Jim Leach

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Madam Speaker, I rise today to discuss the troubling situation in Iraq and the difficult legitimacy challenges posed by the U.S.-led coalition victory. In particular, I am convinced that the best way to develop international support for reconstruction efforts and reduce violence in the country is for the U.S. to maintain preeminent military leadership but grant the United Nations explicit authority for managing Iraq's political transition. As my colleagues are aware, Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, III, head of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, testified before several House committees last week regarding the administration's supplemental appropriations request for Iraq. In explaining administration policy, he outlined a number of constructive measures aimed at creating a sovereign, democratic, constitutional and prosperous Iraq. These included bolstering the security situation in the country and advancing bold economic reforms designed to refashion the Soviet-style command economy bequeathed by Saddam into a vibrant free enterprise model for the region. Ambassador Bremer also laid out a seven-step political transformation process. According to the Ambassador, three of the steps leading to sovereignty have been completed: In July, an Iraqi Governing Council was appointed; in August, the Governing Council named a Preparatory Committee to recommend a mechanism for writing Iraq's new, permanent constitution; and in September, the Governing Council appointed ministers to run the day-to-day affairs of state. Additional steps include developing a process by which the Iraqis write their own constitution, and here Secretary Powell has expressed the hope that this could be completed in the next 6 months, although others have expressed doubts about the time frame; ratifying the constitution by popular vote of the entire adult population; holding elections for a new Iraqi government; and, finally, following elections, formally transferring sovereignty from the Coalition Provisional Authority to the new government in Baghdad. These are reasonable and responsible steps, but to address unresolved questions about the legitimacy of America's role in Iraq, I believe that there should be a further interim step, call it step 3(a), added to Ambassador Bremer's list: a reduction of Washington's virtually exclusive political authority, as exercised through the CPA, and an enhancement of the role of the United Nations in the governance process. In an American historical and philosophical context, legitimacy is derived from the consent of the governed through democratic elections. In many societies, governments attempt to derive legitimacy by other means, through history and tradition, through precepts like the divine right of kings, through theocratic assertions as well as, to paraphrase Mao, the barrel of a gun. In Iraq, the problem is both obvious and profound. The removal of Saddam Hussein and the process of de-Baathification have left a vacuum of power. This vacuum has been filled, in part, by U.S. and other coalition authorities, civil and military, and in part through a de facto devolution of power to informal groupings based on local ethnicities, tribes, religion, and even organized crime. As we all understand, supporters of the old regime within Iraq, aided by jihadists from abroad, remain engaged in acts of violence and sabotage aimed at destabilizing the new order. In addition, the occupation's U.S. face has heightened suspicion and anger in Iraq and much of the Muslim world where many people view intervention as part of a Washington agenda to control the region and its principal resource, oil. The U.S.-led military authority, following extensive consultation with the country's major political factions, appointed an Iraqi Governing Council. The U.N. Secretary General and the late Sergio de Mello, the former U.N. special envoy to Iraq, supported the representative nature of the Council. But for Iraqis the Council still lacks legitimacy because it was selected by an outside power which maintains a veto over decisions. In this context, it is impressive to reflect upon the fact that at every turn in the last century the world has underestimated the power of nationalism. In Iraq, all of us are learning anew how close we are to the Hobbesian jungle where life is nasty, brutish and short and how impressive, for good or ill, is the power of nationalism, the desire of people to carve their own destiny, to make their own mistakes. What appears clear at this juncture is that the return of Saddam Hussein will not be countenanced either in Iraq or in the region; what is unclear is whether the current nation-state boundaries will hold, whether chaos will be unleashed, whether democratic aspirations will produce lasting democratic institutions, whether economic and social change will be fast or fair enough to satisfy the enormous expectations of the Iraqi people. At the end of the Second World War, the U.S. was part of a coalition of victors in the greatest struggle of the 20th century. Postwar circumstances afforded the U.S., as the preeminent global superpower, the luxury of being able to control sovereignty in Japan until 1952 and, to a lesser degree, in West Germany until 1959. Today, by contrast, the world is more impatient. The nature of the Middle East, the Muslim world and modern communications is such that the circumstances that prevailed in the late 1940s allowing for an extended, uncontested American occupation no longer exists. The most propitious position for the U.S. today is not to rule Iraq as a victorious occupying military force but instead