Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, and as Co-Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I am alarmed at the growing religious intolerance toward religious minorities that we are observing in Western Europe. I am pleased that a coalition of religious groups is building in Europe to combat the rising intolerance, and in fact a legal challenge to these onerous actions is to be announced in Belgium on May 20. In the last few years, we have witnessed disturbing government interference in the affairs of religious communities in Western Europe through new religion laws, parliamentary investigations into minority beliefs and religious groups, and new government bureaucracies created to disseminate government propaganda on religious organizations. These new laws, parliamentary investigations and government information centers stigmatize as ``dangerous'' groups such as the Jehovah Witnesses, Baha'i, Hindus, and charismatic Catholic and Protestant groups. These government actions violate the religious liberty principles found in numerous international documents, including the Helsinki Final Act, particularly the commitment to ``foster a climate of mutual tolerance and respect between believers of different communities as well as between believers and non-believers'' found in the Vienna Concluding Document of 1989 (Paragraph 16.2). In January, I traveled to Moscow with my good friends and colleagues Representatives Frank Wolf and Tony Hall to raise our concerns with the 1997 Russian religion law. There, we met with minority religious groups concerned that the new law would limit their ability to freely practice their faith. While it remains to be seen how this law will be implemented, on its face, the law clearly violates numerous Helsinki human rights principles. Also in January, another Helsinki Commission delegation led by fellow Commissioner Representative John Porter, raised concerns with the Austrian Government regarding their new law restricting religious freedom. The Austrian law, passed by the Austrian Parliament on December 10, 1997, requires that a religious group prove a 20-year existence in Austria, have a creed distinct from previously registered groups, and have a membership of at least 0.02% of the population or 16,000 members before they are granted full rights under law. The premise extended by the Austrian Government for such intense regulation of religious groups is that the government is responsible for the content of belief available for public consumption, just as the government regulates the quality of food for public consumption. The Austrian Government's opinion that the government must ``approve'' religious belief before it is available for the public reveals a shocking retreat from democratic principles which encourage the free exchange of ideas and the freedom of the individual to choose his or her own religious belief. Several western European parliaments have or are currently investigating the reporting on the activities of minority religious groups. These parliamentary investigations have also had a chilling effect on religious liberty and appear to cause a public backlash against groups being investigated or labeled ``dangerous.'' For instance, the German Bundestag is currently conducting its investigation into ``dangerous sects'' and ``psycho-groups'' and issued an interim report in January 1998. At the Helsinki Commission's September 1997, hearing, independent evangelical church representatives reported a direct correlation between the harassment, vandalism and threats of violence they experience and the investigation by the German Bundestag's commission. The French Parliament's 1996 report contained a list of ``dangerous'' groups in order to warn the public against them and the Belgian Parliament's 1997 report had an informal appendix, which was widely circulated, listing 189 groups and included various allegations against many Protestant and Catholic groups, Quakers, Hasidic Jews, Buddhists, and the YWCA. Equally alarming has been the establishment of government information centers by Western European parliaments to alert the public to ``dangerous'' groups. The Austrian and Belgian Governments have set up hotlines for the public and, through government sponsored advisory centers, distributes information on groups deemed ``dangerous.'' In Austrian Government literature, Jehovah's Witnesses are labeled ``dangerous'' and members of this group report that the stigma associated with this government label is difficult to overcome in Austrian society. These information centers directly violate the commitments that Austria and Belgium have made as participating States of the OSCE to ``foster a climate of mutual tolerance and respect'' and excessively entangle the government in the public discussion on religious beliefs. On Wednesday (May 20), at the European Parliament, a coalition of religious groups, including Hasidic Jews, Baha'i, Seventh Day Adventist and other leaders from the evangelical Protestant community representing 90 per cent of Belgium's Protestant community, are holding a press conference. They are publishing a petition to the Belgian authorities, announcing the launch of a court challenge to the Belgian Parliamentary Report, and highlighting their concerns over the Belgian Government's Advice and Information Center. The premise of the legal challenge is that these actions by the Belgian Government violate Belgium's international commitments to religious liberty. I commend the work that these and other groups such as Human Rights Without Frontiers are doing to highlight and challenge the governmental actions that violate the Helsinki Accords and other international commitments to religious liberty.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the amendment, but I ask unanimous consent to claim the time, since nobody seems to be opposed.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering), a good friend and colleague.