Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, last week the Ways and Means Committee chairman outlined the provisions of what he has been calling the ``mother of all tax bills.''

The most important piece of information about this proposal is the bottom line. The proposal would mean a multi-trillion-dollar tax increase on the American taxpayer.

I think this is a good moment to take a step back and look at the philosophical difference between Republicans and Democrats. On this side of the aisle, we simply believe people know how to spend their money better than the government. But just look at the legislation passed in the House so far this year: $431 billion in tax increases have been included in bills that have already passed the House this year.

Madam Speaker, we should remember, no one knows how to spend their money better than the taxpayer. We should be looking for ways to decrease the tax burden, not increase it.

Madam Speaker, due to the current crisis in Burma, it is vital that even while media coverage of the situation in Burma has decreased we still maintain a constant watch over Burma. The regime's human rights violations are horrific. I have stacks of reports in my office detailing the dictatorship's use of rape as a weapon of terror, the use of ethnic minorities as human landmine sweepers, and many other abuses.

On September 18, 1988, the military forced its rule on the people of Burma, a rule that has been dominated by severe violence and oppression. Ever since, the people of Burma have struggled to survive under this brutal regime.

While the Buddhist monks and democracy leaders have received much deserved attention recently, the struggle of the ethnic minorities remains difficult and also must receive the spotlight of international attention'. Article 2 of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, defines genocide as ``any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.'' Reports make clear that the ironically-named State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) of Burma, the ruling military junta, has engaged in a deliberate policy to eliminate the ethnic minorities. The regime engages in a scorched earth policy, destroying entire villages along with food storage and production sources; use systematic rape as a weapon of terror; uses ethnic minorities, including women and children, as human landmine sweepers; engages in forced labor, also known as slavery; has the highest number of child soldiers in the world; and refuses to allow the duly elected leader of the country to take office.

While there is extensive photograph evidence of more recent massacres, I want to draw attention to a massacre that took place in Burma's Dooplaya district on April 28th, 2002. The regime targeted children. These photos, which show the bodies of the victims stacked neatly, are incontrovertible evidence of the regime's crimes against humanity and the increasingly horrific human rights situation in the country. The regime's soldiers shot and killed the Karen villagers in their quest to completely subjugate the entire country. The dozen who were killed include Naw Pi Lay, who was just a baby, Naw Daw Bah, a 2- year-old girl, and Naw Play and Naw Ble Po, two five year old girls. Nine others were shot and lucky enough to escape, including a six-year- old boy who played dead until the regime's troops left. What possible threat could these babies and young girls have presented to Burma's military regime?

The various ethnic minorities of Burma, which comprise approximately 60 percent of the population, are not of the Burman ethnic group. The desire of the junta, composed of members of the Burman ethnicity, is to ensure that it remains the ``master race,'' or maha bama. In 1988, the regime issued a blood assimilation order which stated, ``With a view to attain success in accordance with our basic aspiration, which holds that our one race, the Burmans alone must inherit prosperity with an achievement of a long standing dominion. The easiest way to realize our above aim, we, the superior sons of the mainland of Burma are to employ the strategy of `Blood Assimilation' against the female members of other non-Burman ethnic races. Our objective is to take marital possession of their women.'' Soldiers are instructed to dilute the bloodlines of the ethnic minorities in order to ``purify'' them and make them more Burman. While some might dispute the use of genocide in relation to this situation, it is clearly, at the very least, ethnic cleansing.

Astonishingly, other nations are enabling the dictators to continue their attacks against the ethnic minorities, democracy activists, protestors and Buddhist monks. Reports suggest that since 1989, the Chinese government has provided the dictators in Burma with over $2 billion worth of weapons and military equipment. This Chinese weaponry has allowed the regime to quadruple the size of its forces to 450,000.

