Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 322) recognizing the 60th anniversary of the founding of the modern State of Israel and reaffirming the bonds of close friendship and cooperation between the United States and Israel.

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 15 seconds. I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 322 which recognizes the 60th anniversary of the founding of the modern State of Israel and reaffirms the bonds of close friendship and cooperation between the United States and Israel.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, in the 60 years since the founding of our ally Israel, the United States has had no greater friend in the Middle East. U.S.- Israeli friendship is based first and foremost on shared democratic values and our mutual pursuit of peace and stability in the Middle East, and it is buttressed by our Nation's unshakable commitment to Israel's security.

The remarkable story to Israel's foundation and survival is inspiring. Shortly after the decision by the United Nations to partition the British Mandate of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states, Israel declared its independence on May 14, 1948, in Tel Aviv. In response, Israel's Arab neighbors invaded the new and tiny Jewish state. And to the surprise of the so-called experts and pundits everywhere, the nascent Israel Defense Forces prevailed, defending the people of Israel and soundly defeating the Arab coalition.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy called the emergence of the State of Israel ``a miracle of the 20th century.'' However, Golda Meier once remarked that there had been ``too much self-sacrifice and too many lives lost for Israel's emergence to be considered a miracle.''

But the establishment and the evolution of the State of Israel can be considered, without doubt, one of the dazzling human achievements of our times.

Hundreds of thousands of Jews and their descendants escaped oppression, or worse, because Israel exists. Spurning the authoritarian model that dominates its region, and persevering in a sea of enmity, Israel has built a world-class civilization, a vibrant democracy, a thriving economy, and a culturally and academically rich society.

The American people, and particularly the United States Congress, have contributed mightily to Israel's sustenance and security over the years. Of that we are justifiably proud.

But Israel's triumphant story is also tinged with tragedy. Each year just before its independence day, Israel honors soldiers who have fallen in its defense. A siren sounds all over the nation, and Israelis everywhere stop to remember. This minute of silence is a poignant memory for all who have witnessed it. But it is also, unfortunately, symbolic of Israel's wider regional reality for Israel has lived under the Damoclesian threat since its birth.

For years the Arab world sought to drive Israel into the sea. But eventually, after much death and destruction, the visionary Egyptian president, Anwar Sadat, and the wise Jordanian, King Hussein, recognized the value of peace and coexistence with Israel. And although much of the Arab world's economic, cultural and political boycott of Israel remains intact and terrorism has never ceased, the prospect of a collective military attack on Israel fortunately has faded in recent years.

Nevertheless, Israel today lives under potentially greater threats to its well-being and existence than ever before. The daily rocket assaults from Gaza, controlled by fundamentalist Hamas, have reaped vast physical and psychological damage on the people of Sderot, not to mention the fact that they have killed more than a dozen Israelis. And increasingly, sophisticated rockets are being used. They are more deadly accurate by the day, and they have greater range. In Israel's north, Hezbollah's replenished missile supply poses an even greater threat.

On the other end of the military spectrum, a theologically based state, the Islamic Republic of Iran whose president says Israel should be wiped off the map, is developing nuclear

weapons and long-range missiles. Now is not the time to go into details about these threats. This body has spoken specifically to each of these dangers in the relatively recent past, and will do so again.

Now it is time to reaffirm our Nation's pledge to Israel that we will stand in solidarity with Israel against all violent assaults on its security and well-being. And most of all, it is time to say to our friend and ally, Israel, congratulations on your incredible social, political, economic, and technological achievements in the face of the most stupefying odds. We in the United States could not be prouder of our special relationship with you.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to recognize the chief sponsor of this resolution, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, a stalwart supporter of the State of Israel for all of her political life that I have known her, for 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I'm privileged to recognize for 1 minute a gentleman who has probably done as much as anyone in this House to promote the U.S.-Israeli relationship, including his own personal missions that he leads there, the majority leader, Mr. Hoyer of Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the majority whip for the House of Representatives, Representative Clyburn of South Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey, a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Mr. Sires.

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the vice chairman of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Klein).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the chairwoman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment, the gentlelady from California (Ms. Harman).

I yield the gentlelady 2 additional minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from New York, the chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee and a very knowledgeable and supportive advocate for the U.S.-Israel relationship, Mrs. Lowey.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

As Speaker Pelosi indicated in her own comments, the person that I think all of us in this Chamber miss very much in not being able to manage this resolution because of his own background and his own deep love and commitment for the State of Israel was our late chairman, Tom Lantos. This would have been something that he would have been personally very gratified with, and certainly wanted to join in the trip that the Speaker will be leading to the State of Israel in the next couple of weeks to help celebrate this anniversary. And so I think it's fair to say that everyone in the Chamber wishes that things might have been different, that he might have been here himself to manage this resolution. And we are looking forward to a group that the Speaker will be taking to Israel to actually personally participate in that celebration.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to two dear friends, Rita and Jack Sinder, who are being honored by Valley Beth Shalom's 60th Birthday of the State of Israel Dinner Celebration. They are being recognized for their lifetime of commitment to Israel, the Jewish people, and Valley Beth Shalom (VBS).

In 1967, Rita and Jack made their first trip to Israel just prior to the Six-Day War. The outbreak of hostilities forced their early departure on the eve of the war. The impact of their experience motivated them to mobilize the American Jewish community on Israel's behalf.

Their dedication to Israel, however, began long before the State of Israel was created.

Born in Vienna, Rita was immersed in Judaism as a young child. During WWII, when Hitler invaded Austria, Rita's father was shipped to Poland. He fortunately escaped and her mother managed to get herself and her daughters out of Austria. Rita was sent to London on Kindertransport and was not reunited with her family until the war ended. The determination, positive attitude, tremendous resilience, and adaptability that helped her survive still guide her life today. Rita's family was miraculously reunited in America, settling in Los Angeles where Rita attended Belmont High School and graduated from USC with a degree in Business Administration.

Jack, raised in the Orthodox tradition by his father, a prominent Rabbi in Michigan, earned a degree in Mechanical Engineering from Michigan State. He worked for a machine tool company that supplied parts to the big three automakers. He was asked by an associate to help send machine tools to the Jewish fighters in Israel, and together with his friends, he shipped tools which ultimately helped in the creation of the Israeli aircraft industry and the Israeli Air Force.

Rita and Jack have been an integral force in the Jewish Community, living up to the motto, ``Give of yourself first and only then ask others to join you.'' They have generously contributed their time and resources to VBS, the Jewish Federation, Israel Bonds, AIPAC and many other worthy organizations. They endowed the Midrasha Program at the VBS, where Jack formerly was a member of the Board of Directors and currently serves on the Board of Trustees and the Steering Committee. Rita has chaired many special events at VBS. She is past president of the San Fernando Valley Women's Division of Israel Bonds and the Golda Meir Club, an active member of AIPAC serving on its National Executive Board, and is past president and member of the Executive Board of the Women's Alliance of Israel. Rita and Jack are founding members of the American Jewish University's Wagner Program, university patrons and also patrons of the Wiesenthal Center.

