Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, my remarks are entitled ``Madoff Victims Are Victimized Again, this Time by Our Own Government.'' Americans rely on the Security and Exchange Commission, the SEC, to safeguard their stock transactions through registered broker dealers.

The SEC, however, did not do that in the case of Bernard Madoff. Irrespective of his receiving 150 years in prison for life-damaging financial crimes, many Americans who lost their life savings, who were first victimized as a result of the SEC failures, are being today victimized a second time by our own judicial system and its court- appointed trustee.

The victims' plight is compelling. Think about this, Madam Speaker, irrespective of numerous warnings the SEC received dating back 17 years, all of our Federal agencies stood by and did nothing while thousands of investors deposited their money, usually their life savings, with Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities.

In fact, after a supposed investigation in 1992, the SEC issued a clear-cut and definitive Statement of Innocence about Madoff's business. This was an unusual occurrence. Indeed, it may be the only time in history that the SEC went as far as issuing a Statement of Innocence to clear a business that it was investigating.

Then, starting in 2002, the SEC continued to ignore seven individual and specific fraud warnings by a credible, financial whistleblower. Again, in 2004, in another government failure, the IRS approved Madoff to be one of only 260 nonbank IRA custodians, the very place that people put their retirement money for safekeeping. Why would the IRS have approved Madoff when it had the legal right and, indeed, the fiduciary obligation to inspect the books and the records of all nonbank IRA custodians?

The approval process, which the IRS shirked, was specifically designed to prevent this exact type of fraud. As Madoff's downfall exposed, both the IRS and the SEC failed to inspect Madoff in even the most basic fundamental fashion. Unfortunately, two different U.S. Government agencies both seemed to have given their approval for Americans to invest with Madoff. They indicated that he had a financial clean bill of health.

Now that Madoff's scheme has imploded, the government seeks to convey the appearance of serving justice on behalf of those who were duped.

Through the Federal Bankruptcy Court, the government has hired a private sector attorney to act as a Madoff bankruptcy trustee and will pay the trustee a fee based on his hours extended to claw back money. Well, this is not what it appears to be. Justice is not being served.

While it is true that the trustee cannot ask for a specific percentage of the total clawed back, he can ask for any specific amount he desires, and it can be based on his own internal computation using a percentage.

Since the trustee won't have enough manpower to sue thousands of people at the same time, he will also hire associate firms to assist in this litigation. All the fees charged by the law firms who are handling this case will first be paid, and then the trustee will receive his fee.

The government should, instead, offer tax or financial relief to those who were victimized, not under an arcane net equity basis, but based on their statements as of November 30, 2008. The IRS should compute tax refunds so as to return 100 percent of each individual's first loss of $2 million; then 90 percent of their loss between $2 and $4 million; 80 percent of their loss dollars between $4 and $6 million, and so forth, until a 20 percent return level has been reached, and at that point return should remain at 20 percent.

This would be most beneficial to smaller investors, who are most impacted by their losses.

If private citizens are required to reimburse other private citizens for harm

they caused, why should the government be able to drastically injure people and have no responsibility to restore those individuals' positions or pay restitution to them?

The SIPC, or the quasi-governmental body that offers insurance to those defrauded by the SEC, also stands to gain greatly by not paying the insurance. Even to the casual observer, this is a potential conflict of interest. A mistake has been made, and it must be corrected.

Their computation of net equity for purposes of insurance and clawback for Madoff victims is quite different than the formulas they have used each and every time in the past for other cases which were similar in nature. Since when did rules, regulations, and laws become changeable based on circumstances that would save the insurer the most money and allow the trustee to go after the largest clawbacks? To even the casual observer, there is a conflict of interest.

The President says that it's time to take responsibility and admit when a mistake has been made. ``A mistake has been made.''

Thank you so much, the gentleman from California. I rise in strong opposition to the amendment on Afghanistan offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts, my friend, Mr. McGovern.

In late March of this year, the President announced his comprehensive outline for Afghanistan and Pakistan, highlighting the threat to critical U.S. security interests that would arise should al Qaeda and the Taliban reclaim or establish safe havens in those countries. The President clearly outlined our goals to disrupt, to dismantle, and to defeat al Qaeda. I agree with him on those goals. But success requires a sustained commitment and sustained support for both the mission and the brave Americans and Afghanis carrying it out.

Our strategy is meeting with success, yet the McGovern amendment is already looking for an exit strategy. This amendment sends a terrible message about U.S. resolve to both friends and foes alike.

And we're not alone in this concern. It's precisely why the Obama administration also opposes the McGovern amendment, stating that the McGovern amendment, ``would demonstrate a lack of commitment to the new strategy, it will signal to our Afghan partners that the U.S. presence and efforts in country are fleeting, and it demonstrates to al Qaeda that we are not intending to see this new strategy through.''

It could hamper U.S. strategic goals in the entire region. Rather than focusing on an exit strategy, we should instead be focused on working with the Obama administration to provide the necessary flexibility to craft policies that offer the best chance of success, while ensuring congressional consultation and congressional notification.

The underlying bill provides this balance. And that's why Chairman Skelton, Ranking Member McKeon, Chairman Berman and I ask our colleagues to support U.S. efforts in Afghanistan and oppose the McGovern amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my distinguished friend and colleague from New Jersey, Mr. Garrett.

Since its creation in 1948, the State of Israel, surrounded by hostile neighbors, has been forced to develop technologically advanced defense capabilities to protect its existence as a democratic, Jewish state.

While this amendment addresses the totality of the U.S.-Israel military and security relationship, I would like to focus on the provision of critical missile defense assistance to Israel.

Israel is about to become the first country in the world to have a true national missile defense, and perhaps no other country has such a pressing need for one.

Almost twenty years ago, Iraq launched 93 Scuds at other Middle Eastern nations, including 39 at Israel.

Most recently, in 2006, Hezbollah launched scores of Katyusha rockets at civilian targets in northern Israel, imposing a state of siege on the population.

And we cannot forget the ongoing, relentless, decade-long rocket and mortar attacks from Palestinian militant groups in Gaza against innocents in southern Israel.

In addition to killing and injuring a number of Israelis, these militants have inflicted great psychological damage on the population, including Israeli children.

But the missile danger to Israel and the United States is even greater than what has challenged us before.

Today, Israel faces threats from both Iran and Syria--which have made clear their desires to develop nuclear weapons--and from the ballistic missile delivery systems that could reach Tel Aviv, other critical U.S. allies, and U.S. forces stationed throughout the region.

Iran remains committed to developing rockets capable of delivering warheads to Tel Aviv.

Syria, which has one of the largest missile stockpiles in the region, has, with Iran's help, reportedly developed a surface-to-surface missile that would enable Syria to launch attacks on key Israeli military and civil installations with precision.

Providing missile defense for Israel is obvious: It is a vital U.S. ally, a small democracy surrounded by foes armed with short, medium, and long-range projectiles and missiles.

I urge strong support for this amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start out thanking our esteemed and distinguished chairman of our Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Berman, for working with us in a bipartisan manner, reaching out to our side to bring this timely resolution to the floor. I especially want to thank our Republican Conference Chair and a great member of our Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Pence, who authored this legislation.

I rise in strong support of the fundamental, universal human rights and civil liberties to which the Iranian people are entitled. For 30 years, these rights and freedoms have been denied again and again by an oppressive Iranian regime which uses a sham process with candidates handpicked by the ruling apparatus to create the illusion of political participation.

There was no election in Iran this year. There has been no election, no democracy in Iran for decades. The candidates and the winners were again picked in advance by the regime. Real reform, real democracy were never an option. This repressive regime relies on so-called elections to provide a veneer of legitimacy, but that facade has been shattered by the protests taking place in Iran this week. The brutal nature of the Iranian regime is well-documented.

On Tuesday, I had the honor of attending, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the release of the State Department's annual Trafficking in Persons Report, which again cited Iran as a Tier 3 country, among the worst, as the regime that does little, if anything, to prevent men, women, and children from being trafficked for sexual exploitation and involuntary servitude, slavery. Likewise, as the State Department's human rights report for 2008 noted: ``Iran's poor human rights record worsened and it continued to commit numerous serious abuses. The government severely limited citizens' right to change their government peacefully through free and fair elections. Authorities held political prisoners and intensified a crackdown against women's rights reformers, ethnic minority rights activists, student activists, and religious minorities.''

It is a pattern for decades. So we must look beyond the past week, which was only the most recent demonstration of the regime's brutality and authoritarianism.

But the Iranian regime is not just a threat to its own people. We cannot afford to lose sight of the threat that it presents to our own national security interests and, indeed, to global peace and security. Iran draws even closer to crossing that nuclear point of no return. Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of our Joint Chiefs of Staff, has stated that Iran has likely enriched enough uranium to make an atomic bomb. International inspectors also report that Iran has enough low- enriched uranium to achieve nuclear weapons breakout capabilities and that issues about possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear program remain unresolved. Yet Iran is allowed to continue its nuclear pursuit virtually unchallenged.

Additionally, Iran continues to develop chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missiles while arming and bankrolling violent Islamic extremists worldwide. We must bear this in mind when we determine what is the appropriate response to the Iranian regime's policies and actions.

But today, Mr. Speaker, we must focus on the hopes of the individual Iranians who have been robbed of a better future for almost 30 years by a regime which only promises nothing but misery and malaise. Now is the time for all responsible nations to stand foresquare with the people of Iran as they seek freedom, as they seek true self-governance at home, as well as to live at peace with the world.

We must send a clear signal today to the Iranian regime and all of its proxies and affiliates that free nations will not tolerate further efforts to silence the voice of the Iranian people through violence and coercion.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we have an impressive lineup of speakers on our side. I would like to start by yielding 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), the author of the bill, Republican Conference Chair and an esteemed member of our Committee on Foreign Affairs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), our esteemed Republican Whip, a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, and a leader on issues related to Iran.

Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, the ranking member on the Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight on our Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to yield 2 minutes to my legislative brother, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz- Balart), a member of the powerful Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), a member of the Budget and the Financial Services Committees.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, we just have one additional speaker, and I would like to call on the author of the resolution, a great member of our House Foreign Affairs Committee and our conference chair on the Republican side, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) for the remainder of the time.

I'm proud to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary and the ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Yes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Inglis), and anytime you would like to.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend my good friend, Rabbi Solomon Schiff, for the uplifting prayer that he delivered for all of us today, as well as for his tireless effort to strengthen our religious communities in my home district of south Florida.

Rabbi Schiff serves as the Director of Chaplaincy Emeritus for the Greater Miami Jewish Federation. In this role, Rabbi Schiff offers educational support and comfort to those in the Jewish communities in the United States, in Israel, and indeed throughout the world.

I have long been aware of Rabbi Schiff's commitment and contributions to academia, to the Jewish community, and to the social welfare of all residents of south Florida.

The spirit of optimism and determination that Rabbi Schiff possesses can be seen in this week's Torah portion. After returning from the Land of Israel, Caleb reports to the Jewish people that ``we should surely go up, and inherit the land; for we are certainly able.''

Rabbi Schiff's hard work on behalf of the Jewish community has been tireless and always with contagious optimism. No task is too large and no cause is without merit.

But his greatest achievement is his family, including his lovely wife, Shirley, and his three adult sons: Elliott, his wife, Alisa, and their children, Michael and Brooke; Jeffrey, his wife, Risa, and their children, Chananya, Moshe and Noah; and Steven, his wife, Jacqueline, and their children, Jennifer and Jeremy.

The opening prayer Rabbi Schiff presented today reflects his intellectual fiber, as well as his determination to improve our community and our country.

I thank Rabbi Schiff for his invocation and look forward to working with him in the years ahead.

