Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, yesterday an abortionist in Philadelphia--Dr. Kermit Gosnell--was arrested and charged in the death of a mother, and seven babies who were born alive but then killed by severing their spinal cords with a pair of scissors.

According to the Philadelphia CBS TV affiliate, the district attorney said that in one year alone, Dr. Gosnell made approximately $1.8 million performing abortions.

The abortion industry, Mr. Speaker, is a multibillion dollar business.

Planned Parenthood boasts that in 2008 alone, their abortionists killed over 324,000 babies while raking in an approximately $1 billion in fees and local, state and federal government subsidies.

The ugly truth is that abortionists often get filthy rich, not by healing or nurturing or curing--but by dismembering and decapitating the fragile bodies of unborn children; by starving the child in the womb with lethal agents like RU486 or by other means of chemical poisoning.

The ugly truth is that women are victimized by abortion--wounded and hurt physically and emotionally. Women deserve better than abortion.

The only thing the multibillion dollar abortion industry has produced in America--and worldwide--is victims: wounded women and over 52 million dead babies in the United States since 1973--more than six times the entire population of my home state of New Jersey.

The multibillion dollar abortion industry systematically dehumanizes the weakest and most vulnerable among us with catchy slogans, slick advertising, clever marketing, and aggressive lobbying.

They have made the unacceptable--to be prejudiced and bigoted against the child in the womb--acceptable to some.

This ``acceptable bigotry'' has been promoted for decades, despite breathtaking advances in fetal medicine including micro-surgery underscoring the fact that an unborn child

is a patient in need of care, just like anyone else, and despite that amazing window to the womb--ultrasound imaging.

In 1976, Dr. Willard Cates and Dr. David Grimes then with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) presented a paper to a Planned Parenthood meeting entitled ``Abortion as a Treatment for Unintended Pregnancy: The Number Two Sexually Transmitted Disease.''

These two abortion doctors reduced the child in the womb to the equivalent of a parasite or disease to be vanquished. As far as I know, no one at Planned Parenthood objected to the dehumanizing language and obvious bigotry towards children.

The evidence of significant harm to women who abort increases each year.

Abortion hurts women's health and puts future children subsequently born to women who aborted at significant risk. At least 102 studies show significant psychological harm, major depression and elevated suicide risk in women who abort.

The Times of London reported that, ``[S]enior . . . psychiatrists say that new evidence has uncovered a clear link between abortion and mental illness in women with no previous history of psychological problems.'' They found, ``that women who have had abortions have twice the level of psychological problems and three times the level of depression as women who have given birth or who have never been pregnant . . .''

In 2006, a comprehensive New Zealand study found that 78.6 percent of the 15-18 year olds who had abortions displayed symptoms of major depression as compared to 31 percent of their peers. The study also found that 27 percent of the 21-25 year old women who had abortions had suicidal idealizations compared to eight percent of those who did not have an abortion.

Abortion isn't safe for subsequent children born to women who have had an abortion. At least 113 studies show a significant association between abortion and subsequent premature births. For example a study by researchers Shah and Zoe showed a 36 percent increased risk for preterm birth after one abortion and a staggering 93 percent increased risk after two.

Similarly, the risk of subsequent children being born with low birth weight increases by 35 percent after one and 72 percent after two or more abortions. Another study shows the risk increases nine times after a woman has had three abortions.

What does this mean for her children? Preterm birth is the leading cause of infant mortality in the industrialized world after congenital anomalies. Preterm infants have a greater risk of suffering from chronic lung disease, sensory deficits, cerebral palsy, cognitive impairments and behavior problems. Low birth weight is similarly associated with neonatal mortality and morbidity.

Dr. Alveda King, niece of the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., whom we honored on Monday, has joined the growing coalition of women who deeply regret their abortions and are ``Silent No More.'' Out of deep personal pain and compassion for others, Dr. King, who had two abortions and the women of ``Silent No More'' challenge us to respect, protect and tangibly love both the mother and the child. The women of ``Silent No More'' give post-abortive women a safe place to grieve, and a roadmap for reconciliation.

This week, with the full and unequivocal support of Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor, more than 150 Members and I will introduce the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act--a government wide prohibition on taxpayer subsidization for abortion and conscience protections with durable remedies.

Abortion is not health care. And polls show that taxpayers strongly oppose publically funded abortion--67 percent according to a recent Quinnipiac University poll.

Our new bill is designed to permanently end any U.S. government financial support for abortion whether it be direct funding or by tax credits or any other subsidy.

Regarding conscience rights--last year, Cathy DeCarlo, a nurse at Mt. Sinai Hospital in New York was compelled--despite her strong moral and religious objections--to assist in a grisly D&E abortion which has been described by the U.S. Supreme Court as a procedure where the doctor uses forceps to tear apart the unborn child. D&E abortion is a gruesome act of child abuse.

Ms. DeCarlo sued--asserting her right to conscience had been violated under existing federal law. Her case was dismissed, however, due to the lack of prescribed remedies.

The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act protects conscience rights of individuals and institutions by empowering the courts with the authority to prevent and redress actual or threatened violations of conscience.

President Obama has said he wants abortion to be rare. Well, Mr. Obama, here is a bill for you. Even the Guttmacher Institute, the former research arm of Planned Parenthood, says that taxpayer funding bans are a proven abortion reduction method. According to Guttmacher, studies show that when abortion is not publically funded, abortions in the covered population are reduced by roughly 25 percent.

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully ask that my colleagues listen to the American people and vote for H.R. 2, legislation to repeal Obamacare and, in essence, open the door to the passage of replacement legislation that offers needed, meaningful and bipartisan health care reform.

Considered in its entirety, Obamacare is a crippling blow to both health care in America

and our economy. Not only will Obamacare over time erode and undermine the quality of health care in America, it will to a progressively greater extent increase the deficit, drag down the economy, hurt businesses, and destroy jobs.

The near total lack of transparency and misuse of power last year by the then-majority in forcing through Obamacare's passage, makes it the quintessential example of how a bad bill can become law. The American people are rightfully angry, and we in Congress had better listen to them.

Obamacare, which would create nearly 160 boards, commissions and programs and would vest sweeping powers on bureaucrats to determine what benefits are covered and not and at what cost, is so fundamentally flawed that it needs to be repealed and replaced.