Rita and Jack work together in their business, Jasin Co., he as a real estate developer and she as a real estate broker and property manager. They are the proud parents of Sherri and Alan and adore their three grandchildren. Rita and Jack's greatest joys are being with family and friends, boating and traveling.

I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Rita and Jack Sinder who have devoted their lives to working for the survival of the Jewish people and the State of Israel.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1077) calling on the Government of the People's Republic of China to end its crackdown in Tibet and enter into a substantive dialogue with His Holiness the Dalai Lama to find a negotiated solution that respects the distinctive language, culture, religious identity, and fundamental freedoms of all Tibetans, and for other purposes.

Madam 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.

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

Madam Speaker, I would first like to thank our Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, for introducing this important resolution. Speaker Pelosi's commitment to human rights generally, and Tibetan human rights specifically, is deep, well established, and unwavering.

For two decades in Congress, from her earlier stage as a junior Member to her current position as Speaker, she has used her powerful voice to speak on behalf of the Tibetan people. The bipartisan delegation that she recently led to Dharmsala to meet with the Dalai Lama and her authorship of this resolution demonstrate her continuing dedication on the Tibetan issue. I am, and all of us in this body should be, grateful for her leadership.

China's response to Tibetan protests over the last month has been tragically predictable. For half a century, the Tibetan people have struggled under the repressive policies of the Chinese authorities. And sadly, the current crackdown is only the most recent example of Beijing's mistreatment of Tibetans.

As the world watched events unfold inside China, we were sickened not only by the shock of seeing images of Chinese authorities beating Tibetans in the street, but also by the realization that these are images that we have seen before, and fear we may see again.

It was this legacy of repression that caused Tibetan monks to take to the streets on March 10th to peacefully protest Beijing's ongoing denial of religious, cultural, and human rights for the Tibetan people. And sadly, it was the same legacy that caused Beijing to respond with excessive force and a propaganda campaign designed to stoke Chinese nationalism by demonizing Tibetans and their spiritual leader, His Holiness, the Dalai Lama.

If China wishes to be viewed by the world as a truly responsible power, it must put an immediate end to its shortsighted policies towards Tibet which are morally reprehensible, irresponsible and dangerous.

Beijing cannot credibly claim that is seeks genuine reconciliation with the Tibetan people when its policies force Buddhist monks to denounce their allegiance to the Dalai Lama, deny educational and economic opportunities to Tibetans, and threaten Tibetan culture by encouraging an overwhelming influx of Han Chinese migrants into Tibetan areas. This resolution not only condemns Beijing's crackdown on Tibetan protesters, it also urges China to begin to move away from its policy of repression and incitement of ethnic tensions.

The resolution calls on Beijing to allow international monitors to assess the situation in Tibetan areas in China and ensure that those injured in the protest receive adequate medical treatment.

In addition, the resolution urges Beijing to hold direct and results- based discussions with the Dalai Lama in order to come to a resolution of the Tibetan issue, one that respects Chinese territorial integrity and sovereignty, but at the same time provides genuine religious and cultural autonomy for Tibetans.

The resolution instructs the Department of State to reconsider its decision not to include China among the countries with the worst human rights records in the Department's 2007 Human Rights Report.

Madam Speaker, at this point, once again, I would like to thank Speaker Pelosi for introducing this important resolution, which I strongly support, and ask my colleagues to do the same.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes of time to a member of the committee, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a member of our committee, a stalwart fighter for human rights, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on both sides.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

Madam Speaker, at this time, may I ask unanimous consent that we be granted an additional 10 minutes, 5 minutes for the majority, 5 minutes for the minority, on the time already allotted for this resolution debate.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Steve Kagen.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California, the author of the resolution, the Speaker of the House of Representatives (Ms. Pelosi).

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for those wonderful worlds, for elevating this Chamber.

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

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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 H.R. 5501.

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

Madam Chairman, on the President's request 5 years ago, Congress launched a global campaign to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS and to treat and care for those who are already afflicted. The United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Act was a bipartisan bill from its inception. Today, the Foreign Affairs Committee again brings a bipartisan global HIV/AIDS bill to the floor, and again this important reauthorization bill enjoys strong support from the White House.

The negotiations that brought forth this compromise bill were conducted in the same bipartisan spirit that guided the 2003 act into law, a spirit made possible by close cooperation between two former chairmen of the Foreign Affairs Committee, our late colleagues Tom Lantos and Henry Hyde, and I am pleased to note that this important reauthorization bill is named for these two foreign policy titans in recognition of their contributions to battling HIV/AIDS overseas.

As a direct result of the extraordinarily successful law we passed 5 years ago, the United States has provided lifesaving drugs to nearly 1.5 million men, women and children; supported care for nearly 7 million people, including 2.7 million orphans and vulnerable children; and prevented an estimated 150,000 infant infections around the world.

The 2003 legislation firmly established the United States as the leading provider in the world of HIV/AIDS assistance for prevention, treatment and care. It has reminded the global community that Americans are a compassionate and generous people, and so has helped to repair our Nation's badly-damaged image overseas. In many ways, that legislation has had great healing power.

Most importantly, with this initiative we have ensured that HIV/AIDS is no longer the certain death sentence it was just 5 short years ago. Hospital corridors that were jammed with AIDS patients waiting to die now brim with hope as lifesaving drugs are dispensed.

The reauthorization bill before the House today reaffirms our commitment to the programs and policies established 5 years ago. The 2003 legislation

worked well as an emergency intervention, but it must now be modified to reflect the constantly changing nature of the HIV/AIDS crisis. We also have 5 years of experience under our belts and we know what works and what does not.

The law we passed in 2003 was designed to deal with the emergency phase of the global HIV/AIDS crisis. The Lantos-Hyde bill will move our programs towards long-term sustainability that will keep the benefits of U.S. global HIV/AIDS programs flowing to those in need. With this reauthorization act, host governments will also gain the ability to plan, direct and manage prevention treatment and care programs that have been established with U.S. assistance.

The 2003 legislation authorized $15 billion over 5 years. In response to the desperate need for lifesaving medicine and a greater number of trained health care workers in nations hard hit by HIV/AIDS, the bill before us authorizes $50 billion over 5 years for these three pandemics.

