Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I am sure we have all seen the images on the evening news and in this week's papers.

Cots laid out in the Capitol's hallways to provide for an all-night debate on Iraq. Oh, the plight of the modern day United States Senator.

What a decision to make. Sleep on a leather couch in a Capitol hideaway, or bunk up in the LBJ Room on a turned-down rollaway. We appreciate these good Senators' tough sacrifice, but how about our troops in the field?

While Senators are trying to get some shut-eye between rhetorical battles on the Senate floor, our soldiers are getting no sleep while dodging real bullets in combat.

Consider one 22-year-old Marine's comment to a reporter about life in Iraq--``If I get five minutes to close my eyes, I take it.''

Another Staff Sgt. said ``The 45-minute cat-nap is worth a million bucks. Getting some is better than none.''

Let the debate go forward, but spare our troops who are sleeping in the sand and dirt the indignity of this political theater.

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the Pence amendment.

Planned Parenthood claims to work to reduce abortions, but happens to be the number one abortion provider in this country. This raises an obvious question: Why are taxpayer dollars being used to subsidize the largest abortion supplier in the United States?

Planned Parenthood clinics receive funding in the name of their family planning services; however, there are many clinics in which family planning and abortion services are co-located in the same building, share a common set of basic resources, out one door and into the other.

Abortion services generate more net revenue when clinics can rely on Federal dollars to pay for lighting, heating, building maintenance, and even rent. Planned Parenthood receives a recordbreaking $305 million in taxpayer funding, and they made record profits last year. And what did they do with those record profits last year? Planned Parenthood performed 265,000 abortions, the most ever in a year.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this Federal backdoor subsidy of Planned Parenthood, the world's largest abortion provider, and support the Pence amendment.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week I hosted a screening of a documentary entitled, ``India's Hidden Slavery,'' a film about contemporary slavery in India among the 250 million Dalits or untouchables.

The caste system has at the top the Brahmin or priestly class, the ruling class. That includes politicians. At the very bottom, not even considered a caste because they're too low, the Dalits. Today, in the world's largest democracy, an unknown hidden system exists with people without basic human rights.

In contrast to the economic progress in some sectors in Indian society, below the surface is a society still racked by caste, with millions suffering and held hostage to a social structure that reinforces segregation, poverty, injustice and slavery. Recently, village leaders just condemned to death a couple that married outside their caste.

While the government of India has taken some small steps to outlaw the caste system, in reality, it permeates every aspect of life there.

I commend India for its economic progress, but I urge government leaders to ensure that all people in India have basic human rights, and especially the 250 million Dalits.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue, and I would like to thank the gentlelady for yielding time and thank her for her leadership in bringing this issue to the attention of the House.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 426, which recognizes 2007 as the Year of the Rights of Internally Displaced Persons in Colombia, and offer support for efforts to ensure that the internally displaced people of Colombia receive the assistance and protection they need to rebuild their lives successfully.

I have worked with internally displaced persons around the world. These people are not refugees. They do not flee or leave their country; they are within their country displaced internally. And their stories are similar. People love their countries. They do not want to flee. But, because of circumstances, they are forced to leave their homes or their towns.

According to the United Nations, at the beginning of the year 2006, there were estimated to be 23.7 million IDPs, internally displaced people, around the world. That is a little over the size of the population of the entire State of Texas.

IDPs in Colombia frequently get caught in the conflict between the guerillas, the paramilitaries, and government troops. It is important that this body support and encourage IDPs around the world and today, in particular, in Colombia. IDPs deserve recognition. They deserve the assistance and resources as they seek to rebuild their lives.

If you travel to these countries and meet with IDPs, many times you will find them despondent, despairing, saying, ``Why don't we get the assistance that the U.N. and the U.S. give to refugees''? We need to recognize their plights, and I commend my colleagues, Mr. Lantos and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, for their leadership on bringing this issue to the attention of the House. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the resolution.

Mr. Chairman, the vast majority of the American people believe that marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. This most basic social institution has been recognized by every culture and every serious religion in the history of mankind.

The Goode amendment protects and strengthens this important union between a man and a woman, and I rise in strong support of it.