The American people want and I support meaningful and sensible health care reform, but it shouldn't be paid for by giving the government control of our health care system, with new unconstitutional mandates, massive tax hikes, and $2.6 trillion in new government spending.

Rest assured that if Obamacare were sound and prudent policy-- fiscally and morally--and an efficacious way of facilitating quality health care coverage, the American people, as well as Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle and across the ideological spectrum, would be strongly supporting it. If it were a good law, honest explanations, not subterfuge and granting of special favors and treatments, would convince a large majority of the American public to embrace it.

Government should not be about strong arming through a policy or law and then using every trick, gimmick, and unholy alliance to defend that law or policy at any cost. What were missing in passing and promoting Obamacare and are the foremost conditions that must be employed moving forward are honesty and transparency.

The selling of Obamacare has been replete with misleading figures on costs and savings. While claims are made that the health care law will cost $940 billion over ten years and reduce the deficit $143 billion over the same period, those figures can be readily demonstrated to be unrealistic. In actuality, best estimates are that the new law will cost taxpayers $2.6 trillion over ten years when fully implemented and will add $701 billion to the deficit in its first ten years.

Why the gross discrepencies? For one, the drafters of the law took full advantage of the fact that the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, evaluates legislation over a ten year window. Significant benefits of the law don't take effect for four years, meaning that the law requires ten years of tax increases and ten years of Medicare cuts to pay for six years of spending. When all provisions of the law are fully implemented, the ten year cost rises to $2.6 trillion.

Additionally, a $143 billion savings turns into a $701 billion deficit when adjustments are made for budget gimmicks: $53 billion in claimed savings by increasing social security payroll taxes are already spoken for by social security beneficiaries; $70 billion in claimed savings from the new Community Assistance Services and Support (CLASS) program are the result of benefits not being paid out for five years-- while eventually benefits will exceed premiums collected--even Democratic Senator Kent Conrad called the CLASS program a ponzi scheme of the first order; $398 billion in claimed savings from the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund are double-counted to pay Medicare benefits and to be used for other programs; $115 billion in new government spending needed to implement the law were not counted in initial estimates; and $208 billion for the fix to avoid pending Medicare payments reductions to physicians were not counted.

CBO warns that the current trajectory of federal borrowing is unsustainable and could lead to slower economic growth in the long run as debt rises as a percentage of GDP. The federal debt is currently over $14 trillion. The total federal deficit rose from $455 billion in FY2008 to $1,413 billion in FY2009, and is estimated to be $1,342 billion for FY2010. A realistic assessment is that Obamacare will exacerbate our nation's debt.

At a time when unemployment is at record highs (currently 9.4 percent nationally and 9.2 percent in New Jersey), Obamacare will cause significant job losses for the U.S. economy. The National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) found that the mandate for employers to provide health insurance could lead to the elimination of 1.6 million jobs through 2014, with 66 percent of those jobs coming from small businesses. Two-thirds of new U.S. jobs are created by small businesses and even President Obama has called small businesses the ``backbone of our Nation's economy.'' However, Obamacare hurts small businesses with mandates, new taxes, onerous paperwork burdens, and higher health care costs.

Rather than reducing the costs of health care, Obamacare will increase total health care spending by $311 billion over the next ten years over what it would have been absent Obamacare, according to Medicare's chief actuary.

Obamacare requires employers with 50 or more employees to provide government-approved health care, and to pay a $2000 penalty per employee (after the first 30 employees) if they do not provide coverage. Perversely, the small business tax credit in the law, with the purpose of aiding small businesses, actually will act as a disincentive to small business owners who otherwise might increase wages and hire additional workers. The small business tax credit is only temporary, and, additionally, it starts to phase out for companies that pay their employees more than $25,000 or employ more than 25 workers. Many business owners, particularly in high cost states, would get no benefit. CBO estimated that only 12 percent of small business workers would benefit.

The law also has an onerous requirement for businesses to file a report with the IRS for every vendor with which it has more than $600 in transactions in a year. This will be an enormous paperwork burden on all businesses, but may be particularly troublesome for small businesses to comply.

Mr. Speaker, for the first time ever, Obamacare forces Americans to acquire an approved health plan or pay a stiff penalty--like they committed a crime. The penalty is significant--the greater of $750 per person per year (up to $2,250 per family) or 2 percent of household income. No person in America should be coerced into buying medical insurance. Just this week, a motion was filed to add six additional states to the lawsuit, which is challenging the healthcare reform law as unconstitutional because of the law's individual mandate requiring the purchase of health insurance. Twenty-six states are now part of that lawsuit. Virginia had filed a separate lawsuit on similar grounds, and last month received a favorable ruling.

Under Obamacare, premiums for non-group family insurance will increase by as much as $2,100 per year. The CBO estimated that by 2016, premiums will increase by 10-13 percent over what would happen under current law.

Obamacare, which directs reductions of more than one-half trillion from Medicare, will take away certain benefits from senior citizens and disabled persons. Medicare Advantage is used by over 11 million people nationwide including 15,983 people in my Congressional district alone. Obamacare's $206 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage plans will result in millions either losing that coverage or being denied the opportunity to enroll in a Medicare Advantage plan. Further limiting patient choice, actuaries at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services warned that Medicare cuts in the law are so drastic that providers might end their participation in the program. So much for the President's promise that if you like your health plan, you can keep it; no you can't! And so much for his promise that if you like your doctor, you keep seeing your doctor; you might not be able to.

Obamacare also will add more than 16 million people to the Medicaid program, which--in addition to threatening the participation of physicians in the program that reimburses doctors only 56 percent of the market rate for medical procedures--also further endangers already strained state budgets.

On January 7, 2011, 33 Governors and Governors-elect wrote to the President, HHS Secretary Sebelius, and leadership in Congress regarding the excessive constraints placed on the states by healthcare-related federal mandates. The Governors note that the federal requirements will force states to cut other programs, such as education, in order to fund a ``one-size-fits-all'' approach to Medicaid.

Additionally, Obamacare fails to institute real medical liability reforms to end junk lawsuits and curb the costs of defensive medicine-- these have long been identified as significant forces in driving up health costs.

Finally, it is a tragic flaw that, even though President Obama told a joint session of Congress that ``no Federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and Federal conscience laws will remain in place,'' his legislation constitutes the largest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade itself, and makes a mockery of that pledge.

