Jim Leach

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 667, expressing support for democracy in Hong Kong. I would like thank the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), as well as the distinguished Ranking Member of the Committee on International Relations (Mr. Lantos), for sponsoring this timely and important resolution. As my colleagues are aware, this is the seventh year after Hong Kong's reversion to China. As the Department of State noted in an April 2004 report to Congress (as mandated by the U.S.-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992), the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) remains an international city whose residents continue to enjoy protections of the rule of law and broad civil liberties. As is also well-understood, the U.S. maintains substantial economic and political interests in Hong Kong and promotes Hong Kong's high degree of autonomy under Chinese sovereignty. Washington works closely with the authorities in Hong Kong on a wide range of international issues, not the least of which is cooperation in the global campaign against terrorism. Having said that, developments over the last year have raised serious concerns, in the former British colony as well as around the world, regarding Beijing's commitment to respect the ``high degree of autonomy'' it has promised Hong Kong. From a Congressional perspective, it appears self-evident that advancing democratization and constitutional reform--including universal suffrage--would contribute to the city's political stability and economic prosperity. The authorities in Beijing should realize that a vibrant, democratic and prosperous Hong Kong would be a tremendous asset to China. Hong Kong will only become a threat if China makes it so. Even though the Basic Law may not technically require fuller democracy by 2007-2008, wisdom as well as respect for autonomy dictates the embrace of democracy for Hong Kong. Having traveled to Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines earlier this year, all of which have held successful local and national elections, I see no reason why Hong Kong--with all its wealth and sophistication--cannot do so also. The people of Hong Kong made plain their aspirations for greater democratic autonomy, aspirations fully within the framework of the ``one country, two systems'' formula, when they so impressively demonstrated on July 1 last year. In the aftermath of those peaceful demonstrations, the Hong Kong government appeared to listen to the people and withdrew controversial national security legislation pending additional consultations with the populace of the city. The people of Hong Kong again showed their keen interest in participatory democracy when they turned out in record numbers for District Council elections last November, and in another large and peaceful pro-democracy demonstration on July 1st of this year. In addition, in elections held on September 12, turnout was a record 1.784 million voters (55.63 percent of registered voters). However, pro-democracy candidates, perhaps stung by scandal, managed to gain only three seats for a total of 25, a disappointing outcome since opinion polls indicated stronger results under Hong Kong's complex electoral system. The election results notwithstanding, one has the sense that the pace of democratization in Hong Kong appears inconsistent with the desires of a majority of the Hong Kong people. Indeed, recent decisions by Beijing setting limits on constitutional development in Hong Kong appear to be inconsistent with the ``high degree of autonomy'' promised by the central authorities in the 1982 Joint Declaration and the Basic Law. Equally dismaying has been a series of incidents in Hong Kong--from several political talk show hosts complaining of apparent threats against them, the appearance of a Chinese flotilla sailing through Victoria Harbor, an attack on the office of legislator Emily Lau, and recent allegations of harassment against the print media--that many perceive to be part of a campaign of intimidation against pro-democracy advocates in Hong Kong. Likewise, a new element in the September elections has been the concern of pro-democracy groups that mainland authorities were attempting to influence the outcome of the vote. Although mainland officials insist that they continue to support the Basic Law's commitment to universal suffrage in Hong Kong, Beijing's actions indicate that the central authorities are profoundly concerned about the extension of democratic rights in the HKSAR. It is hard to know precisely why China has resisted Hong Kong's democratic aspirations, but what might be termed Beijing's ``three confusions''-- that reform might spin out of control, that democracy in Hong Kong would create a potentially destabilizing precedent for China, and a mistaken conflation of the situation in Hong Kong with the situation in Taiwan--are all possible explanations. Whatever the reasons, they are uncompelling. One has the sense that China is moving into the world with increasing sophistication, yet maintains major misconceptions about Hong Kong. There is also a ``fourth confusion'' which the United States itself should seek to avoid in its policy toward Hong Kong. By that, I mean America needs to find ways to strongly support the Hong Kong people's desire for democracy, electoral reform and universal suffrage without precipitating unnecessary Sino-American confrontation, damaging the interests of the people of Hong Kong or inadvertently undercutting the cause of Hong Kong's democrats. Like Beijing, the U.S. has an enormous vested interest in the success of the ``one country, two systems'' model in Hong Kong. In this context, I believe it would be unwise and counterproductive at this time for the U.S. to review Hong Kong's treatment under the U.S.