The 2003 law relied upon the health care workforce already in place in the developing world, yet in many of the hardest hit areas of the world there are simply not enough doctors and other health care workers to meet the challenges of this pandemic. The Lantos-Hyde legislation invests new funds in training new professionals and paraprofessionals, as well as building existing capacity.

The 2003 law focused on creating new programs to tackle the HIV/AIDS crisis. The reauthorization bill increases the number of individuals receiving prevention, treatment and care services. It also builds stronger linkages between the global HIV/AIDS initiative and existing programs designed to alleviate hunger, improve health care, and bolster HIV education in schools, an approach endorsed by the President's Global AIDS Coordinator just a few short weeks ago.

The 2003 law gave inadequate attention to the needs of women and girls. The new legislation remedies this situation by strengthening prevention and treatment programs aimed at this especially vulnerable population.

The reauthorization legislation also eliminates the one-third abstinence-only earmark, but requires a balanced approach to HIV/AIDS sexual transmission prevention programs and a report regarding this approach in countries where the epidemic has become generalized.

The bill before you today is a compromise in the best sense of the word, and it is in the true spirit of the great leaders of this committee who guided the 2003 act into law, Chairmen Lantos and Hyde. This bill is the result of more than a year of preparatory work and weeks of discussions, concluding with a bipartisan agreement with the White House. President Bush has indicated his support and his intention to sign it into law as soon as Congress acts.

For all its strengths, the bill before the House today is not perfect. No compromise ever is. No one got everything they wanted in this compromise legislation. But with this agreement, we have maintained the strong, bipartisan coalition behind the global HIV/AIDS initiative which has been critical to winning rapidly increasing funding levels for this important initiative.

Madam Chairman, 20 million innocent men, women and children have perished from HIV/AIDS, and 40 million around the globe are HIV positive. Each and every day another 6,000 people become infected with HIV. We have a moral imperative to act, and to act decisively.

I will speak more lengthily about the subject, but I do want to initially extend my particular appreciation to our ranking member, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who played a critical role in working with the majority to reach this compromise. A number of Members on her side from the committee were active. Don Payne, the gentleman from New Jersey, the chairman of the Africa Subcommittee, was critically involved, as was Congresswoman Barbara Lee from California, who played such a key role in the 2003 law, as well as a number of other people, such as Congressman Carnahan. I can't mention everyone who was involved, but this was truly a collaborative effort that started long before I became Chair of the committee, with great work by Chairman Lantos last year and with the staff of the committee.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlelady for her wonderful statement, and I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Madam Chairman, before I respond with my views, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) to express his views on the subject of this colloquy.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes to respond to the concerns raised during this colloquy. I thank my colleagues for raising these important concerns.

H.R. 5501 provides clear and specific instructions to the USAID Administrator and the Global AIDS Coordinator to address the food and nutrition needs of individuals with HIV/AIDS and other affected individuals, including orphans and vulnerable children; and to fully integrate food and nutrition support in HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment, and care programs carried out under this act.

I would like to emphasize that the committee and I personally share our colleagues' concerns about the negative effect rising costs are having on our long-term and emergency food aid programs. This is a matter that has our most serious attention, because it affects a wide array of our food aid and development programs, including the effectiveness and success of this program.

I want to reassure my colleagues that I will be working over the coming weeks to strengthen and clarify in the bill that food security and nutrition programs, especially those referred to as wrap-around services, are not to be funded with monies diverted from other standing commitments to address food and security elsewhere in the world or in these countries.

I yield 30 seconds' additional time to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health, and a key architect of this legislation.

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere. And remember, this is a bill about HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis. He played a major role in the tuberculosis section of the bill, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to yield to my friend from California, someone who has been heavily invested in getting our attention on this issue and passing the legislation, putting, fashioning and passing the legislation in 2003 and again this time, our gentlelady from California, Barbara Lee, for 5 minutes.

I yield the gentlelady an additional 2 minutes.

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 liberal minute to the majority leader, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and the gentleman is absolutely correct. Part 2 of the report is the definitive report on the legislation being considered by the House today.

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my colleague from California (Ms. Woolsey), the chairman of the Education and Labor Subcommittee on Workforce Protections and a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague from California, the gentlelady, Maxine Waters.

MS. WATERS. Madam Chairman and Members, I am pleased and proud to be here today to commend not only Chairman Berman but the late Tom Lantos and Henry Hyde for their wisdom and their foresight in putting together this most important legislation.

Ladies and gentlemen, I just returned from south Africa and I am pleased to announce that while I was there, I was recognized and given the Order of the Companions of Oliver Tombo Award for my work to help dismantle apartheid in South Africa, and basically for being a friend of south Africa's. I was very proud.

But as I sat there talking with President Umbeke and others, I was reminded that in south Africa there is an estimated 5.5 million people living with HIV and AIDS. That is more than any other country in the world. Over 18 percent of the adult population of south Africa is infected by HIV. Infected persons include thousands of well-educated professionals, such as doctors, nurses, civil servants, and teachers.

In recognizing that we have done a great job in helping to promote democracy and get rid of apartheid, the enemy now is HIV and AIDS and tuberculosis. They are losing all of their professionals. They don't have the personnel to carry out the plan that they have put together to continue to move south Africa to where south Africa needs to be.

I was very proud that they had built 2.3 million new houses over the last 10 years. But, again, tuberculosis, HIV and AIDS is destroying this population. This legislation will help this country and other countries. These are our friends. They love us. And they love us for having been involved in the struggle to help save them. These are countries that we will be able to count on in the world because we have come to their aid.

Let me also recognize that there were many Americans traveling in South Africa. Those Americans who were there are being served by people who live in areas where tuberculosis and HIV is rampant.

So we need this for protection and security of all peoples.

Might I inquire of the remaining time.

Madam Chairman, we have no further requests for time. I would like to make a few closing comments, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It is an accident of fate and hanging around a long time that put me in the position of managing this bill today, and it is the first bill not on the Suspension Calendar that has come out of the committee since I have become Chair. But the fact is the work on this legislation began a very long time before I became the Chair.

They have been mentioned before, but there are so many new initiatives and so much thoughtful logic underlying this legislation that I thought it would pay to once again mention a group of staff people who, working under the leadership of our staff director, Dr. Bob King, spent a huge amount of time working for Chairman Lantos, working with the minority staff, to craft what became a strong, bipartisan piece of legislation:

Peter Yeo; Pearl Alice Marsh; Kristin Wells; David Abramowitz; Macani Toungara; Heather Flynn from Chairman Payne's Africa Subcommittee; Christos Tsentas from Congresswoman Barbara Lee's staff; Naomi Seiler and Jessica Boyer from the Government Oversight Committee staff, all played important roles on our side in working on this legislation. Yleem Poblette on the minority staff made major contributions.

