Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Department of State last week made its determination to certify compliance by the Government of Serbia and Montenegro with the terms of section 578 of the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution (P.L. 108-7). This section conditions certain bilateral assistance to Serbia on progress in three areas, although by far the most critical being cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

I agree with the Department's assessment that progress has been made, especially since March. In particular, I welcomed action earlier this month by the Serbian authorities to apprehend Veselin Svjilancanin, indicted by the Tribunal for the 1991 massacre near Vukovar in Croatia. Although there was resistance, this action was a success and signaled what is perhaps a new determination by Belgrade to transfer all remaining indictees. Having been in Vukovar, along with my good friend and colleague Mr. Wolf, just before the city fell to Serb forces, I am glad to see all three indicted by the Tribunal for this crime will be tried in The Hague.

Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that the Department's determination was the wrong one to make. While progress has been made, it remains insufficient. Still at large and believed to have been in Serbia are several other persons, including Ratko Mladic and others-- Ljubisa Beara, Vujadin Popovic, Ljubomir Borovcanin, Vinko Pandurevic and Drago Nikolic--indicted by the Tribunal for their connection to the 1995 Srebrenica massacre in which thousands of innocent people were executed.

I am concerned, deeply concerned, that these individuals will continue to evade justice while officials in Belgrade may get the impression they have done enough. Clearly, they have not. Mr. Speaker, I would urge Serbian authorities to take the action necessary to remove ``cooperation with the Tribunal'' as an outstanding issue in our bilateral relationship. In doing so, they will also continue to help Serbia emerge from Slobodan Milosevic's legacy of nationalist hatred.

In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, I also urge the State Department to use remaining levers to encourage not just better, but full, cooperation with the Tribunal, which Secretary Powell had assured Mr. Cardin and myself in correspondence was a position we all shared. The crimes which occurred were too severe and too horrendous to allow those responsible to escape justice.

Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I find myself dealing with the issue of torture many times over during the course of any given year-- torture committed by Russian forces in Chechnya, systematic police abuse of Roma in Greece, prisoners tortured to death in Uzbekistan, to give just a few recent examples. Unfortunately, torture remains the weapon of choice by many oppressive regimes, systematically used to silence political opposition, punish religious minorities, or target those who are ethnically or racially different from those in power.

But on the occasion of the United Nations' Day in Support of the Victims of Torture, I'd like to reflect on the steps that can be taken to help prevent torture from occurring in the first place.

Torture is prohibited by a multitude of international instruments, including documents of the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Moreover, it is absolute and nonderogable under any circumstances, even wartime. The challenge, then, is to translate this commitment into practice.

Amnesty International has issued a number of recommendations to help end torture. They are remarkably straightforward and easy to grasp: officials at the highest level should condemn torture; governments should ensure access to prisoners; secret detentions should be prohibited; and confessions obtained through torture should be excluded from evidence in the courtroom. I believe the implementation of these fundamental principles would have a significant impact in reducing torture. At the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly's Annual Session two years ago, I introduced a resolution, passed by the Assembly, that built on these basic concepts.

While we work to eradicate torture, we must not forget those who have already become its victims. Along with Representative Tom Lantos, I have introduced H.R. 1813, legislation to re-authorize the Torture Victims Relief Act and the list of cosponsors is growing. The Senate companion bill, S. 854 was introduced by Senator Coleman. This reauthorization will continue funding for centers here in the United States that help provide treatment for the estimated half million survivors, most of whom came to this country as refugees. It will also provide funds, distributed through the Agency for International Development or the U.N. Voluntary Fund for the Victims of Torture, for treatment centers abroad. While life for torture survivors can never be the same, treatment can provide victims the hope of becoming stable and productive members of their communities. I urge my colleagues in the House to join in supporting this measure as a tangible support of the victims of torture.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 277) expressing support for freedom in Hong Kong.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 277, the resolution under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).

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

Mr. Speaker, today's resolution introduced by my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), and many, many co- sponsors on freedom in Hong Kong, raises a sober question for all of us to ponder. How does a state balance a need to protect itself from acts of sedition with the equally important need to protect the civil liberties of its citizens?

This very same issue arose in the early days of our own Republic, in the year 1798 to be exact. The Adams administration and the Federalist- controlled Congress used the excuse of the extreme revolutionary fervor coming across the Atlantic from France to pass a series of legislative measures known collectively as the Alien and Sedition Act. These measures were seen as effectively nullifying the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Public uproar was such that Congress repealed one of the measures and allowed the rest to die a natural death through expiration.

The point here is that all governments, as we are acutely aware of after the tragic events of September 11, have the imperative to protect their institutions and citizens from sedition, treason, and terrorism.

The question raised, however, is does article 23 of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, to be considered by the Hong Kong Legislative Council this coming July 9, go beyond legitimate security needs? Does it, like the Alien and Sedition Act, threaten the civil liberties of the body politic as a whole? There are disturbing indications that the answer to these questions is an affirmative ``yes.''

The American Congress expressed its clear concern for the preservation of human rights for the people of Hong Kong through adoption of the U.S.-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992. When Hong Kong ended British rule on July 1 of 1997 and was returned to the sovereignty of the Chinese people, an important pledge was given. That pledge was that for the next 50 years under a ``one-country, two-systems'' formula, Hong Kong would continue to independently exercise those economic and political freedoms which had evolved there over time.

Those who feared the worst on that July day now almost 6 years ago, the sounds of jack boots in the street of Hong Kong found that their fears were largely unfounded. There was no immediate descent of the Bamboo Curtain. Instead, however, like drops of water falling upon a rock, there has been a slow erosion of those democratic qualities which made Hong Kong unique.

American citizens of certain political or philosophical persuasions have been denied entry. An internationally respected Hong Kong newspaper whose owners turn their eyes towards Beijing have fired its most effective and outspoken journalists.

An American citizen released from a Chinese prison found the attitude of the administration at the Hong Kong university where he taught so hostile that he relocated to the United States. Ever so slowly, the rock of freedom is being washed away by these slow, but steady, drips of tyranny.

