have had 24 negative resolutions on Israel in its 3 years of existence, which totals more than every other resolution on any other country regardless of their human rights record. Total, 24 on Israel; less on all of the other countries of the world. It is the only country which is on the permanent agenda of the Human Rights Council, and it is discussed every year automatically. The only country.

Now, we corrected what I think were some inaccuracies in the initial language regarding the mandate, and we recognize the efforts. Never, as my ranking member points, to formally change the mandate, but for Justice Goldstone to operate. But I would not rest my opposition, my support for this resolution, and my disagreement with the opponents simply based on the reputation and conduct of the Human Rights Council. The fact is I too believe the report is flawed.

I am going to take a couple of moments to quote from this coming week's New Republic an article by Moshe Halbertal. I want to quote two paragraphs which I think reflect better than I can say on my own the problem here and ask my colleagues to come to grips with this.

He writes, ``The commission that wrote the report,'' that is the Goldstone Report, ``could have performed a great service if it had concentrated on gathering the testimonies from Gaza and assessing them critically, while acknowledging (as the Goldstone Report failed to do) that they are partial and incomplete.''

By definition, they did not talk, for reasons that we all know, they did not talk to the Israeli forces that were involved in the crimes this commission found them to have committed.

``This would have forced Israel to investigate various matters, provide answers, and take appropriate measures.''

Continuing, ``But instead, the commission opted to add to its findings

three unnecessary elements: the context of the history that led to the war; its assessments of Israel's strategic goals; and long sections on Israel's occupation of the West Bank. Why should a committee with a mandate to inquire into the operation in Gaza deal with the Israeli- Palestinian conflict at large?

``The honest reader of these sections,'' and I have read those sections, ``cannot avoid the impression that their objective is to prepare a general indictment of Israel as a predatory state that is geared toward violating human rights all the time. It will naturally follow from such a premise that the Gaza operation was yet another instance of Israel's general wicked behavior. These long sections are the weakest, the most biased, and the most outrageous in this long document. They are nothing if not political. In Goldstone's account of the history that led to the war, for example, Hamas is basically described as a legitimate party that had the bad luck to clash with Israel. The bloody history of the movement--which, since the beginning of the Oslo accords, was determined to do everything in its power, including the massacre of civilians, to defeat the peace process--is not mentioned.''

We are in a very strange situation. Israel has conducted numerous investigations on this issue. I would like to see Israel conduct a formal inquiry on this particular issue. But until we in this Congress come here and recommend that some outside commission recognize the U.S. military because a number of civilians died in the asymmetrical war or when we dealt with Taliban forces in Afghanistan, or other issues that come in an asymmetrical war where the soldiers wear no uniforms and there is no front, don't start telling us that democratic allies like Israel have to have these investigations. Their process will produce the right result, I truly believe.

I urge an ``aye'' vote for the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 641) recognizing the 60th anniversary of the founding of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 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 H. Res. 641, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution celebrates 60 years of broadcasting history and the continuing mission of an effective instrument of public diplomacy.

Radio Free Europe was established in 1949 by the National Committee for a Free Europe, an anticommunist organization, and made its first broadcast to what was then Czechoslovakia on July 4 of the next year.

From its start, the organization approached the Cold War as a war of ideas, pushing back on propaganda that was being spread by autocratic governments behind the Iron Curtain. As it grew and merged with Radio Liberty to reach more people, its purpose became all the more urgent as its broadcasts were banned and Communist authorities used jamming techniques to keep their citizens from tuning in.

In fact, those very authorities were said to have relied upon secret transcripts of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty programs so they could have better information about what was happening in their own countries than their own national media could provide.

After the Cold War ended, many paid tribute to the role that the American radio programs had played. Nobel Laureate and former Polish President Lech Walesa, who recalled listening to RFE/RL's broadcasts in secret, said their influence ``cannot even be described,'' asking, ``Would there be an Earth without the Sun?''

Today, RFE/RL is located in the very country to which it once beamed its first broadcast, now known as the Czech Republic. From its Prague headquarters, the organization serves as a surrogate broadcaster to places where uncensored or reliable information is hard to come by, where independent media are banned or not yet fully established.

