Ileana Ros-Lehtinen

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, to help explain the intent behind the full-time special envoy requirement in this bill, I would like to insert into the Record a brief excerpt from the Background and Purpose section of House Report 110-628 submitted to the House by Chairman Berman. North Korean Human Rights Reauthorization Act of 2008

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong support, also, of H.R. 5834, the North Korean Human Rights Reauthorization Act, which I introduced with my good friend from California, the chairman of our committee, Howard Berman, earlier this Congress. We passed this bill, Mr. Speaker, 4 months ago in a strong demonstration of this body's continued commitment to human rights, to transparent humanitarian assistance, and to refugee protection for the people of North Korea. On Monday, the Senate followed our bipartisan lead and unanimously supported this bill with minor modifications, which is why we are taking it up again today. I would like to thank Chairman Biden and Ranking Member Lugar and their staffs for their input and their assistance. Special thanks to my friend, Senator Sam Brownback, for his long-standing leadership on the issues of North Korea human rights, and his efforts were instrumental in securing a successful outcome in the Senate. During our initial House floor debate in May, Mr. Speaker, we discussed the dire traumas that the North Korean regime has perpetrated against its own people during the past half century. Rather than recount the horrific circumstances which compelled me to draft this bill, I would instead like to focus today on some of the important clarifications contained in this legislation. Over the past 4 years, in oversight hearings, in meetings and official letters, Members have expressed their dissatisfaction with the executive branch implementation of the North Korean Human Rights Act of 2004. In the words of the report of the Foreign Affairs Committee on this bill, it has been ``too slow and too weak,'' and the purposes set forth in section 4 of the original act remain largely unrealized. After enactment, the administration delayed appointment of the special envoy for nearly 8 months, 4 months after the envoy was required to file a report to Congress under the act, a deadline that was ignored. Since then, the special envoy has never filled that position on more than a part-time basis. Mr. Speaker, House Members were genuinely surprised by that limited time commitment, which did not track with the broad duties and responsibilities assigned to the envoy and the ambitious purposes of that law. Congress has also repeatedly noted our disappointment with the inadequate pace of the North Korean refugee admissions during the past 4 years. Even though title 3 of the act clarified North Korean eligibility for U.S. resettlement and required the Secretary of State to facilitate the submission of those refugee applications, fewer than 70 of the more than 150,000 refugees resettled here since then have been North Koreans. Many North Koreans have been deterred or have abandoned their claims for U.S. resettlement because of the extremely long wait caused by the resistance and the delay of foreign governments, as well as the slow pace of our own screening. One poignant case, Mr. Speaker, followed by our committee staff involved the family of three North Koreans, a husband, a wife, and their young son. That family lived a vulnerable and depressing existence in Southeast Asia, confined largely to a single room for more than 2 years while awaiting completion of the U.S. process. Even though the mother was battling cancer, they persisted in the resettlement process because she believed that life in America would provide the most freedom and opportunity for her son. This summer, after a personal appeal by Chairman Berman and me, they were finally allowed to leave that Third Country and travel halfway around the world to their new home in Virginia. After years of heroic patience, the mother lived just long enough to deliver her son safely to this land of new promise. She died less than 2 weeks after their arrival. The United States must intensify our diplomacy with foreign nations on these issues, Mr. Speaker, and work more cooperatively with our ally South Korea, which admirably continues to bear the overwhelming bulk of the refugee resettlement numbers. To help address these deficiencies, H.R. 5834 clarifies and strengthens the role of the special envoy. It makes the special envoy for North Korean human rights an ambassadorial-rank position to ensure that the envoy has ample stature to pursue his or her duties with foreign governments, as well as to promote the priorities of the act within the Department of State. This bill makes clear that the envoy position is to be ``a full-time position . . . as intended by the North Korean Human Rights Act of 2004.'' When combined with the requirement of the original act that the envoy ``be a person of recognized distinction in the field of human rights,'' the bill before us eliminates any misconception that the position may be a part-time undertaking, or a second hat worn by a Foreign Service officer with other, more important, supposedly, duties. This bill also makes clear that the envoy's mandated concerns include the protection of North Korean refugees. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the bill inserts a new paragraph at the very top of the special envoy's statutory duties that confirms the envoy's role in the formulation and implementation of the full range of activities under the North Korean Human Rights Act, which includes, in the words of the act: ``Promoting the Human Rights of North Koreans''; ``Assisting North Koreans in Need''; and ``Protecting North Korean Refugees.'' The people of North Korea face some of the most severe repression on the planet. I am proud of the work that our Congress began 4 years ago to help their plight, and I thank my friend Chairman Berman, our bipartisan cosponsors, and the numerous nongovernmental organizations who have worked with us to extend and improve the North Korean Human Rights Act. I urge unanimous support for this measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time. General Leave

