Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, a decade ago we began witnesses to genocide in Europe. By stirring up nationalism, harassing opposition and intimidating the population as a whole to go along with his plans, the regime of Slobodan Milosevic led Serbia into a war of aggression against its neighbors within the former Yugoslavia. Millions were displaced, hundreds of thousands killed and tens of thousands raped or tortured, particularly in Bosnia-Herzegovina. In response, largely at the urging of the U.S. Congress, sanctions were put into place and, ultimately, military intervention was employed to stop Milosevic.

In 2000, the voters of Serbia removed Milosevic from power. In place of his regime, an opposition consisting of genuine reformers and true democrats along with a fair share of Serbian nationalists took control of government. Since that time, the ruling opposition fell into polarized camps, making recovery and reform difficult. This situation also created a challenge in U.S. foreign policy. On the one hand, the United States wants to encourage Belgrade and facilitate reform. On the other, the United States must ensure that the legacy of Slobodan Milosevic has been fully shed, a prerequisite for recovery throughout southeastern Europe.

The Miscellaneous Tariff Bill, H.R. 1047, considered yesterday contains a provision granting the President the authority to restore normalized trade relations for Serbia and Montenegro. I support this provision; normalized trade relations should be restored. Whatever problems might remain, the fact is that there has been progress since Milosevic was removed from power, and Serbia and Montenegro should not be placed on the same list of states not granted normalized trade relations as Cuba, North Korea or Laos. Other countries with far worse records, including Belarus and the Central Asian states, at least receive the benefits of normalized trade relations on a conditional basis which Serbia and Montenegro is denied.

By fixing this, I hope Belgrade recognizes that we want reforms to succeed and recovery and reform take place.

Belgrade also needs to know, Mr. Speaker, that restoring NTR does not mean satisfaction with Belgrade's performance to date. While there has been progress, that progress has been too slow, and some issues remain unresolved. Chief among these issues is Belgrade continued resistance to full cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, located in The Hague. It is especially outrageous that persons responsible for the crimes committed at Vukovar and Srebrenica continue to be at large and perhaps even protected by Yugoslav or Serbian authorities.

While trade relations may not be conditioned on further progress, U.S. bilateral assistance to Serbia is. If there is not a major improvement in Belgrade's cooperation with The Hague by June 15, assistance to Serbia will stop. The Administration must certify progress before assistance continues past that date, and the State Department has made clear that a precondition for certification is the apprehension and transfer of Ratko Mladic, indicted for the massacre of thousands at Srebrenica, and Veselin Sljivancanin and Miroslav Radic, indicted for their role in the massacre of about 200 individuals taken from a hospital in Vukovar, Croatia.

As co-chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I urge Belgrade not only to meet their international obligations relating to ICTY not just to the point of obtaining certification for another year. Cooperation should be full. Only then can the conditionality on assistance be removed for good.

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

Mr. Chairman, on the eve of this debate in July 2001, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer referred to Mr. Greenwood's legislative approach to human cloning ``a nightmare of a bill.'' He said, ``Mr. Greenwood sanctions, licenses, and protects the launching of the most ghoulish and dangerous enterprise in modern scientific history, the creation of a nascent cloned human life for the sole purpose of its exploitation and destruction.''

The majority of the House, like Mr. Krauthammer, rejected the Greenwood amendment by a vote of 178 to 249. We got it right then, and I do hope that Members today will vote against the Greenwood substitute. The Greenwood substitute, Mr. Chairman, would, for the first time in human history, sanction the creation of human life with the demand, backed by new Federal criminal and civil sanctions, that the new life be destroyed after being exploited.

For the small inconvenience of registering your name and your business address, and filling out a form, you would be licensed to play God by creating life in your own image or someone else's. You would have the right to create embryo farms or anything else science might someday allow to be created outside the womb. And in the end, only failure to kill that which you had created would be against the law. We call it, Mr. Chairman, clone and kill. Amazingly, the only new crime created by the Greenwood amendment is failure to kill all human lives created. Federal law would say, create as many as you like, so long as you eventually kill them.