Using AM, FM, shortwave, and satellite radio, as well as the Internet and newer social media tools, RFE/RL reaches an estimated 30 million people in Eastern Europe, Russia, the Caucasus, the Middle East, and Central and Southwest Asia.

Its programs in Farsi, under the banner of Radio Farda, are widely followed in Iran. Radio Azadi provides unbiased reporting of current events in Afghanistan. And next year, RFE/RL will begin Pashto-language broadcasts to the troubled Afghanistan-Pakistan border region, including the Swat Valley.

Mr. Speaker, as this resolution notes, ``RFE/RL has a proven history of promoting freedom and liberty in oppressive and autocratic regimes through news broadcasts based upon the principle that the first requirement of a democracy is a well-informed citizenry.''

H. Res. 641 congratulates the organization on six decades of helping to keep the spark of freedom alive in some of history's darkest hours and salutes the men and women of RFE/RL for their continuing commitment to the free flow of information.

I commend the author of this resolution, the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Ms. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and encourage its support.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

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. 839) condemning the illegal extraction of Madagascar's natural resources, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 839, a resolution introduced by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) which condemns the illegal extraction of Madagascar's natural resources.

On March 17 the democratically elected President of Madagascar was forced from office in a coup and replaced by Andry Rajoelina, who remains in power today. Over the past 7 months, the political situation has remained tenuous as discussions between both sides continue over the possibility of new elections.

Meanwhile, policies pursued by the de facto Rajoelina government have done terrible harm to Madagascar's fragile ecosystem, which boasts up to 150,000 unique species of plants and animals.

On September 21, the government permitted 13 operators to export 325 containers filled with raw and semi-processed woods. The government reportedly earned almost $12 million in taxes from these transactions.

The World Wildlife Fund, Conservation International, and the Wildlife Conservation Society condemned the decision as ``legalizing the sale of illegally cut and collected wood onto the market.'' This decision came on top of months of illegal activities and violent actions in Madagascar's forests.

Since political turmoil began in January, local communities and officials have reported that armed groups have entered the previously protected Masoala and Marojejy World Heritage Sites and the Mananara- Nord Biosphere Reserve. The NGO Global Witness reports that 7,000 cubic meters of rosewood and ebony have been shipped out of Madagascar since the beginning of the year.

These actions harm not only Madagascar's environment but the local communities that depend on the forests for their income. Without this revenue, communities may be forced to resort to slash-and-burn agriculture, thus furthering damaging Madagascar's sensitive ecosystem.

I commend my friend and colleague Mr. Blumenauer for bringing this resolution and this issue before the Congress and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the author of the resolution, who brought this to my attention less than 2 weeks ago, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 711) calling on the United States Government and the international community to address the human rights and humanitarian needs of Sri Lanka's Tamil internally displaced persons (IDPs) currently living in government-run camps by supporting the release of such IDPs, implementing and facilitating an independent oversight of the process of release and resettlement, and allowing foreign aid groups to provide relief and resources to such IDPs, 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.

This resolution calls upon the Government of Sri Lanka to expeditiously release its internally displaced Tamil population from military-guarded camps and begin the process of political reconciliation.

This past May marked the conclusion of a long and brutal civil war between the Government of Sri Lanka and the Tamil Eelam, or LTTE, a U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organization. While the United States and the international community welcome the end to this bloody war and congratulate the Government of Sri Lanka on its military victory, it is now time for the government to accelerate the process of releasing the hundreds of thousands of ethnic Tamils from the squalor camps where they have been confined.

By all accounts, the Government of Sri Lanka has made great progress in de-mining the northern part of the country to allow the successful return of the Tamil population. Now with the timeline it previously provided to the international community having come and gone, it must take the next step and provide the international community with a transparent and implementable road map for the release of the remaining IDPs.

For the safety of its own citizens who seek a return to normalcy, the Government of Sri Lanka should turn the camps over to proper civilian authorities and allow frequent, unconditional, and uninhibited access to the United Nations, the International Committee

on the Red Cross, and other aid groups. It is long past time for the Sinhalese and the Tamil populations of Sri Lanka to turn the page and, hand in hand, begin a new life together as citizens of a whole, peaceful Sri Lanka.

