Ileana Ros-Lehtinen

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, although I do not oppose the substance of the amendment.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, the amendment by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) requires a GAO report on the effects that waivers of the Buy America Act for the purchase of HIV test kits under the President's Emergency Plan for Aids Relief, PEPFAR, have had on American manufacturers. PEPFAR, as we know, is one of the largest and most successful foreign assistance programs of our country, and it was reauthorized just last year for an astounding $48 billion over the next 5 years. Expanding access for testing is a vital and core component of PEPFAR, both in terms of prevention and treatment. And in some cases, the purchase of test kits manufactured outside of the United States has been deemed a more cost-effective and efficient means by which to expand testing and access to testing. Still, some have expressed concern about the impact that those waivers may be having on United States-based manufacturers and questioned whether the purchase of these test kits manufactured abroad really has increased access to testing. Thus, an evaluation of this nature may be an appropriate exercise, particularly as the PEPFAR program scales up to transition from an emergency program to a sustainable program. And I, therefore, support the gentleman in his amendment. I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I continue to reserve.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take our time in opposition to this bill. And, Mr. Chairman, some Dear Colleague letters sent out by a few Members earlier this week, Mr. Chairman, in order to express their support for this bill, tended to focus on the few attractive features of the bill, such as the improvements that it would make on the Merida Initiative, our vital effort to assist Mexico and other Central American countries to fight the dangerous drug cartels. Unfortunately, supporters of this bill have remained silent or ignored its fundamental problems. And the fundamental problems on this bill are that the bill calls for exorbitant spending in the absence of true reform, and that the bill does not take the difficult but necessary step of setting priorities, either with out-of-control spending or with important international issues that are facing our country. By our best estimate, the bill before us represents an estimated 12 percent increase in planned expenditures above the levels of fiscal year 2009. It creates 20 new government entities, offices, foundations, programs and the like. These new programs, and these new initiatives that are funded in this bill constitute expenditures that go beyond even this 12 percent increase to accounts previously funded in fiscal year 2009. The bill also represents a 35 percent increase in State Department main salary and operating accounts. We have to ask ourselves, where is the money coming from to support the additional funding? In the coming fiscal year alone, Mr. Chairman, fiscal year 2010, we are expected to have to pay almost $285 billion, that's billion with a B, in interest costs, just interest, not payment on the debt itself. By fiscal year 2014, our cost for interest on the debt will likely have risen to about $560 billion, again, that's with a B, in that year alone, again, for interest payments alone, not for the debt payments that will have to be made. Our deficit in the coming fiscal year, 2010, is now projected to total an estimated $1.3 trillion. Yet the funding levels proposed by this bill seem oddly detached from the reality that our families are facing today and that our Nation is facing. Both in committee markup and at the Rules Committee, I offered amendments that would have capped increases for next year at 3.7 percent, a 2008 annual rate of inflation. This amendment would have saved taxpayer dollars, more than $2.8 billion in authorized funds. That amendment, again, would have saved American taxpayers more than $2.8 billion, with a B, in authorized funds. Unfortunately, this measured, calibrated approach was rejected twice in favor of the largesse in this spending bill. In trying to justify the enormous spending increases in this bill, supporters paint a picture of a hollowed-out shell of a State Department suffering from years of neglect. Yet, according to the Congressional Research Service and the State Department's own data, funding for the State Department and related agencies doubled from fiscal year 2000 through 2008. This clearly shows that growing the bureaucracy and throwing money at the Department of State are not the answer. Supporters of this bill further argue that the major funding increases for the hiring of new staff are necessary, even in the absence of reforms. I note that there was an effort last Congress by colleagues in the other Chamber to ascertain the levels of absenteeism at various U.S. Government agencies. The results for the State Department were impressive--in an ironic way. The Department explained that it did not specifically track absences without official leave. It was the only executive branch agency that could not provide such information. Instead, the State Department only tracks those incidents in which such absenteeism reaches such an egregious level that discipline is required. As a result, we--and the management of the Department--have little idea if the Department's own personnel are at their posts at the times we would expect them to be. And although we realize the overwhelming majority of State Department employees are hardworking patriots, they are the ones who should be upset about absenteeism in others. The bill before