Mr. Chairman, the clear consequence, I believe, of the Greenwood substitute is that it would not even stop the birth of a human clone, which it proposes to do with a moratorium. Because his approach would encourage the creation of cloned embryo stockpiles and cloned embryo farms, it would make the hard part of human cloning completely legal and would make the relatively easy part, implantation, illegal.

I strongly support the underlying bill and urge rejection of the Greenwood substitute.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I would just say to my friend, Mr. Chairman, that once this process is sanctioned and encouraged legally Federal dollars or other dollars might follow, and embryos will be cloned, this, I believe over time, human embryo farms, this science, will be certainly doable. And it is doable. We know that.

Let me finish. You asked me a question.

But over time there would be the creation of human embryo farms.

If the gentleman will continue to yield, I said we would clone cells that would become identical to those that they were from, whether it be from you or I or anyone else. They would become an embryo capable of growing, if uninterrupted, into a young person, into an elderly person, and to a natural death.

I thank the gentleman for continuing to yield, Mr. Chairman, and respond that it will happen over time, as financial inducements are provided. As some of our colleagues pointed out earlier in the debate, when money is provided, some women may be induced to sell their eggs; and many thousands, if not tens of thousands of eggs will be produced over time. There will be a magnet provided to these women, especially the poorer women, to offer up their eggs for this kind of operation.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce, along with my colleague Representative Cardin, Representative Wolf, Representative Hoyer, Representative Lantos, Representative Wamp, Representative Slaughter, Representative Aderholt and Representative Hastings, this resolution expressing the sense of the Congress that the sharp escalation of anti-Semitism, including violence, throughout the region of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, OSCE, is of serious concern to the U.S. Congress and the American people. We should make a concerted effort in our respective countries to end this disturbing trend.

Anti-Semitism is a disease that has bedeviled previous generations of Jews throughout the centuries and formed a black spot on human history. As the 20th century witnessed the nadir of extreme violence against the Jewish community and their institutions, we must take extraordinary steps to ensure this plague does not infect the 21st century to contaminate future generations. Yet our work is cut out for us, as this past year Europe witnessed a profound increase in vandalism against Jewish cemeteries, synagogues and cultural property, as well as mob assaults, fire bombings and gunfire. This year already a Jewish rabbi was stabbed twice in his Paris synagogue by an assailant. Thankfully, he was released from the hospital the same day. Certainly our own country is not immune, as acts of vandalism and violence continue to sporadically occur. As these incidents made graphically clear, silence is not an option when we are witnesses to insensitivity and violence.

The Helsinki Commission, which I co-chair and on which Mr. Cardin serves has taken the lead in voicing concern and working for real change. On May 22, 2002, the Commission held a hearing to raise specific attention to the growing problem of anti-Semitic violence in the OSCE region. From that hearing a number of initiatives emerged. At the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly Annual Session in Berlin last July, I introduced and successfully secured unanimous approval of a resolution denouncing anti-Semitism and calling for all OSCE governments to do more. Mr. Speaker, for the Record, I submit the text of the OSCE PA resolution.

In addition, the U.S. delegation co-sponsored an unprecedented special session with the German delegation to further discuss the alarming trend with our fellow parliamentarians. In December, the Commission co-hosted here in Washington a parliamentary forum on anti- Semitism with German parliamentarians, also attended by a prominent member of the Senate of Canada, Jerry Grafstein. At the conclusion of this event, myself and the German co-chair, Gert Weisskirchen, signed a letter of intent highlighting specific areas for further work and pledging to enlist the support of other parliamentarians from OSCE participating States. I have submitted a copy of the letter of intent, for the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this resolution, and I am eager for the House to go on record in support, making sure both the Congress and our government are doing everything possible to see an end to this

scourge. I am especially pleased that the resolution calls for all OSCE participating States to ensure effective law enforcement and prosecution of individuals perpetrating anti-Semitic violence, as well as urging the parliaments of all participating States to take concrete legislative action at the national level. In sum, I look forward to working with my colleagues to continue our steadfast efforts to see an end to anti-Semitic violence.