Madam Speaker, as the House author of legislation to award the Congressional Gold Medal to the Women Airforce Service Pilots of World War II, I request that the names of these brave patriots be inserted for history's sake:

Women Airforce Service Pilots of World War II

Class, First Name, Name Post-WASP, Name in Training:

43-1, Lovelle, Benesh, (Richards);

43-1, Betty, Blake, (Tackaberry);

43-1, Claire G, Callaghan, (Callaghan);

43-1, Marjorie, Deacon, (Ketchum);

43-1, Marion J, DeGregorio, (Mackey);

43-1, Byrd Howell, Granger, (Granger);

43-1, Marjorie M, Gray, (Gray);

43-1, Ruth, Hellman, (Hellman);

43-1, Evelyn, Howren, (Greenblatt);

43-1, Ann R, Johnson, (Johnson);

43-1, G.C.``Brownie'', Kindig, (Brown);

43-1, Edna C, Kingdon, (Collins);

43-1, Marjorie, Kumler, (Kumler);

43-1, Elizabeth A, Matray, (McKinley);

43-1, Margaret E, McCormick, (McCormick);

43-1, Sidney, Miller, (Miller);

43-1, Eleanor, Morgan, (Boysen);

43-1, Mary Lou, Neale, (Colbert);

43-1, Marylene ``Geri'', Nyman, (Lamphere);

43-1, Vega, Sogg, (Johnson);

43-1, Jane S, Straughan, (Straughan);

43-1, Magda T, Tacke, (Tacke);

43-1, Dorothy L, Young, (Young);

43-2, D. Lewise, Adie, (Coleman);

43-2, Ann R.K., Anderson, (Kary);

43-2, Margaret K, Boylan, (Kerr);

43-2, Catherine, Bridge, (Vail);

43-2, Marion Brown, (Schorr);

43-2, Betty J, Buehner, (Bachman);

43-2, Jane, Carter, (Emerson);

43-2, Lois K, Chaffey, (Gott);

43-2, Iris C, Critcheli, (Cummings);

43-2, Barbara, Darnell, (Russell);

43-2, Katherine, deBarnard, (deBarnard);

43-2, Patricia A, Dickerson, (Dickerson);

43-2, Virginia A, Disney, (Alleman);

43-2, Patricia C, Erickson, (Chadwick);

43-2, Carol, Fillmore, (Fillmore);

43-2, Marie, Genaro, (Muccie);

43-2, Ellen H, Gery, (Gery);

43-2, Frances, Gustayson, (Dias);

43-2, Emily, Harden, (Hiester);

43-2, Ruth R, Hawkins, (Thompson);

43-2, Ruth, Helm, (Dailey);

43-2, Geraldine B, Hill, (Masinter);

43-2, Alma Marie, Hinds, (Jerman);

43-2, Mary D, Huber, (Darling);

43-2, Betty E, Joiner, (Eames);

43-2, Zelda, Lamer, (Lamer);

43-2, Paula, Loop, (Loop);

43-2, Melvina K, Maier, (Maier);

43-2, Rita, McArdle, (Moynahan);

43-2, Jary J, McKay, (Johnson);

43-2, Virginia, Moffatt, (Moffatt);

43-2, Dorothy, Nichols, (Nichols);

43-2, Mary Tufts, O'Brien, (Trotman);

43-2, Avanell, Pinkley, (Pinkley);

43-2, Ruth F, Reynolds, (Franckling);

43-2, Florence L, Roberson, (Lawler);

43-2, Helen, Rownd, (Ricketts);

43-2, Martha D, Rupley, (Wagenseil);

43-2, Elizabeth W, Smith, (Whitlow);

43-2, Helen S, Stone, (Stone);

43-2, Ruth Grimm, Trees, (Trees);

43-2, Margaret A, Tunner, (Hamilton);

43-2, Lila C, Vanderpoel, (Chapman);

43-3, Marcia C, Bellassai, (Courtney);

43-3, Mary N, Beritich, (Beritich);

43-3, Esther D, Berner, (Pool);

43-3, Clarice M, Bessent, (Bessent);

43-3, Katherine A, Brick, (Menges);

43-3, Betty June Budde, (Deuser);

43-3, Mildred, Chapin, (Toner);

43-3, Betty A, Fernandes, (Archibald);

43-3, Gretchen, Graba, (Gorman);

43-3, Frances F, Grimes, (Grimes);

43-3, Lois B, Halley, (Brooks);

43-3, Marion, Hanrahan, (Hanrahan);

43-3, Anna F, Isbell, (Franckman);

43-3, Elaine, Jones, (Jones);

43-3, Louise, Kidd, (Kidd)

43-3, Florence E, Knight, (Knight);

43-3, Mary L, Leatherbee, (Leatherbee);

43-3, Grace B, Mayfield, (Birge);

43-3, Dora, McKeown, (Dougherty);

43-3, Beatrice A.T., Medes, (Medes);

43-3, Elsie D, Monaco, (Dyer);

43-3, Laurine Y, Nielsen, (Nielsen);

43-3, Jean Hanmer, Pearson, (Pearson);

43-3, Virginia B, Pierce, (Crinklaw);

43-3, Elinore, Pyle, (Owen);

43-3, Vilma, Qualls, (Lazar);

43-3, Elin, Raimondi, (Harte);

43-3, Mabel, Rawlinson, (Rawlinson);

43-3, Frederica, Richardson, (McAfee);

43-3, Lillian, Roberts-Risdon, (Conner);

43-3, Joyce E, Secciani, (Sherwood);

43-3, Marie, Shale, (Shale);

43-3, Mary Belle, Smith, (Ahlstrom);

43-3, Isabel, Stinson, (Fenton);

43-3, Shirley, Thackara, (Ingalls);

43-3, Bertha, Trasky, (Link);

43-3, Emma, Ware, (Coulter);

43-3, Lois H, Ziler, (Hollingsworth);

43-4, Nancy Lee, Baker, (Baker);

43-4, Elizabeth, Bane, (Mitchell);

43-4, Eleanor E, Beith, (Moriarity);

43-4, Betty, Berkstresser, (Heinrich);

43-4, Edna Hines, Bishop, (Pedlar);

43-4, Martha H, Born, (Bevins);

43-4, Julia S, Bower, (Sapp);

43-4, Ann C., Brennan, (Brennan);

43-4, Jean T, Brown, (Trench);

43-4, Mary Louise, Brown, (Bowden);

43-4, Jennie E, Burbeck, (Brown);

43-4, Hazel W, Caldwell, (Pracht);

43-4, Helen B ``Peg'', Calhoun, (Calhoun);

43-4, Virginia, Clair, (Clair);

43-4, Mary Ann, Cleary, (Thielges);

43-4, Dorothy R, Colburn, (Colburn);

43-4, Bertha M, Collins, (Miller);

43-4, Vera K, Cook, (Cook);

43-4, Juanita, Cooke, (Bolish);

43-4, Violet C, Cowden, (Thurn);

43-4, Nancye Ruth, Crout, (Lowe);

43-4, Rosa L. Meek, Dickerson, (Fullwood);

43-4, Dwight B, Diel, (Hildinger);

43-4, Janet J, Dirlam, (Zuchowski);

43-4, Bert H, Dodd, (Dodd);

43-4, Marian J, Edwards, (Bradley);

43-4, Mary Edith, Engle, (Engle);

43-4, Natalie L, Fahy, (Ellis);

43-4, Grace C, Fender, (Clark);

43-4, Ruth T, Florey, (Underwood);

43-4, Maryalice, Ford, (L'Hommedieu);

43-4, Lauretta, Foy, (Beaty);

43-4, Ruth I, Gamber, (Gamber);

43-4, Mary E, Grant, (Hines);

43-4, Rosalie L, Grohman, (Grohman);

43-4, Virginia, Hagerstrom, (Jowell);

43-4, Janice R, Harris, (Tate);

43-4, Barbara W, Heinrich, (Willis);

43-4, Gwendolyne E, Hickerson, (Cowart);

43-4, Margery, Holben, (Moore);

43-4, Catherine M, Houser, (Houser);

43-4, Constance L, Howerton, (Llewellyn);

43-4, Joanne M, Jenks, (Trebtoske);

43-4, Rena D'Arcy, Jones, (Wilkes);

43-4, Cornelia Y, Kafka, (Colby);

43-4, Isabel M, Karkau, (Steiner);

43-4, Lyda M, Keefe, (Dunham);

43-4, Willie P, Kelly, (Peacock);

43-4, Lydia N, Kenny, (Lindner);

43-4, Eileen M, Kesti, (Roach);

43-4, Kittie, King, (Leaming);

43-4, Virginia, Krahn, (Luttrell);

43-4, Jean, Landis, (Landis);

43-4, Barbara J, Lazarsky, (Ward);

43-4, Hazel Ying ``Ah Ying'', Lee, (Lee);

43-4, Mary M, Lewis, (Rosso);

43-4, Mary, Lyman, (Clifford);

43-4, Margie, Maddox, (Heckle);

43-4, Doris, Manuel, (Manuel);

43-4, Betty L, Martin, (Naffz);

43-4, Viola, Mason, (Thompson);

43-4, Mary C, McConkey, (Wilson);

43-4, Mary Jane, Meikle, (Stephens);

43-4, Virginia, Meloney, (Malany);

43-4, Ruby E, Menaching, (Mullins);

43-4, Madge A, Minton, (Rutherford);

43-4, Dorothea M, Moorman, (Johnson);

43-4, Mary B, Nelson, (Bowles);

43-4, Patricia L, Newlon, (Hanley);

43-4, Eolyne Y, Nichols, (Nichols);

43-4, Eunice S, Oates, (Oates);

43-4, Dorothy, Olsen, (Kocher);

43-4, June L, Petto, (Ellington);

43-4, Martha J, Phillips, (Potter);

43-4, Jennie X, Reimann, (Hrestu);

43-4, Faith B, Richards, (Buchner);

43-4, Henrietta, Richmond, (Richmond);

43-4, Margaret H, Riviere, (Reeves);

43-4, Jeanne B, Robertson, (Robertson);

43-4, Frances R, Sargent, (Rohrer);

43-4, Helen M, Schaefer, (Schaefer);

43-4, Gene S, Scharlau, (Slack);

43-4, Ethel M, Sharon, (Sharon);

43-4, Dorothea G, Shultz, (Shultz);

43-4, Margaret, Sliker, (Bruns);

43-4, Helen Wyatt, Snapp, (Snapp);

43-4, Patti M, Stadler, (Canada);

43-4, Nancy E, Staples, (Nesbit);

43-4, Alice-Jean, Starr, (May);

43-4, Frances R, Steele, (Sanderson);

43-4, Katherine S, Strehle, (Loft);

43-4, Virginia L, Sweet, (Sweet);

43-4, Alice Jane, Talcott, (Talcott);

43-4, Alta C, Thomas, (Corbett);

43-4, Mary Jo, Tilton, (Farley);

43-4, Kathleen, Titland, (Kelly);

43-4, Mary E, Trebing, (Trebing);

43-4, Marcella J, Tucker, (Fatjo);

43-4, Isabel, Van Lom, (Madison);

43-4, Martha, Volkomener, (Lawson);

43-4, Esther N, Walters, (Reinholdt);

43-4, Virginia F, Watry, (Harris);

43-4, Ann H, Watson, (Howell);

43-4, Violet S, Wierzbicki, (Wierzbicki);

43-4, Mary L, Wiggins, (Wiggins);

43-4, Betty L, Wood, (Taylor);

43-4, Virginia, Wood, (Hill);

43-4, Inez S, Woods, (Woodward);

43-4, Eleanor, Wortz, (Thompson);

43-4, Elizabeth (Sarah?), Lundy, (Pearce);

43-4, Martha M, Lundy, (Lundy);

43-4, Jane, Fllesbach, (Waite);

43-5, Mary, Audrain, (Parker);

43-5, Lorraine, Blaylock, (Sterkel);

43-5, Betty, Boyd, (Shea);

43-5, Ruth A, Boyea, (Anderson);

43-5, Mary ``Pat'', Call, (Hiller);

43-5, Jane, Campbell, (Thomas);

43-5, Charlotte M, Carl, (Mitchell);

43-5, Ann G, Carl, (Baumgartner);

43-5, Janice, Christensen, (Christensen);