us today does not address such questions, nor does it build on earlier inquiries such as the ones I have cited. Instead, supporters of this bill focus their arguments on unfilled State Department vacancies. And these arguments, too, Mr. Chairman, do not bare careful scrutiny. Most of the so-called ``vacancies'' are the result of shifting personnel to high- priority posts rather than cuts in funding. Furthermore, the State Department always shows unfilled positions on their books because those numbers are the result of our overseas posts' self-identified needs rather than being a budget-driven number. It is a way of saying that they would like more employees and more funding. What agency wouldn't? I expect that all Americans would identify very significant unfunded needs in our own homes and our families and our budgets. Moreover, at a time when we need to cut the deficit, in just one little-noticed instance, this bill bypasses an opportunity to transfer several hundred million dollars to our Treasury to help us pay down our national debt. In fact, an amendment offered by my friend from Indiana (Mr. Burton) was not made in order by the rule. Mr. Burton's amendment would have required that just half of the funds of U.S.-funded enterprise funds abroad be turned over to our U.S. Treasury when they close down their operations. By remaining silent on the disposition of such funds, Mr. Chairman, this bill would instead allow loosely overseen so-called ``legacy institutions'' to take possession of all of those funds. This bill prefers to focus on creating new U.S.-funded foundations and offices that will add hundreds of millions of dollars in new costs to the taxpayers over the coming years. And when it comes to policy issues, Mr. Chairman, this bill does not set the priorities that we believe would best serve our Nation. Not only does this bill provide close to $2 billion in funding for the United Nations--not including peacekeeping--without requiring any reform, but it also authorizes the payment of all claimed U.N. arrears or back payments. Why should American taxpayers be asked to write a blank check to the U.N.? Why not demand specific returns on our investments? Instead, efforts to leverage our contributions to secure concrete, systematic and comprehensive reforms through the U.N. system were rejected by both the Foreign Affairs Committee and in Rules. This bill provides an inexplicable authorization to pay a higher rate for U.N. peacekeeping than even the U.N. is charging us. The bill's assessment rate could result in the U.S. paying, in 1 year alone, more than $100 million for U.N. peacekeeping above that which the U.N. requires us to pay. The bill also fails to take any action to address endemic corruption at the United Nations. In fact, not only does the underlying bill and the manager's amendment remain silent on the U.N.'s misuse of American taxpayer funds for activities that undermine U.S. interests, but an amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana--again, Mr. Burton-- which sought to prevent U.S. taxpayer dollars from paying for the legal fees of corrupt U.N. officials was rejected at Rules and will not be considered today because, Mr. Chairman, the U.N. has decided to pay the legal fees, possibly almost $900,000, of Benon Sevan, who ran the U.N.'s corrupt and disastrous Oil-for-Food program which was supposed to help innocent Iraqis but instead was exploited by Saddam's regime. U.S. Federal and state prosecutors have charged Sevan with bribery and conspiracy to commit wire fraud. But this bill before us does nothing to protect taxpayer dollars from bankrolling and rewarding corruption at the U.N. The underlying bill also helps foster the culture of corruption at the United Nations by failing to leverage U.S. contributions to the U.N. Development Program, UNDP, until it accepts the jurisdiction of the U.N. Ethics Office. The UNDP, to which the U.S. contributes $100 million or more per year, continues to be the poster child for mismanagement, corruption, and waste, from Zimbabwe to Uganda to Burma to North Korea. In fact, the United Nations Development Program had to pull out of North Korea after reports emerged that development aid was being diverted to the North Korean dictatorship. Now, unbelievably, UNDP is returning to North Korea with essentially no meaningful protections to prevent U.S. taxpayer dollars from again benefiting Kim Jong Il and his corrupt cronies. Our Treasury Department has even engaged a collection agency to retrieve over $7 million in U.S. taxpayer dollars mismanaged by UNDP in Afghanistan. We might never know about UNDP's corruption and mismanagement without the help of brave whistleblowers. Unfortunately, whistleblowers have few protections at the U.N., and the UNDP has reportedly retaliated against a number of them, including the one who exposed their operations in North Korea. Mr. Chairman, this bill should do more in safeguarding our constituents' hard-earned dollars. Nowhere are U.N. failures which undermine U.S. interests clearer than with respect to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, UNRWA. UNRWA has a strictly humanitarian mandate to provide aid to Palestinian refugees, but it continues to compromise its mandate and our U.S. taxpayer dollars. It does so by emitting propaganda against Israel in favor of Hamas, doing business with banks targeted by our government for terror financing and money laundering, and by refusing to vet its employees and aid recipients for ties to Palestinian militant groups like Hamas. UNRWA's Commissioner-General says she doesn't even consider Hamas to be a foreign terrorist organization. And her predecessor admitted that members of Hamas were