Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, this on my left is a picture of Tracy Marciniak holding her son at his funeral. She met with me. She met with other Members. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) just spoke of this, to tell us what happened to her and to her son Zachariah. Minimum time was given to the attacker, her husband, and there was no penalty whatsoever imposed for the killing of this little baby. Tracy has written to Congress, and I hope you all stand up and take notice, and said ``Congress should approve the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Opponents of the bill have put forth a counterproposal, known as the Lofgren amendment. I have read it,'' she goes on to say, ``and it is offensive to me because it says that there is only one victim in such a crime, the woman who is pregnant.

``Please hear me,'' she goes on to say. ``On the night of February 8, 1992, there were two victims. I was nearly killed. Little Zachariah died.

``Any lawmaker who is thinking of voting for the Lofgren `one-victim' amendment should first look at this picture of me holding my dead son at his funeral. Then I would say to that Representative, `If you really think that nobody died that night, then vote for the `one-victim' amendment.' ''

Mr. Speaker, the Lofgren amendment stripped of its surface appeal trappings and enhanced penalty does have one proabortion strategic objective, and that is denial. Denial that an unborn child has inherent dignity, denial that an unborn child has worth, denial that an unborn child has innate value. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) said a few moments ago in this debate we all oppose violence against women. I thank her for that admission.

Back in the 106th Congress I was prime sponsor of legislation that included the Violence Against Women Act, the 5-year authorization. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), who was then chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, worked to craft language that throws the book at those who commit violence against women, while providing shelters, and so many others worked on that. It was division B of that bill. I was the prime sponsor. So no one on that side of that divide takes a back seat to anyone that says that somehow we are not against violence against women.

The gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) said a moment ago that

the woman is a victim and not the only victim. There is another victim, the baby. And I just want to say again, talking about the gentlewoman from California's (Ms. Woolsey) comments, while we are all against violence against women, we are not all against violence against unborn children. And this bill offered by the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the others who are leading the effort on this are saying a mugger or killer does not have an unfettered right or access to an unborn child to kill him or her.

The amniotic sac is a protective covering over an unborn child, but it is not made of Kevlar. Those sacs can be pierced so easily by a knife or by a bullet, and we are saying when a knife or a bullet or a fist pierces and kills a little baby like Zachariah, there ought to be a separate offense. Yes, throw the book at the mugger for any offense that he commits against a woman, we are all for that, but do not deny a penalty for a child who has been killed by that mugger.

Vote against the Lofgren amendment and for the Hart bill.

I thank my good friend for yielding time.

Mr. Speaker, why would Planned Parenthood and a virtual who's who of abortion activists in America so vehemently oppose the Unborn Victims of Violence Act and promote a gutting substitute in its stead? Why would they take a position so extreme that 80 percent of Americans oppose it?

Why is it that on the floor of this House, so many intelligent, talented, and gifted lawmakers to whom so much has been given are going to such great lengths to deny basic protections in law for an unborn child who has been shot, beaten, stabbed, or otherwise mauled by an attacker, even taking the irrational step of opposing a definition that was overwhelmingly passed in this body 417 to zero?

Could it be that America's abortion culture, a culture of death, has so numbed our hearts and dulled our minds that we have become unwilling, or perhaps incapable, of recognizing the obvious? Could it be denial with a capital D?

Amazingly, as a result of breathtaking breakthroughs in medicine, today unborn children are often treated as patients in need of curative procedures in healing just like any other patient. Is the concept of an unborn child as a victim really so hard to grasp, even when we are not talking about abortion, but assault by a mugger? Have the soothing voices of denial by credentialed people, especially in medicine and the media, ripped off our capacity to think?

Has the horrific spectre of almost 45 million poisoned or dismembered babies legally enabled by Roe v. Wade robbed us of our capacity to see and understand and empathize? Is it a lacking in logic or courage or common sense or compassion? Have unborn children become mere objects, a dehumanizing and deplorable status that feminists rightly rebel against? Should a mugger, like an abortionist, have unfettered access to maim or kill a baby without triggering a separate penalty for the crime?

For years, Mr. Speaker, Congress has updated and strengthened laws and stiffened penalties for those who commit violence against women, and that is as it should be. In December of last year, President Bush signed my comprehensive antitrafficking legislation, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2003, and before that President Clinton signed landmark legislation that I authored the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act, 2000. I would remind my colleagues that included in my law as Division B was the Violence Against Women Act, a $3.2 billion 5-year authorization for a multitude of efforts to mitigate Violence Against Women, provide shelters, and a myriad of protection initiatives.

So women who are victims of violence clearly need every legal protection, shelter and assistance a caring society has to muster, but I would respectfully submit to my colleagues so do children. A victim is a victim, it

seems to me, no matter how small. Why is it so difficult to recognize an unborn child as a victim who is also capable of suffering severe trauma, disfigurement, disability, or even death? Unborn children feel pain when they are shot or beaten. They bleed and they bruise easily. Unborn children are as vulnerable as their mothers to an assailant wielding a knife, a gun, or a steel pipe.

Mr. Speaker, the amniotic sac is like a protective bubble, but it is not made of Kevlar. It pierces easily. Support the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Mr. Robert A. Perreault, who retired o January 2, 2004, after more than 30 years of service in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

A veteran of the United States Navy, Bob Perreault began his VA career as a Medical Administrative Assistant in 1974 at the VA Outpatient Clinic in St. Petersburg, Florida. Bob rapidly progressed in his career, in VA field activities at a managerial and executive level, and in a number of key executive positions in VA Central Office. Among his notable assignments, he served in Washington as Director of the Medical Administration Service; Executive Assistant to VA's Chief Medical Director [now Under Secretary for Health]; and Director of Health Care Reform during the

Clinton Administration. Mr. Perreault also served as Chief Executive Officer in Medical Centers in Newington, Connecticut; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Atlanta, Georgia and Charleston, South Carolina. While in Atlanta and Charleston, he served in a dual role as VA's service line executive for primary care for a network of VA providers throughout Georgia, Alabama and South Carolina. Throughout his distinguished VA career, Bob Perreault eagerly and enthusiastically assumed challenges and provided leadership to VA programs, with his eye always fixed squarely on the health care needs of veterans.

In May 2002, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs appointed Mr. Perreault Chief Business Officer of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). He was recruited to this key role because of his wealth of experience in field facilities and Central Office. In this new role, he brought invigorated leadership to VHA business functions to include improved eligibility determinations, significantly higher first- and third-party collections activities and improved patient administration policy. Mr. Perreault coordinated VHA's implementation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), aided the establishment of the new ``VA Advantage'' Medicare coordination program, improved management of the fee-basis and contract care programs, and provided more focused direction to VA's CHAMPVA program, among a myriad of activities within his jurisdiction or persuasion.

Mr. Perreault twice was awarded the Presidential Meritorious Rank Award for career senior executives, and received numerous other national recognitions and performance awards during his career. Employing his vast institutional knowledge and business acumen, Robert Perreault has proven time and again he is a true and loyal friend to America's veterans.

On behalf of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I want to thank Robert Perreault for his steadfast and intrepid service to the Nation's veterans and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Michael Slachta, Jr., Assistant Inspector General for Auditing, who retired on January 2, 2004, after 36 years of Federal service--32 of which were served at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

Mike's distinguished career began with service in the U.S. Navy from May 1966 to February 1970, including a one-year tour as a corpsman with the Third Marines in the Republic of Vietnam. As a result of his outstanding service, Mike was awarded the Bronze Star with Combat V, Purple Heart, Combat Action Ribbon, Meritorious Unit Citation, and Vietnam Service Medal with Fleet Marine Force Combat Insignia.

Mike attended the University of Pittsburgh on the Vietnam-era GI Bill and graduated with a bachelor's degree in biology. In 1971, he joined VA as an adjudicator at the Regional Office in Detroit, Michigan. In 1974, Mike moved to Washington, DC and joined the Internal Audit Service to work on the development of the Inspector General Act.

In 1978, Mike transferred to Hyattsville, Maryland to serve as Director of the Eastern Field Office of Audit. In 1980, he returned to the District of Columbia to serve as Acting Assistant Inspector General for Auditing. In 1982, he was appointed Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Regional Audits, and in 1983 he was appointed Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Headquarters Audits. In 1991, Mr. Slachta was named Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Auditing.

