Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I am honored to pay tribute to my good friend, Moreen Blum, who was recently honored by the Sherman Oaks Democratic Club for her outstanding contributions to democratic politics in the San Fernando Valley. I have known Moreen for over two decades and have had the pleasure of working with her on many important issues in our community.

A long time volunteer in local politics, Moreen was born in Cleveland, Ohio. She joined the Navy when she was twenty years old and was a member of the Waves until 1952. Shortly after moving to Los Angeles in 1959, she formed the West Hollywood Democratic Club and was a Golden Girl at the John F. Kennedy nominating convention. Currently, she is President Emeritus of the Sherman Oaks Democratic Club, and is very active as the president and founder of the Summerville Democratic Club. Her noteworthy achievements were recognized by the Democratic Party of the San Fernando Valley, as she was presented with the Dorothy Mayer Award. She serves as a worthy example to all political activists.

Madam Speaker and distinguished colleagues, I ask you to join me in saluting Moreen Blum for her impressive career and dedication to the people of the San Fernando Valley.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 378) recognizing the 30th anniversary of the election of Margaret Thatcher as the first female Prime Minister of Great Britain, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 378, which pays tribute to the distinguished political career of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) for introducing this measure that enables the House to acknowledge the 30th anniversary of her election as the first female Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

On May 4, 1979, Margaret Thatcher was sworn in as Prime Minister. Holding this position until 1990, she became the U.K.'s longest continuously serving Prime Minister since 1827, and the only Prime Minister in the 20th century to win three consecutive elections.

The special relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States was strengthened during her tenure, particularly through her cooperative working relationship with President Ronald Reagan in addressing the threat of the Soviet Union.

Prime Minister Thatcher spoke in this House to a joint session of Congress on February 20, 1985. In her remarks, she cited the three occasions on which Prime Minister Winston Churchill addressed Congress. Those were worth remembering, she said, ``because they serve as lamps along a dark road which our people trod together, and they remind us what an extraordinary period of history the world has passed through between that time and ours; and they tell us what later generations in both our countries sometimes find hard to grasp: why past associations bind us so closely.''

Her words are as true today as they were during the height of the Cold War and World War II. We again find ourselves living in extraordinary times. And, thankfully, the United States and the United Kingdom stand shoulder to shoulder as we confront today's challenges together, just as we did throughout the last century.

I ask my colleagues to join me in acknowledging the 30th anniversary of Margaret Thatcher's historic election and paying tribute to her professional achievements. We should also use this occasion to reaffirm the enduring friendship and partnership between our two nations.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 171) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives on the need for constitutional reform in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the importance of sustained United States engagement in partnership with the European Union (EU), as amended.

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

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

I rise in strong support of H. Res. 171, which calls for constitutional reform in Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as sustained American engagement in partnership with the European Union.

In the 13 years since the signing of the Dayton Peace Accords brought an end to a brutal conflict, the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina have worked closely with the international community to make considerable progress in building a peaceful and democratic society that is built upon the rule of law, respect for human rights, and a free market economy.

Within the last year, the country has taken important steps along the path to Euro-Atlantic integration, beginning an intensified dialogue with NATO and signing a Stabilization and Association Agreement with the European Union.

Notwithstanding these notable milestones, there are troubling signs of backsliding as political rhetoric grows confrontational, reforms unravel, and ethnic tensions increase. Bosnia seemingly faces the prospect of stagnation at best, and a return to violent conflict at worst.

While Bosnia's future clearly lies in the Euro-Atlantic community, the country must first develop an efficient and effective state with functioning institutions that are capable of making self-sustaining reforms and managing the responsibilities of EU and NATO membership. H. Res. 171 does not prescribe the types of constitutional reforms that are required. Indeed, such decisions can only be made by the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, the United States and the European Union can help create conditions that are conducive to efforts by Bosnian citizens to develop a functional political system.

First, the Peace Implementation Council should remain firm in its commitment to maintain the Office of the High Representative until Bosnia has definitively met the five conditions and two principles. Only then should the office be closed and responsibility transitioned to the EU Special Representative. The recent dialogue among some political leaders that led to the adoption of an agreement on the status of Brcko District was a helpful development. Hopefully, similar progress can be made on state property and other issues.

Second, the European Union should provide Bosnia with a clear set of EU candidacy and membership conditions. These should include explicit and objective benchmarks regarding constitutional reforms that will increase the functionality of the Bosnian state. The EU should also carefully reconsider its plans for the drawdown or redeployment of its 2,500 European Union force, as the continued presence of those troops deters violence and provides citizens with a psychological reassurance of security.

And, finally, there is a need for sustained, high-level U.S. engagement with the EU on the development and implementation of common policies that will stabilize and strengthen Bosnia and Herzegovina. H. Res. 171 advocates the appointment of a Special Envoy for the Balkans which would signal American commitment to the region. In addition to working directly with political leaders on the ground, this official could seek to develop a consensus among the EU and its member states about the way forward in southeastern Europe.