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) senior member of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me say that I am very proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 2431, the Freedom From Religious Persecution Act. The Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, of which I am privileged to serve as chairman, has held extensive hearings on the subject of religious persecution, including hearings on the rising tide of persecution of Christians, and the rising tide of worldwide anti- semitism. We have heard riveting and revolting first-person account testimony of the torture of Tibetan Buddhist monks and nuns, of atrocities against Muslims in Bosnia and East Turkistan, and of Baha'i in Iran. The time has come, Mr. Speaker, not just to talk about the problem of religious persecution--talk is often cheap--but to do something about it. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), a hero of the human rights movement, has clearly shown us the way. During the course of the legislative process, the gentleman from Virginia worked closely with a broad coalition of evangelical Christians, Jewish organizations, the United States Catholic Conference, and the International Campaign for Tibet, in order to improve the bill. It has truly been, I say to my colleagues, a work in progress. We worked very hard to incorporate meaningful reforms and language that were suggested by the administration. As a matter of fact, I offered the amendments during markup in full committee that makes it very clear that it is the Secretary of State and not the director who makes the final call. That was a recommendation that came from the White House, and I think the bottom line is that it probably improves the bill. We also made it very clear--and I offer this as well, because there was some ambiguity, although never at all is the intent of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf)--that this bill applies to everyone, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, religious believers of every and any faith, and I think it is important that that be underscored this morning. Let me repeat, we not only focused on persecuted Christians, but also on persecuted Muslims. For example, the bill contains a specific finding suggested by the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) with respect to the Uighur, an overwhelmingly Muslim ethnic group in the formerly independent Republic of East Turkistan, who are now severely persecuted by the Communist Government of China. The bill also makes crystal-clear that in affording heightened protection for members of religious communities whose situation is particularly compelling, the Freedom From Religious Persecution Act will not sacrifice any of the protections currently afforded to victims of other forms of persecution, whether it be on religious grounds or for any other reason. There is no hierarchy of human rights. That is an absolutely bogus contention. Every time we pass a human rights bill, we are saying we want to focus on that, we want to advance the bill to protect a persecuted or somehow disadvantaged group of individuals around the world. I truly believe that we finely tuned and carefully calibrated the sanctions in this bill, and I would remind Members and ask them to read the bill. We are not talking about discrimination, as bad as that is; we are talking about persecution. We are talking about people who have severely suffered for their faith. We also have a waiver. The waiver states, and there are two waivers, that if the national security interests of the United States justify a waiver, the President has that option, or if such a waiver will substantially promote the purposes of this act, so there are two good waivers contained in this bill. Mr. Speaker, I do ask Members to support the rule, and I hope they will support the underlying bill when it comes up on the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time to me and commend him for his great work on this, and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) as well. Let us focus on exactly what kind of religious persecution this bill seeks to address. We are not talking about discrimination or harassment, although these are very bad things. This bill punishes only the worst of the worst: governments that engage in widespread, ongoing persecution that includes murder, torture and other particularly shocking forms of persecution. Let us look at what we mean by this. To my left in the photograph is Palden Gyatso, a Tibetan Buddhist monk. Palden Gyatso testified at one of our subcommittee hearings and told us that the Chinese Government routinely uses electric shock guns, serrated and hooked knives, handcuffs and thumbcuffs treatment and other forms of torture. He showed us some of the torture implements that have been used against himself and other prisoners of conscience in Tibet. Other witnesses at the hearing included Harry Wu and Katherine Ho who corroborated the monk's testimony. Their witness to torture brought tears to my eyes. On October 10, the second picture, a mob destroyed several Christian churches in Situbondo, Indonesia. At the time, some official sources maintained that this might not be religious persecution, that the churches just might have been random targets. But the slogans that were painted on the church by the people who burned it (the translation is ``Jesus Excrement''--and they used a word far worse than that--``Mother Mary Communist'') leave no room for doubt. The third picture, this was a church in which an elderly minister, his wife and two children and a young woman who worked at the church were burned to death. The next picture shows their charred bodies burned almost beyond recognition. At the funeral of their five victims, the caskets had to be closed because the persecutors had done their work so well. This next picture, Mr. Chairman, is the last view of Reverend Noor Alam, a Christian clergyman who was murdered in front of his family in Pakistan by a mob who first brought