Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of House Resolution 1314, commemorating the 75th anniversary of the Ukrainian famine, Holodomor, of 1932 and 1933.

The former Communist state known as the Soviet Union was controlled by a brutal regime that oppressed its own people as well as that of its neighbors. The scars left by the inhumane practices and policies of the Soviet leadership are still felt, despite the passage of 75 years since the famine in Ukraine and the passage of almost two decades since the Soviet regime's demise.

During 1932 and 1933, Joseph Stalin's Communist regime intentionally confiscated grain harvest from the Ukrainian people and prevented any foreign food from being shipped in to help those who were starving to death.

The famine inflicted on Ukraine by the Stalinist regime during those years killed millions of Ukrainians. It is one of the most stark examples of the former Soviet regime's cruel and horrific policies.

Among other items, this resolution notes the 75th anniversary of the Ukrainian famine and expresses sympathy to the victims, survivors and

families of that man-made calamity; condemns the violation of human rights, the freedom of speech and of the self-determination of the Ukrainian people by the former Soviet regime; encourages expanding the world's knowledge about this man-made disaster; and, lastly, supports continued efforts in Ukraine to strengthen the principles of democracy and of a free-market economy.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health and a true champion of human rights around the world.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I also rise in strong support of House Resolution 1402, a measure that underscores congressional support for democracy, development and respect for fundamental human rights in Bangladesh. I would like to congratulate my good friend from New York, Congressman Crowley, for his leadership on this resolution, and for his long- standing interest in Bangladesh and indeed all of South Asia.

Madam Speaker, the United States and Bangladesh have been strong allies since the founding of that country in 1971. Despite many handicaps, including a unique vulnerability to natural disasters, Bangladesh has made impressive strides in key areas of development during the 1990s. However, political polarization, endemic corruption

and the rise of violent extremists all pose serious challenges to Bangladesh society.

In January of 2007, faced with an opposition boycott of national elections and widespread political violence, Bangladesh's president declared a state of emergency. In accordance with the constitution of Bangladesh, the president appointed a caretaker government, which has in turn embarked on an ambitious agenda of reform and renewal for the people of Bangladesh and its institutions.

Since that time, the United States has consistently urged Bangladesh's caretaker government to lift the restrictions on basic rights, meet international standards for due process in pursuing corruption cases and follow through on its commitment to hold free, fair and transparent elections by December 2008.

In recent weeks, there have been positive indications that the electoral roadmap remains on track. The government's progress on updating their voter list and on fighting corruption are encouraging signs, as is its effort to move forward on dialogue with political parties.

Despite these positive developments, however, it remains the strong view of the Congress and the executive branch that the caretaker government must immediately lift the state of emergency or otherwise remove restrictions on freedoms of assembly and freedom of the press.

The political parties of Bangladesh must be able to participate fully in a democratic process. This resolution reaffirms the importance of a U.S. national interest in helping to work with the people of Bangladesh in building a peaceful, prosperous, democracy that will continue to be a strong partner for the United States.

I urge its adoption, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

The night of November 9 through November 10 of the year 1938 consisted of hours of darkness that the world cannot afford to forget. Known as Kristallnacht, that horrible night of unleashed terror and violence that we remember in this resolution before us today, was the clear signal for the start of Adolf Hitler's orchestrated campaign of genocide.

On that night, as state-sponsored violence poured out into the streets, the halls of civilized governments were mute. Joseph Goebbels had announced in his speech on the day of November 8, and I quote, ``The Fuhrer has decided that . . . demonstrations should not be prepared or organized by the Party, but insofar as they erupt spontaneously, they are not to be hampered.''

Following that speech, regional leaders of Hitler's National Socialist Party issued instructions to their local offices, and violence erupted across Germany and in some neighboring countries as well, in a matter that was anything but spontaneous. For 48 terrible hours, mobs rampaged through the streets of German, Czechoslovak and Austrian cities.

The riots destroyed 267 synagogues, shattered an estimated 7,500 windows of Jewish-owned businesses and desecrated many Jewish cemeteries. The Night of Broken Glass claimed the lives of at least 91 Jewish citizens.

Unfortunately, the rest of the world remained largely silent when confronted with the news of this organized brutality. We can only wonder how history might have changed, how the war and the genocide of the subsequent years might have been avoided if silence had been replaced by condemnation and strong action.