on UNRWA's payroll, saying, I don't see that as a crime. No one can guarantee that over hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. funds sent to UNRWA will not end up in the hands of Hamas. Yet, this bill takes a see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil approach, refusing to demand accountability and transparency for our investments. Supporters of this bill will claim that it strengthens nonproliferation activities at the Department of State. However, the pertinent section of the bill contains contradictory statements regarding the Department's nonproliferation and arms control infrastructure. On the one hand, the bill asks the Secretary of State to develop a comprehensive plan to determine what the Department actually needs in terms of personnel, additional authorities and new appropriations in order to carry out its arms control and nonproliferation policies. Yet, before that plan has even been drafted, this bill removes the statutory requirement for the Assistant Secretary for Verification and Arms Control, authorizes $3 million for 25 new positions focused on arms control, and mandates other programs and activities. These provisions actually appear to be laying the foundation to reverse the reforms that were enacted by this House in 1998 under the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act. Further, by removing the requirements for the Assistant Secretary for Verification and Arms Control, it is diminishing its importance, and targets for possible dissolution the bureau at State that was instrumental in the dismantlement of Libya's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons program. This is also the one bureau that has consistently pressed for greater disclosure by the North Korean regime on the totality of its nuclear activities. And on the issue of North Korea, Mr. Chairman, this bill and our Congress have remained largely silent on this, one of the most grave foreign policy crises currently confronting our Nation. North Korea's leader is preparing to test yet another long-range missile which could reach Alaska, Hawaii, and the west coast possibly as early as next week. Yet, an amendment I offered in Rules to address the escalating crisis in North Korea's nuclear brinksmanship was rejected. This amendment would have re-listed North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism, as suggested by Secretary of State Clinton this past weekend. It called for full implementation of sanctions, including those imposed by the U.N. Security Council resolutions adopted after previous North Korean missile and nuclear tests, but never fully enforced. It contains consequences as called for by the administration's North Korean Special Envoy after Pyongyang's April 5 missile test. This amendment raised great concern about Pyongyang's defiant, continuing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to Iran, to Syria, and other rogue regimes. It also pointed to the North Korean regime's horrific record on human rights abuses. Pyongyang made a provocative and reprehensible decision just a few days ago in a secretive kangaroo court to sentence U.S. citizen journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee to 12 years of hard labor in the North Korean gulag. This amendment demanded the immediate and unconditional release of our two U.S. citizens before the lifting of any U.S. sanctions or granting of diplomatic recognition. Much of the language of my amendment had been accepted by the chairman last year and incorporated into the Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Reform Act of 2008. The Foreign Affairs Committee unanimously adopted the agreed-upon North Korea language during a markup held last May. Yet the amendment I offered to address this threat to U.S. national security interests and to our allies in the region was rejected yesterday by the Rules Committee. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, at a time when our country faces a range of threats in our own hemisphere, this bill does not set out a comprehensive approach to those threats. The bill also displays a willingness to put our national security interests in the hands of the vaguely defined ``international community.'' Mr. Chairman, because of the fundamental weaknesses and the core problems with this bill that have not been addressed, I will not be able to support this bill. I urge my colleagues to also oppose H.R. 2410 and vote ``no'' on final passage. With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, who had very good amendments to offer yesterday.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I continue to reserve my time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), our Republican Conference Chair and a member of our Committee on Foreign Affairs. (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, although I do not oppose the substance of the amendment.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to give the remainder of my time and any time that the chairman of the committee has to the wonderful gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), who is going to be in a colloquy with our esteemed chairman.