Repeal of Obamacare will pave the way for implementation of better health care solutions that will lower costs, increase access, and improve quality without destroying jobs or bankrupting our government.

Goals of responsible health care reform should be to provide credible health insurance coverage and access for everyone, strengthen the health care safety net so that no one is left out, and incentivize quality and innovation, as well as healthy behaviors and prevention. Indisputably, the private health insurance market has to be reformed to put patients first, and eliminate denials of pre-existing conditions and

lifetime caps and promote portability between jobs and geographic areas, including across state lines. Reform should also include revision of the tax code to promote affordability and individual control. Medicare reforms are necessary to make it more efficient and responsive, with sustainable payment rates.

Of course, responsible health care reform will respect basic principles of justice: it will put patients and their doctors in charge of medical decisions, not insurance companies or government bureaucrats. It will also ensure that the lives and health of all persons are respected regardless of stage of development, age or disability.

Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct privilege to yield to Martha Roby, a new Member who was just elected. And she's an outstanding pro-life woman, a Member of Congress. And we're just so pleased to have her in the caucus.

I do thank the gentlelady for her very powerful and eloquent statement in defense of the innocent unborn child.

Mr. Speaker, earlier today, an abortionist in Philadelphia, Dr. Kermit Gosnell, was arrested and charged in the death of a mother and seven babies who were born alive but then killed by severing their spinal cords with a pair of scissors.

According to the CBS TV affiliate in Philadelphia, the district attorney said that in 1 year alone, Dr. Gosnell made approximately $1.8 million performing abortions.

The abortion industry, Mr. Speaker, is a multibillion dollar business. Planned Parenthood boasts that in 2008 alone, their abortionists killed over 324,000 babies, while raking in approximately $1 billion in fees and local, State, and Federal Government subsidies. The ugly truth is that abortionists often get filthy rich not by healing or nurturing or curing, but by dismembering and decapitating the fragile bodies of unborn children, by starving the child in the womb with lethal agents like RU486 or by other means of chemical poisoning. The ugly truth is that women are victimized by abortion, wounded and hurt physically, psychologically, and emotionally. Women deserve better than abortion.

The only thing the multibillion dollar abortion industry has produced in America and worldwide is victims, wounded women and over 52 million dead babies in the United States alone since 1973, more than six times the entire population of my home State of New Jersey. The multibillion dollar abortion industry systematically dehumanizes the weakest and most vulnerable among us with catchy slogans, slick advertising, clever marketing, and very aggressive lobbying, particularly here.

They have made the unacceptable--to be prejudiced and bigoted against a child in the womb--acceptable to some. This acceptable bigotry has been promoted for decades, despite breathtaking advances in fetal medicine, including microsurgery, underscoring the fact that an unborn child is a patient in need of care, diagnosis and care, just like anyone else, and despite the amazing window to the womb, ultrasound imaging.

In 1976, Dr. Willard Cates and David Grimes, then with the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, presented a paper to a Planned Parenthood meeting entitled, and I quote this directly, ``Abortion as a Treatment for Unintended Pregnancy: The Number Two Sexually Transmitted Disease.'' These two abortion doctors reduced the child in the womb to a disease, to a parasite, to something that had to be vanquished. As far as I know, no one at Planned Parenthood objected to this dehumanizing language and obvious bigotry towards children.

Mr. Speaker, the evidence of significant harm to women who abort increases each and every year. Abortion hurts women's health and puts future children subsequently born to women who abort at significant risk. At least 102 studies show significant psychological harm, major depression, and elevated suicide risk in women who abort. The Times of London reported that senior psychiatrists ``say that new evidence has uncovered a clear link between abortion and mental illness in women with no previous history of psychological problems.'' They found that ``women who have had abortions have twice the level of psychological problems and three times the level of depression as women who have given birth or who have never been pregnant.''

In 2006, a comprehensive New Zealand study found that almost 80 percent of the 15- to 18-year-olds who had abortions displayed symptoms of major depression as compared to 31 percent of their peers. The study also found that 27 percent of the 21- to 25-year-olds who had abortions had suicidal idealizations compared to 8 percent of those who did not have an abortion.

Abortion isn't safe for subsequent children born to women who have had an abortion. And this fact is so underappreciated in the United States, and really around the world. At least 113 studies show a significant association between abortion and subsequent premature births. One study by researchers Shah and Zoe showed a 36 percent increased risk for preterm births after one abortion, and a staggering 93 percent increased risk after two. Same goes for low birth weight, similar percentages.

So what does this mean for the children? Preterm birth is the leading cause of infant mortality in the industrialized world after congenital anomalies. Preterm infants have a greater risk of suffering chronic lung disease, sensory deficits, cerebral palsy, cognitive impairments, and behavioral problems. Low birth weight is similarly associated with neonatal mortality and morbidity. Abortion causes great harm to children, to mothers.

Dr. Alveda King, niece of the late Dr. Martin Luther King, who we honored just this past Monday, has joined the growing coalition of women who deeply regret their abortions, and are, as they call themselves, Silent No More. Out of deep personal pain and compassion for others, Dr. King, who has had two abortions herself, and the other women of

Silent No More challenge us to respect, protect, and tangibly love both the mother and the child. The women of Silent No More give post- abortive women a safe place to grieve and a road map to reconciliation.

This week, with the full and unequivocal support of Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor, more than 125 Members and I will introduce the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, a government-wide prohibition on taxpayer subsidization for abortion and conscience protections with durable remedies.

Abortion is not health care. We know that. And polls show that taxpayers strongly oppose publicly funded abortion, 67 percent, according to a recent university poll. Our new bill is designed to permanently end any U.S. Government financial support for abortion, whether it be direct funding, or by tax credits, or by any other subsidy.

Regarding conscience rights, last year Cathy DeCarlo, a nurse at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, was compelled, despite her strong moral and religious objections, to assist in a grisly D&E abortion, which has been described by the U.S. Supreme Court as a procedure where the doctors use forceps to literally tear apart the unborn child. The child often feels pain. It's done later in pregnancy. D&E is a gruesome act of child abuse.

Ms. DeCarlo sued, asserting her right to conscience had been violated under existing Federal law, namely, the Church amendment. Her case was dismissed, however, due to the lack of prescribed remedies. The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act protects conscience rights of individuals and institutions, entities as we call them, by empowering the courts with the authority to prevent and redress actual or threatened violations of conscience.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield to my good friend and colleague Doug Lamborn, who has been a great defender of life.