As we look back at the events of that terrible night, from the perspective of the passage of 70 years, we recall what our president at that time, Franklin Roosevelt, said. ``I, myself, could scarcely believe that such things could occur in a 20th century civilization.''

As we consider this resolution, which notes this terrible event 70 years ago and the subsequent organized murder of more than 6 million Jews across Europe during World War II, we realize how important it is that we remember the lessons of the 20th century today at the start of the 21st century.

I urge strong adoption of this important resolution, and I reserve the balance of our time.

Madam Speaker, I echo the sentiments of my good friend, and I yield back the balance of our time.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 1451 establishing the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission.

I want to thank my colleagues, my friends Mr. McGovern and Mr. Wolf, the cochairs of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, who authored this fitting tribute to the late chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, our dear friend, Congressman Tom Lantos of California.

A quarter century ago, Tom Lantos was the founding cochair of the Human Rights Caucus. With the tireless assistance of his wife, his partner in life, Annette, Tom spent the remainder of his life at its helm, and it grew to become one of the largest and most active caucuses on the Hill.

It is a fitting tribute to his heroic life that we meet here today, Madam

Speaker, to upgrade the status of that organization and name it in Tom Lantos' honor.

Tom Lantos was born in Budapest in 1928, and came of age as Nazism descended upon the European continent. Imprisoned during the Second World War merely for being Jewish, Tom Lantos twice escaped the labor camps and survived the Holocaust with the help of the Hungarian resistance movement and the Swedish humanitarian Raoul Wallenberg.

Tragically, Tom's family was not so fortunate and they perished in the death camps alongside millions more.

Tom experienced human nature at its worst, and his later work as a champion of human rights cannot be separated from the trials that he endured as a young man.

The horrors of fascism helped to forge his unshakeable commitment to the protection of human dignity. It is hard to think of a major human rights issue of the past three decades on which Tom Lantos was not a leader, whether it was the fight against anti-Semitism, religious persecution, human trafficking, genocide in Darfur, or repression in Tibet, just to name a few.

The bill before us today will create the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission as the formal successor to the Human Rights Caucus. The new commission will carry on the nonpartisan work of promoting fundamental human rights both inside and outside Congress. It will be cochaired by a majority and minority member, and may be joined by any Member of the House. Although it does not have legislative responsibility nor oversight, the commission will be staffed by professionals from the Committee on Foreign Affairs which it is required to collaborate with closely.

I am thankful and blessed for the years that I was able to serve the people of our Nation alongside a hero like Tom Lantos. I appreciate the opportunity that this resolution gives us to honor his life and to recommit ourselves to the ideals by which he lived every day.

I look forward to many years of spirited advocacy by the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, and I urge unanimous support for this important resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the primary sponsor of this bill, the ranking member on the appropriations subcommittee on State, Foreign Ops and Related Agencies and cochair of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), one of the House's most consistent voices in defense of human dignity.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), a member of the Appropriations Committee and a good friend.

I would like to yield an additional minute to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health, whose name is synonymous with support for human rights.

Madam Speaker, we also have no further requests for speakers. We yield back our time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 1461 which recognizes the 10th anniversary of the terrorist bombings of the United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and honors those who were killed or injured as a result of these attacks.

I imagine there is not one among us here today that could not tell you exactly where they were or what they were doing when the al Qaeda terrorist network launched its cowardly and dastardly attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001.

Many of us recounted those stories just 2 weeks ago as the House and the Senate united to solemnly commemorate the seventh anniversary of the September 11 attacks. And while September 11 represents the deadliest attacks suffered by the American people at the hands of the al Qaeda operation to date, it was not the first.

Three years earlier on the morning of August 7, 1998, 223 people were killed and 5,000 people were injured as nearly simultaneous car bombs ripped through the United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. The bombings in Nairobi were particularly serious as the embassy stood on one of the busiest intersections in the city and the blast took down several neighboring buildings. The bombing in Tanzania was no less spectacular, but remarkably, it occurred on a national holiday when the embassy was closed.

Though these terrorist attacks reportedly were intended to punish the United States, the overwhelming majority of the victims that day were Kenyan and Tanzanian. This is typical of a network which callously views the innocent victims it kills, including fellow Muslims, merely as collateral damage. It also reveals the true hypocrisy of al Qaeda's radical Islamic agenda.