43-5, Sylvia D, Clayton, (Dahmes);

43-5, 43-5, Clements, (Clements);

43-5, Ruthmary, Cole, (Buckley);

43-5, Virginia, Cutler, (Streeter);

43-5, Jeanne Perot, D'Ambly, (D'Ambly);

43-5, Solange, D'Hooghe, (D'Hooghe);

43-5, Edna, Davis, (Modisette);

43-5, Helen Irene, DeGray, (Fremd);

43-5, Helen, Dettweiler, (Dettweiler);

43-5, Floella, Downs, (McIntyre);

43-5, Jean L, Dunkle, (Livingston);

43-5, Dorothy Ellen, Ebersbach, (Ebersbach);

43-5, Vivian, Eddy, (Cadman);

43-5, Josephine, Egan, (Pitz);

43-5, Ellen, Endacott, (Endacott);

43-5, Ellen C, Evans, (Croxton);

43-5, Leotta C, Feyen, (Cook);

43-5, Ethel M, Finley, (Meyer);

43-5, Harriet N, Fisher, (MacLane);

43-5, Ruth E, FitzSimons, (FitzSimons);

43-5, Izydora, Focht, (Bochanek);

43-5, Monica, Frasseto, (Flaherty);

43-5, Lillian E, Goodman, (Epsberg);

43-5, Sylvia, Granader, (Schwartz);

43-5, Elizabeth E, Greene, (Greene);

43-5, Kathryn S, Gunderson, (Stark);

43-5, Virginia C, Hammond, (Wilson);

43-5, Mary, Hartson, (Hartson);

43-5, Geraldine P, Hill, (Hill);

43-5, Marion S, Hodgson, (Stegeman);

43-5, Helen, Holland, (Turner);

43-5, Charlotte, Hughes, (Niles);

43-5, Celia M, Hunter, (Hunter);

43-5, Ruth C, Johnson, (Carter);

43-5, Geraldine H, Jordan, (Hardman);

43-5, Frances, Kari, (Green);

43-5, Ann M, Kenney, (Karlson);

43-5, Julie E, Ledbetter, (Ledbetter);

43-5, Irene G, Lindner, (Gregory);

43-5, Alice, Lovejoy, (Lovejoy);

43-5, Allison B, McBride, (Burns);

43-5, Jill S, McCormick, (McCormick);

43-5, Lucille F, McVey, (Friesen);

43-5, Ruth, Muller, (Lindley);

43-5, Pauline, Mulligan, (Markle);

43-5, Roberta E, Mundt, (Mundt);

43-5, Marianne I, Nutt, (Beard);

43-5, Yvonne C ``Pat'', Pateman, (Pateman);

43-5, Elizabeth H, Pfister, (Haas);

43-5, Helen, Pozzobon, (Hague);

43-5, Anne Armstrong, Proctor, (McClellan);

43-5, Nadine, Ramsey, (Ramsey);

43-5, Gayle, Reed, (Bevis);

43-5, Helen, Richey, (Richey);

43-5, Margaret, Ringenberg, (Ray);

43-5, Annabelle, Rotbart, (Kekic);

43-5, Barbara, Runton, (Hicks);

43-5, Ellenor Bell, Schaffer, (Kurten);

43-5, Jane S, Scott, (Scott);

43-5, Dawn Y, Seymour, (Rochow-Balden);

43-5, Helen B, Sheffer, (Porter);

43-5, Marjorie T, Sizemore, (Popell);

43-5, Jean M, Springer, (Mohrman);

43-5, Eugenia St., Martin, (Garvin);

43-5, Margaret C, Stegall, (Cox);

43-5, Caryl W, Stortz, (Jones);

43-5, Shirley, Teer, (Slade);

43-5, Marjorie, Thompson, (Sanford);

43-5, Doris V, Tracy, (Bristol);

43-5, Marion, Trick, (Carlstrom);

43-5, Irma, Weigel, (Cleveland);

43-5, Ruth, Wheeler, (Hagemann);

43-5, Macie Jo, Wheelis, (Myers);

43-5, Harriet L, White, (Urban);

43-5, F. Virginia, Williams, (Acher);

43-5, Wilma B, Wine, (Morehead);

43-6, Helen T, Abell, (Abell);

43-6, Moya, Anonson, (Mitchell);

43-6, Louesa F, Beard, (Thompson);

43-6, Lana B, Boxberger, (Cusack);

43-6, Mary T, Breitenstein, (McDonnell);

43-6, Hazel M, Brooks, (Pierce);

43-6, Blanche, Bross, (Osborn);

43-6, Rebecca H, Brown, (Edwards);

43-6, Martha L, Bullock, (Smith);

43-6, Mildred C, Caldwell, (Caldwell);

43-6, Mimi P, Carrere, (Platter);

43-6, Mildred M, Christiansen, (McClelland);

43-6, Carol E, Cook, (Webb);

43-6, Ann, Currier, (Waidner);

43-6, Lauretta A, Darcy, (Darcy);

43-6, Shirley J, deGonzales, (Condit);

43-6, Lorena B, Dorr, (Daly);

43-6, Adeline, Ellison, (Wolak);

43-6, Enid C, Fisher, (Fisher);

43-6, Libby, Gardner, (Gardner);

43-6, Joann, Garrett, (Garrett);

43-6, Bethel G, Gibbons, (Gibbons);

43-6, Patricia A, Gibson, (Bowser);

43-6, Margaret, Grant, (Callahan);

43-6, Margaret M, Hatfield, (Wendelin);

43-6, Dorothy, Henesy, (Hopkins);

43-6, Dorothy P, Hoover, (Hoover);

43-6, Jean M, Howard, (Taylor);

43-6, Margaret M, Hurlburt, (Hurlburt);

43-6, Bernice, Hylton, (Hylton);

43-6, Evelyn M, Jackson, (Stewart);

43-6, Capitola, Johnson, (Whittaker);

43-6, Nancy Ruth, Johnson, (Johnson);

43-6, Grace R, Jones, (Putman);

43-6, Catherine E, Jones, (Jones);

43-6, Lorene M, Keyfauver, (Chambers);

43-6, Nelle L, Klein, (Carmody);

43-6, Margaret, Kocher, (Helburn);

43-6, Katherine, Kornblum, (Kupferberg);

43-6, Eleanor L, Lawry, (Feeley);

43-6, Bernice, Lechow, (Moore);

43-6, Elizabeth L, Loveless, (Carsey);

43-6, Ann C, Madden, (Criswell);

43-6, Florence J, Marston, (Niemiec);

43-6, Margaret L, McAnally, (Castle);

43-6, Lucy B, Walker, McGinnis, (UNK);

43-6, Alice L, Middleton, (Middleton);

43-6, Anna L, Monkiewicz, (Flynn);

43-6, Corinne W, Nienstedt, (Nienstedt);

43-6, Jane Patch-Crowder, (Wilson);

43-6, Frances B, Pullen, (Buford);

43-6, Mary Ruth, Rance, (Rance);

43-6, Lola C, Ricci, (Perkins);

43-6, Margaret, Roberts, (Wissler);

43-6, Ruth, Roberts, (Roberts);

43-6, Rose, Ross, (Penn);

43-6, Eleanor, Rust, (Alexander);

43-6, Velma, Morrison, Saunders, (Saunders);

43-6, Mary E, Scantland, (Scantland);

43-6, Nancy L, Sendelbach, (Featherhoff);

43-6, Maxine S, Smith, (Steward);

43-6, Evelyn L, Stephens, (Fletcher);

43-6, Margaret R, Stevenson, (Kirchner);

43-6, Irma``Babe'', Story, (Story);

43-6, Rita G, Stump, (Cason);

43-6, Elizabeth M, Sullivan, (McGeorge);

43-6, Frances M, Tanassy, (Snyder);

43-6, Marion R, Tibbetts, (Tibbetts);

43-6, Evelyn L, Tomlinson, (Tomlinson);

43-6, Ruth W, Tompkins, (Westheimer);

43-6, Evelyn L, Trammel, (Trammel);

43-6, Deborah, Truax, (Truax);

43-6, Marjorie, Wakeham, (Wakeham);

43-6, Margery, Ware, (Taylor);

43-6, Virginia, Waterer, (Broome);

43-6, Dorothy E, Webb, (Webb);

43-6, Rita D, Webster, (Davoly);

43-6, Bonnie Jean, Welz, (Weiz);

43-6, A. Lee, Wheelwright, (Leonard);

43-6, Orpha M, Wilson, (Brunsvoid);

43-6, Maxine A, Wright, (Nolt);

43-6, Virginia H, Yates, (Yates);

43-6, Margaret, Lowell-Wallace, (Lowell-Wallace);

43-7, Leonora H, Anderson, (Horton);

43-7, Dorothy A, Avery, (Avery);

43-7, Mildred D, Axton, (Axton);

43-7, Jean McCartney, Babb, (Babb);

43-7, Sylvia B, Barter, (Barter);

43-7, M. Allaire, Bennett, (Bennett);

43-7, Thelma N, Bluhm, (Harris);

43-7, Caro, Bosca, (Bayley,

43-7, Nell S, Bright, (Stevenson);

43-7, Mary Helen, Burke, (Burke);

43-7, Elizabeth P, Carroll, (Hartz);

43-7, Betty J, Clark, (Clark);

43-7, Carolyn, Clayton, (Clayton);

43-7, Emeral, Drummond, (Drummond);

43-7, Lois, Durham, (Bolen);

43-7, Babette, Edinger, (DeMoe);

43-7, Eleanore C, Folk, (Bryant);

43-7, Dorothy, Fowler, (Fowler);

43-7, Doris L, Garrison, (LeFevre);

43-7, Mary A, Gresham, (Gresham);

43-7, Lela, Harding, (Loudder);

43-7, L. Ann, Hazzard, (Morgan);

43-7, Jane P, Hlavacek, (Page);

43-7, Ann R, Holaday, (Holaday);

43-7, Virginia M, Hope, (Hope);

43-7, Neva, Hubbard, (Calderwood);

43-7, Frances M, Hunt, (Thompson);

43-7, Katherine R, Irons, (Clewis);

43-7, Marian, Isbill, (Isbill);

43-7, Phyllis M, Jarman, (Jarman);

43-7, Aleta M, Johnson, (Grill);

43-7, Mitchell I, Long, (Long);

43-7, Marian G, Mann, (Mann);

43-7, Marie E, Marsh, (Barrett);

43-7, Isabel E, Martell, (Tynon);

43-7, Dorothy I, McLean, (McLean);

43-7, Tex, Meachem, (Brown);

43-7, Carolyn C, Miller, (Culpepper);

43-7, Katharine J, Moore, (Merritt);

43-7, Anne C, Oliver, (Dessert);

43-7, Helen T, Pittenger, -(Barrick);

43-7, Constance Y, Reynolds, (Young);

43-7, Robbie, Rinehart, (Grace);

43-7, Jean C, Rose, (Parker);

43-7, Gertrude, Silver, (Tompkins);

43-7, MozelleI, Simpson, (Simpson);

43-7, Katherine L, Steele, (Landry);

43-7, Patricia J, Sullivan, (Seares);

43-7, Jane, Tallman, (Tallman);

43-7, Audrey, Tardy, (Tardy);

43-7, Wilhelmina M, Teerling, (Teerling);

43-7, Gene K, Wakeley, (Smith);

43-7, Justice Mary C, Walters, (Coon);

43-7, Sara, Winston, (Chapin);

43-7, Lucile D, Wise, (Doll);

43-7, M. Winifred, Wood, (Wood);

43-7, Yvonne C, Wood, (Ashcraft);

43-7, Lillian, Yonally, (Lorraine);

43-7, Doris H, Zaloudek, (Ellena);

43-8, Adaline B, Adams, (Blank);

43-8, Esther, Ammerman, (Mueller);

43-8, Lois M, Auchteronie, (Dobbins);

43-8, Rae E, Barnes, (Barnes);

43-8, May Pietz, Behrend, (Ball);

43-8, Frances A, Blakeslee, (Jensen);