to share accountability with the international community in such a way that it becomes clear that Saddam Hussein was not principally a threat to America but to his own people and civilized values in general. The war should be considered won on behalf of, not against, the Iraqi people. American civilians who have been asked to serve in Iraq are some of the finest civil servants in the world. I have the highest respect for Ambassador Bremer and his principal deputy, Walter Slocum, as well as people like Peter McPherson, the president of Michigan State University, and Charles Greenleaf, also of Michigan State, who have come in to help lead reconstruction efforts and civil affairs. But in order to establish consensus and legitimacy from parties outside as well as inside Iraq for efforts to rebuild the country, the U.S. would be wise to accept an international civil authority as a prelude to transferring power to the Iraqi people through a constitutional process. We also might consider lending more legitimacy to the Governing Council by a symbolic transfer of sovereignty and the seeking of support for it to occupy Iraq's U.N. seat during the transitional period. From a military perspective, the United States Armed Forces could not have performed more professionally and valiantly than in the initial engagement. But in no small measure because the civilian governance is considered illegitimately Americanized by much of the Muslim world, U.S. subjects have become targets for anarchistic attacks by groups and individuals who claim the mantle of nationalism and religious authority. Baathists from within and anti-American cohorts from without need to understand that Saddam Hussein's kind of rule is anathema to all civilized values. The issue of relegitimizing the Iraqi government is one of timing as well as intent. Timing that is tardy can jeopardize the safety of American soldiers in Iraq and also serve as a spark for a potential surge of terrorism around the world. What is new in international relations is that the religious and national instincts of an embarrassed people can become a rallying cry for sympathizers to lash out in other societies. And what is different from the U.S. experience as an occupying power after World War II is that Iraq, like the Balkans and Afghanistan, has significant religious and ethnic subgroups at odds with one another. Iraqi society is neither homogenous as Germany and Japan were, nor a social melting pot like America is. Iraqi nationalism is thus complicated by sub-national identifications and supra-national religious and regional communities of value. As a military challenge, Iraq is not like Vietnam. It is much more containable. But as a challenge to the international social order, it is far more difficult than Vietnam. After all, weapons of mass destruction were not at issue in Vietnam. Nor was a clash of civilizations in play except in the sense of the contrast of democratic forces lined up against the secular ideology, communism. Unless we recognize that while there is certain Iraqi appreciation for the coalition's overthrow of Saddam, any support for our post-war leadership is tenuous and respect for our intervention is virtually nonexistent in the rest of the Muslim world. Cultural differences, particularly religious, coupled with the aftershock of military defeat, the continuance of terrorist attacks and the lack of immediate prospect for self-determination form a political stew that easily boils over. Our traditional European allies have by intent or happenstance triangulated the U.S. and, to a lesser extent, Britain into a singular standoff with the Muslim world. Osama bin Laden began his terrorist initiatives speaking of a Muslim clash with the West. Now radical Muslim rhetoric is aimed almost exclusively against America. Our goal should be to make clear, in voice and policy, that we do not stand alone. Because of dissent between Europe and America, it might be wise to look to new leadership for the Iraqi transition in other parts of the world. An individual from a noncoalition country may or may not be as competent as Ambassador Bremer and his staff, but a change of faces has the potential of changing the face of the circumstance Iraqi people and the Muslim world see every day. As one who dissented from the decision to go to war but respects the integrity of the individuals who made the decision, I am convinced that we must all now work together to get out of the predicament we are in. Nothing could be worse for world order than long-term American entanglement in Iraq. Respect for American leadership and American values has seldom been more on the line. We have to come together with the rest of the international community in a collective effort to make Iraq a better country than the society we attacked. The consequences of failure would be catastrophic. I recently returned from a trip to the Far East where I urged our friends in the region to help. An isolated America, I warned, is likely to become an isolationist America. The ramifications for international trade as well as politics are potentially explosive. At the height of the Vietnam War, Senator George D. Aiken of Vermont became famous for a policy suggestion in the form of a quip. He argued that the U.S. should simply declare victory and get out. Iraq is not a circumstance in which the U.S. should be trumpeting military victory despite its decisiveness. But little could be more appropriate than to announce a change in policy based on the fact that our principal mission has been accomplished, ridding Iraq of a despotic dictator and eliminating the near-term prospect that Iraq could become a center for the development and distribution of