In all, 12 Americans were killed as a result of the east African embassy bombings, 31 foreign service nationals were killed, and one is still listed as missing. Scores more were saved as guards protecting the embassy in Nairobi succeeded in physically blocking the suicide bombers from gaining entry into the underground parking area. They paid with their lives for this act of heroism.

We owe a debt of gratitude to those who died in service to our country on August 7, 1998. And we are compelled to express our profound sorrow for those whose lives were taken or were forever altered as a result of these dastardly attacks.

As we solemnly commemorate the 10th anniversary of the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania and the seventh anniversary of the September 11 attacks on our Nation, we seek to reaffirm our resolve to defend our Nation, to defend our interests from radical Islamic terrorists who seek to destroy the United States and our citizens.

I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Scott, for introducing this important measure, and I urge unanimous support for its passage.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

I also rise in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 371 which states the support of the Congress for just restitution or compensation for property illegally confiscated during the last century in certain countries of Eastern Europe.

The tragedy of the Holocaust, in which millions of innocent people were murdered by the Nazis and their property illegally confiscated, was followed by oppression and continued confiscation under Communist regimes. The fresh air of freedom that entered with the collapse of the Communist bloc in Eastern Europe moved some post-Communist governments in the region to support justice for the victims of such property confiscation.

Regrettably, as this resolution points out, the government of Poland has not enacted legislation that would provide for a process for the restitution of, and the compensation for, private property that had been seized, that had been confiscated illegally by those regimes.

Similarly, Lithuania has not implemented legislation that would provide for the restitution or compensation for communal property confiscated by the Nazi and Communist regimes.

This resolution calls on the Polish government to enact such legislation. It calls on the lithuanian government to implement legislation so that communal or religious properties can be returned to their rightful owners or can provide them or their heirs with fair compensation.

Madam Speaker, the resolution also calls on our President and our Secretary of State to engage the governments of Poland and Lithuania on these important issues.

I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, if the gentleman also has no further requests for time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 1361--but, but, but, but, but with great reservations, particularly with respect to changes made to the text after the resolution had been adopted by our Foreign Affairs Committee.

Madam Speaker, in 2001, a number of anti-democratic governments hijacked the planning and implementation of the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in Durban, South Africa.

Instead of representing a bold step forward by devoting its attention to fighting racism and other bigotry, the event was dominated by attacks on America, on Israel, and on Jews at every turn.

At the conference's NGO forum, groups distributed literature expressing sorrow that Adolf Hitler did not fully exterminate the Jewish people. The anti-Israel and anti-American rhetoric at Durban so discredited the conference that our U.S. Secretary of State, Colin Powell, withdrew our delegation, stating, ``I know that you do not combat racism by conferences that produce declarations containing hateful language or that singles out any one country alone in the world, Israel, for censure and abuse.''

Our late friend and colleague, Tom Lantos, the former Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, also walked out on Durban, stating that the conference ``provided the world with a glimpse into the abyss of international hate, discrimination and, indeed, racism.''

Today, Madam Speaker, we are confronted with the forthcoming 2009 Durban Review Conference, also known as Durban II. The version of this resolution that passed our committee was a compromise that was worked out between our Republican and Democratic Members. Having introduced several resolutions in this Congress addressing Durban II, I felt at the time that even that compromise text did not go far enough in portraying the problems plaguing this conference. That compromise text, however, focused on defeating the campaigns by some countries, particularly members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, to divert Durban II away from reviewing human rights concerns and, instead, focus it on attacking Israel and promoting anti-Semitism.

Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, the text before us today has a different focus. This text places the emphasis on higher level U.S. diplomatic efforts on ensuring that Durban II follows up on the commitments made at the last conference, an effort that could be interpreted as legitimizing the first Durban meeting, and as such the efforts by Israel and America haters.

Indeed, Madam Speaker, responsible nations must work to fight against racism and other forms of intolerance. And therefore, we appreciate that the 2001 Durban Declaration declared slavery to be a crime against humanity and

noted that the Holocaust should never be forgotten.