Russia also is supporting the dictatorship by helping build a nuclear reactor in Rangoon. The regime says the reactor is for peaceful purposes for medical research. However, Burma is ranked second from the bottom by the World Health Organization in terms of national health care, thus begging the question why they need nuclear medical research when there are barely even provisions for basic medical needs.

European Union non-governmental organizations recently released a report entitled Indian Helicopters for Burma: making a mockery of embargoes? The report provided details on India's negotiations with Burma's military junta since late 2006 and focused on the transfer of Advanced Light Helicopters (ALH) to Burma's military. India, the world's largest democracy, has increasingly spurned democracy supporters in Burma in favor of increased cooperation with Burma's military regime, even providing Burma's ruling generals with tanks, aircraft, artillery guns, radar, small arms, and the ALH. Absent any external enemy, Burma's military rulers have employed these arms and military equipment against its ethnic minority civilian population, resulting in the destruction of more than 3,000 villages, the use of forced labor, and the rape and murder of thousands of ethnic minority civilians.

Even more appalling than the increased military cooperation and sales between the Government of India and Burma's military regime is evidence that the transfer of military hardware risks violating both European Union and U.S. arms restrictions in place against Burma's military regime. Parts and technologies vital to the manufacture of the ALH were provided by several European companies and two American companies, Aitech Systems, Ltd. and Lord Corporation. It is essential that our government immediately investigate whether or not the inclusion of American parts and technologies in the production of India's ALHs and the potential impending transfer of the ALHs from the Government of India to Burma's brutal military generals violate U.S. export control regulations and the U.S. arms embargo on Burma.

Sadly, until recently, the international community generally has turned a deaf ear to the cries of the ethnic minorities, the refugees, the IDPs, and the democracy activists. While a number of states and international organizations currently have made helpful statements condemning the dictatorship for its actions, they long ago should have been helping the people of Burma. Action is what will bring change to the situation in Burma.

The SPDC regime deceives the international community again and again by saying one thing and then doing another. The international community, on behalf of the people of Burma, should make it clear that the oppressive dictators of Burma will no longer be tolerated--we do not want to remember another anniversary of the human rights violations against Burma's people. Instead, next year, we should be celebrating the return of democracy and freedom to the people of Burma.

I strongly commend the EU for increasing sanctions against the brutal regime and I applaud the government of Japan for cutting its aid to the dictatorship.

I also commend recent steps against the dictatorship by our Administration. However, I urge our Administration and my colleagues in Congress to act to support democracy in Burma and provide increased aid to the suffering ethnic minorities. We should exponentially increase the U.S. aid program to Burma by increasing aid to IDP, refugee, and democracy organizations, as well as by providing funding to help rehabilitate child soldiers, establish health programs addressing malaria, TB, and HIV/AIDS, support education programs, increase human rights documentation capabilities, and assist with protection capabilities. The U.S. government spent approximately 100 million trying to help the people of Serbia against Milosevic--the people of Burma are as important as the populations of Southeast Europe and we need to put our money where our mouth is.

Further, the U.S. government must take immediate steps to implement the recommendations outlined in the report on Indian helicopters and other weapons by commencing negotiations with the Government of India to cease the transfer of Advanced Light Helicopters to Burma's military regime; discontinuing all future defense production cooperation with India that might lead to transfers of embargoed controlled equipment to Burma; attaching to all future licenses for transfers of controlled goods and technology to India a strict and enforceable condition, with penalty clauses prohibiting re-export to states under an embargo to which the original exporting state is party without express governmental permission; and drawing attention to the high likelihood of that military equipment being used by Burma's military to commit ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity in violation of international law including international human rights and humanitarian law.

The U.S. government and the international community together must press China and Russia to immediately cease their cooperation with and support for the brutal dictators in Burma. In addition, I urge the international community to press Burma's regime to cease the violence and murder perpetrated against the people, to immediately and unconditionally

release all political prisoners, and to allow the legitimately elected leaders of the country to govern. Further, the government of Singapore should freeze the bank accounts of the dictators.