I yield now to the gentlewoman from Ohio, Jean Schmidt. I don't think there has been a single battle on the life issue that she has not been speaking out in front, speaking in defense of the unborn and their mothers.

I thank my friend for her statement and for her leadership.

I yield to Tim Huelskamp, who took the baton from Jerry Moran, who has gone on to the Senate, and thank him for joining us tonight and look forward to his comments.

Thank you so much for your statement and for your emphasis on adoption, an alternative that is often forgotten, and it provides such a meaningful way for building a family. Thank you for that.

I yield to Marlin Stutzman, the distinguished gentleman from Indiana.

I thank you for your very fine statement and very strong commitment to the sanctity of human life.

I would like to now yield to Ann Marie Buerkle who is both a nurse, but also got her law degree. So she brings both the law and the medicine side to this equation. So I yield to her.

I thank the gentlelady for her statement and for her leadership. This class, and I think the American public would really appreciate this, of 87 Members elected on this side of the aisle, they are overwhelmingly pro-life, and more pro-life women than ever now sit as Members of Congress. It is really very encouraging.

I would like to yield to my good friend and colleague from Illinois, Bob Schilling.

Mr. Schilling, thank you very much for your great statement. And your comments about your child saying, who will defend the baby? I remember a woman by the name of Jean Garton who was with Lutherans for Life. She was preparing a slide show of actual abortions, which are hideous to behold, but it is a reality that has to be understood to know what abortion really is. And her young child walked in and said, Mommy, who broke the baby? looking up at the shattered bodies of unborn children. So from the mouths of children, truth is spoken.

I would like to welcome back to the House, as we all do, Steve Pearce, a Member from New Mexico. We are just so glad to have you back.

Mr. Pearce, thank you.

One of the things that we have in Congress is a large number of medical doctors, OB-GYNs and others who are overwhelmingly pro-life. Dr. Roe from Tennessee is among us.

I thank the gentleman for his leadership and the expertise of being an OB-GYN who has been there and knows better than almost all of us how sacred and fragile the life is of an unborn child, as well as his or her mother.

I would like to yield to Jim Lankford from Oklahoma and thank him for being here this evening.

Thank you, Mr. Lankford, for your very powerful statement.

I would like to now yield to my good friend and colleague from Georgia, a medical doctor as well, Dr. Paul Broun.

Dr. Broun, thank you for your eloquence and your kind remarks, and I want to thank you for your leadership. Again, as a medical doctor, I think you and Dr. Roe and the other docs bring such credibility.

I hope Americans are listening. I hope my friends on the other side of the aisle who take the other side of this issue will begin listening. There needs to be a reevaluation. America needs to take a second look, a long and sustained look at the surface appeal arguments of the abortion rights side.

Abortion is violence against children. It dismembers a child; it decapitates a child; it chemically poisons a child. One of our earlier speakers talked about RU486 and how tailor-made abortions are being promoted by Planned Parenthood. RU486 actually operates in two ways. The first chemical starves the baby to death so the child in utero, the child in the womb simply cannot get nourishment to continue living. The second chemical brings about the expulsion of that baby--who is usually dead, but not always. If that isn't child abuse, if the other methods of abortion are not child abuse, I don't know what is.

This idea that life begins at birth belongs in another era, especially with ultrasound technologies available, as several of my colleagues have said, the ``window to the womb.'' As a matter of fact, it should be noted that even the leading pro-abortion activists in the 1960s and early 1970s, Dr. Bernard Nathanson from New York, one of the three cofounders of NARAL, which is one of the leading pro-abortion groups in the country, Dr. Nathanson said he presided over 60,000 deaths to children as he ran the largest abortion clinic in New York City. He went on to become a pro-lifer. And what caused that huge change of heart both in his mind and in his heart? It was that he began doing blood transfusions and began to see that an unborn child is a patient just like any other patient who may be sick, have a disability, that early efforts and interventions could mitigate whatever that anomaly might be. And because of that he said, how can I be in one room killing a baby with poison or dismemberment while in another doctor's office or in another operating theater providing this prenatal surgery? He saw the schizophrenia inherent in treating some children because they're wanted as being acceptable, and we welcome them, and if they are unwanted, they're throwaways. The feminists had it right when they said no woman should ever be treated as an object. Well, we all know that the unborn child, if he or she is unwanted, is treated like an object and a throwaway, and no human life is a throwaway.

Let me also say that Abby Johnson, who just recently, a little over a year ago, left a Planned Parenthood directorship in Texas--what caused her to change? She saw an ultrasound abortion in real time and said, I just saw the baby crumple right in front of my very eyes. If that isn't a human rights abuse, I don't know what is either. So she became a pro- lifer and now speaks out very, very boldly.

Finally, Dr. Alveda King, as I mentioned earlier, is Martin Luther King's niece. Dr. King had two abortions. She was a ``pro-choicer.'' She now is one of the most eloquent pro-life leaders in the United States and even in the world. She has said, ``How can the dream survive''--talking about her uncle's dream of inclusion, of human rights, of civil rights for all--``how can the dream survive,'' she writes, ``if we murder the children?''

She goes on to talk about how the African American population in this country is so disproportionately targeted by Planned Parenthood and others. The number of abortions for African Americans is about five times the rate of Caucasians and it is because of targeting. There are other reasons, but that is one of the main reasons. That's where the Planned Parenthood clinics are, frankly.

Abortion hurts women, she makes it so clear. She is eloquent in her defense, as are others, in ministering to women who have had abortions. One thing about this pro-life movement--and I've been in it for 38 years, I've been in Congress for 31 years--it loves them both. It says to both the mother and to the baby, we want to put our arms around you, we want to help, we want to be of assistance. And to any post-abortive woman, we are all about trying to help and to assist and provide some kind of pathway to reconciliation. That's where the post-abortive women like Dr. Alveda King play such a crucial role in helping women who otherwise would feel so disenfranchised and left out.

I want to thank our leadership, Speaker Boehner, our majority leader, Eric Cantor. We have a very pro-life leadership who recognizes how sacred life is, how this Congress, this House needs to defend the defenseless. Tomorrow, I will be joining the distinguished Speaker as he speaks on the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. We will be having a press conference tomorrow. We have over 125 cosponsors. I have never seen a leadership so dedicated to protecting innocent human life as these individuals in our leadership. I would hope my friends on the other side of the aisle would take a second long look at the carnage, the unbelievable pain and agony and suffering that abortion has visited upon women. It is not pro-women. Abortion exploits women. And it's certainly not pro-child either because it decimates unborn children as well.

