Ileana Ros-Lehtinen

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to begin by thanking Chairman Lowey, Mr. Wolf, Mr. Obey, and Mr. Lewis for their great cooperation and working with me to find an acceptable compromise on the important issues in this amendment. I am grateful for their agreement to support the amendment text before us today. This amendment serves two basic purposes. First, it seeks to restore funding for two initiatives: it restores funding for the U.N. Democracy Fund at the administration's requested $14 million level, which had been zeroed out in the committee report. The Democracy Fund, an initiative proposed by President Bush in 2004, increases cooperation between democratic countries and supports new and transitional democracies. It has been successful in making grants to programs in more than 100 countries around the world to support civil education, voter registration, access to information, and democratic dialogue. In recent weeks, I have been working with the chairman of Foreign Affairs, Chairman Lantos, and his staff to ensure that a $14 million authorization for the Democracy Fund stays intact in preconference meetings with the Senate on H.R. 1 and H.R. 982, the Advanced Democracy Act. I am glad that this amendment provides us with another opportunity to continue our bipartisan support for this critical work. The amendment also would restore $6 million out of the $10 million requested by the administration for the U.N. Innovation and Entrepreneurship Initiative. This initiative, modeled on the Democracy Fund, is designed as a voluntarily funded, freestanding trust that will make technical assistance grants to promote positive environments for business and innovation around the world. Second, in addition to restoring those deleted funds, this amendment will strike $20 million from the proposed U.S. contributions to the U.N. Development Program. The past 6 months have brought a series of very serious revelations and questions about the UNDP activities in North Korea, Mr. Chairman, a rogue regime under sanctions by the U.N. Security Council. While we appreciate the fact that the program has been terminated in North Korea, there has not been sufficient investigation and cooperation from UNDP in answering questions that bear on the fundamental issues that are of national security interest to the United States. The $20 million cut proposed in my amendment will send a clear signal about our demands and expectations for greater transparency and accountability from the United Nations Development Program while also continuing to make a substantial contribution to UNDP's core programs. Again I thank my colleagues for their bipartisan support for this important amendment.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to offer my support to the U.S. Coast Guard and our efforts to modernize their fleet. The brave men and women of our Coast Guard deserve the resources they need in order to carry out their mission. We need to support funding for the many programs aimed at strengthening our drug interdiction and refugee recovery efforts, much of which can be accomplished by ensuring that the necessary funds are dedicated towards the Deepwater acquisition program. Nearly a decade ago, the Coast Guard initiated a multi-billion dollar effort to modernize its aging assets. However, due to serious gaps in funding and a lack of program accountability this effort has fallen short of its goals thus far. Many problems have been raised, however reforms have been made, and yet much more needs to be done. Amidst such controversy, let us not forget the crucial role the Coast Guard plays in ensuring both public safety and national security. The Coast Guard has a critical role in our struggle to eliminate drug trafficking that is frequently used to finance global terrorist organizations in their war against freedom and democracy. Earlier this year our Coast Guard, working in conjunction with the Drug Enforcement Administration, seized in one raid nearly 20 tons of cocaine with an estimated value of $300 million. This was a tremendous victory in our War on Drugs and our battle against terrorists and their financiers, especially considering the deep water cutter used in the seizure was an antiquated, 40-year-old cutter. However, victories of this sort will become increasingly difficult if we are not able to modernize our fleet and aircraft to keep up with the technology used by terrorists and drug lords. We must support increased funding to ensure our Coast Guard has the resources needed to efficiently and effectively perform their mission. As noted by the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Committee report: the Coast Guard is currently operating at a 25- percent deficit of its patrol boat mission hours. This level of insufficient mission hours will be further magnified as our Navy will be reducing the 179-foot patrol boats currently being used by the Coast Guard, from five to three. With a reduction of two patrol boats, the gap of mission hours will be increased by another 5,000 hours. With a discrepancy this large, we are leaving our waters dangerously unpatrolled; thereby creating an open playground for narcotraffickers. This is not an acceptable option for the rest of the country, but this is especially disturbing to the Citizens of South Florida, who rely on the Coast Guard to protect and their economic viability and security. I commend the men and women who serve in our Coast Guard for their diligence and dedication to continue to secure and protect our ports, inland waterways, coasts, and international waters. In my congressional district, I am privileged to have two Coast Guard Sectors that patrol the waters of South Florida: Sector Key West and Sector Miami. I know the good work these individuals are involved in and I deeply appreciate the dangerous work they do to maintain the safety and security on our waterways. The efforts of these brave men and women have saved countless lives and greatly enhanced our national security. We cannot let them do their jobs without the tools necessary to keep them safe as they work to keep our country safe.