We all wish that Durban I were a symbol of success in the struggle against racism, and that Durban II would build on that success. However, Madam Speaker, the Durban Conference ultimately did not represent progress against racism. Until this very day, Durban is a symbol of the powerful, pervasive menace of anti-Semitism and anti- Israel hate.

Indeed, the conference's own Durban Declaration, which could have been a stirring, unequivocal call to stop racism and hate, was tarnished by a number of irrelevant provisions, including several clauses that singled out Israel while ignoring the plight of Israelis under siege from violent extremists.

Therefore, it is imperative that we not imply, in hindsight, that Durban I was more positive than it actually was; neither should we pretend that Durban II will be less disastrous than it actually will be.

The planning committee for Durban II, Madam Speaker, is led by the regimes of Libya, Iran and Cuba. And that committee has already expressed its intent to focus the conference on Israel bashing, anti- Semitism, and establishing a global blasphemy code that could stifle our freedom of speech and religion.

Just a few days ago, on September 19, the Algerian Ambassador to the U.N. Missions in Geneva, within the context of discussions concerning Durban II, redefined anti-Semitism and referred to ``traditional anti- Semitism'' as having become ``politically incorrect in many rich nations.'' What? Translation, Madam Speaker: Anti-Israel and anti- Semitism is objectionable in rich nations of the West, but acceptable everywhere else.

The fix is in, Madam Speaker. After extensive diplomatic efforts by the U.S. to prevent Durban II from following in the dark path of its predecessor, we joined our allies, Canada and Israel, in declaring that we will not fund and we will not participate in a conference that promotes hate.

As former Assistant Secretary of State Kristen Silverberg noted while testifying before our Foreign Affairs Subcommittee this past April, ``There is absolutely no case to be made for participating in something that is going to be a repeat of Durban I. We don't have any confidence that this will be any better than Durban I.''

It is clear, Madam Speaker, that any further U.S. involvement in Durban II in the planning process, whether by an Undersecretary, by the Secretary of State, or even by the President, will not avert the looming train wreck that is Durban II. It will only waste precious U.S. time, legitimacy, and political capital on a doomed venture.

However, the text before us today, while it contains some positive clauses as it has been amended after committee action, could be misconstrued as urging America to further participate in the Durban II planning process in order to attempt to ensure that Durban II follows up on the commitments made at Durban I.

Making sure that we don't send a mixed signal is especially important this week, Madam Speaker, as the United Nations General Assembly meets in New York and as Ahmadinejad prepares today to spew his anti- American, anti-Israel, anti-Semitic venom on the world stage.

I will vote for this resolution, Madam Speaker, with the intent that it does not call for the U.S. to participate in Durban II or its planning process in any way, shape or form. Moreover, Madam Speaker, I will continue my efforts to work with my colleagues, the executive branch, and our allies to discuss an alternative to Durban, one rooted in freedom, in tolerance, and in democratic values.

I thank Chairman Howard Berman for introducing this resolution. I intend to vote for it with all of these reservations.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve our time until the speakers are done on their side.

I have no further requests for time, and I will reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

House Resolution 1369 recognizes the efforts of nongovernmental organizations working to bring just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

I would like to thank my good friend from California, the gentlelady, Ms. Barbara Lee, for her hard work in drafting this important resolution. We all want to see peace, stability and security prevail in the Middle East and, indeed, in all regions of conflict. However, that goal remains elusive when leaders act in ways that distort, perpetuate and aggravate otherwise resolvable disputes between nations and peoples. Such leaders make peace impossible by programming their citizens into viewing other nations and other people as wicked, as inhuman, as worthy of hatred and even of death.

Fortunately, the work of nongovernmental organizations and of individuals committed to nonviolence and to Israel's right to exist as a Jewish and as a Democratic state provide a counterweight to the purveyors of this terrible rhetoric. These individuals and NGOs cultivate relationships that oppose violent extremism and hateful propaganda, that promote a culture, instead, of life and that seek peaceful, rational and mutually beneficial solutions to seemingly intractable problems.

So I commend the gentlelady from California (Ms. Lee) for its introduction, and I urge the passage of this important resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

I rise today in support of House Concurrent Resolution 374, which expresses the House's backing for interfaith dialogue between Christian, Jewish and Muslim leaders.