43-8, Ruth, Brown, (Humphreys);

43-8, Marilyn L, Browning, (Seafield);

43-8, Elvira G, Cardin, (Griggs);

43-8, Jacqueline L, Carmine, (Lake

43-8, Ann L, Clay, (Lincoln);

43-8, Janet A, Downer, (Hatch);

43-8, Marjorie, Dresbach, (Selfridge);

43-8, Elizabeth V, Dressler, (Chadwick);

43-8, Elizabeth Jana, Eberly, (Crawford);

43-8, Irene K, Englund, (Kinne);

43-8, Jocelyn, Evernham, (Moore);

43-8, Mary E, Fearey, (Estill);

43-8, Maxine E, Flournoy, (Edmondson);

43-8, Joalene, Foster, (Snodgress);

43-8, Mary M, Furn, (Furn);

43-8, Donna S, Glendinning, (Spellick);

43-8, Jeannette, Goodrum, (Gagnon);

43-8, Helen M, Hansen, (Skjersaa);

43-8, Lois Gene, Holman, (French);

43-8, Bobbye C, Jersig, (Crain);

43-8, Effie M, Kempton, (Pratt);

43-8, Dorothy M, Kielty, (Kielty);

43-8, Doris M, Long, (Moffat);

43-8, Helen Jane, Luts, (Trigg);

43-8, Elizabeth S, Lux, (Stavrum);

43-8, Loes M, MacKenzie, (Monk);

43-8, Dori M, Martin, (Marland);

43-8, Marcia W, Milner, (Wenzel);

43-8, Elizabeth Munoz, (Keatts);

43-8, Lois L, Nash, (Nash);

43-8, Patricia M, Perry, (Jones);

43-8, Margot F, Reck, (Reck);

43-8, Jeanette Rhamsey, (Robbins);

43-8, Marjorie Rolle, (Logan);

43-8, Iris H, Schupp, (Heiliman);

43-8, Andrea C, Shaw, (Shaw);

43-8, Margaret Slaymaker, (McNamara);

43-8, Kathryn Stamps, (Stamps);

43-8, Marion Toevs, (Toevs);

43-8, Betty E, Trout, (Wright);

43-8, Dorothy I, Warfield, (Aspell);

43-8, Frances B, Warms, (McInerney);

43-8, Doris D, Williams, (Williams);

44-1, Gwen O, Barthelmess, (Crosby);

44-1, Adele F, Beyer, (Beyer);

44-1, Betty J, Brickford, (Bechtold);

44-1, Harriett C, Call, (Kenyon);

44-1, Ida F, Carter, (Carter);

44-1, E. Marie, Clark, (Mountain);

44-1, Mardo C, Crane, (Crane);

44-1, Katherine Dussaq, (Dussaq);

44-1, Dorothy A, Eby, (Krasovec);

44-1, Bonnie Edmunds, (Edmunds);

44-1, Madelyn M, Eggleston, (Taylor);

44-1, Dorothy J, Eppstein, (Dodd);

44-1, Gene T, FitzPatrick, (Shaffer);

44-1, Anna M, Frenzel, (Logan);

44-1, Doris C, Gee, (Gee);

44-1, Rosemary, Hall, (Hall);

44-1, Dorothy E, Henry, (Henry);

44-1, Madelon, Hill, (Burcham);

44-1, Jeanette Jean, Jenkins, (Jenkins);

44-1, Ruth Craig, Jones, (Jones);

44-1, Edith, Keene, (Keene);

44-1, Emily I, Kline, (Porter);

44-1, Mary, McCabe, (Koth);

44-1, Ethel D, McDonald, (Hoskins);

44-1, Martha A, Mitchell, (Wilkins);

44-1, Catherine A, Murphy, (Murphy);

44-1, Doris, Nathan, (Burmester);

44-1, Alberta, Nicholson, (Hunt);

44-1, Anne, Noggle, (Noggle);

44-1, Virginia D, O'Neill, (Stell);

44-1, Mary A, O'Rourke, (Jershin);

44-1, Anne B, Rawlings, (Bartholf);

44-1, H. Lorraine, Raymond, (Fiedler);

44-1, Dolores M, Reed, (Meurer);

44-1, Marjorie E, Rees, (Ellfeldt);

44-1, Alice L, Riss, (Riss);

44-1, Jane O, Robbins, (Robbins);

44-1, Phyllis, Ryder, (Ryder);

44-1, Carolyn P, Saas, (Wood);

44-1, Gwendolyn C, Scales, (Scales);

44-1, Mary, Smith, (Beecham);

44-1, Elizabeth B, Strohfus, (Wall);

44-1, Josephine, Swift, (Keating);

44-1, Rosina, Todd, (Lewis);

44-1, Eleanor, Vaughn, (Hinkle);

44-1, Margaret C, Watson, (Harper);

44-1, Anna L, White, (Hopkins);

44-1, Eileen A, Worden, (Kealy);

44-1, Barbara M, Robinson, (Manchester);

44-10, Suzanne L, Armstrong, (Bane);

44-10, Ann, Atkeison, (Atkeison);

44-10, Jerrie, Badger, (Phillips);

44-10, Christine W, Browning, (Grayson);

44-10, Pam L, Carr, (Carr);

44-10, Ann, Carter, (Shaw);

44-10, Helen B, Celler, (Celler);

44-10, Emily, Chapin, (Chapin);

44-10, Virginia A, Coakley, (McPike);

44-10, Rosa Charlyne, Creger, (Creger);

44-10, Helen P, Davis, (Paine);

44-10, Dorothy H, Davis, (Davis);

44-10, Patricia, Detchon, (Disston);

44-10, Suzette, Douglas, (Van Daell);

44-10, Eleanor C, Faust, (Collins);

44-10, Martha B, Gaunce, (Blair);

44-10, Mary, Jo Germaine, (Bardsley);

44-10, Margaret W, Gilman, (Werber);

44-10, Ellen A, Graff, (Howard);

44-10, Ruth W, Guhse, (Glaser);

44-10, Betty S, Harlan, (Stabler);

44-10, Virginia, Hash, (Hash);

44-10, Sara P, Hayden, (Payne);

44-10, Catherine M, Henzel, (McGrath);

44-10, Kathleen A, Hilbrandt, (Hilbrandt);

44-10, Levona L, Hove, (Hove);

44-10, Juanita A, Hurlbutt, (Dreier);

44-10, Dorothy K, Ireland, (Nagel);

44-10, Suzanne, Jones, (Irvine);

44-10, Ruth K, Jurnecka, (Kutner);

44-10, Julia L, Kimport, (Loufek);

44-10, Dolores M, Lamb, (Lamb);

44-10, June S, Leckie, (Wolfe);

44-10, Nancy L, Mayes, (Mayes);

44-10, Frances, McAdams, (Gimble);

44-10, Jean T, McCreery, (Terrell);

44-10, Ethel L, Miller, (Lytch);

44-10, Thelma K, Miller, (Hench);

44-10, Muriel M, Moran, (Moran);

44-10, Jane E, Morrison, (Morrison);

44-10, Nina K, Morrison, (Morrison);

44-10, Nancy J, Murray, (Burnside);

44-10, Francie M, Park, (Meisner);

44-10, Ruth, Phillips, (Rees);

44-10, Patricia A, Rideout, (Houran);

44-10, Josephine H, Robinson, (Kater);

44-10, Ruby L, Rosenthal, (Hibbler);

44-10, Mittie P, Schirmer, (Parsley);

44-10, Carmel, Seidenberg, (LaTorra);

44-10, Mary Jane, Sellers, (Lind);

44-10, Gaill G, Sigford, (Sigford);

44-10, Mary L, Simmonds, (Van Scyoc);

44-10, Ailsa M, Simonson, (Connolly);

44-10, Henrietta P, Sproat, (Speckels);

44-10, Barbara, Squire, (Searles);

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

Mr. Speaker, as the House sponsor of this legislation, I rise in strong support of Senate bill 614, a bill to award the Congressional Gold Medal to the Women Airforce Service Pilots of World War II, WASP. And here is a picture, Mr. Speaker, of the WASP, one of the many pictures, but as the previous speaker pointed out, not enough recognition was paid to them.

Special thanks for this bill go to Financial Service Chairman Barney Frank and Ranking Member Spencer Bachus and their staff as well for their assistance in bringing this legislation to the floor today.

I would also like to thank my staff, Mr. Speaker, particularly Captain Deanna Nieves, right behind me, United States Marine Corps, who's serving as a defense fellow in my office for the remainder of the year. Her efforts were instrumental in achieving the required number of cosponsors for this bill in record time. And Sarah Gamino, sitting next to her, worked so hard on all of our office projects. Thanks to all of the great staff work on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, as has been pointed out, the bill before us today honors a special sisterhood of women, most of them in their 80s, who share a unique place in American history. These women have been mothers and grandmothers, teachers and office workers, nurses, business owners, photographers, and dancers. One was even a nun. But before that they were pilots for the United States Army Corps during World War II. They are heroines.

Women Airforce Service Pilots, or WASP, were the first women in history to fly America's military aircraft. Between the years of 1942 and 1944, these courageous women volunteered to fly noncombat missions so that every available male pilot could be deployed into combat. More than 25,000 women applied for the program, but only 1,830 qualified women pilots were accepted. Unlike their male counterparts, women applicants were required to be qualified pilots before they could even apply for the Army Air Force military flight training program. Altogether, 1,102 women earned their wings and went on to fly over 60 million miles for the Army Air Forces, equal to some 2,500 times around the globe. Their performance was equal in every way to that of male pilots. With the exception of direct combat missions, the WASP flew the same aircraft and the same missions as male pilots.

Women pilots were used to tow targets for male pilots who were using live ammunition, for searchlight missions, chemical missions, engineering test flying, and countless other exercises.

In 1944 the WASP were disbanded, their service records sealed and classified. By the time the war ended, Mr. Speaker, 38 women pilots had lost their lives while flying for our country. Their families were not allowed to have an American flag placed on their coffins. And although they took the military oath and were promised military status, the WASP never were recognized as military personnel nor were

they ever recognized as veterans at the war's end.

In 1977, more than 30 years after the WASP had served, another woman pioneer, Congresswoman Lindy Boggs, introduced legislation to grant the WASP veterans status. Speaking of the day when women would be fully integrated into the military, WASP Byrd Howell Granger noted: ``If the Nation ever again needs them, American women will respond. Never again will they have to prove they can do any flying job the military has. Not as an experiment. Not to fill in for men. They will fly as commissioned officers in the future Air Force of the United States with equal pay, hospitalization, insurance, veterans' benefits. The WASP have earned it for these women of the future.''

And the WASP were indeed and continue to be true pioneers whose example paved the way for the Armed Forces to lift the ban on women attending military flight training in the 1970s. Today women in the military fly every type of aircraft, from the F-15 to the space shuttle.

My daughter-in-law, Lindsay Nelson, a Marine Corps pilot, is part of the lasting legacy of WASP. Lindsay, a graduate of the United States Naval Academy, served two combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, where she flew the F/A-18 fighter jet. I'm so proud of Lindsay and of all our servicewomen, past and present, who continue to inspire young women to achieve the unfathomable.

By definition, the Congressional Gold Medal is the highest expression of Congress of national appreciation for the most heroic, courageous, and outstanding individuals.

Given the overwhelming support for this legislation, as evidenced by the bipartisan support of 334 cosponsors in the House companion legislation, I am confident that Members of this Chamber deem the WASP as deserving of this honor. Of the 1,102 WASP, more than 300 are still alive today and are residing in almost every State of our country. Join me in paying homage to these trailblazers and these patriots who served our country without question and with no expectation of recognition or praise.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting yes on this bill, to award the WASP the Congressional Gold Medal, and request its prompt signing into law.

For history's sake, I will submit for printing in the Congressional Record the names of the 1,102 WASP.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway) whose district covers Sweetwater, Texas, which is home to the WASP. This is where they trained, and that is where their museum is.