-Hong Kong Policy Act, as has been suggested in some quarters. America needs to keep perspective. While the speed and scope of political change may be frustrating, Hong Kong still stands out on the Asian landscape as an enduring beacon for the rule of law and civil liberties. I stress this because often in relations between states well- intentioned positions can be considered counterproductive. The U.S. Congress is obligated to comment on the importance of the people of Hong Kong being permitted to determine the pace and scope of constitutional developments and to move forward with democracy and electoral reform. However, we have no desire to be confrontational. What is critical at this juncture is that all parties take credible steps to restore dialogue, build confidence, and seek compromise. Whether the 21st Century is peaceful and whether it is prosperous will depend on whether the world's most populous country can live with itself and become open to the world in a fair and respectful manner. Hong Kong is central to that possibility. As such, it deserves our greatest attention, respect, and good will. Hong Kong is important unto itself; it is also a model for others. In particular, what happens there is watched with great interest by the people of Taiwan. In a globalist world where peoples everywhere are seeking a sense of community to serve as a buttress against political and economic forces beyond the control of individuals and their families, it is next to impossible to reconcile political systems based on unlike institutions and attitudes. Mutual respect for differences is the key to peace and prosperity in a world in which history suggests conflict has been a generational norm.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. (Mr. LEACH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, America is divided on many issues, perhaps none more emotive than that which surrounds family values and the institution of marriage. For many Americans definitions are critical. Traditionalists believe the term marriage can only properly be applied to a union between a man and a woman. Non-traditionalists, particularly in the gay community, believe that qualification under law for marriage or other forms of civil unions should be provided to same sex couples and that without changes in law to allow such to occur some citizens will have less personal security and legal protection than other elements of the American community. Historically, issues of marriage come under the primary jurisdiction of State law, but because States may have different approaches and because there is under our Constitution a recognition that legal arrangements made in one State are generally to be respected in others, the Congress chose several years back (1996) to pass a law called the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to allow States not to recognize the validity of same-sex marriages performed in other States. The measure before Congress today is H.R. 3313, an act which would deny Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, the right to review the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. The arguments on the floor today have largely swirled around the issue of marriage. My view is that the bigger issue is process. In America, process is our most important product. Our constitutional system was established with checks and balances. To curb the prospect of concentration of power our Founders created three branches of government--executive, legislative, and judicial--and then quadruplicated these balancing arrangements by creating executive, legislative, and judicial entities at the state, county and city levels. At any moment in time there will be conflict among various branches and between various levels of government. This discord is sorted out through time tested processes involving compromises, give and take, and at critical moments, definitive decision-making. In this case, whether one supports or opposes expanding marriage definitions or favors compromise approaches such as sanctioning civil unions, it is a dubious precedent to deny a key component of the American governmental system--federal courts--the power to exercise its constitutional responsibilities. Although the Constitution gives Congress broad authority to define the jurisdiction of courts, Congress has historically been cautious in limiting the power of courts to review substantive law. to do so would wreak havoc with the separation-of-power doctrine and our legal system. If one of the objectives in the bill before us is to rein in a runaway judiciary, we might be equally concerned about creating runaway legislative precedents. Barry Goldwater, who was no friend of activist judges, noted a decade ago when referring to previous court stripping attempts: ``frontal assault on the independence of the Federal courts is a dangerous blow to the foundations of a free society.'' It opens up a can of worms, making all controversial issues vulnerable to similar ``court stripping'' legislation. It is this court stripping precedent which is primarily at issue today. But it is not the only process problem on the table. One consequence of passage of H.R. 3313 is that it would allow each of the 50 State supreme courts to define DOMA's constitutionality but leave the U.S. Supreme Court powerless to sort out the constitutional mess. Confusion rather than legal clarity would be the likely result. Judicial review is the heart of constitutional governance. To tamper with the power of courts is a perilous undertaking. The only oath Members of Congress take upon assuming office is to uphold the Constitution. The founders, who had extensive experience with political persecution, wrote a Constitution which did not put exclusive power in the legislative and executive branches because they wanted to place a check on popular will as well as capricious executive governance. As Madison wrote in Federalist No. 48, ``an elective despotism was not the government we fought for . . .'' Constitutionalism is not majoritarianism. The rights of minorities must be respected and all citizens provided due process under the law. Accordingly, I am convinced the constitutional obligation is to vote ``no.''