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 1361--but, but, but, but, but with great reservations, particularly with respect to changes made to the text after the resolution had been adopted by our Foreign Affairs Committee. Madam Speaker, in 2001, a number of anti-democratic governments hijacked the planning and implementation of the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in Durban, South Africa. Instead of representing a bold step forward by devoting its attention to fighting racism and other bigotry, the event was dominated by attacks on America, on Israel, and on Jews at every turn. At the conference's NGO forum, groups distributed literature expressing sorrow that Adolf Hitler did not fully exterminate the Jewish people. The anti-Israel and anti-American rhetoric at Durban so discredited the conference that our U.S. Secretary of State, Colin Powell, withdrew our delegation, stating, ``I know that you do not combat racism by conferences that produce declarations containing hateful language or that singles out any one country alone in the world, Israel, for censure and abuse.'' Our late friend and colleague, Tom Lantos, the former Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, also walked out on Durban, stating that the conference ``provided the world with a glimpse into the abyss of international hate, discrimination and, indeed, racism.'' Today, Madam Speaker, we are confronted with the forthcoming 2009 Durban Review Conference, also known as Durban II. The version of this resolution that passed our committee was a compromise that was worked out between our Republican and Democratic Members. Having introduced several resolutions in this Congress addressing Durban II, I felt at the time that even that compromise text did not go far enough in portraying the problems plaguing this conference. That compromise text, however, focused on defeating the campaigns by some countries, particularly members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, to divert Durban II away from reviewing human rights concerns and, instead, focus it on attacking Israel and promoting anti-Semitism. Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, the text before us today has a different focus. This text places the emphasis on higher level U.S. diplomatic efforts on ensuring that Durban II follows up on the commitments made at the last conference, an effort that could be interpreted as legitimizing the first Durban meeting, and as such the efforts by Israel and America haters. Indeed, Madam Speaker, responsible nations must work to fight against racism and other forms of intolerance. And therefore, we appreciate that the 2001 Durban Declaration declared slavery to be a crime against humanity and noted that the Holocaust should never be forgotten. We all wish that Durban I were a symbol of success in the struggle against racism, and that Durban II would build on that success. However, Madam Speaker, the Durban Conference ultimately did not represent progress against racism. Until this very day, Durban is a symbol of the powerful, pervasive menace of anti-Semitism and anti- Israel hate. Indeed, the conference's own Durban Declaration, which could have been a stirring, unequivocal call to stop racism and hate, was tarnished by a number of irrelevant provisions, including several clauses that singled out Israel while ignoring the plight of Israelis under siege from violent extremists. Therefore, it is imperative that we not imply, in hindsight, that Durban I was more positive than it actually was; neither should we pretend that Durban II will be less disastrous than it actually will be. The planning committee for Durban II, Madam Speaker, is led by the regimes of Libya, Iran and Cuba. And that committee has already expressed its intent to focus the conference on Israel bashing, anti- Semitism, and establishing a global blasphemy code that could stifle our freedom of speech and religion. Just a few days ago, on September 19, the Algerian Ambassador to the U.N. Missions in Geneva, within the context of discussions concerning Durban II, redefined anti-Semitism and referred to ``traditional anti- Semitism'' as having become ``politically incorrect in many rich nations.'' What? Translation, Madam Speaker: Anti-Israel and anti- Semitism is objectionable in rich nations of the West, but acceptable everywhere else. The fix is in, Madam Speaker. After extensive diplomatic efforts by the U.S. to prevent Durban II from following in the dark path of its predecessor, we joined our allies, Canada and Israel, in declaring that we will not fund and we will not participate in a conference that promotes hate. As former Assistant Secretary of State Kristen Silverberg noted while testifying before our Foreign Affairs Subcommittee this past April, ``There is absolutely no case to be made for participating in something that is going to be a repeat of Durban I. We don't have any confidence that this will be any better than Durban I.'' It is clear, Madam Speaker, that any further U.S. involvement in Durban II in the planning process, whether by an Undersecretary, by the Secretary of State, or even by the President, will not avert the looming train wreck that is Durban II. It will only waste precious U.S. time, legitimacy, and political capital on a doomed venture. However, the text before us today, while it contains some positive clauses as it has been amended after committee action, could be misconstrued as urging America to further participate in the Durban II planning process in order to attempt to ensure that Durban II follows up on the commitments made at Durban I. Making sure that we don't send a mixed signal is especially important this week, Madam Speaker, as the United Nations General Assembly meets in New York and as Ahmadinejad prepares today to spew his anti- American, anti-Israel, anti-Semitic venom on the world stage. I will vote for this resolution, Madam Speaker, with the intent that it does not call for the U.S. to participate in Durban II or its planning process in any way, shape or form. Moreover, Madam Speaker, I will continue my efforts to work with my colleagues, the executive branch, and our allies to discuss an alternative to Durban, one rooted in freedom, in tolerance, and in democratic values. I thank Chairman Howard Berman for introducing this resolution. I intend to vote for it with all of these reservations. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of our time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I echo the sentiments of my good friend, and I yield back the balance of our time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5443, a bill to upgrade the status of South Korea's foreign military sales to that of the countries of NATO, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan. I would like to thank Chairman Howard Berman for helping to schedule consideration of this legislation before us today and to also recognize the important work of our Foreign Affairs colleague, Mr. Royce of California, in introducing this timely and important bill which I am pleased to cosponsor. Mr. Speaker, this bill appropriately accords South Korea the same treatment provided to other key partners of the United States in the foreign military sales process, such as higher dollar thresholds and expedited time frames for congressional notifications. This upgrade is a powerful symbol of a renewed and transformed U.S.-South Korea alliance. It forcefully reaffirms that South Korea has been and will continue to be a close and valued strategic ally of the United States-- a relationship that has long served as a bedrock of stability for northeast Asia. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is strongly supported by our Departments of State and Defense, and its passage will help advance a new strategic framework for the alliance but not only for the purpose of managing a range of increasingly complex contingencies related to North Korea, but also to cement a common Democratic partnership for the next century. I urge its adoption. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong support of H.R. 6646, a bill to require the executive branch to provide quarterly briefings to Congress on possible defense transfers from the United States to Taiwan. At the outset, I'd like to thank Chairman Howard Berman and the leadership on both sides for helping to expedite consideration of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, this is a modest bill. It requires the executive branch again to regularly brief Congress on our policy toward Taiwan and, in particular, the defense needs of Taiwan and the security balance across the strait. Why is this bill even necessary? Well, it's necessary because a long- rumored freeze on United States foreign military sales to Taiwan was confirmed on July 16 by Admiral Timothy Keating, the commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific. According to press accounts of his remarks at the Heritage Foundation, Admiral Keating observed that there have been ``no significant arms sales from the U.S. to Taiwan in relatively recent times,'' and that the absence of arms sales under the Foreign Military Sales process reflected ``administration policy.'' Admiral Keating went on to suggest that he had, in fact, discussed the issue of Taiwan arms sales with leaders in Beijing, noting that, ``The Chinese have made clear to me their concerns over any arms sales to Taiwan.'' I found Admiral Keating's remarks at the Heritage Foundation affirming that there was, in fact, a ``freeze'' on arms sales to Taiwan to be a cause for great concern. Even more disturbing was the Admiral's indication that the Chinese leadership had had some input into the decision of the United States about Taiwan's defensive needs and our commitment to Taiwan under our laws. The Taiwan Relations Act gives Congress a clear role in the provision of defensive weapons to Taiwan. President Reagan's ``Six Assurances'' to Taiwan was a solemn commitment made over a quarter century ago making it clear that there should be no pre-consultation with Beijing on this matter. However, it seems that, while Congress has been left in the dark on this issue--which is of vital concern to our national security interests--the Chinese leadership has been kept fully abreast of our Nation's intentions. Last year, the House passed a resolution that I put forward which declared, ``It shall continue to be the policy of the United States, consistent with the Taiwan Relations Act, to make available to Taiwan such defense articles and services as may be necessary for Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability.'' That remains my firm position. The legitimate defense needs of our friends in Taiwan must be met no matter who attended the Beijing Olympics nor how helpful the State Department says that China has been in the talks with North Korea. That is the clear intention of the Taiwan Relations Act. That is the clear commitment that President Reagan gave to Taiwan. On this matter, Mr. Speaker, there can be no backsliding or compromise. I hope and I trust that this bill can be passed swiftly prior to congressional adjournment and thereby alleviate some of the confusion over this so-called arms ``freeze.'' For almost 30 years, the judicious sale of defensive weapons has been an essential element in the United States support for a secure, stable and democratic Taiwan as well as for peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. Now is not the time to backtrack from that historic and bipartisan policy. Mr. Speaker, this Congress should do everything in its power to ensure that Taiwan will continue as a beacon of democracy shining its light directly across the strait in the very heart of Tiananmen Square. I urge support of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), one of the House's most consistent voices in defense of human dignity.