Mr. Speaker, at a time when violent extremists are misusing Islam in order to encourage others to commit mass murder and to do away with liberty, it is more important than ever for true moderates from all faiths to come together and to unequivocally repudiate hate and violence and to embrace peace, tolerance and religious freedom for all.

As true moderates do come together for this most noble of purpose, they should know that America stands with them in their quest.

Mr. Speaker, while this important resolution deals with interfaith dialogue involving adherence to Christianity, to Judaism and to Islam, I would like to note that interfaith dialogue and religious freedom should encompass all faiths.

Finally, I would like to thank my distinguished colleague and dear friend, Mr. Wamp of Tennessee, for introducing this important resolution and for presenting it before us today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the author of this resolution, my good friend from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

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

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

I rise in strong support, also, of H.R. 5834, the North Korean Human Rights Reauthorization Act, which I introduced with my good friend from California, the chairman of our committee, Howard Berman, earlier this Congress. We passed this bill, Mr. Speaker, 4 months ago in a strong demonstration of this body's continued commitment to human rights, to transparent humanitarian assistance, and to refugee protection for the people of North Korea.

On Monday, the Senate followed our bipartisan lead and unanimously supported this bill with minor modifications, which is why we are taking it up again today.

I would like to thank Chairman Biden and Ranking Member Lugar and their staffs for their input and their assistance. Special thanks to my friend, Senator Sam Brownback, for his long-standing leadership on the issues of North Korea human rights, and his efforts were instrumental in securing a successful outcome in the Senate.

During our initial House floor debate in May, Mr. Speaker, we discussed the dire traumas that the North Korean regime has perpetrated against its own people during the past half century.

Rather than recount the horrific circumstances which compelled me to draft this bill, I would instead like to focus today on some of the important clarifications contained in this legislation.

Over the past 4 years, in oversight hearings, in meetings and official letters, Members have expressed their dissatisfaction with the executive branch implementation of the North Korean Human Rights Act of 2004.

In the words of the report of the Foreign Affairs Committee on this bill, it has been ``too slow and too weak,'' and the purposes set forth in section 4 of the original act remain largely unrealized.

After enactment, the administration delayed appointment of the special envoy for nearly 8 months, 4 months after the envoy was required to file a report to Congress under the act, a deadline that was ignored. Since then, the special envoy has never filled that position on more than a part-time basis.

Mr. Speaker, House Members were genuinely surprised by that limited time commitment, which did not track with the broad duties and responsibilities assigned to the envoy and the ambitious purposes of that law. Congress has also repeatedly noted our disappointment with the inadequate pace of the North Korean refugee admissions during the past 4 years.

Even though title 3 of the act clarified North Korean eligibility for U.S. resettlement and required the Secretary of State to facilitate the submission of those refugee applications, fewer than 70 of the more than 150,000 refugees resettled here since then have been North Koreans.

Many North Koreans have been deterred or have abandoned their claims for U.S. resettlement because of the extremely long wait caused by the resistance and the delay of foreign governments, as well as the slow pace of our own screening.

One poignant case, Mr. Speaker, followed by our committee staff involved the family of three North Koreans, a husband, a wife, and their young son. That family lived a vulnerable and depressing existence in Southeast Asia, confined largely to a single room for more than 2 years while awaiting completion of the U.S. process. Even though the mother was battling cancer, they persisted in the resettlement process because she believed that life in America would provide the most freedom and opportunity for her son.

This summer, after a personal appeal by Chairman Berman and me, they were finally allowed to leave that Third Country and travel halfway around the world to their new home in Virginia. After years of heroic patience, the mother lived just long enough to deliver her son safely to this land of new promise. She died less than 2 weeks after their arrival.

The United States must intensify our diplomacy with foreign nations on these issues, Mr. Speaker, and work more cooperatively with our ally South Korea, which admirably continues to bear the overwhelming bulk of the refugee resettlement numbers.

To help address these deficiencies, H.R. 5834 clarifies and strengthens the role of the special envoy. It makes the special envoy for North Korean human rights an ambassadorial-rank position to ensure that the envoy has ample stature to pursue his or her duties with foreign governments, as well as to promote the priorities of the act within the Department of State.

This bill makes clear that the envoy position is to be ``a full-time position . . . as intended by the North Korean Human Rights Act of 2004.''