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Mr. Rothman for a very eloquent statement stating the purpose of this resolution. And with that, I'd like to yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of our Middle East Subcommittee, Mr. Pence of Indiana. (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 21, which denounces the Iranian regime, its belligerent rhetoric and behavior, and urges the international community to hold it accountable and prevent it from achieving its horrific goals. As the U.S. and our allies attempt to prevent the radical Islamic regime in Iran from developing nuclear capabilities, we should reflect on that regime's vision of the future. While most people desire to live in a world of freedom, of liberty, of prosperity and of peace, Iran's rulers actively seek a world of oppression, of destruction, of war, a world without Israel and without a United States of America. The Iranian leader Ahmadinejad 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, as Ambassador Watson pointed out, and proclaiming that anybody who recognized Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic Nation's fury. On June 3, Ahmadinejad stated, ``With God's help, the countdown button for the destruction of [Israel] has been pushed.'' When Ahmadinejad calls for the destruction of the Jewish state, let us be clear, he is calling for the genocide of Jews. That is why he has continued to cast doubt on the veracity of the Holocaust, calling it a ``myth.'' His despicable comments cheapen the suffering of millions of Jews, desecrate their memory and pave the way for another Holocaust to occur at the hands of Tehran. The Iranian leader does not threaten Jews and Israel, he explicitly threatens our very own existence. 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. 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, saying that the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything, while it will merely harm the Islamic world. These are no idle threats, those are not just mere words and rhetoric. Iran continues to sponsor terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah who have murdered scores of Israelis, they have murdered Americans as well, as well as Jews who live outside of Israel, and they have violated Israel's territory, and they continue to hold Israeli soldiers hostage. The existence of our Nation and Israel are not subject to compromise and the lives of Americans and Israelis are not negotiable. Indeed, in the wake of the Holocaust, the United Nations was founded to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war and to protect the dignity and the worth of every person. The words and deeds of Ahmadinejad and his cohorts violate Article 2, section 4 of the U.N. Charter, which require all U.N. member states to ``refrain . . . from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.'' Their implicit demands for the death of Jews violates the Genocide Convention, which states that those who commit or incite genocide shall be punished, whether they are rulers, government officials or private citizens. This resolution, offered by my friend and distinguished colleague, Mr. Rothman of New Jersey, and Mr. Kirk of Illinois, calls for the U.N. Security Council to charge Ahmadinejad with violating those binding documents and for the Council to consider stronger measures to prevent Iran from obtaining the nuclear weapons that it could use to threaten and to attack Israel and the world. Therefore, I strongly urge my colleagues to adopt this very serious resolution and reaffirm our resolve to end the Iranian threat. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for asking for this time. I want to be clear about my objection of putting Ahmadinejad's statements in the Record. Mr. Kucinich has an opportunity, as a Member of this House, to clear up the record, as he has pointed out in his statements, and put in those remarks on his own. I would hate to have Ahmadinejad's statements be included as a part of the record in this part of the debate where we are saying that he is a despot. He is a person who denies the Holocaust existence, who has called for Israel's destruction, and to be mincing about with words and translations, I know the gentleman from Ohio's motives are clear. He is not saying that he is calling for Israel's destruction, but I think that any interpretation of Ahmadinejad's words and deeds would clearly say that that is Ahmadinejad's motives. So I would not like his statements to be made a part of the record in this part of the discussion, but he, as a Member of Congress, is free to clear the record, as he points out, and put Ahmadinejad's words on his own time in the Congressional Record. With that, Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to yield my remaining time to Mr. Rothman.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would further yield, I understand if that is what you would like to use to make the connection.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is calling Ahmadinejad's comments akin to genocide, calling for the destruction of the State of Israel, and calling for the wiping out of millions of people because they are Jews. And I object to having this person's words be placed in the Congressional Record, the record of the United States of America, of the people's House, and I object. With all due respect to the gentleman, he may object to the resolution and speak against it, but I object to having Ahmadinejad's speech being inserted into the Record at the same time that the gentleman is speaking against this resolution. So I do object.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I was just asking if you are putting in the Congressional Record a speech by Ahmadinejad.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would inquire, is the gentleman inserting into the Congressional Record a speech by Ahmadinejad?