Madam Speaker, it is time for the world to act to stop the honors taking place in Burma. While the military regime woos diplomats and guests in downtown Rangoon, Burma's people outside the realm of international scrutiny endure intensifying and acute repression. I demand that Burma's military regime immediately stop its campaign of terror against the Burmese people, and urge my colleagues to raise their voices for freedom.

I reiterate, public statements in support of the people of Burma are helpful, but only issuing statements is like putting a tiny band aid over a gaping, infected wound--it will not help where massive surgery is needed. The only thing that will solve the problem of the brutal dictatorship in Burma is to get rid of the SPDC.

I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House, the Senate and the Administration, and the international community to see that Burma's military regime soon joins the Soviet Union, Ceausescu's Romania, Milosevic's Yugoslavia and other regimes and dictatorships that now reside in the ashbin of world history.

Finally, I say to the people of Burma: You are not forgotten. We stand with you and will continue to work with you for as long as it takes to ensure that the people of your nation are able to live in peace and freedom.

Madam Speaker, in the early hours of May 11, seven U.S. soldiers were on lookout near a patrol base in Iraq. Some time before dawn, heavily armed al Qaeda gunmen made coordinated surprise attacks on the soldiers. Four of the soldiers were killed and three others taken hostage. What happened next is a travesty and a failure of our public policy in support of the troops in the field. A search to rescue the men began immediately but was brought to a halt because of our FISA law, by the need for military lawyers to jump through legal hoops in order to gain approval to conduct surveillance of terrorist communications. Ten hours passed before they were granted such permission. The search for a kidnapped U.S. soldier was halted so that lawyers could find grounds to have the Attorney General grant special permission to listen in on the communications between the individuals in Iraq. Our FISA law, as the President has requested, needs reform, not the flawed bill the Democrats are seeking to pass.

Madam Speaker, I'm somewhat puzzled over an event held on Monday this week. The Government of Russia, the Government of China, and a U.N. agency gathered for a conference entitled ``Exploring Cooperative Approaches to Security in Space.'' I find this fascinating, ``Cooperative Approaches to Security in Space''; yet China, with Russia and India's help, is almost single-handedly propping up the brutal dictatorship of Burma.

This is a brutal dictatorship that uses ethnic minorities as human land mine sweepers, has destroyed 3,000 villages and has the highest number of child soldiers in the world.

Perhaps China, Russia, and the U.N. should help bring democracy to Burma, which would bring security and stability to that country, before trying to

bring security in space. The suffering people of Burma deserve better, but apparently the Chinese and Russian Governments don't think so.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen an incredible amount of political posturing this week over SCHIP. The SCHIP program was created in a bipartisan effort to ensure poor children without health insurance have health care coverage. Poor children without insurance. Children, not adults. Some States have more adults on SCHIP than children. Poor children, not families making $83,000 a year, to get free health insurance. Poor children without insurance.

Under the Democrat bill, one in three children who already have private insurance would drop their private coverage to get free government coverage.

Let's ensure poor children have health coverage and do it in a bipartisan way, not shutting out Republicans the way they did in this last bill.

This Democrat Congress truly is a dysfunctional Congress. They can't even get SCHIP reauthorization right.

Mr. Speaker, the peaceful protestors in Burma deserve our support, and the brutal generals in charge of the SPDC must be held accountable.

Reports on the number of deaths ordered by the dictatorship range from hundreds to thousands. It's difficult to get specific numbers, particularly as other reports detail the regime burning dead bodies so that no one can get an accurate count of the dead and disappeared.

One new image shows the badly bruised and semi-dressed body of a Buddhist monk floating face down in the Rangoon River.

The regime has also no respect for journalists. A Japanese journalist was shot point blank by the dictator's troops, and the regime detained other journalists.

One senior Burmese intelligence official is claiming that thousands of protesters are dead, and the bodies of hundreds of executed monks have been dumped in the jungle.