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentlelady from California and the gentleman from Florida. With the fall of the Taliban, Afghan women came back from the brink. But the gains made since 2001 have been fragile. We recognize that any prospect of better lives for the women of Afghanistan and girls are inherently linked to the success of the development and reconstruction of their country. Furthermore, we all desire greater levels of accountability, quality, and impact from foreign development assistance to Afghanistan, all aimed at creating the enabling environment necessary to sustain women's development successes, their security, and their basic rights. Mr. Chairman, this amendment has that noble purpose. It would require the Inspectors General of the Department of State, the Department of Defense, the United States Agency for International Development, and the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction to include the impact that U.S. development assistance has on the social, economic, and political empowerment of Afghan women as part of their auditing and reporting requirements. I support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Chair, I support this amendment because the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative was fully implemented in June of this year with the goal of strengthening U.S. border security while at the same time enhancing accountability of those entering our country. By calling on the Secretary of State to provide a report to Congress describing the impact this implementation has had on the flow of people, goods, and services across the international borders shared by the relevant countries, Congressman Peters' amendment will help us understand better how effective this initiative has been in making our country safer and what impact these two measures will have on the business sectors of our countries. The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative was a significant step toward making America more secure. Congressman Peters' amendment is important as it would provide greater accountability and oversight of the objectives and consequences of this important initiative and will ultimately help us protect the interests and the safety of the American people. And with that, I yield back.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition even though I do not oppose the amendment.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Chair, while I am concerned by the proliferation of exchange-related authorization earmarks in the underlying bill, which circumscribes the discretion of States' educational and cultural affairs bureaus in deciding how to allot our finite education and exchange resources, I do not oppose this amendment. I support efforts to use our educational and exchange resources to help support the development of clean and efficient energy sources, and I appreciate the fact that this amendment does not include a specific authorization amount. Therefore, I support the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday this House voted to commemorate the 61st anniversary of Israel's independence. However, even as we recognize this historic occasion, we must not ignore the continuing threats to Israel's very survival, the greatest dangers presented by the radical regime in Tehran whose leader, Mr. Ahmadinejad, has repeatedly denied the Holocaust, as all of us know, and has called for Israel to be wiped off the map. More recently, at last month's Durban II hate-fest in Geneva, Ahmadinejad reminded us of his regime's goals when he savagely attacked Israel, stating that ``world Zionism personifies racism,'' and called Israel the ``most racist'' regime. These are not mere idle words, Mr. Speaker. Ahmadinejad and his fellow thugs have long sought to make good on their call for Israel's elimination by sponsoring violent Islamic extremist groups and pursuing nuclear, chemical, biological and missile capabilities. In the face of such a menace to our strong, democratic ally, Israel, and to our vital interest in the Middle East, the U.S. and other responsible nations must not stand idly by. We cannot accept the prospect of an emboldened nuclear Iranian regime. We must close loopholes in U.S. and international sanctions so as to deny the regime all remaining lifelines for their economy and compel it to abandon its destructive policies. Further, we should realize that the existential threats to Israel, and the obstacles to peace, begin with Iran; but, sadly, they do not end there. We must learn history's lesson that we will not achieve peace by engaging with these Islamic militant groups like the Iranian proxy, Hamas, or by recognizing a Palestinian Authority government that includes Hamas. In standing with the Jewish state against those who seek to destroy it, we should above all do no harm. Unfortunately, proposed funding for the Palestinian Authority, the West Bank and Gaza is included in the emergency supplemental, which would be before this floor in a matter of days; and it does not meet that standard of do no harm. It would provide, in fact, hundreds of millions of dollars of assistance in Gaza, thereby essentially providing a bailout for Hamas, enabling Hamas to divert its funds from reconstruction and put it, instead, to the purchase of arms. It would reward and bankroll a Palestinian Authority that has proven itself unwilling or unable to fulfill its responsibilities. When considering assistance to the Palestinian Authority, Mr. Speaker, we need to judge their leaders by their words, and by their acts as well. Just last week Palestinian Authority leader Abu Mazen reiterated his refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. He said the same thing last year and the year before that, and there is no reason to think that more U.S. assistance will cause him to have a change of heart in the future. Indeed, Abu Mazen and other senior Palestinian Authority officials have repeatedly emphasized that they do not expect Hamas or other violent Islamic groups to recognize Israel at all. Instead, Abu Mazen bragged last year about his many years of leading and supporting violence against Israel, claiming that ``I have the honor to be the one to fire the first bullet in 1965.'' But this should come as no surprise, Mr. Speaker. In 2005, when campaigning for the leadership of the PA, he echoed Arafat and Hamas by referring to Israel as the Zionist enemy. A Palestinian transparency organization reported last month that many forms of favoritism, nepotism, misappropriation of public money and abuse of public position continued to impact many sectors of the Palestinian society. If Palestinian leaders will not uphold their commitments to uproot violent extremism, to stop corruption, to recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish democratic state, they should not receive 1 cent of U.S. taxpayer dollars. The proposed supplemental, however, would provide $200 million in direct cash transfers to the P.A. Let's stop this bill, Mr. Speaker. It does not do justice to the U.S. nor to Israel.