The underlying bill before us today strips a 15-year Federal policy ensuring that American taxpayer dollars are not used to fund domestic partnership benefits. In defense of this longstanding policy, the President's senior advisors have made clear that they will recommend a veto if the bill reaches the President's desk in its current form, with this item in it.

Mr. Chairman, Federal funds have never been used for domestic partnership benefits in the District of Columbia. If this bill is not amended, the Federal Government will be forced, for the first time ever, to offer many of the same benefits for domestic partnership as it offers for marriage.

I oppose using government funds to promote nonmarital partnerships because I have tremendous respect for the traditional family. I believe that traditional marriage is the foundation of the family, and families are the foundation of healthy society. The Goode amendment protects these vital foundations which we, as the representatives of the people, should support. I strongly urge my colleagues to support it. It clearly defines the difference in the two parties here in the Congress. Please vote ``yes'' on the Goode amendment.

Mr. Speaker, some on the other side of the aisle made it a habit to refer to the last session of Congress as a do-nothing Congress. But it seems our friends on the other side are trying to outdo the do-nothingness they complained about all last year.

First they clamped down on the House rules to expedite their so- called 6 for '06 agenda. Almost none of that became law. Then they delayed an emergency troop funding bill for more than 100 days while our troops in harm's way waited for the resources they needed to do their job. Now they seem intent on playing another round of chicken with the President over this year's appropriations bills.

When you throw in hidden earmarks, slush funds, budget gimmicks and the largest tax increase in American history, it's no wonder the Democrat Congress is currently enjoying its lowest approval ratings ever. Do-nothing Congress? Perhaps now we should say do-less-than- nothing Congress.

Mr. Speaker, the President's Emergency Plan for Aids Relief, called PEPFAR, has instituted a carefully crafted comprehensive approach to fighting the spread of AIDS.

This approach is based on the ABC prevention model that has proven highly successful in Uganda. This model was developed there by Africans in Africa. A stands for abstinence until marriage; B for be faithful, or monogamy; and C for condoms.

This approach is working to reduce AIDS prevalence. But the Foreign Ops appropriations bill that we vote on today seeks to gut this comprehensive approach. Specifically, the bill does away with funding protections for the abstinence and fidelity parts of the model. It would remove the mandate for the A and B portions in the model.

These are very important components, and these are the most effective in reducing AIDS occurrence. Just look at this chart illustrating the experience in Kenya, proof that abstinence and fidelity work.

I have an amendment to restore funding for these protections in a results-based comprehensive ABC approach. I urge support.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, United Nations program on HIV/AIDS report estimates that there are 40 million people infected with HIV/AIDS worldwide, and like everyone else, I am deeply saddened by this reality.

However, I am also filled with hope because recent evidence indicates that the current prevention strategy is helping to produce behavioral change that has significantly decreased people's risk of contracting this deadly disease.

The current HIV/AIDS prevention strategy was carefully crafted in the PEPFAR authorization bill to reflect a balanced approach, and the good news is that this balanced approach is working.

The PEPFAR authorization bill, which became law in 2003, included a provision that required one-third of the 20 percent for prevention funding, that is approximately 7 percent of the total PEPFAR funds, to be spent on abstinence and fidelity programs.

Prior to the implementation of this spending directive, the U.S. promoted an unbalanced condoms-only approach. The U.S. remains the largest distributor of condoms in the world. But for the first time the behavior factor is getting real attention under the current program rules. And the result: falling HIV/AIDS prevalence rates in 7 of the 15 focus countries.

The current prevention strategy is based on the comprehensive ABC model, first established in Uganda, developed by Uganda. The ABC model stands for A, abstinence; B, be faithful; C, condoms. A comprehensive, balanced approach.

After implementation of this model in Uganda, the number of young males age 15 to 24 reporting premarital sex decreased from 60 percent in 1989 to 23 percent in 1995. For females, the decline was 53 percent to 16 percent. The program actually helped change the behavior in women and men, a fact I hope my colleagues take seriously.