When combined with the requirement of the original act that the envoy ``be a person of recognized distinction in the field of human rights,'' the bill before us eliminates any misconception that the position may be a part-time undertaking, or a second hat worn by a Foreign Service officer with other, more important, supposedly, duties.

This bill also makes clear that the envoy's mandated concerns include the protection of North Korean refugees.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the bill inserts a new paragraph at the very top of the special envoy's statutory duties that confirms the envoy's role in the formulation and implementation of the full

range of activities under the North Korean Human Rights Act, which includes, in the words of the act: ``Promoting the Human Rights of North Koreans''; ``Assisting North Koreans in Need''; and ``Protecting North Korean Refugees.''

The people of North Korea face some of the most severe repression on the planet.

I am proud of the work that our Congress began 4 years ago to help their plight, and I thank my friend Chairman Berman, our bipartisan cosponsors, and the numerous nongovernmental organizations who have worked with us to extend and improve the North Korean Human Rights Act.

I urge unanimous support for this measure.

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

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, to help explain the intent behind the full-time special envoy requirement in this bill, I would like to insert into the Record a brief excerpt from the Background and Purpose section of House Report 110-628 submitted to the House by Chairman Berman.

North Korean Human Rights Reauthorization Act of 2008

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

It has been 7 years since the unimaginable happened, unimaginable, but nevertheless all too real.

It is difficult to believe that the months and the years have passed so quickly for some, so slowly for others. But although the passage of time cannot erase the scars, it often shows mercy by soothing the raw wounds of experience and transforming them into memory. And that is our purpose here today, Madam Speaker, to remember, to remember the victims and to remind ourselves of the hatred that fuels the enemies of freedom and their desire to destroy us, to destroy our homeland, to destroy everything that we represent.

Every American and millions around the globe remember that day, remember where they were and what they were doing when they heard the news and turned on their televisions. They remember the numbing shock and the horror of that day. All wanted to do something to help, and yet there seemed at that time to be so little that could be done to relieve the suffering and the fear.

Thank God that there were men and women in a position to help and who did so at great risk and at great cost to themselves. We honor those individuals for their bravery, none of whom sought fame, many of whom lost their lives so that others might live.

But while it is appropriate that we remember the events of that day, that we mourn those whom we lost and celebrate the many heroes, our attention should not be fixed entirely on the past for the attack on us was not a single blow but the declaration of a war.

We suddenly learned that this war had already been fought against us for many years and in many places, but we had not recognized it for what it was. We had the taking of our embassy and Americans hostages in Iran in 1979, the bombing of our embassy compound and the Marine attacks in Beirut in the early 1980s, the first World Trade Center bombing by Islamic terrorists in 1993, and the attack on the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, the USS Cole, and our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, also in the 1990s.

The goal of our self-proclaimed enemies is not to defeat us but to destroy us. For they must destroy us if they are to destroy the civilization we represent which they have defined as their ultimate aim. Their fantasies cannot be made true as long as we exist to stop them.

This is a new type of war, Madam Speaker, which presents unfamiliar challenges, and it will test us in ways for which the methods of the past have only a limited use.

Securing victory will task our mental and material resources and will require innovative approaches and unconventional solutions. But our courage, our steadfastness, our determination will be as greatly challenged.

In the 7 years since we were attacked, we have come to know our enemies, we have come to know their plans and their methods of operation.

As we see them more clearly, we are increasingly able to uncover their networks and locate their hiding places. But we should not expect an easy success. Our enemies have many allies and have sunk deep roots that will not easily be torn out.

Even as I speak, our warriors are fighting for us and for our country far away from their homes. I am proud that my stepson and my daughter- in-law are two of those warriors who served in Iraq and Lindsey in Afghanistan as well.

We pray for the success of all of our personnel in harm's way, knowing that victory will not be achieved in one decisive battle but in many small ones and fought in many ways and in many places around the globe.

Let us remember this as we prepare our defenses and make our plans to seek out and destroy those who would destroy us.

We must not deceive ourselves with the hope that this threat will just go away, that our enemies will tire of the battle, that they will experience a change of heart, and that they will renounce the evil that they have committed, and instead, we know that they will eagerly plan to do so again.

We must remember that we cannot hide, that we must not fall prey to the easy belief that there are easy solutions because, in fact, there are none.