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, in Dante's ``Divine Comedy,'' the inscription above the entrance to hell reads, ``Abandon hope all ye who enter here.'' That should also, sadly, be the inscription above the DMZ for those turning northward, for North Korea is truly hell on Earth. This is a land where the techniques of torture and brainwashing have been finely perfected, as portrayed in the film ``The Manchurian Candidate.'' This is a land where political prisoners labor under conditions of slow starvation and massive abuse, as reflected in the South Korean drama ``Yoduk Story.'' Madam Speaker, I wish I could say that North Korea was no more scary than an Orwellian novel or a Cold War movie or a tragic musical production. Sadly, however, North Korea is no mere bogeyman who disturbs a child's dreams in the shadows of the night. North Korea is a frightening reality, a daily reality for over 23 million people. It is an immediate threat to our Armed Forces in the Pacific and to our allies in South Korea and Japan. It is a proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to fellow rogue regimes in the Middle East. North Korea haunts us all, but it is no mere ghost, it is a real and constant threat. That is why I introduced last week a bill, H.R. 1980, the North Korea Sanctions and Diplomatic Nonrecognition Act. United we must stand for North Korean human rights and for an end to the repression of innocent human beings. For if we wish to find the real meaning of repression, we should turn our gaze to Pyongyang. If we seek the true definition of torture, we need look no further than the killing fields of North Korea. We must not forget the horrific accounts which our emaciated prisoners of war brought back to America after the 1953 Armistice. We must not turn a deaf ear to the haunting tales of refugees and returned abductees who are among the fortunate few who are able to escape this hell on Earth. We must not silence our consciences in the name of diplomatic expediency. To be silent on fundamental freedoms and human rights is to tell the despotic leader, Kim Jong Il, that he can avoid these issues indefinitely. To be silent is to be an enabler. We must highlight how prison guards cut still living babies out of the refugee mothers' wombs and slam their heads on the pavement for the so-called crime of being the mixed blood seed of Chinese fathers. We must shed light on the imprisoned Christians who were martyred by having hot molten metal poured on their exposed flesh. The executions carried out for stealing a little food to keep one's child alive during the famine. The refugees hunted down or trafficked in the sex trade in China. On a regular business day in our Nation's Capitol, the topic of human rights and oppression may seem rather abstract. But human rights is found in each individual, case by case, and in their tears. It is found in the tears of Mrs. Yokota, waiting for over three decades for the return of her little girl snatched away by agents of North Korea. It is in the tears of our own American citizens, Mary Ling, waiting for the return of her daughter, journalist Laura Ling. Laura was grabbed, along with fellow U.S. journalist Euna Lee, 6 weeks ago by North Korean border guards and then imprisoned in the gulag. Human rights is also found in the tears of a Chicago citizen, Esther Kim, waiting for the return of the remains of her husband, U.S. permanent resident Kim Dong-shik. Reverend Kim was kidnapped by North Korean agents in China 9 years ago while helping refugees, and reportedly died of starvation and torture at a North Korean military base. It is found in the tears of Israeli apartment dwellers hit by missiles developed by North Korea for Hezbollah in southern Lebanon in 2006 from tunnels dug with North Korean assistance. It is a grim picture, but we must not despair, Madam Speaker. Justice will ultimately prevail. In the same manner that we prevailed against the evil empire and Soviet-style Communism, with perseverance, with dedication to the defense of human rights, and the promotion of core democratic principles, the suffering of the North Korean people can also be brought to an end. May it be so.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2014, a bill that Congresswoman Susan Davis and I have introduced, which honors the Women Air Force Service Pilots of World War II. WASP, or Women Air Force Service Pilots, were the first women in history to fly America's military aircraft. Between the years 1942- 1944, these courageous women volunteered to fly noncombat missions so that every available male pilot could be deployed in combat. By the time the war ended, 38 women pilots had lost their lives while flying for our country. These valiant women have never received the full recognition that they deserve for their wartime military service to America. Their example paved the way for women who today fly every type of aircraft. My daughter-in-law, Lindsay, flies F/A-18 fighter jets for the Marine Corps thanks to these courageous women. Of the 1,102 WASPs trained during World War II, only 300 of these women pioneers are still alive today. Madam Speaker, the time is now for us to honor these women with this body's highest honor, the Congressional Gold Medal. As such, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill, and I urge its prompt consideration.