Opponents of this approach claim that behavioral change is unrealistic. Dr. Edward Green, a researcher at Harvard University, was an opponent of the ABC model and in particular of abstinence until he saw what happened in Uganda. He testified before the Energy and Commerce Committee saying: ``Many of us in the AIDS and public health communities did not believe that abstinence or delay and faithfulness were realistic goals. It now seems we were wrong.''

Not only has Uganda seen a society transformed by behavioral change, we can now add Kenya, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Namibia, Tanzania, and Zambia to the list of countries that are experiencing a decrease in HIV/AIDS prevalence rates.

Experts continue to testify to the fact that behavioral change continues to be the key indicator of HIV/AIDS prevention. Yet for some reason, some of my colleagues have decided to make a crucial provision of this successful strategy optional. This crucial provision ensures that the ``abstinence'' and ``be faithful'' components are incorporated into the approach. Never mind the fact that PEPFAR is expected to be reauthorized later this year, and never mind the fact that the reauthorization might be the more appropriate forum to debate this critical component that was agreed to.

Some of my colleagues argue that we need a comprehensive approach, but I remind them that abstinence and fidelity education are fundamental to the comprehensive ABC approach.

Some of my colleagues argue that we need an approach that saves lives. I remind them that the ABC model, with the A and the B spending requirement intact, is continuing to save more and more lives. In countries that have relied predominantly on condom distribution, HIV/ AIDS prevalence rates have not improved. Meanwhile, countries that promote behavioral change have seen significant improvement.

Mr. Chairman, a balanced, evidence-based approach is essential if we are going to effectively fight HIV/AIDS in Africa. The current policy is the balanced approach. It is the evidence-based approach. It is the approach that is working. Why change what works?

I urge my colleagues to vote for my amendment and keep abstinence and fidelity in the AIDS program, and in doing so, to vote for an approach that is saving lives.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Florida, Dr. David Weldon, 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I didn't know I was going to get a biblical lesson here, but I would just ask the man rhetorically, is abstinence biblical? Is faithfulness biblical? That's what we're speaking on behalf of.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska who is a member of the Africa Subcommittee, Mr. Fortenberry.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who is ranking member of the Africa Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, there is flexibility in the existing program. Countries can apply for a waiver. Every country that has applied has received a waiver. Our friends say that all they want to do is provide flexibility and more condoms.

Well, for 20 years of fighting AIDS, the bureaucrats who run these programs tried the same approach over and over again. It never worked. When Uganda came up with a comprehensive approach that would, they still opposed it.

Well, the buck stops here in Congress, and we told them in 2003 to do what works, and it's working. Without this amendment, this bill will allow them to go back to the failed policies of the passed. So many on the other side are saying we need to listen to the other experts on the ground; we need to follow their advice.

That's true. They even raise this point with the Centers for Disease Control in a letter signed by several of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, including the distinguished subcommittee chairwoman, Mrs. Lowey. That letter highlighted the report that was written by the world's leading HIV/AIDS experts, was endorsed by more than 100 leaders from 36 countries, people like the President of Uganda, people like Archbishop Desmond Tutu and the HIV/AIDS director of the World Health Organization, researchers from Johns Hopkins and other leading medical institutions.

Allow me to quote from what these people, the experts, are saying about what's working to reduce AIDS prevalence: ``When targeting young people for those who have not started sexual activity, the first priority should be to encourage abstinence or delay of sexual onset, hence emphasizing risk avoidance as the best way to prevent HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, as well as unwanted pregnancies.'' Abstinence, behavior change, that is what the experts are stressing. I agree, the experts know best.

They are saying that a comprehensive approach that includes behavioral change is crucial to winning the fight against AIDS.

I would yield.

That's the quote that I read from the statement he signed.

That's correct.

That's correct. Every country that requested waivers has received one.

Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record the copies of the letters and the statement.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, January 7, 2005.

Hon. Julie Gerberding,

Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Clifton

Road, Atlanta, GA.

Dear Dr. Gerberding: On November 27, 2004, the Lancet

published a statement entitled ``The Time Has Come for Common

Ground on Preventing Sexual Transmission of HIV.'' Signed by

more than 100 religious, political, health and scientific

leaders from across the developed and developing world, this

statement called for an end to ``polarizing debate'' and

urged the international community ``to unite around an

inclusive evidence-based approach to slow the spread of

sexually transmitted HIV.'' We are writing to ask whether you

support this statement.