The result is a bipartisan product where in a way we have internalized on our side the logic of efforts to change behavior and recognized the validity of abstinence programs in the context of a comprehensive approach to this problem and accepted the value of faith- based organizations, and the minority has accepted the logic that this is a fundamental, moral and humanitarian concern that we should address and be willing to put a lot of value to, because we know it works.

We know there is a direct relationship between the resources we put into this program and the lives saved, the people who can avoid and prevent it, and that it has implications beyond just the moral and humanitarian dimension, as Speaker Pelosi and Congresswoman Ros- Lehtinen said, in terms of security and economic welfare and economic growth in so many parts of the world, which ultimately all inure to our benefit and our national interest.

So, once again, I am very pleased to be part of this process with my partner, the ranking member.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Madam Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding, and I rise to join you in supporting the gentleman's amendment. What was interesting to me was to learn, and there are many things I learned in this bill that I didn't know, but one was that about 1.2 billion people globally lack safe water to consume in the least-developed countries, and up to 90 percent of AIDS patients, 90 percent, suffer and frequently die from the chronic diarrheal diseases that the gentleman discussed. These diseases are caused by the use of unsafe water.

This is a compelling amendment. I join the gentlewoman in supporting it.

Madam Chairman, while I do not oppose the amendment, I ask unanimous consent to take the time in opposition.

Madam Chairman, the gentleman's amendment, and I have spoken to him about it, encourages the Global Fund Inspector General to not only audit its grantees, but also the subgrantees and subrecipients who receive Global Fund money.

Obviously, I share the gentleman's concern that transparency and accountability in the use of HIV/AIDS assistance provided through the Global Fund is critically important for all the reasons that he stated. The Global Fund, in all fairness, I do want to point out, has shown, I believe, its commitment to that transparency and accountability. It has a new inspector general, and has instituted an enhanced accounting system that focuses on improving accountability among subrecipients. But the principle of this amendment makes sense. While there are some technical issues I will want to talk to him about as we move through the legislative process, I look forward to working with him on it and I certainly urge the adoption of the amendment.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Florida, the ranking member.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the chairman of the Africa Subcommittee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).

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

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

I support this amendment. I congratulate Representatives McCollum and Jackson for their leadership in adding these hard-hit nations to the focus country list.

All three of these Southern African countries suffer from both high HIV/AIDS prevalence rates and high poverty rates, with devastating effects. The statistics in all three countries regarding AIDS have been put on the record by both the gentlelady from Minnesota and the gentleman from New Jersey, so I will just add my words of support for the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the motion to recommit.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First, I appreciate the compliments of my friend from Wisconsin. I prefer that the compliments be withheld and the motion to slash this bill by 40 percent be rejected, although I do appreciate the implication of his comments that a recommittal motion that is forthwith is not intended to kill the bill and that, therefore, the recommittal motions that are not forthwith are intended to kill the bills they are made to.

But getting to the merits of this. The purpose of my comments is directly to the other side. I know the easy vote, even for those who support this bill, is to vote both to cut some money and to support the minority on their motion to recommit.

But I would like to suggest that in this particular case, given what has transpired in terms of putting together this bipartisan bill, both on the merits of the motion to recommit and on the message it sends about how we can work on a bipartisan basis in the future, this motion is wrong and that Members on the other side should oppose it along with the Members on our side.

First, on the facts. The administration supports this bill and supports our number on this bill. To the extent they have concerns about what the level of appropriations may be in this year, their statement of administration position directly says, talk about the level of appropriation; don't cut the authorization.

Secondly, the U.N. HIV/AIDS commission, which I'm not a fan of a lot of different agencies that start with ``U.N.,'' but this one is the preeminent authority, talks about the incredible remaining need. And in the issue of absorptive capacity, this was the same argument made in 2003 against a $15 billion authorization for which the Republican Congress appropriated far more than the authorization because we were able to see an absorptive capacity, and we saved well over a million lives.

But here we are dealing with a situation where there are 35 million people worldwide that are still living with HIV/AIDS. This is a program that works. The combination of changing behavior, prevention, and treatment is saving lives. I don't like to throw the words ``moral imperative'' around. It's usually used for anything people feel passionately about. But talk about pro-life, I can't think of any single program that I have been involved with where we are going to be more pro-life than in pushing this with programs that work, with the capacity that can be absorbed. No one is saying we are going to spend $50 billion in the next 5 years. We are going to obligate, based on the appropriation moneys, and those moneys will be spent probably over the course of 8 to 10 years. That's the way this appropriation process works, as everyone knows.

My final point is the ranking member and I, the White House directly, the President and his chief of staff were directly involved, the Republican leadership in this body, we put together a bipartisan bill. Part of the key negotiation was about the number. In return for that, a number of issues of importance to the minority were preserved in this bill: the preservation of the concept of behavior change through abstinence and faithfulness; the understanding that approved family planning programs would be the ones that were funded. A variety of different aspects. The belief in the use of faith-based institutions.

How are we, in the future, going to come together on bipartisan programs where the deal is made and then all of a sudden a key part of the quid pro quo, the other side says ``no'' to?

I would suggest, sure there are issues about what is our fiscal condition and what can we do, and the appropriations could be weighing these very carefully. But this was a fundamental agreement to maintain a bipartisan tradition on this legislation named after Henry Hyde and Tom Lantos, both of whom worked in that capacity.

I think this motion to recommit massively undercuts that whole bipartisan approach, and I would urge my colleagues to defeat it.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of H.R. 5501, to include corrections in spelling, punctuation, section numbering and cross-referencing, and in the insertion of appropriate headings.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 997) expressing the strong support of the House of Representatives for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to enter into a Membership Action Plan with Georgia and Ukraine, as amended.

Madam 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.

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

I am pleased to support this resolution that expresses the House's backing for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to enter into a Membership Action Plan with Ukraine and Georgia at the NATO summit later this week. This resolution was originally introduced as Senate Resolution 439 by Senators Biden and Lugar, and was passed unanimously on February 14.

I am grateful to my distinguished colleagues on the European Subcommittee, Chairman Wexler and Ranking Member Gallegly, for enabling the House to add its voice to the growing consensus in favor of extending MAP to two of our key allies, and particularly to Congressman Wexler, who, without his prodding, this resolution might not have appeared on the floor at this particular time.

From April 2 to April 4, heads of state or governments from the 26 member countries of NATO will gather in Bucharest for the largest summit ever. Indeed, NATO has more than doubled in size since its founding by 12 states in 1949. The seven post-Communist countries that became members 3 years ago are now making significant contributions to the work of the Alliance.

