Floor Statements

I thank our distinguished chairwoman for yielding and thank her for her leadership today and every day on human rights issues.

Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 68.

You know, when U.S. intervention in Libya began last March, I raised--and I was among many--several still unanswered questions about our involvement. They included questions about the identity and the aims of the rebels, the varying Presidential statements that seemed to shift like the wind, the level of U.S. involvement, the possibility of Qadhafi retaliating against American interests outside of Libya, and whether U.S. ground troops might well be requested at some point, although the resolution seems to clearly say that that would not be authorized by Congress.

In the course of the debate over the constitutionality and viability of the War Powers resolution, these questions have remained unanswered. The President has refused to seek congressional approval of his action or even to provide a full explanation of his decisions. As the NATO campaign continues, new questions have arisen about U.S. participation and what is now NATO's involvement in Libya.

Let me just say mention was made a moment ago by Mr. Levin about Kosova and that somehow the Republican opposition to military action in Kosova was political. It absolutely was not! I remember because I was very involved in trying to mitigate the Balkan troubles. I visited there many times, visited with Milosevic, the dictator in Belgrade. Actually, I was in Vukovar right before it fell.

So, frankly, the statement that was made earlier I think did a disservice to those of us who were not supportive of the Kosova operation. There was no plan to war protect the Kosovar Albanians. We used air power. Milosevic invaded with ground trops. If Members

will remember, that country's population was literally, literally pushed out into Macedonia and elsewhere--about 1.6 million refugees-- because there was no plan when Milosevic sent in the ground troops and killed thousands of people because we had no plan to protect them. An estimated 10,000 people were killed.

So the revisionism that somehow Republican opposition to the war was a political calculation falls very, very far from the truth. And it's a cheap shot. I actually chaired hearings during the war and stated my oppositions based on principle, as did other Members. So I expect--and hope--unfounded revisionism would be avoided and that there would not be that look-back that does a disservice on the issue at hand to principled Republican opposition.

So, who exactly are we backing in Libya? What justification under international law is there for directing both U.S. and foreign government assets to a rebel entity that is not democratically elected and, therefore, not necessarily representative of the people of that country? We don't know.

In addition, a senior NATO official told CNN on June 9 that Qadhafi ``was a legitimate target of the bombing campaign.'' Even though this was expressed as a NATO position, are we now to understand that the Obama administration is sanctioning the killing of foreign leaders? Again, pursuant to what international criteria or legal justification?

Mr. Speaker, again, I call on my colleagues to vote down this resolution that is offered, H.J. Res. 68.

Madam Chair, for over two decades, USPTO has had an internal policy that human beings at any stage of development are not patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. Section 101. I commend Chairman Lamar Smith for including in the manager's amendment to H.R. 1249, the America Invents Act, a provision that will codify an existing pro-life policy rider included in the CJS Appropriations bill since FY2004. This amendment, commonly known as the Weldon amendment, ensures the U.S. Patent and Trade Office, USPTO, does not issue patents that are directed to or encompassing a human organism.

Codifying the Weldon amendment simply continues to put the weight of law behind the USPTO policy.

This amendment and USPTO policy reflect a commonsense understanding that no member of the human species is an ``invention,'' or property to be licensed for financial gain. Patents on human organisms commodify life and allow profiteers to financially gain from the biology and life of another human person.

Codifying a ban on patenting of humans would not violate international obligations under the TRIPs agreement with the WTO, in which member countries can exclude from patentability subject matter to prevent commercial exploitation which is ``necessary to protect ordre public or morality, [and] to protect human, animal or plant life.'' (The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Article 27, Section 5).

Even the European Union prevents patents on human embryos on the basis of morality and public order without conflicting with the TRIPs agreement. (See Guidelines for Substantive Examination. European Patent Office. Part C, Chapter IV, Section 4.5, iii (Rule 28c))

4.5 Biotechnological inventions

In the area of biotechnological inventions, the following

list of exceptions to patentability under Art. 53(a) is laid

down in Rule 28. The list is illustrative and non-exhaustive

and is to be seen as giving concrete form to the concept of

``ordre public'' and ``morality'' in this technical field.

Under Art. 53(a), in conjunction with Rule 28, European

patents are not to be granted in respect of biotechnological

inventions which concern:

(iii) uses of human embryos for industrial or commercial

purposes; The exclusion of the uses of human embryos for

industrial or commercial purposes does not affect inventions

for therapeutic or diagnostic purposes which are applied to

the human embryo and are useful to it (EU Dir.98/44/EC, rec.

42).

I also submit into the Record items from previous debate on the Weldon amendment that will add further clarification to the intent of this important provision.

Speech of Hon. Dave Weldon of Florida in the House of Representatives,

July 22, 2003

H. Admt. 286

Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary,

and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2004--(House of

Representatives--July 22, 2003)

Amendment Offered by Mr. Weldon of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the

amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my deep concern about the deterioration of democracy in Ukraine over the past 16 months, and the current Ukrainian leadership's use of politically motivated selective prosecution to harass high-ranking officials from the previous government. The country's once-promising democratic future is in jeopardy. While we face many serious challenges in every region of the world today, nonetheless it is imperative that Washington focus attention on what is happening in Ukraine--especially given that country's vital role in the region.

As a long-time member and current Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I have followed and spoken out on developments in Ukraine since the early 1980's, when the rights of the Ukrainian people were completely denied and any brave soul who advocated for freedom was brutally persecuted.

Mr. Speaker, for nearly two decades, independent Ukraine has been moving away from its communist past while establishing itself as an important partner to the United States. Both the executive branch and Congress, on a bipartisan basis, have provided strong political support and concrete assistance for Ukraine's independence and facilitated Ukraine's post-Communist transition. In the wake of the 2004 Orange Revolution, Ukraine even became a beacon of hope for other post-Soviet countries, earning the designation of ``Free'' from Freedom House--the only country among the 12 non-Baltic former Soviet republics to earn such a ranking. And while many of the promises of that revolution have sadly gone unfulfilled, one of its successes had been Ukraine's rise from ``Partly Free'' to ``Free,'' reflecting genuine improvements in human rights and democratic practices.

Under President Viktor Yanukovych, elected in February 2010, this promising legacy may vanish. Today we see backsliding on many fronts, which threatens to return Ukraine to authoritarianism and jeopardizes its independence from Russia. Among the most worrisome of these trends are: consolidation of power in the presidency which has weakened checks and balances; backpedaling with respect to freedom of expression and assembly; various forms of pressure on the media and civil society groups; attempts to curtail academic freedom and that of institutions and activists who peacefully promote the Ukrainian national identity; and seriously flawed local elections. Meanwhile, endemic corruption-- arguably the greatest and most persistent threat to Ukrainian democracy and sovereignty--as well as the weak rule of law and the lack of an independent judiciary, which were not seriously addressed by the Orange governments, have only become more pronounced under the current regime.

Moreover, in recent months, we have seen intensified pressure on opposition leaders, even selective prosecutions of high-ranking members of the previous government. The vast majority of observers both within and outside Ukraine see these cases, which have targeted former Prime Minister Yuliya Tymoshenko and former Interior Minister Yuriy Lutsenko among others, as politically motivated acts of revenge which aim to remove possible contenders from the political scene, especially in the run-up to next year's parliamentary elections.