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4011) to promote human rights and freedom in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, 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 material on H.R. 4011, as amended.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, during the past 2\1/2\ years, the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific has received testimony from a number of North Koreans who have survived some of the greatest rigors of the human condition. Their accounts buttress the growing awareness that the people of North Korea have endured some of the most acute humanitarian traumas of our time. Inside North Korea, they suffer at the hands of a totalitarian dynasty that permits no dissent and strictly curtails freedoms of speech, press, religion, and assembly. The regime maintains a brutal system of prison camps that house an estimated 200,000 political inmates who are subjected to slave labor, torture, and even lethal chemical experimentation. Since the collapse of the centralized agricultural system in the 1990s, more than 2 million North Koreans are estimated to have died of starvation. North Koreans outside of North Korea are also uniquely vulnerable. Many thousands are hiding inside China, which currently refuses the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees to evaluate and identify genuine refugees among the North Korean migrant population. China forcibly returns North Koreans to North Korea, where they routinely face imprisonment and torture and sometimes execution. Inside China, North Korean women and girls are particularly vulnerable to trafficking in sexual exploitation. Provoked by these crises, this broadly bipartisan legislation aims to promote international cooperation on human rights and refugee protection, and increased transparency in the provision of humanitarian assistance to the people of North Korea. On the human rights front, this bill underscores the importance of human rights issues in future negotiations with North Korea. It authorizes funds for programs to promote human rights, democracy, rule of law, a market economy, and freedom of information. It also urges additional North Korea-specific attention by appropriate U.N. human rights authorities. On the humanitarian front, the bill authorizes increased funding for assistance to North Koreans outside of North Korea, including refugees, orphans, and trafficking victims. It endorses, but also seeks, greater transparency, for the delivery of U.S. humanitarian aid inside North Korea. Finally, it would condition direct assistance to the North Korean government on human rights and transparency benchmarks, but allows the President to waive those restrictions for national security purposes. In terms of refugee protection, the bill requires a formal clarification of U.S. policy and affirms the eligibility of North Koreans to seek protection as refugees under U.S. law. It also urges the U.N. High Commissioner For Refugees to use all available means to gain access to North Koreans in China. Although the principal responsibility for North Korean refugee resettlement naturally falls to the government of South Korea, the United States should play a leadership role in focusing international attention on the plight of those refugees in formulating international solutions to their profound humanitarian dilemma. I want to remove any danger that overseas audiences may misunderstand the intent or content of this bill. Allow me to state unequivocally, this legislation is a purely humanitarian endeavor. There are no hidden agendas. Indeed, the committee of jurisdiction is deeply indebted to the concerns expressed by thousands of American citizens of Korean descent who are convinced that for too long the international community has largely ignored the plight of their brethren in the North. As explained in the report of the Committee on International Relations: ``H.R. 4011 is motivated by a genuine desire for improvements in human rights, refugee protection, and humanitarian transparency. It is not a pretext for a hidden strategy to provoke regime collapse or to seek collateral advantage in ongoing strategic negotiations. While the legislation highlights numerous egregious abuses, the Congress remains willing to recognize progress in the future and hopes for such an opportunity.'' Similarly, with regard to China, this bill is not solely critical; it is also aspirational. It makes clear that the United States and the international community stand ready to provide more assistance to help defray the costs associated with the North Korean migrant presence when China begins fulfilling its obligations as a party to the 1951 U.N. Refugee Convention. We genuinely hope for that opportunity to arise. I would like to thank my colleagues for their strong bipartisan endorsement of this bill. In particular, I would like to express my gratitude to the staff of the Committee on International Relations and Committee on the Judiciary, particularly Doug Anderson, for their expert consideration, and to the House leadership for promptly scheduling this important legislation. Our distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos); the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega); the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman); and the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) of the minority are much appreciated, as is the leadership of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox); and the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) on the majority side. Finally I would like to thank Senator Brownback, whose leadership in the other body has both informed and helped inspire House action on these issues. H.R. 4011 is a responsible, creative approach to an ongoing human tragedy and deserves our unanimous support. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record an exchange of letters between the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) on the bill under discussion. Committee on International Relations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, July 16, 2004. Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 4011, the ``North Korean Human Rights Act of 2004,'' which was primarily referred to the Committee on International Relations and additionally to the Committee on the Judiciary. This Committee ordered the bill reported favorably on March 31, 2004, and filed its report (H. Rept. No. 108-478, Part I) on May 4, 2004. I concur that the Committee on the Judiciary has jurisdiction over the immigration provisions contained in Title III of the bill. I am grateful for the cooperation of the Committee on the Judiciary in crafting a mutually agreeable compromise text. Based on these discussions, the manager's amendment which the Committee will call up under suspension of the rules will be the text attached to your letter. I appreciate your willingness to waive further consideration of the bill in the Committee on the Judiciary. I concur that in taking this action your Committee's jurisdiction over the bill is in no way diminished or altered. I will, as you request, include this exchange of letters in the Congressional Record during consideration of the legislation on the House floor. I appreciate your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Henry J. Hyde, Chairman.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, briefly, in conclusion, let me just stress that the circumstances in North Korea have provoked one of the great humanitarian tragedies of our time. It is understandable that there are so many refugees, understandable that so many people have voted with their feet to seek greater opportunity in neighboring countries like China, like Mongolia. But this Congress is simply trying, in a humanitarian way, to deal with that circumstance. We are not trying to express any geopolitical strategy, other than to help people that need our assistance. Beyond that, I would say that there is strong bipartisan support, I think I can say that, for the administration trying to work as carefully as possible on the geostrategic issues in the six-party context, but this bill is about humanitarian issues and nothing else. Mr. Speaker, I urge this Congress to take a unanimous vote on this subject.