I would like to grant an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to honor one of South Florida's most distinguished residents, Dr. Esteban Fernandez. Through his extreme devotion to the field of publishing and his intense belief in the Christian faith, Dr. Fernandez has facilitated the diffusion of Christian ideas between differing languages and cultures, and dedicated himself to knowledge.

Dr. Fernandez holds a doctorate in Philosophy with an emphasis in leadership and organization. He also holds a degree of licentiate in Theology awarded by the Faculty of Theological and Religious Studies of Casa Sobre La Roca. In addition, Dr. Fernandez

has been awarded an honorary Doctorate of Sacred Literature from Logos Christian College and an honorary Doctorate of Christian Counseling by Rhema University.

His tenure at Editorial Vida saw into fruition the Spanish language version of several important Christian texts, the most notable of which is La Biblia Nueva Version Internacional. Dr. Fernandez also organized the translation and publication of Rick Warren's A Purpose Driven Life.

He was also recognized as one of the ten best executives for his leadership at Editorial Vida in 2007. The great success that Dr. Esteban Fernandez has achieved is a result of his passionate devotion to his field and faith and I am truly grateful to call him a friend.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1886, the Pakistan Enduring Assistance and Cooperation Enhancement Act of 2009, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of this debate, it's important to emphasize that Congress and the administration are united in our goals toward Pakistan. We want a long-term partnership with a modern, a prosperous, a democratic Pakistan that is at peace with itself and at peace with its neighbors. And we want a Pakistan that does not provide safe haven to al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other militant extremist groups.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hard work that has gone into my good friend Chairman Berman's bill. I also recognize that both amendments in committee, as well as the manager's amendment, have made this a somewhat less objectionable instrument than it was at the outset, but it is still worthy of being objected to.

However, concerns remain, and these are not just my concerns, but they are concerns that, I understand, the White House, the Defense Department and our own intelligence agencies continue to have with H.R. 1886. These concerns are particularly acute in light of the current Pakistani military offensive against the Taliban and against other extremists in the North-West Frontier Province as well as the fact that the new policy is still evolving.

Rather than a forward-looking bill that addresses the current leadership and the current dynamics in Pakistan, this bill before us, H.R. 1886, focuses on past actions and failures attributed to the Pakistani Government, punishing the new leadership for the sins of its predecessors. That is why I will be offering a comprehensive substitute which parallels the results of the administration's strategic review and which fully funds its request for critical nonmilitary and certain military assistance to Pakistan.

Unlike the underlying bill, our measure provides the necessary flexibility for all U.S. agencies to respond quickly and to respond effectively to rapidly unfolding developments on the ground while still retaining robust accountability and congressional oversight of these programs.

As Members will recall, on March 27, the President announced a new strategy to guide U.S. policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This strategy focused our efforts, the U.S. efforts, toward meeting a core goal: to disrupt, to dismantle and to defeat al Qaeda and its safe havens in Pakistan, and to prevent their return to Afghanistan or Pakistan.

As our intelligence agencies have made clear, the threats emanating from al Qaeda and from their allies in Pakistan directly endanger our homeland security, the survival of Pakistan as a modern nation-state and the security of our friends and allies around the world.

The President as well as all of his top advisers, including Secretary of State Clinton and Secretary of Defense Gates, insist that this new strategy is intended to be a framework, not a straitjacket, for U.S. policy. That is why Secretary Clinton has emphasized that the democratically-elected government in Pakistan shares our goals with respect to tackling militancy, and that is why she urged that Congress not legislate onerous conditionality that might undercut our efforts to work with Pakistanis who share the interests of the United States. That is also why Ambassador Holbrooke noted before our committee this May that certain legislative conditionality could prove seriously counterproductive.

While the authors of H.R. 1886 may have sought to empower our Pakistani partners to undertake the formidable task of fighting and winning against violent extremists, it does the opposite. Further, accountability measures for Afghanistan and Pakistan must be tightly linked to the new U.S. strategy for the region rather than outdated assessments of the situation in Pakistan and preconceived notions about the response from our Pakistani partners.

Mr. Speaker, we have gone down this road before. I recall during the Iraq debate in the last Congress Members expressed great distrust for the judgment of General Petraeus, and they sought to prejudge the surge strategy before it could even be implemented. Let us hope that this will not be repeated with respect to Pakistan and Afghanistan, as General Petraeus is now the chief of Central Command, leading the efforts of the Department of Defense in these countries and, in fact, in the broader theater.

Why does the executive branch need great flexibility in trying to execute a strategy in Pakistan? Look what is happening on the ground right now. Six weeks of fighting between the Pakistani troops and the Taliban insurgencies have forced 2 million people from their homes in the Swat Valley and in other northwestern areas.

According to Islamabad, since the operation began on April 26, 1,305 militants have been killed; 120 have been arrested; 105 soldiers have died; and 306 have been injured. In response, the extremists have launched a wave of suicide bombings and other attacks in Lahore and elsewhere across the country.

As one Pakistani writer noted, ``The terrorist backlash is principally aimed at draining public support from the army's offensive in Swat and to rattle the political and military establishments, weaken national resolve and erode public support for the anti-militancy campaign.''

Fortunately, Pakistan's democratic government has responded with firmness and with new resolve to persevere and to succeed in our mission. Perhaps even more importantly, anti-Taliban sentiment among the Pakistani people appears to be increasing in response to the mayhem that has been unleashed by the militants. But these gains are fragile, Mr. Speaker. Winning the peace could yet prove elusive. There could be little doubt that the political and military challenges ahead for the government and for the people of Pakistan are, indeed, profound.

That is why it is so important to provide this administration with flexible authorities to carry out its new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, focusing on the strategic importance of Pakistan to the United States and to the world and focusing on the need for increased security, for increased governance and for development assistance to help us meet these vitally important goals.

Finally, the rule for this bill made in order a self-executing mechanism whereby House Resolution 1318, a bill to provide duty-free treatment for certain goods from designated Reconstruction Opportunity Zones, ROZs, in Afghanistan and Pakistan, will be incorporated into the text of H.R. 1886 even though that legislation has never even been marked up in committee.

While I support the concept of ROZs, this highly irregular maneuver is not the appropriate approach to take on this serious matter. Although we share the majority's goal, we believe that the Republican substitute that I will offer later in this debate affords the best means for the United States Congress and for the U.S. administration to work together to develop an integrated and effective assistance plan to advance our mutual interests in a democratic, stable and prosperous Pakistan that is a strong partner in the struggle against extremism and that maintains responsible controls over its nuclear weapons technology.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia.

(Mr. BURTON of Indiana asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I will give the gentleman an additional 1 minute because we do want to clarify Senator Kerry's statements.

Before yielding time to my distinguished friend from Florida, I would like to clarify that Senator Kerry was indeed referring to the bill as amended to the text we're considering today. And further, much reference has been made to the Armed Services Committee, as the gentleman knows from Florida, but the Armed Services minority did not sign off on the bill before us due to pending concerns.

And with that, I am proud to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), the ranking member on the Armed Services Subcommittee on Terrorism and Unconventional Threats.

I reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, before yielding to my good friend from Texas, I would like to point out, as the previous speaker noted, this is supposed to be a national security bill, yet the majority tagged on a trade bill to it, and then, under the rule, attaches it to the State bill.

I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), the ranking member on the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade.

Mr. Speaker, I am so proud to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), the ranking member on the Committee on Ways and Means.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, as we have noted here on the floor, too often the relationship between the United States and Pakistan has been characterized by mutual frustration engendered by a growing trust gap. And while the leaderships of the two countries place a high value on our relationship, their publics and their legislatures have viewed each other with suspicion and depicted each other as unreliable allies. But with the advent of a new administration, both in Pakistan and in the United States, we're offered a window of opportunity to redefine, to recalibrate relations.

Both sides need to guard against unrealistic expectations but be prepared to engage in an honest dialogue; and therein lies the rub, Mr. Speaker. As a Pakistani civil society leader and a close confidant of the late Benazir Bhutto has said, ``Conditioning aid turns on its head the very rationale for assistance to stabilize Pakistan and empower it to deal more effectively with security challenges. An approach that treats Pakistan from the paradigm of `hired help' rather than `valued ally' is deeply counterproductive. It only reinforces the transactional nature of ties that are so resented by Pakistanis.''

Mr. Speaker, our overarching goal should and, indeed, must be--do no harm. Unfortunately, the bill before us could hamper, rather than help, vital U.S. security and strategic objectives regarding Pakistan and Afghanistan.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight.

At this point I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to Mr. Hunter of California.

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

Mr. Speaker, I feel like I am experiencing deja vu. The seemingly same arguments that opponents of General Petraeus and his Iraq surge strategy used just under 2 years ago about Iraqis and the Iraqi government and their commitment to fighting extremist groups, they are making an appearance today in this Chamber with respect to Pakistan.

U.S. commanders have just begun to assess the situation on the ground to determine the need to implement that new strategy, and some of the speakers today are already tying the U.S.' hands while prejudging the response of Pakistan. We should be focusing on success, on prevailing against al Qaeda, prevailing against the Taliban, not anticipating failure.

While the authors of this bill seek to empower our Pakistani partners to confront insurgency and militarism, I feel that this bill will actually inadvertently have a counterproductive impact by potentially making the Pakistani government appear subservient to the United States, as Senator Kerry suggested. This bill could weaken Pakistani democracy as well as could potentially fuel paranoia, wild conspiracy theories that help give rise to that country's visceral and deep-seated anti-American feelings.

So I urge my colleagues to look at this bill, examine carefully what we are doing to our military, what we are doing to this new administration, and come to the correct conclusion that they should oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have a substitute amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. Speaker, the substitute amendment reflects input from, and was drafted in coordination with, the ranking members of the Committees on Appropriations, on Armed Services, on Homeland Security and Intelligence. In so doing, this approach emulated to some degree the administration's interagency strategic review.

The substitute recognizes that of all the foreign policy challenges facing the United States, stabilizing and reforming Pakistan may be one of the most daunting. Given the enormous complexities and the ever- changing nature of the situation in Pakistan, we believe that it is critical at this stage that the administration retain the necessary flexibility to craft policies that offer the best chance of successfully partnering with the people of Pakistan, with the government of Pakistan, and with the military of Pakistan to defeat violent extremism.

At the same time, the substitute requires an ongoing policy dialogue between the administration and the Congress regarding U.S. policy toward Pakistan, as well as robust legislative oversight of our strategy, of our implementation plan, as well as allocation and expenditure of U.S. assistance.

The Republican substitute requires that not later than 30 days after the enactment of the Supplemental Appropriations Act for 2009, the President submit to Congress a comprehensive interagency strategy and implementation plan for U.S. efforts to eliminate safe havens and help toward the long-term security and stability in Pakistan.

Let me repeat that again, Mr. Speaker. Thirty days after enactment of the current supplemental under discussion, the President is required to produce a comprehensive interagency strategy and implementation plan. This is more timely than what is in the underlying bill, and it seeks to address immediate as well as evolving dynamics.

The Republican substitute relies on the President's leadership and his commitment in providing the strategy and implementation plan to the Congress, but does require that plan to include a description of how the U.S. assistance will be used in order to achieve our U.S. foreign policy objectives.

What does that include? Enhancing stable democratic governments, making sure that we have economic growth, developing Pakistani counterinsurgency capabilities, success in shutting down safe havens for extremists, improving the capacity and capability of Pakistan to hold and build areas cleared of insurgents to prevent their return, and developing and strengthening mechanisms for Pakistan-Afghanistan cooperation, for they cannot be separated.

The substitute also requires that the report include a detailed financial plan of the resources, of the programming and of the management of U.S. assistance to Pakistan and the criteria used to determine their need and value in advancing our U.S. objectives.

This substitute seeks to ensure that congressional oversight and notification keeps pace with changing conditions on the ground, and in turn, changes in strategy and their implementation.