down the walls of his under- construction church building on December 6, 1997, and later killed him by lynching. Lynching has become increasingly common in Pakistan in recent years, as have convictions of Christians and other religious dissenters for blasphemy. The most recent tragedy to result from this spiral of violence was the death of Catholic Bishop John Joseph, who took his own life in public protest after a member of his diocese was sentenced to death for blasphemy. At Bishop Joseph's funeral, the mourners chanted, ``End persecution of Christians.'' The police fired tear gas and bullets that wounded three people, including a young girl. Picture No. 6 on my left, this picture is of a Sudanese Christian boy in a refugee camp in Kenya. A member of a congressional staff delegation, led by my staff director, Joseph Rees, asked him why he was afraid to return to Sudan. He said, ``Because I want to see.'' If Members look closely, his eye has been plucked out. The staff member asked who tortured him. He said they did it because of his religious beliefs. Mr. Chairman, let me speak briefly to two objections raised by the administration in their talking points against the bill. First, they say that by protecting victims of religious persecution in a bill that does not address other human rights violations, we are establishing a so-called hierarchy of human rights. This is a bogus argument and unworthy of those who employ it. The argument clearly ignores some very basic facts about the legislative process. Not every bill can address every subject. By addressing one urgent problem in this bill, we are not denying the existence of other urgent problems that should be addressed by other legislation or by other means. Under the administration's argument, it would have been wrong to enact the Jackson-Vanik amendment which protected freedom of immigration and had the laudatory consequence of protecting Soviet Jews and others who had been denied right to emigrate. We risked superpower confrontation with the Soviet Union because we believed Soviet Jews mattered and we would never again turn our back on persecuted Jews? Not even the anti-apartheid sanctions against South Africa in the 1980s, which I supported and voted for would pass the test proposed by the State Department's talking points, because those sanctions were designed to help victims of racial discrimination and racial persecution but did not address freedom of religion or other important human rights. Frankly, if we stuck to the administration's talking points, no important human rights legislation would ever pass because no bill, no matter how good, can do everything. Next, the administration suggests that it is wrong for Congress to enact what they call ``automatic sanctions''--sometimes they call them ``one size fits all'' sanctions--even against the most brutal governments. But we have to wonder whether whoever wrote those talking points had actually read the bill. The sanctions are not automatic. They will not go into effect if the President waives them, and he can waive them for either national security reasons or because he believes that the waiver will serve the objective of promoting religious freedom. Let me just remind my colleagues, this is a very generous waiver. The only way we could go further would be to give the President the freedom to do absolutely nothing at all in the face of severe, widespread and ongoing human rights violations and persecution. In evaluating legislation that deals with persecution of any kind, we must always remember that tyrants understand strength. They also understand weakness. Of all the millions of people who are victimized by tyrants around the world, many are in trouble because they share our values. This bill is designed to help our brothers and sisters around the world who have faith and suffer because of it. Wei Jingsheng, who also testified before our subcommittee, a great leader of human rights who spent his life in the gulag because of it, said: ``If I did not see it myself, even I could not imagine the shameful and despicable means the Communists use against religious believers.'' Religious persecution is on the rise. This bill puts us on a track of saying we will no longer look the other way. We will stand up for those brethren who are suffering.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to very briefly respond. A large number of national and international religious groups support this legislation, including the B'nai B'rith, National Association of Evangelicals, the U.S. Catholic Bishops' Conference, the Anti- Defamation League, the Southern Baptist Convention on Ethics and Religious Liberty, the National Jewish Coalition, the International Campaign for Tibet, the Religious Action Center for Reformed Judaism, the Union of Orthodox Congregations of America, Campus Crusade for Christ, the Seventh Day Adventist Church, the Salvation Army, National Religious Broadcasters, and I can go on and on. But large numbers of religious bodies wholeheartedly embrace this legislation.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. 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.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady). While the gentleman from Texas may be one of the most junior members of our Committee on International Relations, he is one of the most significant, and a key participant in our committee's deliberations on this bill and many other policy initiatives. The gentleman has offered many helpful suggestions along the way, and has demonstrated over and over again his commitment to the struggle against religious persecution, and I deeply, deeply, respect him. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) today makes further positive contribution to the bill, and enhances the bill, as he pointed out, in a variety of ways. I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) for his work on behalf of this legislation and his very constructive amendment, and I do urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, we have worked very constructively with the gentleman from California on this amendment, as well as on the bill itself. It has been through a very long and arduous process, two full hearings in the full committee last September, a whole series of hearings in my subcommittee on religious persecution, and then the drafting and redrafting. The gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) has been very vital for that. We thank him for that. We appreciate his support for the full bill in final passage.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, first I want to commend the distinguished member of our Committee on International Relations for his amendment. I strongly urge its adoption. The amendment of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) expands the responsibilities of the director of the new Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring in several ways. The net effect would be to give the director a role in advising the President and the Secretary of State on additional steps that the United States can take to advance religious freedom around the world, including in such areas as international broadcasting and international exchanges in personnel incentives for State Department employees. Just to respond, and not to get back to general debate, but the gentleman from Florida raised a couple of issues against the bill. I do hope Members will realize that there is a very generous waiver provision, I think perhaps it is too generous, but it does provide for national security concerns. Also under the provisions of the bill, the sanctions can be waived if the President believes that it would substantially promote the purposes of this act. It is about time we took religious freedom seriously. This legislation does so. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton) earlier in the debate talked about the beheadings going on in Saudi Arabia. Usually they occur when somebody converts from being a Muslim to Christianity. That is serious stuff. If we are going to look askance and act indifferent or raise our voice with nothing behind it, those beheadings will continue. But we must say very clearly and unambiguously that beheading people is something out of bounds and is truly egregious behavior, and certainly it is violative of all of the UN conventions, including the Declaration on Intolerance on Religion. And so the stories need to conform, as do others, to these internationally recognized norms, and beheadings certainly are totally out of bounds, as is any other form of torture. Mr. Chairman, I hope Members will support the bill, and again, I think this is a good amendment and I support it.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time. Mr. Chairman, in 1984, on one of several human rights trips to Romania, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), and myself pushed for the release of persecuted Christians and, in particular, Father Calccu. For over a decade, during both the Carter and the Reagan administrations, Father Calccu endured unspeakable tortured beatings, solitary confinement in coffins that were vertical. Yet, the world, the State Department, everybody said, Ceausescu, the dictator in Romania was somehow a good guy, we need to work with him. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) said it well. Hate is not the opposite of love; indifference is. This bill ends our indifference, our bipartisan indifference towards religious persecution. Religious persecution has been and it is today the orphan of human rights. We need to stand strong. This is against religious persecution, things like torture. I urge support for this bill, hopefully in a very bipartisan way.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Linda Smith).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt). (Mr. ADERHOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, many in the human rights community were horrified to learn of the shooting of Akin Birdal, President of Turkey's Human Rights Foundation, by unidentified armed gunmen at his offices in Ankara. Mr. Birdal, a widely recognized and respected human rights advocate, appeared before the Helsinki Commission in the early 1990s and most recently met with members of a Commission delegation that visited Turkey in January. Today's attack occurred against the backdrop of an ongoing campaign of harassment against human rights NGOs in Turkey. The Human Rights Foundation, Turkey's largest human rights monitoring group, has had numerous offices closed down by the Turkish authorities. The Foundation's leadership, including Mr. Birdal, has been repeatedly targeted for prosecution. The attack against Akin Birdal in a very real sense is an assault on Turkey's fledgling civil society. The development of a genuine civil society is essential if Turkey hopes to develop into a true democracy. Mr. Speaker, instead of viewing human rights advocates like Mr. Birdal as adversaries, Turkey's leaders should embrace these courageous individuals as allies and form a partnership with those dedicated to democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. Our prayers go out to Mr. Birdal and his family in the aftermath of this senseless act.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing comprehensive legislation--The Lyme Disease Initiative of 1998--to jump start a world-class, coordinated campaign to fight Lyme Disease. This $100 million federal initiative will, for the first time, establish a prominent, coordinated federal role in Lyme Disease research, treatment, and education. Various agencies within the federal government have done some good work in the Lyme issue, but these short term efforts have been hampered by a lack of interagency coordination, inconsistent funding and limited agency staff attention. The Lyme Disease Initiative changes all that. Five year plan of action.