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I would like to yield an additional minute to the gentleman.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health, whose name is synonymous with support for human rights.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, we also have no further requests for speakers. We yield back our time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the author of this resolution, my good friend from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of House Concurrent Resolution 374, which expresses the House's backing for interfaith dialogue between Christian, Jewish and Muslim leaders. Mr. Speaker, at a time when violent extremists are misusing Islam in order to encourage others to commit mass murder and to do away with liberty, it is more important than ever for true moderates from all faiths to come together and to unequivocally repudiate hate and violence and to embrace peace, tolerance and religious freedom for all. As true moderates do come together for this most noble of purpose, they should know that America stands with them in their quest. Mr. Speaker, while this important resolution deals with interfaith dialogue involving adherence to Christianity, to Judaism and to Islam, I would like to note that interfaith dialogue and religious freedom should encompass all faiths. Finally, I would like to thank my distinguished colleague and dear friend, Mr. Wamp of Tennessee, for introducing this important resolution and for presenting it before us today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for House Concurrent Resolution 255, which deals with the preservation of the historic Jewish cemetery in Lithuania. I thank our colleague, Congressman Ferguson, for introducing this important measure. Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us speaks to the preservation of a historic Jewish cemetery located in Vilnius, Lithuania, a city that was once a major center of Jewish culture in all of Europe. That cemetery has been in existence since the 13th century and is considered by religious experts around the globe and those of the Jewish faith to be sacred ground. In 2002, the Government of Lithuania entered into a bilateral agreement with the United States to ensure the protection and the preservation of certain historical, cultural and sacred properties, including cemeteries such as the one in Vilnius. Regrettably, despite that bilateral agreement, construction of a condominium building took place within the perceived boundaries of the Jewish cemetery in Lithuania. The resolution before us expresses the view that the Jewish cemetery in Vilnius must not be desecrated. It urges the Lithuanian Government to protect the cemetery site from future construction and desecration. I want to note at this point, Mr. Speaker, that Lithuania has indeed been our ally in NATO since 2004. Indeed, the United States and Lithuania have had a strong relationship. And I believe that bilateral cooperation on issues of importance such as this issue that is addressed by the measure before us today will strengthen that relationship. This resolution simply calls on the Lithuanian Government to do more to protect and preserve this cemetery site. Such action by the Government of Lithuania would indeed reaffirm the values shared by our two nations, and in so doing, enhance the broader relationship between the United States and Lithuania. I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson), the author of this resolution and a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield myself such time as I may consume. House Resolution 1369 recognizes the efforts of nongovernmental organizations working to bring just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians. I would like to thank my good friend from California, the gentlelady, Ms. Barbara Lee, for her hard work in drafting this important resolution. We all want to see peace, stability and security prevail in the Middle East and, indeed, in all regions of conflict. However, that goal remains elusive when leaders act in ways that distort, perpetuate and aggravate otherwise resolvable disputes between nations and peoples. Such leaders make peace impossible by programming their citizens into viewing other nations and other people as wicked, as inhuman, as worthy of hatred and even of death. Fortunately, the work of nongovernmental organizations and of individuals committed to nonviolence and to Israel's right to exist as a Jewish and as a Democratic state provide a counterweight to the purveyors of this terrible rhetoric. These individuals and NGOs cultivate relationships that oppose violent extremism and hateful propaganda, that promote a culture, instead, of life and that seek peaceful, rational and mutually beneficial solutions to seemingly intractable problems. So I commend the gentlelady from California (Ms. Lee) for its introduction, and I urge the passage of this important resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 1461 which recognizes the 10th anniversary of the terrorist bombings of the United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and honors those who were killed or injured as a result of these attacks. I imagine there is not one among us here today that could not tell you exactly where they were or what they were doing when the al Qaeda terrorist network launched its cowardly and dastardly attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001. Many of us recounted those stories just 2 weeks ago as the House and the Senate united to solemnly commemorate the seventh anniversary of the September 11 attacks. And while September 11 represents the deadliest attacks suffered by the American people at the hands of the al Qaeda operation to date, it was not the first. Three years earlier on the morning of August 7, 1998, 223 people were killed and 5,000 people were injured as nearly simultaneous car bombs ripped through the United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. The bombings in Nairobi were particularly serious