The statement describes key elements of successful HIV

prevention. These include:

1. Ensuring prevention activities are grounded in the

science of epidemiology, supported at the local level, and

respectful of human rights;

2. Promoting abstinence among those young people who are

not yet sexually active, encouraging mutual monogamy among

sexually active adults, and helping individuals who engage in

high-risk activities to stop;

3. Encouraging correct and consistent condom use among

individuals who are engaging in high-risk activities and

those who are sexually active with a partner whose HIV status

is unknown;

4. Expanding prevention programs for young people both in

and out of school, supporting parents ``in communicating

their values and expectations about sexual behavior''; and

5. Employing community-based approaches that involve

religious organizations, women's and men's organizations,

care groups, youth organizations, health workers, local

media, and traditional and governmental leadership.

The statement also notes that expanding access to services

for testing, counseling and treatment of HIV/AIDS and other

sexually transmitted infections, preventing mother-to-child

transmission, and enhancing access to family planning

services are all essential in order to achieve the

prevention, care and treatment objectives of the President's

Emergency Plan for AIDS and other global initiatives. It

endorses continuing review of potential interventions such

as microbicides, new antibiotic treatments, and vaccines.

The statement was written by several of the world's leading

HIV experts, and endorsed by more than 100 leaders in the

fight against AIDS from 36 countries across a range of

disciplines. Notable endorsers include: Uganda's President

Yoweri Museveni, Archbishop Desmond Tutu of the Anglican

Church of Southern Africa, UN Special Envoy for HIV/AIDS in

Africa Stephen Lewis, and HIV/AIDS Director at the World

Health Organization Jim Kim.

The statement has also been endorsed by representatives

from the World Bank; the Global Fund to Fight AIDS,

Tuberculosis, and Malaria; and the heads of HIV/AIDS programs

in several countries including Ethiopia, India, Jamaica, and

Uganda. Leaders and representatives from major faith- and

community-based nongovernmental organizations from the United

States and around the world also back the statement.

Given the broad international and domestic support for the

Lancet statement and the importance of collaboration in AIDS

prevention efforts worldwide, we would like to know whether

you, as a key leader in this administration in combating HIV/

AIDS, support this statement.

We would appreciate a response by January 24, 2005.

Sincerely,

Henry A. Waxman, Ranking Minority Member, Committee on

Government Reform, House of Representatives; Nita M.

Lowey, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Foreign

Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs,

Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives;

Fortney Pete Stark, Ranking Minority Member,

Subcommittee on Health, Committee on Ways and Means,

House of Representatives; Sherrod Brown, Ranking

Minority Member, Subcommittee on Health, Committee on

Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives; Barbara

Lee, Chair, Global AIDS Initiative, Congressional Black

Caucus, House of Representatives.

Jesse L. Jackson, Jr., Member of Congress; Betty

McCollum, Member of Congress; Howard L. Berman, Member

of Congress; Lois Capps, Member of Congress; Richard J.

Durbin, U.S. Senator.

The only thing your amendment would do is remove the A and the B from the ABC model.

And the President could remove the A and the B, and just have the C. And when Ambassador Dybul was asked if any of the countries wanted waivers, they all said no.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Lowey amendment because it does not address the underlying problem. Whether we support pro- abortion organizations through cash donations or items of cash value, the result is the same. The amendment before us today attempts to undermine the Mexico City policy. The Mexico City policy exists to draw a bright line between U.S. family planning policy and abortion. However, it appears that there are some out there who wish to blur this line. Mr. Chairman, a blurred line is what leads to coercive abortions and forced sterilizations.

The Mexico City policy is critical for several reasons. First, money is fungible. Every U.S. tax dollar or commodity that goes to an abortion provider frees up funds to pay for more abortions and more pro-abortion lobbying. Secondly, our population grantees are seen as representatives of the United States in the countries in which we operate. When organizations prominently associated with United States family planning programs perform and promote abortions, people in these countries logically associate these activities with the United States.