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield the balance of our time to Ambassador Watson. And I thank Mr. Pence for his eloquent statement.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, again, it's a joy to bring another truly bipartisan bill to the floor, thanks to the very able and skilled leadership of Chairman Lantos of our Foreign Affairs Committee. This bill, as amended, Mr. Speaker, is a version of the original introduced by our esteemed Chairman Lantos and contains several new and important provisions that I would like to explain today. The first of these addresses the supposed right of all countries to manufacture their own nuclear fuel through enrichment or repossessing. The central problem of this assertion, Mr. Speaker, is that there's very little difference, as we know, in the technology that is used for civilian or for military purposes. So countries such as Iran, which are undoubtedly trying to acquire nuclear weapons, can innocently claim to be establishing a legitimate civilian nuclear program, a claim which can be virtually impossible for the outside world to disprove. For this reason, the acquisition of a similar capability by more and more countries, for whatever reason, means that the technology and the infrastructure needed to manufacture nuclear weapons will expand as well. The continued spread of this deadly capacity poses an existential threat to the United States and, indeed, the entire world. We cannot allow this to continue. Unfortunately, efforts to stop this growing danger are undermined by a common but erroneous interpretation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or NPT, specifically article IV, which some assert gives every signatory country an absolute right to enrich and to reprocess. It is both surprising and disappointing that many of the most ardent opponents of continued proliferation throughout the globe are also strong advocates of this supposed unrestricted right. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the treaty clearly states that the right to nuclear technology is conditioned by articles I and II, which are aimed at preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, including the capacity to manufacture them. As such, it is the responsibility of countries seeking this capability to go beyond mere assertion and adopt measures that will conclusively demonstrate that it can be used only for peaceful purposes. It should not be the responsibility of the rest of the world to prove that the opposite is true. Iran has taught us the deadly foolishness of that approach. I believe that it is profoundly wrong to hold the security of American people hostage to this flawed interpretation. Therefore, we have a responsibility to the people whom we represent to openly state the truth, that the NPT does not grant to all signatories an absolute right to enrich and reprocess. And the U.S. must work with our allies and others, as Mr. Lantos has pointed out, to ensure that this position becomes an integral element in the global non-proliferation effort. A second set of changes to the original legislation places conditions on any country seeking to host a nuclear fuel bank, as well as on states that wish to receive fuel from the bank. The most important of these conditions, Mr. Speaker, is that state sponsors of terrorism would be prohibited from hosting a nuclear fuel bank and also from receiving fuel from it. This provision is essential to ensure that terrorist states, such as Iran, especially in their nuclear programs, do not benefit from the establishment of such a bank. A further provision mandates that both host and recipient states have an effective and enforceable export control program regarding nuclear and dual-use technology comparable to that of the United States. In addition, there is a stipulation that countries seeking assistance from a fuel bank cannot possess enrichment and reprocessing facilities. A final set of changes, Mr. Speaker, would ensure that any fuel made available by the bank would be at the current market price, thereby sparing U.S. taxpayers from the open-ended burden of subsidizing the nuclear programs of other countries. With the inclusion of these measures, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to cosponsor Mr. Lantos' legislation, and I believe that it will prove to be a significant addition to the global non-proliferation effort. I strongly urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I yield back the balance of our time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Stearns from Florida for offering the resolution before us. I hope our colleagues support it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of our time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the author of this resolution, Mr. Stearns of Florida. (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity to rise in support of House Resolution 233 authored by my good friend from Florida (Mr. Stearns) that recognizes the more than 200 years of sovereignty of Liechtenstein. With the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire 200 years ago, Liechtenstein became an independent state. Since then, it has evolved as both