Darrell Issa

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In closing, I think this is so appropriate that we consider today, at a time when we are looking at ever more vexing issues of the use of pesticides, the need for pesticides, the international conventions. I will be part of a group, House and Senate, that will be in Belgium this weekend where one of the major topics will be meeting with the Europeans on the next step in finding ways to limit or eliminate various pesticides, in addition to the constant effort to deal with ozone-depleting chemicals. We are, today, as a result of her work, we are in fact smarter in the way we look at the chemicals that bring good things to life, as I think that we once said. We don't assume they are bad. We do test to make sure that what they do good for us is well measured against the side effects. That was a standard created as a result of Rachel Carson. We are honored to have had somebody who worked for the Federal Government, who published and who cared and who persevered throughout her entire life. I join with the majority in urging the swift passage of this bill. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to speak in total support of the naming of this post office. As a member of the committee, I thoroughly support the fact that we have not yet done enough to recognize some of the brave people from the past who created the government, the good parts of government that we take credit for every day. Certainly, I believe this is a good example. Not only was she, in fact, the person most responsible for recognizing the dangers of DDT and leading to the banning of it, but, quite frankly, Rachel Carson, in her novel ``Silent Spring,'' brought to the forefront the very concept of writing works which are widely read, and, in fact, can make a real difference in America's point of view. Rachel Carson was born in 1907 in a rural area of Springdale, Pennsylvania, where she first acquired her interest in nature. Majoring in marine biology, with a strong background in creative writing, she graduated from Chatham College in 1929 magna cum laude. Despite financial difficulties, Ms. Carson continued her studies at Johns Hopkins University, graduating in 1932 with a graduate degree in zoology. While expanding her great passion about zoology and other living things, Carson taught at Johns Hopkins and at the University of Maryland while pursuing her doctorate degree. Due to financial circumstances, Carson found a part-time position as a writer for radio scripts at the United States Bureau of Fisheries. She was faced with sexist resistance, not uncommon at that time, not uncommon at this time, as she took the civil service exam, but after obtaining a high score, she was given a full-time position as a junior aquatic biologist at the Bureau of Fisheries. At the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries, Ms. Carson submitted one of her radio scripts, named ``Undersea,'' to the Atlantic Monthly, which was published in 1937. Publishers, impressed with her writing, encouraged her to expand the article into book entitled Under the Sea-Wind. Carson continued to write. Her second book, The Sea Around Us, was on the New York Times best seller list for 86 weeks and won the 1952 National Book Award and earned her two honorary doctorates. The book was then made into an Oscar-winning documentary. Her writing achievements did not end here, as she went on to publish a third and fourth book and write numerous magazine articles. Ms. Carson's fourth and legendary book, Silent Spring, greatly influenced the way Americans thought about the environment and was discussed by President John F. Kennedy. One of the main themes of her novel was how all aspects of the environment were connected. She explained that when one uses a pesticide to exterminate a particular organism, the poison travels up the entire food chain, ultimately affecting large animals and humans. With the publication of Silent Spring, Carson was able to draw in reputable scientists in support of her cause of responsible DDT usage and help spread awareness of its impact on the environment. Rachel Carson was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and received many honors, including the Audubon Medal and the Cullen Medal of the American Geographical Society, for her achievements. Unfortunately, poor health kept Ms. Carson from witnessing the ban on DDT in the United States, as she passed away in 1964. She was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom posthumously in 1980. Carson's legacy lives on as the quiet and consistent voice urging people to come to terms with nature. The major conference room at the headquarters of the Environmental Protection Agency is named the Rachel Carson Room. The Rachel Carson State Office Building is located in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and is home to the Department of Environmental Protection and the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. There are also numerous bridges, parks, and schools which bear her name as well. To further recognize and honor her contributions in the centennial celebration of her birth and to honor her life as a teacher, scientist, environmentalist, activist, and, most of all, writer, please join me in supporting and passing H.R. 1434. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA

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

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Atanacio Marin, or as he was better known, Nacho, by his friends, typifies the soldiers that come from California. So many of them are from Los Angeles and surrounding areas, so many have stories like Nacho has: one in which he was born in Mexico; one in which his family came here for a better life; one in which he became integrated with the community that he grew up in; one in which he graduated from Sierra Vista High School and was on the track team and ran in the Los Angeles marathon; one in which he had a desire to serve his country; one in which he joined the National Guard after completing high school and decided to devote his life to serving the military. After his tour with the National Guard ended, Nacho transferred to the regular Army and was assigned to Battery C, 3rd Battalion, 16th Field Artillery Regiment at Fort Hood, Texas. In January, 2 months before reporting for duty in the Middle East, Sergeant Marin was able to spend time with his close-knit family. While he was in Iraq he continued to remain close to his family. He called home often and characteristically sent his mother a Mother's Day card that read, ``Don't worry, be happy.'' Tragically, those uplifting words were some of his last. A checkpoint was manned by the sergeant and came under fire on June 3, 2003. Unfortunately, this brave young man did not survive the attack. He was only 27 years old. The post office we are naming today in Baldwin Park we are naming not just as a tribute to this fine soldier, but as a tribute to those who have gone to serve their country in this war and, like so many others, have an American story. Nacho's American story is the story of California, it is a story of the war that is not often talked on this front, of patriotism, of devotion to family, of devotion to this Nation. And it is so appropriate that we name a post office after this fine young man from California. So I join with the majority in urging its swift passage. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, it is an unusual day in which the cosponsor of a bill, not in just this Congress but in the previous Congress, comes to oppose the final passage. It is not that I object to the people of the District of Columbia gaining a vote in this body, just the opposite. For two Congresses I have worked with Chairman Davis, now Ranking Member Davis, to achieve that. It is that, for whatever reason, in this Democratically controlled Congress, we have lost democracy. In the regular order of the two committees, amendments were offered, some were passed, some failed. One that was passed was one of mine. It intended to make clear the Maryland relationship to the District of Columbia. It was a fairly small technical amendment. The Democrat majority, led by Speaker Pelosi, chose to strip that out of what was brought to the floor, to my amazement, but not amusement. And then when I offered the same amendment to the Rules Committee, they voted not to allow it. So that which was voted in the committee of jurisdiction was stripped out by the leadership and then refused to be considered in the body of the whole. That is without any democratic fairness. I am not here to complain about process. I believed it was an essential piece of language when this legislation was considered. So without it, I feel I am compelled not only to vote against it, but to seek alternate remedies for future legislation. We cannot, in this body, Madam Speaker, allow the Speaker of the House or the House majority leader to simply eliminate the tradition of how we do business in order to reach democratically produced legislation. So I will be voting against this bill, and it will be a vote against the kind of heavy-handedness that led to this bill being less than it could have been.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. I object.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment and for the exact same reason that my colleague on the other side of the aisle opposes it. We have a predicament that we are dealing with in this very committee, in the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. We are dealing with global warming. The $2 billion-plus that we spend every year, and scientists like Jim Hansen and others who have been out there saying what they want to freely, the way they want to, and they have done this at a time in which there is an allegation of a problem. Quite frankly, it is amazing that when I Google, I get tens of thousands of hits on a scientist who is talking about why global warming is a threat, why we have to do things quickly, and yet there is some theory that we have stifled science. By treating science separately in the whistleblower status, we are doing a disservice to every scientist and treating them adversely, separately and differently. This simply wants to return us to a procedure that we had before, one that has worked. In fact, Jim Hansen, who will be before our committee next week, and others have gone through a vetting process and then proceeded to make freely the speeches they wanted to make. There has not been a need for whistleblower. In fact, scientists are free to express their opinions now, and that is appropriate; they can do it under the existing guidelines. This amendment seeks to return us to what was a functioning system, one in which we supported science, and scientists have been free to say what they want to. There may be edits going up the process that the gentleman on the other side of the aisle objects to, but there were edits under the previous administration. I urge support of the Sali amendment, recognizing that, in fact, this would be a sword that could cut both ways and the future could be adverse to the very scientists it seeks to assist.