Article 23 in its present form is a major step in that erosion. This view is held not only by the overwhelming majority of the American Congress. Internationally respected Hong Kong leaders, including political leaders like Martin Li, and religious leaders like Roman Catholic Bishop Joseph Zen have reached the same conclusion, that article 23, as it is presently constructed, will open the door to a slow, steady decline of liberty in Hong Kong. The Hong Kong men and women in the street have also voiced their concerns over the implementation of article 23 and its corrosive effect on the right to peaceful assembly, such as is annually done on the streets of Hong Kong on June 4, the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre.

Mr. Speaker, as a symbol of hope for the future of China, Hong Kong has great significance beyond that of a small urban enclave of international trade and commerce.

What happens there is closely watched in Taiwan, in Beijing and in greater Asia beyond. A slow twilight, sunset of liberty in Hong Kong, therefore, will have repercussions and very negative ones far beyond its own borders.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), my good friend.

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

While we are waiting for the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the prime author of this legislation, to arrive here let me just again reiterate a few things.

I like many others have followed the ongoing human rights abuses by the People's Republic of China, and many of us had hoped, and this hope is now at grave risk, that Hong Kong might avoid the same kind of repressive regime visited upon it that other people in the People's Republic of China live with and endure each and every day.

Our hope is that the Chinese Government, especially with its work in the WTO, with its attempt to join the world leaders as a major player, that it would respect the democratic rights of Hong Kong and learn from it. Hong Kong can be a beacon for them not only economically, but also in the area of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The dictatorship in Beijing really has nothing to fear but fear itself by giving in, it seems to me, to basic and fundamental human rights.

Over time, if the PRC were to do that, they certainly would be respected, but if they do the opposite, they will be held in contempt, and what this resolution says, it is a cautionary flag, do not do it, do not bring the repressive policies that you have foisted upon your own people to the people of Hong Kong. The PRC has already promised, as we all indicated earlier, that there would be at least a 50-year hiatus where at least a semblance of freedom would be experienced.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), my friend and colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 49) expressing the sense of the Congress that the sharp escalation of anti-Semitic violence within many participating States of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) is of profound concern and efforts should be undertaken to prevent future occurrences.

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

Mr. Speaker, anti-Semitism is a deadly disease of the heart that leads to violence, cruelty, and unspeakable acts of horror. The anti- Semite is, as Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel grimly wrote last week, an ideological fanatic and pathological racist: ``An anti-Semite is someone who never met me, never heard of me, yet he hates me.''

While we all are aware and deplore the hate crimes and cowardly acts that are committed routinely by Hamas and their like-minded murderers, what is new, Mr. Speaker, is the enormous surge in anti-Semitic acts and the resurgence of hatred for Jews in Europe, the United States, and in Canada.

Just a brief look, Mr. Speaker, of some of the startling statistics makes the point. In France, for example, there was a 600 percent increase in anti-Semitic acts from the year 2001 to the year 2002. Thankfully, the French have moved with new legislation designed to not only chronicle and get a better handle on how often these hate crimes are occurring, but they are also trying to stop them.

The Anti-Defamation League, Mr. Speaker, did a survey that also showed a spike in five other countries of Europe. They found that 21 percent of the people in those five countries had strongly anti-Semitic perspectives or views. The ADL also looked at the United States and found that 17 percent of our own people in the United States had strong anti-Semitic views. If you extrapolate that, Mr. Speaker, that is about 35 million Americans. That is up 5 percent from just 5 years ago.

H. Con. Res. 49 recognizes this dangerous and alarming trend, condemns this ancient-modern scourge, and calls on each of the 55 countries that make up the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to take concrete steps to eradicate anti-Semitism. The resolution before us today is an unequivocal condemnation of violence against Jews and Jewish cultural sites, racial and ethnic hatred, xenophobia and discrimination, as well as persecution on religious grounds wherever it occurs.

The resolution calls on all the states of the OSCE to ensure effective law enforcement and prosecution of individuals perpetrating anti-Semitic violence as well as urging the parliaments of all those states to take concrete legislative action at the national level. We are encouraging, Mr. Speaker, the creation of education efforts to counter these anti-Semitic stereotypes and the attitudes that we are seeing increasingly among younger people. We are calling for an increase in Holocaust awareness programs, and seeking to identify necessary resources to accomplish these goals.

Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I chaired a congressional hearing and three international summits on anti-Semitism within the last year alone. Joined by my good friend and colleague from the German Bundestag, Gert Weisskirchen, at the three special summits, and my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), who I thank as well for his good work on this, these summits have focused on this rising tide of anti-Semitism.

The summits, Mr. Speaker, were held in Berlin, in 2002; in Washington, in December of 2002; and in Vienna, earlier this year, in February. We heard from world renowned leaders, including Rabbi Israel Singer, President of the World Jewish Congress; Ambassador Alfred Moses, Abraham Foxman and Ken Jacobson of the Anti-Defamation League; Mark Levin from the NCSJ; Rabbi Andrew Baker of the American Jewish Committee; Dr. Shimon Samuels, director of the Weisenthal Center located in Paris; and many others, Amnesty International and other human rights' organizations, all of whom made very powerful statements about this alarming rise of hate directed towards Jews.

Let me just quote for my colleagues what Dr. Samuels said, very briefly: ``The Holocaust, for 30 years, acted as a protective Teflon against blatant anti-Semitic expression. That Teflon has eroded, and what was considered distasteful and politically incorrect is becoming simply an opinion. But cocktail chatter at fine English dinners can end as Molotov cocktails against synagogues. Political correctness is also ending for others, as tolerance for multiculturalism gives way to populist voices in France, Italy, Austria, Denmark, Portugal, and the Netherlands. These countries' Jewish communities can be caught between the rock of radical Islamic violence and the hard place of a revitalized Holocaust-denying extreme right. Common cause must be sought between the victimized minorities against extremism and against fanaticism.''

Dr. Jacobson pointed out, and I quote, ``Sadly, some European leaders have rationalized anti-Jewish attitudes and even more violent attacks against Jews as nothing more than a sign of popular frustration with events in the Middle East. Something to be expected, even understandable, they say.''

Mr. Speaker, we have been hearing more and more about this idea of pretext; that there is a disagreement with the policies of the Israeli Government, that somehow that gives license and an ability and permission for some people to hate the Jews themselves. We can disagree, as we do on this House floor. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), and I have been working on this for years, and of course the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos). We disagree on some issues, but anti-Semitism? We do not hate. We do not use that as a pretext,

as a front to promote hatred. That is exactly what is happening in Europe, in the United States, and in Canada.

