---

Hon. Joseph R. Pitts
Of Pennsylvania
In The House Of Representatives
Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Mr. Pitts: Madam Speaker, today is World Refugee Day, a day of honoring the courage and raising the plight of more than 8 million refugees and 23.7 million internally displaced persons around the world. This year, on the sixth anniversary of the United Nations- designated World Refugee Day, organizations in hundreds of countries will come together to focus global attention on those refugees who have been displaced by natural disasters or were forced to leave their homes, native countries, and loved ones due to the political, ethnic or religious oppression and persecution they would have faced otherwise.

The United States historically has led efforts to assist various refugee populations, as exemplified through U.S. efforts to assist Vietnamese refugees in the late 1970s. Now, in the 21st century, the U.S. has a particularly compelling reason to focus on the Iraqi refugee crisis. Approximately 2 million Iraqi refugees have fled persecution, violence, threats of kidnapping and death threats, mostly moving to Syria and Jordan. The threats have been dire for ethnic and religious minorities. At least 1.9 million people are displaced within Iraq. Many of these 3.9 million have been targeted due to their work for the U.S. Government, NGOs or the media.

There have been important steps taken in Congress to address the concerns of refugees related to Afghanistan and Iraq, such as encouraging the provision of special immigrant status for translators or interpreters serving with Federal agencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, since 2003, the U.S. Government has allowed only 466 Iraqi refugees to enter the U.S. It is important that the U.S. initiate more active measures to assist these refugees, such as increasing the number of Iraqis that are brought into the resettlement program. During a recent trip to the Middle East, I heard stories of Iraqi refugees and the dire threats that forced them to flee their homeland.

Madam Speaker, in addition to spotlighting the situation of Iraqi refugees, it is vital that the international community continue to shine a spotlight on the situation facing refugees from and displaced persons in Burma. The military dictatorship continues its campaign against the ethnic peoples through forced labor, the use of rape as a weapon of terror, destruction of food sources, destruction of over 3,000 villages in the last few years, and the use of ethnic peoples as human land mine sweepers. Unfortunately, certain countries believe it is in their interest to keep this regime in power--I would heartily disagree. The refugee and displacement crisis in Burma could be resolved immediately if the regime were to step down and allow the rightfully elected leaders of Burma to take office.

World Refugee Day is a day for the international community, governments and citizens alike, to show our common concern for refugees and displaced persons. Most people in the world would love to stay in their homeland, but frequently conflicts and other situations force them to leave. Our country was founded by people fleeing oppression. The U.S. must continue to be the global leader in refugee protection in the Middle East, in Southeast Asia, and around the world.

---

Hon. Steny H. Hoyer
Of Maryland
In The House Of Representatives
Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Mr. Hoyer: Madam Speaker, since 2001, people across the globe have come together on June 20 to show their support for the millions of refugees throughout the world who have fled their homes for fear of persecution, imprisonment or even murder. On this sixth anniversary of World Refugee Day, we make a solemn pledge to these courageous and resilient people that their plight has not gone unnoticed and they do not stand alone.

In April, I led a congressional delegation to Sudan and saw, first- hand, the effects of one of the worst refugee crises facing our world today. In Darfur, I saw mothers and fathers struggling to provide for their children's most basic needs--necessities we often take for granted, such as food, water, clothing and shelter. I saw people fighting to overcome years of physical and mental abuse so severe that they would rather wander the desert than remain in the torturous environment their homeland had become. And I saw things that made me wonder how the world could stand silent while suffering of this magnitude continued.

With more than 686,000 refugees, Sudan is now ranked as the third largest refugee crisis in the world, according to the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees, falling behind Iraq, where sectarian violence has created 1.5 million refugees--1.2 million fled the country in 2006 alone--and Afghanistan with 2.1 million. And it comes as no surprise that Sudan, Iraq and Afghanistan now also rank first, second and eighth, respectively, on the Foreign Policy Index on Failed States, which was released on Tuesday.