weapons of mass destruction, whether or not Saddam had a significant WMD capability prior to U.S. intervention. Having intervened, the U.S. cannot end its responsibility until Iraqi society is back on its feet in a credible, progressive and legitimized governance basis. The question is whether that basis is more likely to be achieved with Americanization or internationalization of responsibility. My sense is that the establishing of a more progressive government in Iraq will be achieved earlier and with substantially less bloodshed if it becomes clear that Iraq is being put back together under the mantle of an international mandate rather than by an intervening military power. The goal should be to emphasize the idealism of the challenge before us rather than dwell on realpolitik posturing which can too easily trigger increased anarchy and even a clash of civilizations. Strength, to be sustainable, must come from a balance of judgment that brings respect rather than resentment from the rest of the world. Otherwise, an intervention designed exclusively to diminish terrorism could serve as a rationale to expand terrorism around the world, including on our own shores. Four decades ago, the British author Lawrence Durrell wrote a series of novels called the ``Alexandria Quarter'' in which he describes a set of events in Alexandria, Egypt, before World War II. A seminal literary experiment in the relativity of human perception that was named one of the top 100 novels of the last century, each of the books viewed the same events through the eyes of four different participants. The full story cannot be comprehended without synthesizing how each of the protagonists viewed events from his or her own individual perspective. Today, in Middle East, we have an analogous circumstance. For the full story of Iraq to be understood, we need to understand how events are perceived through very different sets of eyes and very different sets of reasoning. American policy makers, for instance, generally reason in a pragmatic, future-oriented manner. Much of the rest of the world, on the other hand, reasons more generally, by historical analogy. Events centuries back play a definitively greater role in judgments made about policies today. Symbolically,the nature of the radically different way Americans and Middle Easterners look at the world is reflected in the startling statistic that four out of five Al Jazeera viewers believe a French author who claims that the plane which blasted into the Pentagon on 9/ 11 was actually a U.S. military aircraft ordered by the U.S. military to hit itself in an effort to justify the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. This kind of conspiracy theory is instantaneously understood as ludicrous in America, but not elsewhere. In fact, even in the heart of the democratic Europe, conspiracy theories about the events of 9/11 have topped best-seller lists. Intriguingly, from a Muslim perspective, the fact that nearly 70 percent of the American public believe that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the attacks of September 11 appears equally uncompelling. Muslims note that no Iraqi citizen was involved in the attack and believe that alleged evidence of Iraqi complicity is peripheral and tangential at best. On the other hand, virtually the entirety of the Muslim world recognizes Saddam to have been a sadistic dictator. There is no public support for him, but extraordinary consternation that a Western power would intervene in the Middle East in the way it did. It is possible to suggest, from an American perspective, that since we received inadequate support for the UN, it makes little sense to cede authority to outsiders now. On the other hand, if one does not rebalance transitional governance in Iraq, it is hard for America to suggest to the international community that all countries have an obligation not only to support the governing authority but provide reconstruction assistance. The question is whether America would be better off with a new Security Council mandate that gives responsibility for coordinating the political transition process to the UN, assisted by American experts already in the field, while maintaining the U.S. role in military and internal security concerns, or whether we want to continue to bear near exclusive responsibility for a country with a government lacking legitimacy. I am convinced that the fact that the U.S. did not get solid support from the UN, prior to the invasion, underscores the importance of seeking greater international legitimacy in the transition to a democratic Iraqi Government. Simply put, legitimacy delayed is security denied.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, this summer Cambodia held an important national election and the world is watching to see how its results are implemented under the Cambodian constitution. Uniquely, the Cambodian constitution requires a two-thirds super majority in the National Assembly in order to form a government. In the national elections that were held July 27, the ruling Cambodian People's Party (CPP) received 73 seats, while FUNCINPEC won 26 and the Sam Rainsy Party 24 seats, respectively. King Sihanouk will convene a new session of the National Assembly in late September, at which time parliament will elect its new leadership as well as discuss the formation of a new government. While these are issues for Cambodians to decide, it is important that the parties negotiate peacefully and in conformity with the constitution to form a new government that will advance the interests of the Cambodian people. Likewise, it is critical that the rights of the Cambodian people to assemble peacefully and express their views and grievances are respected. Nothing could be more counterproductive than resort to violence or coercion. The goal of all parties must be to realize the aspirations of Cambodian people for a time of peace and prosperity under accountable and democratic governance.