Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, last month, the Nation lost a great patriot when Mr. Hagop Bahtiarian of Emerson, New Jersey, passed away. Mr. Bahtiarian was born of Armenian descent in Keskin Maden near Ankara, Turkey in 1909.

In 1915, his father was murdered by Turkish officials, forcing his mother to flee with her children, adopting the Muslim faith and ``Turkified'' names to survive. In 1919, at the age of only 10, Mr. Bahtiarian was placed in an orphanage in Constantinople with his brother. Not until 1922 was he able to escape to Marseilles, France, a survivor of the Armenian genocide.

In 1927, he came to America, living in the Bronx, New York and Englewood, New Jersey. There he worked as a jeweler and watch maker and raised a family with his wife, Gula; loving children, Rita and Berj; and later in life two grandsons. Mr. Bahtiarian never forgot the life he'd been forced to live as a child in Turkey and was an active member of Armenian cultural groups dedicated to ensuring that the genocide would never be forgotten or repeated.

During World War II, he went to work for his adopted country, serving proudly as an Instructor at the Naval Air Warfare Center in Indianapolis, Indiana. There he specialized in the construction and repair of the famous Norden Bomb Sight.

Mr. Bahtiarian lived a tremendous life and he bore witness to some of the most significant events of the 20th Century, from the Armenian Genocide to World War II. And he ensured that the lessons learned from those events would bear the fruits of peace for his children and grandchildren. Each year, as more and more survivors of the Armenian Genocide pass, let us be certain that their memory lives on and that we never see such a travesty again.

Mr. Speaker, with all the various important issues that we have been debating on the floor, we should remember one very important issue dealing with education of our children that will be considered here in the House very soon, and, most specifically, that deals with the reauthorization of NCLB, No Child Left Behind.

So I come to the floor tonight to address some of the concerns and problems with NCLB and offer a possible solution. That solution, by the way, is the legislation I have submitted, H.R. 3177, the LEARN Act, the Local Education Authority Returns Now, allowing States and parents and local communities to regain control of their education and not have it be here in Washington, DC.

As we're all aware, NCLB is really simply a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Act, that's ESEA, from the 1960s. What I've done is I've looked back over the past reauthorizations of ESEA, and I've noticed a very troubling trend. With every single reauthorization, new problems are always found for America's schools, and with every new problem, the solution is always more Federal involvement.

You know, all the way back in 1983, almost a quarter of a century ago, a famous report came out. It was called, ``A Nation at Risk,'' and it said that America had fallen dangerously behind the rest of the world in education; but, today, new studies are saying much the same thing.

According to the National Center for Education Science, in 2003 U.S. fourth graders were outperformed by their peers in eleven other countries, including four Asian countries and seven European countries. U.S. eighth graders were outperformed by their peers in nine countries, including five Asian and four European.

Yet, today, as a percentage of GDP after NCLB, we are still spending more money on education now than at any time in U.S. history. We have increased the paperwork, the requirements for the teachers, more taxpayer dollars, increased administration's burden; but we've decreased the flexibility for the teachers and the power in the classroom.

So let me just present two charts, and I would like to thank the work of Dr. Anthony Davies of the Donahue Graduate School of Business of Duquesne University, to make this point. If we look at this chart, the chart shows noninstructional spending and instructional spending in our schools. The top is eighth graders. The bottom is fourth graders.

The first chart is noninstructional spending. That is the spending that we use for the buildings, the transportation and the like. You would think that with all these reforms that we have done, that with the increase in spending, you would see an increase in performance. Well, what does the chart actually show? Well, the top chart, again, is eighth graders, and what it's showing is, as you see at the left-hand side of the chart, $3,000 per pupil; on the far side of the chart, $6,500 per pupil. But the performance of the students stays basically the same, regardless of how the dollars coming from Washington are spent.

The next color, the red dots, are fourth graders, exactly the same thing. Regardless of whether we're spending around $3,000, $4,000, $5,000 or $6,000, the instructional value of those dollars coming out of these programs, the numbers stay essentially the same.