When people are forced to flee from their homes, they leave behind more than just material possessions; they often must trade their dignity, self-respect and hopes for the future for their very survival. And it is not just the refugees themselves that suffer. The instability and mortal dangers that create refugee crises threaten the safety and security of entire regions, if not the entire world.

On this World Refugee Day, I am proud to join with the defenders of human rights who are calling on each of us to not only acknowledge the tragedies suffered by refugees across the globe, but who are also challenging us to step up and do something about it.

---

Speech Of
Hon. Ron Paul
Of Texas
In The House Of Representatives
Monday, June 18, 2007

Mr. Paul: Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. This resolution is an exercise in propaganda that serves one purpose: to move us closer to initiating a war against Iran. Citing various controversial statements by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, this legislation demands that the United Nations Security Council charge Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Having already initiated a disastrous war against Iraq citing U.N. resolutions as justification, this resolution is like deja-vu. Have we forgotten 2003 already? Do we really want to go to war again for U.N. resolutions? That is where this resolution, and the many others we have passed over the last several years on Iran, is leading us. I hope my colleagues understand that a vote for this bill is a vote to move us closer to war with Iran.

Clearly, language threatening to wipe a nation or a group of people off the map is to be condemned by all civilized people. And I do condemn any such language. But why does threatening Iran with a pre- emptive nuclear strike, as many here have done, not also deserve the same kind of condemnation? Does anyone believe that dropping nuclear weapons on Iran will not wipe a people off the map? When it is said that nothing, including a nuclear strike, is off the table on Iran, are those who say it not also threatening genocide? And we wonder why the rest of the world accuses us of behaving hypocritically, of telling the rest of the world "do as we say, not as we do."

I strongly urge my colleagues to consider a different approach to Iran, and to foreign policy in general. GEN William Odom, President Reagan's director of the National Security Agency, outlined a much more sensible approach in a recent article titled "Exit From Iraq Should Be Through Iran." General Odom wrote: "Increasingly bogged down in the sands of Iraq, the US thrashes about looking for an honorable exit. Restoring cooperation between Washington and Tehran is the single most important step that could be taken to rescue the U.S. from its predicament in Iraq." General Odom makes good sense. We need to engage the rest of the world, including Iran and Syria, through diplomacy, trade, and travel rather than pass threatening legislation like this that paves the way to war. We have seen the limitations of force as a tool of U.S. foreign policy. It is time to try a more traditional and conservative approach. I urge a "no" vote on this resolution.

---

(Mr. Grijalva asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)

Mr. Grijalva: Mr. Speaker, many of our soldiers returning from service in Iraq and Afghanistan suffer from a loss of limb or other serious wounds. Our VA and military hospitals have state-of-the-art facilities to treat these wounds and to help our soldiers make a recovery that they need and deserve.

But the same is not true for those soldiers who return from combat suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome. A Washington Post series chronicled the struggles faced by many of our soldiers seeking psychological assistance and support from our medical facilities and from the VA. The Post writers concluded that Walter Reed lacks sufficient psychiatrists and clinicians to properly treat the growing numbers of soldiers returning with combat stress.

I am proud to say help is on the way. The historic VA funding which passed the House last week provides 600 million more than the President requested to treat PTSD and finally, finally, begin to address a disturbing problem. Let us not repeat the mistake we have made with our Vietnam veterans and begin to help our veterans now.

---

(Mr. Mahoney of Florida asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)

Mr. Mahoney of Florida: Mr. Speaker, it's an unfortunate fact of war young American soldiers are not only losing their lives on the battlefield, but many soldiers who survive traumatic combat injuries are returning home with equally serious psychological wounds. Unfortunately, the Veterans Administration has not been given, by this administration, the personnel and the funding necessary to address the problem.

A recent series of Washington Post articles followed the stories of several soldiers returning home from service in Iraq who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. The articles paint a harrowing picture of the challenges that face these veterans, suicidal patients left in waiting rooms, psychiatric wards with terrible odors and a disconcerting lack of therapy and treatment.

Mr. Speaker, last week this House took action to help our military personnel who are suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome. We passed the largest increase for funding for veterans health care in the VA's history. This includes treatment for PTSD.