The visit by Vice President Biden to Bosnia, Serbia, and Kosovo next week is an encouraging sign of renewed American interest in the Balkans. As he and other senior officials in the Obama administration were personally involved in efforts to establish peace in the Balkans 13 years ago, they know firsthand the importance of preserving this hard-won stability and the considerable cost of letting it slip away.

Although the United States and the European Union are consumed by other foreign policy priorities, we must not lose sight of our unfinished business in the Balkans or waiver from our commitment to consolidating peaceful progress across Europe.

I strongly support this resolution. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

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) that was held in Prague, Czech Republic, from April 18-20, 2009. Chairwoman Shelley Berkley, the gentlelady from Nevada, continues to provide this important interparliamentary exchange with enthusiastic leadership and a strong commitment to strengthening relations with our European allies. I commend this bipartisan delegation--which included Paul Kanjorski (D-PA), Dana Rohrabacher (R- CA), Loretta Sanchez (D-CA), John R. Carter (R-TX), Phil Gingrey (R- GA), Virginia Foxx (R-NC), Steve Cohen (D-TN), and Ron Klein (D-FL)-- for their 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 bi- annual meetings between American and European legislators in order to exchange views on topics of mutual interest and foster transatlantic discourse. I welcome the discussion held by members at the Prague session about ways in which to deepen the dialogue and increase their communication beyond these formal meetings.

Given the recent transition in the U.S. administration and the upcoming European Parliament elections, it is essential that legislators continue their collaboration on the important issues facing citizens on both sides of the Atlantic. The financial crisis was a central topic at the Prague meeting, with presentations by European experts as well as representatives of the EU and U.S. administrations. 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. Members also addressed pressing foreign policy issues. Particular attention was devoted to Afghanistan and Pakistan, as TLD participants engaged in a dialogue with Richard Boucher, U.S. Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asian Affairs, about President Obama's comprehensive new strategy. Other foreign policy debates focused on the status of diplomatic initiatives regarding the Iranian nuclear threat, the Middle East peace process, and relations with Russia. In addition, the delegates talked about the challenge of climate change, the importance of energy security, and President Obama's decision to close the Guantanamo detention facility.

Madam Speaker, I would like to commend Representative Berkley for bringing the American delegation to Estonia and Lithuania in advance of the TLD meeting for important bilateral visits with these important NATO and EU allies. In both countries the delegation met with the President, Prime Minister, Speaker and parliamentarians to reaffirm our country's friendship and support for the Baltic states. These high level discussions focused on regional security, responses to the global financial crisis, and the importance of energy diversification. In Estonia, members raised the issue of citizenship laws and the importance of good relations between ethnic Russians and Estonians. In Lithuania, U.S. members thanked political leaders for their valuable contributions to the NATO mission in Afghanistan. They pressed them on the need to resolve longstanding problems with Jewish property restitution, protect a historic Jewish cemetery site, and cease investigations of Jewish partisans regarding their World War II activities. The delegation also spoke with a group of Belarusian opposition leaders who traveled to Vilnius from Minsk to brief members on the political and human rights situation in Belarus. The U.S. delegation assured them of our ongoing support of their brave efforts.

In conclusion, I would like to enter into the Congressional Record the joint statement that was agreed upon by American and European legislators at the 66th TLD meeting held in Prague. This document highlights the importance of continued transatlantic dialogue and cooperation in addressing pressing financial and foreign policy crises.

Transatlantic Legislators' Dialogue Joint Statement

Shelley Berkley, Chairwoman, United States Congress

Delegation, Phil Gingrey, Acting Vice Chairman, United States

Congress Delegation, Ron Klein, Acting Vice Chairman, United

States Congress Delegation, and Jonathan Evans, MEP,

Chairman, European Parliament Delegation.

We, the Members of the European Parliament and the United

States House of Representatives, held our 66th

Interparliamentary meeting (Transatlantic Legislators'

Dialogue) in Prague, Czech Republic, on 18-20 April 2009.

Building on the joint statement issued following our last

meeting in Miami on 6-8 December 2008, we stressed the

importance of regular dialogue on a range of political,

social and economic issues that affect all of our citizens.

We agreed to report back to our parent bodies on the content

and outcome of our discussions, particularly in the areas

where joint efforts are likely to result in positive

outcomes.

We discussed with Czech Minister of Foreign Affairs and

Council President-in-office Karel Schwarzenberg the Summit

held in Prague on 5 April 2009 between President Obama and

the 27 EU Heads of State and Government. We welcomed its

outcome and expressed our trust that this meeting will

provide a strong impetus for strengthening the transatlantic

relationship and furthering a common agenda.

The Transatlantic Legislators' Dialogue agreed that we

should build on this political momentum to improve and renew

the framework of the transatlantic relationship. In this

context, we called for greater collaboration between

legislators in the US House of Representatives and the

European Parliament on issues of common concern and

legislation that affects each side of the Atlantic. We also

expressed our intention to have increased communication

between our biannual meetings, using mechanisms such as

periodic video conferences and the formation of working

groups to address specific topics in greater detail.