On March 12, 2000, Mike was appointed Assistant Inspector General for Auditing, the position he held until his retirement. In this capacity, he directed 166 auditors and support staff located at eight Inspector General offices across the country. In the last decade, under Mike's direction, the Office of Audit recommended actions that had potential cost efficiencies of over $7 billion, which greatly improved VA program effectiveness and quality of services to beneficiaries.

A testament to the significant contributions and commitment of Mike Slachta are his many awards and recognitions. In 1991 and 2000, Mike received the Senior Executive Service Presidential Rank Award of Meritorious Executive. In 2001, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs appointed him to the VA Claims Processing Task Force, where he served with distinction.

The President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency presented Mike with the June Gibbs Brown Career Achievement Award in 2003 for his extraordinary leadership and a distinguished career at VA in public service.

Mike and his wife Sharron have two sons, David and Douglas. They both share their father's passion and considerable skills in judo and golf.

With Mike's retirement, VA loses an enthusiastic, innovative leader and an exemplary Federal employee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 157, calling on the government of the People's Republic of China to release all prisoners of conscience, including Phuntsog Nyidron, a Tibetan nun who is currently the longest serving Tibetan political prisoner in China.

We know that the brutal regime in China has detained hundreds of Tibetan nuns, monks, and laypersons for speaking out against the Chinese occupation of Tibet. In the last session of Congress, I sponsored a resolution calling on the PRC to release the Panchen Lama, who is held in high esteem in Tibetan culture as the teacher of the Dali Lama. The Panchen Lama was abducted nearly 10 years ago at age 5. Today, his whereabouts remains unknown.

This regime has been and continues to be relentless in squelching the voices of peaceful dissident. However, even in prison, these voices have been heard. In 1993 Phuntsog

Nyidron and 13 other nuns sang and recorded songs about the plight of the Tibetan people that were smuggled out of Draphci prison, inspiring those working for peaceful change. Her prison sentence was extended for 8 years because of the recording. In 1998 it was reported that she was badly beaten after trying to protect another prisoner and that she is in poor health.

Phuntsog Nyidron is a peaceful advocate for change who should be released immediately along with the hundreds of other of prisoners of conscience in China. Although we lack specific information on each case, we know that many other Tibetans are mistreated in Chinese prisons as well. Even though China ratified the U.N. Convention against Torture in 1988, it has been reported that more than 70 Tibetans have died as a direct result of torture and inhumane treatment in Chinese prisons.

We must not forget the many other ethnic and religious groups and political dissident persecuted in the PRC today. Serious human rights abuses are carried out against the Falun Gong, Uighur Muslims, Protestants, and Catholics are well documented in State Department Reports on Human Rights and Religious Freedom.

We know that opponents of the regime continue to be unjustly imprisoned and that women continue to be subject to forced abortions. We also know that the government continues to violate international law through forcibly deporting thousands of North Koreans, many of whom are subsequently placed and concentration camps where they face persecution and death.

As both our administration and other world leaders prepare for the annual U.N. Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, I along with many of my colleagues, strongly believe that a strong resolution on human rights in China should be introduced and passed. Given continued and systematic human rights abuses carried out by the regime, anything less would be simply inexcusable.

I strongly urge my colleagues to strongly support passage of this resolution. I call upon the regime in Bejing to release Phuntsog Nyidron and the hundreds of others of political prisoners languishing in China's prisons. And I strongly urge our Administration and other governments to work towards the introduction and passage of a human rights resolution in Geneva.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to lend my support for the efforts of our close ally, Israel, in the fight against the scourge of anti-Semitism worldwide. It is fitting and appropriate that Israel has chosen January 27th to raise the issue of anti-Semitism because it marks the day that the Auschwitz death camp was liberated by the Allies. Many of our European friends and allies also held Holocaust remembrance and public education events yesterday.

The painful lesson that the Jewish people learned after World War II was that the logical conclusion of anti-Semitic thought and ideology inevitably leads to anti-Jewish violence. People who are consumed by hatred are almost never content to keep their hatred to themselves. Organized, systematic doctrines of hatred are not just differing opinions. Instead, these anti-Semitic ideologies usually contain an exhortation to action, and that action almost always includes vandalism and violence.

The lesson for the rest of the world is that racial hatred and religious extremism usually starts with the Jews, but if left unchecked, continues to engulf all other peoples and religious views that do not comport with the spewers of hatred. Untold millions of Slavs, Roma, disabled persons, political dissidents, and other so- called ``undesireables'' marched alongside the Jews into the death camps. They realized all too late, as the saying goes, that first the Nazis came for the Jews, but then they came for them too; no one was left to stand up for their rights. If Europeans and Americans had had more courage to stand up to the fascists and communists who argued that human rights must be subservient to the whims of totalitarian ideologies, perhaps the mass genocides could have been averted.

The painful lessons of World War II are just as relevant today. Even now, we find that the suicide bombers who gleefully hurtle themselves into oblivion in the attempt to kill Israelis and Jewish Americans have been steadily fed a rich diet of anti-Semitism. We have learned that the September 11th bombers emerged from an extremist Wahhabi totalitarian world view in which all those who don't subscribe to their own views are not worthy of human rights, and can be killed at will. Not only that, but the Wahhabi extremists behind 9/11 actually believe that their hatred is divinely justified and required by God.

Regardless of whether my colleagues always agree with the policies of the State of Israel, it is foolish in the extreme to believe that if somehow the United States suddenly abandoned our most loyal ally in the Middle East, that somehow the Wahhabi extremists and Osama Bin Laden supporters would suddenly stop trying to destroy the United States. And yet right after September 11th, there were stories popping up all over Europe and around the world that made the argument that America got its comeuppance that day for its years of staunch support for Israel. This argument is a subtle expression of anti-Semitism in that it implies that support for Israel and the Jews is a crime, and that massacring thousands of innocent civilians can be justified as punishment.

These extremists surely have a systematic doctrine of hatred that starts with hatred of the Jews, but it by no means ends with the Jews. As far as these extremists are concerned, the very values and beliefs America holds dear are blasphemy and punishable by death. I say this because there is a strategic nexus involved here. Israel's fight against anti-Semitism is America's fight against the extremists bent on our own destruction. If we do not join the battle against the rising tide of anti-Semitism both here and abroad, the legacy of that neglect will be a disaster for the U.S. Anti-Semitism is a cancer, and like cancer it will spread until it is either stopped, or it kills you. In a very real sense, anti-Semitism is like the canary in the mine. It alerts you that trouble lies ahead.

I have been actively engaged in the fight against anti-Semitism and have both written and supported legislation designed to expose anti- Semitism. Last summer, I offered an amendment to the State Department Authorization Bill for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 (H.R. 1950) calling on the State Department, the Administration, and the General Accounting Office to expand an ongoing investigation and audit of schools run in Palestine by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA).

Incredibly, the U.S. provides one-third of UNRWA's budget even though this agency has failed to take appropriate measures to combat terrorism and fix its broken education system. For instance, UNRWA continues to use anti-Semitic textbooks that glorify martyrdom and deny the legitimacy and existence of Israel as a Jewish state. If children continue to be brainwashed to hate and incited to commit violence in UNRWA schools, then there is no real hope for peace in the region. These UNRWA schools are like greenhouses that are used to grow the next crop of suicide bombers. We must work to change the school curriculum so that it teaches peace and tolerance between Muslims and Jews.

Last summer, I also called for and chaired a Congressional forum after a terrible attack that left 16 people killed and more than 80 wounded after a suicide bomber blew up a Jerusalem city bus during the afternoon rush hour. Ms. Sarri Singer, a New Jersey native, was on the bus and gave moving testimonies at the forum that highlighted the plight of innocent, suffering victims subjected to these awful terrorist attacks.