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 107, which calls for the immediate and unconditional release of Israeli soldiers held captive by Hamas and Hezbollah. On July 19, 2006, I and the three Members of Lebanese ancestry joined together to introduce H. Res. 926 in response to the unprovoked attack and kidnapping by Hezbollah. This resolution condemned Hamas and Hezbollah for engaging in the reprehensible terrorist act of taking hostages, affirmed Israel's right to conduct operations to secure the release of hostages, and urging the protection of innocent life and civilian infrastructure. H. Res. 107 sends an important message that the terrorist leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah must recognize. The United States has not forgotten the kidnapped Israeli soldiers or those responsible for their kidnapping including the states who support the terrorist groups. Mr. Speaker, I would like to note for the record that this resolution expresses ``strong support and deep interest in achieving a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through the creation of a viable and independent Palestinian state living in peace alongside of the State of Israel,'' as well as ``vigorous support and unwavering commitment to the welfare and survival of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state with secure borders.'' While I fully support the commitment to the welfare and survival of the State of Israel, I have some reservations about this body expressing its support for a nation embracing a specific religious character. My concern is that in some situations, such expression of an endorsement of a particular religion or ethnicity could be used to exclude others which is, of course, not the intention of this resolution. Both Israeli and Palestinian leaders have expressed their preference for a viable two-state solution and, as such, I support this joint goal and the independent peaceful aspirations of both peoples because the parties have made these decisions on their own and not because I support the preeminence of any particular religion.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Point of order. My understanding of the rules is that we cannot have Members speaking to each other. Mr. Speaker, my understanding is this colloquy was not allowed. Mr. Speaker, can we please admonish people to address the Speaker.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, point of order.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Madam Chairman, in this body, everyone is allowed an opinion. My opinion is I am going to vote to preserve the secret ballot and I will vote for Ranking Member McKeon's amendment. But I think we also have to recognize that truth has to be told. Just a moment ago, I heard one of my colleagues say that Republicans hadn't raised the minimum wage in the 12 years they were in the majority. Of course, 1997 was in those 12 years. That was the last time it was raised, and 2006, this body, Republicans led to raise the minimum wage. It didn't get out of the Senate. That happens. Interestingly, Members taking credit for raising the minimum wage, it has only left the House. It hasn't gone one inch further than it did in the last Congress, when Republicans led the way to raise the minimum wage. So, please, you are entitled to your opinion, but not your facts. I am concerned today that on a partisan basis, the Democratic Party, here and on other initiatives, including looking into putting a disclosure requirement when a preacher in a church says, ``I think you ought to vote your conscience,'' that is going to become public if they have the disclosure. I think there is a pattern of trying to make public for purposes of intimidation, and all I can say is shame on the Democratic Party.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, today, the U.S. House of Representatives unanimously passed H.R. 556, which reforms and modernizes the process by which the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States reviews national security issues pertaining to foreign acquisitions. I commend the bipartisan House Financial Services Committee for putting together a strong bill that encourages and respects a general policy of openness toward foreign investment, but also protects our national security from new threats in a post 9-11 world. This legislation makes clear that in reviewing foreign government acquisitions of critical U.S. energy infrastructure, such as pipelines and Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) facilities, the United States will not turn a blind eye to foreign governments that use energy assets as a political, economic or foreign policy weapon. As the Committee's report states, we expect ``. . . that acquisitions of U.S. energy companies or assets by foreign governments or companies controlled by foreign governments--including any instance in which such foreign government has used energy assets to interfere with or influence policies or economic conditions in other countries in ways that threaten the national security of those countries--will be reviewed closely for their national security impact. If such acquisitions raise legitimate concerns about threats to U.S. national security, appropriate protections as set forth in the statute should be instituted including potentially the prohibition of the transaction.'' Unfortunately, recent actions on the part of the government of Russia demonstrate why such protections are needed. One need only ask officials in the Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, Georgia and many countries throughout Europe whether the Russian government--through its state-owned oil monopoly, Rosneft, and gas monopoly, Gazprom--uses its energy assets to ``interfere with or influence policies or economic conditions'' in their countries. If Gazprom or Rosneft tries to acquire critical energy infrastructure here in the United States, the CFIUS review process should carefully review the acquisition in order to determine the impact on our own national security, and I commend the bipartisan authors of this legislation for demanding nothing less. I commend the Financial Services Committee for recognizing that the reforms and procedures detailed in H.R. 556 ``stand in stark contrast to