We must do everything possible to press the regime to stop the killing and detentions. This includes sanctions against the regime, specifically freezing bank accounts of members of the dictatorship.

The people of Burma deserve to live in peace and freedom.

Mr. Speaker, Columbia University defended the Iranian President's speech by invoking the right to free speech and speaking about open exchange of ideas.

None of what he said on Monday could be construed as such. He dodged questions about his Holocaust denial. He ignored questions about his country's role in the death of American soldiers in Iraq.

This same university does not allow our military's ROTC program on campus because they believe the military's ``don't ask, don't tell policy'' is discriminatory toward homosexuals.

But if Columbia is that concerned about defending homosexuals, why did they let this dictator on campus? His regime doesn't discriminate against gays; it executes them. More than 400 homosexuals so far executed like this.

Columbia University provided Mr. Ahmadinejad a sense of legitimacy and a forum that he will no doubt use to his advantage at home and abroad.

It is unfortunate they don't provide the same to the fine young men and women of our armed services.

Mr. Speaker, over the last several days, the world has witnessed an incredible display of courage in the face of tyranny in Burma. Buddhist monks have been peacefully marching throughout the streets of Rangoon, as well as 25 other cities throughout the country. These pious men, revered by their countrymen, are peacefully calling for an end to the brutal military dictatorships that have held the country hostage for over four decades.

Citizens are beginning to stand in support of the peaceful demonstration, at times protecting the monks from possible violence from riot police by linking arms, acting as a human shield. The military junta has warned that it may take action against the protestors, action that has been terribly violent in the past.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today in solidarity with the people of Burma, who wish only for freedom and an end to the military dictatorship. And I call on the military regime to respect the will of the Burmese people to live in freedom.

Madam Speaker, I was deeply disturbed to read a recently released report, by European Union non-governmental organizations, entitled Indian Helicopters for Burma: making a mockery of embargoes? The report provided details on India's negotiations with Burma's military junta since late 2006 and focused on the transfer of Advanced Light Helicopters (ALH) to Burma's military. India, the world's largest democracy, has increasingly spurned democracy supporters in Burma in favor of increased cooperation with Burma's military regime, even providing Burma's ruling generals with tanks, aircraft, artillery guns, radar, small arms, and the ALH. Absent any external enemy, Burma's military rulers have employed these arms and military equipment against its ethnic minority civilian population, resulting in the destruction of more than 3,000 villages, the use of forced labor, and the rape and murder of thousands of ethnic minority civilians.

Even more appalling than the increased military cooperation and sales between the Government of India and Burma's military regime is evidence that the transfer of military hardware risks violating both European Union and U.S. arms restrictions in place against Burma's military regime. Parts and technologies vital to the manufacture of the ALH were provided by several European companies and two American companies, Aitech Systems, Ltd. and Lord Corporation. It is essential that our government immediately investigate whether or not the inclusion of American parts and technologies in the production of India's ALHs and the potential impending transfer of the ALHs from the Government of India to Burma's brutal military generals violate U.S. export control regulations and the U.S. arms embargo on Burma.

The brutality of Burma's generals towards its own people continues to increase. It is obvious to all familiar with the regime's use of forced labor, its systematic use of rape as a weapon of war, its destruction of villages and livelihoods in its efforts to ethnically cleanse Burma of all its ethnic minorities, that the purchase of these military helicopters is for one purpose and one purpose only--strengthening and increasing military attacks against ethnic minority civilians. Already humanitarian aid groups operating in Eastern Burma have noticed a number of areas in which helicopter landing pads are appearing, a sight very new to the landscape of ethnic minority territory. These landing pads will give Burmese generals the ability to transport soldiers quickly and easily into areas where civilians are fleeing. The ethnic minorities fear that the regime plans to increase its attacks against them.