Unfortunately, anti-Semitic violence and hatred is not limited to the Middle East; in the last year other parts of Europe have also experienced a rise in anti-Semitic acts. In June 2003, I led a State Department delegation, along with former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, to a special conference in Vienna of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

The conference addressed the rise in anti-Semitic acts both in Europe and North America, and discussed ways to combat this problem. In addition, both this summer and last, I introduced special resolutions at the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly that called upon all 55 member nations to redouble their efforts to combat anti-Semitism in Europe, the United States, and Canada.

After returning from Vienna, H. Con. Res. 49, a resolution I authored to condemn anti-Semitism in Europe and around the world, passed the House on June 25 by a 412-0 vote. H. Con. Res. 49 calls upon lawmakers, law enforcement officials, and educators to amplify their efforts to counter violence and hatred against the Jewish people and their faith. Specifically, the resolution calls upon all nations to aggressively investigate, prosecute, and punish incidents of anti-Semitic violence, discrimination, and destruction of property.

My resolution and the Vienna conference have spurred several nations to act, including Germany, who agreed to host a follow-up conference on anti-Semitism next year in Berlin. The symbolism of this gesture is obvious, as the former center of Nazi Germany will host a conference to address how countries can fight the scourge of anti-Semitism. I will continue to tirelessly push governments and elected officials to speak out against anti-Semitic acts when they occur as well as to vigorously prosecute the perpetrators of these hateful acts. And I am looking forward to attending this follow-on Berlin conference and working to continue the effort to roll back the tide of anti-Semitism.

Mr. Speaker, today, I submit to theRecord documents that reveal deceptive practices used by the abortion lobby. It is critical that both the American and foreign public are made aware of these documents because they shed new light on the schemes of those who want to promote abortion here and abroad. It is especially important that policy makers know, and more fully understand, the deceptive practices being employed by the abortion lobby. These documents are from recent Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) strategy sessions where, according to a quote from a related interview session, one of CRR's Trustees said, ``We have to fight harder, be a little dirtier.'' These documents are important for the public to see because they expose the wolf donning sheep's clothing in an attempt to sanitize violence against children. These papers reveal a Trojan Horse of deceit. They show a plan to

``be a little dirtier.'' In their own words, these documents demonstrate how abortion promotion groups are planning to push abortion here and abroad, not by direct argument, but by twisting words and definitions. In discussing legal strategies to legalize abortion internationally they go as far as to say, ``. . . there is a stealth quality to the work: we are achieving incremental recognition of values without a huge amount of scrutiny from the opposition. These lower profile victories will gradually put us in a strong position to assert a broad consensus around our assertions.'' People should know about this stealth campaign, and that is why I submit these documents unedited and for public review.

International Legal Program Summary of Strategic Planning Through

October 31, 2003

Staff lawyers in the International Legal Program, (ILP)

have met three times with Nancy Northup, Nancy Raybin and

Elizabeth Lowell (September 3, September 23, and October 16)

to discuss our strategic direction. In the periods between

those meetings, ILP staff met and worked on the memos

attached hereto, as well as two other working memos.

We have stepped back and considered the types of strategic

legal work the ILP has worked on to date, examining in

particular how we evaluate or measure our effectiveness. We

reflected on our key accomplishments, and the constant

challenge of being in far higher demand than we have

resources. This led us to discuss and further develop the

ILP's ``theory of change.'' (See Memo 2.) What is our

overarching programmatic objective and what should that mean

in terms of hard choices on how to focus our work in the next

3-5 years? We have made some solid progress in answering that

question, as outlined below:

The ILP's overarching goal is to ensure that governments

worldwide guarantee reproductive rights out of an

understanding that they are legally bound to do so.

We see two principal prerequisites for achieving this goal:

(1) Strengthening international reproductive rights norms.

Norms refer to legal standards. The strongest existing

international legal norms relevant to reproductive rights are

found in multilateral human rights treaties. Based on our

view of what reproductive rights should mean for humankind,

the existing human rights treaties are not perfect. For

example, at least four substantive areas of reproductive

rights illustrate the limits of international reproductive

rights norms in protecting women: (a) abortion; (b)

adolescents access to reproductive health care; (c) HIV/AIDS;

and (d) child marriage. One strategic goal could be to work

for the adoption of a new multilateral treaty (or addendum to

an existing treaty) protecting reproductive rights. The other

principal option is to develop ``soft norms'' or

jurisprudence (decisions or interpretations) to guide states'

compliance with binding norms. Turning back to the four

substantive areas noted above, in all four cases, it is

possible to secure favorable interpretations. Indeed, the

Center has begun to do so. (For an in-depth discussion of

this, see Memo 1.)

In theory, existing international norms are broad enough to

be interpreted so as to provide women with adequate legal

protections. Therefore, we are in agreement on the need to

work in a systematic way on strengthening interpretations and

applications of the existing norms. If, at the end of 2007.

we determine that the existing norms are proving inadequate

(as evidenced by the interpretations we seek), then we would

reconsider whether to undertake a concerted effort to secure

a new international treaty or addendum to address this gap.

We would supplement our own conclusions by convening a

conference or expert group to consider whether it would be

strategic to pursue such an effort.

(2) Consistent and effective action on the part of civil

society and the international community to enforce these

norms.

This action follows from the premise that the best way to

test existing international reproductive rights norms is to

make governments accountable for them. In other words, to

work for their enforcement or implementation. would seek to

do this by: (a) developing activities aimed at enforcement of

international protections of reproductive rights in regional

and international fora; and (b) working for the adoption and

implementation of appropriate national-level norms.

The regional and international fora with a quasi-judicial

character arguably offer the most promising venues for

securing justice and interpretations that actually change

governments' behavior. To date, we have used the Inter-

American Commission on Human Rights (three cases, one

pending) and the UN Human Rights Committee (which oversees

compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights) (one case pending). We believe that seeking

favorable interpretations from the ``quasi judicial

mechanisms of the European human rights system, the African

system, and other UN individual complaint mechanisms will be

particularly important in the next 3-5 years.

Ultimately, underlying the goal of strengthening

international norms and enforcement is that of ensuring that

appropriate legal norms are in place at the national level so

as to improve women's health and lives. Working on the above

prerequisites can help bring about national-level normative

changes (since one key way for governments to comply with

international norms is to improve national norms). But these

processes are not linear and the adoption of appropriate

national-level norms may be feasible first (without

advocates' emphasis on governments' obligation to apply

international norms). Such new national-level norms can, in

turn, influence and strengthen international standards. Our

goal above is reached only when governments in fact guarantee

women's reproductive rights; first by adopting appropriate

laws and policies, and, second, by adequately implementing

them.

We have begun the process of considering what the above

theory of change means for our work: It will mean

concentrating on securing strong interpretations the strength

of international reproductive rights norms. But the work

suggested by the discussion above is still greater than our

resources. We must think in terms of working in a concerted

way on certain reproductive rights is issues; in a smaller

number of focus countries; and on honing our ability to

provide cutting edge input on relevant international and

regional norms and on providing a comparative legal

perspective. (i.e., analysis of laws and judicial decisions

across countries).

memo #1--international reproductive rights norms: current assessment

Our goal is to see governments worldwide guarantee women's

reproductive rights out of recognition that they are bound to

do so. An essential precondition is the existence of

international legal norms that encompass reproductive rights

and guarantee them the broadest possible protection. Our

task, therefore, is to consider the current content of

international law relating to reproductive rights and assess

its adequacy for guiding government decision-making and

holding governments accountable for violations of

international norms.

This memo provides an overview of the sources of

international law that may be invoked to protect reproductive

rights, examining both binding treaty provisions (hard norms)

and the many interpretative and non-binding statements that

contribute to an understanding of reproductive rights (soft

norms). It examines four substantive areas that illustrate

the limits of international law in protecting reproductive

rights: (a) abortion, (b) adolescents' access to reproductive

health care, (c) HIV/AIDS, and (d) child marriage. The memo

then considers whether, given existing support for

reproductive rights in international law, reproductive rights

activists should seek new protective norms or whether our

efforts would be better spent seeking stronger mechanisms for

enforcement of existing norms. Assuming that our goal is to

pursue the development of international norms, there are

several approaches we could take:

Develop a jurisprudence of existing norms that guides

states' compliance with binding norms;

Strategically work toward developing customary norms; and

Work to create another binding instrument, such as an

international treaty or a protocol to an existing treaty.