But doing so will require the Government of Sri Lanka to support a genuine reconciliation process, one that extends beyond local elections, and to make a determined effort to understand and address the legitimate concerns of its Tamil citizens.

I commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for introducing this important and timely resolution, and I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), the sponsor of this important resolution.

(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Madam Speaker, the following is an explanation of S. 1707, the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009. The final text of the legislation reflects an agreement reached by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. The purpose of this Explanatory Statement is to facilitate accurate interpretation of the text and to ensure faithful implementation of its provisions in accordance with the intentions of the legislation.

The core intent of the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act is to demonstrate the American people's long-term commitment to the people of Pakistan. The United States values its friendship with the Pakistani people and honors the great sacrifices made by Pakistani security forces in the fight against extremism, and the legislation reflects the goals shared by our two governments.

The legislation does not seek in any way to compromise Pakistan's sovereignty, impinge on Pakistan's national security interests, or micromanage any aspect of Pakistani military or civilian operations. There are no conditions on Pakistan attached to the authorization of $7.5 billion in non-military aid. The only requirements on this funding are financial accountability measures that Congress is imposing on the U.S. executive branch, to ensure that this assistance supports programs that most benefit the Pakistani people.

Summary of Congressional Intent

The Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009 (the ``Act'') establishes a legislative foundation for a strengthened partnership between the United States and Pakistan, based on a shared commitment to improving the living conditions of the people of Pakistan through strengthening democracy and the rule of law, sustainable economic development, and combating terrorism and extremism. It is the intent of Congress to strengthen the long-term people-to-people relationship between the United States and Pakistan by investing directly in the needs of the Pakistani people. This legislation is intended to fortify a lasting partnership with Pakistan based on mutual trust.

The overall level of economic assistance authorized annually by this legislation is tripled over FY 2008 U.S. funding levels, with the bulk of aid intended for projects such as schools, roads, medical clinics, and infrastructure development. The funds directly authorized by this Act--$1.5 billion in economic and development assistance annually for five years, with a similar amount envisioned for a subsequent five years--place no conditions on the Government of Pakistan. The only requirements are accountability measures placed on the United States executive branch to ensure that the aid directly benefits the Pakistani people.

This Act fully recognizes and respects the independence of Pakistan as a sovereign nation. The purpose of this Act is to forge a closer collaborative relationship between Pakistan and the United States, not to dictate the national policy or impinge on the sovereignty of Pakistan in any way. Any interpretation of this Act which suggests that the United States does not fully recognize and respect the sovereignty of Pakistan would be directly contrary to Congressional intent.

The certifications in the Act regarding certain limited forms of security assistance are consistent with previous Congressional legislation regarding security assistance to Pakistan and other nations. In all cases, they align with the aims of, and serve to reinforce the publicly-articulated positions of, the democratically- elected Government of Pakistan, and Pakistani military leaders, to combat extremists and militants.

Sections 1-4: Strengthening a Relationship Founded on Mutual Respect

Sections 1-4 establish the framework and context for the legislative provisions that follow. The Findings and the Statement of Principles demonstrate an unequivocal appreciation for the friendship of the Pakistani people, and for the sacrifices made by the Pakistani security forces and people in fighting extremism. The Findings in Section 3 include:

Section 3(1): ``Congress finds the following: The people of

the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the United States share

a long history of friendship and comity, and the interests of

both nations are well-served by strengthening and deepening

this friendship.''

Section 3(4): ``Pakistan is a major non-NATO ally of the

United States and has been a valuable partner in the battle

against al Qaeda and the Taliban, but much more remains to be

accomplished by both nations. The struggle against al Qaeda,

the Taliban, and affiliated terrorist groups has led to the

deaths of several thousand Pakistani civilians and members of

the security forces of Pakistan over the past seven years.''

The Statement of Principles in Section 4 include:

Section 4(1): ``Pakistan is a critical friend and ally to

the United States, both in times of strife and in times of

peace, and the two countries share many common goals,

including combating terrorism and violent radicalism,

solidifying democracy and rule of law in Pakistan, and

promoting the social and economic development of Pakistan.''