It is clear that these funds are desperately needed to provide better care for our men and women returning from serving our Nation.

---

(Mr. Ellison asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Ellison: Mr. Speaker, this weekend, General David Petraeus acknowledged that we will not see any significant improvements in the situation on the ground in Iraq by September.

When President Bush first proposed the troop escalation plan at the beginning of this year, he said we should know if it's actually working by the beginning of the summer. A couple of months later, when the troops were actually on the ground, the President revised that time frame, saying that we should have a good grasp if the plan is working by September.

Now we have confirmation from the President's top general on the ground that positive signs in Iraq will continue to be elusive.

The question now is, will the administration do as it has in the past and change the deadline?

Moving deadlines are simply no longer acceptable. President Bush has been promising for months that we would see significant changes come September, and since that is no longer possible, a significant change in direction is needed in Iraq.

It is time for the President and the congressional Republicans to realize that Petraeus is now admitting that no improvements will be seen by September.

---

The Speaker pro tempore: Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. Jones of North Carolina: Madam Speaker, as of today, H.R. 346, my legislation to redesignate the Department of the Navy as the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps has 60 cosponsors. Although the language of this bill has already been passed by the full House last month as part of the Defense authorization bill, I want to encourage my colleagues on the floor of the House to join in cosponsoring this legislation. When the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act goes to conference in the fall, a large number of cosponsors of H.R. 346 will show the Senate the House strongly supports this change in name.

This is the sixth year in a row that the House has voted to support this change. This year, I hope the Senate will support the House position and join in bringing the proper respect to the fighting team of the Navy and Marine Corps. I am thankful to the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Carl Levin, who has said publicly that he will "keep an open mind" on this issue.

Changing the name of the Department of the Navy to the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps is a symbolic gesture, but it is important to the team. This change is about recognizing the true meaning of the department. The Marines do not serve beneath the Navy. They are co- equal partners.

Madam Speaker, there is no cost to this change. It is the right thing to do for the Marine Corps and the Navy. This legislation has received the support of numerous military leaders in both the Navy and the Marine Corps.

Madam Speaker, let me quote the Honorable Wade Sanders, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Reserve Affairs during the years of 1993 and 1998, who voiced his support for the change. I quote the Honorable Wade Sanders: "As a combat veteran and formal Naval officer, I understand the importance of the team dynamic and the importance of recognizing the contributions of team components. The Navy and Marine Corps team is just that, a dynamic partnership, and it is important to symbolically recognize the balance of that partnership."

I further would like to quote General Carl Mundy, the 30th Commandant of the Marine Corps. He stated, "I believe the changes you propose will do much to clarify the relationship, responsibility and functions of the appointed civilian authority over the United States naval services. I believe that any Secretary, present, past, or future, will be proud to bear the title 'Marine,' as well as 'Navy.' "

Madam Speaker, I have beside me, and I would read very carefully, "The President of the United States takes pleasure in presenting this Silver Star posthumously to Sergeant Michael Bitz, United States Marine Corps."

Madam Speaker, the reason this is important, this Marine gave his life for his country. He left a wife and three children, twins hat he never saw that were born after he was deployed to Iraq. And yet, as you can see in these orders for the Silver Star, there is the Secretary of the Navy, Washington, D.C., and the zip code and Navy flag. There is nothing in the heading that says "Marine."

Madam Speaker, what this bill will do, if the President should sign it, is to say that this Marine who died for this country, that the orders for the Silver Star clearly state the team's name. The name of the team is the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps.

But what the heading would say in this order for the Silver Star is the Secretary of the Navy and Marine Corps, Washington, D.C., with the flag of the Marine Corps and the flag of the Navy.

Madam Speaker, I hope that my colleagues in the House this year will join me, and let's get over 150, maybe 200 of my colleagues in both parties, to sign this legislation so we can say to the Senate in the fall of this year, it is time that the Marine Corps be recognized as an equal to the Navy. They both are equal in the services, and it is time that the Department of the Navy carry the name Marine Corps.

Madam Speaker, I ask God to please bless our men and women in uniform, and may God continue to bless America.

---