With regard to foreign policy and security issues discussed

during our TLD meeting, we agreed that joint action is the

most effective way to approach problems which affect both

sides of the Atlantic. In particular, we considered that:

a) peace in the Middle East requires a durable ceasefire,

an end to attacks on Israel from Hamas and other terrorists,

a functioning and effective government in the Palestinian

Territories. We also expressed our support for the

appointment of George Mitchell as Special Envoy to the Middle

East Peace Process;

b) the comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan and

Pakistan announced by President Obama on 27 March 2009

constitutes a good basis for a regional approach to security,

combating terrorism, and economic development. The EU and the

US should enhance their cooperation and support, work to

improve the coordination and effectiveness of Provincial

Reconstruction Teams (PRTs), and seek to help build critical

infrastructure across Afghanistan;

c) the dialogue affirmed that a nuclear armed Iran is

unacceptable. We also agreed that relations with Iran should

involve both incentives for Iran to build constructive ties

with the international community as well as concerted

pressure on Iran if it continues to fail to comply with its

international obligations in the nuclear area and human

rights; and

d) relations with Russia should involve constructive

cooperation on challenges, threats and opportunities of

mutual concern, including security matters, disarmament and

non-proliferation, and respect for democratic principles

including human rights standards, and adherence to

international law. The dialogue expressed concerns about

Russia's recent behaviour in regards to the recent conflict

with Georgia and energy dispute with Ukraine. We also cited

the need to enhance mutual trust between the transatlantic

partners and Russia.

On energy and climate change, we stressed that the EU and

the US should work together to address these issues at the UN

negotiations in Copenhagen later this year. We discussed cap-

and-trade systems and the feasibility of setting up mutually

compatible systems. 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 examined the consequences of the global economic and

financial turmoil. We agreed that the crisis requires a

strong and coordinated policy response by the US and the EU.

Recovery plans currently being adopted are critical in

mitigating the effects of the crisis: approaches chosen

should be compatible, avoid protectionist measures, and not

give rise to distortions of competition in the transatlantic

market place. We considered that global financial regulation

and supervision should be strengthened, including better

crisis prevention and management, and that EU and US should

cooperate on the reform of international financial

institutions.

We stressed the importance of the Transatlantic Economic

Council (TEC), including its utility as a framework for

macro-economic cooperation between both partners. We welcomed

the progress made over recent months in promoting

transatlantic economic integration, including investment,

accounting standards, regulatory issues, the safety of

imported products, and the enforcement of intellectual

property rights.

We insisted that transatlantic economic cooperation must be

more accountable and transparent. In particular, 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 long-term roadmap of activities.

We called on the EU and US executive branches to facilitate

more active participation by members of the US Congress and

the European Parliament in the TEC process, in particular via

the TLD.

We considered that both partners should use the full

potential of the TEC in order to overcome the existing

obstacles to economic integration. To this effect,

legislators on both sides of the Atlantic should convey their

views on legislative and bureaucratic obstacles to the TEC

leadership and conduct a regular review of the situation. We

emphasized once more the concerns raised by the 100 percent

cargo scan requirement, as well as the need to resolve

remaining disputes with regard to the REACH regulation and

access to the EU market for American poultry.

We discussed President Obama's signing of an executive

order leading to the closure of the Guantanamo detention

facility within a year. We also considered that the US and

the EU Member States should cooperate in finding solutions

wherever necessary, including accepting Guantanamo inmates in

the European Union.

The dialogue also focused on the negotiations between the

US and the EU Member States to extend access to the US visa

waiver programme. We welcomed the extension of the programme

to seven EU Member States, and encouraged the EU and US

executive bodies to continue activities with regard to the

Member States not yet included.

Finally, the dialogue took note of a 2008 European

Commission report on legislation passed by the US Congress in

2006. The report found that the legislation was not in

compliance with World Trade Organization policies as they

apply to internet gambling. The TLD expressed strong support

for ongoing discussions between the US and EU to resolve the

situation in an effort to avoid potential sanctions against

the US and the loss of export markets for US business

sectors.

In conclusion, both sides renewed their commitment to make the TLD's work more relevant to the European Parliament and to the U.S. House of Representatives. We also agreed to further improve the effectiveness of our dialogue in order to realize the full potential of our interparliamentary relationship.

Madam Speaker, our nation has a vital national security interest in ensuring that Iran does not possess nuclear arms or achieve the means to produce them on short notice. My bill, the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act (IRPSA), is designed to help prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability.

This legislation requires that any foreign entity that sells refined petroleum to Iran--or otherwise enhances Iran's ability to import refined petroleum through, for example, financing, brokering, underwriting, or providing ships for such activity--will be effectively barred from doing business in the United States. The same would be true for any entity that provides goods or services that enhance Iran's ability to maintain or expand its domestic production of refined petroleum.

Because of its limited refining capacity, Iran is forced to import roughly one-quarter of the gasoline and other refined petroleum products it consumes from other countries. Without this outside help, much of the Iranian economy would grind to a halt. It seems hard to believe that one of the world's leading oil exporters could find itself in this position, but it is reality--one that can only be attributed to shockingly poor planning and administration by the Iranian regime.