Mr. Speaker, the Helsinki Commission has closely monitored these troubling trends as have the U.S., other Western governments, and the European Parliament and Council of Europe. Unfortunately, the Ukrainian authorities have largely downplayed concerns voiced by the European Union, which they aspire to join someday, and by the United States, with which Kyiv professes to seek better relations.

The U.S. also desires enhanced bilateral ties. Yet, moving in the wrong direction on human rights, democracy and the rule of law decidedly works against strengthening U.S.-Ukrainian relations. More importantly, the erosion of hard-won democratic freedoms weakens Ukraine's independence and harms the people of Ukraine, who have endured a painful history as a captive nation over the course of the last century. Indeed, as Ukraine this week marks the 70th anniversary of the brutal Nazi invasion, we mourn the loss of life and untold human suffering of that horrific war.

Against this backdrop of devastation wreaked by totalitarian regimes in the 20th century, Ukrainians deserve to have the promise of democracy made possible by their independence fully realized.

A few days ago, President Yanukovych said that he would take into account the criticisms in Freedom House's recent ``Sounding the Alarm: Protecting Democracy in Ukraine'' report. His promise is encouraging, but words alone are not enough. All friends of Ukraine should measure his words by actual and meaningful changes that improve the state of democracy and human rights for the Ukrainian people.

Mr. Speaker, words are inadequate to convey my profound respect, admiration, and gratitude for Trenton Diocese Bishop Emeritus John Mortimer Smith, who celebrated his golden jubilee, an amazing 50 years as a Catholic priest, on May 22 at a mass attended by over 800 people at the St. Mary of the Assumption Cathedral in Trenton, New Jersey.

The mass, concelebrated by several bishops, including Bishop David M. O'Connell, now bishop of Trenton, and several priests, including Bishop Smith's brother Father Andrew Smith, was filled with joy and reflection, befitting acknowledgement of a great servant of God.

In his moving homily, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick noted that Bishop Smith is an ``extraordinary brother and an extraordinary friend. A man filled with faith, filled with zeal--zeal for the church, zeal for the people he serves, and, in a special way as a bishop, zeal for his priests.'' The cardinal said we are called to ``model Jesus Christ to our people and imitate Christ. Mort Smith,'' he continued, ``has lived it well.''

Cardinal McCarrick brought smiles and laughter throughout the cathedral when he said, ``I'm not here to canonize Bishop Smith, although that may come,'' and then went on to call Bishop Smith ``the world's greatest kibitzer'' due to his legendary penchant for telling stories, usually long, no usually very long, and happily, usually very funny.

Once when I was about to give an address at the St. Thomas More dinner in Trenton, I turned to Bishop Smith, seated with my wife and me at a table, desperate for a joke. He gave me two, and I, courtesy of his jokes, had them rolling in the aisle. Bishop Smith's uncanny ability to infuse humor and hope-filled lightheartedness into almost all things is not only entertaining but makes presentation of the gospel to an often confused and stressed-out world more efficacious.

Bishop Smith connects amazingly well with the youth. I have witnessed it many times at schools and at the annual Catholic Men's Rally. Bishop Smith has an uncanny way of challenging everyone, especially our young people, to faithfully and courageously live the gospel. And you know, it never fails. Within a minute or two of being with Bishop Smith, you always find yourself smiling and your spirits lifted.

For the many years that I have known him, Bishop Smith not only radiates the love of Christ, but he works hard and smart. Often I don't know where he finds the time.

Ordained a priest on May 27, 1961, he has really done it all. Bishop Smith has earned several degrees and got his doctorate from Catholic University of America in the sixties and was deployed as a pastor in the Newark Archdiocese.

Over the years, he has chaired or been the director of numerous boards, including the Institute for Continuing Theological Education, the U.S. Bishops Consultation IV, and the Archdiocesan Vocational Board. He has also served in leadership positions on the Bishops' Committee on Migration and Refugee Services and served on the board of directors for St. Vincent de Paul Seminary, Notre Dame Seminary, St. Joseph College Seminary, Catholic Relief Services, St. Francis Medical Center in Trenton, and Pontifical North American College in Rome. I would note, parenthetically, he made five humanitarian trips to Africa as part of Catholic Relief Services' mission there.

As bishop, his pastoral plan, Led by the Spirit, identified seven pastoral priorities, including dealing with charity and justice, pastoral leadership, ethnic diversity, youth and young adult ministry, faith formation, and Sunday worship. Today, all 111 parishes in the diocese of Trenton are developing action plans to implement Led by the Spirit.

Bishop Smith also created the Institute for Lay Ecclesial Ministry, which has formed and commissioned approximately 100 people to date. He also updated and expanded the strategic use of media to advance the gospel and the culture of life and created Realfaith TV, an award- winning teen talk show. And he has boosted the Trenton diocese's online outreach to the Hispanic community to protect the sanctity of human life and to reach an even wider audience with news and commentary published in the excellent diocesan newspaper, The Monitor.

Faced with declining enrollment in the diocesan schools, largely due to escalating costs, which include some 36 elementary schools and eight high schools, Bishop Smith's ``Commitment to Excellence'' initiative established benchmarks to make an already effective education program even better.

Mr. Speaker, my wife, Marie, and I were among those offering prayers of thanks at Bishop Smith's jubilee mass. We rejoiced with his family and friends for his accomplishments that are without number. We rejoiced over his bold, consistent, and compassionate commitment to defending unborn children, their mothers, and the sanctity of life. We rejoiced and were inspired anew by his life well lived.

And, Mr. Speaker, we gave thanks that, while his extraordinary ministry has changed in ``retirement,'' he is far from done.

Mr. Speaker, some of us in this chamber today were here 20 years ago when the conflicts associated with Yugoslavia's demise began, and we heard the reports of horrible atrocities as they were taking place. I followed the situation closely as a member of the Helsinki Commission, which I chair today. The names of many of the villages, towns and even cities mentioned were new to our ears then, but they have since been etched into our minds and hearts by the savage acts that were committed in or near them.

One such place is Omarska, in northwestern Bosnia near Prijedor. We first heard of it in the summer of 1992. That is when Roy Gutman, a foreign correspondent working for Newsday, reported on the existence, at a mining complex, of a camp run by Bosnian Serb militants that held several thousand non-Serb prisoners, primarily Bosniaks but also Croats. Based on the later reports of the detainees who survived their ordeal at Omarska, Gutman called it a ``death camp'' and reported on the appalling conditions and the rape, torture and execution of detainees there as well as at other camps in the vicinity. International reporting, especially by British journalists Ed Vulliamy, Penny Marshall and Ian Williams, exposed the horrors of Omarska and ultimately forced the camp to close.

Before Omarska, Mr. Speaker, many commentators on the Balkan conflicts which began in Slovenia and Croatia before moving to Bosnia tried to explain away an unpleasant but allegedly unavoidable and manageable reality.

After Omarska, it became clear to many people that, in Bosnia, we were dealing with evil on such a scale that can neither be explained away nor ignored. Eventually, the internationally community organized an international tribunal to prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in the former Yugoslavia. The tribunal convicted several of the camp guards, commandants and associated others for crimes committed at Omarska.

In late May, Omarska survivors and families of victims were able to gather at the site of the camp, both to remember and to remind. They were joined by senior Bosnian officials, representatives of the international community including the US Embassy, and supportive non- governmental organizations from Serbia. The survivors, however, want an appropriate memorial that would protect the site and to which there could be public access not just for one day, but regularly throughout the year. As those gathered in Omarska themselves declared, ``we deem that the sufferings of civilians in Omarska concentration camp, as well as in other concentration camps formed during the wars in the Nineties, must be honorably commemorated so as to become part of public memory, on the path towards establishment of the co-habitation in the areas of the former Yugoslavia.''

The horrors that took place at Omarska and their lasting impact on Bosnian society certainly warrant such a memorial. It would provides some closure to victims, and it would counter those who are still unwilling to acknowledge the horrific crimes that, in undeniable fact, were committed there in 1992. It would also serve as a lasting reminder to us all. If atrocites on the scale of those at the Omarska camp are not appropriately remembered, they are more likely to be repeated, in some other distant town or village presently unknown to us. That is why we have these memorials: in the hope we will never forget nor ever allow such crimes to be repeated.

As the Chairman of the Bosnian Caucus, I encourage the present owners of the mining complex to permit and support the establishment of a permanent memorial at Omarska. I bring this issue to the attention of my colleagues in the hope they can join me in this call.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with sadness to inform the House of the passing late yesterday afternoon of one of the longest living former Members of the House, Peter H.B. Frelinghuysen. Congressman Frelinghuysen served in this House with effectiveness and distinction and honor between 1953 and 1975.

Peter Hood Ballantine Frelinghuysen was born in New York City in 1916. After graduating from Princeton University and then Yale School of Law, he served in the Office of Naval Intelligence during World War II. He was elected as a Republican to the 83rd Congress.

When he first entered Congress, he served on the Education and Labor Committee, and after that as ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee in the early 1970s. After being elected to 10 successive terms in Congress, he retired in 1975.

Of course, all of my colleagues know that Peter's son, Rodney, our distinguished colleague here in the House, is now in mourning, as is the rest of the family. So on this sad day, I would invite all of my colleagues to join me in extending to Rodney and his brothers, Frederick and Peter, and his sisters, Beatrice and Adaline, and their families, our deepest and most profound condolences.

Peter Hood Ballantine Frelinghuysen was proud of his work in the House. He was loved by the people of New Jersey, and we thank him for his extraordinary legacy of service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the National Association of Private Special Education Centers (NAPSEC) for their 40 years of excellent service and academic dedication to our country's individuals with disabilities. NAPSEC's educational therapeutic services, combined with four decades of experience are invaluable to the education community across the United States and to the dozens of partners in my home state of New Jersey.

Established in 1971, NAPSEC represents private specialized education programs including early intervention services, school programs, residential therapeutic centers, and college experience and adult living programs for individuals with disabilities and their families. NAPSEC's hundreds of affiliates offer much needed services to publically and privately placed individuals who are otherwise unable to receive an appropriate public education. Member programs also serve the needs of individuals who have graduated from high school including adults over 21 years of age.

I am inspired by the quality of care and expertise NAPSEC's partners provide to America's students with disabilities, including those with autism. Again, I offer NAPSEC my sincerest congratulations on 40 years of service to the disabilities community and look forward to NAPSEC's continued progress in the future.

I thank my good friend Mr. Nugent for yielding and thank him for his leadership.

Madam Speaker, America has changed and today is more pro-life than ever. By ever-increasing majorities, especially among our young people, the megatrend is to protect the child in the womb from the insidious violence of abortion and to protect women from the trauma, often lifelong emotional harm, of procuring an abortion.

This paradigm shift, reflected in all the major polls, is the direct result of pro-life education, pregnancy care centers, pro-life laws, including funding bans, informed consent and parental involvement statutes, the molding of consciences by the faith-based community and advances in ultrasound that have shattered the pernicious pro-abortion myth that the baby in the womb isn't a human person or alive or of innate value.

Even Planned Parenthood abortion clinic director Abby Johnson was shocked into her new pro-life view by witnessing an ultrasound-guided abortion of a 13-week-old baby who was dismembered and pulverized in real time right before her eyes at that Texas clinic.

But perhaps the greatest reason for the huge shift in public opinion in favor of life is the growing number of extraordinarily brave post- abortive women who deeply regret their abortions and today are silent no more.

One post-abortive woman told a group outside the U.S. Supreme Court, and I heard her say it, that as she lay on the operating table, the abortionist laughed as he inserted a sharp knife into her womb and said, ``Oh, it is trying to get away.'' Partially sedated, the woman immediately pleaded with the nurse and doctor to stop the abortion and to spare her child. They told her to shut up. Today she is deeply wounded by that cruel assault, that lethal assault on her baby.

Dr. Alveda King, niece of the late Dr. Martin Luther King, has had two abortions. Today she has joined the growing coalition of women who deeply regret their abortions. Out of deep personal pain and compassion for others, they challenge us to respect, protect and tangibly love both mother and child.

The women of Silent No More give post-abortive women a safe place to grieve and a roadmap to reconciliation. And to society at large, and especially to Congress, these brave women compel us to rethink and to reassess the cheap sophistry of the abortion culture. Reflecting on her famous uncle's speech, the ``I Have a Dream'' speech, Dr. Alveda King asks us: ``How can the dream survive if we murder the children?''

Madam Speaker, there is no doubt whatsoever that ending public funding for abortions saves lives. Even the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute in June of 2009 in a report said ``approximately one-fourth of women who would have had Medicaid-funded abortions if the Hyde amendment didn't exist instead give birth when this funding is unavailable.''

I vividly remember the late Congressman Henry Hyde being moved to tears when he learned that the Hyde amendment had likely saved the lives of more than 1 million children, who today are perhaps in school and getting ready for summer vacation, perhaps playing sports, or, if they are in their twenties or thirties, building their own families.

H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, comprehensively ensures that all programs authorized and appropriated by the Federal Government, including ObamaCare, including the Hyde amendment, do not subsidize the killing of babies except in the rare cases of rape, incest and life of the mother.

H.R. 3 ends the current IRS policy allowing tax-favored treatment for abortions under itemized deductions, HSAs, MSAs and FSAs. H.R. 3 also ends the use of tax credits under ObamaCare to purchase insurance plans that include abortions, except in cases of rape, incest or life of the mother.

Today we seek to end taxpayer complicity in abortion violence. No taxpayer should be coerced to pay, subsidize or facilitate the dismemberment, the chemical poisoning, the starvation--and remember, that is how RU-486 works; it first starves the baby to death, then the other chemical brings on delivery of a dead baby--or the suctioning to death of a child and the harming of women.

Regarding conscience rights, H.R. 3 protects pro-life health care entities by discrimination by State, local and Federal governments and empowers the courts with the authority to prevent and redress actual or threatened violations of conscience.

The need for this protection is great. According to the Alliance of Catholic Health Care, which represents California's Catholic health systems and hospitals, ``California's Catholic hospitals operate in a public policy environment that regularly challenges the concept of conscience rights protections by attempting to coerce them and other health care providers to perform, be complicit in or pay for abortions.''

So I urge Members to support this legislation. It is backed by 228 cosponsors.

I thank my good friend, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Smith, for his great leadership. I want to thank Mr. Lipinski, prime cosponsor of H.R. 3. I want to thank the other distinguished chairmen, Dave Camp; and Fred Upton; our extraordinary Speaker, John Boehner, for his eloquent statement and for his compassion for both mothers and children who are hurt by abortions; and for Eric Cantor, our superb majority leader, and the 228 cosponsors of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, there is no doubt whatsoever that ending all public funding for abortions saves lives. Even the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute said in an analysis in 2009 that ``approximately one-fourth of women who would have had Medicaid-funded abortions (if the Hyde amendment did not exist) instead give birth when this funding is unavailable.'' In other words, when public funding and facilitation isn't available for abortion, children have a greater chance at survival.

I said earlier during the debate on the rule that I remember the late Congressman Henry Hyde being moved literally to tears--I was in the room when it happened--when he learned that the Hyde amendment had likely saved the lives of more than 1 million babies who today are getting on with their lives, going to school, forging a career, perhaps serving in this Chamber--at least some of them--or even establishing their own families.

H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, comprehensively ensures that all programs authorized and appropriated by the Federal Government, including ObamaCare, do not subsidize the killing of babies except in the rare cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother. H.R. 3 ends the current IRS policy of allowing tax favored treatment for abortions under itemized deductions, HSAs, MSAs, and FSAs. H.R. 3 also ends the use of tax credits under ObamaCare to purchase insurance plans that include abortions, again, except cases of rape, incest, or a threat to the life of the mother.

Madam Speaker, we know that Americans are taking a good, long, hard second look at abortion. The polls show it. On taxpayer funding, a supermajority--over 60 percent and some polls put it as high as 68 or 69 percent--do not want their funding being used to pay for abortions.

Earlier in the debate, some of my colleagues had suggested that this is a tax increase; yet the Americans for Tax Reform, who doggedly protect the public purse, have said, ``Americans for Tax Reform has no problems or issues with H.R. 3. The bill has no net tax change whatsoever.''

H.R. 3 also makes the Hyde-Weldon conscience protection permanent and significantly more effective by authorizing the courts to prevent or redress actual or threatened violations of conscience. And we know without any doubt that there are huge pressures, particularly in some States, like California, to coerce healthcare providers and plans and insurers and entire health care systems--especially those who are faith-based--to change their policy and to permit abortion on demand.

The need for this protection--Hyde-Weldon--is great. According to Alliance of Catholic Health Care, which represents California's Catholic Health Systems and Hospitals, ``California's Catholic hospitals operate in a public policy environment that regularly challenges the concept of conscience-rights protections by attempting to coerce them and other health care providers to perform, be complicit in, or pay for abortion.''

On three different occasions in the past three years, the California Department of Managed Health Care denied health insurance plan applications because the plans excluded abortion coverage and demanded that all healthcare plans must provide coverage for all basic health care services and medically-necessary health services including so- called ``medically-necessary abortions.'' This is a clear violation of the Hyde-Weldon conscience clause, but the injured parties lack judicial recourse. This legislation would remedy this problem by making the policy permanent and providing access to the courts.

Let me just conclude, Madam Speaker. Someday I truly believe future generations of Americans will look back on us, especially policymakers, and wonder how and why such a rich and seemingly enlightened society, so blessed and endowed with the capacity to protect vulnerable human life, could have instead so aggressively promoted death to children and the exploitation of their moms. They will note with deep sadness that some of our most prominent politicians, while they talked about human rights, they never lifted a finger to protect the most persecuted minority in the world, the child in the womb. Protect innocent life, vote for H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to just thank my colleagues for voting so overwhelmingly for H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.

America today is solemnly pro-life and the trend line tangibly improves by the year. On public funding, a supermajority of well over 60 percent oppose public funding of abortion. Clearly, Americans get it. There is nothing compassionate, benign, or nurturing about abortion. Abortion methods, the actual deed of dismemberment, chemical poisoning or suction is an act of violence against children.

Abortion also hurts women. Earlier today in the Capitol, we heard from Nancy Tanner, a woman from Silent No More Awareness Campaign, who eloquently urged passage of H.R. 3. Ms. Tanner spoke of her abortion and the emotional agony that she has endured and noted that well over 10,000 women have come forward and now have spoken out publicly against abortion. Each and every one of those women have had at least one abortion themselves, and they talk of the ongoing and enduring agony of that abortion.

I want to, again, thank my colleagues for supporting the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to pay tribute to Ron McNamara, and to thank him for 25 years of faithful and dedicated service to the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Helsinki Commission. Ron joined the staff of the Helsinki Commission on April 14, 1986, at a time when many OSCE countries suffered under Soviet repression and widespread violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Ron's relationship with the Helsinki Commission actually precedes 1986, having served as the liaison to the Commission for the former Senator from New York, Alfonse D'Amato. Perhaps as a result of this experience, Ron got up to speed quickly. He was soon negotiating human rights and humanitarian issues at the Vienna Follow-Up Meeting of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, which is today the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, or OSCE. From late 1986 to 1989 he was stationed in Vienna and participated in this multilateral negotiation--progress in the respect of human rights in the Soviet Union and its East European allies had suddenly become possible. As part of the team that translated that potentiality into reality, Ron stayed on top of ever-changing developments, networked with our European allies on strategy, and pressed the one-party communist governments to adopt a new set of human rights commitments. When the Berlin Wall fell and multi-party elections were scheduled, Ron's diplomatic skills helped produce landmark documents which solidified democracy as the chosen form of government and clarified the understanding that a government's treatment of its citizens is not an internal matter but rather a legitimate concern to all. Ron was especially instrumental in negotiating new commitments in the area of cross-border human contacts, which led to greater freedom of movement for those previously denied permission to emigrate to reunite with their families or travel to visit family members.

Throughout the years, he has been deeply involved with preparations for the annual sessions of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly. He has served as a member of numerous U.S. delegations to various OSCE conferences and as an OSCE election observer in Georgia, Belarus, Ukraine, Russia and Azerbaijan. Ron also participated in Commission efforts to respond to the genocidal and other atrocities in Bosnia- Herzegovina. He was particularly active in legislative efforts to lift the arms embargo on that country, which had denied it the capacity to exercise its rights of self-defense in the face of Bosnian Serb aggression. Ron's portfolio has also included work with Turkey, Greece and Cyprus, religious liberty issues and combating anti-Semitism. A notable result of Ron's work was the willingness of the Turkish government to allow a more open dialogue on human rights and civil society in return for agreement on holding the 1999 OSCE Summit in Istanbul. In addition to his ongoing human rights work, Ron at times has had the Commission staff portfolio for security issues and for economic cooperation.

During 2001-2002, Ron served with distinction as Chief of Staff under the Chairmanship of Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, and in both 1999- 2000 and 2003-2004 served as Deputy Chief of Staff under my Chairmanship. I have often benefited from Ron's counsel and have always been impressed by his deep integrity. Since Senator Campbell's retirement, he has served in a variety of capacities, including International Policy Advisor. His knowledge and insight into the workings of the U.S. government and various OSCE institutions has proved invaluable to the work of the Commission. He is a man of great prudence and justice.

Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I am very pleased to commend and thank Ron McNamara for his faithful, dedicated and tireless service to the Helsinki Commission and to the cause of human dignity and freedom.

Thank you very much for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, in its slick TV ads and PR blitz, the multi-billion- dollar-a-year abortion giant Planned Parenthood appears to be hiding something.

Could it be that they're hiding the dismaying fact that just one organization--Planned Parenthood--performs over 25 percent of all abortions in America? No other chain of abortion mills even comes close.

Or is it the fact that 97 percent of all of the so-called services rendered to a woman with child end in an abortion, or the fact that since 1977 Planned Parenthood has deliberately caused the brutal death of well over 5.4 million babies--a staggering loss of child life? And in 2009 alone, 332,278 babies were killed in Planned Parenthood clinics.

There is no organization in America, Mr. Speaker, perhaps even on Earth, that stabs, dismembers, decapitates, or chemically poisons more unborn children to death than Planned Parenthood. And that's the reality of what abortion does to a child.

For the innocent and perhaps inconvenient child in the womb, a Planned Parenthood clinic is a house of horrors, a place where abortion has brutally destroyed children and deceived and hurt their mothers.

Vote for the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to convey to the House the extremely sad news that our former colleague from New Jersey, John Adler, passed away earlier today. Congressman Adler recently underwent emergency heart surgery at the University of Pennsylvania Hospital in an attempt to resolve a staph infection. John Adler was 51.

In Congress, John served with distinction on both the Financial Services and Veterans' Affairs Committees. As a New Jersey State Senator for 17 years, John served as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and sponsored laws requiring pension forfeitures and mandatory prison for corrupt officials and to require smoke-free places. He also sponsored legislation to address environmental and health issues.

Mr. Speaker, John Adler had a razor-sharp wit, tenacity, an extraordinary sense of humor and a great big smile, and we will miss him. I, along with my colleagues, extend our deepest condolences to Shelley, his wife, and their four sons.

I thank my very good friend and colleague for yielding.

I do raise my voice today, and I join my friend from Texas and others in a bit of a celebration--although it needs to be a cautious celebration because the tyranny on the island of Cuba continues unabated for so many others. But Nobel Peace Prize nominee Dr. Oscar Biscet of Cuba, one of the bravest and brightest human rights defenders on Earth, was released on March 12 from a wretched Cuban prison where he had endured 8 years of torture with periods of solitary confinement for his exemplary human rights work. It was Dr. Biscet's second long- term, totally unjustified incarceration by Cuba, by Castro, totaling almost 12 years in prison. According to his wife, Elsa Morejon, he was arrested at least 27 periods and jailed for short periods of time between 1998 and 1999 alone, yet he persisted and has an indomitable will that continues to this day. Dr. Biscet's release and that of other prisoners of conscience was negotiated and announced by Cardinal Jaime Ortega, archbishop of Havana.

Yesterday, I had the high honor and the privilege to speak by phone with Dr. Biscet who is still in Cuba. And I conveyed my and, I would say, our collective respect, admiration, and abiding concern for his welfare and well-being as well as that of his wife. He said during the conversation that she

was pleasantly shocked and very happy to finally have him home. I let him know that he and his amazing work was never and will never be forgotten.

Awarded the U.S. Medal of Freedom by President George W. Bush, Dr. Biscet suffered the depravity of Castro's infamous gulag in order to bring the rule of just law, respect for human rights, and a robust democracy to Cuba.

In our phone conversation, he absolutely insisted that freedom will and must be procured only through peaceful means, and of course that work is far from finished. He said that faith in God was paramount and that ``prayer is of utmost importance.'' He is truly a man of God.

Dr. Biscet, an OB/GYN, told me that the truth about what Castro has done to his people and continues to do must reach--these are his words--the truth must reach the Cuban people, and he singled out Radio Marti as a valuable means to that end.

``Were you tortured?'' I asked him. He said last night, ``Yes, yes.'' And his multiple serious health conditions that must now be addressed obviously are testimony to the cruel and severe mistreatment that he suffered. He told me that in prison, he had to eat putrified food and rice that was laced with worms. He endured solitary confinement with a mentally ill person, survived a dungeon with a knife-throwing criminal, and withstood burns all over his body from the prison's kitchen exhaust pipe that emptied into his cell. The Cuban Government even attempted to take him for shock therapy at a mental institution in order to rid him of his passion for human rights. None of it worked. And by the grace of God, he has persevered with unparalleled bravery.

Freedom House has ranked Cuba as one of the least free countries in the world. The only country which ranked lower on the freedom scale than Cuba was the nightmare gulag of North Korea. Yet in an insane paradox, the Cuban tyrants remain romantic heroes for many in the United States, including some Members of this Congress who in 2009 visited Cuba and gushed with admiration for the dictators Fidel and Raul Castro, showing no compassion for the pain their courting and their enabling of Castro gave to all those suffering under his dictatorship.

Castro has not succeeded in crushing the spirit of Dr. Biscet. That same spirit and vision animates the so-called ladies in white, Las Damas de Blanco, the wives and relatives of imprisoned political dissidents like Dr. Biscet who attend mass each week and march through the streets dressed in white to symbolize peaceful dissent. Cuban police have detained and beaten these women for their peaceful protest.

And lest anyone construe Dr. Biscet's release as the harbinger of immediate peace and respect for human rights in Cuba, consider this: Yesterday Amnesty International published an alert that noted that ``the repression of Cuban dissidents persists despite the releases.'' I will put the entire statement in. But they point out that numerous, numerous activists, new activists, men and women who are speaking out for human rights are now being rounded up, put under house arrest, and some held in detention.

They pointed out that on February 23, on the 1-year anniversary of a great man named Tamayo's death, according to the Cuban Commission on Human Rights, the authorities placed over 50 people under house arrest before freeing them hours later. And the president of the Cuban Youth Movement for Democracy was arrested after organizing an activist meeting. Where? Inside his own home. And he now has been arrested.

Dr. Biscet hopefully will receive the Nobel Peace Prize. As my friend and colleague knows, we have really orchestrated an effort all over the world--parliamentarians were gladly writing in letters, including the Prime Minister of Hungary, asking the distinguished body that gives out the Peace Prize to consider Dr. Biscet and hopefully the other Cuban dissidents for that prize. Liu Xiaobo got it last year. He couldn't travel. They put the Peace Prize on the empty chair. Dr. Biscet is out of prison, and it would be a great lifting of spirits and hopes for the people of Cuba for that Peace Prize committee to award him.

Repression of Cuban Dissidents Persists Despite Releases

The Cuban authorities are continuing to stifle freedom of

expression on the island in spite of the much-publicised

recent wave of releases of prominent dissidents, Amnesty

International warned ahead of the eighth anniversary of a

crackdown on activists.

Hundreds of pro-democracy activists have suffered

harassment, intimidation and arbitrary arrest in recent weeks

as the Cuban government employs new tactics to stamp out

dissent.

Of 75 activists arrested in a crackdown around 18 March

2003, only three remain in jail after 50 releases since last

June, with most of the freed activists currently exiled in

Spain. Amnesty International has called for the remaining

prisoners to be released immediately and unconditionally.

``The release of those detained in the 2003 crackdown is a

hugely positive step but it tells only one side of the story

facing Cuban human rights activists,'' said Gerardo Ducos,

Cuba researcher at Amnesty International.

``Those living on the island are still being targeted for

their work, especially through short-term detentions, while

repressive laws give the Cuban authorities a free rein to

punish anyone who criticises them.''

``Meanwhile, three of the prisoners detained eight years

ago still languish in prison and must be freed immediately.''

In one recent crackdown the authorities detained over one

hundred people in one day in a pre-emptive strike designed to

stop activists marking the death of activist Orlando Zapata

Tamayo, who died following a prolonged hunger strike while in

detention.

On 23 February, the one-year anniversary of Tamayo's death,

according to the Cuban Commission of Human Rights and

National Reconciliation, the authorities placed over 50

people under house arrest before freeing them hours later.

Activist Nestor Rodriguez Lobaina, was recently named a

prisoner of conscience by Amnesty International after being

detained without trial for over three months.

The president of the Cuban Youth Movement for Democracy was

arrested after organizing an activists' meeting inside his

own home.

``Cubans are still at the mercy of draconian laws that

class activism as a crime and anyone who dares to criticise

the authorities is at risk of detention,'' said Gerardo

Ducos.

``In addition to releasing long-term prisoners of

conscience, to properly realize freedom of expression the

Cuban government also has to change its laws.''

Seventy-five people were jailed in a massive crackdown

against the dissident movement around 18 March 2003 for the

peaceful exercise of their right to freedom of expression.

Most of them were charged with crimes including ``acts

against the independence of the state'' because they

allegedly received funds and/or materials from US-based NGOs

financed by the US government.

They were sentenced to between six and 28 years in prison

after speedy and unfair trials for engaging in activities the

authorities perceived as subversive and damaging to Cuba.

These activities included publishing articles or giving

interviews to US-funded media, communicating with

international human rights organizations and having contact

with entities or individuals viewed to be hostile to Cuba.

The gentleman from Texas makes an excellent point. When you provide foreign aid, when you provide economic lifelines to dictatorships, it enables them to continue their repression. Years ago, we took a very principled stance against South Africa because of that abomination known as apartheid. And when the world united and said, No more, it did lead to an end to that racist regime.

Now Cuba, for some reason--and China would fall into this category as well. But Cuba, to keep on point, has had trade with Canada and with the European countries and the European Union, and there's been no matriculation from dictatorship to democracy at

all. If anything, Cuba has gotten worse in many cases, clearly underscoring that when a brutal dictatorship is given the money and wherewithal, they will continue their repressive ways.

I believe, and I asked Dr. Biscet this last night, about lifting the travel ban and lifting the trade embargo, which are two things that the Obama administration is seeking to do. And he said don't do it unless there are conditionalities, human rights, democracy, free and fair elections. Otherwise, the secret police, the neighborhood block committees, and those who repress every person in Cuba who, especially those who articulate the vision of freedom and democracy and human rights, are given additional power.

Hard currency, as Dr. Biscet said on the phone, the Cuban Government runs everything. So when you lift the trade embargo, when you have people traveling to Cuba bringing hard currency, you throw a lifeline. Better condition it, all of it, to human rights conditions.

Again, had it worked, if that was the answer, as he said in the conversation last night, having a travel ability from Canada, and trade, and from the European countries, we would have seen a change towards democracy. It has not happened. It has gotten worse.

I appreciate you bringing up that very good point.

You know, the date we lost China, in my opinion, was May 26, 1994. On that date, President Bill Clinton completely severed and de-linked human rights with Most Favored Nation status, after getting accolades when he linked it a year before. He said, unless there's significant progress in human rights, we're going to condition our trading relationship, and we will only look at performance. He shredded his Executive order. We had the votes to take away MFN that year, which dissipated over time.

I met with the human rights groups. I even went to China and realized that we were talking out of both sides of our mouth, like Janus, the Roman god, saying two things, you know, like some in diplomatic circles often do. And the foreign ministry in Beijing told me, We're getting Most Favored Nation status. We don't care what you think about human rights.

Fast forward to just a few weeks ago when Hu Jintao, the unelected President of China, visited with President Obama; not a single public statement on human rights. It was so bad that when there was a press conference with Hu Jintao and President Obama at the White House, the President defended Hu, President Hu. When asked about human rights by an Associated Press reporter, President Obama said, ``Well, they have a different culture and they have a different political system.''

That was an outrageous statement that undermines all of the peace and freedom loving people of China, tens of thousands of whom are in the laogai or the gulag system suffering for peace and human rights and religious freedom. And it's as if to say somehow the Chinese people don't get it or they don't understand human rights. They sure do, and they want it. Ask Wei Jingsheng, Harry Wu, Chai Ling and all the great human rights defenders, many of whom have spent years in the gulag system.

It was so bad that The Washington Post did an editorial, and it said, President Obama defends Hu, Hu Jintao, on rights, and took the President, rightfully so, you know, a very liberal newspaper, The Washington Post, to task for being so silent.

Here it is, President Obama, 2009 Nobel Peace Prize Winner, Liu Xiaobo, 2010 Nobel Peace Prize winner, and the man who put him in prison, Hu Jintao, and they're at a State dinner, first at a press conference, all kinds of other meetings, and not a single word about Liu Xiaobo. He should have said, Mr. President, Release the dissidents. He did no such thing, kept it all to himself even if he had those thoughts.

And in China, because I went on People's Daily because I read it often. I read it the next day. Filled with accolades from the American President for a dictator. It demoralizes people in the laogai, just like people in this Chamber, just like the President I believe is demoralizing those suffering in the gulags all over the world, including in Cuba.

So the gentleman is absolutely right. We need to be very serious and use--what if it were I or my wife or my family that were suffering this? Would we just then look askance and embrace these dictators? I don't think so. I would hope not.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Well, I think you just made an articulate defense of why a consistent, transparent human rights, pro-freedom, pro-democracy foreign policy is absolutely essential if we want a world that is free of tyranny.

Pope John Paul II once said: If you want peace, work for justice. Then he said: If you want justice, work on behalf of the disenfranchised, unborn child, which I feel is a very good connection of human rights from womb to tomb.

But you made an excellent point about Ronald Reagan. Yesterday, Natan Sharansky, the great dissident--and Frank Wolf and I actually got into the prison camp, Perm Camp 35, where he spent so many horrible days and nights in the ShiZO, which was the punishment cell. We were there in the late eighties right after he got out. And you remember, he didn't just walk in a straight line when the KGB said you walk right across. He did a zigzag, his ultimate final act of defiance to the KGB.

But he said just what you brought out, Judge Gohmert, and that was that when Ronald Reagan talked about the Evil Empire, he said it again yesterday, they knew that we got it, that there was hope. And it gave him hope. It gave the other political dissidents hope. Jewish, Christian, whatever their denomination or religious belief, they said America understands the inherent failure of communism, the militant atheism which it represents, as Solzhenitsyn said it in his books, and he had hope.

Wei Jingsheng correspondingly, who is the father of the democracy war movement in China, a great leader, he told me when they let him out to get Olympics 2000--not the one they just had, Olympics 2000, and the Olympic committee didn't give it to them because they were such violators of human rights. Unfortunately, they capitulated some years later. He said, ``When you kowtow, when you enable, when you pander to dictatorship, including the Chinese dictatorship, especially the Chinese dictatorship, they beat us more in prison. But when you are tough, transparent, you look the dictator in the eye and say we are not kidding; we want these people released, they beat us less.'' That is from a man who spent 20 years in the Chinese laogai. Harry Wu and all the others have said the exact same thing.

So when President Obama kowtowed for the better part of a week in front of Hu Jintao, it was, in my opinion, a shameless exercise of lack of commitment to human rights and they beat the dissidents more because, ``They will tell us, America has abandoned you.''

Thankfully, in a bipartisan way--because when Hu Jintao came right here on Capitol Hill, it was our Speaker, Speaker Boehner, who raised human rights and raised the inherent violation of human rights in the one child per couple policy, the missing girls, 100 million missing girls in China, the result of a one child per couple policy where brothers and sisters are illegal. And over the course of 30 years, since 1979, when that horrific policy, the worst crime against women ever, went into effect, they have systematically exterminated the girl child, and now many of them are not here even as young women.

Forty million men won't be able to find wives by 2020 in China because women have been forcibly aborted as part of this one child per couple policy. It's a huge gender disparity, which raises problems about potential war. There is a book called ``The Barren Branches'' that talks about this restless male population that can't ever get married because women are not there. It is also a magnet for human trafficking.

Our President should have stood boldly, I say diplomatically. Frank Wolf and I met with Li Peng when he was Premier. We had a list of political prisoners. We talked about the one child per couple policy. We talked about religious freedom. We looked him right in the eye. Almost no one ever does that. You will do it. I will do it. Our President should do it. President Bush did it. He raised religious freedom robustly with the Chinese Government on his trips. Mrs. Clinton on her first trip to Beijing said, I am not going to let human rights, quote, interfere with global climate change issues and the issue of debt.

So it really is a very serious abandonment of the people who need it most, who will be the next Lech Walesa or Harry Wu or Wei Jingsheng. You bring up an excellent point, and I thank you for your leadership on human rights and the peace agenda, which is really the freedom agenda.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, it's time Americans, especially policymakers, health officials, the media, and law enforcement, took a second and critical look at Planned Parenthood. Not only does Planned Parenthood vigorously lobby and litigate against parental notification and parental consent laws, thus enabling secret abortions for very, very young girls to be procured in their clinics, but now we've learned from recent undercover taped investigations at several of its clinics that Planned Parenthood employees were found to be more than eager to assist people posing as sex traffickers to procure abortions for underaged girls.

As a prime sponsor of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, I found it appalling to watch Planned Parenthood personnel again and again and again offer to provide and facilitate abortions for hypothetical sex trafficking victims as young as 13. In light of a recent comprehensive study suggesting that 100,000 American girls, mostly runaways, are forced into prostitution each year, average age 13, the videotapes of Live Action, the NGO headed by a courageous young woman, Lila Rose, that did the undercover work, is an engraved invitation for serious investigation by the Attorney General of the United States and law enforcement everywhere. It further begs the question: Why are taxpayers giving hundreds of millions of dollars each and every year to Planned Parenthood?

Despite the best and slickest market branding money can buy, the stubborn fact remains that Planned Parenthood clinics are among the most dangerous places on Earth for a child. Planned Parenthood's own personnel are now taking a second look--many of them--and, thanks to ultrasound, are clearly seeing what is being done to millions of children in the womb, like the 332,278 babies exterminated in Planned Parenthood's abortion clinics in 2009.

One of those abortion providers who took a second look and walked away is Abby Johnson, a former Planned Parenthood abortion clinic director. In her book ``Unplanned,'' Abby Johnson exposes the duplicity and cruelty of what really goes on behind closed doors at a Planned Parenthood clinic. In it she writes how she witnessed and assisted in an abortion of a 13-week-old baby by holding the ultrasound probe, and as she pointed out in the book, it was the first ultrasound-guided abortion at that facility.

She writes in the book: ``The details startled me. At 13 weeks you could clearly see the profile of the head, both arms, legs, and even tiny fingers and toes. With my eyes glued to the image of this perfectly formed baby, I watched as a new image emerged on the video screen. The cannula, a straw-shaped instrument attached to the end of the suction tube, had been inserted into the uterus and was nearing the baby's side. It looked like an invader on the screen: out of place, wrong. It just looked wrong.''

She goes on to write: ``My heart sped up; time slowed. I didn't want to look, but I didn't want to stop looking either. At first, the baby didn't seem aware of the cannula. It gently probed the baby's side, and for a quick second I felt relief. But I couldn't shake an inner disquiet that was quickly mounting to horror as I watched the screen.'' Remember, this is an abortion clinic director saying this.

``The next movement was a sudden jerk of a tiny foot of the baby as he started kicking, as if trying to move away from the probing invader.''

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

``As the cannula pressed in, the baby began struggling to turn and twist away. It seemed clear to me that the fetus could feel the cannula, and it did not like the feeling. And then the doctor's voice broke through, startling me: `Beam me up, Scotty,' the abortionist said lightheartedly to the nurse. He was telling her to turn on the suction, in an abortion the suction isn't turned on until the doctor feels he has the cannula in exactly the right place.''

This abortion clinic director went on to write: ``I had a sudden urge to yell, Stop; to shake the woman and say, Look at what's happening to your baby. Wake up; hurry. Stop them. But even as I was thinking those words, I thought of my own hand and saw my own hand holding the probe. I was one of them performing this act'' of abortion.

``My eyes shot back to the screen. The cannula was already being rotated by the doctor and now I could see the tiny body violently twisting with it. For the briefest moment it looked as if the baby was being wrung like a dishcloth, twirled and squeezed. And then the little body crumpled and began disappearing into the cannula before my eyes. The last thing I saw was the tiny perfectly formed backbone sucked into the tube. And then everything was gone. The image of that tiny dead baby mangled and sucked away kept replaying in my mind. What was in this woman's womb just a moment ago was alive. It wasn't tissue. It wasn't cells. This was a human baby, fighting for life. A battle was lost in the blink of an eye.

``What I have told people for years''--8 years as a clinic director at a Planned Parenthood clinic--``what I have told people for years,'' Abby Johnson continues, ``What I believed and taught and defended is a lie.''

I ask Members to read this book, ``Unplanned,'' and realize the scandal of the killing of these unborn children and calling it choice.

Mr. Chairman, there is nothing whatsoever benign or caring or generous or just or compassionate or nurturing about abortion. Earlier one of our colleagues called abortion healthy for the child. Abortion dismembers children piece by piece. Planned Parenthood's own fact sheet talks about D&E abortions done during the second trimester period. Have you ever seen what a D&E is? The doctor goes in with forceps and this device and literally hacks that baby to death. Planned Parenthood itself says it takes 10 to 20 minutes to literally dismember that child.

Then there's the shots in the heart. There's a doctor right here in this area, that on perfectly healthy babies gives them cardiac sticks with either feticide poison or a burst of air which kills the unborn child.

So it is not healthy for children and we know for a fact it is not healthy for women, either.

Mr. Chairman, the Pence amendment simply seeks to end U.S. taxpayer complicity with this massive violence against children. Who we back, who we subsidize does matter. Not just what but who.

Planned Parenthood does more than 300,000 abortions each and every year. They are the largest provider; about a fourth of all the abortions in the United States. It is child abuse. It is time to take a second look at Child Abuse, Incorporated.

Support the Pence amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, abortion is always coercive for the child in the womb. An unborn baby girl or boy has no say, no right of refusal, no means to protest, no veto power whatsoever concerning a procedure that violently tears that child's body to pieces and effectuates the kill by lethal injection or starvation by RU486. In China, that coercion is extended by brute force to all women. Any mother caught without explicit authorization to give birth is coerced to abort her baby.

Since 1979, Mr. Speaker, brothers and sisters have been illegal in China as part of the barbaric one child per couple policy. For 30 years, the United Nations Population Fund has vigorously supported, funded, defended, promoted, and even celebrated these massive crimes against humanity.

Under Presidents Reagan, Bush I and Bush--and even 1 year under President Clinton--UNFPA was barred from receiving U.S. funding because of their shameful support and co-management of China's forced abortion policy. My concern this morning is an amendment that had been printed in the Record but not offered--at least it has not been offered at this setting; I expect we'll see it later--that would compel every American taxpayer to furnish $55 million to the UNFPA, an organization that has unapologetically stood not with oppressed women but with the oppressors of women; an organization that has made the Chinese killing machine more efficacious and lethal; an organization that has systematically whitewashed and defended these crimes against humanity.

The UNFPA is not only an essential part of the planning and training of the Chinese cadres who run this anti-woman, anti-child program, but the UNFPA assists in the implementation of it in several countries as well.

The uncontested facts are these: Any Chinese, Tibetan, or Uyghur mother without a birth-allowed certificate is forced to abort. All unwed moms are compelled to abort. In what can only be described as a ``search and destroy mission,'' disabled children are forcibly aborted as part of a nationwide eugenics program.

Each day, Chinese family planning cadres impose huge ``compensation

fees'' on any woman who lacks permission to give birth or evades detection. Many women have their children on the run. Ruinous fines-- from 1 to 10 times the combined annual salaries of both parents, plus jail, torture, property confiscation, loss of employment, loss of educational opportunities, housing, and health care--are all weapons routinely employed by the so-called family planning cadres to ensure compliance with the one child per couple policy.

In denying U.S. funds to the UNFPA in 2008, Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte wrote, ``China's birth limitation program retains harshly coercive elements in law and practice, including coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization.'' The number two at the State Department said it is illegal in almost all provinces for a single mom to bear a child. The State Department noted that Chinese law is ``the foundation of its coercive policies and practices'' and that the UNFPA comports with and adheres to that Chinese law.

Mr. Chairman, the UNFPA-supported one child per couple policy has led to the worst gender disparity in any nation in all of human history. Where are the missing girls in China? Dead, Mr. Chairman. Murdered because they were female. Systematically destroyed over 30 years by sex-selective abortion. Today, there are as many as 100 million missing girls in China--gendercide, the evil twin of genocide.

The social implications of the UNFPA-supported one child per couple policy are absolutely staggering. According to the World Health Organization, about 500 Chinese women commit suicide every single day. China has become a magnet for sex trafficking in large measure because of the ``missing girls.'' An estimated 40 million men won't be able to find wives by 2020 because for 30 years and counting girls have suffered the ultimate gender discrimination--sex-selective abortion.

A little over a year ago, Mr. Chairman, I convened a congressional hearing on China's one-child-per-couple policy--the 27th hearing on human rights violations in the PRC that I've chaired.

I will just take a minute, Mr. Chairman, because the hour is late.

The problem with the United Nations Population Fund activities in China is that it strictly adheres to Chinese law.

Chinese law is a one-child-per-couple policy, and it has a direct result in the clinics and in the programs that are run in the approximately 30 counties that UNFPA oversees or has programs in or projects. Each and every one of those adhere to this one-child-per- couple policy. Yes, they may say you can choose to be sterilized or have an IUD insertion, one or the other, but you must have it. It is compulsory. It is involuntary. So they enforce the involuntariness, the compulsory nature, but they may give a choice as to what method a person may be able to follow. That is not voluntary.

I would also point out that, for 30 years, representatives of the UNFPA have said publicly again and again and again that the Chinese program is ``totally voluntary.'' Nothing I would submit to my good friend and colleague from New York could be further from the truth. There was nothing voluntary about this horrific program where women are treated like chattel.

As a Member of Congress, I have held 27 hearings as chairman of the Human Rights Committee of the Foreign Affairs Committee--27 hearings just on China. We heard from numerous women who were forcibly aborting. They told the story about how it was told to them--that this was a voluntary abortion. They were coerced. They had sessions with cadres who wore them down; and over time, they submitted, feeling they had no way to fight back.

I had a woman testify. Her name is Wuijan. She recently got asylum right here in the United States. She had a well-founded fear of persecution based on the forced abortion policy. A student at a major university here, she testified through tears how she was forced to abort after being rounded up with other women.

She said, at the clinic, which was voluntary--all of this is voluntary according to the UNFPA--that there were moms crying, rolling on the floor. She said, when they killed her baby and severed the baby's limbs with scissors and a curet that the nurse actually put a foot on her, near the top of her lapel. She looked at the bloody foot and broke down, crying. She could not finish her testimony.

I will provide that to the gentlelady if she would like to see it.

The UNFPA has enabled these crimes, and they are crimes against humanity. At the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, forced abortion was properly construed to be a crime against humanity because it was employed by the Nazis against Polish women.

People like Wei Jingsheng and Harry Wu--the great human rights activists--have all been very clear that the one-child-per-couple policy is one of the worst violations, if not the worst violation, of human rights in scope and in magnitude directed against women and, of course, against the dead children who are the result.

The UNFPA is a part of that. They defend it.

With all due respect to my good friend, this funding of an organization that says that this is a voluntary program must cease, because they give

tangible assistance. I met finally with Pong Peiyon, the woman who ran the program. Yes, I was in Beijing on one of my many human rights trips there. She said to me over and over again in that conversation that the UNFPA is here, and they see no coercion. There is no coercion.

So I thank my friend for yielding. Again, we should direct our moneys to other organizations--to NGOs, to USAID. I would also point out that a dear colleague went on, as well as some Members on the other side of the aisle, about obstetric fistula.

I want to point out to my friends that I got a bill passed in this House back in 2005 that established a fistula repair program for women in the developing world. It passed. It failed over in the Senate, but it passed.

I went to Kent Hill, who was then the administrator of health for USAID. I said to please take this and administratively put it into practice. We now have 35 different programs in 12 countries. Fifteen thousand African and Asian women have had fistula repairs as a direct result of this program.

We need to funnel our money into maternal health care and into other health care interventions that will aid women, especially those who suffer from such terrible things as obstetric fistula.