I. The foundations of reproductive rights in international law

By way of introduction, international human rights law is

grounded in both ``hard'' and ``soft'' norms. Legally binding

or ``hard'' norms are norms codified in binding treaties such

as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

(ICCPR) or the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of

Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). As a result of the

hard-fought efforts of human rights activists, hard

norms have gradually been extended to more and more of the

human family, including ethnic and racial minorities,

women, children, and refugees and internally displaced

people.

Supplementing these binding treaty-based standards and

often contributing to the development of future hard norms

are a variety of ``soft norms.'' These norms result from

interpretations of human rights treaty committees, rulings of

international tribunals, resolutions of inter-governmental

political bodies, agreed conclusions in international

conferences and reports of special rapporteurs. (Sources of

soft norms include: the European Court of Human Rights, the

CEDAW Committee, provisions from the Platform for Action of

the Beijing Fourth World Conference on Women, and reports

from the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health.)

Reproductive rights advocates, including the Center, have

found guarantees of women's right to reproductive health and

self-determination in longstanding and hard international

norms, relying on such instruments as the Universal

Declaration on Human Rights (Universal Declaration), the

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),

and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and

Cultural Rights (ICESCR), and the Convention on the

Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women

(CEDAW). This approach received international affirmation (in

a soft norm) at the International Conference on Population

and Development (ICPD) in the conference's Programme of

Action. Paragraph 7.3 of that document states:

``[R]eproductive rights embrace certain human rights that

are already recognized in national laws, international human

rights documents and other consensus documents. These rights

rest on the recognition of the

basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely

and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their

children and to have the information and means to do so, and

the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and

reproductive health. It also includes their right to make

decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination,

coercion and violence, as expressed in human rights

documents.''

We and others have grounded reproductive rights in a number

of recognized human rights, including: the right to life,

liberty, and security; the right to health, reproductive

health, and family planning; the right to decide the number

and spacing of children; the right to consent to marriage and

to equality in marriage; the right to privacy; the right to

be free from discrimination on specified grounds; the right

to modify traditions or customs that violate women's

rights; the right not to be subjected to torture or other

cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; the

right to be free from sexual violence; and the right to

enjoy scientific progress and to consent to

experimentation.

Our publications feature legal arguments resting on these

broad principles, many of which have been well received by

treaty monitoring bodies and other authoritative U.N. bodies.

Still, there are some arguments that could be considerably

strengthened with legal norms that relate more specifically

to reproductive matters. The next section will briefly

discuss four areas in which international law provides less

protection than desired.

II. Gaps in existing norms

A. Abortion

We have been leaders in bringing arguments for a woman's

right to choose abortion within the rubric of international

human rights. However, there is no binding hard norm that

recognizes women's right to terminate a pregnancy. To argue

that such a right exists, we have focused on interpretations

of three categories of hard norms: the rights to life and

health; the right to be free from discrimination; those

rights that protect individual decision-making on private

matters.

Bolstered by numerous soft norms, the assertion with widest

international acceptance is that a woman's right to be free

from unsafe abortion is grounded in her rights to life and

health. The right to life has been interpreted to require

governments to take action to preserve life. The right to

health guarantees the highest attainable level of physical

and mental health. Because unsafe abortion is responsible for

78,000 deaths each year and hundreds of thousands of

disabilities, criminalization of abortion clearly harms

women's life and health. The international community has

recognized the dangers of unsafe abortion. Statements to that

effect were adopted at the International Conference on

Population and Development in Cairo (1994) and the Beijing

Fourth World Conference on Women (1995), as well as the

recent 5-year reviews of these conferences.

While this has been an important stride, the global

community has fallen short of recognizing a right to

independent decision-making in abortion, providing us with

relatively few soft norms. We argue that the right to make

decisions about one's body is rooted in the right to physical

integrity, which has been interpreted to protect against

unwanted invasions of one's body. We assert that the right to

privacy protects a woman's right to make decisions about her

reproductive capacity. We also rely on the right to determine

the number and spacing of one's children. Here, the soft

norms arguably work against us, particularly given the phrase

repeated in both the Cairo and Beijing documents affirming

that under no circumstances should abortion be considered

a method of family planning.

We have also grounded our arguments in the right to be free

from gender discrimination, which is protected in every major

human rights instrument. Because restrictive abortion laws

deny access to health care that only women need, they

constitute discrimination in access to health care. This

position is supported somewhat obliquely in a CEDAW general

recommendation. In addition, we argue that by denying women

the means to control their own fertility, restrictive

abortion laws interfere with women's ability to enjoy

opportunities in other sectors of society, including

educational and professional opportunities. No soft norms

affirm this argument.

B. Adolescents--Access to Reproductive Health Services and Information

The Center has taken a leading role in pressing for

protection of adolescents' right to access reproductive and

sexual health information and services. In creating a human

rights framework for such rights, we use the same hard norms

that form the foundation for non-adolescent women's right to

access reproductive health services. However, the challenge

is to assert that the hard norms apply to adolescents under

age 18. We rely almost exclusively on soft norms to do this

since none of the treaties explicitly discuss adolescents'

reproductive rights.

Rights Relating to the Right to Reproductive Health

The right to health (including family planning services and

education);

The right to life; and

The rights to education and information.

With respect to the first cluster of rights, the hard norms

relating to women's right to access reproductive health

services and information are well established and accepted.

However, there is no hard norm specifically stating that

these provisions also protect adolescents' right to access

reproductive health services and information. There is one

important, and somewhat ambiguous exception. A recent

interpretation suggests the provision on the right to health,

which asks states parties to develop family planning services

and education, applies to children/adolescents.

Rights Relating to Reproductive Decision Making/Autonomy

Right to privacy;

Right to plan the number and spacing of one's children; and

Rights to liberty and security of person.

In issues relating to adolescents' reproductive autonomy

and decision-making, there are even fewer hard norms and it

is even more difficult to say that these hard norms apply to

adolescents under the age of 18 and their reproductive

decision-making. For example, the Children's Rights

Convention (CRR) provisions on the right to privacy are

problematic, prohibiting ``arbitrary or unlawful interference

with his or her privacy.'' The provision is not explicit that

the right applies to health services and the use of

``unlawful'' could imply that only interferences that

contravene national law would be prohibited. There are no

hard norms on: (1) confidentiality in provision of health

services or information; (2) prohibiting parental consent

requirements and (3) third party authorization for access to

reproductive health services and information.

The Right To Be Free From Discrimination

While there are hard norms prohibiting sex discrimination

that apply to girl adolescents, these are problematic since

they must be applied to a substantive right (i.e., the right

to health) and the substantive reproductive rights of

adolescents are not `hard' (yet!). There are no hard norms on

age discrimination that would protect adolescents' ability to

exercise their rights to reproductive health, sexual

education, or reproductive decisionmaking. In addition, there

are no hard norms prohibiting discrimination based on marital

status, which is often an issue with respect to unmarried

adolescents' access to reproductive health services and

information.

The soft norms support the idea that the hard norms apply

to adolescents under 18. They also fill in the substantive

gaps in the hard norms with respect to reproductive health

services and information as well as adolescents' reproductive

autonomy. Two important standards are applied in order to

fill in the gaps:

The ``Evolving Capacity of the Child'' standard, which

limits parental control to the extent that children take on

more autonomy as their capacities grow. (e.g., An adolescent

who is sexually active and is taking the initiative to seek

out means to protect herself from STIs and unwanted pregnancy

is demonstrating a level of maturity to justify access.)

The ``Best Interest of the Child'' standard, which mandates

that in the context of health, parental involvement that

prevents adolescents from accessing potentially life-saving

information and services is NOT in the child's best interest.

Rather, it is in the best interest of adolescents to have

access to the means to protect themselves. It is often in the

best interest of the child to be granted autonomy in

decision-making.

Soft Norms Relating to the right to Reproductive Health

The Treaty Monitoring Bodies (TMBs) have explicitly

interpreted adolescents' right to health as including the

right to access services and information on reproductive

health. In addition, they have called for sexual education in

the context of the rights to education and information. Both

the International Conference on Population and Development

(ICPD) and the Beijing Platform for Action (Beijing PFA)

further help to fill in the gaps in this cluster of

substantive rights, clearly stating that these rights apply

to adolescents.