I and the other co-sponsors of this bill therefore believe that this measure could have a powerfully negative impact on the Iranian economy, rendering it more difficult for the Iranian government to continue to fund a nuclear program that the international community has repeatedly called upon it to suspend. Our goal, of course, is not to punish the Iranian people, but to maximize the chances that we can persuade the Iranian government to accede to the will of the international community.

Let me be clear: I fully support the Administration's strategy of direct diplomatic engagement with Iran, and I have no intention of moving this bill though the legislative process in the near future. In fact, I hope that Congress will never need to take any action on this legislation, for that would mean that Iran at last has complied with the repeatedly-expressed demand of the international community, as embodied in five separate U.N. Security Council resolutions, to verifiably suspend its uranium enrichment program and to end its pursuit of nuclear weapons once and for all.

The larger purpose of my bill is to demonstrate to one and all--but particularly to the Iranian regime--the importance that the U.S. Congress places on the Iranian nuclear issue.

I share President Obama's conviction that it is unacceptable for Iran to possess nuclear weapons and his determination to seek a diplomatic solution to this issue. However, should engagement with Iran not yield the desired results in a reasonable period of time, we will have no choice but to press forward with additional sanctions--such as those contained in IRPSA--that could truly cripple the Iranian economy. In that respect, I am pleased that Secretary of State Clinton has said that she is already intensively engaged with our allies and other key states in the international community for the purpose of, in her words, ``laying the groundwork for the kind of very tough . . . sanctions that might be necessary in the event that our offers are either rejected or the process is inconclusive or unsuccessful.''

This legislation is offered in that spirit.

Madam Speaker, today I introduced the Initiating Foreign Assistance Reform Act of 2009. This legislation is an important first step in reforming and improving the U.S. foreign assistance program, particularly with respect to developing countries. I call it a first step, because I intend to work with my House and Senate colleagues later this year on a broader reform effort that will include a comprehensive rewrite of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.

There is broad consensus that the U.S. foreign assistance program is in need of a significant overhaul. Currently, foreign assistance programs are fragmented across 12 departments, 25 different agencies, and nearly 60 government offices. The current foreign assistance structure is characterized by duplication, fragmentation, and conflicting purposes and objectives. As a result, the United States lacks a clear and consistent strategy toward developing countries. Last week, the Government Accountability Office issued a report detailing the urgent need for developing such a strategy.

Over the years, there have also been criticisms about the accountability, effectiveness, and transparency of U.S. foreign assistance. While some of these criticisms have merit, in the vast majority of cases our assistance is being used to help lift people out of poverty, combat food insecurity, and promote stability and good governance all over the world. Yet without an effective and transparent system that tracks our assistance, it is difficult to document our successes.

In order to begin addressing these issues, this bill requires the President to develop and implement a comprehensive National Strategy for Global Development, which will define and streamline the roles of each department and agency engaged in development policies, programs and activities overseas. In addition, the strategy will establish a process to review and improve coordination among the various departments and agencies involved. The strategy will also establish objectives for our development programs, with the goal of reducing poverty and contributing to broad-based economic growth in developing countries. Most importantly, it will spell out the connection between reducing poverty in the developing world and advancing U.S. national security and foreign policy interests.

To improve the accountability and transparency of foreign aid, the legislation requires each U.S. department and agency carrying out foreign assistance to develop a system to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of assistance programs. It also requires the President to publish and make publicly available comprehensive information on U.S. foreign assistance on a program-by-program and country-by-country basis. Upon enactment of this legislation, every American and all recipients of U.S. foreign aid will be able to see where and how U.S. foreign assistance is being used.

Madam Speaker, overhauling our foreign assistance apparatus is critical to safeguarding America's long-term national security, confronting transnational threats, stimulating global economic growth and ensuring that U.S. foreign assistance reflects the values and priorities of the American people. This legislation is a critical first step in achieving these objectives, and I look forward to working with my House and Senate colleagues and the Obama Administration on the broader U.S. foreign assistance reform effort.

Madam Speaker, tomorrow, April 24, marks the 94th anniversary of the beginning of the Armenian Genocide. I rise today to commemorate this terrible chapter in human history, and to help ensure that it will never be forgotten.

On April 24, 1915, the Turkish government began to arrest Armenian community and political leaders. Many were executed without ever being charged with crimes. Then the government deported the overwhelming majority of Armenians from Ottoman Armenia, ordering that they resettle in what is now Syria. Most deportees never reached that destination.

From 1915 to 1918, more than a million Armenians died of starvation or disease on long

marches, or were massacred outright by Turkish forces. From 1918 to 1923, Armenians continued to suffer at the hands of the Turkish military, which eventually removed nearly all remaining Armenians from Turkey.

We mark this anniversary of the start of the Armenian Genocide because this tragedy for the Armenian people was a tragedy for all humanity. It is our duty to remember, to speak out and to teach future generations about the horrors of genocide and the oppression and terrible suffering endured by the Armenian people.