So we have a great leadership. We have an excellent group of Members, men and women, Democrats and Republicans. And I do hope that we will move this human rights issue forward. The young people are with us, and this is the greatest human rights struggle ever.

Madam Speaker, in the theatrical adaptation of Victor Hugo's Les Miserables, Marius sings a haunting song--Empty Chairs and Empty Tables--an expression of agony at the loss of his idealistic comrades, gunned down on a barricade.

``There's a grief that can't be spoken,'' he sings, ``there's a pain that goes on and on. Empty chairs and empty tables, now my friends are dead and gone . . . .''

``Here it was they lit the flame . . . Here they sang about tomorrow and tomorrow never came . . . from the table in the corner they could see a world reborn . . . And they rose with voices ringing. I can hear them now . . . Empty chairs and empty tables, where my friends will meet no more . . . .''

When prisoner of conscience Liu Xiaobo, Nobel Peace Prize winner for 2010, learned that he was selected, he wept and dedicated his prize to the martyrs of the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre.

Throughout China today, families and friends know heartbreaking loss and the agony of empty chairs and empty tables--where young, brave, idealistic democracy activists were gunned down, bayoneted, or beaten to death by Chinese government troops and secret police. Both before and since Tiananmen, Chinese men and women have sacrificed their freedom--even their lives--in the struggle for faith and liberty. Yet the struggle for freedom, rule of law, and respect for human rights continues despite the enormous cost to individual Chinese men and women.

At Oslo a couple of weeks ago, I had the privilege of witnessing the conferring of the Nobel Peace Prize on Liu Xiaobo's empty chair--empty because this courageous nonviolent man of principle languishes in a lonely prison cell, serving an eleven-year sentence for promoting democracy in China, most recently through Charter 08, a human rights manifesto. In a stunning revelation of Beijing's weakness, fear, and moral deficiency, even Liu's wife and friends were barred from attending the Nobel ceremony.

Amazingly, at his government show trial in 2009, Liu expressed absolutely no malice toward the dictatorship that so cruelly mistreats him--and millions of others like him.

He said, ``I have no enemies and no hatred. None of the police who monitored, arrested, and interrogated me, none of the prosecutors who indicted me, and none of the judges who judged me are my enemies . . . Hatred can rot away at a person's intelligence and conscience. Enemy mentality will poison the spirit of a nation, incite cruel mortal struggles, destroy a society's tolerance and humanity and hinder a nation's progress toward freedom and democracy. That is why I hope to be able to transcend my personal experiences as I look upon our nation's development and social change, to counter the regime's hostility with utmost goodwill, and to dispel hatred with love.''

The Nobel Peace Prize ceremony has come and gone. And, I would note parenthetically, it was an honor to join you in Oslo, Madam Speaker, as well as Representative David Wu and numerous Tiananmen Square alumnae-- Chinese men and women who peacefully demonstrated for freedom in 1989-- including Yang Jianli, Chai Ling, Bob Fu, Fang Zheng, and Kaixi Wuer. It is now more important than ever that all of us who treasure freedom, democracy and human rights empathize more, pray more and do more to expose and combat the cruelty and the crimes committed on a daily basis by Beijing.

The brutality and violence that were witnessed by all the world in 1989 at Tiananmen continues unabated today, especially in the gulags-- laogai--and detention centers throughout China, where people are systematically tortured, sometimes to death, particularly Falun Gong practitioners, Uyghurs, Tibetans, Christians, and democracy activists.

The brutality and violence of unrestrained dictatorship has--and continues to be--unleashed against hundreds of millions of Chinese women and children--victims of the barbaric one child per couple policy, a cruel policy that has made brothers and sisters illegal and relies on forced abortion--a crime categorized as a ``crime against humanity'' at the Nazi war crime trial at Nuremberg.

As a result of the one child per couple policy, an estimated 100 million girls are missing--dead through sex-selective abortion--which is a gender crime of unimaginable depravity and has made China a magnet for sex trafficking. Chai Ling--one of the heroes of Tiananmen--has launched All Girls Allowed--an NGO that appeals to Beijing, the world, and especially mothers in China to protect the girl child in the womb.

And finally, even the Internet has been turned into a tool of repression and surveillance by the secret police.

The selection of Liu Xiaobo as the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize laureate obliges us to undertake sustained scrutiny and meaningful action.

Indifference or silence or feigned ignorance concerning the Chinese government's appalling and massive human rights violations simply isn't an option.

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight as former and incoming Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Human Rights Committee to ask my distinguished colleagues of the House to take a few moments to read a brilliant, incisive, extraordinarily well written defense of the child in the womb by Lord Nicholas Windsor of the UK, great grandson of King George V.

Calling the abortion of unborn children ``the single most grievous moral deficit in contemporary life,'' he appeals to conscience and admonishes us to the ``greatest solidarity and duty of care because they are the weakest and most dependent of our fellow humans.''

Lord Nicholas notes that ``permissive abortion is a fact of life so deeply embedded and thoroughly normalized in our culture that--and this is the most insidious factor in that normalization--it has been rendered invisible to politics in Europe. Even mentioning it has become the first taboo of the culture.''

And how can that be?

Lord Nicholas faults ``determined campaigns of propaganda at the outset to harden consciences, and gradually to enforce a conformism that fears to question what is said to be a settled issue.''

Settled? Not here in the U.S., Madam Speaker, and hopefully not for long in Europe either.

On what he calls a ``moral world turned upside down,'' Lord Nicholas says, ``the greatest irony may be that a broad consensus exists, in a highly rights-aware political establishment, in favor of one of the gravest and most egregious abuses of human rights that human society has ever tolerated. Didn't Europeans think they could never and must never kill again on an industrial scale? What a cruel deceit, then, that has led us to this mass killing of children . . . .''

``This is the question of questions for Europe;'' he writes, ``the practice of abortion is a mortal wound in Europe's heart.''

And he goes on to persuasively advocate for a new ``abolitionism'' for Europe akin to the movement to abolish slavery. But the notes are ever mindful of the need to meet the needs of women: ``The task for us is not merely to abolish. We must also creatively envisage new and compelling answers to the problems that give rise to this practice . . . .''