In addition to the crucial discussions about the future of NATO operations in Kosovo and Afghanistan, the Bucharest summit will address further enlargement of the Alliance. Decisions on full membership will be made about three Adriatic countries, Albania, Croatia, and Macedonia. Judgments will also be made about the extension of Membership Action Plans to Ukraine and Georgia. This resolution reaffirms that this is the right decision at the right time.

It is important to note that Ukraine and Georgia both have taken the initiative of formally asking the NATO Secretary General for integration into the Membership Action Plan. Both countries have made considerable political, economic, legal, and defense reforms in the two decades since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Ukraine and Georgia have also been active participants in international efforts to preserve peace and stability, contributing to numerous peacekeeping missions around the world. Their continued democratic development and military initiative should be supported.

While it is true that Ukraine and Georgia experienced domestic political crisis last year that raised some doubts about their readiness for MAP, it is equally true that both countries firmly maintained their commitment to pursuing a democratic path and strengthening their political institutions. We must continue to encourage them in this vitally important journey.

Secondly, it is important to recognize that MAP does not confer NATO membership. Rather, it provides a structured reform program that offers support in a broad range of political and technical areas in order to prepare applicant countries for the responsibilities of membership.

It is clear that both countries must complete significant reforms before they can be considered for membership. They, like all countries who have joined the Alliance before them, must be judged to have met all necessary criteria. Even then, all member countries must unanimously support their accession.

In closing, I would like to briefly address the concern about the potential reaction of Russia to the extension of MAP to Georgia and Ukraine. While NATO was originally established as a military alliance to counter potential aggression by the Soviet Union, it now deals with a variety of security threats in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. The Alliance is clearly no longer aimed at Russia. In 1997, NATO and Russia agreed to work together to build a stable, secure, and undivided continent. This partnership was strengthened in 2002, with the creation of the NATO-Russia Council as a vehicle to facilitate joint action. Indeed, President Putin is expected to participate in this week's summit.

While the Alliance is right to be cognizant of the geopolitical impact of its actions, it should focus its assessment about the extension of MAP on the merits of the countries concerned. The U.S. and our allies should continue to nurture and strengthen their relationships with Russia. No one, President Putin nor anyone in Russia, should have a veto power over potential NATO applicants.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the chairman of the European Subcommittee, one of the two key authors of the resolution, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler).

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 185) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the creation of refugee populations in the Middle East, North Africa, and the Persian Gulf region as a result of human rights violations, as amended.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I would first like to commend my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), for introducing this important resolution.

When the state of Israel was founded in 1948, more than 150,000 Jews lived in Iraq. Iraq was truly a cradle of Jewish civilization, a site of Jewish learning from which one of Judaism's holiest books, the Talmud, emerged. For more than two millennia, as history books will attest, Jews also made vital contributions to wider Iraqi society.

Indeed, like Jews throughout the Arab world, Iraqi Jews for most of that long era enjoyed a quality of life far better than that of most Jewish communities in Europe.

That all changed for good in 1948, and in the years immediately preceding 1948, when the state of Israel declared its independence. Throughout the Arab world, Jews then became the objects of official scorn and often were fired from their jobs en masse. In many places, violence ensued against Jewish communities. Continuing to use Iraq as an example, that 150,000-strong community by 1952 had shrunk to a mere 30,000. The rest, the other 120,000, had effectively been forced out.

Overall, approximately 850,000 Jewish residents of the Arab world were expelled or otherwise forced to leave their homes, abandoning possessions and patrimony, in the years following Israel's creation in 1948. Vibrant, generations-old communities withered to near-negligible numbers.

That Iraqi community of 150,000 Jews in 1948 has dwindled to about ten today. In Egypt, a community of 75,000 in 1945 now numbers 50 to 100. In Aden, Yemen, a community of 63,000 in 1948 has shrunk to about 200 today. And 140,000 Jews lived in Tunisia in 1948; fewer than 100 remain. In Morocco, which is hailed today as the bastion of Jewish-Arab coexistence in the Arab world, a thriving community of more than a quarter million Jews lived their lives in peace before 1948. Today, there are perhaps 5,000 Jews residing in Morocco. Some left willingly; most felt they had no choice.

For centuries, long before the advent of Islam and long after it, Jewish communities lived peacefully and often prosperously and productively in Arab lands, among Arab people.

Their forced relocation and the material value they lost when they were compelled to abandon their homes and other property in Arab countries has never been redressed. Not one Jew from the Arab world has been compensated for his losses. Each one had to start over from scratch in his new land.

Compare the Jewish refugee experience with the Palestinian refugee experience. Neither Jewish refugees themselves, nor Israel, which was an underdeveloped country at the time it hosted most of these refugees, sought international aid from United Nations organizations or other international organizations. Both refugees and hosts envisioned and sought full integration into the larger society. The Arab world, in contrast, demanded the international community foot the bill for the refugees, who were to be kept in camps that, to this day, breed frustration, hatred and dependence.

The result of these contrasting approaches is this: While the plight of Palestinian refugees is well known throughout the world, has been the subject of numerous U.N. resolutions, and has been a major element in every Arab-Israeli peace plan, the plight of Jewish refugees is rarely mentioned.

Nevertheless, the rights and redress of Jewish refugees deserve recognition in any peace settlement. And, indeed, numerous international agreements pertaining to the Arab-Israeli conflict have been codified with the rights of Jewish refugees in mind.

U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 calls for a ``just settlement to the refugee problem,'' without limiting that problem to Palestinians. Presidents Carter and Clinton each explicitly stated that the issue of Jewish refugees must be part of any comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace agreement.

And lest there be any doubt about their status, let me point out this very important fact: The United Nations High Commission on Refugees in 1957 mandated that Jewish people who fled Arab countries are, indeed, ``refugees.''

The right of Jewish refugees from Middle Eastern lands to seek redress does not in any way conflict with the right of Palestinian refugees to seek redress, and the resolution before us states this explicitly. This resolution merely expresses the sense of Congress that Jewish refugees also should not be denied their legitimate rights.

We are simply seeking to ensure that any comprehensive Middle East settlement is just and fully just to all the parties. That sentiment of basic fairness is one I fully embrace.

I strongly support this resolution. And I again congratulate my colleague, Mr. Nadler, for offering it.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the sponsor of the resolution, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 154) expressing the sense of Congress that the fatal radiation poisoning of Russian dissident and writer Alexander Litvinenko raises significant concerns about the potential involvement of elements of the Russian Government in Mr. Litvinenko's death and about the security and proliferation of radioactive materials, as amended.

Madam 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.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support this resolution that notes the tragic poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko, expresses concern about the potential involvement of elements of the Russian Government in his death, and highlights the need to ensure the security of radioactive materials.

And I'd like to thank my good friend and the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, for introducing this important measure.