Let me point out too that, as a result of these summits, we have come up with an action plan. Mr. Weisskirchen and I have signed it, it has been agreed to by our commissions, and we are trying to promote it among all our States. Again, education, trying to get parliaments to step up to the plate, and trying to make a meaningful difference to mitigate and hopefully to end this terrible anti-Semitism.

Last week, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and I joined Rudy Giuliani in Vienna for an OSCE assembly focused on anti-Semitism. We have been doing it in the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, but now the OSCE itself has taken up this important cause. And it will be followed up with a meeting, most likely in Berlin next year, to focus on anti- Semitism so that we rally the troops all over the world, starting with Europe, the U.S., and Canada to say ``never again.''

Let me also point out to my colleagues, and I thought his statement said it all, when Abraham Foxman, who gave riveting testimony at our Berlin conference, pointed out just recently in the Jerusalem Post, just a couple of days ago, and I would like to close with his statement, he said ``Anti-Semitism is surging in the world to the extent unprecedented since the end of World War II. Europe must take seriously the ideology of anti-Semitism coming out of the Arab and Islamic world. It must denounce the deliberate targeting of Jews by terrorist groups, whether it be al Qaeda or Hamas. It must denounce the vicious anti-Semitic material in the Arab press and educational systems and call on Arab leaders to do something about it. It must understand that the Holocaust happened not only because Germany was taken over by the Nazis, who developed a massive military power to conquer most of Europe, but also by the complicity--active and passive--of other Europeans. Today, the great threat comes from the combination of the ideology of hatred with Islamic extremists to acquire weapons of mass destruction.'' And then he bottom lines it and says, ``Let Europe never again be complicit in developments of this kind.''

Mr. Speaker, this Congress needs to go on record in a bipartisan way, Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives, Moderates, and Liberals to say anti-Semitism, never again, and we need to do it strongly today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

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

At the most recent conference that was held in Vienna, I just want to again thank the great work that Ambassador Minikes did, our Ambassador to the OSCE. He has worked very, very hard to help put together that anti-Semitism conference. He did an outstanding job. Ambassador Cliff Sobel, our Ambassador to the Netherlands, also worked very hard on it as well, as did many others in the State Department. It was a joint effort. Again I want to thank Rudy Giuliani for the good work he did in leading that.

Let me just also say that, Mr. Speaker, next week in Rotterdam we will have an OSCE Parliamentary Assembly and I plan on offering another resolution on anti-Semitism at that and hopefully we continue not only this dialogue but this outrage that we are expressing about intolerance. The more we raise our voices, the more we have mutually reinforcing policies, including good law, good law enforcement and hopefully a chronicling of these misdeeds so that law enforcement knows that they do indeed have a problem. This has been a particular problem in Europe, where hate crimes are committed and they are not attributed to the hate crimes that they represent.

The more we chronicle, the more we will see that there is an explosion of anti-Semitism in Europe. This is a good resolution. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), and I thank the gentleman and chairman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for moving this bill expeditiously through the committee and for his strong support for it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time for purposes of yielding the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 199) calling on the Government of the People's Republic of China immediately and unconditionally to release Dr. Yang Jianli, calling on the President of the United States to continue working on behalf of Dr. Yang Jianli for his release, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I think as every Member of this body knows, the PRC and its leadership in Beijing would love to be regarded as a respected member of the international community. In pursuit of that goal, however, the PRC has sought and obtained membership in the World Trade Organization; and it has lobbied and received the Beijing Olympics of 2008. However, trade volume alone, and there has been a great deal of trade volume particularly between the U.S. and China, is not really a measure of success, I would say to my colleagues. What really determines the quality of a country is how it treats its own citizens, and how it respects fundamental human rights.

History shows that some very unsavory regimes held the Olympic games. We all remember the Nazi Olympic Games prior to the Second World War, but holding a game, having trade, having the air of respectability does not necessarily mean that it is a respectable regime.

The government of Beijing has an enormous way to go, I would respectfully submit, to earn the international respect that it craves. The Chinese government, and I consider it to be a dictatorship, but if they really hope to earn respectability in the eyes of the world, they need to make some very needed fundamental changes, and there is a case in point that we raise today, and I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for bringing this resolution before us today.

Dr. Yang Jianli is a compelling case. H. Res. 199, introduced by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) highlights the case of this U.S. lawful permanent resident who has been unjustly detained incommunicado inside China since April 26, not of this year, but of last year, 14 months. Mr. Yang was arrested for reportedly entering China with false or incompletely identifying documents, has been denied access to counsel, contact with his wife Christina Fu and their two children, Anita and Aaron, and his right to a trial within a reasonable time.

Frankly, Beijing remains more concerned about the research, at least that is our belief, that the internationally respected scholar Dr. Yang, who was conducting studies regarding labor unrest in China, rather than how he got into the country. It is all about what he was studying.

Dr. Yang's research points to the dark side of the Chinese economic miracle, the so-called workers' paradise, where the working class remains the main victim of unemployment and forced early retirement due to the restructuring of State-owned enterprises. That then is Dr. Yang's major sin in Beijing's eyes. He was documenting the anger of workers directed at party bosses mired in personnel greed and corruption despite their official pledge to serve the people.

Beijing's loss of face in this case has only been compounded by the recent determination by the United States Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, which found that Mr. Yang's detention is arbitrary and in direct contravention of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. As the U.N. working group has so clearly pointed out, the continued arbitrary detention of this man is not the action of a great nation which seeks the full respect of the international community.

The U.S. House of Representatives today is sending a clear, not ambiguous, message to the government of Beijing: Let Dr. Yang go, let him come home to his wife, his children. His wife is here with us and his children are on the floor of this House right now.

We care about this man. We care about it in a bipartisan way, Democrats and Republicans. A lot divides us in this Chamber. The case of Dr. Yang unites us.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time

Mr. Speaker, in March 2002, the United States and Uzbekistan signed a declaration proclaiming a ``Strategic Partnership'' between our countries. This former Soviet republic, with the largest population of the five Central Asian countries, has played an important role in assisting the United States after 9/11, and I am grateful for that.