We hope the day will soon come when it is not just the survivors who honor the dead but also when those whose ancestors perpetrated the horrors acknowledge their terrible responsibility and commemorate as well the memory of genocide's victims.

Sadly, we cannot say humanity has progressed to the point where genocide has become unthinkable. We have only to recall the killing fields of Cambodia, mass killings in Rwanda, ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Kosovo, and the unspeakable horrors in Darfur, Sudan to see that the threat of genocide persists. We must renew our commitment never to remain indifferent in the face of such assaults on innocent human beings.

We also remember this day because it is a time for us to celebrate the contributions of the Armenian community in America--including hundreds of thousands in California--to the richness of our character and culture. The strength they and their immigrant ancestors have displayed in overcoming tragedy to flourish in this country is an example for all of us. Their success is moving testimony to the truth that tyranny and evil cannot extinguish the vitality of the human spirit.

The United States has an ongoing opportunity to contribute to a true memorial to the past by strengthening Armenia's emerging democracy. We must do all we can through aid and trade to support Armenia's efforts to construct an open political and economic system.

Adolf Hitler, the architect of the Nazi Holocaust, once remarked ``Who remembers the Armenians?'' The answer is, we do. And we will continue to remember the victims of the 1915-23 genocide because, in the words of the philosopher George Santayana, ``Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.''

Madam Speaker, I am honored to pay tribute to Dean Robert Rosen, outgoing Dean of the internationally acclaimed UCLA School of Theater, Film and Television. A world renowned archivist, recognized for his contribution to the restoration and preservation of films, Bob is to be commended for his work in the preservation of this American art form.

Bob has dedicated thirty years to guiding the growth of the UCLA Film & Television Archive. Evolving from a small study collection to the world's largest university-based holding of original film and television materials second only to the Library of Congress, Bob's dedication has certainly paid off. He has cemented his stature as an international leader in film preservation, first as director of the UCLA Film and Television Archive (1975-99) and since then as Dean of the UCLA School of Theater, Film and Television. Under Bob's leadership, the National Center for Film and Video Preservation at the American Film Institute was founded.

His involvement in the field of film is extensive as he dedicates his time and efforts to serving on numerous boards such as the executive committee of the International Federation of Film Archives and the National Film Preservation Board of the Library of Congress. Along with Martin Scorsese, Bob created the Film Foundation, and today he is the Chair of the Film Foundation's Archivists Advisory Council. His interests extend beyond film with his service as a Board Member of the Geffen Playhouse and the Latino Theater Company.

His many contributions and commitment to film preservation and restoration have not gone unnoticed. In 2008, he received the Film Foundation's John Huston Award from the Directors Guild of America. His work has also been honored internationally, including recognition by the French government as an Officer of Arts and Letters and his receipt of the International Documentary Association's Career Achievement Award for Scholarship and Preservation.

Madam Speaker and distinguished colleagues, I ask you to join me in saluting Dean Robert Rosen for his impressive tenure at UCLA and for the indelible mark he has left on the film industry.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 388, the Crane Conservation Act of 2009. I strongly endorse this effort to provide financial resources and foster international cooperation to restore and perpetuate healthy populations of endangered species and to protect threatened habitats.

This bill establishes a fund to support specific conservation activities by ``any wildlife management authority'' of a foreign country that meets certain criteria, as well as groups and individuals with demonstrated, relevant expertise. While supporting such efforts is a key element of any effective conservation strategy, it seems to me that such funding in effect constitutes a new form of foreign assistance that ought to be carefully coordinated with our other foreign aid programs.

In the first place, it is essential that the Secretary of the Interior, who will be administering these programs, consult closely with the Secretary of State to ensure that these activities will not conflict with our overall foreign policy objectives. For instance, if there are problems with corruption or transparency and accountability in a particular government, the State Department would be in a better position to know which entities are reliable partners, and to ensure that funding is not diverted to unauthorized purposes. There may also be some countries to which all other government-to-government aid has been terminated for political or human rights reasons, and in which these conservation activities ought to be conducted exclusively through non-governmental organizations.

Secondly, the State Department, the United States Agency for International Development, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the Peace Corps and other foreign policy agencies may be carrying out their own environmental programs in a given--country. The conservation activities supported by this new fund must be coordinated with ongoing and planned efforts of such agencies in order to avoid duplication and overlap and to seize openings for collaboration. Without a mechanism for consultation with the State Department and USAID, opportunities to build synergy among programs will be lost and the risks of waste and inefficiency will escalate.

In light of these concerns, I would strongly urge that in implementing these new provisions, the Secretary of Interior develop a mechanism for full and meaningful consultation with the State Department, USAID and the foreign policy agencies under the Department's guidance.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 411, the Great Cats and Rare Canids Act of 2009. I strongly endorse this effort to provide financial resources and foster international cooperation to restore and perpetuate healthy populations of endangered species and to protect threatened habitats.

This bill establishes a fund to support specific conservation activities by ``any wildlife management authority'' of a foreign country that meets certain criteria, as well as groups and individuals with demonstrated, relevant expertise. While supporting such efforts is a key element of any effective conservation strategy, it seems to me that such funding in effect constitutes a new form of foreign assistance that ought to be carefully coordinated with our other foreign aid programs.