actions taken by some foreign governments, where expropriations of assets, often in the energy sector, have occurred arbitrarily, without justification, and without recompense for U.S. investors.'' As many of my colleagues know, U.S. investors throughout the country lost approximately $6 billion when the Russian government effectively re-nationalized Russia's largest privately-owned energy company, Yukos, and expropriated its assets without compensation to its owners or shareholders. Now, for the first time since the Russian government's expropriation without compensation of Yukos, and President Vladimir Putin's ruthless strategy of using Russian energy assets to apply economic and political pressure on neighboring countries and the West--including the disruption of oil and gas supplies--the Congress has recognized that if the Russian Government or its subsidiary companies seek to acquire critical U.S. energy infrastructure, Russia's coercive energy policies and its potential threat to the energy security of the United States must be considered as part of the CFIUS review process. The National Security Foreign Investment Reform and Strengthened Transparency Act of 2007 strikes the right balance. It strongly encourages foreign investment in the United States without unnecessary and reasonable restrictions by companies that engage in responsible commercial activities and practices. However, H.R. 556 also makes it clear that energy-related infrastructure is critically important to our national security, and those companies that wish to acquire our infrastructure must adhere to internationally recognized standards of commercial conduct.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I was here on the floor yesterday and thought I would only speak once. As I heard the debate of thoughtful Members on both sides of this issue, I was reminded of something I said yesterday that needed to be said again. Although the people you are hearing from mean well on both sides, less than a third of the Members speaking on this House floor served in the U.S. military, although everyone was eligible, and less than a third have traveled to Iraq, although everyone was eligible. Perhaps we will give the freshmen a pass. This is, in fact, a debate by people who are not military experts. I count myself among those, who although I served in the military and have been to Iraq, I am not a military expert. I don't pretend to play one on television and before the American people, and yet that is what we are doing here for four solid days. We are in fact, pretending to be military experts. Well, Mr. Speaker, this morning I had a military expert in my office, Staff Sergeant Bain. He is only a staff sergeant. How is he an expert? He is just finishing 3 years in Walter Reed, 3 years of recovery from terrible wounds. He came in doing a very good job with his artificial leg. He came in and shook my hand, even though he cannot feel with that hand. All I could do was thank him for his service and hand him a coin and wish him well in his civilian life. But he took the time to tell me that he disagreed with the President sending 20,000 troops to Iraq. He said, I am sorry I can't be there for that. He said, they ought to send 100,000. What we did there we need to finish. Staff Sergeant Bain got it right. The United States military and its experts believe we need to get this finished and get it right. Now, the staff sergeant is 3 years out of Iraq, so I will forgive him for not being sure about whether it should be 20,000, as our military leaders, including General Petraeus, have asked for, or whether it should be 20,000 more if necessary, or 100,000. But it is important that Staff Sergeant Bain be heard. Because in fact what you have here are a bunch of people, most of whom did not serve in the military, most of whom have not bothered to go to the combat zone, and those of us who did for the most part had a relatively quick tour in and out. We have not experienced what our troops have experienced. And I know there is some disagreement among those who have been there. But, Mr. Speaker, I ask the American people to ask a vet of this war, their own vet, their own neighborhood, and they are going to find out they want to win this peace just as they won the war. They toppled Saddam, and now they are being told to cut and run. That is what this is leading to. Mr. Speaker, we cannot do that and we know it. And yet for political expedience this body is pretending to be military experts. Mr. Speaker, I will close simply by reminding this body of something we do know about. This is a body filled with people who understand history. Under fascism; we took on Japan, Germany, Italy and their allies. And it took 4 years before we did it, while they grew, and 4 years to defeat them. And it took a decade or more to turn those countries into functional democracies. Yet America stayed the course. And we had troops deployed there and we have troops deployed there today, even though they are functional democracies. Mr. Speaker, for more than 50 years we fought the other ``ism,'' communism. China, the Soviet Union, and the rest of the Soviet Bloc stood there threatening annihilation, but the American people put up with unspeakable amounts of money and significant loss of military lives, over 100,000 in two side battles of the Cold War. We spent countless billions. Sometimes as much as 50 percent of our government's budget went to the military. And we did it. Now we are being asked to deal with radicalism. And I cannot name a country of radicalism. And I cannot say radical Islam or radical Islamic fascism, I simply say radicalism, because these radicals come from different sects of Islam, but they have one thing in common: They seek to conquer countries to put an ``ism'' onto them that is not of their choosing, and without freedom. Won't the American people stand here today with the Congress representing them and stand against this ``ism'' for at least as long as we stood against fascism and at least as long as we stood against communism?