At the same time, as Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I have deep concerns about the human rights situation in Uzbekistan, where no political opposition, no freedom of speech nor freedom of association are permitted. As a result of this situation, Congress has conditioned the release of financial assistance to Uzbekistan upon a determination by the Secretary of State that Tashkent is making ``substantial and continuing progress'' in meeting commitments specified in the March 2002 bilateral declaration, including in the field of human rights. The Secretary has twice--on August 26, 2002 and May 14, 2003--made such a determination.

Regrettably, there has been no ``substantial and continuing progress'' in the field of human rights in Uzbekistan. True, a human rights group has been registered, censorship has formally been lifted, and there have been amnesties, but these are largely token deliverables meant to give the appearance of progress. Uzbekistan has also admitted the U.N.'s Special Rapporteur on Torture. But all these gestures are more cosmetic than substantial. In fact, the U.N. Special Rapporteur concluded that torture is ``systematic'' in Uzbekistan. Instead of claiming credit for allowing him into the country at all, President Karimov should renounce this barbaric practice and Tashkent should take urgent measures to prevent and punish acts of torture.

Unfortunately, thus far President Karimov has refused to take even the simple step of acknowledging and renouncing torture. More to the point, just after the Secretary's most recent determination last month, Orif Ershanov and Otamaza Gafaro joined the unconscionably long list of individuals who have died as a result of torture or other abuse inflicted by Uzbek officials.

Once again, Uzbek officials maintain that these most recent deaths in custody were the result of ``natural causes.'' But the country's deplorable record undermines the credibility of such assertions. Frankly, I am surprised by Tashkent's claims; last year, there were two cases when Uzbek policemen who tortured prisoners, in some cases to death, received long prison terms. Their sentences constituted a sad form of progress in Uzbekistan, allowing observers to hope that law enforcement officials would have reason to fear serious consequences for mistreating people in their care. The latest assertions about ``natural causes'' signal clear regression to old positions that damage Uzbekistan's government and should be an embarrassment to the United States.

Particularly with respect to torture, Tashkent should immediately take several steps to demonstrate to the international community a serious commitment to make meaningful progress.

First, the Government of Uzbekistan should provide immediate access, organized by the OSCE, for independent medical experts to examine the bodies of Ershanov and Gafaro. Unfortunately, we have received indications that Uzbekistan is balking at admitting independent forensic specialists. Furthermore, Tashkent should establish a system of access for independent experts to investigate all cases of alleged torture and should act on the recommendations of the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture.

It is equally important that Uzbekistan unconditionally release those who have been jailed because of their political opposition or religious affiliation. I have repeatedly urged Uzbek officials, including President Karimov during his visit to Washington in March of last year, to release the writer Mamadali Makhmudov, for example. One of the Bekjanov brothers has indeed been freed, but two of his siblings remain in prison, and we have received reports from family members of their declining health. As the most recent deaths in custody demonstrate, fears that such prisoners may die from their mistreatment during incarceration are well founded.

Mr. Speaker, improved relations are in the interest of both Uzbekistan and the United States. But closer, deeper ties will not be built on the graves of Uzbekistan's citizens who have been tortured to death. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that I will soon be able to report back to my colleagues that President Karimov has taken meaningful steps to confront torture and bring a measure of justice to its victims.

Mr. Speaker, Europe's last dictator, Belarus' Alyaksandr Lukashenka, appears determined to ignore the voices of the people of Belarus calling for basic respect for human rights and democratic principles a decade after that country gained its independence and joined the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

As Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I am disturbed by recent developments which demonstrate the growing repression in Belarus. There have been further restrictions imposed on the independent media, with the recent suspension of independent newspapers Navinki and Ekho. Just a few days ago, the publication Predprinimatelskaya Gazeta was suspended for three months. The offices of the trade union paper Solidarnost have been sealed by the authorities. Still other publications have received warnings that could lead to their closure. These actions were preceded by the three-month suspension of two prominent independent newspapers--Belaruskaya Delovaya Gazeta and BDG-- For Internal Use Only.

The Lukashenka regime is also targeting schools. The National Humanities Lyceum, a highly respected high school promoting study of the Belarusian language and culture, is under fire, with its acting head to be replaced by a reportedly non-Belarusian-speaking official. Why? Because professors at the school support democracy and the Belarusian language and culture which ironically is anathema to the Belarusian strongman. Mr. Speaker, what kind of leader actively suppresses his nation's language and culture?

Moreover, a new crackdown on Pentecostal home meetings in western Belarus is underway, with fines being handed down on church members who permit their homes to be used for prayer meetings--a result of last year's restrictive religion law.

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are also facing increasing scrutiny, often for truly spurious reasons such as minor mistakes in registration documents. Several, including Ratusha, Varuta and the Youth Christian Social Union, are under threat of liquidation. Just a few days ago, the Homel regional court ordered the closure of the area's largest NGO, Civic Initiatives. The intensified campaign against NGOs and the independent media are widely regarded among domestic and international observers as a concerted attack on active and independent civil society structures.

Repressive actions against individuals continue as well. Recently, 18-year-old ZUBR activist Tatiana Elovaya was sentenced to 10 days imprisonment for manifesting her support in an April 3 demonstration outside the U.S. Embassy for the campaign to liberate Iraq. Several others, including 19-year-old Lyubov Kuchinskaya had served 10-day sentences earlier. Unfortunately, these are just some recent examples of a longstanding pattern of the Lukashenka regime's flouting of its OSCE commitments and continued disregard for the four OSCE criteria set forth three years ago by the Parliamentary Troika for Belarus.

Despite steps by the OSCE community, including the re-opening of the OSCE Office in Miensk (albeit under a more limited mandate), the seating of the National Assembly and the lifting of a visa ban, not only have reciprocal steps not been taken by the Belarusian authorities but the situation has indeed deteriorated further.

Earlier this year, I introduced H.R. 854, the Belarus Democracy Act, designed to assist the people of Belarus in regaining their freedom and enable them to join the European community of democracies. Key provisions of this Act also have been incorporated into the Foreign Relations Reauthorization bill. Mr. Speaker, the Lukashenka regime's continuing suppression of the longsuffering Belarusian people underscores the need for the Belarus Democracy Act and other efforts-- including within the OSCE--to restore respect for human rights and institutions of democratic governance.