In the first place, it is essential that the Secretary of the Interior, who will be administering these programs, consult closely with the Secretary of State to ensure that these activities will not conflict with our overall foreign policy objectives. For instance, if there are problems with corruption or transparency and accountability in a particular government, the State Department would be in a better position to know which entities are reliable partners, and to ensure that funding is not diverted to unauthorized purposes. There may also be some countries to which all other government-to-government aid has been terminated for political or human rights reasons, and in which these conservation activities ought to be conducted exclusively through non-governmental organizations.

Secondly, the State Department, the United States Agency for International Development, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the Peace Corps and other foreign policy agencies may be carrying out their own environmental programs in a given country. The conservation activities supported by this new fund must be coordinated with ongoing and planned efforts of such agencies in order to avoid duplication and overlap and to seize openings for collaboration. Without a mechanism for consultation with the State Department and USAID, opportunities to build synergy among programs will be lost and the risks of waste and inefficiency will escalate.

In light of these concerns, I would strongly urge that in implementing these new provisions, the Secretary of the Interior develop a mechanism for full and meaningful consultation with the State Department, USAID and the foreign policy agencies under the Department's guidance.

Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to talk about the Pakistan Enduring Assistance and Cooperation Enhancement Act--or PEACE Act--a bill I introduced today with a distinguished group of original cosponsors, including Mr. Kirk, Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Royce, Ms. Jackson- Lee, Mr. Sherman, and Mr. Wexler. The fundamental purpose of this legislation is to strengthen the U.S. relationship with Pakistan--a country that is central to our national security and to-global stability,

The timing of this bill could not be more crucial. We stand at a pivotal moment in our relations with Pakistan and in our campaign to bring stability and security to Afghanistan. Several days ago, the Obama Administration unveiled its new strategy for those countries, the main focus of which is to enhance our ability to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in its safe havens in Pakistan. The PEACE Act is written with that critical goal in mind. But it also reflects our deep appreciation of the fact that it is in our national interest to create a long-term strategic partnership with Pakistan; one that speaks to the needs of the average citizens of Pakistan--those who live in rural areas, without access to adequate education or healthcare, and who have suffered at the hands of a frequently dysfunctional and corrupt judicial system and police force.

By tripling U.S. assistance for democratic, economic and social development, our bill lays the foundation for a creating a stronger, more stable Pakistan. It places a particular emphasis on strengthening Pakistan's fragile democratic institutions--including the parliament and judicial system--enhancing economic development by increasing local capacity, and improving Pakistan's education system and vocational training.

To help ensure that American assistance is spent appropriately, our legislation requires increased auditing, monitoring and evaluation, and includes rigorous reporting requirements. U.S. taxpayers--and the Pakistani people--should know that our assistance is making a real difference, and not being squandered.

For many years, the U.S. relationship with Pakistan has been characterized by fits and starts. Now that Pakistan has returned to an elected civilian democracy, it is important to emphasize our long-term commitment to the Pakistani people. To achieve that goal, our bill establishes a Pakistan Freedom and Prosperity Fund, a permanent fund in the U.S. Treasury that serves as a conduit for all social and economic development assistance. At the same time, we must take a hard look at what we want from Pakistan. We clearly want them to be a partner and a friend. In that spirit, we also expect them to take action against those who threaten Pakistani and American security interests. Our bill clarifies these expectations.

Achieving stability in Pakistan, however, will require more than economic assistance--it will also require us to provide Pakistan the tools it needs to protect its people, secure its borders and augment its ongoing counterterrorism operations. To that end, our bill authorizes increased Foreign Military Financing (FMF), while requiring that the vast majority of such assistance be used for counterterrorism and counterinsurgency purposes. It also authorizes increased assistance for International Military Education and Training (IMET), which will enhance cooperation between the U.S. and Pakistani militaries.

Finally, our bill requires that military assistance may only be provided to Pakistan if the President determines that the Government of Pakistan is continuing to cooperate with the United States in preventing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and has both demonstrated a sustained commitment to combating terrorist groups and has made progress towards that end.

Madam Speaker, we cannot succeed in defeating al Qaeda by ourselves. We need a robust, long-term relationship with our strategic partners to prevail against those who threaten our national security. The PEACE Act will help us establish just such a relationship with Pakistan.

Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the Republican substitute, and thank the gentleman for yielding.

Among its many shortcomings, this proposal slashes funding for the international affairs budget 20 percent below the President's request, and 10 percent below this year's spending level. This may be a politically appealing thing to do, but it is as shortsighted and irresponsible and harmful as any other aspect of this proposal--harmful to our national security, harmful to our national interests.

For far too long we have failed to invest adequate resources in our civilian foreign affairs agencies. The State Department has been so starved for funds that a full 11 percent of its overseas diplomatic posts remain unfilled. The U.S. Agency for International Development now relies on only five engineers to oversee hundreds of infrastructure projects around the world.