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, does that mean that unanimous consent cannot be offered?

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be modified at page 1, line 6, after the word ``Iraq'' to include ``personnel from the United States Intelligence Community who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably worldwide to counter radical jihadists.''

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, further point of inquiry. My understanding is that a unanimous consent request is always in order separate from the rule. Is that not correct?

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, that makes it very clear that in fact even if there is no objection to including the brave men and women who operate, often without weapons, who operate behind enemy lines, who in fact are part of our Intelligence Community, they cannot be included in this resolution. It is a sad day when democracy does not even include that which there is no objection to from being considered. Notwithstanding that, Madam Speaker, I think it is extremely important that we deal with the limited strict language we have been offered, and, in the spirit of that strict language, I must oppose it. I must oppose it because in fact on a strict basis this resolution, if heeded by the administration, says stay a failed course of action. Madam Speaker, it is amazing that the election very clearly told us in November that the American people were not comfortable with the conduct of this war; that in fact on both sides of the aisle, people were calling for a bolder vision, a vision that was more aggressive diplomatically and militarily. In fact, two Presidential candidates, Senator Hillary Clinton and, in fact, Senator McCain, are and have been saying we should have had more troops early, we should have more troops now. It is amazing that in fact the one thing this resolution is saying is stay the course, make no changes. Further, regardless of what my Democrat colleagues would say today, the next step after ``Mr. President, we will not send more troops,'' is, ``Mr. President, we will not send more tanks; Mr. President, we will not send further personnel and intellectual gatherers to understand our enemy; Mr. President, we won't send more translators; Mr. President, we cannot and will not support more body armor; Mr. President, we will not support this war on terror throughout the region.'' Those are the next steps, because you can't simply say, as this resolution tries to, stay the course. Do nothing. No increases, no decreases. Support the troops, but send them no more. That makes as much sense as telling the people at the Alamo, stay the course. That wasn't the right solution at the Alamo. At the Alamo they should have either increased their forces so that they could have sustained the bombardment, or withdrawn. We, in fact, are in a position where the President has made a multitude of new initiatives, one of which includes additional troops to help relieve those tired troops, to help bring the force level up to a level similar to exactly what Presidential candidates on both sides of the aisle were clamoring for just a few weeks ago and throughout the election. Madam Speaker, one of the other things that just amazes me, today I took a little time and I checked out how many Members of Congress served in the military. It turns out it is less than one-third. I checked out how many Members went to Iraq in the previous Congress. It turns out less than one-third. The fact is that we are considering a resolution as though we were General Petraeus, a man who was unanimously confirmed in the Senate just a few days ago, and deployed to support and defend our troops and this effort, who is solidly convinced that we have to do more and do it better and who is there to do it and was unanimously confirmed. In closing, Madam Speaker, only here, with less than one-third of the Members having gone and seen what is going on in Iraq, less than one- third having served in the military, even at a minor level of lieutenant or captain or private, have the hubris to say that we have to not add, not subtract, just keep the exact same number that we and the American people believe is not getting the job done. That is exactly what this resolution is claiming to do. We are not given an alternative in any way, shape or form. So, Madam Speaker, there is no choice on either side of the aisle. Whether you believe we should have more or we should have less, nobody believes that we should stay the exact course with no change, and that is what this is asking for. So I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to realize that in fact this resolution calls for the one thing that the American people most object to, and that is unchanged staying the course at this level. The American people called on us in November to do something bolder, to bring peace in the region, and I call on you to vote down this resolution just exactly to do that