Resolution on Anti-Semitic Violence in the OSCE Region

1. Recalling that the OSCE was among those organizations

which publicly achieved international condemnation of anti-

Semitism through the crafting of the 1990 Copenhagen

Concluding Document;

2. Noting that all participating States, as stated in the

Copenhagen Concluding Document, commit to ``unequivocally

condemn'' anti-Semitism and take effective measures to

protect individuals from anti-Semitic violence;

3. Remembering the 1996 Lisbon Concluding Document, which

highlights the OSCE's ``comprehensive approach'' to security,

calls for ``improvement in the implementation of all

commitments in the human dimension, in particular with

respect to human rights and fundamental freedoms'', and urges

participating States to address ``acute problems'', such as

anti-Semitism;

4. Reaffirming the 1999 Charter for European Security,

committing participating States to ``counter such threats to

security as violations of human rights and fundamental

freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience,

religion or belief and manifestations of intolerance,

aggressive nationalism, racism, chauvinism, xenophobia and

anti-Semitism'';

5. Recognizing that the scourge of anti-Semitism is not

unique to any one country, and calls for steadfast

perseverance by all participating States;

The OSCE Parliamentary Assembly:

6. Unequivocally condemns the alarming escalation of anti-

Semitic violence throughout the OSCE region;

7. Voices deep concern over the recent escalation in anti-

Semitic violence, as individuals of the Judaic faith and

Jewish cultural properties have suffered attacks in many OSCE

participating States;

8. Urges those States which undertake to return confiscated

properties to rightful owners, or to provide alternative

compensation to such owners, to ensure that their property

restitution and compensation programmes are implemented in a

nondiscriminatory manner and according to the rule of law;

9. Recognizes the commendable efforts of many post-

communist States to redress injustices inflicted by previous

regimes based on religious heritage, considering that the

interests of justice dictate that more work remains to be

done in this regard, particularly with regard to individual

and community property restitution compensation;

10. Recognizes the danger of anti-Semitic violence to

European security, especially in light of the trend of

increasing violence and attacks region wide;

11. Declares that violence against Jews and other

manifestations of intolerance will never be justified by

international developments or political issues, and that it

obstructs democracy, pluralism, and peace;

12. Urges all States to make public statements recognizing

violence against Jews and Jewish cultural properties as anti-

Semitic, as well as to issue strong, public declarations

condemning the depredations;

13. Calls upon participating States to ensure aggressive

law enforcement by local and national authorities, including

thorough investigation of anti-Semitic criminal acts,

apprehension of perpetrators, initiation of appropriate

criminal prosecutions and judicial proceedings;

14. Urges participating States to bolster the importance of

combating anti-Semitism by holding a follow-up seminar or

human dimension meeting that explores effective measures to

prevent anti-Semitism, and to ensure that their laws,

regulations, practices and policies conform with relevant

OSCE commitments on anti-Semitism; and

15. Encourages all delegates to the Parliamentary Assembly

to vocally and unconditionally condemn manifestations of

anti-Semitic violence in their respective countries and at

all regional and international forums.

Letter of Intent

an action program: confronting and combating anti-semitism in the osce

region

As members of the German Bundestag and U.S. Congress and

participants in the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, we wish to

express our deep concern regarding the significant increase

in the number of anti-Semitic incidents in many countries of

the OSCE. We condemn anti-Semitism in all its forms. Anti-

Semitic bigotry must have no place in our democratic

societies and needs to be actively opposed by all 55

participating States of the OSCE, including by members of

Parliament. The sorry lessons of the past have demonstrated

that the virus of anti-Semitism, when not successfully

resisted, will lead to terrible tragedy for the Jewish

people, and promote prejudice and intolerance towards other

minority groups.

We affirm our commitment to work together closely to fight

anti-Semitism and encourage colleagues in our respective

legislatures, and in the legislative bodies of other OSCE

participating States, to develop a series of specific

measures to counter anti-Semitic actions and attitudes. In

executing our action plan we will make full use of all

appropriate OSCE institutions and instruments. Actions that

we intend to pursue are the following:

A. Persuade other Parliaments in OSCE participating States

to adopt resolutions condemning anti-Semitism as the U.S

Congress and the German Bundestag have already done.