Mr. Speaker, as a co-chair of the newly formed Refugee Caucus, I rise on behalf of the world's 15 million refugees on the eve of World Refugee Day, which occurred last Friday, June 20th.

We know that the plight of refugees throughout the world is precarious. They have fled war, persecution, natural disasters, and severe poverty in their home countries. The lucky few live in camps, where attempts are made to provide the basic necessities but disease and hopelessness run rampant.

Those not in the camps are left to fend for themselves, aliens in a foreign land where they often lack food and shelter. Refugees who try to find work are often exploited and many women and children refugees become victims of forced sex trafficking rings.

It is not only important to remember the plight of the refugees, but also to remember those who have reached out to help the refugees. We know that UNHCR, The Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, International Rescue Committee, Immigration Refugee Services of America, International Catholic Migration Agency, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services, Episcopal Migration Ministries, Church World Service, and many others provide tremendous and compassionate support for refugees throughout the world.

We also know that numerous governments have been generous in accepting refugees into their borders, including many in Africa. I would like to take a moment to recognize one of these governments--The Republic of Zambia.

For the last three decades, Zambia has been one of the most generous hosts of refugees in the world. Zambia's history of refugee protection began with its independence in 1964, when it hosted refugees fleeing wars in Angola, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe. By 1967, UNHCR was operational in Zambia and remains today, working in partnership to protect refugees. Through the years, Zambia has afforded refugees freedom of movement, access to educational and social services including medical treatment, and land for farming.

In recent years Zambia has generously hosted over 280,000 refugees. Last year, Zambia launched an innovative and collaborative response to under-developed in local communities greatly impacted by large-scale and long-term refugee populations. The United States contributed $1 million to the ``Zambian Initiative'' which has worked to integrate long-staying Angolan refugees in Zambia's West Province. By promoting longer-term development of the education, health, environment and agriculture sectors and by allowing refugees and local populations to have equal access to these programs, the Zambian Initiative has offered a model to all countries hosting refugees.

I commend the continuing efforts of the Zambian government in seeking progressive national policies that have helped integrate refugees into their nation. I hope that the generosity of Zambia towards refugees and asylum seekers can be fully recognized by both our government and governments throughout the world. I am confident that they will continue to remain a generous supporter of refugees and hope that other nations will follow their example.

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply saddened by the loss of a former colleague, friend, and mentor, the Honorable Bob Stump of Arizona. My thoughts and prayers are with his wife Nancy, his children, Karen, Hoot, and Bruce, as well as his grandchildren, other family members and friends who loved him.

From his enlistment in the Navy during World War II at the age of 16, to his extraordinary leadership as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs and Armed Services Committees in the House of Representatives, Bob Stump was a true American hero.

Bob Stump served with distinction in Congress for 26 years, including 6 years as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and 2 years as chairman of the committee on Armed Services. Chairman Stump used his influence to promote responsible legislation to assist and honor our nation's veterans.

Under Bob Stump's leadership, Congress increased funding for veterans health care; expanded access to long term care for aging veterans, including nonhospital alternative care; reformed eligibility standards for access to VA health care; extended the national cemetery system, including Arlington National Cemetery; increased assistance to disabled veterans and their survivors; and strengthened the Montgomery GI Bill that has helped millions of veterans fulfill their educational and career goals.

A modest man who preferred to shun the spotlight, Bob Stump's life and his legacy will continue to shine brightly for generations of service men and women to come.

Mr. Speaker, Bob Stump was the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs from 1995-2000, and its ranking minority member for the 2 previous years. He served as a member of the Committee for a total of 14 years. During his tenure as chairman, he compiled a distinguished record of legislation that is a major part of his legacy of public service. As his successor as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I particularly know and appreciate all that he did for our Nation's veterans, servicemembers and their families by working on a bipartisan basis in cooperation with veterans' service organizations. I want to take this opportunity to recall the major veterans' legislation he authored, because Bob Stump was not one to trumpet his accomplishments.

In 1996, Chairman Stump initiated and Congress passed important health care eligibility reforms for veterans that removed barriers to outpatient care and allowed greater flexibility to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in paying for care closer to veterans' homes. The savings generated by shifting away from inpatient care and budget increases Bob supported were used to increase ambulatory care visits in fiscal year 2000 to more than 40 million total outpatient visits nationwide, an increase of 5.3 million outpatient visits per year over 1997. As a result of this legislation, the VA established hundreds of new community-based outpatient clinics throughout the Nation to improve veterans' access to health care.

In 1998, Bob Stump initiated and Congress passed the largest benefits expansion for veterans since the Persian Gulf war, including: allowing spouses of veterans who died from a service-connected disability to resume receiving assistance under the Dependency and Indemnity Compensation program if their subsequent remarriage ended; increasing adaptive housing and automobile allowances; increasing the monthly pension benefit for disabled veterans in need of the full time aid and attendance of another person by $600 per year; and increasing the monthly Montgomery GI Bill payment from $440 to $528, a 20-percent increase.

Then in 2000, our former chairman initiated and Congress passed the landmark Veterans Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act, popularly known by many veterans as the Millennium Act, the most comprehensive benefits improvement legislation in decades. Some of its more significant provisions included: mandating nursing home and long-term care for seriously disabled veterans; allowing the VA to pay for emergency care for veterans lacking access to other health care plans; improving priority health care access for Purple Heart recipients and military retirees; improving benefits for surviving spouses of disabled veterans; and increasing programs providing employment and housing assistance to homeless veterans.

Also, Bob Stump greatly appreciated the value of education, and initiated Montgomery GI Bill benefits enhancements that increased the value of the monthly education benefit for veterans by nearly $100 per month to $650. The resulting 4-year total basic benefit of $23,400 for a full-time student at a 4-year institution in the year 2000 was almost 50 percent higher than it was in 1997. This law also contained provisions that allowed servicemembers to contribute more up front to achieve an $800 per month benefit, and it provided active duty servicemembers a new opportunity to convert their post-Vietnam Era Veterans Educational Assistance Program benefits to the Montgomery GI Bill if they had not done so before or had withdrawn all the funds from their VEAP accounts.