It is important to note that this policy does not in any way reduce funds for family planning. As this chart shows, before Smith-Stupak, there are $441 million for international family planning, including contraceptive commodities. After Smith-Stupak, there will still be $441 million for international family planning, including contraceptive commodities. It simply requires that any foreign nongovernmental organizations that receive taxpayer dollars agree not to perform or actively promote abortions.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the Lowey amendment, support the Smith-Stupak amendment to restore the Mexico City policy and to protect the taxpayers' rights to neither directly nor indirectly fund abortion.

Madam Speaker, today is World Refugee Day, a day of honoring the courage and raising the plight of more than 8 million refugees and 23.7 million internally displaced persons around the world. This year, on the sixth anniversary of the United Nations- designated World Refugee Day, organizations in hundreds of countries will come together to focus global attention on those refugees who have been displaced by natural disasters or were forced to leave their homes, native countries, and loved ones due to the political, ethnic or religious oppression and persecution they would have faced otherwise.

The United States historically has led efforts to assist various refugee populations, as exemplified through U.S. efforts to assist Vietnamese refugees in the late 1970s. Now, in the 21st century, the U.S. has a particularly compelling reason to focus on the Iraqi refugee crisis. Approximately 2 million Iraqi refugees have fled persecution, violence, threats of kidnapping and death threats, mostly moving to Syria and Jordan. The threats have been dire for ethnic and religious minorities. At least 1.9 million people are displaced within Iraq. Many of these 3.9 million have been targeted due to their work for the U.S. Government, NGOs or the media.

There have been important steps taken in Congress to address the concerns of refugees related to Afghanistan and Iraq, such as encouraging the provision of special immigrant status for translators or interpreters serving with Federal agencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, since 2003, the U.S. Government has allowed only 466 Iraqi refugees to enter the U.S. It is important that the U.S. initiate more active measures to assist these refugees, such as increasing the number of Iraqis that are brought into the resettlement program. During a recent trip to the Middle East, I heard stories of Iraqi refugees and the dire threats that forced them to flee their homeland.

Madam Speaker, in addition to spotlighting the situation of Iraqi refugees, it is vital that the international community continue to shine a spotlight on the situation facing refugees from and displaced persons in Burma. The military dictatorship continues its campaign against the ethnic peoples through forced labor, the use of rape as a weapon of terror, destruction of food sources, destruction of over 3,000 villages in the last few years, and the use of ethnic peoples as human land mine sweepers. Unfortunately, certain countries believe it is in their interest to keep this regime in power--I would heartily disagree. The refugee and displacement crisis in Burma could be resolved immediately if the regime were to step down and allow the rightfully elected leaders of Burma to take office.

World Refugee Day is a day for the international community, governments and citizens alike, to show our common concern for refugees and displaced persons. Most people in the world would love to stay in their homeland, but frequently conflicts and other situations force them to leave. Our country was founded by people fleeing oppression. The U.S. must continue to be the global leader in refugee protection in the Middle East, in Southeast Asia, and around the world.

Mr. Speaker, today is World Refugee Day, and I rise to draw the attention of this body to the plight of millions of refugees and internally displaced people around the world.

As a beacon of hope and freedom, the United States has historically been a leader in raising awareness and providing assistance to the world's refugees, and the need is certainly great.

Thousands, for instance, of Iraqis have been forced to flee their homeland and face a daily existence that denies them even the most basic protections. The military dictatorship in Burma has inflicted such horrific violence on the Burmese people that hundreds of thousands of people have been forced to flee just to save their own lives. These are just two examples. The list goes on.

There are over 8 million refugees, nearly 24 million IDPs, internally displaced people, worldwide. Combined, that's nearly equal to the population of California.

On this World Refugee Day, let us remember the plight of these people. Try to find ways that we can help and support them.

Mr. Speaker, President Bush has been very clear. If Congress sends him appropriations bills that weaken current pro-life provisions, he will veto the bills. But don't be surprised if the new Democratic majority is trying to do so anyway. When they do, I am sure they will have countless reasons for why they should weaken protections for the unborn.

But as this debate goes forward, it's important to keep in mind how much Uncle Sam already gives to abortion providers. Planned Parenthood reported record profits in 2005-2006 fiscal year. Guess who helped them achieve these profits? That's right, the American taxpayer.