The U.S. government must take immediate steps to implement the recommendations outlined in the newly released report, including,

but not limited to, commencing negotiations with the Government of India to cease the transfer of Advanced Light Helicopters to Burma's military regime; discontinuing all future defense production cooperation with India that might lead to transfers of embargoed controlled equipment to Burma; attaching to all future licenses for transfers of controlled goods and technology to India a strict and enforceable condition, with penalty clauses prohibiting re-export to states under an embargo to which the original exporting state is party without express governmental permission; and drawing attention to the high likelihood of that military equipment being used by Burma's military to commit ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity in violation of international law including international human rights and humanitarian law.

Madam Speaker, I received a letter today from a bipartisan coalition of family and faith-based organizations, who are concerned that powerful international gambling interests will succeed in negating U.S. laws that curb Internet gambling. I ask unanimous consent to place a copy of this letter in the Record.

Probably the most serious avenue of attack mentioned in this letter is H.R. 2046, which would legalize Internet gambling and provide online casinos with exemptions from federal and state laws.

Just one year ago, this body voted 317 to 93 in favor of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, which went on to be signed into law on October 13, 2006. By enacting UIGEA, we emphatically decided that we would not simply roll over as offshore gambling operators deliberately defied our laws. We would enforce our laws, even when the websites are offshore, by cutting off the flow of money for illegal Internet gambling activities. At the same time, we preserved existing Federal and State gambling laws, including the rights of States to set gambling policy and regulate any gambling operators within their own borders.

H.R. 2046 does not repeal UIGEA per se, but that would be its practical effect. The license this legislation would grant to Internet gambling operators serves as an affirmative defense to any prosecution or enforcement action under any other Federal or State law. It brushes aside Federal gambling laws such as the Wire Act, State gambling prohibitions, and State gambling regulatory commissions.

The proponents of H.R. 2046 say there is an opt-out for States, but this opt-out is riddled with problems. First, State laws already on the books don't matter--the governor has to certify exactly what is prohibited in that State, and if he or she fails to make that certification within 90 days, then the State becomes open game for Internet gamblers. Not only is it bad policy to ignore laws on the books, it is probably unconstitutional to give the Governor effective unilateral power to set Internet gambling policy for the State.

Second, if the State were to allow any form of gambling online, it would be regulated by the Treasury Department, which has no experience in gambling regulation, instead of the highly-experienced State gambling commission.

Third, the State opt-out would violate current U.S. trade obligations, so the World Trade Organization could tell the U.S. to drop the opt-out or face stiff trade penalties. The U.S. is currently trying to withdraw its ``obligation'' to free trade in gambling--which the U.S. never intended to make--but the process could take months or years. Until then, the offshore gambling industry could attack the State opt-out in H.R. 2046 in the WTO, as one of their attorneys publicly stated at a Cato Institute forum just last week.

Finally, keep in mind that NO State has yet legalized Internet gambling with foreign companies. If all the States opt out according to the laws they already have on the books, and if the opt-outs are not challenged legally, what will the international gambling interests have gained? If nothing, then why are they spending millions on lobbying efforts to pass H.R. 2046?

I hope that my colleagues will look past the smokescreen and see that H.R. 2046 could result in the greatest expansion of gambling ever enacted by Congress.

August 1, 2007.

Dear Member of Congress: As a bipartisan coalition of

family and faith-based organizations representing millions of

citizens nationwide, we thank you for your efforts to protect

families from the dangers of Internet gambling. Last year,

Congress took the very valuable step of enacting the Unlawful

Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA) so that

U.S. gambling laws could be better enforced on the Internet.

We are concerned, however, about ensuring the integrity of

UIGEA in upcoming months. We have three primary concerns:

Congressional support for strong UIGEA regulations from the

Treasury Department, add list of illegal Internet gambling to

FinCEN and OFAC lists, block transactions, create a system

for reporting illegal sites to the DOJ (Internet, phone,

mail), enforce prosecution of illegal online gambling

operations.