Bob Stump had a particular interest in the national cemetery system, and worked for its expansion. Thanks to his efforts while he was chairman, five new national veterans' cemeteries were opened, adding approximately 835,000 gravesites to our national cemetery capacity. Additionally, legislation he sponsored was enacted to require the VA to plan 6 new

national cemeteries in Atlanta, Miami, Pittsburgh, Oklahoma, Sacramento, and Detroit. He also authorized legislation to expand the boundaries of Arlington National Cemetery, extending its useful life beyond the projected closing date of 2025 so that in-ground burials of veterans can continue until approximately the year 2041.

Mr. Speaker, this impressive record of legislative accomplishment has resulted in immeasurable good for veterans, servicemembers and their families. Bob Stump's leadership was the strongest kind--leadership by example. His lifetime of service to America left this country a better place, and I am honored to have served in the House with our departed colleague, Bob Stump.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1460) to amend title 38, United States Code, to permit the use of education benefits under such title for certain entrepreneurship courses, to permit veterans enrolled in a vocational rehabilitation program under chapter 31 of such title to have self- employment as a vocational goal, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I begin discussing our bill, Mr. Speaker, I would like to note with great sadness the passing of the former chairman of the Committee on Veterans Affairs, Bob Stump. Bob was a great friend to all of those who served in the Armed Forces since his own Naval experience as a Navy corpsman serving in the South Pacific during World War II. Although you did not see Bob making the rounds on the Sunday morning talk shows, his words, and especially his actions and deeds, spoke volumes about his dedication to all those who serve and have served our country in the United States military.

Bob served in Congress for 26 years. He was chairman of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs from 1995 to 2000, and then chaired the House Committee on Armed Services until his retirement in December of 2002. He has left a lasting legacy of service to our country, and he will be dearly missed.

On behalf of the Committee on Veterans Affairs, I want to express our condolences to his wife, Nancy, his children, Karen, Hoot, and Bruce, and to his grandchildren as well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1460, as amended, the Veterans Entrepreneurial and Benefits Improvement Act of 2003. The Committee on Veterans Affairs reported H.R. 1460 unanimously on May 15 as a result of the initiative of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi), who introduced the bill. This bill was introduced following a hearing on the state of veterans employment on February 5 at which the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi) highlighted the seriously inadequate performance of Federal agencies in reaching out to disabled veteran- owned businesses. Since then, the ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), and I have worked closely with the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), of the Committee on Small Business with respect to section 3 of the bill on which the Committee on Small Business had jurisdiction.

I am pleased that we have been able to formulate language agreeable to both committees, and I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) for their cooperative efforts.

Mr. Speaker, disabled American veterans deserve a full opportunity to participate in the economic system that they fought so hard to defend. Section 2 of the bill would make improvements to the veteran and service-disabled veteran's small business opportunities by authorizing for the first time the use of VA education benefits to pay for nondegree/noncredit courses. These courses are offered by the Small Business Development Center and the National Veterans Business Development Corporation.

Section 3 of the bill has been, if you want to look at it one way, almost 23 years in the making. It contains a disabled veterans contracting preference provision derived from the 1980 White House Conference on Small Business convened by then-President Jimmy Carter.

The 1981 consultant report of the SBA Veterans Project and the 1999 report of the bipartisan Congressional Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans Transition Assistance made similar-type recommendations.

This provision for the first time would authorize Federal agencies to create sole-source contracts for disabled veteran-owned and -controlled small businesses. It would also furnish Federal agencies discretionary authority to restrict contracts to disabled veteran-owned and - controlled businesses if at least two such concerns were qualified to bid on the contract. This is the first time Federal contracting officers will have such authority.

Section 3 would also create a 4-year pilot in the Department of Veterans Affairs, service-disabled veterans-controlled businesses, and would have the same contracting priority as SBA's 8(a) program for socially and economically disadvantaged small business.

For all other Federal agencies, service-connected disabled-veteran- owned and -controlled businesses would be accorded priority to be awarded procurement contracts above the women-owned and HUBZone priorities, but just below 8(a) priorities.

In all cases, to be eligible for these procurement preferences, veterans who own and control small businesses would need to have at least a 10 percent service-connected disability.

The Federal Government, Mr. Speaker, contracts for about $235 billion in goods and services annually. America's sons and daughters who became disabled in their service to the Nation will

now have some of the same types of contracting preferences accorded to other deserving groups.

Section 4 of the bill, Mr. Speaker, would extend VA's specially adapted housing grant to severely disabled service members prior to separation from active duty service. Under current law, an otherwise eligible servicemember may not apply for home modification assistance until he or she is actually separated from the military or placed on the temporary-disabled retirement list.

I want to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) for his leadership in putting together this important provision.

Section 5 would reinstate the Department of Veterans Affairs' vendee loan programs, which the VA administratively terminated last January. I want to thank the gentleman for joining me for authoring this provision.

When a purchaser agrees to buy a foreclosed VA home, VA often offers to finance the sale by establishing a vendee loan to encourage the prompt sale of a home. Vendee loans are made at market interest rates and often require a down payment. Borrowers are assessed a 2.25 percent funding fee that is paid in each case. The vendee loan program is based on sound business principles, and there is an ample body of empirical evidence to suggest that offering vendee financing is highly cost effective to the government. In March, for example, of 2002, a Booz, Allen, Hamilton study found that cost effectiveness of vendee loan financing, their report said that the government would save $16 million a year starting in 1999.

Finally, section 6 of the bill would repeal the existing 2-year limitation on accrued benefits so that a veteran survivor may receive the full amount of an award and of benefits and may not be penalized if VA does not process the claim in a timely manner. This section is derived from H.R. 241, legislation that I introduced earlier this year.

Finally, I want to thank especially the good leadership that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi) has provided in shaping this legislation. As always, I wanted to thank my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), for his work on this, as well as the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud) who is representing the minority in presenting this bill to the floor today and for his good work as ranking member of the subcommittee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi), the author of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional minute.

I again want to thank my friends on the other side of the aisle for their good hard work on this legislation, and I especially want to thank the extraordinary work by the author of it, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi). This is a bill that will help so many of our veterans who are service-connected disabled who are in the business realm to get the kind of government contracts that they are deserving of and hopefully will lead to greater wealth and a capability on their part to provide for their families and for their loved ones.