This glaring void in our civilian capacity is increasingly being filled by the military. Our brave men and women in uniform follow orders and do the best they can, but they are trained to be warfighters, not development and reconstruction professionals.

That's why Defense Secretary Gates called, according to the newspapers, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Conrad last week to plead for more money--not for the Pentagon, but for the international affairs budget.

The draconian cuts proposed in this substitute could have a direct impact on the success of our efforts to stabilize Afghanistan. President Obama has correctly recognized that the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban cannot be won by military means alone.

In addition to 21,000 additional troops, he's proposed sending hundreds of agriculture and development specialists to help that war- torn country get back on its feet. This budget would make that possible because there's no way they could absorb the additional cuts and still do that mission.

I would suggest that the President's number, and not the Republican proposal and not the Ryan substitute, is the fiscally conservative position in this debate.

I urge my colleagues to defeat this substitute.

Madam Speaker, I rise this afternoon to talk about the American Dream Act, a bill that I have introduced today with my long- time partners in this endeavor, Representatives Lucille Roybal-Allard and Lincoln Diaz-Balart. We are joined in our effort by a bipartisan group of dedicated original cosponsors. I believe that all of us have come to this effort for the same reason--to keep our country from squandering the promise of thousands of young people who have been raised here, worked hard in school, and would like to pursue higher education or serve their country in the military. These students face tremendous obstacles in reaching their potential because, through no fault of their own, they exist in a legal limbo with no way to adjust their immigration status.

In America, we value every young person. We reward hard work and good moral character. We value the drive to continue one's education, and we don't penalize children for the misdeeds of their parents. But current federal law punishes many children for the decision that their parents made to bring them to this country. Now, when these young people finish high school, their choices are few: they can try to find work illegally in order to support themselves or they can hope to somehow continue their education while under a legal cloud. They consider themselves Americans because this country is the only home they've ever really known, but their lives are filled with uncertainty and their future is limited so long as they have no legal status.

This is a travesty. It means that their communities--the communities that they have grown up in and call home--will never fully reap the benefits of their abilities. We have set up obstacles to their success at every turn, and our goal here today is to find a way to ensure that we don't waste their potential.

My own interest in this issue was intensified when a family near my district wrote to me asking for help for a young undocumented student. This young woman was brought to the United States by her mother when she was a small child. She attended public schools in California, where she was an honors student in high school, received awards for her outstanding community service, and graduated with a near perfect grade point average. When it came time for her to go to college, she found that she was ineligible not just for federal financial aid, but for in- state tuition as well. But this young woman was one of the rare undocumented students in this country fortunate enough to get help from a private source. She participated in a community mentoring program through which she met a couple who came to consider her a part of their family after working with her for many years. They couldn't bear to see this young woman give up her dreams simply because the federal government wanted to punish her for the decision her mother made to bring her to this country illegally. This young woman, with the help of her community and friends, was able to go to college in California and graduated with honors. She was then admitted to graduate school, but was unable to attend because the program to which she was admitted could not give her the tuition waiver it customarily offers to students of her caliber. This young woman was extraordinarily lucky to get the help she did in paying for her undergraduate education, but in the end, she was in the same place she was before she entered school. She was undocumented and had no reasonable means to adjust her status.

Shortly before I encountered this young woman's family, an outstanding young man in my district was brought to my attention because he wanted very much to get an appointment to one of the military academies and serve his country. He was a successful high school student and would have made an excellent appointment. But shortly into the process, it was determined that though he had lived in the United States for most of his life, he was undocumented and wouldn't have been able to accept the nomination. A few weeks after this occurred, I was at a dinner where I happened to be seated next to the Secretary of the Army. I related the situation to the Secretary over dinner, and we discussed what a waste it was to have to turn away a young man with such promise and dedication. A few days later I got a letter from the Secretary expressing interest in finding a way to let young people like my constituent who feel the call to serve their country, do so.

These are the young people who motivated me to introduce this bill, and there are students like them in nearly every congressional district in the country. Every year I see private bills that Members have introduced for constituents in this same situation because there is no other relief available to them in our broken immigration laws. I could have done the same for my constituents too, but I quickly came to realize that there was a much bigger issue to address. I would ask my colleagues who introduce these private bills to broaden their focus. Instead of seeking to help just one young person, we should fix the underlying problem.

It is almost a mantra in this country. Parents tell their children: work hard, get your education, and you will succeed. For undocumented immigrant children, this turns out to be a cruel hoax. These young people are in many ways, first generation Americans. They were raised here by immigrant parents. They don't remember their parents' country of origin or feel any tie to it any more than first-generation American citizens do. When we first introduced this legislation, I frequently received letters from students who told me that they grew up believing they were U.S. citizens. They had no knowledge that they'd been brought here illegally until they applied for federal financial aid for college and they were turned down because their social security number doesn't match their name. Their parents never told them.

We are not the only ones who see the need to act. The plight of these students has been addressed by several state legislatures around the country. More than a dozen states have enacted laws to provide in-state tuition at public colleges and universities for students who have attended high school in their state. In the absence of federal action, they've done what they can to help students in their communities.