Soft norms relating to the right to reproductive autonomy/decision-

making

Soft norms supplement the dearth of hard norms. The TMBs

have interpreted adolescents' right to privacy as ensuring a

right to confidentiality in reproductive health services as

well as the right to access services and information without

parental consent.

Soft norms relating to the right to be free from discrimination

There are no explicit soft norms on the right to be free

from discrimination based on age in the context of

adolescents' reproductive rights. There are soft norms

relating to the age of marriage, which would impact

adolescents' ability to access services since in many

countries married adolescents are granted access regardless

of their age while unmarried adolescents are effectively

denied access. This relates closely to soft norms on

discrimination based on marital status. In this regard, the

TMBs General Recommendations/Comments and Concluding

Observations have explicitly condemned discrimination based

on marital status in accessing reproductive health services.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing H.R. 8659, the Reservists Burial Equity Act of 2003. I am pleased to have join me as sponsors of the bill Mr. Lane Evans, the Ranking Democrat of the Veterans' Affairs Committee; Mr. Henry Brown and Mr. Michael Michaud, the Chairman and Ranking Member, respectively, of the Subcommittee on Benefits; as well as Mr. Jeff Miller; Ms. Julia Carson; Ms. Berkley; Mr. Sherrod Brown; and Mr. John Shimkus. This legislation would update the eligibility rules for burial of reservists at Arlington National Cemetery. Similar legislation passed the House in the 107th Congress.

Current Army rules provide in-ground burial at Arlington National Cemetery to veterans who died on active duty, received one of the military services' highest awards for gallantry, were held as a prisoner of war, or retired from active duty military service. In addition, veterans who do not meet the current eligibility criteria but who served in a high Federal office are also eligible, as are the immediate family members of all veterans buried there.

It is wholly inequitable that a reservist who serves our Nation for a minimum of 20 years is ineligible for in-ground burial at Arlington National Cemetery because he or she had the misfortune to die prior to age 60. The most glaring example of this policy was brought to light following the death of Captain Charles Burlingame III, the pilot of the American Airlines jet that crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Although he had retired from the Naval Reserves, he was only 51 years old at the time of his death. As such, he was not automatically eligible for burial at Arlington. Subsequently, the Secretary of the

Army granted a waiver and Capt. Burlingame was interred at Arlington in December 2001.

Similarly, I see no reason why a reservist's eligibility for burial at Arlington should be based on whether that person was or was not in training status when he or she died in the line of duty. In today's military, there is often no practical difference.

This bill would revise existing law by eliminating the requirement that retired reservists be in receipt of their retirement pay to be eligible for in-ground burial at Arlington. Reservists must be 60 years old to receive retirement pay; reservist retirees who fall into this category are often referred to as being in the ``grey zone.'' The bill would also make eligible for in-ground burial reservists who die in the line of duty during active or inactive training.

Mr. Speaker, in recent years, reservists have been increasingly called upon to participate on active duty for extended periods to support the national defense. As the recent actions in Afghanistan and Iraq clearly demonstrate, reservists play a major role in the modern total force concept--we are unable to go to war without mobilizing reservists right from the start. Let's pass this bill and truly honor those men and women who put their civilian lives on hold to serve in our Armed Forces on behalf of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 100) to restate, clarify, and revise the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940, with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend and colleague from Maine for his explanation and for his good work on this legislation, as well as our good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), the ranking member on the full committee.

Mr. Speaker, when the House considered this legislation last May 7, we passed it unanimously. We sent it over to the Senate. And we are glad we bring before the body a bill today with a Senate amendment that makes some very important statements, restatements as well as some new law with regard to the Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Act which was first passed back in 1940.

This legislation, as my friend just pointed out, is really an historic restatement. It strengthens a law that is critically important to all of our reserve components as well as our active-duty members of our Armed Services.

The amendment to H.R. 100 would raise the level of eviction protections to reflect the increase in the cost of rental housing in high-cost urban areas. The current act only applies to leases of less than $1,200 a month. The House-Senate compromise would increase the amount to $2,400; and the amount would be increased every year as necessary in accordance with the Consumer Price Index housing component so that the protection stays current.

It also requires the Department of Defense to annually publish the amount of rental coverage in their Federal Register within 60 days of the CPI's publication to provide public notice of the level of probation.

The compromise also provides specific protections for assets of a servicemember from attachment to satisfy business debts for which the servicemember is personally liable, as long as the assets are not held in connection with the business.

The compromise also includes provisions to allow servicemembers who are being called to active duty and by certain active-duty servicemembers to terminate motor vehicle leases which are increasingly commonplace and in use without an early termination penalty. When this was first passed in 1940s, obviously, nobody had even heard of leases like this. They are, like I said, a way of life today.

Section 207 of the bill would clarify that for the 6 percent interest cap being continued from current law, any interest above the cap is forgiven and the servicemember's monthly payment must be reduced.

I want to clarify that the committee intends for the provisions language of the interest rate reduction, to permit lenders to follow Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's current implementation guidance, allowing lenders to reamortize the loan using a 6 percent interest rate or to apply the 6 percent interest rate using the original amortization schedule.

Mr. Speaker, I want to very strongly commend the Office of Legislative Counsel of both the House and the Senate, the committee counsel and the representatives of the Judge Advocates General of the military departments who participated in the drafting of this historic legislation to update the act.

From my own staff, I want to thank Kingston Smith, who is sitting to my right, Summer Larson, Geoffrey Collver, Mary Ellen McCarthy and Patrick Ryan who spent many long hours reviewing and analyzing this legislation.

From the Senate staff, the late Dave Goetz, Chris McNamee, Mary Schoelen, and Bill Tuerk who performed a very similar task. Bob Cover from the Office of Legislative Counsel spent many years, not months, years, working on this legislation. The actual preparation of the bill was truly a collaborative bipartisan effort that would not have been accomplished without the technical and practical expertise of these outstanding individuals.

I want to thank majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and Brett Loper for ensuring that this vital legislation made it to the floor today. Again, we passed this last May. We had hope to have this out sometime in June. We are finally getting to it at the end of the session, not because of a delay in the House, but, thankfully, the Senate did act, and now we have a good bill before us.

I want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown) who is our subcommittee chairman, the ranking member, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud) who spoke earlier, and, of course, my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) for his work.

It is a good bill. I hope Members will support it.

Mr. Speaker, as we approach the end of session, I would like to take note as Helsinki Commission Chairman of a very disturbing trend in the Caucasus republics of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. At this very moment, thousands of Georgians are engaging in a campaign of civil disobedience in the wake of the November 2 parliamentary elections. Georgian and international monitors registered large-scale falsification and ballot stuffing, not to mention the exclusion of many thousands of eligible voters. When the Central Election Commission gave the largest tallies to President Shevardnadze's party and the nominally-opposition but Shevardnadze- allied Revival Party, opposition leaders organized large demonstrations in Tbilisi's main street. There, in the rain and cold, protesters spent days demanding the President's resignation and new elections.

Their efforts, born of rage and despair, have been peaceful and the authorities have so far acted with restraint. But Georgia faces a genuine crisis, make no mistake. After ten years of growing frustration at official incompetence and corruption, the country's impoverished public has begun to resist business as usual. Eduard Shevardnadze, still lionized in the West for helping to end the Cold War as Soviet Foreign Minister, has long been deeply unpopular at home. Demands by successive U.S. administrations and international financial institutions to curb pervasive corruption have gone unheeded. And the November 2 election was a harbinger of the presidential race in 2005, when Shevardnadze will not be eligible to run. All participants and analysts agree that the outcome of this year's parliamentary contest will influence the coming succession.

How the Georgian drama will play itself out is hard to predict. But it is clear that Georgia is not alone in suffering through a crisis of trust and legitimacy. On October 17, Azerbaijan held presidential elections that, according to OSCE observers, did not meet international norms. Serious clashes between opposition backers and the authorities erupted in which at least one person was killed and hundreds were injured. Law enforcement agencies arrested hundreds of opposition activists; though most have since been released, according to human rights groups, many were beaten in detention. The Azerbaijani election, moreover, marked the transfer of power from President Heydar Aliev to his son, establishing the first family dynasty in the former Soviet Union. But Ilham Aliev has begun his term under a shadow, tainted by an election seen as unfair inside and outside the country and marred by the accompanying violence.