The next chart you look at confirms the same point. This is instructional spending. These are the dollars that actually make their way into the classroom. This is for the books. This is for the teachers. This is what you really think of when you think of education. Same thing: top is eighth graders, bottom is fourth graders. It starts at $2,500 and goes up to $7,500. You would think that with these reforms of NCLB, you would think that with additional dollars going into the classrooms you would see an increase actually in the performance for these grades. But what do we actually see on the chart?

Well, for the top, the eighth graders, starting at $2,500, up to $5,000, up to $7,500, the numbers for them for the performance on these scores, under the NAEP score standards, and that's the national standards of assessments for kids, the numbers are even right across the chart. Likewise, on the bottom part of this chart, that's the fourth graders, the red little squares. Again, we're looking in the same dollar values, $2,500 up to $7,500, middle it's around $5,000. How do we look at the NAEP scores? How do they change? Basically, not at all. It's in a range here of between 420 and 480 for all those students regardless of the spending of the dollars.

So the point of these two charts, and, again, I appreciate the work of Anthony Davies for compiling this information, is to show that throughout history the Federal Government looks to say that there's a problem with Americans' education. We say we're going to be the solution for our children in this country, and the solution is going to be what? Well, last time it was NCLB, No Child Left Behind, and now it's going to potentially be a reauthorization of that. I suggest no.

And I would conclude by saying that the solution is not more work on the Federal level, but more control by the parent and the local school board for the raising of their own children.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend Dr. Garry A. Neil, group president of Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development, for his extraordinary contributions to advancing the health and well-being of American seniors.

Dr. Neil has had a long and distinguished career in medical research. After graduating from the University of Saskatchewan College of Medicine, he performed his post-graduate training in internal medicine and gastroenterology at the University of Toronto and performed a postdoctoral fellowship in immunology at the Research Institute of Scripps Clinic.

Prior to joining Johnson & Johnson in 2002, he worked as Vice President of Clinical Research for AstraZeneca, Vice President for Medical and Scientific Affairs at AstraPharmaceuticals, Director of Clinical Research for Gastroenterology and Executive Director for Medical Sciences at Astra Merck, and Vice President and global head of clinical research and development with Merck KGaA and its U.S. subsidiary EMD Pharmaceuticals.

Since coming to Johnson & Johnson, Dr. Neil has worked in several roles to help develop their research program. In fact, he played a substantial role in development of INVEGA, a new medicine for schizophrenia approved in December 2006, as well as many other important drugs. He also a member of the Board of the J&J Development Corporation and Vice Chair of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA) Science and Regulatory Committee, as well as a member of the PhRMA Foundation Board.

Dr. Neil also has a distinguished career in medical academia, currently serving as a member of the Board of Trustees for the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey. He has held a number of academic posts at the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research in Toronto, the University of Iowa College of Medicine, and the University of Pennsylvania. Furthermore, he has written more than 50 scholarly articles and book chapters.

On October 17th, at the 2007 Lifetime of Caring Gala, the American Geriatrics Society will present Dr. Neil with the 2007 Discovery Award for ``his outstanding business, civic and philanthropic leadership, and for Johnson & Johnson's commitment to the well-being of older adults, their families and the communities in which they live.'' The American Geriatrics Society is an organization of more than 6,700 health professionals devoted to improving the health, independence, and quality of life for people as they age. I join them as they honor a fellow medical professional for his lifetime of work helping seniors and, indeed, people of all ages, live longer, healthier lives.

Mr. Speaker, this House will soon be considering a reauthorization of No Child Left Behind. Now, when President Bush signed No Child Left Behind into law 5 years ago, the theory went that schools would raise their standards and strive to make improvements and that this would then eventually trickle down and assist all, even the underperforming students that needed the help the most. Now as we now reconsider this reauthorization of this bill, I submit that many of these changes brought on by this bill have had tremendous burdensome unintended consequences.

See, instead of giving local school districts the flexibility to develop their own curriculum, they are instead hampered by the NCLB's testing requirements and must tailor their classes now around these tests. Instead of schools setting their standards high in an aggressive drive towards excellence, we have seen just the opposite. In order to maintain their Federal funding, the States are now setting their standards low. In essence, it's a race to the bottom, if you will, as far as standards in this country. And instead of allowing our educators to focus on education, NCLB has instituted some absurd regulatory burdens on the States.

According to the GAO, 41 percent of the financial support and staffing of State education agencies was a product of Federal dollars and regulations. In other words, this means that the Federal Government was the cause of 41 percent of the administrative burden at the State level, despite the fact that the Federal Government only sends 7 percent of overall education funding in this country.

Also, according to the GAO, the testing requirements of NCLB alone will cost States around $1.9 billion between 2002 and 2008 and spend up towards 6.6 million hours to administer all the paperwork that comes with it as well.

Now, I recently held a town hall meeting on NCLB. Every person that came to that meeting, showed up, had something negative to say about the administrative burdens in NCLB. At one point during the meeting I asked how many people had contact and met with either their local principal or their local school board about some of these problems. Just about every hand in the room went up.

So then I said, Well, how many people here in the room went and talked to somebody down at the New Jersey capital, the New Jersey Department of Education? About half the people raised their hand.

I said finally, Well, how many people went to Washington and took the time out to go and visit somebody with the U.S. Department of Education? Only one person raised their hand.

You see, my point in this is, by instituting these requirements for NCLB in Washington, we are moving accountability for education farther and farther away from where it belongs: parents, students, educators at the local level.

In addition to this, the regulations NCLB places on schools often attempts to fix problems that really don't exist.

One of the schools in my district consistently was cited in publications as one of the top performing schools in the State, but it was placed, because of NCLB, on its watch list 2 years after NCLB was instituted. Now, notice, this was not an underperforming school. Every year nearly 100 percent of the kids graduated. Most went on to college. The average combined scores of SATs was 1100; 14 AP programs were offered at the school. This was a great school. But instead, NCLB found it underperforming. And because of this, now the teachers and administrators at this school have to turn their attention away from what they were doing, which was running an excellent school and now focus on the paperwork and the burdensome accountability requirements of NCLB. So less good education is coming about because of this.

Now, let me be clear. I share, along with all my colleagues from both sides of aisle in Congress here, the ultimate goal of providing a high quality education for every child in America. This year I introduced legislation that would allow a State then to opt out of the majority of the requirements of NCLB, but, at the same time, would allow that State to keep their education funding through a refundable tax credit.

My bill is H.R. 3177. I call it the LEARN Act. That stands for Local Education Authority Return Now. It gives the States the ability to opt out of NCLB and provides residents of those States a State tax credit equal to the amount of money that otherwise would have gone to Washington and then come back to their State for Federal funding. What it does is give control back to the States, allow them, the States, the parents, the school boards, the option to pursue local and State educational initiatives based on what they know is best for their kids. It allows the States and local school districts to set their own standards, enforce their own penalties for failure, and establish their own goals for their teachers and their students. With my bill, education accountability is transferred from D.C. bureaucrats back to the people who know the schools and the students personally.

See, under my proposal, States that feel that the regulation of NCLB is both necessary and beneficial to continue on, well, they can stay in the system. If they need Washington bureaucrats in their State to tell them what to do, well, they can stay in NCLB.

However, if the State's residents feel that the responsibility for educating their children is best left in the hands of the State, then this legislation will empower them to do so and keep the funding in place that the States rely on.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the volunteer firefighters of Good Will Fire Company No. 1 in Belvidere, New Jersey. For the past 125 years, they have faithfully guarded their neighbors. I commend them for their extraordinary service.

The Good Will Fire Company was first formed in 1879 and officially incorporated on April 26, 1882. It has relied upon the dedication of volunteer firefighters throughout its rich history. Changes in demographics, lifestyle choices, and regulatory requirements have made it harder to recruit volunteers, but the men and women of this fire company make up for the open spots with their tremendous commitment and spirit.

Many of the current members of Good Will Fire Company have fire fighting in their blood, fulfilling a legacy of service. And, there are also those at Good Will that have sons and daughters ready to step into their boots.

On August 18th, the Good Will Fire Company celebrated their service with a parade. The people of Belvidere are well-aware of how fortunate they are to have these men and women protecting their lives and homes and businesses. And, I join them in honoring these brave firefighters.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend two long-time public servants in Sussex County, NJ: Phoebe and Ralph Shotwell. Both are pillars of the 4-H in Sussex County, having spent a lifetime working with its programs.

Phoebe Hunt Shotwell, who first became a part of 4-H as a child, has been a volunteer leader for the 4-H cooking club, the Yeastie Beasties, for 55 years. She is on the Sussex County 4-H Advisory Council and is on the Executive Committee for the New Jersey State Fair/Sussex County Farm and Horse Show. Phoebe is also a director for the Sussex County 4- H Foundation, where she reviews scholarship applications, a job for which this former assistant teacher and library aide is very well qualified. She has also volunteered her time with a number of community organizations, such as the local PTA and the Green Township Hospital Auxiliary.

Ralph Shotwell first joined his local Pequest Dairy 4-H Club in 1928 at the age of 11. Over the years, he has served as president of the Sussex County 4-H Council and has participated in a number of related efforts, including the Pomona Grange, New Jersey State Grange, Farmer's Enterprise Grange, Sussex County Agricultural Society, Sussex County Milk Producers, and Sussex County Board of Agriculture. He has also found time to serve as an elder in his church and as a volunteer firefighter and chief with the Green Township Fire Department.

It is due to the dedication and hard work of the Shotwells and volunteers like them that the 4-H program in Sussex County has grown to more than 700 members participating in 63 clubs.

Today, at the Sussex County Fairgrounds in Augusta, NJ, the Sussex County 4-H Educational Exhibit Hall Committee will dedicate the Phoebe and Ralph Shotwell 4-H Exhibit Hall. During the upcoming State Fair, the facility will be used for clinics, demonstrations,

presentations, shows, educational programming, and--most importantly-- proud displays by 4-H members. I regret that I cannot be with these honored guests today as their 4-H colleagues demonstrate their extraordinary gratitude for the humble, yet outstanding public service of this Sussex County couple.

Madam Speaker, on June 26, 2007, the world lost one of America's unsung heroes when Thomas A. O'Rourke, originally of Ramsey, New Jersey, succumbed to a bone marrow disease known as Myelodysplastic syndrome.

At the height of the Vietnam war, Tom O'Rourke sought out service to his nation, as both his mother and father had done before him. During college, Tom attended United States Marine Corps Officer Candidate School. He was commissioned as a second lieutenant and sent to flight school in Pensacola, Florida, where he earned his ``Wings of Gold.'' As a naval aviator, he headed off to Vietnam to fly AH-1G Cobra helicopters.

Tom retired as a captain and went to work for Bell Helicopter International as a test pilot and then as manager for their Maintenance Test Flight Division in Iran. In the true spirit of lifelong allegiance to the values of the Corps

and to his comrades still serving and yet to serve, he ensured the safety and effectiveness of their aviation equipment from his new place in the private sector. Tom later worked as the contracting administrator for the Arabian American Oil Company (ARAMCO) and then in a number of capacities for the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe in Washington State, protecting the natural resources of those lush lands.

Tom also found time to pursue personal interests, like scuba diving, travel, and softball--both as player and as coach. He spent a wonderful life with his wife of 28 years, Lohna; his son Kevin Thomas O'Rourke and his wife Casey; and his beautiful granddaughter, Mallie. Tom's son not only carries on his father's name, but also the proud family tradition of service as a pilot in the United States Marine Corps.

Tom O'Rourke's place in this world is not easily filled; he touched so many lives with such sincerity of spirit. But his courage and determination and sense of fellowship live on with his family and friends. And, I join them in celebrating this heroic life.

Madam Speaker, I rise to commend Maria Rath of Hainesville for her kind and generous service to her community. In her retirement, Maria has turned her tremendous energy and heart into a true blessing for all of Sussex County. Next week, her good deeds will be recognized at the State Fair when she is named the 2007 Sussex County Senior of the Year. I join my Sussex neighbors in honoring her for her work.

Maria has established the Bread of Life's Ministry, a one-woman show distributing donated baked goods to area food pantries and families in need. She has partnered with places like Panera Bread, Manna House, and Sussex County Technical School to take their donations of leftover bread, repackage it, and distribute it to institutions like Liberty Towers and Nutrition Center, Brookside Apartments, the Newton Adult Day Care Center, First Presbyterian Church of Sparta, and, my own church, Lafayette Federated Church. In addition to her regular rounds, Maria will take whatever extra time or effort is necessary to help a family she hears may need her loving touch.

In addition to this important project, Maria and her husband, Wilbur, started a furniture ministry six years ago. Through that endeavor, they bring household furniture to families in need. Maria also cooks at the Manna House once a month and volunteers at the Newton Hospital labs. Her labors are truly labors of love, bringing joy and hope to people as well as the material goods they need so badly.

Maria notes, ``I'm 77, but I feel like 49.'' Age is no match for a young and vibrant spirit and heart. Maria is an extraordinary example for men and women of all ages, demonstrating the power of a single life to influence so many lives in a very positive way.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to New Jersey's 18 newest young ambassadors, the female soccer players of the North Jersey All-Stars. Today, they will set off from JFK Airport in New York for a two-week trip of good will and sportsmanship on the East Coast of Brazil.

While in the coastal cities of Sao Mateus and Jaguare, the team of soccer superstars will play five games with local players, will deliver more than $15,000 in donated soccer equipment and sportsgear, and will spread a message of friendship to the people of Brazil. While most Americans traveling to Brazil, spend their days and nights in the touristy resorts, like Rio de Janeiro, these girls will be visiting a more remote and isolated, and far less wealthy, region.

These high school-aged soccer players will be accompanied by their manager, David Heitman; trainers, Karen Hartigan and Phil Ross; and a local reporter, Brian Farrell. They will also be traveling with their coach, former professional soccer player, Roberto Ferman. The North Jersey All-Stars are: Zoey Talias of Wyckoff, Anna Rothschild of River Edge, Ashley Walker of Mahwah, Nicolle Sanchez of Lyndhurst, Amanda Soto of Mahwah, Faith Tucker of Rutherford, Lexi Hutton of Basking Ridge, Christy Shedlock of North Haledon, Katy Generelli of Spotswood, Karen Schoepflin of Oakland, Brielle Heitman of Mahwah, Janelle Biagini of Wyckoff, Kelly TenEyck of Mahwah, Brooke Bandazian of Wyckoff, Chelsea Marie Wuesthoff of Ironia, Sarah Royse of Northvale, Catherine Wolff of Wyckoff, Mimi Kocela of Waldwick.

I commend these young women for their dedication to their sport and for their efforts to use that sport to spread a message of good will and sportsmanship overseas.

America, your freedom of speech was trampled on yesterday. This new Democratic leadership quashed any semblance of free speech here on this House floor. This is not just a procedural matter, mind you. This is a matter for all Americans.

You see, each Member of Congress represents 600,000 constituents. That is 600,000 American voices that were quashed yesterday. As I say, this is not just a Republican issue, for their voices were quashed, but so were Democrat and Independent voices as well.

But in fact, this is nothing new for the new Democrat leadership. Just a week ago we had to come to this floor to make sure we could fight to keep the radio waves and the media opening dealing with the Fairness Doctrine. Prior to this, we had to fight to make sure that the centuries-old tradition of bipartisanship would not be broken. Prior to that, we had to fight to make sure that there would be transparency in earmarks, and all the Republicans fought on the side of openness and freedom of speech.

The Democrats say they tolerate all diversity, but apparently diversity not of thought and speech.

Mr. Speaker, throughout this debate, we have heard a vote against this bill is a vote against the children, a vote against the poor, a vote against those who need the help most; and had this legislation merely reauthorized the current law, the arguments might have had an element of truth to them. But with this unconstrained growth in a welfare entitlement bill that this expansion has become, what we do know is that this bill now undermines the health care of millions of uninsured children and insured children and does so at the expense of American seniors.

Supporters of this bill would say that by no means is this a back door to a mandatory, socialized, government-run health care system. I say, not the back door, but, as Paul Ryan might say, it's a front-door approach to a socialized, government-run health care system. Also, it opens the windows and the garage door as well.

This bill does not set a cap on the annual income levels of the families it covers, it does not include an asset test to ensure that millionaires are not eligible, and it expands the program to cover childless adults.

It is entirely conceivable, and, actually, it probably will occur, that the States can enroll as many people in this program as local politics will make expedient. A benchmark figure that has been bandied about is 300 percent. They want to enroll families up to 300 percent above the poverty level.

Just what would that system look like? According to the Census Bureau, and I just got these numbers a little while ago, of the 300 million or so people in this country, 48.3 percent, or roughly 145 million people, live at or below the 300 percent of the Federal poverty level. So we're now considering a new entitlement program for nearly half of the entire population of this country. And if you add to that number the 44 million people who are currently enrolled in Medicare, what does that mean? That means, with this bill, almost two-thirds of the entire population of this country will be on a government-run, socialized health care system, two-thirds paid for by one-third.

Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it. This proposal is a large step towards a single-payer, Washington-run State health care system.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I too join in supporting this amendment, and the gentleman from North Carolina for doing it, for saving so much money for the American taxpayer.

Just prior to this we heard the chairman from the other side of the aisle, in essence, asking us in some ways to trample on our free speech rights in this House. And you know, when you do that, when you ask that we not speak on important issues here in this House for hours, for a period of time, and the other side of the aisle always points out that we're spending more time this year than we did in the past years trying to debate these issues. And I think the American public, quite honestly appreciates that, whether it's 86 hours or 186 hours. I think the American public looks to Congress to make sure that we spend their money appropriately, and looks for us to debate those issues appropriately as well.

We, each Member of Congress, as we stand here, represents a little over 600,000 individuals, men, women and children, across this country in our respective districts. When we come to this floor and speak on this floor, we are representing their voices. We bring their voices from New Jersey to this floor.

And so when the other side of the aisle says, oh, you go on too long over there in the minority, well they're saying that really to my constituents. They are complaining that my constituents' voice should be silenced. And I come to the floor right now and say, no, sir, my constituents voices will not be silenced. I will speak out when I can, where I can on behalf of the constituents of the Fifth District and the State of New Jersey as well.

Now, I know that we're looking at a bill here with $18.6 billion. Right now we're looking at an amendment for $100,000. To us, and my constituents, that's a lot of money. And if it takes us an hour or two hours to debate this one amendment, to get consensus to save $100,000, well, that's a lot of money to my constituents, and they would say that hour or two hours of debate is well worth it.

Now, maybe the other side of the aisle will disagree with me. Maybe the other side of the aisle doesn't care whether we spend 50,000, 100,000 of our hard-earned tax dollars. And maybe they will accept the amendment as they did in the past, and if they do so, the $100,000 amendment, we appreciate that.

But you know, in that regard, this really is a bipartisan effort then. It is really two parties coming together to solve a problem. The one party, the majority party, comes to this floor, raises our taxes, increases our spending.

The minority party, the Republicans, equally come to the floor, and we reach out our hand and work together. While the Democrats raise our taxes and raise the spending, we reach out a hand and say how about trying to bring that spending down just a little bit by $100,000, and by bipartisan effort we're able to get that down. So this is a bipartisan day, and I hope that we will see other amendments to increase that bipartisanship as well, as we try to rein in the spending that the other side has brought us.

And when we talk about what the other side has brought us, and one of the reasons why we need to save this $100,000, just think of what we've gone through in the last few months already and just recently in the last couple weeks. We have seen taxpayers on the American taxpayers go up by over $400 billion in one of the first bills that House passed under the majority party of their budget.

We have seen just recently them raising taxes again through the farm bill. And now with this underlying bill that we'll be looking at in a little bit on the SCHIP bill, another $60 billion in taxes.

And let me add just one more tax increase that maybe Members of both sides of the aisle may be forgetting about. Just a few hours ago, as I look at the clock, I came out of Financial Services Committee, where we, or the majority party, added the last piece to the puzzle with regard to another tax increase on the American public, and that's the MTI. That's the mortgage tax increase. That's a tax increase on every family in America who needs to go out and get a mortgage to buy their first home or their second or an additional home as they move into it.

Every family in America who will want to get out a mortgage in the future will now have to pay an MTI, a mortgage tax increase, thanks to the majority party in the legislation that is just finally put in place. So whether it is an increase in the budget taxes or the farm bill or the SCHIP or now an MTI as far as a tax increase as well, we're working with the other side of the aisle. As they raise taxes on the American family, we work with them here and there, to bring down the spending to a level that our taxpayers in our districts are able to abide by.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Parliamentary inquiry.

When the Chair rules to a point of order with respect to limiting one's comments or debate to the underlying amendment that is before us at the time, is that time allowed to be discussed on something with respect to the amount of time in essence that we are discussing that bill or does the language only go to the underlying amendment?

Further parliamentary inquiry.

Is it a sufficient nexus to discuss the amount of time that an individual is taking to discuss the underlying amendment?

Thank you.

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

I rise today to join with the chairman in support of H.R. 180, the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act.

I'm increasingly concerned, I'm outraged in a sense, about the continuing atrocities in the Darfur region of Sudan. Without question, the horrific actions of the janjaweed militia and the Sudanese Government must immediately end. And the nations of the world must speak in unison against this genocide, and that is what it is, a genocide.

Hundreds of thousands of civilians have been killed, many of them in particularly brutal ways. Another estimated 2 million in Darfur have been displaced refugees, plus hundreds of thousands in Chad. This is a crisis that must be addressed now and must be addressed on each and every front.

Unfortunately, the international community, specifically in the United Nations, the U.N. has consistently failed in efforts to bring peace to this region. U.N. resolutions have lacked the teeth or failed to be implemented, and that is because of the Security Council members such as China and Russia as they continue to stall the progress.

So as the U.N. slowly moves towards a real peacekeeping force, other groups are being forced to pull out because of violence in the region. Thus, recently, OxFam announced in June that they will have to pull out of the largest camp in Darfur, where more than 130,000 people have found shelter; and without a way to protect humanitarian aid flowing into the area, thousands more will face starvation.

That is why I'm pleased we are bringing this important legislation to the floor today, the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act.

It requires the Secretary of the Treasury to create a list of companies that have a direct investment in or are conducting businesses operations in Sudan's power, mineral, oil or military equipment industries.

It authorizes States and local municipalities to divest based on the Treasury list or other lists to protect them from lawsuits.

It amends the Investment Company Act of 1940 and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to protect mutual funds and pension funds from lawsuits if they choose to divest from companies on the Treasury list.

And finally, fourthly, it prohibits the U.S. Government from entering into or renewing contracts with companies on that list.

I was very pleased, as I say, Mr. Speaker, with the chairman working in a bipartisan manner with myself and Ranking Member Bachus on the committee, and we agreed to make a number of changes to the bill to address some of the concerns made from our side of the aisle. One of the specific changes that was made was calls on countries around the world to take similar steps with regard to the situation.

The section states: ``It is the sense of the Congress that the governments of all other countries should adopt measures, similar to those contained in this act, to publicize the activities of all persons that, through their financial dealings, knowingly or unknowingly enable the Government of Sudan to continue to oppress and commit genocide against people in the Darfur region and other regions of Sudan, and to

authorize divestment from, and the avoidance of further investment in, the persons.''

As the distinguished ranking member of the committee, Mr. Bachus, has noted, ``Economic and financial considerations are important, but in a loving Nation can never be as justification for complicity in genocide. Closing our financial markets to those who participate directly or indirectly in the slaughter of innocent human beings is well within our ability and ought to be a bedrock principle. America is a loving Nation, and allowing our financial markets to be utilized by an evil regime which conducts religious and racial genocide is inconsistent with our values and principles.''

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

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I begin by saying that over the last couple of years there have been multiple genocides that occurred under the U.N.'s watch. There was Bosnia, Rwanda and now Darfur. Each time the U.N. has failed to take appropriate action. Each time it is because of political and economic pressure.

When the current situation arose in Darfur, the best that we could get out of the U.N. and then-Secretary General Kofi Annan was, at the anniversary of Rwanda, simply a statement on the floor of that anniversary and a moment of silence and the pledge this shall never happen again. Unfortunately, it has happened again. That is why we are here today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman and a strong fighter on this issue, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to a champion of the fight for human rights, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

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

Mr. Speaker, just a concluding point, with the need for us to take initial movement on this but also to look for the rest of the world community to become involved.