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 359) welcoming His Holiness the Fourteenth Dalai Lama and recognizing his commitment to non-violence, human rights, freedom, and democracy.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H. Res. 359, the resolution under consideration.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. At the outset, I would like to express my great appreciation for the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for his long interest in this issue and congratulate the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman) for sponsoring this thoughtful and timely resolution welcoming his Holiness the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, and recognizing his commitment to nonviolence, human rights, freedom, and democracy. As my colleagues may be aware, the Dalai Lama, Tibet's spiritual leader in exile, is in the United States for a 3-week lecture and teaching tour. While he is in Washington, his Holiness is expected to meet with President Bush and other senior administration officials to update them on the status of contacts between his envoys and representatives of the People's Republic of China. The United States is encouraged that China invited the Dalai Lama's envoys to visit the Beijing and Tibetan regions in the fall of 2002 and again in the spring of 2003. The resumption of direct contacts has been accompanied by the release of several high-profile Tibetan political prisoners in what appears to be a softening of rhetoric regarding the Dalai Lama and the Tibet issue in the official Chinese media. Despite these encouraging signs of progress, however, severe human rights abuses and tight controls on fundamental freedoms persist in Tibet. To date, the Chinese have insisted that the Dalai Lama renounce the prospect of independence before a substantive dialogue can resume. Although the Dalai Lama heads a ``government in exile'' in India, he has stated publicly and repeatedly he is seeking greater autonomy and not independence for Tibet. While the United States Government recognizes Tibet as part of China, it is the policy of the U.S. to support respect for the human rights of all Chinese citizens, including ethnic Tibetans. To emphasize our concerns in this regard, Secretary Powell has appointed a special coordinator for Tibetan issues. The U.S. continues to raise Tibet during bilateral and multilateral exchanges with Chinese leaders. While the U.S. does not have official diplomatic relations with the ``government in exile'' in Dharamsala, the U.S. maintains contact with a wide variety of groups inside and outside of China, including with Tibetans in the United States, China, and around the world. Our contacts include meetings with the Dalai Lama in his capacity as an important and revered spiritual leader and Nobel Prize laureate. It is a sign of enormous respect and affection for the Dalai Lama that the President, the Secretary of State, and other senior administration officials meet with him on an ongoing basis. The executive branch and Congress continue to urge the Chinese Government to respect fundamental freedoms, to refrain from detaining individuals for the peaceful expression of their views, and to protect and preserve Tibet's unique religious, cultural, and linguistic heritage. We are all likewise united in our desire to encourage Beijing to follow through on discussions with the Dalai Lama's special envoys and engage in substantive dialogue, hopefully leading to a negotiated settlement of outstanding issues. Finally, during these troubled times, it may be useful to reflect on the observations of His Holiness, who has spoken strongly of his desire for better understanding and respect among the different faiths and peoples of the world. ``The need for simple human-to-human relationships is becoming increasingly urgent,'' the Dalai Lama has noted. Today, he stresses, ``The world is smaller and increasingly interdependent. One nation's problems can no longer be solved by itself completely. Thus, without a sense of universal responsibility, our very survival becomes threatened. Basically, universal responsibility is feeling for other people's suffering just as we feel our own. This is the way to achieve a true understanding unfettered by artificial consideration.'' These are the words of the Dalai Lama. With the Dalai Lama's poignant observations in mind, I would suggest that there is no better way to honor this distinguished spiritual leader and symbol of the aspirations of the Tibetan people than for Members to support this very thoughtful resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) who is such a leader on human rights issues in this body.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is always awkward for this Congress, or any body, to comment on the affairs of other societies; but the uniqueness of our foundation as a nation state was that we were the first country established on the principle of individual rights which were assumed to be universal, not simply particular to those living in the original 13 colonies. Thus we have an obligation to our forbears to speak to the universality of political values, rights endowed by a Creator to all citizens of this planet. It is in this context that we recognize the transcendent universality of the Dalai Lama's mantle of leadership values which track so consistently our heritage. I urge Members to support this resolution.