The Republican substitute also fully funds the administration's request for the critically important new Pakistan counterinsurgency capability fund.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Republican substitute, as I was saying, also fully funds the administration's request for the critically important new Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund, PCCF. Forging an effective partnership with Pakistan's military and intelligence apparatus has not been a straightforward affair. Although the United States has enjoyed some success, our efforts have also been hampered by a series of exceptionally difficult problems.

One is a matter of a threat perception and divergent strategic priorities, with Pakistan almost obsessively focused on their traditional rival in India.

Another problem is the legacy of mistrust on both sides, a trust deficit, as I discussed earlier, that continues to greatly complicate our bilateral relations.

A third problem is a limited Pakistani ability to conduct modern counterinsurgency, and to some degree counterterrorism operations, against al Qaeda and their allies in the tribal areas. There is no question, for example, that Pakistan needs to fully cooperate with New Delhi in holding accountable all of those responsible for the brutal assault in Mumbai as well as work with the U.S. and others on critical nonproliferation concerns.

We do not disagree with the overarching goals and the strategic priorities that we want to achieve in relation to Pakistan. Our disagreement is that at this juncture we believe that the best way to achieve critical interests is to give the administration the scope to develop intensive, multiple approaches to rebuild, to strengthen relationships with Pakistan, and address threats common to both of our nations.

We believe the Republican substitute is a more workable basis than the underlying bill for being a partner with Pakistan at this critical time.

The substitute heeds the concerns raised by Secretary Gates and the Joint Chiefs Chairman, Admiral Mullen, who wrote about this underlying bill.

The Department is concerned about aspects of this bill, in particular, those provisions that impose conditions on the furnishing of military assistance that may undermine current administration authorities such as the Global Train and Equip authority. And furthermore, this will allow the Department to use the funds expeditiously and effectively without these purse strings, as evolving circumstance may warrant, in an effort to implement the President's strategy for the region most effectively.

And I think that this Republican substitute gets to what the Department of Defense wishes to do, what the Obama administration wants to achieve, what our democratic allies in Pakistan and here, our strong military in the U.S., wants to achieve; a robust, free and democratic Pakistan upon which we can build that level of trust again.

I hope our colleagues support our Republican substitute.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the ranking member on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 additional minute to the ranking member on the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Hoekstra.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield myself 1 minute.

We fully agree with the chairman that much of the prior investment in Pakistan has failed to yield all of the results that we hoped for and that it is appropriate to require the administration to develop scientific, specific, meaningful performance-based measures.

Where we differ, Mr. Speaker, is that we do not mandate that the executive branch follow a specific new congressionally mandated methodology, which may not even be technically correct, even before the new administration has had time to operationalize their new South Asia strategy.

Our substitute, therefore, requires that as part of the comprehensive interagency strategy and implementation plan mandated by the legislation that the administration put forth a robust and detailed financial plan, a description of the resources, of the programming, of the management of the United States foreign assistance to Pakistan, including the criteria used to determine this prioritization. We believe that this is the correct approach.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take up the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, our Republican substitute will allow for the development of specific, credible measures of effectiveness that are tightly linked to the President's strategy for the region and are therefore preferable to those that stem from the legislation. And I would like to just briefly address, and I don't have much time, some of the issues raised in favor of the underlying bill and against my substitute.

First, some of the speakers are seeking to fuel distrust between Pakistan and India, and they use the Congress' strong support for the world's largest democracy, India, to create the impression that U.S. assistance has been and would be used against India. That is counterproductive. It is not correct. It is dangerous and disingenuous.

I urge my colleagues to adopt the Republican substitute and reject the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to take our time in opposition to this bill.

And, Mr. Chairman, some Dear Colleague letters sent out by a few Members earlier this week, Mr. Chairman, in order to express their support for this bill, tended to focus on the few attractive features of the bill, such as the improvements that it would make on the Merida Initiative, our vital effort to assist Mexico and other Central American countries to fight the dangerous drug cartels.

Unfortunately, supporters of this bill have remained silent or ignored its fundamental problems. And the fundamental problems on this bill are that the bill calls for exorbitant spending in the absence of true reform, and that the bill does not take the difficult but necessary step of setting priorities, either with out-of-control spending or with important international issues that are facing our country.

By our best estimate, the bill before us represents an estimated 12 percent increase in planned expenditures above the levels of fiscal year 2009. It creates 20 new government entities, offices, foundations, programs and the like. These new programs, and these new initiatives that are funded in this bill constitute expenditures that go beyond even this 12 percent increase to accounts previously funded in fiscal year 2009.

The bill also represents a 35 percent increase in State Department main salary and operating accounts. We have to ask ourselves, where is the money coming from to support the additional funding?

In the coming fiscal year alone, Mr. Chairman, fiscal year 2010, we are expected to have to pay almost $285 billion, that's billion with a B, in interest costs, just interest, not payment on the debt itself. By fiscal year 2014, our cost for interest on the debt will likely have risen to about $560 billion, again, that's with a B, in that year alone, again, for interest payments alone, not for the debt payments that will have to be made.

Our deficit in the coming fiscal year, 2010, is now projected to total an estimated $1.3 trillion. Yet the funding levels proposed by this bill seem oddly detached from the reality that our families are facing today and that our Nation is facing.

Both in committee markup and at the Rules Committee, I offered amendments that would have capped increases for next year at 3.7 percent, a 2008 annual rate of inflation. This amendment would have saved taxpayer dollars, more than $2.8 billion in authorized funds. That amendment, again, would have saved American taxpayers more than $2.8 billion, with a B, in authorized funds.

Unfortunately, this measured, calibrated approach was rejected twice in favor of the largesse in this spending bill.

In trying to justify the enormous spending increases in this bill, supporters paint a picture of a hollowed-out shell of a State Department suffering from years of neglect. Yet, according to the Congressional Research Service and the State Department's own data, funding for the State Department and related agencies doubled from fiscal year 2000 through 2008. This clearly shows that growing the bureaucracy and throwing money at the Department of State are not the answer.

Supporters of this bill further argue that the major funding increases for the hiring of new staff are necessary, even in the absence of reforms. I note that there was an effort last Congress by colleagues in the other Chamber to ascertain the levels of absenteeism at various U.S. Government agencies. The results for the State Department were impressive--in an ironic way. The Department explained that it did not specifically track absences without official leave. It was the only executive branch agency that could not provide such information. Instead, the State Department only tracks those incidents in which such absenteeism reaches such an egregious level that discipline is required.

As a result, we--and the management of the Department--have little idea if the Department's own personnel are at their posts at the times we would expect them to be. And although we realize the overwhelming majority of State

Department employees are hardworking patriots, they are the ones who should be upset about absenteeism in others. The bill before us today does not address such questions, nor does it build on earlier inquiries such as the ones I have cited. Instead, supporters of this bill focus their arguments on unfilled State Department vacancies. And these arguments, too, Mr. Chairman, do not bare careful scrutiny. Most of the so-called ``vacancies'' are the result of shifting personnel to high- priority posts rather than cuts in funding.

Furthermore, the State Department always shows unfilled positions on their books because those numbers are the result of our overseas posts' self-identified needs rather than being a budget-driven number. It is a way of saying that they would like more employees and more funding. What agency wouldn't? I expect that all Americans would identify very significant unfunded needs in our own homes and our families and our budgets.

Moreover, at a time when we need to cut the deficit, in just one little-noticed instance, this bill bypasses an opportunity to transfer several hundred million dollars to our Treasury to help us pay down our national debt. In fact, an amendment offered by my friend from Indiana (Mr. Burton) was not made in order by the rule.

Mr. Burton's amendment would have required that just half of the funds of U.S.-funded enterprise funds abroad be turned over to our U.S. Treasury when they close down their operations. By remaining silent on the disposition of such funds, Mr. Chairman, this bill would instead allow loosely overseen so-called ``legacy institutions'' to take possession of all of those funds. This bill prefers to focus on creating new U.S.-funded foundations and offices that will add hundreds of millions of dollars in new costs to the taxpayers over the coming years.

And when it comes to policy issues, Mr. Chairman, this bill does not set the priorities that we believe would best serve our Nation. Not only does this bill provide close to $2 billion in funding for the United Nations--not including peacekeeping--without requiring any reform, but it also authorizes the payment of all claimed U.N. arrears or back payments. Why should American taxpayers be asked to write a blank check to the U.N.? Why not demand specific returns on our investments? Instead, efforts to leverage our contributions to secure concrete, systematic and comprehensive reforms through the U.N. system were rejected by both the Foreign Affairs Committee and in Rules.

This bill provides an inexplicable authorization to pay a higher rate for U.N. peacekeeping than even the U.N. is charging us. The bill's assessment rate could result in the U.S. paying, in 1 year alone, more than $100 million for U.N. peacekeeping above that which the U.N. requires us to pay.

The bill also fails to take any action to address endemic corruption at the United Nations. In fact, not only does the underlying bill and the manager's amendment remain silent on the U.N.'s misuse of American taxpayer funds for activities that undermine U.S. interests, but an amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana--again, Mr. Burton-- which sought to prevent U.S. taxpayer dollars from paying for the legal fees of corrupt U.N. officials was rejected at Rules and will not be considered today because, Mr. Chairman, the U.N. has decided to pay the legal fees, possibly almost $900,000, of Benon Sevan, who ran the U.N.'s corrupt and disastrous Oil-for-Food program which was supposed to help innocent Iraqis but instead was exploited by Saddam's regime. U.S. Federal and state prosecutors have charged Sevan with bribery and conspiracy to commit wire fraud. But this bill before us does nothing to protect taxpayer dollars from bankrolling and rewarding corruption at the U.N.

The underlying bill also helps foster the culture of corruption at the United Nations by failing to leverage U.S. contributions to the U.N. Development Program, UNDP, until it accepts the jurisdiction of the U.N. Ethics Office.

The UNDP, to which the U.S. contributes $100 million or more per year, continues to be the poster child for mismanagement, corruption, and waste, from Zimbabwe to Uganda to Burma to North Korea. In fact, the United Nations Development Program had to pull out of North Korea after reports emerged that development aid was being diverted to the North Korean dictatorship. Now, unbelievably, UNDP is returning to North Korea with essentially no meaningful protections to prevent U.S. taxpayer dollars from again benefiting Kim Jong Il and his corrupt cronies. Our Treasury Department has even engaged a collection agency to retrieve over $7 million in U.S. taxpayer dollars mismanaged by UNDP in Afghanistan.

We might never know about UNDP's corruption and mismanagement without the help of brave whistleblowers. Unfortunately, whistleblowers have few protections at the U.N., and the UNDP has reportedly retaliated against a number of them, including the one who exposed their operations in North Korea.

Mr. Chairman, this bill should do more in safeguarding our constituents' hard-earned dollars. Nowhere are U.N. failures which undermine U.S. interests clearer than with respect to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, UNRWA. UNRWA has a strictly humanitarian mandate to provide aid to Palestinian refugees, but it continues to compromise its mandate and our U.S. taxpayer dollars. It does so by emitting propaganda against Israel in favor of Hamas, doing business with banks targeted by our government for terror financing and money laundering, and by refusing to vet its employees and aid recipients for ties to Palestinian militant groups like Hamas.

UNRWA's Commissioner-General says she doesn't even consider Hamas to be a foreign terrorist organization. And her predecessor admitted that members of Hamas were on UNRWA's payroll, saying, I don't see that as a crime. No one can guarantee that over hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. funds sent to UNRWA will not end up in the hands of Hamas. Yet, this bill takes a see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil approach, refusing to demand accountability and transparency for our investments.

Supporters of this bill will claim that it strengthens nonproliferation activities at the Department of State. However, the pertinent section of the bill contains contradictory statements regarding the Department's nonproliferation and arms control infrastructure.

On the one hand, the bill asks the Secretary of State to develop a comprehensive plan to determine what the Department actually needs in terms of personnel, additional authorities and new appropriations in order to carry out its arms control and nonproliferation policies. Yet, before that plan has even been drafted, this bill removes the statutory requirement for the Assistant Secretary for Verification and Arms Control, authorizes $3 million for 25 new positions focused on arms control, and mandates other programs and activities. These provisions actually appear to be laying the foundation to reverse the reforms that were enacted by this House in 1998 under the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act.