Your support of UIGEA's integrity and your opposition to

contrary legislation.

Congressional support for U.S. withdrawal from WTO

obligations that jeopardize UIGEA.

Internet gambling represents the most invasive and

addictive form of gambling in history. Speed, accessibility,

availability and anonymity make Internet gambling the perfect

storm for gambling addiction. Internet gambling also creates

fertile ground for criminal activity and threatens homeland

security by potentially funding terrorist activity.

More than 230 million Americans access the Internet, many

of whom are children and adolescents. Internet gambling

extends beyond state borders, beyond democratically enacted

laws and is piped directly into millions of homes. Before

Congress passed UIGEA, nearly 3,000 online casinos could be

accessed instantly with the click of a mouse.

Since its passage, UIGEA has severely cut unlawful U.S.

profits to foreign gambling interests. Now these Internet

casino operations are willing to spend millions of dollars

influencing Congress to gain legal access into U.S. homes. In

fact, the UC Group (a leading payment-service provider in the

U.K.) claims to be ``leading the initiative'' behind Rep.

Barney Frank's bill, H.R. 2046. The misinformation campaign

is in full swing, and Congress is the target. You should be

aware of several bills that threaten the integrity of UIGEA:

Rep. Frank's bill H.R. 2046--far-reaching legalization of

Internet gambling, providing online casinos with exemptions

from federal and state laws.

Rep. Wexler's bill H.R. 2610--exempts poker and ``games of

skill'' from UIGEA.

Rep. McDermott's bill H.R. 2607--licenses and taxes

Internet casinos.

Foreign gambling interests are also pressuring the World

Trade Organization (WTO) to force the U.S. to legalize

Internet gambling. They claim that the U.S. is obligated to

legalize gambling because it committed to free trade in

``recreational services,'' and a WTO panel agreed. Now the

U.S. is seeking to amend its trade commitments to make

clear that Congress never intended to turn over to the WTO

its right to set gambling policy. Congress should return

the favor to the U.S. Trade Representative by supporting

these negotiations.

Again, thank you for your time and service in preserving

families. We hope for your ongoing support of the Unlawful

Internet Gambling Enforcement Act in the upcoming months.

Sincerely,

Tom Minnery,

Senior Vice President, Focus on the Family Action.

Guy C. Clark,

Chairman, National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling.

Gary Bauer,

President, American Values.

Roberta Combs,

President, Christian Coalition of America.

Phyllis Schlafly,

President and Founder, Eagle Forum.

Tom McClusky,

Vice President for Government Affairs, Family Research

Council.

Keith Wiebe,

President, American Association of Christian Schools.

Donald E. Wildmon,

Executive Director and Founder, American Family

Association.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I might consume.

First of all, I am grateful to the Rules Committee for making this amendment in order. It is a very narrowly crafted amendment. Section 9003 of H.R. 3221 requires residential boilers to meet a series of energy efficient requirements.

As you know, the Amish, which I have the privilege to represent, do not use electricity; it's against their religious beliefs. If the bill, as presently written, were to become law, the Amish would be forced to try to maintain their present boilers in perpetuity, creating an obvious and an avoidable safety hazard.

Now, I know there are not a lot of Amish; they are comparatively few in number in this country. We only have something like 25 States that have Amish living in them, but I think we have a duty to be sensitive to their way of life, consider their needs when making law. I have a very simple amendment. It will provide an exception for boilers that operate without the need for electricity supply.

Simply stated, boilers that are manufactured without any need for electricity, without any electrical connection, any electrical gauges, electric pumps, electric wires, electric devices of any sort would not be required to meet the requirements of this section.

I urge passage of my amendment to protect the Amish and their way of life.

I will yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for his support.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, as a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which shares jurisdiction over the SCHIP bill, H.R. 3162, I would like to express my frustration with the way this bill has been rammed through the legislative process.