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

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, Head Start is one of the semiannual innovations in education in the history of America. The bill before us, the School Readiness Act of 2003, is not as catastrophic as its critics tonight are suggesting. No program, however successful, is immune to improvement. On the other hand, the kind of demonstration block grant approach included in this legislation could over time transform Head Start programming in such a way as to weaken the federal nexus and allow states discretionary authority that could, in the name of seeking higher standards, actually diminish those standards. Of particular concern to me is that the bill authorizes the removal of certain civil rights protections that have historically accompanied virtually all federal programs. I have voted in the past to allow religious organizations in their religious pursuits to be exempt from certain federal mandates, but organizations using federal funds for secular missions should not be allowed to operate outside the scope of the laws that apply to everyone else. The irony of removing civil rights standards from Head Start programs is that Head Start is an opportunity initiative disproportionately aimed at disadvantaged kids. The message of removal of civil rights protections from Head Start programs is that kids would be asked to work hard but not expect to work here. Under Title 1 of the School Readiness Act, there are certain quality improvements called for that were consensus in the committee and are acknowledged as steps forward by both sides in the debate this evening. The principal controversy relates to the block grant approach in Title 2 and on this subject, I support the amendment of Representative George Miller of California which embraces the Title 1 provisions of the bill but remolds Title 2 to more closely parallel the way Head Start services are currently provided. My sense is that this evening's Floor debate has been rife with rhetorical excesses on both sides, but while I am convinced of the good will of the bill's architect, Mike Castle of Delaware, I share the reservations of experts in the field about the approach the majority proposes. While all federal programs deserve to be reviewed with an eye to improvement, the case for structural change of the kind envisioned in this legislation is uncompelling. Head Start is an American success story. It deserves the respect of this body.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, consideration of H.R. 2427, the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act of 2003 involves a mosaic of liberal, conservative and moderate concerns which make the case for passage compelling. From a liberal perspective it is clear that America's social fabric is being wrenched as many of our citizens confront drug costs they cannot meet. From a conservative perspective it is apparent that the current system involves the placing of restraints on trade that a country dedicated to free markets should philosophically find untenable. And from a moderate perspective, it is troubling that the world-wide cost of pharmaceutical research is borne disproportionately by the American consumer with the consequence that the cost of drug development, which is paid for by the American taxpayer through support of institutions like NIH and the American consumer through prescription drug prices, has come to represent one of the largest foreign aid programs in history. The question is whether the cost of drug research and development should be borne on an even basis by all countries or almost exclusively by the U.S. consumer. There are, of course, issues of safety raised by this measure before the House, but they will exist whether or not this legislation passes. Indeed, it may arguably be claimed that there is a greater incentive for counterfeiting drugs in a circumstance where American prices are inflated relative to those in other countries. In addition, enormous safety concerns arise when individuals cannot afford the drugs they need and these must be taken into account in any equation attempting to balance all elements of the safety problem. Critics of opening up trade in prescription drugs properly note that the bill under consideration does not provide increased resources for the FDA to adequately inspect overseas drug production and sales. It is my strong sense that there is consensus in this body that Congress must address this issue and provide the FDA with greater resources should this legislation pass. Mr. Speaker, the cost of prescription drugs is not an issue exclusively for those who require them. Prescription drug are a significant component of healthcare costs in this country and this high cost of American healthcare is one of the factors incentivizing companies to invest and in many cases relocate abroad. Bringing down drug costs is thus a jobs issue for all Americans as well as a cost concern for those individuals who rely on particular medicines. Mr. Speaker, the pharmaceutical industry deserves our respect for having made scientific breakthroughs that have been of life-saving significance to countless individuals. The revolution in sophistication of drug treatment is just beginning, and care must be taken not to radically erode the industry's research base, but the pharmaceutical industry should not be more protected from market forces than other industries. Protectionism is generally counter-productive, but seldom has a set of laws designed to provide a protective cocoon for an industry proven more cost disadvantageous for the public. I know of no industry which has such a substantially higher price structure in this country than abroad. Indeed, the genius of the American marketing structure is that there is virtually no processed commodity that cannot be bought cheaper here than abroad. The singular major exception is prescription drugs. The most effective antidote to this market malady is competition. The public interest requires adoption of the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act of 2003.