In late November 2006, Americans joined with many around the world in watching with horror as a youthful, energetic Russian dissident and British citizen dramatically changed appearances within days. Who can forget the piercing blue eyes of the bald and gaunt man staring intently at the camera from a London hospital bed?

After the completion of an autopsy, British health officials concluded that Alexander Litvinenko had died on November 23, 2006 of radiation poisoning caused by ingesting the radioactive element Polonium-210. British law enforcement officials classified his death as murder.

Alexander Litvinenko was an agent in the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation at the time when Vladimir Putin ran the agency. Mr. Litvinenko was fired from the service in 1998, then was arrested and briefly held without conviction after accusing senior Security Service officials of assassination plots.

Mr. Litvinenko successfully sought asylum in Britain, from where he continued to accuse the Security Service of involvement in illegal activities.

The night before falling ill, Mr. Litvinenko reportedly dined with three Russian citizens, including former Federal Security Service Agent Andrei Lugovoi.

On May 22, 2007, British authorities announced their intent to prosecute Mr. Lugovoi for the murder of Mr. Litvinenko. After Russia refused to extradite Mr. Lugovoi to Britain, a political dispute ensued between the two countries that resulted in the mutual expulsion of diplomats.

The murder of Alexander Litvinenko clearly raises disturbing questions about how elements of the Russian Government appear to deal with their enemies and perceived threats.

It also raises worrying questions about the security and proliferation of radioactive material. 97 percent of the world's legal production of Polonium-210 occurs at the Avangard nuclear facility in Russia, the country that is also the world's leading exporter of this substance for commercial purposes.

If the Russian government is not responsible for Litvinenko's death, as President Putin has stated, then it should be urgently investigating the security of the production, storage, distribution and export of Polonium-210 to prevent grave threats to international security.

The resolution calls on President Bush and Secretary Rice to urge President Putin and President-elect Medvedev to cooperate with British authorities in finding answers to ensure the safety and security of all our citizens.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee has explained the problem addressed by H.R. 1312. I just want to add a short history of the bipartisan work on this issue. I also want to express my appreciation to Chairman Conyers for moving the bill and to some of my colleagues who have been advocating for this solution for quite some time.

For several years now, a bipartisan group of Members has been urging USCIS to find and administrative remedy for lengthy processing times experienced by arts organizations petitioning for O and P visas. In October 2003, I was joined by 15 Members in sending a letter to USCIS Director Aguirre encouraging him to implement a number of reforms in the processing of arts-related visas. At the time, arts organizations filing for O and P visas were in a real catch-22. They were not allowed to file visa petitions earlier than 6 months before a performance, but USCIS was routinely taking longer than 6 months to adjudicate the petitions.

To their credit, USCIS did what they could to remedy the problem by regulation. But USCIS could not do administratively what we recommended, which was to create a consequence for failing to meet the required processing time for O and P petitions. That was the impetus for this bill.

The only remedy available without the bill was to pay for premium processing. Telling a nonprofit arts organization to pay $1,000 for expedited process is in effect saying: ``You've paid $390 to file this petition that we're required by law to process in 14 days, but for an extra $1000, we might process in 15 days.'' That just doesn't make any sense.

What we've done in this bill is create an incentive for timely processing.

Solving this problem has been a joint effort. We have had the benefit of input from the Department of Homeland Security, as well as the cooperation of Ranking Member Lamar Smith, who worked with us to tighten the language of the bill at markup. I want to express my appreciation for the collaboration of my colleagues Mr. Lungren, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Chabot, our former colleague on the Judiciary Committee, Mrs. Blackburn, and the many other Members who joined in the efforts leading up to this legislation.

International arts exchange is, in a sense, cultural diplomacy. Just a few weeks ago, the New York Philharmonic made a historic trip to Pyongyang. I understand that the 300-member delegation was the largest U.S. presence in North Korea since the end of the Korean war. The Philharmonic's musical director called the visit ``a gesture of friendship and goodwill from one people to another.'' These exchanges may not resolve the world's conflicts, but they create bonds that can pay substantial dividends in years to come.

The ARTS Act is meant to encourage and facilitate these exchanges, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to call to the attention of my colleagues the 50th anniversary of the European Parliament--the legislative body of the European Union. It is a great pleasure to celebrate this very special day in the history of the European Union. Seldom in so short a period as 50 years do we have the opportunity to witness the birth and evolution of such an important democratic institution.

In the 25 years that I have served as a Member of the United States Congress, the European Parliament has undergone a dramatic transformation. It began as an institution whose members were appointed by national parliaments, and it played a minor role in the policy- making process. Today. the European Parliament is a truly democratic legislature whose members are elected by the popular vote of the people in all member states of the European Union. Furthermore, it has a key role in approving the members of the European Commission and in adopting the EU budget. As the United States Congress, the European Parliament also has significant responsibility for conducting oversight of EU executive governmental institutions.

Madam Speaker, the first half of the 20th century was marked by two bloody World Wars that devastated the European continent and produced deep divisions between European countries. World War I produced sharp national differences among the Europeans, which continued to fester even after that war was concluded. At the end of World War II. Europe was divided by the ``Iron Curtain,'' which ideologically, and politically separated the continent's peoples. During the era of the Cold War, the unification of the Western and Eastern Germany seemed like an impossible dream let alone the unification of Western and I astern Europe. however, the last half-century has seen the remarkable growth of an ever closer union of people and states.

Indeed, the success of the European Union has produced significant changes in the make up of Europe. The European Union began as an institution for economic cooperation among six Western European nations in 1951, but it has evoked into a political and economic union that now embraces 27 European nations, including 10 former communist states of Central and Eastern Europe. The European Union has brought peace, stability and prosperity to almost 500 million people.

In 1951, Madam Speaker, the Treaty of Paris, which created the European Coal and Steel Community provided a minor rule for a Parliamentary Assembly. This body evolved and was institutionalized as the European Parliamentary Assembly in the Treat of Rome that was signed seven years later. the Assembly held its first meeting on March 19, 1951, under the leadership of its first president and one of Europe's great visionaries, Robert Schuman. At that time the parliament was only a consultative body composed of 142 members appointed by the national parliaments of the member states. The members conducted their business in four official languages.

In 1962, the body became the European Parliament, and in 1979, its members were chosen for the first time through direct elections. Over time, treaty revisions have expanded the powers of the European Parliament over legislation, the budget and executive oversight. The European Parliament now has 785 members who work in 23 official languages, and it represents the 492 million citizens of the 27 member states of the European Union.