Section 4(4): ``The United States supports Pakistan's

struggle against extremist elements and recognizes the

profound sacrifice made by Pakistan in the fight against

terrorism, including the loss of more than 1,900 soldiers and

police since 2001 in combat with al Qaeda, the Taliban, and

other extremist and terrorist groups.''

Title I: Democratic, Economic and Development Assistance for Pakistan

This Title contains the core intention of this legislation: To make a long-term commitment to the people of Pakistan by tripling non-military assistance, free of any conditions on the Pakistani government. The purposes set forth for the $7.5 billion that is authorized here are all intended to reflect the expressed priorities of the Pakistani people. Specifically, Section 101(a) provides that:

``The President is authorized to provide assistance to

Pakistan to support the consolidation of democratic

institutions; to support the expansion of rule of law, build

the capacity of government institutions, and promote respect

for internationally-recognized human rights; to promote

economic freedoms and sustainable economic development; to

support investment in people, including those displaced in

on-going counterinsurgency operations; and to strengthen

public diplomacy.''

The funds authorized under Title I are intended to be used to work with and benefit Pakistani organizations. Specifically, Section 101(c)(3) provides that:

``The President is encouraged, as appropriate, to utilize

Pakistani firms and community and local nongovernmental

organizations in Pakistan, including through host country

contracts, and to work with local leaders to provide

assistance under this section''

Section 102(a) makes clear that there are no conditions placed on the Pakistani government for delivery of the $7.5 billion in assistance. The only accounting requirements are of the U.S. executive branch.

Section 102(d) makes clear that a long term commitment to increased civilian assistance for the people of Pakistan is envisioned by stating that it is the desire of Congress that the amounts authorized for fiscal years 2010-2014 shall continue from fiscal years 2015-2019.

Section 103(b) authorizes establishment of field offices for Inspectors General to audit and oversee expenditure of this assistance. It is the intent of Congress that such offices would be established in consultation with appropriate Pakistani authorities for the purpose of ensuring optimal management of resources.

Title II: Security Assistance for Pakistan

The intention of this section is to strengthen cooperative efforts to confront extremism. The purposes of security assistance are intended to be completely cooperative, and reflect the intention that such assistance be used to support Pakistan in achieving its stated objectives in winning the ongoing counterinsurgency, defeating terrorist organizations that threaten Pakistan, and strengthening democratic institutions. Specifically, Section 201(1) ``Purposes of Assistance'' states that:

``The purposes of assistance under this title are--

(1) to support Pakistan's paramount national security need

to fight and win the ongoing counterinsurgency within its

borders in accordance with its national security interests;

(2) to work with the Government of Pakistan to improve

Pakistan's border security and control and help prevent any

Pakistani territory from being used as a base or conduit for

terrorist attacks in Pakistan, or elsewhere;

(3) to work in close cooperation with the Government of

Pakistan to coordinate action against extremist and terrorist

targets; and

(4) to help strengthen the institutions of democratic

governance . . . .''

The provisions applied to certain limited portions of U.S. security assistance in Section 203 are intended to be fully in line with the existing policy of the Government of Pakistan. Specifically, Section 203(c)(1) reflects our understanding that cooperative efforts currently being undertaken by the Governments of Pakistan and the United States to combat proliferation will continue.

Section 203(c)(2) reflects the intent that U.S. security assistance is used in furtherance of the purposes set forth in Section 201 above, e.g., ensuring Pakistan's security, winning the counterinsurgency within Pakistan, preventing territory from being used for terrorist attacks in Pakistan and elsewhere, and coordinating action against extremist and terrorist targets. This section requires a certification by the United States executive branch to Congress regarding the efforts and progress made in achieving these purposes, and includes a series of factors to be considered collectively by the Secretary of State in making this assessment.

Section 203(c)(3)includes a provision intended to express support for democratic institutions in Pakistan.

Section 203(e) contains a waiver making clear that this certification could be waived if the determination is made by the Secretary of State in the interests of national security that this was necessary to continue such assistance.

Title III. Strategy, Accountability, Monitoring, and Other Provisions.