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H. Con. Res. 44 is and should be about the NAACP, but it is also about a history of a struggle, not just the 98 years that the NAACP has been pushing and prodding this body, the courts and the executive branch for fairness for all people, all people in the United States, but for the history of this struggle. Whether it is the Marbury v. Madison decision, or the dreaded Dred Scott decision, the Court has had to be prodded by the public, the Congress has had to be prodded by the public, and, yes, just as with Harry S. Truman, the President has had to be prodded by the public. No organization in American history has sustained the consistent legacy of being an effective prod to the government greater than the NAACP. So I join with my colleagues on a bipartisan and undoubtedly bicameral basis to celebrate this 98 years and the struggle that it represents.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of H.R. 414. It is an appropriate naming of a post office on behalf of a gentleman who for 96 years was a champion of statehood for Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico is not just a territory, Puerto Rico is in fact the largest of all the territories, having a population that would give it at least four Members of Congress if it were to become a State. Although he never succeeded in bringing statehood to Puerto Rico, he kept the hope alive and the belief alive by the Puerto Rican people that in fact they were Americans, and that as Americans one of their options would be statehood. As a prominent businessman, he founded the Western Bank and was the owner of a very prominent newspaper in Puerto Rico. He was born on November 17, 1902, and throughout his career he championed many activities beyond statehood. He was one of the founders of the New Progressive Party. He served in the Puerto Rico House of Representatives from 1932 to 1940, where he became the youngest Speaker and later was elected to the Senate. We remember Mr. Mendez here today, and name this post office on behalf of him at the request of our Delegate from Puerto Rico, Luis Fortuno, who unfortunately could not be here today, but who in fact found this to be the most appropriate person to name the post office after because of his long years of service to the territory of Puerto Rico and to the aspirations of the Puerto Rican people. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA

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

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

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is not uncommon in this body to name post offices after former Members of Congress, national figures, Presidents and the like. But it is incredibly appropriate today to name a post office after two generations of hard work on behalf of that very post office. As a member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, I have managed many bills for post offices, and in my 6 years I have not seen a more befitting naming of a post office. Because, in fact, it is this group of tireless workers for the Federal Government, often the butt of jokes, the postmasters and the postmen and postwomen, that make sure that our bills, our letters, our correspondence, and, yes, our junk mail, are delivered to us. I think this is among the most appropriate pieces of legislation that I have had the opportunity to help manage. I urge the passage of this. I urge the people of this Congress to take note that we are, in fact, naming a post office after a postman this one time. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. I would like to associate myself with the comments of Mr. Honda. I think it is very clear that you can't remember 65 years ago with the resolution and not have a permanent, physical site for people to go to every day and realize what internment meant. So I join with my colleagues in supporting this resolution, urge its passage and recognize that this pairing of resolutions means a great deal, because it is only with something that the public can visit 365 days a year that we will, in fact, prevent this from happening again. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.