Earlier this year, Armenia held presidential elections in February and parliamentary elections in May that also fell short of OSCE standards. In February, thousands of protesters marched in the snowy streets of Yerevan; perhaps their numbers kept President Robert Kocharian from claiming a first round victory and forced him into a runoff--a first for a sitting president in the Caucasus. Between the two rounds, however, the authorities detained some 200 opposition campaign workers and supporters. On election day, they did whatever was necessary to win in a landslide. The final judgement of the OSCE election observation mission was that ``the overall process failed to provide equal conditions for the candidates. Voting, counting and tabulation showed serious irregularities, including widespread ballot box stuffing.'' The Armenian Assembly of America on March 18 noted that ``the people of Armenia deserved nothing less than the declared aim of their government for free, fair and transparent presidential elections. As reported in depth by the OSCE, this achievable standard was not met.''

There was some improvement in the May parliamentary contest, concluded the OSCE, especially in the campaign and media coverage. Nevertheless, the election ``fell short of international standards . . . in a number of key respects, in particular the counting and tabulation of votes.''

In sum, Mr. Speaker, a discouraging and disturbing record for all three countries, marked by a consistent pattern of election rigging by entrenched elites who have learned that they can ``get away with it.'' The international community is prepared to register disapproval, by proclaiming these elections--in diplomatic language, to be sure--short of OSCE norms. But there have never been any other consequences for subverting the democratic process. Nor have opposition parties anywhere been able to annul or change the official results of a falsified electoral process, or even compel governments to negotiate with them.

Perhaps Georgia, where the state is relatively weak and discontent widespread, will prove the exception--although it is alarming that President Shevardnadze has sent his sometime rival Aslan Abashidze, who runs the region of Ajaria like a Central Asian potentate, north to gain Moscow's support. The prospect of Russia propping up a shaky, illegitimate Georgian Government should send shivers down the spine of any American. But until and unless an opposition movement registers some tangible success, the men in charge of the destinies of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia have no reason to change course. What they are doing works and it benefits them, even if it harms their countries' chances of developing democracy.

Even worse, there is little reason to expect changes for the better. For years, optimists maintained that however discouraging things were, time and constant pressure from Washington and the international community would bring gradual change. As we approach 2004, the 13th year of independence for the former Soviet republics, that prognosis seems increasingly pollyanish. The consolidation of ruling groups, determined to remain in power, in control of the state's law enforcement and judicial agencies, and disposing of significant wealth, makes gradual evolution towards a genuinely democratic mentality and practices ever less plausible. Instead, we see evolution towards what some analysts call ``semi-authoritarian'' states and others, with reference to the Middle East, term ``liberal autocracies.''

Mr. Speaker, this admittedly depressing analysis leads to several worrisome conclusions. First, political opposition and publics in the Caucasus have concluded that electoral processes are hopelessly corrupted and offer no prospect of fairly competing for power or

even trying to influence policymaking. Accordingly, they are increasingly inclined to mobilize against their leaders and governments. Even though victories have thus far eluded them, this turn to the ``street'' bespeaks a perennial politics of resentment instead of compromise and consensus-building. Second, the gulf between rulers and ruled has obvious implications for stability and democracy. Ruling elites will try to tamp down actual protest and curb society's organizing capability, infringing on their basic liberties; this, in turn, will upset the delicate balance between state and society. Change, when it comes, may be violent.

Steadily losing hope, many Armenians, Azerbaijanis and Georgians will likely opt out of politics altogether. Many others will emigrate if they can. This trend has been marked for years in all three countries; Armenians often try to come to the United States; while Azerbaijanis and Georgians find it easier to move to Russia. But the departure of these highly motivated individuals and their families, who often find ways to prosper in their adopted homes, weakens their homelands.

Washington has observed these tendencies with concern but little action. Democracy-building programs may help develop civil society but have little impact on leaders who pursue their own interests and are quite prepared to dismiss the State Department's criticism of yet another rigged election--even if, as happened yesterday, the Department, in unprecedentedly strong language, said the Georgian election ``results do not accurately reflect the will of the Georgian people, but instead reflect massive vote fraud in Ajara and other Georgian regions.'' And while we are preoccupied with Iraq and the war on terrorism, Moscow has been steadily rebuilding its assets in these countries, buying up infrastructure in equity-for-debt deals and offering all possible support to those in power.

Under these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, our chances of influencing political evolution in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia may not be very great. But they will diminish to zero unless we recognize the problem, and soon.

Mr. Speaker, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov demonstrated a fine sense of irony recently when he criticized the United States for an ``excessive tendency to use force'' in resolving international issues.

Let me state clearly that I do not believe my country should reach for its huge arsenal of weapons and troops every time we are faced with a difficult situation abroad. To everything there is a season.

Nevertheless, it is ironic that the Russian Government should accuse the United States of taking military action when back home in Chechnya the Russian Government has demonstrated not only an excessive tendency to use force, but also a tendency to use excessive force.

This is not meant to ignore or justify the human rights abuses of the Chechen separatist movement. The Russian Government is entitled to defend its territorial integrity and defend its citizens against civil disorder. But the fact remains that with its ``anti-terrorist operation,'' Moscow has unleashed a massive and brutal military campaign that frequently makes no distinction between combatants and non-combatants. As Newsweek's distinguished commentator Fareed Zakaria wrote in August of this year, ``Over the past ten years, Russia's military has had a scorched-earth policy toward Chechnya. The targets are not simply Chechen rebels but, through indiscriminate warfare, ordinary Chechens . . . Over time, the Chechen rebellion has become more desperate, more extreme and more Islamist.''

Not only are such tactics inhumane and cynical, they lead not to peace in Chechnya, but to a more protracted conflict. In this week's National Interest online, Seva Gunitsky reports on how the tactics of the Russian military has radicalized a population that might otherwise have rejected the armed militants: ``For by refusing to distinguish between fighters and civilians, the Russian army fused together the interests of previously disparate groups . . . [and] created a far more dangerous foe.''

Besides the widespread civilian casualties and property destruction caused by the indiscriminate use of force by Russian military and security forces, the Chechen conflict has resulted in the displacement of hundreds of thousands of persons. Moreover, the recent presidential elections in Chechnya were so obviously flawed that they could hardly be said to reflect the will of the people.

I welcome an exchange of opinions with other government leaders and parliamentarians regarding U.S. foreign policy. Nevertheless, I hope that Moscow will reexamine its own excessive tendency to use force in Chechnya and make every effort to reach a legitimate political settlement there.

Mr. Speaker, November 25 will mark the one- year anniversary of events in Turkmenistan that turned that already bizarre autocracy into an even more nightmarish kingdom. According to the official version, opposition groups led by former high-ranking officials tried to assassinate Saparmurat Niyazov, the country's President-for-Life. The attempt failed, the plotters were found, tried and imprisoned, and in the eyes of Niyazov's regime, justice has been done.

What actually happened that day is unclear. There may well have been a coup attempt against Niyazov, who has turned himself into virtually a living god. Or, as some opposition activists in exile maintain, the whole affair may have been staged by Niyazov to crack down even harder. Since no outsider has had access to those arrested in connection with the events, the truth may never be known.

Whatever happened, it is easy to understand the desperate frustration among Turkmen. Niyazov has made Turkmenistan the only one-party state in the former Soviet space, where one man decides everything, no opposition is permitted, all media are totally censored and the populace is forced to study the ``rukhnama''--a dictator's rantings that purport to be a one-stop religion, national history and morality lesson.