But there is no room for despair, Madam Speaker. For more than two centuries, our country has risen to meet the challenges that at the time seemed impossible, when the odds against us seemed to be too great, and the path to victory seemed difficult to see. But we have always prevailed.

So on this day of remembrance, Madam Speaker, let us reflect upon all those whom we have lost, on all those who guard us still today, and on the task remaining for all of us, and pledge to do our duty as have all the generations that have preceded us.

God bless the United States of America, now and always.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member on the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Mr. Davis, who lost many friends and constituents at the Pentagon on that fateful day 7 years ago.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health of our Foreign Affairs Committee, who knows the personal suffering of 9/11 as he represents family members of the victims and lost over 50 fellow citizens from his congressional district when the World Trade Center towers were hit.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the ranking member of the Oversight Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs, as well as a member of the Intelligence Subcommittee on the Homeland Security Committee. He also has experienced the dramatic impact of the 9/11 attacks as he lost so many constituents and continues to this day to comfort and assist the over 80 families impacted by that attack.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen),

ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies, because over 700 people from New Jersey lost their lives on this day 7 years ago.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend debate time by an additional 20 minutes, equally divided.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett), an esteemed member of our Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to a member of the Committee on Homeland Security and the ranking member of its Subcommittee on Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection, the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

I'm pleased to yield the gentleman such additional time as he may consume.

Madam Speaker, we have no further requests for time. I yield back the balance of our time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to honor one of south Florida's great citizens, Judy Gilbert-Gould. She has spent most of her life working on behalf of the Greater Miami Jewish Federation. She has spent a lifetime of service to the community. For the past 25 years, Judy has been advocating for equality and respect for Jews across the globe.

Judy's desire to serve and lifelong commitment to helping those in need was spurred by her father, the late Stanley C. Myers, who founded the Greater Miami Jewish Federation in his backyard in 1939. Before joining the federation full-time, Judy worked as director of Victim- Witness Services at the Florida State attorney's office, community services director for the Miami Beach Redevelopment Agency, and as executive director of the American Jewish Congress.

Judy's dedication not only led her to help those in her community, but she also became a voice for many around the world. She worked on behalf of Soviet Jews who were trying to escape the horrors of communism by fleeing to Israel. She worked closely with the Florida delegations in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate to encourage our Nation's strong partnership with Israel, as well as to denounce the genocide in Sudan and to care for Holocaust survivors.

Judy has received awards from the national Council of Jewish Women, the city of Miami Beach, and from Jewish Community Services of South Florida, to name a few. I am proud to be her representative in Congress. Judy serves as an example for countless individuals throughout south Florida. I am sure she will continue on with her mission to empower those most vulnerable among us.

Madam Speaker, I humbly honor a dear friend and a strong community activist, Martha Flores, who has done so much to improve our South Florida area and who relentlessly promotes the cause of human rights. Miami-Dade County has honored Martha by naming the segment of 8th Street and SW 42 Ave after her. This is a testament to her dedication and service to our

community. After leaving her native Cuba to escape Fidel Castro's communist regime, she established deep roots in Miami. She has been the producer and host of a nightly radio program, ``La Noche y Usted (The Night and You), which has earned the greatest audience of all nightly Spanish talk shows in South Florida.

In recognition of her indelible impact on the community, Martha Flores was the first woman enshrined in the ``Calle Ocho Walk of Fame.'' Throughout her distinguished career, she has received many accolades, but this has not deterred her from her main objective: to humbly serve her community. One of her first radio shows, ``La Voz de la Mujer (the Voice of a Woman),'' was the first Spanish radio program that raised issues concerning the plight of Cuban exiles. She never forgot her homeland and for nearly 50 years now she has been at the forefront, while working alongside numerous community organizations, of bringing to light the repression of Castro's Cuba.

Martha Flores has selflessly given of her time and resources to volunteer for many humanitarian causes including the League Against Cancer and League Against Blindness. In addition, she also helped St. Jude Children's Research Hospital raise much needed funds. She has been instrumental in bringing public attention and awareness to the needs of the elderly and disabled adults through her radio program and volunteerism. She will also be the first ever recipient of the Claude Pepper Memorial Award in the Media category.