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

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 652) urging the Government of the Republic of Belarus to ensure a democratic, transparent, and fair election process for its parliamentary elections in the fall of 2004.

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 material on H. Res. 652.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 652, which calls on the Government of Belarus to ensure that parliamentary elections which will take place in October of this year are democratic, transparent, and fair. Thirteen years after the fall of Communism, Belarus remains one of the few nations in Europe where the transition to democracy has not taken sufficient root. The current political leadership continues to rule in an authoritarian manner and its government continues to track down those individuals and organizations who are trying to help build support for democracy and democratic institutions. Unlike the situation in Ukraine, the government in Belarus has thus far not given any clear indication that it is committed to free and fair elections. However, in a recent meeting with the ambassador from Belarus, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) of the Subcommittee on Europe was led to believe that the government's positions on the elections could be positive. The ambassador gave assurances that the government would enforce the elections codes and would allow all political parties to have representatives on the electoral commissions which oversee implementation of the elections. He also indicated that Belarus would cooperate with the OSCE and would allow international observers. At a hearing the Subcommittee on Europe held in March on Belarus, the gentleman from Nebraska (Chairman Bereuter) pointed out that the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) and several Members met with the leaders of the Belarus opposition, collectively known as the Coalition Five-Plus, to discuss the elections and their visions for a democratic future for Belarus. This group of political parties is united in a common platform in an attempt to bring democracy and respectability back to the Belarus Parliament. Unfortunately, members of the opposition political parties and participants in political demonstrations continue to be subjected to harassment, surveillance by government agents, arrests and physical abuse. For these reasons, it is important that the United States Government, including this Congress, continue to emphatically express our strong support for free, fair, and transparent elections. In Europe, the situation in Belarus understandably seems to be of equal concern. The OSCE, the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe have all expressed deep concerns over Belarus and its forthcoming elections. In fact, members have been informed that the Chair of the Belarus Working Group of the OSCE Parliamentary Working Assembly recently visited Minsk for additional discussions on the elections. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 652 emphasizes that if Belarus is ever to become more integrated into the community of democratic nations, it must work toward the establishment of a genuinely democratic political system in which the freedom of association and assembly are guaranteed. It also must be a fact that political candidates from the opposition should be free from political harassment and intimidation as they campaign for office, and in which the media is free to act independently, free from government control or intimidation. Finally, there must be a system in which elections and the electoral process are open, transparent, and fair if Belarus wishes to be included in the community of democratic nations. The parliamentary elections this fall will be a litmus test for President Lukashenko's commitment to democracy and the direction he intends to take Belarus in the future. In closing, Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 652 rather precisely explains the concerns and recommendations of the United States House of Representatives. It has been crafted by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), and the Congress is in his debt for emphasizing the importance of this issue to the people of Belarus, as well as Europe and the United States. I also would like to thank the distinguished ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for his leadership on so many issues, particularly those that relate to the historical transitions taking place in Eastern Europe. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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 move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H. R. 4660) to amend the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 to extend the authority to provide assistance to countries seeking to become eligible countries for purposes of that Act, 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 material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4660 is an amendment to the Millennium Challenge Account, or MCA, of 2003 to extend the authority to provide assistance to countries seeking to become eligible countries for purposes of that act. Last session, Congress authorized the Millennium Challenge Account to provide substantial development assistance to high-performing, low- income countries through fiscal year 2005. Recently, the Board of Directors of the Millennium Challenge Corporation selected 16 countries that are eligible to receive MCA assistance. At issue with this resolution is the problem of how to deal with countries that just missed passing the eligibility bar. The Millennium Challenge Account authorized the MCC to provide limited assistance through a threshold program to these countries for the purpose of improving in the areas where they fell short. This was done partly in recognition of the fact that many threshold countries have limited resources to