Since January, we had only one hearing on the SCHIP program. We did not have a legislative hearing on H.R. 3162, which is supposed to be the Democrats' signature piece of health care legislation this Congress, no markup in subcommittee, and it was written in secret with no input from our side of the aisle. In fact, the text of the bill was not even provided to members of the committee until 11:33 the night before the full committee markup was supposed to take place.

Madam Speaker, bringing a bill with over $200 billion in authorized spending to the floor without allowing the bill to go through the proper legislative process is simply poor governance.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to focus on one important failure of this legislation that I think the pro-lifers on the other side of the aisle would be interested in.

Since 2002, the present administration has granted the States the option of providing SCHIP coverage to the child before birth, the unborn child, prenatal care and other health services for the unborn child and the pregnant mother. Unfortunately, the bill offered today would override current regulation and extend coverage in the name of the pregnant woman only. My amendment to codify the words ``unborn child'' was disallowed, not made in order last night.

Protecting only the pregnant woman could lead to a greater number of abortions. It would make the woman eligible for all publicly-funded services, including State-funded elective abortions. In States with Medicaid expansion programs, this could increase the number of women eligible for free abortions, thus promoting more abortions of unborn children in the name of children's health. This bill's language essentially classifies the pregnant woman herself. It does not make sense.

Mr. Speaker, let's talk about some of the good news coming out of Iraq. I realize the Democratic majority would like to spend most of our time talking about failure in Iraq. Indeed, that is what we have done during the first 7 months of Congress. However, the new strategy in Iraq and the new general in charge are making real progress on the ground.

The Iraqi people are beginning to stand up for the safety and security of their neighborhoods. A recent story in the Times of London states the increased presence of U.S. forces in the Doura neighborhood in South Baghdad, ``is encouraging insiders to overcome their fear and divulge what they know. Convoys of U.S. soldiers are working the rubble-strewn streets day and night, knocking on doors, speaking to locals and following up on leads on possible insurgent hideouts.''

Mr. Speaker, we owe it to the members of the Armed Forces who have given their lives, we owe it to the Iraqi people, to give this new strategy a chance to succeed, and we need to talk about their successes.

Madam Speaker, July 22, 2007 is the third anniversary of the U.S. Congress's declaration that the tragedy in Darfur truly is a genocide. That declaration, as well as former Secretary of State Colin Powell's declaration, was intended to clearly delineate to the international community the true extent of the devastating death, destruction, rape and other human rights violations.

Over the years, my colleagues and I have given a number of speeches about Sudan and specifically about Darfur. Yet, with all the proof that NGOs, journalists, and humanitarian workers have presented, the attacks and atrocities against the people of Darfur continue.

Clearly the abusive regime in Khartoum does not care about stopping the suffering, otherwise the Janjaweed militias would not be able to wreak havoc wherever they go.

A recent report by Refugees International details the fact that rape is ``an integral part of the pattern of violence that the government of Sudan is inflicting upon the targeted ethnic groups of Darfur.'' Listen to those words--that means the Janjaweed, under the orders of their masters in Khartoum, are deliberately raping the women to impregnate them and ``purify'' them racially.

The trauma imposed on the women of Darfur is unthinkable, yet reportedly is simply the implementation of a policy. What kind of government has a policy to ethnically cleanse, via rape, their peoples? Not a government that should have any power.

Madam Speaker, it is beyond comprehension that when the international community clearly knows that genocide is occurring, there would not be enough concern or political will to come down hard on Khartoum to end the death and destruction.

The fact that we must continue to raise the reality of genocide in Darfur means that we, the U.S. and the international community, have not done enough.

The international community has no excuse, because we know what is happening. There is no hidden agenda--the Sudanese government and their brutal militias have made their goals clear. The real question is--does the international community care enough to go after the Khartoum government and its puppet militias?

To the people of Darfur, we stand in solidarity with you.