Martha has also made her radio show available to those who work on behalf of a free and independent Cuba, the sacred land of her birth. She sends a nightly message of hope and solidarity to her multitude of fans, many from the oppressed island nation.

Once again, I would like to congratulate Martha Flores for her recent honor as well as for all the service and activism she has undertaken. South Florida is honored to have her and the example she has given all of us.

Madam Speaker the most important argument in favor of the United States-Colombia Free Trade Agreement is that it is manifestly good for the United States and our interests.

The most obvious benefit is expanded trade.

Opponents claim that the agreement will force the U.S. to remove restrictions on Colombia's exports, resulting in more imports and leading to a loss of jobs and income in the U.S.

But these opponents do not understand that, because most of Colombia's exports already enter the U.S. with few or no restrictions, it is Colombia's barriers that will be removed and U.S. exporters that will benefit.

And expanded U.S. exports to Colombia translate directly into increased jobs and income here at home.

Colombia will certainly benefit, but the U.S. will benefit more.

This free trade agreement is about more than economics. It is essential to securing U.S. strategic interests in the Hemisphere.

In a region in which anti-American regimes are aggressively targeting U.S. interests, Colombia remains a steadfast ally.

That ally is battling an array of internal and external enemies, and the U.S. has an enormous stake in ensuring that Colombia wins that fight.

Long under siege from FARC guerrillas who once controlled nearly half the country, Colombia has, in recent months, inflicted major defeats on an armed insurgency that has: sought to overthrow Colombia's democratic government; killed and kidnapped thousands of Colombians, as well as Americans and other foreigners; and provided protection to drug kingpins shipping billions of dollars of cocaine, heroin, and other illegal drugs to the U.S. every year.

Colombia looks poised to free itself from these threats and achieve peace and long-term stability.

Given the stakes, our friends and enemies in this Hemisphere are watching how we treat this vital ally in the region.

The Colombian government has done everything we have asked of it, even renegotiating the already concluded agreement to add new provisions regarding labor and environmental issues. But to no avail.

As a result, our friends and enemies are in danger of concluding that the U.S. has turned its back on Colombia and that the assault on U.S. interests and allies is paying off.

Over the past decade, the once near-hopeless security situation in Colombia has been transformed, with crucial assistance and unwavering support provided by the United States.

But there is much left to be done.

Although the insurgency has been severely weakened, there are many thousands of guerrillas still operating. The cultivation and export to the U.S. of illegal drugs continues. And there are large areas of Colombia in which the central government has virtually no presence.

U.S. assistance and support for Colombia has been instrumental in its success, and will continue to be so in the future.

But that means more than simply security assistance and money. The easiest, most direct, and most effective means we have to bolster Colombia at this critical stage is passage of the free trade agreement.

Congress has a golden opportunity to support our embattled ally and further our own interests. If we falter, so may Colombia, and the achievements of a decade will be needlessly squandered. And then some may ask: ``Who lost Colombia?''

Madam Speaker, the illegal Turkish occupation of the northern region of the sovereign state of Cyprus began 34 years ago, and continues to this day.

It must end, and Turkey must remove its forces from Cyprus' territory.

Very commendable efforts are underway by the Cypriot government to achieve a reunification of Cyprus. Meetings are being held with the designated representative for the Turkish Cypriot community to discuss ways to create a federal structure that will ensure the rights and freedoms of all the people of Cyprus.

But, just as the continued illegal occupation of northern Cyprus has to end, Turkey has to play a constructive role in supporting the talks on reunification. In that regard, it is simply not helpful to have Turkish military displays in northern Cyprus, marking the anniversary of the occupation, as took place this past weekend.

It is time for the barricades to come down, for the people who had been forced from their homes decades ago to return, for those who remain missing from the time of the invasion to be accounted for, and for freedom and economic prosperity to be allowed to spread across the beautiful island-country of Cyprus.

I note the anniversary of the Turkish military invasion of Cyprus with great disappointment that the Turkish military continues its illegal occupation.

But I remain hopeful that the voices that are calling for peace and reunification of Cyprus will be heard and will prevail.

Just as the ongoing talks have already led to the reopening of Ledra Street, a key thoroughfare in Nicosia that had been closed for over 40 years, those talks can lead to reunification of all of Cyprus itself, if Turkey takes steps that will support that.