--First, my bill calls for a 5 year plan to be established by the Secretary of Health and Human Services in coordination with the Secretary of Defense and outside experts to advance the treatment of and a cure for Lyme Disease. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, various agencies within the Defense Department have all worked on Lyme disease. Too often, however, the left hand does not know what the right hand has discovered and true advancement is hampered. For example, in 1994 I pushed through a provision directing the DOD to conduct $850,000 in Lyme Disease research. Tick borne diseases remains a continuing concern for DOD, particularly with many of our soldiers at risk of tick bites. Regrettably, much of DOD's valuable research under this study never made its way to our other health experts at the Department of Health and Human Services. My new legislation will correct this problem. Four public health goals.--Sadly much of our Lyme research has been hit and miss with no clear cut goals and no specific purpose for federal expertise and resources. My bill sets out four critical public health goals that will advance the Lyme research efforts: Goal #1: Develop an objective detection test for Lyme that can determine whether an individual bitten by a tick has Lyme Disease. Designates a reliable detection test as the single most important public health goal. Goal #2: A review of CDC's reporting and surveillance systems. Among the changes to be considered are (1) a more uniform system of reporting and (2) collecting and analyzing Lyme case data that does not currently meet CDC's strict surveillance criteria. Goal #3: More accurate and timely Lyme diagnosis. A study shall be initiated to examine patterns of diagnosis and treatment of patients. Goal #4: Physician Education. A full-scale effort shall be taken to educate treating physicians on how to properly diagnose and treat Lyme Disease. Other major provisions in the bill include: Section 4. Establishing a Lyme Disease Taskforce to provide advice and expertise to Congress and federal agencies on all areas of Lyme Disease policy. Section 5. Requiring Annual Reports be submitted to Congress on the progress of NIH, CDC, and DOD with respect to the goals and programs funded and specified in this bill. Section 7. $100 Million Over Five Years. An authorization of $100 million over five years is needed to ensure sufficient resources for consistent, critical scientific, medical research. The bill authorizes: $45 million in additional authorization for the National Institutes of Health, $40 million in additional authorization for the Centers for Disease Control, and $15 million in additional authorization for the Department of Defense. Section 8. Lyme Disease Vaccines. The bill urges the Food and Drug Administration to conduct a rapid and thorough review of new Lyme Disease vaccine applications so that people who are already suffering are given new hope. I am joined today by Rep. Jim Maloney (CT), Rep. Mike Pappas, Rep. Jim Saxton, and Rep. Sam Gejdenson in urging the relevant Committees to give this bipartisan legislation its due consideration. On the Senate side, I am pleased that Sen. Chris Dodd will be introducing the companion legislation to my bill. For too long, Lyme patients have suffered and languished under a medical system that cannot meet their needs because of unreliable diagnostic tests and incomplete physician understanding of this emerging infectious disease. My legislation will turn the tide and enable people to fully enjoy the outdoors once again without the fear of contracting a very serious disease.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. SMITH of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) General Leave Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this measure.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. 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.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote unanimously in favor of S. Con. Res. 37. This resolution makes clear that Little League Baseball Incorporated is a bona fide nongovernmental organization and that it should be treated as such by our government and those of other nations. Little League Baseball Incorporated is a nonprofit membership organization that was chartered by Congress in 1964 to promote participation by children around the world in Little League baseball. Unfortunately, the charter did not explicitly use the words ``nongovernmental organization.'' That phrase and its acronym, NGO, were not in vogue in those days. So there has been some confusion, particularly in nations where Little League baseball is relatively new, about the undeniable fact that this organization indeed is a not-for- profit organization. Because the U.S. Congress originally chartered this organization, it falls to us to clarify the matter. This resolution calls on the parliamentary bodies and government officials of other nations to recognize and celebrate the international charter of Little League Baseball, the largest nongovernmental international youth sports organization in the world, with over 18,000 local leagues in 85 countries supported by a network of many thousands of volunteers and coaches around the world. S. Con. Res. 37 was introduced by Senator Coverdell and has already passed the Senate. It also passed the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights by a voice vote on February 12 of this year. On April 1 the full Committee on International Relations ordered the bill favorably reported, again by a unanimous vote. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out the relentless dedication of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade) on this issue. The gentleman from Pennsylvania helped draft the Senate resolution as well as a parallel House Resolution. He brought the resolution to the attention of our subcommittee and full committee, and he has pushed every step of the way to ensure the success of this resolution. He deserves the credit for its passage on the floor today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.