Madam Speaker, I am delighted that the United States House of Representatives has a cooperative working relationship with the European Parliament. For the last three decades. delegations of our respective legislatures have met twice a year to discuss our common goals and have endeavored to bring the United States and the European Union ever closer together. Currently this exchange--the Trans-Atlantic Legislators Dialog, TLD--is led on the United States side by Chairwoman Shelly Berkley of Nevada and Vice Chairmen Cliff Stearns of Florida and Jim Costa of Californina. The European Parliament delegation is ably led by Jonathan Evans, a member of the European Parliament from the United Kingdom.

Over the last half-century, Madam Speaker, the United States has worked with our European allies to promote democracy, the rule of law, free market economies and human rights around the world. The 50th anniversary of the European Parliament provides an excellent occasion for all of us to reflect upon our friendship with our colleagues in the European Parliament and to celebrate with them this successful trans- Atlantic cooperation. The ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon and the parliamentary elections in June 2009 should further reinforce the European Parliament's critical role in the European Union decision- making process. I congratulate the European Parliament on its first half-century and look forward to continued collaboration in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1084) to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956, and the Foreign Service Act of 1980 to build operational readiness in civilian agencies, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I want to first thank our colleague and friend from California, a valuable member of the Appropriations Committee, an individual who has always had a long-term interest in the issue of capacity building in our international relations effort, Congressman Sam Farr, who introduced this vitally important legislation and who has an unwavering commitment to restoring the strength and expertise of U.S. civilian agencies.

Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has been engaged in a stabilization or reconstruction operation once every 18 to 24 months. During the same period, the backbone of America's diplomatic and development might, the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development, has been substantially weakened by staff cuts, hiring freezes and consolidation.

Despite new hires, there are only 6,600 professional Foreign Service officers in the State Department. According to Secretary of Defense Gates, this is less than the personnel of one carrier battle group, and allegedly less than the number of active military band members.

Likewise, at a time when the United States is engaged in two massive stabilization and reconstruction efforts and countless other emergencies, USAID, America's premier development agency, barely has 1,000 Foreign Service officers. Compare that number to the height of the Cold War, when it had more than 4,500 Foreign Service officers with expertise in engineering, agricultural development, rule of law, and civil administration. In essence, we have created a situation where those who are best suited for complex stabilization missions simply aren't there.

Mr. Speaker, this personnel imbalance is unacceptable and dangerously shortsighted. Stabilization operations require expertise in smart skills, such as job creation, rule of law programs, fortification of police forces, and good governance training, which lies within America's civilian agencies. Amazingly, at a time we need to call on this expertise the most, the U.S. Government capacity for these skills is at its weakest.

We need look no further than Iraq to see the dangers of overburdening our military with stabilization and reconstruction activities for which they were not trained, nor for which they are best suited. As Secretary Gates aptly observed, ``Brave men and women in uniform have stepped up to the task, with field artillerymen and tankers building schools and mentoring city councils, usually in a language they don't speak. But it is no replacement for the real thing, civilian involvement and expertise.''

The U.S. needs experienced police officers to train local Iraqi counterparts. We need USAID personnel to assist with municipal administration, sewage treatment, banking, electricity, and thousands of other tasks. This bill aims to successfully address upcoming threats and prosecute the long-term fight against terror by fortifying the U.S. Government's civilian capacity to deal with instability, particularly in areas where terrorists thrive.

The Reconstruction and Stabilization Civilian Management Act of 2008 authorizes the establishment of a Readiness Response Corps to plug the gap regarding civilian capacity. The corps will include active and standby components composed of Federal employees, and a reserve component made up of civilian experts from State and local governments and nongovernmental organizations.

To effectively establish the corps, the bill includes several innovative personnel provisions which ensure that the State Department and other Federal employees will not be prejudiced by joining the corps and that the Secretary of State will have unambiguous authority to hire personnel appropriate for the corps, including experts from Federal, State and local agencies. The bill also authorizes the President to use up to $100 million in any given fiscal year for the purposes of furnishing assistance to stabilize and reconstruct a country or region at risk.

Finally, the bill codifies the establishment of an Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization within the Department of State.

Mr. Speaker, we expect this bill to accomplish two key goals. In the short term, the bill will ease the burden on the Armed Forces by allowing the State Department to deploy civilians in crisis situations previously staffed by the military. In the long term, the bill will enable the U.S. Government to project ``smart power'' in situations that cry for such civilian expertise.

For these reasons, I thank my colleague, Mr. Farr, for introducing this legislation, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the chief sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to a gentleman who has been very interested in this whole process of capacity building, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).

Mr. Speaker, before I yield back my time, I would like to include for the Record an exchange of letters regarding H.R. 1084 between the gentleman from California, the chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (Mr. Waxman), and me.

House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and

Government Reform,

Washington, DC, March 4, 2008.

Hon. Howard L. Berman,

Acting Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Rayburn House

Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Berman: I am writing to confirm our mutual

understanding with respect to the consideration of H.R. 1084,

the Reconstruction and Stabilization Civilian Management Act

of 2008.

As you know, on February 27, 2008, the Committee on Foreign

Affairs ordered H.R. 1084 reported to the House. The

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (Oversight

Committee) appreciates your effort to consult regarding those

provisions of H.R. 1084 that fall within the Oversight

Committee's jurisdiction, including matters related to the

federal workforce.

In the interest of expediting consideration of H.R. 1084,

the Oversight Committee will not separately consider this

legislation. The Oversight Committee does so, however, with

the understanding that this does not prejudice the Oversight

Committee's jurisdictional interests and prerogatives

regarding this bill or similar legislation.

I respectfully request your support for the appointment of

outside conferees from the Oversight Committee should H.R.

1084 or a similar Senate bill be considered in conference

with the Senate. I also request that you include our exchange

of letters on this matter in the Report by the Committee on

Foreign Affairs on H.R. 1084 and in the Congressional Record

during consideration of this legislation on the House floor.

Thank you for your attention to these matters.

Sincerely,

Henry A. Waxman,

Chairman.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 278) supporting Taiwan's fourth direct and democratic presidential elections in March 2008, 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 concurrent resolution under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution, and yield myself 5 minutes.

I would like first to thank the ranking member of the full committee, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, for introducing this important resolution.

The United States' relationship with Taiwan speaks to the great importance of democracy in our foreign policy. Over the past 60 years, the U.S.-Taiwan relationship has undergone dramatic changes, but it is Taiwan's development of democracy that underpins the strong U.S.-Taiwan friendship we enjoy today.

Initially our relations were defined by a shared strategic purpose of containing the spread of communism in Asia. This Cold War imperative served our strategic goals, but compelled us to cooperate with an authoritarian dictatorship in Taipei that failed to respect basic human rights. With the normalization of relations with Beijing in 1973, the Cold War's strategic landscape changed, and, over time, could have threatened to diminish the importance of the U.S.-Taiwan partnership. But Taiwan's commitment to democracy prevented such a split.