We've heard from guidance counselors and teachers who work with undocumented students and they tell us that once these students learn that they are, for all purposes, barred from attending college, their academic performance begins to slip, and their drive to excel devolves into disinterest. This is the time when dropout rates begin to soar, and it is the time that we should step in and ensure that these students reach their potential to become productive citizens of our country.

It makes no sense to me that we maintain a system that brings in thousands of highly-skilled foreign guestworkers each year to fill a gap in our domestic workforce, and at the same time do nothing to provide an opportunity to kids who have grown up here, gone to school here, and want to prepare themselves for these jobs or serve their country in the military. This is the illogical outcome of our current immigration laws that the Dream Act will fix. I encourage my colleagues to join us in this effort.

Finally, Madam Speaker, I want to add that the issues addressed in the American Dream Act are just a fraction of the problems in our immigration system. The Dream Act came about because our immigration laws are, and have been for some time, broken. It is very important that we pass this piece of legislation this year. But it is my fondest hope that we will put together a comprehensive immigration reform package that includes the Dream Act as it was introduced today, and it is my intention to work for and pass that comprehensive immigration reform package this year.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 55) recognizing the 30th anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act, 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 the resolution and yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution recognizes the enactment of the Taiwan Relations Act 30 years ago and reaffirms congressional support for that law. I would like to thank my good friend, Representative Shelley Berkley of Nevada, for her leadership both as cochair of the Taiwan Caucus and as the chief sponsor of this resolution.

The Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 forms the official basis for friendship and cooperation between the United States and Taiwan. It has been instrumental in maintaining peace and security across the Taiwan Straits and in East Asia. Since the lifting of martial law in 1987, Taiwan has evolved into a robust and lively democracy. The U.S.-Taiwan relationship, once based solely on shared interests, is now based on shared values.

This remarkable political evolution proves beyond any doubt that the notion of ``Asian values,'' often used to justify one-man or one-party rule, is a fallacy. Taiwan's democratic ideals have become even more engrained in its national identity following its second peaceful transfer of power in last year's presidential election.

Taiwan has also developed into a vibrant free-market economy and a major trading partner of the United States. Taiwan's impressive political and economic achievements give it the potential to play a very constructive role in international affairs. I would urge that special consideration be given to Taiwan's desire to gain observer status at the World Health Assembly later this spring.

Taiwan has extremely important social and economic ties with China, and it would benefit both governments to take additional steps towards reducing cross-Strait tensions. The act was enacted 30 years ago with the expectation that the future of Taiwan would be determined only by peaceful means. It is encouraging that China's top leadership recently stated that it was ready to hold talks with Taiwan to create conditions for ending hostilities and concluding a peace agreement between the two sides.

I applaud this development and urge China to do more to reach out to both the government and the people of Taiwan. I'm confident that the Taiwan Relations Act will remain the cornerstone of our very close friendship with Taiwan. I strongly support this resolution. I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the sponsor of the resolution, the gentlelady from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers on the floor now, so I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests for time, so I will reserve to the ranking member.

Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support for the resolution, an ``aye'' vote, and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 273) recognizing the 188th anniversary of the independence of Greece and celebrating Greek and American democracy.

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.

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

I rise in support of this joint resolution marking the 188th anniversary of Greek independence. I would like to thank my good friend and our wonderful ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, for her leadership in ensuring that the House marks this important date.

As the birthplace of democracy, Greece stands alone among nations in its influence over our modern American government. Our Founding Fathers fashioned our society based, in significant part, on the political experience and philosophy of the ancient Greeks.

We stand here in a room today surrounded by images of some of the greatest thinkers in world history, many of them Greek. We stand in a building held up by ancient Greek architectural designs and techniques. And we continue to legislate today under Greek ideals of democratic governance.

From the ancient world of Homer and Plato to the theories of Hippocrates and Pythagoras, we are indebted to the Greek nation for its scientific, philosophical and artistic contributions to the world.

Throughout the modern era, Greece has been one of the United States' strongest allies, supporting us in every major international conflict. Today, our two nations express their mutual commitment safeguarding democracy and freedom through partnership in NATO and through bilateral defense cooperation.

Situated at the crossroads of three continents, Greece holds a strategic position in the Mediterranean region. Over the past decade, Athens has pursued path-breaking diplomacy that has resulted in meaningful rapprochement with its neighbor, Turkey. Last year, Prime Minister Kostas Karamanlis made an official visit to Ankara, the first Greek Prime Minister to do so in nearly half a century.

As we commemorate today the 188th anniversary of Greek independence from Ottoman rule, we would be remiss if we failed to acknowledge the rich contributions of Greek immigrants and their descendants to the United States. We hope to continue the mutual benefit of cultural exchange by welcoming soon, Greece, into the Visa Waiver Program.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the beautiful and noble country of Greece on its anniversary, and I join with Americans and democracy-lovers throughout the world in celebrating Greek heritage and our thriving Greek-American friendship.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield the remaining time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler).