Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on March 30, 2012, the Associated Press had an article about the Obama Administration expanding sanctions against the Syrian regime. These new sanctions focused on military and security officials, particularly targeting the Minister of Defense. In a statement, Under Secretary of the Treasury David Cohen said, ``The U.S. and the international community will hold to account those who stand with the Assad regime as it trains the instruments of war against Syrian civilians . . . the time has long since passed for Syrian officials at all levels to turn their backs on this bloody regime.'' The article went on to state that over 9,000 people had been killed in the fighting in Syria.

Jump ahead to today, and reports in the Washington Post that the U.S. is now ``coordinating'' ``more and better weapons'' for the Syrian opposition. Persian Gulf states are funding the weapons.

Also today we hear deeply disturbing news that the Administration is ``easing'' sanctions against the dictatorship in Burma. This has to raise the question of why Administration officials are actively working--in fact ``coordinating''--the delivery of ``significantly more and better weapons'' for the Syrian opposition, but is literally turning its back on and deliberately ignoring the extreme brutally being carried out on a daily basis by the Burmese dictatorship against the people of Burma, particularly the Kachin people.

Why would the Administration lift sanctions against a brutal dictatorship that has years and years of documented, horrific human rights violations against the people of its nation, when in the Middle East, the Administration is supporting the opposition forces fighting against a different brutal dictatorship? Why is it that one brutal dictatorship has the ire and opposition of the U.S. Government, but another dictatorship, that has yet to prove it will uphold and implement its commitments, is being rewarded for continuing to attack, rape, and kill its people?

What is going on that our nation, which says it stands for the protection of human rights and the upholding and protection of basic human freedoms, would decide to help one group fighting a brutal dictatorship while deliberately ignoring, and now, even supporting a terrible dictatorship on the other side of the world? The Administration needs to strongly reconsider its actions in Burma.

This easing of sanctions against a brutal Burmese regime comes in the face of much opposition from the people of Burma, ethnic leaders, democracy activists, NGOs, ASEAN parliamentarians, and Nobel Peace Prize winner Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, and is disturbing and puzzling to say the least.

What does this Administration expect to gain for itself by easing sanctions against Burma? It certainly can't be anything that will help the people of Burma, since the ethnic leaders and the democracy groups have urged the U.S. not to lift, ease, or remove sanctions.

United to End Genocide says, ``Economic investment is one of the driving forces behind the Burmese army's attacks against civilians in Kachin State. By expediting the rollback of sanctions, President Obama has told Burma's long suffering ethnic nationalities that they aren't part of the equation.''

Democracy leader Aung Din with U.S. Campaign for Burma says, ``The United States will be responsible for generously rewarding the regime if the war in Kachin State and human rights abuses in ethnic areas do not end, hundreds of remaining political prisoners are not released, and political settlements between the regime and ethnic resistance groups are not realized.''

The Vice President of the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Myanmar Caucus (AIPMC), `` `urged the U.S. Government to maintain sanctions on business activities in Myanmar, warning that a gold rush in the Southeast Asian nation could fuel further human rights abuses, risk fragile ceasefires and arrest ongoing democratic reforms rather than bolster them.' As everyone with any knowledge on Myanmar will attest, the changes we have seen to date are far from irreversible. It is ludicrous to reward the current government's untested reforms by paving the way for a gold rush. Fighting in Myanmar's ethnic areas continues and many of the ethnic leaders are concerned that these reforms are just a ploy to pave the way for `development' projects on their lands.''

The Central Executive Committee of the United Nationalities Federal Council, which consists of representatives of all the ethnic minority groups--all of whose people have endured horrific attacks at the hands of the Burmese regime--says, ``It is necessary for the international community to oppose and pressure Bamah [Burma] Tatmadaw for its wrong actions. Accordingly, we would like to request the international community not suspend or lift the remaining political, military, financial and economic sanctions.''

And Nobel Peace Prize winner Daw Aung San Suu Kyi urged great caution in lifting or easing sanctions urging that the American people be allowed to decide whether or not sanctions against Burma should change.

Instead of listening to the people of Burma as well as those outsiders and foreigners working on behalf of the people of Burma, the U.S. Administration has ignored them all. Instead, it has gone the path of cozying up to dictators and believing their promises . . . an odd decision since the dictators have not tended to keep their word in the past. The pattern generally has been that as soon as the dictators have received what they wanted from the West or the international community, they have simply gone back to their old ways while the rest of the world stands by and wrings its hands in consternation. Nothing has been done to hold those dictators to account for their actions.

Now, with the easing of sanctions, the U.S. has given the regime what it wants and has lost any leverage it might have. It is appalling that a country founded on freedom and democracy has taken steps to deliberately undermine democracy and freedom in Burma and instead has chosen to support a dictatorship bent on absolute control of its people.

I wonder if this Administration has read the stacks and stacks of reports detailing the rape, death and destruction of the ethnic minorities and their villages. Has it read its own State Department's report on the dictators' policy of rape of ethnic women? Has it read its own Country Reports over the years that have documented the torture of political prisoners? Has this Administration read reports that have come out in the past month about the 70,000 displaced persons in Kachin State? The latest attacks have all taken place while the regime has allegedly been making ``progress'' towards democracy and openness.

Would this Administration open up to the Assad regime and remove sanctions while its military was involved in deliberately killing the Syrian people? Clearly not.

The Administration has even sent U.S. military advisors and experts to help the Ugandan Government track and capture the brutal warlord Joseph Kony and his cronies. Yet, despite well known and thoroughly documented violence, brutality, and destruction under the orders of the regime in Burma, the U.S. Government has now decided that the people of Burma no longer matter.

I am ashamed of these actions by the U.S. Government. The sanctions should not be eased, and the Administration must re-impose these sanctions and listen to the people of Burma instead of the siren call of the dictators' money, brutal power, and false promises.

To the people of Burma, I say, please know that you are not forgotten and there are many in the West who stand with you and will work to ensure that your freedoms and rights are upheld and protected. Your voice should not be ignored and you should be able to live in peace in your own country. Shame on those, particularly Western officials, who would tell you by their actions that you have no rights and your life is worthless.

I thank the gentleman.

It can't be emphasized too often that our Ground-based Midcourse Defense is the only tested system that we have that defends the homeland of the United States against the most dangerous and powerful weapons mankind has ever known. I just somehow have a hard time cognitively grasping why a nuclear missile landing on our homeland doesn't alarm people a little bit more than it seems to.

Assuming the SM 3 Block 2B missile is able to provide protection for the homeland in that year--an assumption the GAO calls into question in fairly alarmed terms--this system will be the only system that we have that will be able to protect the homeland until at least 2020.

Mr. Chairman, we make a desperate mistake--for whatever the reason is, whether it's a secret deal with the Russians or whatever it is--in reducing the only system that protects the United States of America. It is folly.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I would say first and foremost that the true destabilizing force in the Western Pacific today is nuclear weapons in the hands of North Korea. There have been many efforts to try to pursue solutions in that regard: six-party talks and many different things. It is time that the United States have some additional options. The language in the NDAA that we have merely says that we need a report to be conducted regarding the efficacy of additional nuclear or conventional weapons in the Western Pacific region. It technically doesn't even mention South Korea. It is true that the South Korean people and some of the South Korean leaders have debated and some of them are arguing for the redeployment of the tactical nuclear weapons on the peninsula because they see North Korea's nuclear forces as the most destabilizing aspect.

This amendment that the gentleman puts forward simply says that it would not be in the national security interests of the United States, and I think that that's not in evidence at this point. I believe that having this language in our defense bill actually strengthens the administration's hand to promote some sort of a more just solution here and takes the country and the world in a safer direction.

Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is that I believe this amendment should be opposed, and the language in the NDAA should be preserved.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment prohibits FY13 NNSA nonproliferation activities with Russia until the Secretary of Energy, in cooperation with the Secretaries of State and Defense, can certify two things: first, that Russia is no longer providing support to the Assad regime's efforts to suppress the Syrian people; and, second, that Russia is not providing technology or equipment to Iran, North Korea, or Syria that contribute to the development of weapons of mass destruction.

Mr. Chairman, this NNSA program for years has been an effort on our part to assist Russia to secure potential lost nuclear weapons and to help them be able to store and deal with some of the nuclear materials that they may have difficulty doing. But it's come to a point now where we have reached what I consider almost like a schizophrenic relationship here where we are funding Russia's own responsibility to deal with some of their older nuclear technology while allowing them to free up funds to spend on new nuclear technology which they sell to some of our enemies.

Mr. Chairman, that's not keeping faith with the American people. It's not keeping faith with the cause of human peace in the world. And, Mr. Chairman, we need to send Russia a message that we are committed to making sure that we don't arm our enemies and we don't support brutal regimes that suppress innocent people trying to fight for freedom in the world.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment does have two waivers that allow the NNSA to finish current activities due to be completed in fiscal year 2013 or to allow an activity to continue, if the Secretary of Energy believes it's in the national security interest of the United States to do so. In the meantime, Mr. Chairman, this is something that we need to pass, and I would hope that my colleagues would support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I would just say that when we are working with what was once the Soviet Union--now Russia--to try to prevent nonproliferation, and we supplied the money to help them prevent proliferation in the world of nuclear weapons while at the same time they are taking that exact same technology and giving it or selling it at great profit many times to our enemies, it just is an example of national cognitive dissonance, and it is something that we should change as quickly as we can.

Russia is one of Syria's main arms suppliers, having supplied an estimated $1 billion worth of arms, including surface-to-air missiles in 2011. It represents a challenge to peace in the region. And, Mr. Chairman, we simply have no business continuing to subsidize them if we're suggesting that we are trying to prevent proliferation while subsidizing their proliferation.

I would just urge the passage of this amendment.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, we should remember as a Nation that there was a time when we were the only country on Earth that had nuclear weapons capability. But that fell into foreign hands and the arms race was born. We should also remember that there was a time when we produced almost all of our uranium needs for our nuclear power plants. Today, we import over 90 percent of that.

Mr. Chairman, both in terms of national security and in terms of not letting a foreign entity have leverage over our nuclear Navy capability and our nuclear arms capability, I believe that we should not pass this amendment and change this language, because it's important that we maintain both our security and our ability to produce our needed uranium fuel and highly enriched weapons-grade uranium at home.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 250. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 251. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 252.

I certainly thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I believe it's important, first of all, in this challenge that we have with our Federal budget, to realize that all budgets, whether they are personal budgets or business budgets or budgets by governments, all of them eventually and inevitably come to balance. They either do so by wise fiscal policy or by catastrophic failure.

The fact is that this administration has spent us into the stone age and added to our deficit approximately $1 trillion a year since they came into office. Mr. Speaker, the result is that we have more people living in poverty under this administration than ever before. So there is something wrong with the equation.

Now, having listened to the debate over this reconciliation bill, it's clear to me that Republicans and Democrats have a very fundamental, philosophical difference over whether or not we should take steps to reduce the Federal deficit and avoid the arbitrary and inflexible automatic spending cuts that are set to go into effect next year.

Republicans propose to reduce the deficit and avoid the automatic sequestration by eliminating wasteful programs, wasteful government spending, and curbing fraud in government programs in general. The President, on the other hand, has proposed raising taxes on the American people and American families and businesses, while at the same time increasing Federal Government spending. I cannot think of a more stark contrast, Mr. Speaker.

My friends on the other side of the aisle have demagogued this reconciliation bill beyond recognition. The fact, however, remains that this bill reduces the deficit--not by some parade of horribles, but by stopping fraud, eliminating government slush funds and duplicative programs, and controlling runaway Federal spending. It does so while preventing devastating defense cuts that the Obama administration's own Defense Department has called ``unacceptable.'' And it does so by making sure that the domestic spending cuts that the President's own budget claimed will ``inflict great damage on critical domestic priorities'' do not go unaddressed.

As part of the reconciliation process, the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Speaker, has recommended reforms to our medical liability system to rein in unlimited lawsuits and to make health care more accessible and affordable to all Americans.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Judiciary Committee's proposed medical liability reforms will reduce the deficit by more than $48 billion the very first year and beyond. The simple fact is that frivolous lawsuits drive physicians out of the practice of medicine in the primes of their careers, it pushes others away from high-risk medical specialties, and causes the vast majority of health care providers to practice defensive medicine. Studies indicate that the cost of health care lawsuit abuse is between $230 billion and $650 billion annually. The Judiciary Committee's proposal helps to eliminate the cause of this out-of-control lawsuit abuse.

Mr. Speaker, I would just urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this reconciliation package so that we can both reduce the Federal deficit and avoid the draconian sequestration of Defense Department funding that threatens serious harm to our national security.

Mr. Speaker, just a word on our national security. There is no more important thing to our economy of any kind than making sure that we are doing everything to be productive in a secure environment. If our national security is undermined, our economic security will be writing its own economic obituary.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 236, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Stated against:

Mr. Speaker, had I been present for rollcall vote No. 152, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Chair, I just rise in strong support of this very commonsense amendment by my friend, Mr. Stearns from Florida.

This amendment is to provide liability protection to health care workers who volunteer to help in disaster response for their fellow human beings.

Madam Chair, rescue efforts often can be chaotic; and without the help of volunteers, government Agencies cannot always help everyone effectively. Many State tort laws, including those of Louisiana, the State hardest hit by Hurricane Katrina, are unclear in regards to who is covered under State Good Samaritan protections.

Madam Chair, this is a country of Good Samaritans. We should encourage our fellow human beings to help their fellow human beings and not offer impediments to them. I think this amendment does that, and I support it with the strongest conviction.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 92 I was in TS briefing. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, at no other point in recent history has it been more crucial for Congress to take action on international religious freedom. I would like to deeply thank my colleagues, Congressmen Joe Pitts and Keith Ellison, for sponsoring H. Res. 556 that addresses religious freedom in Iran. These vital issues deserve our immediate attention as we see religious persecution escalate internationally: in Iraq, for instance, Assyrian Christians were brutally murdered in their church and continue to be directly targeted by terrorist organizations; some have even been attacked and murdered on their own front doorstep. In China, thousands of Christians and Falun Gong practitioners are forced into re-education through labor camps while the lawyers that try to defend them are often imprisoned. Uygur Muslims and Tibetan Buddhists are targeted as separatists because of their faith.

Mr. Speaker, commitment to religious freedom is not just for one faith community but for people of all confessions throughout the world and across political lines. Religious freedom is not only for Americans or Christians or Republicans or Democrats, it is a sacred right for all humanity. The U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, of which Iran is a signatory, allows for the ``right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion'' and this right includes the freedom to change religion or belief. I would like to note that Pastor Yousef was imprisoned and charged with apostasy in direct violation with the international standards that Iran had accepted. The fundamental right of religious freedom, furthermore, is enshrined in Iran's Constitution in Articles 13, 14, and 23.

Mr. Speaker, the Pitts-Ellison resolution condemns the Iranian government, one of the most horrific perpetrators of religious freedom violations, for its repression of religious minorities. It focuses, in particular, on the case of Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani, a Christian with the Church of Iran denomination, who faces imminent execution for his faith. Pastor Yousef's arrest and imprisonment resulted from questioning the mandate from the government of Iran that all school children be taught Islamic teachings.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most precious rights parents can have is having the freedom to educate their own children and bring up their children the way they believe is best for their family. Pastor Yousef was not given this foundational right to instill in his children a respect for freedom of religion and conscience. As the author of The Children's Hope Act, I know how critical it is for parents to make their own independent decisions about the education of their children. No parent should have to face death, as is the situation for Pastor Yousef, just for asking his government to grant him freedom of religion, even if that freedom of religion was narrowly defined to the freedom to educate and practice his faith in his own home.

Mr. Speaker, the case of Pastor Yousef is only one of many other deplorable religious freedom cases in Iran. A close personal friend of Pastor Yousef and a member of the Council of Elders for the Church of Iran described the egregious situation for Christians in the Middle East as strikingly similar to ``the final decision in Germany,'' when the Nazis religiously and racially ``cleansed'' German society of the Jews. This elder ended by saying that the ``international reaction [to the religious cleansing in the Middle East] is also like the time of Hitler. They waited and didn't react until it was too late.'' In Iran, at least 285 Christians were arrested during the first half of 2011 without reaction.

Mr. Speaker, one such case of the silently persecuted is Masoud Delijani, a school teacher in Kermanshah, Iran, who was arrested by plain clothes intelligence officers in March 2011. He was arrested, together with his wife and nine other Christian converts, when they had gathered in a house church for a service. He was held in solitary confinement and was severely pressured both mentally and physically. The court eventually charged him with having faith in Christianity and for holding illegal house church gatherings.

Mr. Speaker, the Revolutionary Court of Kermanshah province recently sentenced Masoud Delijani to three years in prison. Sources report that his trial was anything but fair: he was denied the right to choose his own advocate or defend himself against the charges levied. Masoud Delijani is now being held in Deizal-Abad prison of Kermanshah to serve his three-year prison sentence. The central prison of Kermanshah is described as horrendous and sickening by knowledgeable sources.

Mr. Speaker, the cases described above would largely go unnoticed and the persecuted would be forced to suffer if we are silent. Given our own freedoms in America and the responsibility to represent the concerns of our constituents who are concerned with the suffering of persons and families abroad, I believe we have a personal responsibility to stand up for justice and support those who are persecuted. I would also urge other world leaders to not wait to speak out on behalf of Pastor Yousef and his universal right of religious freedom until it is too late.

Mr. Speaker, Alexander Hamilton, one of the architects of our Republic, said, ``The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased.''

Mr. Speaker, may the right of religious freedom touch those around the world and persons of all faiths, and may future generations walk in the sunlight of that most inalienable and universal freedom.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 32 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Stated against:

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 15, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Deutch

Madam Speaker, it's hard to add to all of the things that have been said today about Gabe Zimmerman, but I identify with each one of them.