Further, by removing the requirements for the Assistant Secretary for Verification and Arms Control, it is diminishing its importance, and targets for possible dissolution the bureau at State that was instrumental in the dismantlement of Libya's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons program. This is also the one bureau that has consistently pressed for greater disclosure by the North Korean regime on the totality of its nuclear activities.

And on the issue of North Korea, Mr. Chairman, this bill and our Congress have remained largely silent on this, one of the most grave foreign policy crises currently confronting our Nation. North Korea's leader is preparing to test yet another long-range missile which could reach Alaska, Hawaii, and the west coast possibly as early as next week. Yet, an amendment I offered in Rules to address the escalating crisis in North Korea's nuclear brinksmanship was rejected.

This amendment would have re-listed North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism, as suggested by Secretary of State Clinton this past weekend. It called for full implementation of sanctions, including those imposed by the U.N. Security Council resolutions adopted after previous North Korean missile and nuclear tests, but never fully enforced. It contains consequences as called for by the administration's North Korean Special Envoy

after Pyongyang's April 5 missile test. This amendment raised great concern about Pyongyang's defiant, continuing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to Iran, to Syria, and other rogue regimes. It also pointed to the North Korean regime's horrific record on human rights abuses.

Pyongyang made a provocative and reprehensible decision just a few days ago in a secretive kangaroo court to sentence U.S. citizen journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee to 12 years of hard labor in the North Korean gulag. This amendment demanded the immediate and unconditional release of our two U.S. citizens before the lifting of any U.S. sanctions or granting of diplomatic recognition.

Much of the language of my amendment had been accepted by the chairman last year and incorporated into the Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Reform Act of 2008. The Foreign Affairs Committee unanimously adopted the agreed-upon North Korea language during a markup held last May. Yet the amendment I offered to address this threat to U.S. national security interests and to our allies in the region was rejected yesterday by the Rules Committee.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, at a time when our country faces a range of threats in our own hemisphere, this bill does not set out a comprehensive approach to those threats. The bill also displays a willingness to put our national security interests in the hands of the vaguely defined ``international community.''

Mr. Chairman, because of the fundamental weaknesses and the core problems with this bill that have not been addressed, I will not be able to support this bill. I urge my colleagues to also oppose H.R. 2410 and vote ``no'' on final passage.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, who had very good amendments to offer yesterday.

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Inglis), a member of our Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), a member of our Foreign Affairs Committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, we seek to reserve at this time.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve our time.

I continue to reserve.

I continue to reserve.

I continue to reserve.

I continue to reserve.

I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), our Republican Conference Chair and a member of our Committee on Foreign Affairs.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to give the remainder of my time and any time that the chairman of the committee has to the wonderful gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), who is going to be in a colloquy with our esteemed chairman.

I have an amendment at the desk.

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

The prospect of an Iranian regime brandishing nuclear weapons is a nightmare scenario that we must stop if we are to avoid being forever threatened with destruction. But the problem, Mr. Chairman, is not confined to Iran. Following in its footsteps are countries such as Syria, whose clandestine nuclear weapons program is only now coming to light.

We and our allies must use the means at our disposal to prevent these and other rogue regimes from realizing their deadly ambitions. We have an opportunity today to cut off an important source of assistance to the nuclear programs of Iran, Syria and other regimes, the help provided by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the very organization charged with preventing nuclear proliferation.

The Government Accountability Office recently released a scathing report on the State Department's near total lack of oversight regarding the nuclear assistance that the IAEA provides to member states, especially to Iran, Syria, Cuba and Sudan.

The GAO report noted that from 1997 to the year 2007, the International Atomic Energy Agency's Technical Cooperation Program provided over $55 million to these state sponsors of terrorism, supposedly for ``peaceful purposes.'' But as the GAO report notes, nuclear equipment, technology and expertise can be dual use, which means capable of serving a peaceful purpose, but also useful in contributing to nuclear weapons development.

The GAO report criticizes offices at the State Department for having little or no idea what these programs actually consist of, much less working to stop the most harmful among them.

Unfortunately, the bill before us contains no language that addresses this serious problem, despite its authorization of the administration's full request for over $100 million to be given to the IAEA.

The bill before us does not mandate that the State Department take immediate action to implement the recommendations of the GAO. It does not require our representatives at this Agency to do anything to prevent additional nuclear assistance from going to Iran, from going to Syria, other enemies of the United States. It does not even mention the problem, Mr. Chairman.

By contrast, an extensive section of H.R. 2475, an alternative Foreign Relations Authorization Act that I introduced earlier this year, was devoted to reform the United Nations, including addressing the specific problems of preventing the International Atomic Energy Agency nuclear assistance going to state sponsors of terrorism and countries in violation of their IAEA obligations. But none of that language was included in the bill that we are considering today. And that is why, Mr. Chairman, I'm offering this amendment.

What would this amendment do?

It would apply direct and unambiguous pressure on the International Atomic Energy Agency to halt its assistance to those countries of proliferation concern by withholding from the U.S. contribution almost $4.5 million.

Why that amount?

That is equal to the amount that the Agency spent on nuclear assistance to Iran, Syria, Cuba and Sudan in the year 2007, the most recent fiscal year for which figures are available.

Opponents of my amendment may counter that denying funds to the IAEA for any purpose will weaken its nonproliferation efforts. But let me be clear, Mr. Chairman: this amendment does not affect safeguards or inspections.

It is stunning to stand here and be forced to say that the International Atomic Energy Agency's technical nuclear assistance is adding to this threat; but it is, and we cannot let it continue.

Unfortunately, we cannot expect the cooperation of this Agency, the IAEA, in fixing this problem because the Agency's attitude was summed up by a senior official who, when pressed to explain the continuing assistance to Iran and other state sponsors of terrorism, even as they defy the Agency and the U.N. Security Council, stated that ``there are no good countries and there are no bad countries.''

Faced with this extraordinary situation, Mr. Chairman, our only option is to use our financial leverage to force the International Atomic Energy Agency to stop helping our enemies' nuclear weapons programs. The threat that we face from Iran and the multiplying nuclear powers around the world grow every day.

If we are to defend ourselves, we must use every leverage that we possess to stop this menace before it becomes a reality. My amendment is an opportunity to do just that.

I ask my colleagues for their support.

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

Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. If I could ask the chairman how much time I have left.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition, even though I do not oppose the substance of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment by the gentleman from Colorado has three main components, none of which I find inherently objectionable.

Most significantly, it would require the State Department to report to Congress with a plan on providing appropriate career incentives for Foreign Service officers to serve in nonregional bureaus of the Department, such as the human rights and refugee-focused bureaus.

And, secondly, it would clarify that some of the new public diplomacy efforts required by the underlying bill also should make use of the Internet for online research. And even while some question the fiscal wisdom of the underlying provisions, these changes do not exacerbate those flaws. I do not intend to oppose this amendment.

I yield back.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition even though I do not oppose the substance of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Congressman Nadler's amendment, which, as he explained, expresses the sense of Congress that the United States should continue working with all former states of the Soviet Union to come to an agreement whereby each former state of the Soviet Union would pay the tens of thousands of beneficiaries who have emigrated to the United States the pensions for which they are eligible and entitled.

Over the past several decades, many of the tens of thousands of immigrants who had come to the U.S. from these former Soviet Union states had earlier earned pensions working in their former home countries; however, most often they have been unable to collect what is owed to them.

I support Congressman Nadler's amendment to work with the government of the former Soviet states to come to agreements whereby these states would pay the pensions to those entitled beneficiaries who have emigrated to the United States. It's the right thing to do. Further, Mr. Chairman, it would likely result in a lighter burden for U.S. taxpayers and the programs that their taxes fund to aid the elderly.

I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition even though I do not oppose the substance of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentlelady from California and the gentleman from Florida.

With the fall of the Taliban, Afghan women came back from the brink. But the gains made since 2001 have been fragile. We recognize that any prospect of better lives for the women of Afghanistan and girls are inherently linked to the success of the development and reconstruction of their country.

Furthermore, we all desire greater levels of accountability, quality, and impact from foreign development assistance to Afghanistan, all aimed at creating the enabling environment necessary to sustain women's development successes, their security, and their basic rights.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment has that noble purpose. It would require the Inspectors General of the Department of State, the Department of Defense, the United States Agency for International Development, and the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction to include the impact that U.S. development assistance has on the social, economic, and political empowerment of Afghan women as part of their auditing and reporting requirements.

I support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, although I do not oppose the substance of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) requires a GAO report on the effects that waivers of the Buy America Act for the purchase of HIV test kits under the President's Emergency Plan for Aids Relief, PEPFAR, have had on American manufacturers.

PEPFAR, as we know, is one of the largest and most successful foreign assistance programs of our country, and it was reauthorized just last year for an astounding $48 billion over the next 5 years.

Expanding access for testing is a vital and core component of PEPFAR, both in terms of prevention and treatment. And in some cases, the purchase of test kits manufactured outside of the United States has been deemed a more cost-effective and efficient means by which to expand testing and access to testing.

Still, some have expressed concern about the impact that those waivers may be having on United States-based manufacturers and questioned whether the purchase of these test kits manufactured abroad really has increased access to testing. Thus, an evaluation of this nature may be an appropriate exercise, particularly as the PEPFAR program scales up to transition from an emergency program to a sustainable program. And I, therefore, support the gentleman in his amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, although I do not oppose the substance of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentlelady from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Mr. Chairman, this amendment has a noble purpose, to draw attention to the potential erosion of the social and economic progress that has benefited women throughout Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban.

Many of us in Congress have remained focused on key areas addressed in the Afghan National Development Strategy, the basis of the Afghanistan Compact, which are vital for building human capital and creating an enabling environment for promoting equal rights and opportunities for women in that country.

We have also focused on ensuring the development and application of sustainable strategies that invest in Afghanistan's human capital, equipping both Afghani women and men with the skills, the support, and the resources needed to move their country forward into peace and stability.

Furthermore, we have repeatedly expressed our commitment to Afghan political, economic and social development and promoting the participation of women and, indeed, all Afghans in these processes.

I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition.

The U.S.-Brazil Joint Action Plan to eliminate racial and ethnic discrimination and promote equality recognizes the commitment of our governments to promote equality and opportunity.

It also underscores the importance of cooperating in the promotion of human rights in order to maintain an environment of peace, of democracy, and of prosperity in the region.

The United States' commitment to freedom and equality is longstanding. This joint action plan between our two countries helps to further these values throughout the hemisphere.

Mr. Meeks' amendment requires the Secretary of State to report on the progress of these important bilateral efforts under the action plan. This report will help to bring accountability and greater oversight to the objectives and to the goals of this important joint effort between the United States and Brazil.

I thank Congressman Meeks for his introduction of this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Madam Chair, the Merida Initiative is an historic opportunity to cooperate with our democratic partners in the region against narcotrafficking and organized crime. Requiring comprehensive reporting on U.S. actions and the consequences of such are essential not only to ensuring oversight but also to ensuring our efforts are effective and, indeed, long lasting.

Congresswoman Kirkpatrick's amendment works to include a review of the illegal southbound flow of cash under Merida reporting. I believe we should also oversee north in addition to southbound flows of cash across our borders. Only through a comprehensive approach and understanding of what we are facing can we truly be successful.

I support the gentlewoman's amendment, and I congratulate her for offering it.

I would be most honored to yield to our distinguished chairman.

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

Madam Chair, I claim time in opposition.

I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his helpful and constructive amendment.

I rise in support of this amendment.

I had the opportunity to travel to these areas with the gentleman a few years back. Congress has recognized the debt owed to the Iraqis and Afghans who work at great personal risk in support of our troops. It has responded by creating two Special Immigrant Visa, SIV, programs. One is an SIV program for Iraqi and Afghani translators and interpreters. The second is an SIV program for Iraqi employers and contractors and their families, along with providing refugee resettlement benefits.