A brilliant essay. A must read for those who treasure and promote human rights. And equally applicable to us--in the United States--which mourns, or will mourn someday, killing over 53 million children by abortion since 1973.

Lord Nicholas Windsor Warns Europeans Not to Forget Their Most Pressing

Moral Issue: Abortion

[From First Things, Dec. 1, 2010]

(By Lord Nicholas Windsor)

At the close of the last century, as the reckoning was

drawn up in Europe for the actions and reactions of the

twentieth century, could we not have been forgiven for

tending a little toward the view that we had, after

everything, acquitted ourselves rather well? Hadn't we a long

list of accomplishments to admire in the years after 1945? We

had expunged Fascism, at immeasurable human cost, and we had

made profound reparation for its effects. We had washed our

hands of colonialism and vastly improved the material lot of

the poor in our own countries. We had built robust

democracies and welfare states and novel institutions in

Europe to defuse nationalisms and guarantee peace among

former belligerents. We had advanced the rights of women--

indeed, the whole spectrum of rights. We had won the Cold

War.

Much more could be added, I think. Poised just then before

the new millennium, seeing what vast work had been done in

our societies, mightn't it have seemed quite possible that

the greatest moral cancers in our civilization had been at

least contained and possibly eradicated? Hadn't history, at

least this moral cycle of history, really reached an end?

In the decade since the turn of the millennium, the

cultural mood has been less happy, for a variety of reasons.

Even at its most confident, however, the West generally

recognized that some work remained to be done. So, for

example, the position of the poorest in the world, it is

held, will gradually and continually improve if enough effort

is made, not least by the developed world. For the mitigation

of global warming and climate change, political determination

will suffice to alter the carbon-hungry lifestyles that cause

the problem.

The point here is that moderate political activity is

believed to be the sort of thing required to address these

problems, and there is a reasonable degree of optimism that

such political activity will be usefully brought to bear,

without the need to resort to force.

A remaining category of problems still to be dealt with

could be bundled together as ``Rogue Regimes, the Taliban,

and al-Qaeda.'' This category rightly causes public alarm and

engenders calls for robust and, where necessary, lethal

response. But these are not threats that appear existential

and have not as yet provoked a real sense of public crisis.

Neither have they brought about mass political action in the

West. They are still, I believe, seen as problems that will

ultimately be solved, or at least kept at bay, without huge

social upheaval on our home soil and certainly with nothing

like the warfare resorted to by previous generations.

Is it still possible then that we can point to anything of

any real significance that had been overlooked, anything

dangerous smuggled into this new phase of history that has

caught us unawares? I would say that this is indeed the case,

and I would like to focus especially on a matter and a

practice that constitutes the single most grievous moral

deficit in contemporary life: the abortion of our unborn

children.

This is a historically unprecedented cascade of destruction

wrought on individuals: on sons, daughters, sisters,

brothers, future spouses and friends, mothers and fathers--

destroyed in the form of those to whom we owe, quite simply

and certainly, the greatest solidarity and duty of care

because they are the weakest and most dependent of our fellow

humans. All else that we concern ourselves with in the lives

of human beings derives from the inescapable fact that first

we must have human lives with which to concern ourselves. By

disregarding this self-evident fact of the debt owed

immediately to the unborn--which is to be allowed to be born

(and let us not forget that all of us might have suffered

just the same fate before our birth)--humanity's deepest

instincts are trampled and shattered.

This was only an implausible glimmer in the eyes of the

most radically progressive thinkers and activists a century

ago. Today legal, permissive abortion is a fact of life so

deeply embedded and thoroughly normalized in our culture

that--and this is the most insidious factor in that

normalization--it has been rendered invisible to politics in

Europe. Even mentioning it has become the first taboo of the

culture.

There are consciences in Europe, it must be stressed, that

glow white-hot for justice and strive continuously for this

darkest fact of our public life to appear in public debate as

clearly as it does across the Atlantic in the United States.

For most of our contemporaries, however, this is a matter

that impinges little. The effectiveness of determined

campaigns of propaganda at the outset to harden consciences,

and gradually to enforce a conformism that fears to question

what is said to be a settled issue, has worked wonderfully

well.

And this enforcement of a new status quo succeeds so well

due, surely, to benefits enjoyed as a result--benefits of an

order that make acceptable even the killing of innocents, by

their protectors, on a scale that freezes the imagination.

How much then must depend on its remaining so, remaining

beyond question? This is the nub of that ideological word

choice. So much else can be chosen in a given life if the

option to dispose of unwanted children is dependably

available. So many intoxicating freedoms are newly

established, if only abortion is never again denied to women

and to men.

But what of the cost? As with the cost of previous great

willful destructions of human life, of whole classes of human

life, the fact that it must and will be borne is a certainty,

whatever the nature and scale of it. Of course, in the first

order of consequences, the price paid by the victims is not

obscure: We must never forget that the heaviest price is paid

by those whose lives are not to be lived.

In the second order of consequences, however, we must look

closely at the hidden burden faced by those, especially

mothers, who participate in these acts and the losses

affecting present and future society. How will a society

regard itself, or value its own distinctive culture, when it

has placed this fearful act at its center--consciously

approving, even celebrating, its own most egregious moral

failing? Will it have the confidence simply to regenerate

itself? To survive by producing the next generation of

children in sufficient numbers?

I would like to emphasize that we must never mistake the

secondary effects of this moral enormity for the primary, as

this would surely be to instrumentalize the victims and fail

again in our duty of respect toward them. It would be an

absurdity such as if the real tragedy of the Shoah were felt

first of all to lie in the social consequences. No, what we

must first lament is the mass destruction of human beings who

had first been deemed worthless. The fact in itself is

what we must keep before our eyes, before and apart from our

regard to anything that may derive from it.

We live in what is truly a moral world turned upside down,

and the greatest irony may be that a broad consensus exists,

in a highly rights-aware political establishment, in favor of

one of the gravest and most egregious abuses of human rights

that human society has ever tolerated. Didn't Europeans think

they could never and must never kill again on an industrial

scale? What a cruel deceit, then, that has led us to this

mass killing of children, for a theoretical greater good,

which in this case is simply the wish not to be bound by a

pregnancy unless it is fully and freely chosen and which,

outside of that parameter, is declared, by fiat, to be null

and void.