In 2005-2006, Planned Parenthood received over $305 million in taxpayer funding, the most ever in a year. They also performed nearly 265,000 abortions, another record. Keep this in mind as we hear the other side's arguments for giving even more money to abortion providers. The fact is, these groups are milking the American taxpayers.

President Bush is right to stand up for current pro-life provisions, and House Republicans will stand with him on the issue.

Madam Speaker, I am deeply concerned about the upcoming possible deportation of Mr. Sameh Khouzam, an Egyptian man who is currently detained in York, Pennsylvania. The Second Circuit Court granted a stay of deportation to Egypt based on a finding that it was ``more likely than not'' that he would be tortured upon return. Reportedly, the U.S. Government received assurances from the Egyptian Government that Mr. Khouzam would not be tortured were he to be returned to Egypt. I am deeply disturbed that the U.S. Government appears to have taken this assurance at face value in light of the extensive evidence of torture against Egyptian citizens, particularly against religious minorities.

Mr. Khouzam fled Egypt in 1998, due to pressure from the Egyptian government to forcibly change his religion. Reports suggest that he, and other family members, were detained and imprisoned by the government during these reported attempts at forcible conversion. Mr. Khouzam then fled the country fearing for his life. During the flight to the United States, Egyptian officials notified U.S. officials that Mr. Khouzam was wanted for murder. When he landed in the U.S., authorities noticed that he was injured (due to Egyptian security officials' actions) and placed him in the hospital. After his release from the hospital, he was imprisoned in the U.S. due to Egyptian government requests, despite the absence of credible evidence and the lack of autopsy reports substantiating the ``murder'' charges. Mr. Khouzam was imprisoned in the U.S. for 8 years, until he was granted parole based on a Second Circuit Court decision that were he to be deported he would most certainly face torture at the hands of the Egyptian Government.

By all accounts, Mr. Khouzam is an upstanding, contributing member of the communities in which he works, lives, and worships in Pennsylvania. It came as a great surprise to everyone when Mr. Khouzam, following instructions, voluntarily reported to immigration authorities to check in with them on Tuesday, May 29, 2007, but was then detained, imprisoned, and informed that the Egyptian Government provided ``assurances'' that he would not be tortured, therefore, he would be deported on Friday, June 1, 2007. Mr. Khouzam's lawyers requested an extension of the stay of deportation; the request was granted for an extension until Thursday, June 7, 2007 and extended again until Monday, June 18, 2007.

It is deeply disturbing that the U.S. Department of State and Department of Homeland Security would, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, accept at face value a promise from the Egyptian Government. Over the years, a number of Members of Congress have personally worked on numerous cases in Egypt in which the government has used torture against its own citizens. The most recent Country Reports on Human Rights Practices issued by the U.S. Department of State detail that that there were ``numerous, credible reports that security forces tortured and mistreated prisoners and detainees,'' that security forces ``employ torture to extract information or force confessions,'' and that ``human rights monitors believe the use of torture by police [is] widespread.'' Further, the Country Reports describe the torture methods used by Egyptian security officials, ``Principal methods of torture reportedly employed by the police and the SSIS included stripping and blindfolding victims; suspending victims from a ceiling or doorframe with feet just touching the floor; beating victims with fists, whips, metal rods, or other objects; using electrical shocks; and dousing victims with cold water. Victims frequently reported being subjected to threats and forced to sign blank papers for use against themselves or their families should they in the future lodge complaints about the torture. Some victims, including male and female detainees and children, reported sexual assaults or threats of rape against themselves or family members.'' Even further, the Report states that ``Security forces continued to mistreat and torture prisoners, arbitrarily arrest and detain persons, hold detainees in prolonged pretrial detention, and engage in mass arrests.''

Further, the State Department, as have numerous human rights organizations, has documented persecution by the government of Egypt against Coptic Christians. All this evidence and the clear patterns of the use of torture as well as persecution against religious minorities indicate that the ``assurances'' of the Egyptian Government on these matters are not reliable.