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, our south Florida community has suffered a deep loss with the passing of Sarvelio del Valle, a well- known sports commentator for Radio Mambi, part of the Univision family. Sarvelio was respected not only for his encyclopedic knowledge of sports, but also for his great love of his family, especially his pride for his grandchildren and great-grandchildren. He was an outstanding sports commentator who was respected by all. Every day on Radio Mambi, Sarvelio would get the latest sports news to our community, and his segments were indeed the most listened to of that station. Just a few years ago, in fact, he was actually voted as the ``Most Popular Radio Personality in Sports.'' He started his broadcast career in sports in Puerto Rico in 1962, moved to Miami in 1970, and was well-known for his Spanish language broadcast of the Miami Heat basketball games and the University of Miami football games. He also narrated boxing matches around the world, but it was in the Florida Marlins' games where he excelled. My deepest sympathy goes to his family, his great and loving friend, Armando Perez-Roura of Radio Mambi, and his countless fans throughout the south Florida community. Te vamos a extranar, Sarvelio--we will miss you, Sarvelio.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, last week's Durban II hate-fest in Geneva reminded us once again of the anti-Semitic, anti-Israel bias that pervades the United Nations, and reinforced why the United States and several other responsible nations were right to stay away. Given what amounted to a keynote speech, Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reminded us of his regime's goals when he savagely attacked the U.S. and Israel and called for radical political and economic upheaval on his terms. He added, ``World Zionism personifies racism'' and said that Israel is a ``totally racist'' regime. But such statements by Iran's Ahmadinejad come as no surprise. The Iranian leader frequently pushes for Israel's destruction, saying that this sovereign state should be wiped off the map, calling it a disgraceful blot on the face of the Islamic world and proclaiming that anyone who recognized Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury. On May 8 of last year, he said Israel is a ``stinking corpse'' and is on its way to total destruction. A few months later, on August 20, he referred to Israel as a ``germ of corruption'' that will be ``removed soon.'' A year prior, on June 3, 2007, Ahmadinejad stated, ``With God's help, the countdown button for the destruction of [Israel] has been pushed.'' In October of 2005, he asked ``Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism? You had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable and, surely, can be achieved.'' Mr. Speaker, his words and actions do not merely reflect his own views or those of a few powerless extremists, but, rather, Iran's supreme leader, for example, said, ``This cancerous tumor of a state should be removed from the region.'' Rafsanjani, the former Iranian leader who continues to hold significant influence and who some mistakenly call a moderate, has threatened Israel with destruction by nuclear weapons, going on to say that even the use of one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything, while it will merely harm the Islamic world. Ahmadinejad's hatred for Israel, for the Jewish people, for the Great Satan, that is the United States, for freedom, for democracy and all that the United States and Israel represent, transcends rhetoric into policies and actions that threaten vital U.S. security interests and pose an existential threat to Israel. Foremost are Iran's sponsorship of violent Islamic groups and its pursuit of nuclear, chemical, biological and missile capabilities. Responsible nations cannot accept the prospect of an emboldened nuclear Iranian regime. We must close loopholes in existing U.S. and international sanctions so as to deny the regime all remaining lifelines and compel it to abandon its destructive policies. Likewise, we must learn history's lesson that we will not achieve peace by embracing Islamic militant groups like the Iranian proxy Hamas, or by recognizing a Palestinian Authority government that includes Hamas. The proposed supplemental, which will be before the House in a few weeks, would provide hundreds of millions of dollars for assistance in Gaza. And this would amount to a bailout for Hamas, enabling them to divert their funds from reconstruction to the purchasing of arms. We have tried unconditional funding to an unaccountable Palestinian leadership again and again, and it has not worked. There is no reason to expect a different outcome now. Mr. Speaker, just today the Palestinian Authority leader Abu Mazen again refused to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. But the proposed supplemental before us would allocate $200 million in additional direct cash transfers to the Palestinian Authority. In short, as we craft policy to protect our Nation, we must reward those who stand with us, compel those who threaten us to change their course, and demand accountability in exchange for our hard-earned taxpayer dollars.