This is a good bill. It is pro-business, it is pro-veteran, and it deserves the support of everybody in this Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank our subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown), and again, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud), who is the ranking member, for their work on this bill, for marking it up and bringing it forward to the full committee where we marked it up and passed it unanimously.

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

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

The yeas-and-nays were ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1460, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing H.R. 2518, the ``Veterans Affairs Reorganization Act of 2003''. This bill would make organizational changes in several programs for veterans in order to improve the delivery of vital benefits and services to America's former servicemen and women.

The first two sections of this legislation provide for the consolidation and improvement of programs to assist homeless veterans. Specifically, Section 2 of the bill would create a new office in the Department of Veterans Affairs to manage a number of assistance programs for homeless veterans. Section 3 of the bill would transfer the functions of the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program from the Department of Labor to Department of Veterans Affairs and include this program in the responsibilities of the newly created office.

There are at least a quarter-million homeless veterans on the streets of America every night. With the passage of the Homeless Veterans Comprehensive Assistance Act of 2001, Public Law 107-95, Congress established a goal to end chronic homelessness among veterans within 10 years. More than 2 years have passed since the President signed our legislation into law, but in this Committee's oversight activities we find that the Department of Veterans Affairs is making insufficient progress to achieve this ambitious goal.

Today, VA provides a range of services for homeless veterans including outreach, case management, clinical care, residential treatment and rehabilitation, managed residential placement, care for serious mental illnesses and substance-use disorders and supported housing. However, the delivery of these services has been hindered by a lack of focus and direction within the Department of Veterans Affairs, and frankly, a lack of will to commit the necessary funding to accomplish this mission.

The legislation I am introducing today would create a new Office of Homeless Veterans Assistance Programs within the Department of Veterans Affairs. The Director of this office would be given authority to consolidate and coordinate all homeless assistance services to help homeless veterans get back on their feet with a hand up, not a hand- out. The new Office of Homeless Veterans Assistance would be enhanced by transferring the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program, a program now embedded in the Department of Labor, into VA. This transfer of responsibility for program administration would enable VA to better coordinate health care, financial benefits and employment services for homeless veterans. By moving all programs specifically designed for homeless veterans into VA and consolidating them, we expect to deliver better services in a more timely and cost-efficient manner.

Finally, Section 4 of this legislation would transfer the operational responsibility for the Military Personnel Records facility of the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Approximately 80 million military records are on file at NPRC, located in the federal records repository in St. Louis, Missouri. For the last 25 years, each service branch has been producing microfilm of each record and more recently has been keeping records on microfiche. The NPRC has been a source of major frustration for the Veterans Benefits Administration which has a daily need to search these records to help veterans establish claims for disability and other benefits.

While the NPRC has made good faith efforts to be responsive to VA, it continues to fall short of providing VA with timely and reliable records retrieval. As a consequence, VA's claims process has been delayed, and disabled veterans wait months, sometimes years, for service medical records or other information before their records are found. For the week ending June 6, 2003, VA had 3,051 requests pending for more than 30 days and 3,432 requests pending for more than 90 days. This is simply unacceptable.

My legislation would transfer responsibility for managing the NPRC to VA. The National Archives, which currently has final responsibility for maintenance of vital federal records, would be required to execute a Memorandum of Understanding to allow the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to assume the day-today management of the NPRC. Once this transfer of management responsibility is completed, VA will be in a better position to control its own fate in processing veterans' disability claims, and in turn, Congress will be able to hold one executive agency accountable for responsiveness to these disabled veterans who have waited far too long for the resolution of their claims.

Mr. Speaker, I believe these changes will improve the delivery of benefits and services to our nation's veterans. I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will carefully study this legislation and join with me in this effort.

Mr. Speaker, today, along with Representative Rob Simmons of Connecticut, Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Health, and three dozen other cosponsors, I am introducing H.R. 2475, the Veterans Health Care Full Funding Act, legislation to ensure full funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs' health care system.-

This bill would fulfill the central recommendation of the President's Task Force To Improve Delivery of Health Care for Our Nation's Veterans, which reported an alarming mismatch between demand for services and available resources that threatened the quality of VA health care. The Task Force recommended that the veterans' health care funding process should be overhauled in order to achieve full funding.

As early as 1993, national veterans organizations were calling for guaranteed funding for VA health care. Last year I introduced H.R. 5250, legislation to achieve that goal by funding VA health care through a permanently fixed formula, one possible approach recommended by the President's Task Force.

The legislation we are introducing today takes the other major approach identified by the Task Force, establishing an independent board of experts on health care economics, with an independent budget and staff, to determine the annual funding levels necessary for veterans' medical care and to be included in the Administration's budget.

Under our legislation, a three-member Funding Review Board would be appointed by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for staggered 15-year terms. The Board would have full access to VA's economic, actuarial and other data relevant to determining health care funding, as well as the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) economic and forecasting analysis, but would be independent of both.

The Board would produce an annual budget request and a budget forecast for funding necessary to provide full health care benefits in a timely and cost-efficient fashion to all enrolled veterans in Priority Groups 1-7, primarily those injured or disabled while serving their nation, or with low income levels. The amount calculated by the Board for the next fiscal year would become the President's budget request submitted to Congress. From that point forward, the congressional budget and appropriations process would remain unchanged.

To ensure that veterans are receiving timely care, the legislation would require VA to provide care in a timely manner; if VA is unable to furnish care to veterans who need it within reasonable timeframes, it would be obligated to contract for that care with private sector health care providers.

In order to promote fiscal discipline within VA health care, the Board would be required to identify areas where VA program efficiencies and savings can be achieved, as well as be required to consider recommendations from OMB.

Mr. Speaker, for at least the past five years, veterans' usage of VA health care services has surpassed every Administration estimate-- Republican and Democrat. The continuing rise in demand for VA health care services has been driven by many factors, including VA's establishment of over 650 new and more convenient VA community-based outpatient clinics for primary care, improved safety and quality of care, and the availability of VA prescription drug benefits. VA has become an increasingly important supplier of prescription drugs to veterans, particularly senior veterans who lack a drug benefit from the Medicare program.