It was just last year when U.N. Deputy Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown said with regard to Darfur on this point: ``And yet what can the U.S. do alone in the heart of Africa in a region the size of France? In essence, the U.S. is stymied before it even passes Go. It needs a multilateral means to address the Sudan's concerns.'' I believe that is true, but this is the first step in that direction.

With that, I once again thank the gentlelady from California and the chairman as well for their work together in a bipartisan manner on this legislation

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

Mr. Speaker, I also thank again the distinguished chairman of the committee for bringing this important legislation to the floor. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in support of H.R. 2347, the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act. The radical hard-line Islamic leadership of Iran presents one of the most serious threats today to peace and stability throughout the world. First, their quest to acquire nuclear weapons technology, when you combine that with comments by the Iranian President such that the Nation of Israel should be ``wiped off the map,'' make it clear that the Iranian leadership is unpredictable and dangerous.

The Iranian President has gone even farther by speculating that the collateral damage of attacking Israel with nuclear weapons would be worth the cost to the Muslim world. So for a regime that is developing nuclear capabilities, these are truly extraordinary words, and the world must take notice.

The Iranian President and the Ayatollah's supreme wish is the destruction of Israel and all of her people. They have not tried to mask their goal. They doubt that the Holocaust ever occurred in the past, and now they're making plans for the Holocaust of the future. And there is no doubt about it. Their fresh Holocaust will stretch far beyond the borders of Israel. They will encompass all whom they consider a threat to their values and to their plans. So to confront Iran now is not only in the national interest, it is also in our interest because the U.S. will surely sometime be a target itself.

There is much talk at the U.N. about preventing wars and genocide, but, unfortunately, there is so too little action. The world should not ignore these words now of aggression. Because of the lack of success the U.N. has had in keeping the nuclear technology out of the hands of these radicals, the United States must now take the appropriate measures and work directly with all of our allies to do everything in our power to prevent Iran from obtaining those weapons.

And so that is why I'm here today. I am pleased with H.R. 2347, for this act will do several important measures. First, as indicated, it permits, permits, not mandates, the divestiture from companies with investments of $20 million or more in Iran's energy sector.

Secondly, it directs the Federal Government to produce a list of such companies that qualify for such investment.

Thirdly, it authorizes State governments, local governments and public educational institutions to divest even their pension fund assets from companies on that list.

Fourthly, it permits private investment and pension plan managers to divest from companies listed, as the chairman states, without breaching their fiduciary responsibilities.

As the committee report herein notes, companies based in the U.S. are already barred from doing business with Iran. But these trade investment sanctions do not extend to foreign companies which operate legally. Foreign persons that invested in Iran's energy sector, despite Iran's support of international terrorism and its nuclear program, have provided additional financial means for Iran's activities in these areas, and many United States persons have unknowingly invested in those same persons.

So Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, it is my hope that by allowing U.S. companies to divest their financial interests from any foreign-owned companies doing business with Iran, we will continue to put that pressure on that radical Iranian leadership to end their stated goals of acquiring nuclear weapons and encourage other countries to bolster their trade and economic restrictions on Iran as well.

So I urge my colleagues to support this small but very important step in reining in this extremist regime.

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

I now yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays)

Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman and gentlewoman on the other side of the aisle for their efforts on this legislation

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House today is considering H. Res. 121 which rightly recognizes the plight of Korean comfort women during the 1930s and WorId War II. I was proud to cosponsor this resolution which calls on the nation of Japan to formally recognize and apologize for these crimes.

After the Japanese occupation of Korea in the 1930s, the army forced young women to work in brothels. In some cases kidnapped women were transported overseas for sexual servitude. At the end of WorId War II, these women were left scarred and in many cases far from home with no resources.

Sadly, there are some in Japan who still insist that the army was not formally involved with these crimes or that the women chose to become involved in prostitution. The evidence clearly demonstrates that this was not the case. It is far past time for the Japanese government to recognize the role the army played in these crimes.

Today, we call on them to apologize to the few women who continue to live with the shame of the crimes committed against them. While the relationship between Korea and Japan has improved as both countries turned into thriving democracies, the issue of the comfort women continues to come between them. I hope that this resolution will promote reconciliation so that both countries can move together into a future of cooperation and friendship.