The intention of this section is to ensure that there is transparency and accountability in the way authorized assistance is spent. This Title requires the U.S. executive branch to provide various reports to Congress designed to demonstrate that funds are being used for the purposes set forth in Title I and Title II; there are no requirements on the Government of Pakistan.

Section 301 ``Strategy Reports'' requires three reports from the United States executive branch that detail a plan for how U.S. assistance to Pakistan will be spent and evaluated and a regional security plan for how the United States can best work with its partners for ``effective counterinsurgency and counterterrorism efforts.''

Section 302 ``Monitoring Reports'' reflects the need for ongoing consultation between the U.S executive branch and Congress on monitoring U.S. assistance to Pakistan, including a ``Semi-Annual Monitoring Report'' where:

The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary

of Defense, shall submit to the appropriate congressional

committees a report that describes the assistance provided

under this Act during the preceding 180-day period.

The many requirements of this report are intended as a way for Congress to assess how effectively U.S. funds are being spent, shortfalls in U.S. resources that hinder the use of such funds, and steps the Government of Pakistan has taken to advance our mutual interests in countering extremism and nuclear proliferation and strengthening democratic institutions.

There is no intent to, and nothing in this Act in any way suggests that there should be, any U.S. role in micromanaging internal Pakistani affairs, including the promotion of Pakistani military officers or the internal operations of the Pakistani military.

The reports envisioned in this Section are not binding on Pakistan, and require only the provision of information by the executive branch to the U.S. Congress, in furtherance of the Act's stated purpose of strengthening civilian institutions and the democratically-elected Government of Pakistan.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1327, the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2009, and I commend my friend Mr. Frank for his leadership on this important issue.

This bill will allow state and local governments and educational institutions to divest from companies that invest $20 million or more in Iran's energy sector. I am hopeful that the threat of divestment will persuade companies not to do business with Iran, and that this additional economic pressure will help deter Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapons capability or supporting terrorism.

Several states and localities have already begun the process of divestment, and I expect that a divestment bill will soon be introduced in the state legislature in my home state of California. The legislation before us, H.R. 1327, will provide federal legal protection for these actions, allowing them, in the case of Iran, to place their moral sensibilities ahead of their fiduciary responsibilities. As such, this is not a sanctions bill per se--it creates no new sanctions on Iran or on companies that invest in Iran.

The reasons that states and localities divest may vary--whether in response to Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, its support for terrorism, its abysmal disregard for human rights, or its fraudulent elections and their brutal aftermath. The timing of this bill, just a few short months after the elections and the subsequent crackdown--and in the midst of the ongoing crisis of regime legitimacy--certainly makes it an appropriate response to those ugly events.

I strongly support this legislation, and I urge all my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 739) honoring the life and achievements of Dr. Norman E. Borlaug for his many contributions to alleviating world hunger.

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 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, on September 12, 2009, the world mourned the passing of a great humanitarian. Dr. Norman Borlaug, a world renowned plant scientist, dedicated his life to ending global hunger and improving the world's food supply. Known as the Father of the Green Revolution, Doctor Borlaug saved more than a billion lives through his pioneering research and scientific innovation. In fact, he has been credited with saving more lives than any other person in history.

During his 20 years working in the poorest areas of rural Mexico, he developed a strain of ``miracle wheat'' that drastically increased crop yields and moved the country to food self-sufficiency.

In recognition of his tireless efforts, Dr. Borlaug has received more than 150 international honors. In 1970 he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and in 1977 the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Two years ago he was presented with the Congressional Gold Medal, America's highest civilian honor. In his Nobel acceptance lecture, Dr. Borlaug stated, ``The first essential component of social justice is adequate food for all mankind.''

Regrettably, we remain far from achieving this ideal. While, in theory, farmers produce enough food to feed every person on the planet, more people are hungry today than ever before. According to new estimates by the United Nations, over a billion people will go hungry every day in 2009, almost one-sixth of humanity.

We should take this opportunity not only to honor the extraordinary contributions of a true American hero, but to recommit ourselves to the goal of eradicating hunger.

I want to recognize and congratulate the sponsor of this resolution, my good friend from Iowa, Mr. Boswell, for introducing the resolution honoring Dr. Borlaug.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the sponsor of the resolution, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell).

(Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Braley).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee).

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