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, the debate about public funding of the arts is about democracy, about the type of society we aspire to be and become. It is about opportunity: the opportunity to witness artistic expression and to create for oneself. America today is a prosperous country. Poignantly, 70 years ago, when we became enmeshed in the deepest depression in our history, the Federal Government created a jobs program called the Works Project Administration. My grandfather headed the WPA in Iowa and, as required by statute, hired a Cedar Rapids native by the name of Grant Wood to lead Iowa's WPA arts division. Because of the WPA, artists in Iowa and across the Nation were given an opportunity to work in their chosen fields and to advance their own and society's creative impulse. I refer back to the WPA era because when our country dissolved into social chaos, the arts brought a perspective of unity and courage. Ironically, perhaps, to some, an American solidarity of spirit was enhanced by artists who frequently highlighted social programs and who just as frequently lampooned institutions of the State, including political leaders. These are more prosperous times, but just as with the WPA in the 1930s, government involvement in the arts today is designed to take the arts from the grand citadel of the privileged and bring it to the public at large. This democratization of the arts ennobles the American experience. Franklin Roosevelt once noted that, ``The arts cannot thrive except when men are free to be themselves and to be in charge of the discipline of their own energies and ardors.'' A corollary to this Rooseveltian precept is self-evident freedom itself is constrained if the arts are shackled. Americans need to be appreciative, rather than fear, artistic expression. We must understand that arts play an increasingly central role, particularly in education. Of all the learning disciplines, they most thoroughly tap and expand the human imagination. Without hesitation, therefore, we should be supportive of the Federal commitment to arts programs. Arts expression is an unquantifiable, but priceless, facet of our society.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2330) to sanction the ruling Burmese military junta, to strengthen Burma's democratic forces and support and recognize the National League of Democracy as the legitimate representative of the Burmese people, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous matter on H.R. 2330.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join with my colleagues on the committee, particularly with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), to support this important and timely initiative. I would also like to thank the majority leadership, as well as our colleagues with the Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Financial Services, and Committee on the Judiciary, for their constructive suggestions and cooperation in expediting passage of this bill. On June 10, the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific considered and favorably reported to the full committee H.R. 2330, the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003. The full committee adopted the bill on June 12. The amended text before us incorporates suggested changes from the administration as well as the Committee on Ways and Means. At the outset, let me note that none of us takes lightly a decision to impose sanctions on another country. In the case of Burma, however, over the last several months the U.S. has watched with growing frustration and dismay as prospects for a transition to democracy have withered in the face of the ruling military regime's determination to maintain an iron grip on power. As my colleagues are aware, Aung San Suu Kyi's release from house arrest a little over a year ago generated some optimism in Burma and abroad about prospects for political change. The ruling State Peace and Development Council, the SPDC, allowed her certain freedom of movement. The opposition National League for Democracy received permission to reopen a number of branch offices throughout the country, and increasing numbers of political prisoners were released. In recent days and months, the basis for cautious optimism about the prospect of progressive change has evaporated. The regime refused to hold substantive political discussions with the NLD and ethnic minority groups, while operatives and thugs associated with the regime began a campaign of harassment that escalated into the premeditated ambush on Aung San Suu Kyi's motorcade on May 30 of this year. We are all, of course, pleased at the news that the United Nations Special Envoy for Burma was recently allowed to see Aung San Suu Kyi and that she is apparently in ``feisty spirits'' and credible health. However, the brutal attack by the regime's henchmen on Daw Suu's traveling party, the broader crackdown against pro-democracy forces, and the vastly diminished prospects for a democratic transition leave the United States with no option but to reassess its already limited relationship with the Government of Burma. While economic sanctions are seldom successful, the long train of abuses perpetrated by Burma's military regime leaves the U.S. and other members of the international community, most particularly Burma's neighbors in ASEAN, with no ethical alternative but to embrace a broader array of diplomatic and economic policy options, including sanctions, in this case Burmese imports to the United States, and utilization of the U.N. Security Council, to help bring about a restoration of democracy. Here it should be stressed that the restrictions in this bill are immediately released if commonsense, democratic conditions are met, and that the sanctions must be approved annually by Congress. In addition, the President has been given authority to waive any or all provisions of this bill based on a national interest standard. Mr. Speaker, Burma merits sustained U.S. attention not only because the actions of the regime offend core American values, but because developments inside the country impact peace and stability in Southeast Asia. Our primary objectives must continue to be focused on human rights, democracy, refugee assistance, and an end to Burmese production and trafficking of elicit narcotics. However, we also have an interest in reaching out to the Burmese people with humanitarian assistance, including medical interventions to help stem the devastating effect of HIV-AIDS. Such humanitarian assistance will not be affected by this legislation. The great tragedy of the current circumstance is that in the early 1960s Burma was potentially the most prosperous country in Southeast Asia. Today, after 40 years of military misrule, its economy is in a shambles, health and educational services are in precipitous decline, while its citizens continue to suffer human rights abuses and repression. Sadly, it has become all too apparent that Burma's military leadership is prepared to sacrifice the best interests of its people to pursue the power games of a power elite. In this circumstance, the world community has been left with no option but to rally to the cause of freedom and human rights by mobilizing concerted diplomatic and economic pressure against the ruling regime. I urge passage of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), one of the leading spokespeople in the world on the subject of human rights.