as the embassy stood on one of the busiest intersections in the city and the blast took down several neighboring buildings. The bombing in Tanzania was no less spectacular, but remarkably, it occurred on a national holiday when the embassy was closed. Though these terrorist attacks reportedly were intended to punish the United States, the overwhelming majority of the victims that day were Kenyan and Tanzanian. This is typical of a network which callously views the innocent victims it kills, including fellow Muslims, merely as collateral damage. It also reveals the true hypocrisy of al Qaeda's radical Islamic agenda. In all, 12 Americans were killed as a result of the east African embassy bombings, 31 foreign service nationals were killed, and one is still listed as missing. Scores more were saved as guards protecting the embassy in Nairobi succeeded in physically blocking the suicide bombers from gaining entry into the underground parking area. They paid with their lives for this act of heroism. We owe a debt of gratitude to those who died in service to our country on August 7, 1998. And we are compelled to express our profound sorrow for those whose lives were taken or were forever altered as a result of these dastardly attacks. As we solemnly commemorate the 10th anniversary of the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania and the seventh anniversary of the September 11 attacks on our Nation, we seek to reaffirm our resolve to defend our Nation, to defend our interests from radical Islamic terrorists who seek to destroy the United States and our citizens. I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Scott, for introducing this important measure, and I urge unanimous support for its passage. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also rise in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 371 which states the support of the Congress for just restitution or compensation for property illegally confiscated during the last century in certain countries of Eastern Europe. The tragedy of the Holocaust, in which millions of innocent people were murdered by the Nazis and their property illegally confiscated, was followed by oppression and continued confiscation under Communist regimes. The fresh air of freedom that entered with the collapse of the Communist bloc in Eastern Europe moved some post-Communist governments in the region to support justice for the victims of such property confiscation. Regrettably, as this resolution points out, the government of Poland has not enacted legislation that would provide for a process for the restitution of, and the compensation for, private property that had been seized, that had been confiscated illegally by those regimes. Similarly, Lithuania has not implemented legislation that would provide for the restitution or compensation for communal property confiscated by the Nazi and Communist regimes. This resolution calls on the Polish government to enact such legislation. It calls on the lithuanian government to implement legislation so that communal or religious properties can be returned to their rightful owners or can provide them or their heirs with fair compensation. Madam Speaker, the resolution also calls on our President and our Secretary of State to engage the governments of Poland and Lithuania on these important issues. I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 1227, which condemns pervasive sexual violence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and calls upon responsible nations to take immediate steps to respond. While many have focused well-deserved attention on the humanitarian and human rights crisis in Darfur, Sudan, scant attention has been given to a deadly, festering conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The war in Congo has been called Africa's first ``world war,'' having drawn in seven neighboring countries and spawning some of the worst human rights atrocities known to man. An estimated 4 million people were killed by war, disease and starvation. Armed groups engaged in systematic rape, looting and acts of cannibalism often forcing their victims to victimize others. Children were forcibly recruited to serve as soldiers, and civilians were used as human shields. Though a 2002 peace agreement and elections in June 2006 paved the way for a new beginning in Congo, these atrocities have continued in the eastern part of the country where a proxy war for control over Congo's vast natural resources continues to rage. The level of sexual violence in eastern Congo is particularly alarming. It has become so pervasive, Mr. Speaker, and so severe, that the Panzi Hospital in South Kivu has had to perform an estimated 3,500 surgeries annually to repair a particularly stigmatizing injury suffered by those who have been brutally raped. And that is just one hospital. Countless others suffer the physical injury and the social consequences of rape in silence living as outcasts in their own communities. All parties to the conflict in eastern Congo have taken part in such human rights atrocities, including the armed forces of the Congo and an increasingly vast array of armed militias. Even the United Nations peacekeepers, who have been deployed to help protect civilians in Congo, have engaged in acts of sexual exploitation and abuse themselves. This is an unspeakable and unforgivable crime that cannot be swept under the carpet. I want to thank my colleague, Mrs. Maloney of New York, for seeking to draw attention to the scourge of sexual violence in the eastern Congo and for seeking to inspire responsible nations to provide critically needed assistance to those in need. I would like to thank the sponsor, Mrs. Maloney, as well as our chairman, Howard Berman, for agreeing to modifications which would allay fears raised regarding the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women and what was referred to as ``women's reproductive health.'' With these critical changes accepted, I urge support to House Resolution 1227, Mr. Speaker. I reserve the balance of my time.