invest in the well-being of their people. This amendment will authorize funding of the threshold program and match the duration of the threshold program to that of the MCA. This will allow us to continue to support the preparation of worthy threshold countries for their full participation in the Millennium Challenge Account. Mr. Speaker, I believe this bill will improve the Millennium Challenge Account program and advance the interests of the United States. I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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 move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 436) celebrating 10 years of majority rule in the Republic of South Africa and recognizing the momentous social and economic achievements of South Africa since the institution of democracy in that country, 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 material on H. Con. Res. 436.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for bringing before us this resolution, celebrating 10 years of majority rule in the Republic of South Africa and recognizing the momentous social and economic achievements of South Africa since the institution of democracy in that country. In April 1994, nearly 19 million South Africans went to the polls to elect South Africa's first democratic government. The African National Congress, or ANC, which had led the struggle against white majority rule in the apartheid system of state-enforced racial segregation, won control of the national assembly and elected Nelson Mandela, who had been in prison for 27 years for the crime of advocating democracy, president. President Mandela was succeeded by Deputy President Thabo Mbeki in June 1999, and Mr. Mbeki was re-elected in April 2004. Since the end of apartheid, South African leaders have faced the daunting task of meeting the great expectations of the black electorate while fulfilling the economic potential of the country. Half a century of apartheid and years of sanctions have decimated the economy and left most black South Africans poor and undereducated. High rates of unemployment and crime, as well as the specter of HIV/AIDS, continue to pose significant challenges. Still, South Africa's transition has been remarkable and serves as an example to all nations striving for democracy, reconciliation, and development. This is a bipartisan resolution which has been given full consideration during a hearing and a markup by the Committee on International Relations, and I urge the support of this body. But, again, before yielding to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), let me thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for his prominent leadership on this and so many other issues; and I would also like to recognize a former Member, Mr. Ron Dellums, for his leadership in Congress on antiapartheid efforts. And there are few Members in my career that I have been prouder to stand behind on an issue of such fundamental human rights significance. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 418) recognizing the importance in history of the 150th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the United States and Japan.

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 material on H. Con. Res. 418.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for this resolution which was originally introduced by our good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the distinguished ranking member of the committee. As my colleagues may know, this year marks the 150th anniversary of the beginning of relations between Japan and the United States. Even at that time, the middle of the 19th century, the United States saw itself as an emerging Pacific power and recognized the need for relations with Japan as a nation of profound significance in Asia and beyond. Despite a 250-year history of isolationist policy under the Tokokawa shogunate, Japan's leadership was also becoming aware of vast changes taking place across the world and that the need to adapt as a matter of national leadership as well as economic viability. The Treaty of Peace and Amity between our nations, signed 150 years ago, symbolizes the deep and abiding bond between our two peoples. As Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage noted recently, ``the Treaty of Peace and Amity was a document viewed in its time with both hope as well as apprehension; and indeed, over the years, this coming together of our countries, the collision of our cultures, it has changed us both, greatly enriched the lives of our peoples, and at times brought us turbulence and even tragedy.'' The bonds between our two countries have stood the test of time, even surviving the crucible of war. They are bonds which are brought to the attention of Washingtonians every spring when those enduring symbols of Japanese-American friendship, the cherry blossoms, a gift from the people of Japan in 1912, bloom along the Tidal Basin. They are bonds that have been strengthened by our joint resolve during the Cold War, in our determination to foster peace and reconciliation on a nuclear- free Korean peninsula, and in the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan. Today, Japan and the United States enjoy a unique partnership of peace rooted not only in common interests but common democratic values. Our relations have never been stronger. These bilateral bonds are critical not only to the peace and security of northeast Asia but to the larger world community. As former Senate majority leader Mike Mansfield noted upon assuming the position of U.S. Ambassador to Tokyo, the U.S.-Japanese relationship is ``the most important bilateral relationship in the world, bar none.'' It is that relationship and the enduring bonds between our two great countries and our two peoples which we honor here today through this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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