B. Energize governments and other elected officials at all

levels in OSCE participating States to condemn forcefully and

publicly anti-Semitic acts, when they occur.

C. Encourage all OSCE countries to enact appropriate

criminal legislation to punish anti-Semitic acts and ensure

that such laws are vigorously enforced.

D. Call upon governments in OSCE participating States, if

they have not already done so, to adhere to international

instruments which, by addressing the problem of

discrimination, may counter anti-Semitic attitudes and

actions.

E. Promote educational efforts throughout the OSCE region

to counter anti-Semitic stereotypes and attitudes among

younger people and help identify the necessary resources to

accomplish this goal. Encourage teachers, social workers and

members of the clergy to focus on anti-Semitic attitudes and

behavior of younger people and support the development of

curricula for teacher training.

F. Consider what concrete actions may be possible within

the OSCE to discourage the proliferation of anti-Semitic,

neo-Nazi and other racist material over the Internet, while

preserving the right to freedom of expression.

G. Encourage religious leaders in OSCE participating States

to work more closely together and consider the past

experiences of certain religious institutions in dealing with

the experience of the Holocaust.

H. Create an OSCE parliamentarian-based ``Coalition of the

Willing'' to address anti-Semitic propaganda that appears to

be increasing rapidly in a number of OSCE partner countries.

Explore the possibility of using the OSCE's partnership with

the southern and eastern Mediterranean countries for

promoting this goal. We pledge to meet again in conjunction

with the February 2003 Winter Session of the OSCE

Parliamentary Assembly in Vienna to evaluate progress and

seek the active support and cooperation of our parliamentary

colleagues from other countries. On this occasion, we will

also determine how we can best utilize the July 2003

Rotterdam Annual Session of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly

to further our common goal of combating anti-Semitism

throughout the OSCE region.

Signed in Washington, D.C. on December 10, 2002.

Christopher H. Smith,

Member of Congress.

Gert Weisskirchen,

Member, German Bundestag.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Belarus Democracy Act of 2003, which is intended to help promote democratic development, human rights and the rule of law in the Republic of Belarus, as well as encourage the consolidation and strengthening of Belarus' sovereignty and independence. I am joined by Congressmen Hoyer, Hoeffel and Congresswoman Slaughter, as original cosponsors.

When measured against other European countries, the state of human rights in Belarus is abysmal--it has the worst record of any European state.

Through an illegitimate 1996 referendum, Alexander Lukashenka usurped power, while suppressing the duly-elected legislature and the judiciary. His regime has repeatedly violated basic freedoms of speech, expression, assembly, association and religion. The democratic opposition, nongovernmental organizations and independent media have all faced harassment. Just within the last few months, we have seen a number of events reflecting the negative trend line: the passage of a repressive law on religion which bans religious activity by groups not registered with the government and forbids most religious meetings on private property; the bulldozing of a newly-built church; the incarceration of leading independent journalists; and the continued harassment, as well as physical attacks on the political opposition, independent media and non-governmental organizations--in short, anyone who, through their promotion of democracy, would stand in the way of the Belarusian dictator. Moreover, we have seen no progress on the investigation of the disappearances of political opponents--perhaps not surprisingly, as credible evidence points at the involvement of the Lukashenka regime in their murders. Furthermore, growing evidence also indicates Belarus has been supplying military training and weapons to Iraq, in violation of UN sanctions.

Despite efforts by the U.S. Government, non-govermental organizations, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and other European organizations, the regime of Alexander Lukashenka continues its hold onto power with impunity and to the detriment of the Belarusian people.

One of the primary purposes of this bill is to demonstrate U.S. support for those struggling to promote democracy and respect for human rights in Belarus despite the formidable pressures they face from the anti-democratic regime. The bill authorizes increases in assistance for democracy building activities such as support for non-governmental organizations, independent media including radio and television broadcasting to Belarus, and international exchanges. The bill also encourages free and fair parliamentary elections, conducted in a manner consistent with international standards--in sharp contrast to recent parliamentary and presidential elections in Belarus which flaunted democratic standards. As a result of these elections, Belarus has the distinction of lacking legitimate presidential

and parliamentary leadership, which contributes to that country's self- imposed isolation.

In addition, this bill would impose sanctions against the Lukashenka regime, and deny highranking officials of the regime entry into the United States. Strategic exports to the Belarusian Government would be prohibited, as well as U.S. Government financing, except for humanitarian goods and agricultural or medical products. The U.S. Executive Directors of the international financial institutions would be encouraged to vote against financial assistance to the Government of Belarus except for loans and assistance that serve humanitarian needs.

The bill would require reports from the President concerning the sale or delivery of weapons or weapons-related technologies from Belarus to rogue states.

Mr. Speaker, finally, it is my hope that this bill would help put an end to the pattern of clear, gross and uncorrected violations of OSCE commitments by the Lukashenka regime and will serve as a catalyst to facilitate Belaras' integration into democratic Europe in which democratic principles and human rights are respected and the rule of law is paramount. The Belarusian people deserve our support as they work to overcome the legacy of the past and develop a genuinely independent, democratic country based on the rule of law and democratic institutions.

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following for publication in the Record.

Mr. Speaker, Vaclav Havel is sometimes called the ``conscience of the Czech Republic.'' In fact, he could be called the conscience of the world. As both playwright and president, he has set an example for his country men and women and inspired others around the globe.

As a Member serving on the Helsinki Commission, I first became aware of Vaclav Havel and his stance as a leader of the Charter '77

human rights movement. At a time when most Czechoslovaks preferred to keep their heads low, he held his up. When others dared not speak out, he raised his voice. While others hid from communism in their apartments and weekend cottages, he faced it down in prison. In recognition of his extraordinary leadership and courage, the Commission leadership recommended him for the Nobel Peace Prize in February 1989.

Vaclav Havel once wrote of the ``power of the powerless'' and, on November 17, 1989, when the Velvet Revolution began, the world saw that power manifested in reality.

Mr. Speaker, Vaclav Havel is a man who has always been guided by the courage of his convictions. Remarkably, his courage did not fade upon his assumption of the presidency. Indeed, he is all the more heroic for his remaining steadfast to his commitment to human rights even from the comforts of the Prague Castle.

From the beginning of his tenure, as he addressed his country's communist and totalitarian past, he was a voice of reason, not revenge. In 1993, he rightly identified the situation of Roma as ``a litmus test for civil society.'' Throughout his presidency, he has pardoned those facing criminal charges under communist-era laws that restrict free speech and have yet to be repealed. In 2001, he spoke out against the parliament's regressive religion law, which turned the clock back on religious freedom. He has raised human rights issues from Cuba to China. And, he has reminded other world leaders of our shared responsibility for the poor and less fortunate.

H. Con. Res. 22 pays tribute to Vaclav Havel's singular compassion, integrity, and vision. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting a man who has given so much to his country and the world.

Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I rise today to pay tribute to Judge Guy H. McMichael III, who is retiring after a lifetime of public service, including more than 25 years at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Judge McMichael's career includes stints in the Army, as a Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, on the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and at the VA under five Administrators, four Secretaries and five different Presidents.

Judge McMichael graduated from Harvard University and received a law degree from the University of Michigan. He served in the Army for two years and later was in private practice for four years, while also serving as a Deputy Prosecuting Attorney for the State of Indiana. In 1971, he became General Counsel for the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, where he remained for six years until joining the VA following the election of President Carter.

When Judge McMichael first came to the VA with Administrator Max Cleland in 1977, he brought a healthy distrust of what people said and what they did. His discernment and skepticism was resented by some, but over the years, his ability to persuade others of the importance of being honest brought integrity to almost all parts of the VA that he touched. That a man who was the Administrator's right hand during the Carter years would stay on and perform such exemplary service for an additional 23 years is quite remarkable.

In 1981, Administrator Robert P. Nimmo appointed Guy McMichael to the VA Board of Appeals as an Administrative Judge. He was appointed Chairman and Chief Administrative Judge in l990, and has remained in that position until his retirement this year. Over the past several years, Judge McMichael has also filled several important positions on a temporary basis, including Acting Chief of Staff, Chief Information Officer, and Acting Under Secretary for Benefits.

Mr. Speaker, Judge McMichael's legacy is that of a man who served his nation with compassion and distinction, and advanced the interests of veterans. Truly, he saw his work for veterans as a mission, one that he could devote the full talents God blessed him with. Veterans are better off because he served them as long as he did.

Mr. Speaker, as you may know, this week marks the 29th Anniversary of National Catholic Schools Week, a week dedicated to honor the achievements and successes of the more than 2.6 million children enrolled in the 8,114 Catholic Schools throughout our country. Today is National Catholic Schools Appreciation day.

It is fitting then that today I introduce legislation designed to ensure the Federal Government appropriately assists parents with the financial burdens associated with their child's education. My legislation, the Education, Achievement, and Opportunity Act will provide refundable tuition tax credits for the educational expenses incurred by parents for elementary and secondary school. The legislation would provide parents sending their child to an elementary school with up to $2,500 in tax relief, while parents with children in a Catholic or parochial high school could claim up to $3,500 in assistance.

The tax relief contained in my proposal can be utilized by parents to pay for a variety of educational expenses that are frequently incurred on behalf of their children. Most significantly the tax credit is designed to help with the cost of tuition. But, beyond this, the tax credits can be used to help meet the costs of other educational needs: (1) computers, educational software, and books required for courses of instruction; (2) academic tutoring; (3) special needs services for qualifying children with disabilities (within the meaning of the Americans With Disabilities Act); (4) fees for transportation services to and from a private school, if the transportation is provided by the school and the school charges a fee for the transportation; and (5) academic testing services.

Parents know the interests and needs of their children better than anyone else. If we are truly going to ensure that ``no child is left behind,'' in our national education agenda, then we must make sure our children have every tool at their disposal to academically succeed.

The wealthy in America already have the choice to send their child to the school that best suits them. But middle and working class families often do not. Between tuition costs and out-of-pocket expenses like tutoring, computers, and transportation, the costs can add up and pose an enormous obstacle to the child's lifetime leaming opportunities.

In my own district in New Jersey, a parent who feels a Catholic elementary school is best suited for their child, will pay somewhere between $1,840 and $2,566 in tuition costs per child, per year. If you want to send your child to a parochial high school in the central New Jersey area, a parent is looking at an average tuition bill of $5,571 per student, per year. In other areas of the country, the costs are very similar.

Without federal support, many parents struggle--and in some cases forgo--a Catholic school education, or any education in a spiritual setting, because the costs are so high. Learning in a religious setting is not for every one, and America's public school system is critical to providing educational opportunities for all. We must continue to vigorously support our public schools at both the federal and local levels. At the same time, however, we should support those who seek the benefits of Catholic school and choose a religious setting as the best, educational environment for their children.

In effect, parents of Catholic school children pay twice--they pay their fair share of taxes necessary to support the public school system, and they pay tuition at the school their children actually attend. I urge my colleagues to join me in addressing this inherent unfairness and work for the passage of my tuition tax credit program as the best way to help offset the double payment endured by those who send their children to Catholic and parochial schools.

In America today, we have 59 million youngsters in elementary and secondary school across the U.S.; about 10 percent of these students are enrolled in private, parochial and rabbinical schools. Those families who are already sending their children to such schools, and others planning to send their children to them, would benefit enormously from my proposal, because they are often struggling to make ends meet.

It is important to note that my education proposal is a tax credit, rather than a voucher, so the total amount of education resources available for all school age children will increase. Under a voucher system, if a school loses enrolled students to a competing school, that

school may lose funding and have fewer resources available for their educational program. Under my plan, that outcome is avoided. It is a ``win-win'' scenario, whereas some have argued that voucher programs can become a zero-sum situation with ``winners and losers.''

A tuition tax credit for education is a benefit that should be available to all, no matter what their race, creed, or national origin. And make no mistake: the public school system will and must continue to remain the backbone of our nation's education system. But we must never forget that the public school system was created to serve students--not the other way around. If a student is performing poorly, parents should have the opportunity to augment the child's education with help from the federal government.

If we are to truly make good on our promise that ``no child is left behind,'' we must ensure that Catholic schools are included in this national promise and goal. A child is a child, regardless of which school system they are enrolled. The children enrolled in Catholic, private, and rabbinical schools deserve nothing less than our full support and compassion.

I urge my colleagues to support the Education, Achievement, and Opportunity Act.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my strong support for H. Res. 26, a resolution recognizing the valuable contributions of Catholic Schools.

This week marks the 29th Anniversary of National Catholic Schools Week, a week dedicated to honor the achievements and successes of Catholic Schools throughout the U.S. More than 2.6 million children are enrolled in the 8,114 Catholic Schools in our country.

As Pope John Paul II said, ``. . . the purpose of Catholic Education is to communicate Christ to you, so that your attitude toward others will be that of Christ.'' A Catholic education

challenges students through a combination of high standards, strong motivation, effective discipline, and an emphasis on personal responsibility. It is an education that goes beyond preparation for a secular life; it is an education that prepares students for a Christian life.

Placing a premium on both academic standards and moral responsibility has proven to be a successful formula for Catholic schools. Consider the following facts. Catholic school student test performance in the three grade levels of the National Assessment of Educational Progress exceeds public school test results by an average of 4.5 percent in math, 4.8 percent in science, and 12.5 percent in reading. Only 3 percent of Catholic school students drop out of school, compared to a 14 percent dropout rate in public schools. In addition, 83 percent of Catholic highs school graduates go on to college, as compared to 52 percent of public high school graduates.

Children do not form their core moral values on the sole basis of what schools teach them. Learning a respect for life and respect for the rights of others does not just start at school. It starts at home. Accordingly, the Catholic school curriculum recognizes parents and family as primary educators and seeks to foster a shared vision among the two. As the father of four children who have attended Catholic schools, I know that Catholic schools strive to create a special bond between families and educators. Schools and families work hand-in-hand reinforcing family values, ethical behavior, social responsibility, and academic achievement.

There are more than 167,000 men and women who constitute our Catholic school faculty nationwide. Lay men and women represent 91 percent of the full-time equivalent teaching staff in Catholic elementary schools and 92 percent in middle schools. Parents know that the job of a good school teacher is not an easy one. The teachers and staff in our Catholic Schools are allies and supporters in helping parents instill solid moral lessons in our children. They deliver a curriculum that accentuates academic aptitude and moral responsibility. The Catholic school family--the teachers, administrators, librarians, and support staff--are all working every day to help parents rear and prepare America's next generation of leaders.

Mr. Speaker, learning in a religious setting is not for everyone and America's public school system is critical to providing educational opportunities for all. We must continue to vigorously support our public schools at both the Federal and local levels. At the same time, however, we should support those who seek the benefits of Catholic school and choose a religious setting as the best educational environment for their children. In effect, parents of Catholic school children pay twice--they pay their fair share of taxes necessary to support the public school system and they pay tuition at the school their children attend. I urge my colleagues to join me in addressing this inherent unfairness and work for the passage of a tuition tax credit program--some time this year--as the best way to help offset the double payment endured by those who send their children to Catholic schools.

In the interim, Mr. Speaker, as we work for passage of a tuition tax credit, all members can and should vote today for the passage of H. Res. 26 which appropriately recognizes the valuable contributions of Catholic schools across the Nation.

Mr. Speaker, today Mr. Evans of Illinois and I are introducing H.R. 100, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, a bill to restate, clarify and strengthen the legal protections afforded our men and women who serve on active duty in our armed forces. This measure would modernize and rename the current Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act, which has had only a few changes since it was passed during World War II. While it has always provided extremely important legal protections, this law is badly in need of comprehensive redrafting in modern legislative language so that it has a more inclusive name, is easier to understand and interpret, and, most importantly, provides updated protections to reflect the considerable changes in American society that have occurred over the past fifty years.

During the 107th Congress, I introduced H.R. 5111, a bill of the same name. H.R. 100 is a continuation of that initiative, and it may be possible to make more improvements as the new bill is considered. I think the timing of this legislation is important. Our Nation is engaged in a war against terrorism and once again contemplates the possibility of a war to prevent Saddam Hussein from developing weapons intended to terrorize the world. Our servicemembers need to know their elected representatives are working to reduce the burdens they and their loved ones face as they protect our freedoms and way of life. That is why we are introducing this bill on the first day of the 108th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 100 is intended to make the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act (SSCRA) easier to understand by restating it in plain language, to incorporate generally accepted procedural practices, and to adjust its provisions to developments in American life since 1940. Major improvements to the SSCRA in H.R. 100 would:

1. Expand the SSCRA provision temporarily suspending legal proceedings that may prejudice the civil legal rights of military personnel to include administrative as well as judicial proceedings;

2. Add a section pertaining to Legal Representatives that clarifies the term ``servicemember,'' as used in the Act, and incorporates by reference the concept of a legal representative (the SSCRA is silent on this issue);

3. Establish a 90-day automatic stay of proceedings when military duty requirements materially affect the servicemember's ability to appear in a judicial or administrative proceeding;

4. Clarify the 6 percent interest rate cap by specifying that interest in excess of 6 percent per year is forgiven;

5. Improve eviction protections by precluding evictions from premises occupied by servicemembers for which the monthly rent does not exceed $1,700, rather than the current ceiling of $1,200;

6. Add leases to the provision protecting servicemembers who, prior to entry into military service, have entered an installment contract for the purchase of real or personal property by prohibiting creditors without court action from terminating contracts and repossessing property for nonpayment or breach occurring prior to or during military service;

7. Expand the termination of the real property leases provision by adding a clause stating that, if a servicemember while in military service executes a lease and thereafter receives military orders for a permanent change of station (PCS) move or a deployment order of 90 days or more, the servicemember can terminate the lease by giving the landlord written notice;

8. Clarify that protections regarding taxes on personal property include all forms of property owned by a servicemember or jointly held by a servicemember and the servicemember's spouse;

9. Add a provision that states ``a tax jurisdiction may not use the military compensation of the non-resident servicemember to increase the tax liability imposed on other income earned by the nonresident servicemember or spouse subject to tax by the jurisdiction''; and

10. Include legal services as a professional service specifically named under the provision that provides for suspension and subsequent reinstatement of existing professional liability insurance coverage for designated professionals serving on active duty.

Mr. Speaker, during the last Congress, with Public Law 107-330 we amended the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act to expand coverage to National Guard members activated under title 32 to respond to national emergencies declared by the President. Just in the past few days, some members of the reserve components have received notices that they will be called up for active duty, and Congress should consider more ways to encourage citizen service in the armed forces both by reducing its burdens and increasing its incentives. I hope to do that during this Congress. What was once called the Militia is now the National Guard and the Reserves, but the purpose remains the same, to give the people themselves the opportunity and responsibility to voluntarily contribute their time and talents to the national defense.

Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that the House will consider and pass H.R. 100 early in this session. Our servicemembers should be uppermost in our minds and in our prayers during these dangerous times. As we depend on them, we must also do our part.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing H.R. 241, the Veterans Beneficiary Fairness Act of 2003. This legislation, which is cosponsored by my friend Lane Evans of Illinois, the Ranking Member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, will correct a deficiency in the law that negatively affects some surviving spouses of disabled veterans.

Currently, if a veteran dies while a claim for VA benefits (other than insurance and servicemen's indemnity) is being processed, but before his or her claim becomes final, the surviving spouse is entitled to no more than two years of accrued benefits when the claim is decided in the veteran's favor. H.R. 241 would repeal this two-year limitation so that the veteran's survivor may receive the full amount of the award and not be penalized by VA's failure to resolve a claim in less than two years.

Mr. Speaker, while VA has made great efforts to lower claims processing times, the fact remains that it can sometimes take more than 2 years to correctly determine and adjudicate a claim. When this process takes an inordinate length of time, it is simply not fair to prevent veterans' survivors from receiving disability or pension benefit payments the veteran would have received if VA had been able to process claims in a timely fashion. H.R. 241 would ensure that a veteran's survivor would not suffer because the veteran died while waiting for the claim to be adjudicated.

Mr. Speaker, it is my intention that the Veterans' Affairs Committee consider this bill as soon as possible during the 1st Session of the 108th Congress. It is a matter of fairness and I urge all of my colleagues to join in this effort.