However, as a 2008 report by the State Department Inspector General stated: the current process resulted in applicants' receiving SIVs who, one, did not meet the program's criteria of working primarily as interpreters or as translators or, two, in the OIG team's opinion, appeared to be outside the legislative intent of the program. As a result, the number of SIVs that could have been allocated to other qualified applicants were not.

This amendment seeks to address a number of those issues by requiring our State Department, among other actions, to develop clear guidance on eligibility for adjudicators, to maintain a high level of vigilance due to the high risk of fraud and abuse, and many other items.

I again thank the gentleman from Massachusetts. I urge my colleagues to support this vital and important amendment.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, I claim time in opposition.

Madam Chair, although the amendment urges the executive branch to undertake assessments that, I hope, are already going into the administration's policymaking, I do not oppose this amendment.

All of us are, of course, opposed to alien smuggling, trafficking persons and terrorists entering the United States. We believe that U.S. efforts to fight those grave problems should be cost effective. Thus, I support the amendment's call for a report on this subject.

I yield back the balance of our time.

Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition, even though I do not oppose the substance of the amendment.

Madam Chair, I support this amendment because the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative was fully implemented in June of this year with the goal of strengthening U.S. border security while at the same time enhancing accountability of those entering our country.

By calling on the Secretary of State to provide a report to Congress describing the impact this implementation has had on the flow of people, goods, and services across the international borders shared by the relevant countries, Congressman Peters' amendment will help us understand better how effective this initiative has been in making our country safer and what impact these two measures will have on the business sectors of our countries.

The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative was a significant step toward

making America more secure. Congressman Peters' amendment is important as it would provide greater accountability and oversight of the objectives and consequences of this important initiative and will ultimately help us protect the interests and the safety of the American people.

And with that, I yield back.

Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition even though I do not oppose the amendment.

Madam Chair, while I am concerned by the proliferation of exchange-related authorization earmarks in the underlying bill, which circumscribes the discretion of States' educational and cultural affairs bureaus in deciding how to allot our finite education and exchange resources, I do not oppose this amendment.

I support efforts to use our educational and exchange resources to help support the development of clean and efficient energy sources, and I appreciate the fact that this amendment does not include a specific authorization amount. Therefore, I support the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition, even though I do not oppose the amendment.

Madam Chair, I want to rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentlelady from Texas.

The women of Afghanistan have taken great strides since the fall of the Taliban to fully take part in all aspects of their society. Women have realized significant gains in the last several years. However, much remains to be done.

Laws and regulations passed to safeguard the rights of women must be enforced and respected at the provincial and local levels in order to ensure that women make progress throughout all aspects of Afghan society. It is critical that women legislators of Afghanistan receive the necessary training and support that they need to prevent a return to the intimidation, to the discrimination, to the violence that they faced under the Taliban.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition, even though I do not oppose the substance of the amendment.

Madam Chair, the Congress put the force of law behind its condemnation of the use of child soldiers through the Child Soldiers Prevention Act, authored by my good friend from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry). This was incorporated into the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act and became public law in December 2008. We further opined on this matter in the Child Soldiers Accountability Act of 2008, which became law in October of last year. However, a sense of Congress reaffirming that the use of child soldiers is unacceptable must be supported. I applaud my good friend from Texas for bringing this important issue to our attention again. It is right and just to do so. I encourage our colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday this House voted to commemorate the 61st anniversary of Israel's independence. However, even as we recognize this historic occasion, we must not ignore the continuing threats to Israel's very survival, the greatest dangers presented by the radical regime in Tehran whose leader, Mr. Ahmadinejad, has repeatedly denied the Holocaust, as all of us know, and has called for Israel to be wiped off the map.

More recently, at last month's Durban II hate-fest in Geneva, Ahmadinejad reminded us of his regime's goals when he savagely attacked Israel, stating that ``world Zionism personifies racism,'' and called Israel the ``most racist'' regime.

These are not mere idle words, Mr. Speaker. Ahmadinejad and his fellow thugs have long sought to make good on their call for Israel's elimination by sponsoring violent Islamic extremist groups and pursuing nuclear, chemical, biological and missile capabilities. In the face of such a menace to our strong, democratic ally, Israel, and to our vital interest in the Middle East, the U.S. and other responsible nations must not stand idly by. We cannot accept the prospect of an emboldened nuclear Iranian regime.

We must close loopholes in U.S. and international sanctions so as to deny the regime all remaining lifelines for their economy and compel it to abandon its destructive policies.

Further, we should realize that the existential threats to Israel, and the obstacles to peace, begin with Iran; but, sadly, they do not end there.

We must learn history's lesson that we will not achieve peace by engaging with these Islamic militant groups like the Iranian proxy, Hamas, or by recognizing a Palestinian Authority government that includes Hamas.

In standing with the Jewish state against those who seek to destroy it, we should above all do no harm. Unfortunately, proposed funding for the Palestinian Authority, the West Bank and Gaza is included in the emergency supplemental, which would be before this floor in a matter of days; and it does not meet that standard of do no harm.

It would provide, in fact, hundreds of millions of dollars of assistance in Gaza, thereby essentially providing a bailout for Hamas, enabling Hamas to divert its funds from reconstruction and put it, instead, to the purchase of arms. It would reward and bankroll a Palestinian Authority that has proven itself unwilling or unable to fulfill its responsibilities.

When considering assistance to the Palestinian Authority, Mr. Speaker, we need to judge their leaders by their words, and by their acts as well. Just last week Palestinian Authority leader Abu Mazen reiterated his refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. He said the same thing last year and the year before that, and there is no reason to think that more U.S. assistance will cause him to have a change of heart in the future.

Indeed, Abu Mazen and other senior Palestinian Authority officials have repeatedly emphasized that they do not expect Hamas or other violent Islamic groups to recognize Israel at all.

Instead, Abu Mazen bragged last year about his many years of leading and supporting violence against Israel, claiming that ``I have the honor to be the one to fire the first bullet in 1965.''

But this should come as no surprise, Mr. Speaker. In 2005, when campaigning for the leadership of the PA, he echoed Arafat and Hamas by referring to Israel as the Zionist enemy. A Palestinian transparency organization reported last month that many forms of favoritism, nepotism, misappropriation of public money and abuse of public position continued to impact many sectors of the Palestinian society.

If Palestinian leaders will not uphold their commitments to uproot violent extremism, to stop corruption, to recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish democratic state, they should not receive 1 cent of U.S. taxpayer dollars. The proposed supplemental, however, would provide $200 million in direct cash transfers to the P.A. Let's stop this bill, Mr. Speaker. It does not do justice to the U.S. nor to Israel.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2014, a bill that Congresswoman Susan Davis and I have introduced, which honors the Women Air Force Service Pilots of World War II.

WASP, or Women Air Force Service Pilots, were the first women in history to fly America's military aircraft. Between the years 1942- 1944, these courageous women volunteered to fly noncombat missions so that every available male pilot could be deployed in combat.

By the time the war ended, 38 women pilots had lost their lives while flying for our country.

These valiant women have never received the full recognition that they deserve for their wartime military service to America. Their example paved the way for women who today fly every type of aircraft.

My daughter-in-law, Lindsay, flies F/A-18 fighter jets for the Marine Corps thanks to these courageous women. Of the 1,102 WASPs trained during World War II, only 300 of these women pioneers are still alive today.

Madam Speaker, the time is now for us to honor these women with this body's highest honor, the Congressional Gold Medal. As such, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill, and I urge its prompt consideration.

Madam Speaker, in Dante's ``Divine Comedy,'' the inscription above the entrance to hell reads, ``Abandon hope all ye who enter here.'' That should also, sadly, be the inscription above the DMZ for those turning northward, for North Korea is truly hell on Earth.

This is a land where the techniques of torture and brainwashing have been finely perfected, as portrayed in the film ``The Manchurian Candidate.'' This is a land where political prisoners labor under conditions of slow starvation and massive abuse, as reflected in the South Korean drama ``Yoduk Story.''

Madam Speaker, I wish I could say that North Korea was no more scary than an Orwellian novel or a Cold War movie or a tragic musical production. Sadly, however, North Korea is no mere bogeyman who disturbs a child's dreams in the shadows of the night. North Korea is a frightening reality, a daily reality for over 23 million people. It is an immediate threat to our Armed Forces in the Pacific and to our allies in South Korea and Japan. It is a proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to fellow rogue regimes in the Middle East.

North Korea haunts us all, but it is no mere ghost, it is a real and constant threat. That is why I introduced last week a bill, H.R. 1980, the North Korea Sanctions and Diplomatic Nonrecognition Act. United we must stand for North Korean human rights and for an end to the repression of innocent human beings. For if we wish to find the real meaning of repression, we should turn our gaze to Pyongyang. If we seek the true definition of torture, we need look no further than the killing fields of North Korea. We must not forget the horrific accounts which our emaciated prisoners of war brought back to America after the 1953 Armistice.

We must not turn a deaf ear to the haunting tales of refugees and returned abductees who are among the fortunate few who are able to escape this hell on Earth. We must not silence our consciences in the name of diplomatic expediency. To be silent on fundamental freedoms and human rights is to tell the despotic leader, Kim Jong Il, that he can avoid these issues indefinitely. To be silent is to be an enabler.

We must highlight how prison guards cut still living babies out of the refugee mothers' wombs and slam their heads on the pavement for the so-called crime of being the mixed blood seed of Chinese fathers. We must shed light on the imprisoned Christians who were martyred by having hot molten metal poured on their exposed flesh. The executions carried out for stealing a little food to keep one's child alive during the famine. The refugees hunted down or trafficked in the sex trade in China.

On a regular business day in our Nation's Capitol, the topic of human rights and oppression may seem rather abstract. But human rights is found in each individual, case by case, and in their tears. It is found in the tears of Mrs. Yokota, waiting for over three decades for the return of her little girl snatched away by agents of North Korea. It is in the tears of our own American citizens, Mary Ling, waiting for the return of her daughter, journalist Laura Ling. Laura was grabbed, along with fellow U.S. journalist Euna Lee, 6 weeks ago by North Korean border guards and then imprisoned in the gulag.

Human rights is also found in the tears of a Chicago citizen, Esther Kim, waiting for the return of the remains of her husband, U.S. permanent resident Kim Dong-shik. Reverend Kim was kidnapped by North Korean agents in China 9 years ago while helping refugees, and reportedly died of starvation and torture at a North Korean military base. It is found in the tears of Israeli apartment dwellers hit by missiles developed by North Korea for Hezbollah in southern Lebanon in 2006 from tunnels dug with North Korean assistance.

It is a grim picture, but we must not despair, Madam Speaker. Justice will ultimately prevail. In the same manner that we prevailed against the evil empire and Soviet-style Communism, with perseverance, with dedication to the defense of human rights, and the promotion of core democratic principles, the suffering of the North Korean people can also be brought to an end. May it be so.

Mr. Speaker, our south Florida community has suffered a deep loss with the passing of Sarvelio del Valle, a well- known sports commentator for Radio Mambi, part of the Univision family.

Sarvelio was respected not only for his encyclopedic knowledge of sports, but also for his great love of his family, especially his pride for his grandchildren and great-grandchildren. He was an outstanding sports commentator who was respected by all.

Every day on Radio Mambi, Sarvelio would get the latest sports news to our community, and his segments were indeed the most listened to of that station. Just a few years ago, in fact, he was actually voted as the ``Most Popular Radio Personality in Sports.''

He started his broadcast career in sports in Puerto Rico in 1962, moved to Miami in 1970, and was well-known for his Spanish language broadcast of the Miami Heat basketball games and the University of Miami football games. He also narrated boxing matches around the world, but it was in the Florida Marlins' games where he excelled.

My deepest sympathy goes to his family, his great and loving friend, Armando Perez-Roura of Radio Mambi, and his countless fans throughout the south Florida community.

Te vamos a extranar, Sarvelio--we will miss you, Sarvelio.