a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary democracy. With a population of only about 34,000 people, we cannot expect Liechtenstein to take a leading role in international affairs, but it is an important ally in the cause of supporting and promoting democracy and, despite its small size, it has an importance for the United States that exceeds its geographical reach. Exports are a major factor in the success of Liechtenstein's economy, and that outward-looking approach to commerce with the rest of the world has made it an important economic partner for the United States, creating almost 5,000 jobs here in the United States and achieving over half a billion dollars in exports to the American market in the year 2005 alone. At home, in Europe, while it is not a member of the European Union, Liechtenstein is very closely aligned with the economic policies of that important organization and works to harmonize its economic policy very closely with it. In the international arena, this small nation participates as a full partner in the United Nations, as well as in various critical international forums such as the World Trade Organization and the International Court of Justice. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote for this resolution by Mr. Stearns of Florida, which expresses our support for a continued strengthening of our relationships with Liechtenstein. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

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

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the author of this resolution, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. I rise in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 151, introduced by my distinguished colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Smith). As the gentlewoman from California has pointed out, Mr. Speaker, this important resolution deals with a strange and quite troubling pattern of the killing of independent journalists in Russia over the past decade. We have different estimates, but one places the number of murdered reporters at 21 over the past 7 years, that estimate coming from the esteemed organization, Reporters Without Borders. Another estimate from the International News Safety Institute puts the number at close to 90 reporters killed in Russia over the past 11 years. Now what is truly strange is that most of these murders remain unsolved. Many of the murdered journalists have made it their personal cause to investigate corruption and the abuse of power at all levels of the Russian government. Perhaps many of our colleagues will recall how just a few weeks ago a brave Russian reporter was shot in the head on a street in Moscow. She had written articles criticizing the Russian government for its human rights abuses. Her murder remains unsolved. Perhaps our colleagues will recall the more recent death of a reporter who died in March of this year, as the gentlewoman pointed out, falling five stories from a window in the stairway of his apartment building. He was a military affairs reporter who had criticized the Russian Government in his articles, and he had been planning to publish a report on the arms sales of Russia to the state sponsors of terror, Iran and Syria. All of these seekers of truth did not deserve to die for their journalistic efforts. Bringing to justice the murderers of these reporters does deserve the strongest possible support of their government, their police, their prosecutors, and yet it appears to be strangely absent. Mr. Speaker, a free and democratic society requires freedom of the press, freedom of the media and respect for the safety of those who at times risk their lives to uncover the truth. Russia will not be a free and democratic society until that is the case in their country. We can and we should ask the Russian government to stand up in defense of its independent media and the safety of its reporters, but the unwillingness of the Russian government to solve so many of these murders and the successful efforts of the Kremlin to use state-owned or influenced companies to buy up and sensor the Russian media shows that our voices may be falling on willingly deaf ears. Nevertheless, that is what we should do. We should call on the Russian government to respect human rights and the rule of law by investigating these crimes with vigor and with sincerity. And that is the message, Mr. Speaker, of the resolution before us. This resolution also calls on our President to specifically offer our assistance to help the Russian government investigate those crimes. We should also ask the Russian president to seek out and accept competent outside law enforcement assistance to investigate these crimes, and this resolution calls for that. Mr. Speaker, it is critical that we recognize the tremendous contributions made by independent journalists in Russia, most especially those who suffer a bitter death as an unjust reward for their efforts. It is critical that we condemn in the strongest possible form the brutal murders of those who died trying to bring accurate and honest information to the Russian people about what is happening in their country. I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Smith's resolution to honor these intrepid reporters whose murders cry out for justice. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