The sophistry is overwhelming: If I choose and desire my

child, then ipso facto I have granted it the right to live,

and it will live. But the inverse is equally the case, by

means of nothing more or less than my choice: Caesar's thumb

is up, or Caesar's thumb is down. And when it comes to

exporting this idea, we do it with zeal and determination

through such institutions as the United Nations and the

European Union.

The granting to ourselves of the right wantonly to kill,

each year, millions of our offspring at the beginning of

their lives: This is the question of questions for Europe.

The practice of abortion is a mortal wound in Europe's heart,

in the center of Hellenic and Judeo-Christian culture.

Having so recklessly carried this poison out of the

twentieth--the ugliest of all centuries--let us, for the sake

of all that has been good and beautiful and true about the

culture of the West, be clear that there is an urgent moral

priority here. Call it a ``New Abolitionism for Europe''--the

word abolitionism emphasizing the continuity between the

challenge faced now with the generational campaigns waged so

clear-sightedly in late-nineteenth-century America to rid

itself of the injustice of slavery. The abolitionists, I

believe, exemplify the courage and imagination required, even

if they do not provide perfect templates for what we face

now.

This is a task that calls for a broader approach to the

safeguarding of life, as taught to us by those earlier

struggles to apportion value where it previously had not been

deemed to exist. We must re-enliven the valuing of life, and

this cannot restrict itself to the question of abortion,

despite its moral centrality. It must have regard to every

threat to the integrity of human beings, at all stages of

their being and in all circumstances.

The task for us is not merely to abolish. We must also

creatively envisage new and compelling answers to the

problems that give rise to this practice, when the easiest

solutions may be destructive or distorting ones. And the goal

is that human life, without any exception, may be as

treasured and respected as the highest moral thought has

perennially called for it to be, and as our consciences

surely sound the echo.

Author affiliation:

Lord Nicholas Windsor studied theology at Oxford University

and is patron of the Right to Life Charitable Trust and the

Catholic National Library. Great-grandson of King George V of

the United Kingdom, Windsor is the first blood member of the

British royal family to be received into the Catholic Church

since King Charles II on his deathbed in 1685.

I thank my good friend Judge Poe for yielding, and I rise in very strong support of the legislation. I want to thank Chairman Scott and Carolyn Maloney, with whom I have worked very closely on the House companion bill.

I will say at the outset, Madam Speaker, as the prime sponsor of the historic law to combat human trafficking known as the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, and as a Member of Congress who has devoted more than 15 years seeking to prevent trafficking, protect victims from exploitation and abuse, and prosecute those who enslave with up to life imprisonment, I am happy to say that in many of our States, laws have been passed that closely mirror the TVPA so that they too now have powerful weapons and tools to use against those who would so cruelly mistreat others through trafficking.

Just by way of definition, you are considered a trafficking victim if you have not yet attained the age of 18 and have been sold for commercial sexual exploitation or for labor trafficking, or if you are 18 or over and there is an element of force, fraud, or coercion. So I do rise in strong support of this bill which takes us even further, S. 2925.

Madam Speaker, human trafficking, or modern day slavery, is the third most lucrative criminal activity in the world. The ILO estimates illicit profits gleaned each and every year as something on the order of $31 billion. Under both Presidents Bush and Obama, domestic task forces to combat human trafficking have been established in over 40 cities, almost 900 American children have been rescued, and much thanks is owed to the FBI, State police, and local law enforcement.

Still, Madam Speaker, much more needs to be done. The National Center For Missing and Exploited Children believes that at least 100,000 American children, perhaps tens of thousands more, some estimates put it as high as 300,000, mostly runaway girls, average age 13, are exploited in the commercial sex industry each year.

S. 2925 seeks to address the lack of shelter, the lack of a safe place to go for domestic trafficking victims. As Carolyn Maloney said a moment ago, estimates may be as few as 100 beds--some put it at 50--and that is unconscionable.

As highly vulnerable victims, juvenile detention or some type of incarceration just doesn't meet the need. These girls require a place, a safe haven, a place where they can go where they will be helped to deal with the huge trauma that they have experienced.

The legislation authorizes six pilot grants of between $2.2 million to $2.5 million each in order to provide safe havens and psychological care to address trauma. The legislation also provides law enforcement training and beefs up reporting requirements so that missing children are immediately entered into the national missing children's database, the latter so that law enforcement finds a missing girl before the pimps do.

Madam Speaker, this is a good bill, it is a bipartisan bill, and will very tangibly assist our young runaways who sadly are so cruelly exploited by human traffickers.

As prime sponsor of the historic law to combat human trafficking--the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000--and as a Member of Congress who has devoted more than 15 years seeking to prevent trafficking, protect victims from exploitation and abuse and prosecute those who enslave up to life imprisonment, I rise in strong support of S. 2925.

Human Trafficking--modern day slavery--is the third most lucrative criminal activity in the world. The ILO estimates illicit profits of over $31 billion a year.

Under both presidents Bush and Obama, domestic task forces to combat human trafficking have been established in over 40 cities. Almost 900 American children have been rescued and much thanks is owed to the FBI, state police, and local law enforcement.

Still, much more needs to be done. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and Shared Hope International believe that at least 100,000 American children, perhaps tens of thousands more, mostly runaway girls of the average age of 13 years old, are exploited in the commercial sex industry each year.

S. 2925 seeks to address the lack of shelter--the lack of safe place to go--for domestic trafficking victims. One estimate is that there are between 50 and 100 beds for victims of domestic trafficking.

As highly vulnerable victims, private detention or some other type of incarceration fails to recognize these young girls as cruelly exploited victims desperately in need of help.

The legislation authorizes 6 pilot grants of $2-2.5 million in order to provide safe havens and psychological care to address trauma.

The legislation also provides for law enforcement training and keys up reporting requirements so that missing children are immediately entered into the national missing children database--the latter so that law enforcement finds a missing girl before the pimps do.

Madam Speaker, my distinguished colleague Carolyn Maloney and I crafted the House version of the pending bill in a way that absolutely precluded the use of funds authorized by the bill from being used to subsidize the killing of the child in the womb by abortion. S. 2925 as amended includes the identical language.

The Gentlelady from New York and I have deep differences on abortion, but worked in a spirit of cooperation and resolve in order to tangibly assist domestic victims of trafficking.