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me thank again my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for his leadership on this issue but also so many other issues that affect human rights around the world. To the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega), let me say I do not think there is anyone that understands the region of Southeast Asia more comprehensively or well than he does. I am always in debt to his judgment. I would just like to stress that, while it is awkward for a legislative body to ever comment on the affairs of other countries, this particular legislation is designed to show friendship and support for the people of Burma and also to underscore that repression and despotism have no place in the world today. I also would underscore that it is an expression of solidarity with other peoples of Southeast Asia. For example, for the first time in its 36 years' existence, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations has taken a stand of rebuke to the government of Burma in its first statement of internal intervention in its history. This is a very serious matter for the region as well as for the international community, but most of all this is an expression of concern for the Burmese people for whom the United States has had a long and sustaining interest. Mr. Speaker, I urge again passage of this legislation.

Mr. LEACH. I yield to the gentleman from American Samoa.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a member of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific as well as someone with whom I am honored to have recently cowritten an editorial.

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

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to note that Cambodia is scheduled to hold its National Assembly elections on July 27, 2003, and to express our hopes and concerns that the electoral process be free and fair. The United States is strongly committed, not to a particular outcome in those elections, but to a credible process that is fair in its administration and execution, and free of the violence, intimidation, and alleged fraud that sadly have marred other elections since the 1997 coup in that country. On June 10, 2003, the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific held a hearing on ``Recent Developments in Southeast Asia'' that focused in part on the upcoming Cambodian elections. While there have been improvements in recent years, such as an updated Electoral Law and a new National Election Committee, certain credible concerns persist. Experts at our hearing and other observers have questioned the independence of the Election Committee, complained of opposition politicians' lack of access to Cambodian mass media, and raised concerns about continuing political violence. In February, Om Radsady, an outspoken critic of Prime Minister Hun Sen, was assassinated. That same month, at least two other dissidents were detained on frail allegations that they were responsible for inciting the January 29, 2003 anti-Thai riots in Phnom Penh, during which the Thai Embassy was attacked and damaged. These incidents underscore the need for further vigilance. For these reasons, I join the U.S. Department of State in calling on the Government of Cambodia to prevent all forms of election coercion and to prosecute perpetrators of violence. I also share the Department's hope that the Cambodian National Election Committee will demonstrate its neutrality and independence, fulfill its promise of equal media access, and act rapidly to deal with allegations of irregularities during the 30-day election campaign period, on polling day, and during the ballot counting process. The people of the United States share the aspirations of the people of Cambodia to free expression, self-determination, and the development of an election administration that commands confidence across Cambodian society. We sincerely hope that the July 27 elections will be an important step in that process.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, seldom has there been a more important bill for the State of Iowa. On the one hand, this legislation provides for greater equity in Medicare reimbursement which will bring millions of additional dollars to the state and help prevent an exodus of healthcare providers from rural counties. In addition, the brunt of the bill is about providing voluntary prescription drug coverage to Medicare eligible individuals. There is a conservative critique that the program is far too expensive, and a liberal critique that it is not generous enough. Both philosophical perspectives have a degree of validity, but the big picture is that Congress is moving in a direction of providing health security for millions of citizens. Low income individuals will, for the most part, be provided full comprehensive prescription drug coverage. Higher income citizens on a sliding scale will be provided partial coverage and all citizens will be provided coverage for catastrophic expenses. There will be a cost to society in providing these benefits but the benefits far outweigh the costs. There may be better approaches that can be envisioned now or developed later, but this is the only framework approach that has a chance of receiving majority support in both bodies without a Presidential veto. It may not be enough and it may be too deferred in implementation but it nevertheless marks an important first step to meeting the most challenging need of many senior citizens.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller). (Mrs. MILLER of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority leader of the House.