I would simply say to you, though, that I never met Gabe. I did have the privilege to meet his lovely, precious family, and it was clear to me that everyone who knew Gabe loved him. If they knew him well, they loved him more. His selfless spirit of service is an inspiration to all of us, and it's also a reminder of how short our time here may be.

So, Madam Speaker, I just want to suggest to you that everyone in this place should embrace this resolution because it is a testament to the noble dedication of a young congressional staffer who lost his life in the service of his country.

I had the privilege of being there when this room was dedicated to him, so I hope that all of us can embrace this. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' and to honor Gabe Zimmerman and the legacy of service that he left behind.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, all financial budgets will eventually balance. The choice faced by those of us in Congress is whether we will balance this budget ourselves through the wise policy before us or whether national bankruptcy and financial ruin will do it for us.

From the very day that Barack Obama walked into the White House, he has, with breathtaking arrogance, absolutely ignored economic and financial reality. It took America the first 216 years of its existence to accumulate the debt that Barack Obama has accumulated in the first 3 years of his Presidency. He has in those short 3 years increased our Federal debt by over $4 trillion.

Just to put that into perspective, if all of a sudden a wave of responsibility swept through this Chamber and if we stopped all deficit spending today and began to pay installments of $1 million every day to pay down the over $4 trillion in new debt that Barack Obama has created in less than 3 years, it would take us more than 10,000 years to pay that off--and that's if we didn't pay one dime of interest in the process.

But you see, we are not paying Mr. Obama's debt down at $1 million per day; we are going deeper into debt, more than 4,000 times that much, every day under Mr. Obama's own submitted budget and deficit projections.

In an ominous prologue to the vote before us, the national debt surpassed $15 trillion yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, we have already tried Mr. Obama's way. We have thoroughly tested Democrat economics 101--the theory that we can tax and deficit spend ourselves into prosperity or, as Vice President Biden put it, ``We have to spend money to keep from going bankrupt.''

That theory has utterly failed. We cannot repeal the laws of mathematics.

But now the seminal moment approaches when each of us in this body will have the rare opportunity to cast a single vote that could pull this Nation back from the brink of economic cataclysm. For the sake of our children and our children's children, I pray that we do the right thing.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

I thank the chairman.

Madam Chair, H.R. 822, initially introduced by Mr. Stearns of Florida and Mr. Shuler of North Carolina and supported by more than half of my colleagues in the House of Representatives, would allow people with a valid permit or license to carry a concealed handgun in any other State that permits concealed carry. This is a policy akin to allowing licensed drivers from one State to drive their car in another State so long as they obey the local laws.

Madam Chair, clearly the constitutional right to defend oneself and one's family should not be limited to only when you are at home. Criminals have always preferred unarmed victims. Conversely, law- abiding citizens capable of defending themselves and their fellow citizens demonstrably save innocent lives.

To give one of countless examples, in 2007, a man in Colorado named Matthew Murray wrote online: ``All I want to do is kill and injure as many Christians as I can.'' Murray then went on a shooting rampage, first killing two young students at a missionary training center outside Denver; and then at a gathering of over 7,000 people in and around the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, with a rifle and a backpack full of ammunition, Murray entered the church and opened fire, killing two sisters. Murray was ultimately stopped and killed by Jeanne Assam, a church member and volunteer security guard who once worked in law enforcement and who had a concealed-carry permit. Apart from this armed hero's actions, many more innocent citizens would have died that day.

H.R. 822 includes a number of provisions intended to retain the States' ability to regulate firearm use in their own States and increase public safety. Nothing in the bill affects a State's ability to set the eligibility requirements for its own residents, nor does it affect any State laws or regulations regarding how, when, or where concealed firearms can be carried. It also requires people who want to take advantage of the Federal grant of reciprocity to be properly permitted or licensed by a State to carry a concealed weapon and to be able to produce both the permit or license and a government-issued identification document.

To reiterate Chairman Smith's comments, studies have shown that concealed-carry laws are very good public policy for our country. Madam Chair, the NRA has estimated, based on FBI crime report data, that right-to-carry States, which widely allow concealed-carry, have 22 percent lower violent crime rates, 30 percent lower murder rates, and 46 percent lower robbery rates than States that prohibit or greatly restrict concealed-carry. H.R. 822 will help further extend this trend.

With that, Madam Chair, I urge my colleague to support this bill.

Mr. Chair, I just would suggest to my friend, the gentleman from Michigan, that he is correct, one cannot compare this strictly with people and driver's licenses. The fact is, first of all, driving a car is not a fundamental right to defense as enshrined in our Constitution. Secondly, cars kill many more people than guns. And, third, we don't usually defend ourselves with cars.