As the PRC liberalized and opened up to the world economically, Taiwan's political system evolved from authoritarianism to one of the strongest democratic systems in Asia, and in the process the U.S.- Taiwan relationship transformed from one based solely on shared interest to one based on shared values.

Today Taiwan is a flourishing, multiparty democracy that respects human rights, upholds the rule of law and holds competitive elections, including presidential elections in 1996, 2000, and 2004. This remarkable political evolution proves beyond any doubt that the notion of ``Asian values,'' which was used to justify one man or one party rule, is a complete fallacy. Democracy, freedom and human rights are universal values to which all human beings aspire.

This resolution recognizes Taiwan's strong democratic system by supporting Taiwan's fourth democratic presidential election, which will take place in March of this year, and by encouraging delegations from around the world to visit Taiwan to witness the election process.

It is important to note, however, that this resolution should not be construed as taking a position on the referendum regarding Taiwan's membership in the United Nations under the name Taiwan, which is also being held in conjunction with the presidential election. The purpose of this resolution is to honor the U.S.-Taiwan friendship by celebrating Taiwan's democracy. I strongly support this resolution and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to my friend from American Samoa, the chairman of the Asian Subcommittee, Mr. Faleomavaega, 5 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 951) condemning the ongoing Palestinian rocket attacks on Israeli civilians, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, when this resolution came before the Foreign Affairs Committee last week, the situation in Gaza was deteriorating, and that deterioration continued apace. We have since amended this measure to reflect the latest facts, but the fundamental realities remain the same: Israel has a right to exist free from terror. Terrorist Hamas, which controls Gaza, does not accept this right. The United States will now and always stand firmly by Israel's side, committed to its survival; and we oppose all forms of terrorism and incitement meant to undermine the quest for peace.

Nearly every day, shrapnel-filled rockets launched from Gaza rain down on Israeli communities, shocking the residents with their explosive power and expanded range. Israel has answered the deadly downpour by placing pressure on the Hamas leadership and their henchmen who launch these missiles. But because these thugs cravenly place the men, women, and children in Gaza in harm's way by using civilian communities as a base, counterstrikes have lamentably caused civilian injuries and deaths, along with the deaths of the terrorists.

The casualties are far too numerous, since even one innocent life lost is one too many.

And so, as we show our support with this resolution for the people of Israel, we also express our sympathy with the overwhelming majority of Gazans who only want a decent life but whose terrorist leaders have contemptuously sentenced them to mayhem.

In August 2005, the Israeli Government removed all Jewish settlements from the Gaza Strip and evicted Israeli families from their homes in hopes of injecting life into a moribund peace process. Israel's hope, and the hope of all who wish for peace in the region, was that Gaza would prove to be the fertile ground from which Palestinian statehood would emerge.

But since that time, Hamas has seized control of Gaza. It responded to good-faith efforts at peace not with reciprocal concessions or conciliatory gestures but with a relentless terrorist offensive.

In more than 2 years of rocket attacks, Israel has suffered countless casualties, including more than a dozen deaths, and serious damage to property and infrastructure. But perhaps worst of all has been the untold psychological trauma and interruption of all aspects of daily life. Reportedly, 90 percent of the children in the community of Sderot have suffered from post-traumatic stress syndrome. The beachside city of Ashkelon, until recently out of range for the simple rockets that Hamas could muster, has now been

slammed by more than a dozen sophisticated missiles, next to the city hall, in the marina, leaving craters and shattered lives all around. This is a city of 120,000 people. The range of the rockets is increasing, and if the terrorists are not stopped, we all know that casualties likewise will increase.

For now the attacks are continuing unabated, and they are destroying what hopes remain of an Israeli-Palestinian peace. That is why this resolution unambiguously recognizes and reaffirms Israel's sovereign right to defend its citizens and territory.

We need also to recognize that Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups are not operating in a vacuum. They rely on the material and logistical support of nations like Iran and Syria. The international community must condemn Iranian and Syrian behavior and take all possible steps to halt it.

Much of the material for these rockets is smuggled into the Gaza Strip through Egyptian territory. We must prevail upon our friend Egypt, which has made invaluable contributions to peace in the years past, to do much more to end this smuggling.

This resolution therefore calls on all nations, including Egypt, to take affirmative, transparent and verifiable steps to stop the flow of rockets and related materials to the Palestinian territories.

Mr. Speaker, we can only condemn the policy of Hamas and its supporters to continue the brutal, cynical, and unprovoked attacks on Israel, and we must recognize this policy for the terrorist crime it is.

I commend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) for introducing this resolution, and his cosponsors as well, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), the chairman of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers.

I do want to congratulate the gentleman from New Jersey for presenting this. The passage of time since he introduced it has only made the logic of it even more compelling. I join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in urging passage.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, my colleague, Henry Waxman, and I rise to pay tribute to Elliott Broidy, recipient of the prestigious Raoul Wallenberg Award. This Award is give td individuals who exhibit courage, selflessness and success against great odds. Elliott Broidy's civic duty and philanthropy have earned him this great honor. On February 27, 2008, the Raoul Wallenberg Committee and the Gateways Organization will host a special dinner recognizing his outstanding achievements.

Elliott Broidy has helped strengthen the beloved country of his birth, the United States, and his spiritual home, the State of Israel. In 2001, when the Second Intifada threatened Israel's security, Mr. Broidy formed Markstone Capital Partners with the intent of providing a superior return to its investors while strengthening Israel's economic viability. Markstone is Israel's largest private equity fund. To date, the fund has invested nearly half a billion dollars in Israeli companies, creating hundreds of new jobs and helping to build a strong economy for Israel.

In our community, Elliot Broidy has dedicated himself to countless humanitarian causes and foundations, including the Jewish Federation of Los Angeles, Aviva Family and Children's Service, Hebrew Union College and the University of Southern California. He serves as a member of the United States Homeland Security Advisory Council, the Board of Trustees of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, DC, the Los Angeles Police Foundation and the Board of Governors of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. For the last 5 years, he has served as a Commissioner of the Los Angeles Fire and Police Pension Fund. He is also a member of the Young Presidents Organization and the Board of Advisors for the USC Marshall School Center for Investment Studies.

Prior to founding Broidy Capital Management, Elliott Broidy had a successful career in money management. He is a Certified Public Accountant and received a B.S. in accounting and finance from the University of Southern California. He lives in Los Angeles with his wife, Robin, and their three children. Throughout the years, Robin has worked alongside her husband in many worthy organizations and causes that have greatly benefited thousands of children and families in Los Angeles.

We ask our colleagues to join us in saluting Elliott Broidy for his longtime service to the State of Israel and to our community.