Further evidence of the urgent funding needs of VA health care comes from a report issued last year measuring the amount of time veterans are waiting for medical services. According to VA's report, there were nearly 300,000 veterans waiting for initial medical appointments, half of whom were waiting 6 months or more; and the other half having no appointment at all. While the VA has indicated progress is being made to reduce this waiting list, the Secretary's decision to halt enrollment of Priority 8 veterans for the remainder of this year is another clear indicator that VA is not properly equipped to handle the current demand for medical services because it lacks the funding to do so.

The President's Task Force (PTF) was established in May, 2001 to improve collaboration and resource sharing between the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs health care systems. Within months of the start of its deliberations, the Task Force discovered that a mismatch between demand for VA health care services and available resources prevented VA and DOD from achieving the full advantages of sharing and threatened the quality of VA health care. The PTF recommended in its report that the current budget and appropriations process be reformed. Let me quote from the report:

The Federal Government should provide full funding to

ensure that enrolled veterans in Priority Groups 1 through 7

(new) are provided the current comprehensive benefit in

accordance with VA's established access standards. Full

funding should occur through modifications to the current

budget and appropriations process, by using a mandatory

funding mechanism, or by some other changes in the process

that achieve the desired goal.

The PTF identified two possible approaches to addressing current problems with the funding process: make veterans health care funding a mandatory budgetary item, or create an independent Board of experts, actuaries, or other outside officials to dispassionately review needs and determine funding levels. Both approaches would have the same goal: to achieve full funding to meet demand in a timely manner.

Mr. Speaker, the Veterans Health Care Full Funding Act would accomplish this goal by establishing a funding process similar to one already used by the Department of Defense. Our legislation is modeled on a provision in the 2001 Floyd Spence Defense Authorization Act, Public Law 106-398, popularly known as ``TRICARE for Life.'' Under this legislation, an outside panel of experts and actuaries was established to determine future funding levels to meet health care needs of military retirees and their families in the TRICARE program. Our legislation is modeled on this successful program.

In addition, our legislation would codify standards for veterans' access to health care. Without a requirement that VA meet reasonable access standards, veterans could continue to be denied access to care regardless of any funding. I would like to recognize and thank my colleague on the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Representative Ginny Brown-Waite, who has introduced separate legislation, H.R. 2357, to achieve this very goal. The standards established in the Brown-Waite bill are incorporated in the legislation we are introducing today.

The VA budget for fiscal year 2003 contained a record $2.6 billion increase in the funding of medical care for our Nation's veterans and this year, based upon our Committee's recommendations, the House approved another record veterans budget, increasing overall veterans spending by $6.2 billion, including about a $3 billion increase for medical care. But even with these historic increases,

VA may not be able to meet demand for medical services.

Mr. Speaker, with the introduction of the Veterans Health Care Full Funding Act, H.R. 2475, we hope to move beyond debate and discussion and finally get on the fast track to legislative action. It's time to fix the funding system for veterans' health care. I urge all my colleagues to carefully review and consider supporting the Veterans Health Care Full Funding Act, H.R. 2475, to provide dependable, stable and sustained funding to meet the health care needs of veterans of our armed forces. They deserve no less from a grateful nation.

Mr. Speaker, on March 18 the Cuban Government began a massive crackdown on the best, the brightest, and the most courageous in Cuba. Some 75 journalists and human rights activists were arrested and subjected to kangaroo trials and now have gotten prison terms from 6 to 28 years.

Last week Amnesty International called it the most severe crackdown on dissents since the year following the Cuban revolution.

Sadly, these brave Cubans join 400 other political prisoners who are languishing in Castro's gulags. Their only crime is their love of freedom.

Among those unjustly imprisoned, is Dr. Oscar Biscet, a pro-life Afro-Cuban who has been a leader in the human rights movement for years. Although he was recently released, Mr. Speaker, from a 3-year term, he was rearrested, and now has been sentenced to 25 years in prison for organizing a human rights meeting.

His wife, Elsa Morejon, reports that Dr. Biscet is kept in a 6 by 3 punishment cell. They have been refused any visits and any kind of parcels of food or medicines. On May 28 Dr. Biscet wrote, ``I am innocent of the charges of which I have been condemned. A true man cannot betray himself, so I only appeal to the living God and pray to our Lord, as He is not neutral and never abandons his flock.''

According to his wife, Dr. Biscet's only crime is trying to observe and uphold the universal declaration on

human rights, his opposition to abortion, his opposition to the death penalty, and for organizing civil rights movement through nonviolent civil disobedience.

We join this man and his wife and all of those who are suffering. We have got to speak out and not give up until they are free.

I thank my good friend for yielding. And I deeply appreciate both Chairman Sensenbrenner's and Chairman Chabot's courageous leadership on this human right issue.

Mr. Speaker, slowly, but inexorably, the movement to reinfranchise unborn children in law as respected and cherished members of the human family is growing.

The most recent issue of Newsweek, it is a cover story entitled, ``Should a Fetus Have Rights; How Science Is Changing the Debate,'' absolutely shatters the myth that unborn children are somehow less human and less alive than their born brothers and sisters.

Indeed, a second Newsweek story also in this week's edition, ``Treating the Tiniest Patients,'' notes that ``medicine has already granted unborn babies a unique form of personhood, as patients.''

Newsweek points out that, ``Once just grainy blobs on a TV monitor, new high-tech fetal ultrasound images allow prospective parents to see tiny fingers and toes, arms and legs, and a beating heart as early as 12 weeks. While these images make a parent's heart leap for joy, they also pack such an emotional punch that even the most hard-line abortions rights supporters may find themselves questioning their beliefs.''

Mr. Speaker, let us hope so. May the questioning begin. We have lived in denial concerning the violence of abortion for far too long. We have, by our actions, or more so by our inaction, enabled and empowered abortionists to dismember, decapitate and chemically poison more than 43 million innocent and precious babies since 1973.

Today, Mr. Speaker, we can stop some of this violence against children. Today we can take one of those weapons out of the hands of the abortionist. Today we can tell America that partially delivering a baby, only to stab that child in the skull so that his or her brains can be sucked out, is the nightmarish world of a Hannibal Lecter, not American medicine or jurisprudence.