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

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 80, which calls on the government of Uganda and the Lord's Resistance Army, the LRA, to recommit to a political solution to the conflict in northern Uganda by engaging in good faith negotiations, and it urges support for the ongoing peace process from the United States and the international community. As my good friend from California, Ambassador Watson, has pointed out, since 1986, northern Uganda has been embroiled in a vicious conflict which pits the forces of Uganda President Museveni against the rebel Lord's Resistance Army, LRA, of Joseph Kony. Kony claims to hold mystical powers and asserts that he has been guided by God to protect the Acholi people of northern Uganda who have been marginalized by Museveni's government. However, it is the Acholi themselves who have suffered disproportionately at the hands of the LRA. The LRA, which has been designated as a terrorist group subject to the State Department Terrorist Exclusion List, moves in small, well- coordinated groups from bases in southern Sudan and more recently in eastern Congo. They hold no clear political agenda and make no attempt to hold territory, but they mutilate, torture, murder, rape and loot with impunity. The LRA has abducted more than 20,000 people, mostly children, Mr. Speaker, to work as laborers, soldiers and sex slaves. Children are forced to the front lines, and those who do manage to escape from the LRA find it difficult, if not impossible, to return to their villages after having been forced to commit atrocities in front of their families. One of the most visible signs of the collective trauma suffered by the people of northern Uganda was pointed out by Ambassador Watson, and this is the ``night commuter'' phenomenon. At the peak of the conflict, over 20,000 children would walk up to 15 kilometers from their village to the relative safety of the towns each and every night. They would spend the night under grossly overcrowded tents, sleeping on concrete floors, before getting up at dawn to make the return journey to their villages. It was not for food, nor for the promise of social services that drew these children to these towns, but it was fear of abduction by the LRA. While security conditions in northern Uganda have improved and the number of ``night commuters'' has decreased over the past years, roughly 90 percent, 90 percent, Mr. Speaker, of the local population remains homeless. These 1.4 million people have been forced from their homes and herded by the Government of Uganda into camps for internally displaced persons. Despite attempts to ``decongest,'' the conditions in these camps are abysmal. A health survey conducted by the Ugandan Ministry of Health in 2005 asserts that up to 1,000 people have died in the camps each week due to treatable illnesses such as diarrhea and malaria. The HIV/AIDS rate in the camps is more than double the national average. Sexual violence and domestic violence against women has increased dramatically, and the IDPs complain that camp life has all but destroyed the social fabric of the region. For its own part, the Ugandan Government has failed in its efforts to defeat the LRA militarily, and to provide adequate protection for the citizens of northern Uganda. Instead, the government has embraced a highly questionable three-pronged approach towards resolving the conflict, and this includes: number one, pursuing a military campaign against the LRA; two, supporting indictments by the International Criminal Court, the ICC, against the LRA's top leaders; while, three, participating in peace talks while offering amnesty to LRA rebels. It should come as no surprise that these mutually incompatible efforts have complicated matters and have failed to yield lasting results. Ill-timed military campaigns have undermined numerous mediation efforts, and the ICC indictments have led the LRA to question the sincerity of the amnesty deal offered by the government leaders. Further, both the Government of Sudan and the LRA have routinely violated the agreement that is called the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement which has now expired without ever having been fully implemented. These actions have prompted skeptics to warn that both sides may be using the pretext of talks to rearm and replenish their forces. If this is in fact the case, both the LRA and the Ugandan Government should be reminded of the fact that a military solution has alluded them for over 20 years. It is unlikely that a military solution will be any more viable now. Thankfully, peace talks between the Government of Uganda and the LRA have resumed in Juba, Southern Sudan, and appear to be gaining momentum. Despite numerous challenges, not the least of which is the fact that delegations allegedly representing the two parties have questionable credibility, the Juba process is being hailed as the best chance yet to ending the conflict by political means. H. Con. Res. 80 serves as an expression of support for this political dialogue. It expresses disapproval of the LRA leadership and its inconsistent commitment to resolving the conflict and it urges both the LRA and the Government of Uganda to engage in good-faith negotiations. It encourages all parties to immediately stop human rights violations and address the issues of accountability, and it calls on both the LRA and the Government of Uganda to renounce any intentions and halt any preparations to resume this violence. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the resolution calls on the State Department, on the United States Agency for International Development, and other similar government and nongovernment organizations within the international community to continue and to augment efforts to alleviate the humanitarian crisis in northern Uganda and to support a peaceful resolution to this humanitarian crisis. According to the U.N. Office of Humanitarian Affairs, the conflict of northern Uganda is characterized by a level of cruelty seldom seen, and few conflicts rival it for its sheer brutality. Despite all of this, Mr. Speaker, it remains one of the most overlooked humanitarian and human rights crises in the world today. H. Con. Res. 80 seeks to shed some well-deserved attention on the crisis in northern Uganda. It affirms the resolve of this Congress that the victims of this atrocious conflict shall not be forgotten. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for bringing this important resolution to the floor. I urge support by all of our Members. Mr. Speaker, I reserve 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 yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Mr. Nadler's resolution, House Resolution 137, honoring the life and public service of Jacob Birnbaum and especially his commitment to freeing Soviet Jews from religious, cultural and communal extinction. For decades, Mr. Birnbaum has been at the forefront of the nonviolent struggle for Soviet Jewry, establishing the Student Struggle for Soviet Jewry, and organizing marches, rallies and publication of educational materials aimed at freeing Jews trapped in the Soviet Union. Mr. Birnbaum worked closely with Members of the United States Congress, testified at congressional hearings and consistently pushed for the United States to use our economic leverage against the Soviet Union to pressure that country so they could allow Soviet Jews and other East European Jews to escape the oppression of a religious and cultural nature in the Soviet Union. Throughout the decades, Mr. Birnbaum's persistence and commitment to human rights and religious freedom have been invaluable in freeing Soviet Jews and preserving their religious and cultural heritage. Mr. Birnbaum's commitment to this cause has not diminished to this day. He continues to help Jewish educational institutions and former Soviet Jews even today. And Mr. Nadler's resolution before us honors Mr. Birnbaum and his years of public service. I urge Members to support this important resolution. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to recognize Project INSTAR and Dr. Genevieve Healy, its director. Dr. Healy was a middle school teacher in Ohio before pursuing a masters degree at the University of Miami's Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science. During her graduate studies, Dr. Healy foresaw a potential benefit for K-12 teachers through research being performed at the Rosenstiel School. She introduced a collaboration between professors, graduate students, and K-12 public school teachers. With the help of her professors, Dr. Peter Swart, current chairman of marine geology, and Dr. Michael Grammar, at the time an assistant professor with the Rosenstiel School, Dr. Healy initiated Project INSTAR in 1997. This concept brought local public school science teachers from Miami-Dade County to the University of Miami where they had the opportunity to perform research side by side with graduate students and their professors. Ten years later, this program's success has been made possible in large part due to Dr. Healy's dedication and efforts. With the University of Miami's generous support, this initiative continues to grow. The Rosenstiel School, located in proximity to so many vital natural resources on Virginia Key, enhances the learning experience of its graduate students through substantial research opportunities. Project INSTAR seeks to help public school teachers gain hands-on knowledge of ocean sciences through their close involvement with this research. It annually invites fifty K-12 teachers from public schools in Miami-Dade County to participate in the program. This year marks its 10th anniversary. I would like to reiterate its significance as one of the top science programs, which actively enhances the development of K-12 teachers. Engagement in this Institute helps teachers implement their experiences at Project INSTAR into their own curriculum, benefiting countless public school students in science classes. I am grateful to the many professors and school teachers who have made Project INSTAR a reality. This innovative program spreads opportunity for hands-on experience to so many teachers. I proudly ask you to join me in recognizing Dr. Healy and everyone who has participated in this unique partnership.