What is clear is that Niyazov's response to November 25 has trampled on civilized norms, even if his allegations are true. In the wake of the arrests, all opposition--real or imagined--has been crushed. Quick show trials of the accused were broadcast on television, after which they received long prison sentences with no access to relatives or international organizations. Some of the opposition leaders have already died in prison. One individual who was arrested, an American citizen named Leonid Komarovsky of Massachusetts was eventually released, as a result of pressure from Washington. Upon gaining his freedom, he told the world of the horrible tortures people suffered at the hands of Turkmen security forces. The stories rival any we used to hear from the Soviet Union or Saddam Hussein's Iraq. In addition, relatives of those deemed ``enemies of the people'' have been targeted for persecution. The luckier ones merely are fired and thrown out of their apartments onto the streets; others have been arrested and tortured in prison or forced to watch their loved ones being tortured.

In response to this crisis, the OSCE invoked the Moscow Mechanism, a rarely-used tool to investigate particularly appalling human rights violations. But Niyazov refused to cooperate with the OSCE, whose officially designated rapporteur was denied a visa. Nevertheless, he was able to compile a comprehensive dossier of horror, which documents as well as possible without access to prisons, the mistreatment and abuse of those arrested and the persecution of their relatives. The rapporteur also forwarded to the Government of Turkmenistan recommendations to move towards reform. Niyazov has dismissed them as ``offensive'' and ``interference in internal affairs.''

Niyazov has also refused U.S. officials entry to his jails. Recently, Ambassador Stephen Minikes, head of the U.S. Delegation to OSCE visited Ashgabat, but despite his explicit request, was not allowed to check on the health of one of those arrested: former Turkmen Foreign Minister and OSCE Ambassador Batyr Berdiev. There are persistent rumors he has died in prison.

One year after the events of November 25, Saparmurat Niyazov remains in power. He continues his crackdown, and the country's downward spiral accelerates. Niyazov has reintroduced exit visas, a legacy of the Soviet past we thought had been definitively overcome. Just last week, he instituted new laws

harshly restricting freedom of religion, which is trampled upon daily in Turkmenistan; groups brave enough to meet risk home raids, imprisonment, deportation, internal exile, house eviction and even torture. The new provisions further empower regime agents to squash religious practice. Now, individuals caught more than once in a year acting on the behalf of an unregistered community can be fined between ten and thirty months of wages, or be sent to hard labor for up to one year. Of course, registration is in effect impossible to obtain, leaving religious communities and their members in a highly vulnerable position.

A recent Niyazov decree on NGO activity makes it punishable for most Turkmen to interact with foreigners. Representatives of non-Turkmen ethnic groups, such as Uzbeks or Russians, face discrimination in education and employment. Niyazov has not only reestablished and strengthened the environment of fear, he has deliberately isolated his country from outside influences. Under his rule, Turkmenistan has no chance of developing normally.

As November 25 approaches, we recall that when a political system centralizes all power in the hands one man, offering no possibilities for participation to anyone else, people may be tempted to change that system by any means. And we have occasion to consider the eternal validity of Lord Acton's dictum: ``Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.''

Unfortunately, the U.S. response to Turkmenistan's blatant disregard for human rights has been shamefully weak. In August, although Turkmenistan violates freedom of emigration by requiring exit visas, the Administration made the astonishing decision to exempt Turkmenistan from Jackson-Vanik requirements on the free movement of citizens.

Our leverage on this particular dictator may be weak but we have opportunities to express our outrage about these ongoing abuses and to align ourselves with the forces of freedom and democracy. In addition to ending the Jackson-Vanik waiver, the State Department should designate Turkmenistan a ``Country of Particular Concern'' under the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. The regime's well- documented record of ``particularly severe violations of religious freedom'' unquestionably meets the statutory threshold envisioned when we passed the Act of ``systematic, ongoing, egregious violations of religious freedom.''

The United States and the international community must condemn the actions of Niyazov's regime and continue working to bring Turkmenistan back towards civilized and democratic norms. Any other approach betrays our own principles.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 453) condemning the terrorist attacks in Istanbul, Turkey, on November 15, 2003, expressing condolences to the families of the individuals murdered and expressing sympathies to the individuals injured in the terrorist attacks, and standing in solidarity with Turkey in the fight against terrorism, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, the resolution before us condemns the terrorist attacks in Istanbul last Saturday as well as yesterday morning. I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), my friend, for proffering this resolution and for the prompt consideration that is being given to it by our leadership in scheduling it very quickly before the body today.

This resolution conveys our deepest and heartfelt sympathy to the victims and their families and states that the United States stands in solidarity with the Turkish people in the fight against terrorism. These attacks, Madam Speaker, bear all the hallmarks of al Qaeda, and that terrorist group has claimed responsibility for these cruel and cowardly acts.

This demonstrates, once again, that the target of global terrorists is not just the United States of America, but all those who reject their hateful vision of a clash of civilizations and governments by religious extremism.

I thought President Bush in the United Kingdom the other day said it so well when he said, ``I want to express my deep sympathy for the loss of life in Turkey. The nature of the terrorist enemy is evident once again. We see their contempt, their utter contempt, for innocent life. They hate freedom,'' the President went on. ``They hate free nations. Today, once again, we saw their ambitions of murder. The cruelty is part of their strategy. The terrorists hope to intimidate; they hope to demoralize. They particularly want to intimidate and demoralize free nations. They're not going to succeed.''

Madam Speaker, despite some significant human rights issues, and no one has been more of a critic of Turkey than I have in the past, although they are making some progress, despite all of that, Turkey remains one of the few successful democracies in the Muslim world, with a tradition of religious tolerance. The Turkish Republic is an example of how a predominantly Muslim country can enjoy a secular, democratic government. Turkey has shown that the Islamic faith of its citizens and a secular democracy can flourish side by side.

By targeting synagogues and Turkish citizens of the Jewish faith on Saturday, the terrorists attacked the notion that Muslims can live in peace and harmony with other faiths. It was a profoundly anti-Semitic act. The terrorists know that the successful example of Turkey lays bear the emptiness of their own hateful vision. It is working in Turkey, and yet now they are trying to give a different impression to the world.

By targeting the British Consulate General and a leading British bank, these terrorists viciously illustrated that all of our allies and their targets must remain united with our allies in the fight against terrorism.

Madam Speaker, these contemptible acts killed almost 50 people, including the British Consul General in Istanbul, and injured more than 750 innocent people. Our deepest condolences go out to their families and to their nations.

Turkey has been a strong American ally, as we all know, the underbelly of NATO for more than 50 years. By agreeing to this resolution, we affirm our mutual commitment to that common defense.

I would remind my colleagues that after the September 11 of 2001 attacks, NATO invoked its collective defense clause, declaring that the al Qaeda attacks in the United States were attacks against the entire alliance.

I thought British Prime Minister Tony Blair summed it up very well when he said, ``And when they say is this an attack directed against our alliance, indeed, it is directed against anybody who stands in the way of that fanaticism'' he went on to say, ``That is why our response has got to be to say to them as clearly as we possibly can, you are not going to defeat us because our will to defend what we believe is, in actuality, and in the end, stronger, better, more determined than your will to inflict damage on innocent people.''

Madam Speaker, let me conclude by saying this: Turkey and the United Kingdom both played important roles to drive al Qaeda from its base in Afghanistan and to replace the Taliban government that harbored those terrorists. They were the first two countries to command the International Security Assistance Force, which has stabilized the Kabul region and supported the Karzai government. Turkey and the United Kingdom stood by the United States when our Nation was the target of global terrorism. By passing this timely resolution today in a bipartisan way, Democrats, Republicans, moderates, liberals and conservatives, we affirm our determination to stand by our longtime allies and to defeat the terrorists who bear the guilt for these highly reprehensible acts.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), my good friend and colleague.

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

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1156) to amend title 38, United States Code, to improve and enhance provision of health care for veterans, to authorize major construction projects and other facilities matters for the Department of Veterans Affairs, to enhance and improve authorities relating to the administration of personnel of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), the chairman of our Subcommittee on Health, who is the prime author of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), the distinguished chairman of our Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

(Mr. BUYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi), a member of the committee, and a very active one at that.

(Mr. RENZI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, because there have been so many requests for time on our side, as well as on the Democratic side, I ask unanimous consent that we extend this debate by 10 minutes equally divided between the minority and majority.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez), who along with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) worked very, very hard for the Fitzsimons Hospital, and I am very grateful for their help.