Madam Speaker, in two recent news programs on an Australian television station, former Central Intelligence official Bob Baer made it clear that the U.S. Government knows of the widespread torture in Egypt, and, in fact, considers that knowledge in decisions to send individuals to Egypt. When asked if ther was any doubt someone would be tortured if he were returned to Egypt, Mr. Baer answered, ``Oh absolutely no doubt at all . . . [if you] send them to Egypt it might as well, it's tantamount to condemning them to death.'' In another part of the program, Mr. Baer stated, regarding sending people overseas, ``If you never want to hear from them again, send them to Egypt. That's pretty much the rule.'' When again asked, ``When someone's rendered to Egypt, is there any doubt that they're going to be tortured?'' Mr. Baer said, ``Oh absolutely no doubt at all.''

Yet, the U.S. Government is willing to accept the ``diplomatic assurances'' of the Egyptian Government that Mr. Sameh Khouzam, who has already been tortured by the Egyptians, will not be tortured if he were to be deported. Our country was founded upon due process, not sending individuals to countries where the likelihood of their being tortured is extremely high, diplomatic assurances to the contrary.

On June 1, 2007, in the Government's Response to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Opposition to Petitioner's Motion for Stay of Removal, the U.S. Government told the Court that ``substantial embarrassment could result in the diplomatic community'' if the Court were to find that Mr. Khouzam would likely be tortured despite assurances from high level Egyptian officials. Since when have we based our foreign and domestic policy on concerns about being embarrassed?

We know the Egyptian government tortures people. What does the U.S. Government want from Egypt in exchange for deporting a Coptic Christian who is reportedly innocent of any charges against him?

Madam Speaker, if Mr. Khouzam is sent back to Egypt, this Administration will bear ultimate responsibility for anything that happens to him.

Mr. Speaker, I am intrigued by the other side's definition of what constitutes ``open and honest.'' After all, that was their pledge to America last year: if given control of Congress, they would make it the most open and honest Congress ever.

So how has it been going? They started their new openness campaign by not allowing a single amendment to be offered on legislation for nearly a month. That's right. That's right. No amendments from Republicans.

Not long after that, they had threatened to clamp down on a basic right of the minority, the motion to recommit that hasn't been changed since 1822.

And now that appropriations season is officially under way, more progress. The Democrats decided to take the earmark process behind closed doors and away from the public eye.

Closed rules, threatening basic minority rights, secret slush funds for earmark spending. Mr. Speaker, these tactics seem rather closed and deceptive to be taking place in the most ``open and honest'' House in history.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Robert E. Clark, a decorated Captain in the United States Navy, and native of the 16th Congressional District of Pennsylvania.

At a commencement ceremony later today, Captain Clark will be inducted into West Chester East High School's Hall of Fame--a deserving honor for a devoted servant of our great Nation. While a student at East High School, Clark was a scholar athlete--maintaining excellent grades while lettering in football, basketball, and track.

After graduation, Clark went on to attend the United States Naval Academy--the first graduate of West Chester East ever to do so. Since graduating from Annapolis, Clark has honorably served his country as an officer in the Navy's submarine fleet.

He has received several personal decorations for his distinguished service, including the prestigious Legion of Merit.

I thank Captain Clark for his selfless service to our Nation, and I congratulate him on his well-earned induction into West Chester East's Hall of Fame. He has set a fine example for our next generation of young leaders to follow.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of freedom-loving people in Burma. This week there is a delegation of leaders from Burma, ethnic minority leaders, visiting Washington. The information they bring is a stark reminder of the brutality to the Burmese people under the military junta.

The terrible offensive of 2006 continues against the ethnic Karen people and others. Over 3,000 villages have been burned. There have been over 25,000 new internally displaced people in that one province.

How can we turn our backs on people who are being ethnically cleansed through genocide, raped, shot, maimed by land mines and who watch their villages and food sources be destroyed daily? The U.S. and the international community must help provide more humanitarian assistance and protection for them.

We need to continue to push for a U.N. Security Council resolution on Burma. The U.S. needs to renew its sanctions against dictators. We need to get direct humanitarian aid to the people.

It is time to act. The people of Burma deserve to live safely and peacefully in their own land.