(Mr. BEAUPREZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).

(Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), and thank him for the great work he did on the Pensacola Outpatient Clinic, the $45 million that he was instrumental in putting in there.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi), and thank the gentleman for his work on the Columbus, Ohio project which has advance planning funds to the tune of $9 million in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans). Again, we have collaborated on a bill working with the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez), and we have produced an extraordinarily good piece of legislation.

We worked with the other body, and I want to thank Senator Arlen Specter, the chairman, and the ranking member, Senator Graham. There was give and take, obviously. We began working on this very comprehensive product last spring. Again, this is a combination of a number of bills rolled and packaged into one bill. Project Shad was mentioned earlier by my colleague from California, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) mentioned it as well. This bill is not everything we would like. The next time I find a bill on this floor that is will be the first time.

We did pass over to the other body the full money for the Columbus project, and we got back advance planning funding from the other body. While it is not everything we wanted, it certainly will ensure that that project goes forward. The $9 million is not chump change and will be sufficient to get the job done. I want to assure my colleagues we have done our due diligence. This is a very good piece of veterans legislation.

I want to thank our staff, Pat Ryan; John Bradley, who is the staff director for the subcommittee; Kingston Smith, our deputy chief counsel; Jeannie McNally; Mary McDermott; Peter Dickinson; Steve Kirkland; Bernie Dotson; Summer Larson; Kathleen Greve; Delores Dunn; Paige McManus; Devon Seibert; and Veronica Crowe. As my colleague mentioned, we have had great cooperation with our friends on the other side of the aisle.

Again, this is a quintessential bipartisan piece of legislation, something that this entire body can be proud of, and it will advance the ball significantly when it comes to veterans health care as well as the construction project.

Let me also remind my colleagues that we have passed over to the other body H.R. 11 and another bill that I sponsored and a bill that the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran) sponsored in the last Congress, and they never came back. They listed a number of projects that should have but did not get funded and were not authorized. Now, finally in this Congress, under the great leadership of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), we have gotten that product back from the Senate, and it will go to President Bush for his signature. This is a great day for veterans. Again, I thank all of my colleagues for their cooperation and leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a joint explanatory statement.

Explanatory Statement on S. 1156, as Amended, Veterans Health Care,

Capital Asset, and Business Improvement Act of 2003

S. 1156, as amended, the Veterans Health Care, Capital

Asset, and Business Improvement Act of 2003 (``Compromise

Agreement'') reflects a negotiated agreement reached by the

Senate and House of Representatives Committees on Veterans'

Affairs concerning provisions in a number of bills considered

by the House and Senate during the 1st session of the 108th

Congress. The measures considered in this compromise are: S.

1156, as amended, as reported by the Senate Committee on

Veterans' Affairs on November 10, 2003; S. 1815 introduced on

November 4, 2003 (``Senate Bill''); H.R. 2357, as amended,

passed the House on July 21, 2003; H.R. 2433,

as amended, passed the House on September 10, 2003; H.R.

1720, as amended, passed the House on October 29, 2003; H.R.

3260, as introduced in the House on October 8, 2003; and H.R.

3387, as introduced in the House on October 29, 2003 (``House

Bill'').

The House and Senate Committees on Veterans' Affairs have

prepared the following explanation of the Compromise

Agreement. Differences between the provisions contained in

the Compromise Agreement and the related provisions of the

Senate bill and the House bills are noted, except for

clerical corrections, conforming changes made necessary by

the Compromise Agreement, and minor drafting, technical, and

clarifying changes.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 2297) to amend title 38, United States Code, to improve benefits under laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the Senate amendment to H.R. 2297 reflects an agreement with the other body on comparable House and Senate bills. The Veterans Benefits Act of 2003 includes almost all of the provisions that were contained in the bill when the House originally considered it, as well as several other worthwhile provisions contained in S. 1136, which the Senate passed on October 31.

Mr. Speaker, the Chairman of our Subcommittee on Benefits, the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina, will describe several of those important provisions, some seven titles in all, approximately 40 provisions, and I will yield to him in just a moment to do so. But let me briefly touch on the benefits this bill contains and who will be affected by it.

Mr. Speaker, many surviving spouses of veterans who die of a service- related cause will qualify for restoration of benefits taken away when they remarry. Former prisoners of war will find it easier to qualify for veterans benefits that they so richly deserve. Disabled veterans who own businesses will find it easier to sell their goods and services to the Federal Government. The surviving children of those killed in the line of duty will now receive a college-assisted payment that is 13 percent higher than the current benefit. Reservists who want to use the VA home loan program will now be charged a lower fee.

Mr. Speaker, following on the heels of our historic enactment of legislation to provide concurrent receipt benefits to over 250,000 severely disabled military retirees, this bill is a further testament to Congress' commitment to aiding those who serve our country in the Armed Forces. There are many other important provisions in this measure, and I do urge my colleagues to review them. And, again, my good friend and colleague, as well as the ranking member, will be going into further detail.

I would especially like to congratulate the Chair and Ranking Member of our Subcommittee on Benefits, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown) and the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud) for holding hearings this year on a variety of important issues affecting veterans. I am pleased that

their efforts on the subcommittee pulled together in truly bipartisan fashion all of these disparate elements into this omnibus bill to advance the needs of our veterans.

And, again, I always like to thank, because we work hand in glove, my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), for his work on this legislation as well.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown), the distinguished chairman of our Subcommittee on Benefits.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) for his kind remarks and also point out that he has been indefatigable in fighting for the Filipino veterans, and thank the gentleman for his hard work, which has been incorporated in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, all of the staff who have worked for days, weeks and months on this legislation through the hearing process. There are seven titles and close to 40 provisions in this bill. It is a very comprehensive omnibus bill, and so many Members made a difference in its content.

I would like to say we break a lot of new ground in this legislation, including the legislation dealing with veterans' businesses so that set-asides, sole source procurements, and the benefits accruing thereon will go to veterans themselves. In the past, veterans have gotten so little of the Federal procurement dollars--only 0.13 of 1 percent-- which is unconscionable. This legislation now gives discretionary authority government-wide so we can again facilitate these important businesses.

Let me also point out that provision, just like the whole bill which is backed by virtually every veteran service organization in the country--that particular provision--on veterans' businesses has 36 military and veterans organizations backing it from a broad spectrum. From the largest Hispanic organization to the Black Veterans for Social Justice, we have a good cross-spectrum of people backing this provision because our veterans who have served so ably and are disabled are absolutely deserving of this legislation.

I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi) for his leadership on this particular provision. He actually introduced the bill which is incorporated here in our final product. Mr. Renzi has been a champion of veterans benefits, and I thank him.

Mr. Speaker, I also thank Senator Rockefeller, who was instrumental in encouraging a strong text for this provision. I also thank our counterparts in the Senate, Senator Graham and the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Senator Specter, for their work on this legislation and their spirit of cooperation.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a joint explanatory statement describing all of the provisions including the compromise agreement that we have reached with the other body.

Explanatory Statement on Senate Amendment to House Bill, H.R. 2297, as

Amended

H.R. 2297, as amended, the Veterans Benefits Act of 2003,

reflects a Compromise Agreement reached by the House and

Senate Committees on Veterans' Affairs (``the Committees'')

on the following bills considered in the House and Senate

during the 108th Congress: H.R. 1257; H.R. 1460, as amended;

H.R. 2297, as amended (``House Bill''); and S. 1132, as

amended (``Senate Bill''). H.R. 1257 passed the House on May

22, 2003; H.R. 1460, as amended, passed the House on June 24,

2003; H.R. 2297, as amended, passed the House on October 8,

2003; S. 1132, as amended, passed the Senate on October 31,

2003.

The House and Senate Committees on Veterans' Affairs have

prepared the following explanation of H.R. 2297, as amended

(``Compromise Agreement''). Differences between the

provisions contained in the Compromise Agreement and the

related provisions of H.R. 1257, H.R. 1460, as amended, H.R.

2297, as amended, and S. 1132, as amended, are noted in this

document, except for clerical corrections, conforming changes

made necessary by the Compromise Agreement, and minor

drafting, technical, and clarifying changes.

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