Madam Speaker, I thank my distinguished friend for yielding.

Madam Speaker, as cochairman along with my good friend and colleague Congressman Ed Markey of the Congressional Task Force on Alzheimer's, which we founded back in 1999, and as lead Republican sponsor on the companion legislation--this is a Senate bill, of course--I rise in strong support and ask for our colleagues to pass the National Alzheimer's Project Act.

This legislation is an important step forward in our battle against the crisis of Alzheimer's disease. Unfortunately, we know that the trajectory of Alzheimer's disease over the next few decades threatens unparalleled tragedy and threatens to overwhelm society's ability to cope if something is not done to change that trajectory.

Alzheimer's disease is both a current and future health crisis of our Nation. About 78 million baby boomers were born between 1946 and 1964, which has been termed the single greatest demographic event in United States history. In a couple of weeks on January 1, the first of those boomers will turn 65 years of age.

Today, 5.3 million people have Alzheimer's, and another American develops the disease every 70 seconds. 200,000 Americans under the age of 65 have early onset Alzheimer's. Alzheimer's costs Medicare and Medicaid alone approximately $122 billion. The average annual Medicare payment for an individual with Alzheimer's, as the previous speaker pointed out, is three times higher than for those without the condition. Additionally, 11 million unpaid caregivers provide 12.5 billion hours of care, valued at an estimated $144 billion. This unpaid care obviously is a huge drain on family resources.

Without effective intervention to change the trajectory, by mid- century, the number of individuals with Alzheimer's will increase to an estimated 13 million to 16 million people, and the cost to Medicare and Medicaid will be staggering, over $800 billion in today's dollars. Given these realities, it is astounding that there is no national plan to address the crisis of Alzheimer's disease and the looming crisis.

The National Alzheimer's Project Act is designed to help turn the tide by creating a national strategic plan to address it. NAPA establishes an interagency advisory council to advise the Secretary of Health and Human Services on how to comprehensively address the government's efforts on Alzheimer's research, care, and service, including both institutional and at-home care.

As a percentage of the population, more women than men have Alzheimer's, and African Americans are about two times more likely to have Alzheimer's or other dementias, yet they are less likely to be diagnosed. NAPA aims to address these disparities as well.

NAPA will provide the framework to accelerate the development of an efficacious care and comprehensive treatment in an effort to mitigate the unspeakable agony and suffering of millions of patients and their families. And if we are successful, we will also save the country billions of dollars every year and trillions over the coming decades.

This is an outstanding bill, and I hope the membership of this body will overwhelmingly support it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding. I want to thank Mr. Royce for this very, very important and timely resolution, and both the chairman and ranking member, Chairman Berman and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, for bringing this very, very important resolution to the floor as the session winds down.

Mr. Speaker, in early July, Nam Nguyen, this is Nam Nguyen right here, a Catholic from Con Dau, was savagely beaten to death for his faith by the Vietnamese police. His brother, Tai Nguyen, testified at an August Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission hearing that police repeatedly kicked his brother in the chest and the back and on his temples. Of course, that means there are fewer marks on the face, but his body was riddled with punches and broken bones.

``Blood,'' he said, ``poured out of his nose and ears.'' Tai said his brother told his wife he couldn't handle the beatings anymore. The wife, seeing her husband's broken body, kneeled in front of the police and begged them to stop. In response, they punched and kicked him again and again and again, and Nam Nguyen died in his wife's arms, this man right here.

What was Nam Nguyen's alleged crime? His faith in Jesus Christ and his devotion to his Catholic parish. The entire Catholic community and its property in Con Dau, you see, is in the process of being confiscated or stolen by the Vietnamese authorities. The faithful are a ripe target for the atheistic Government of Vietnam. The proximate cause for the crackdown and unspeakable violence was the May 4 funeral of an elderly woman and an attempt to bury her in the town's Catholic cemetery.

Nam Nguyen was a pallbearer when the police busted up the funeral procession of over 1,000 people, beating over 100 mourners, arresting dozens, and deliberately beating two pregnant women so as to kill their unborn babies. They even tried to take the casket. The reign of terror on this 85-year-old Catholic community continues to this day. At least two remain in prison, and the persecution shows no sign of abating.

What happened in Con Dau isn't an isolated incident. According to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, its annual 2010 report, ``Property disputes between the government and the Catholic Church continue to lead to harassment, property destruction and violence, sometimes by contract thugs hired by the government to break up peaceful prayer vigils.'' Now we know that includes funerals as well. Other faith communities have seen a significant spike in harassment, persecution, confiscation, and violence as well.

Mr. Speaker, in 2005, I led a human rights mission to Hanoi, Hue and Ho Chi Minh City. I met with almost 60 pastors, priests and leading Buddhists, including the Venerable Thich Quang Do, who was under pagoda arrest. All expressed hope and varying degrees of optimism due to an apparent easing of religious persecution in Vietnam.

U.S. Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom John Hanford told us that there were promises of further reform made and what he called ``deliverables,'' concrete actions by the Vietnamese Government that it said it would do in the area of religious freedom, coupled with a trade agreement, and all of that led to the lifting

of the Country of Particular Concern, or CPC, designation.

Do you know what happened then? Hanoi responded with a massive retaliation against both political and religious believers. Signers of Bloc 8406, the magnificent human rights manifesto promoting respect for the rule of law and nonviolence, a manifesto that parallels China's Charter 08 and Czechoslovakia's Charter 77, were hunted down methodically and imprisoned. Many religious believers who expected a thaw and reform and openness were arrested and in some cases rearrested and sent to prison.

Father Ly, this man here, is a Catholic priest and a prisoner of conscience for 17 years in jail, a man who committed no crimes. I met Father Ly when he was under house arrest in Hue. He was rearrested in 2007, held in confinement and denied emergency medical attention. So bad is he that even the Vietnamese let him out under kind of a humanitarian parole, but he is still under arrest.

Look at this picture of him taken at trial. Look at the animosity in the eyes of these guards. And when they get behind closed doors, Mr. Speaker, they beat and they break bones and they break heads, and it leads to death or permanent maiming.

Did CPC designation help mitigate religious persecution prior to being lifted? It appears so. The U.S. Commission on Religious Freedom notes that Hanoi released prisoners, it expanded some legal protections for nationally recognized groups, and prohibited the policy of forced renunciations, at least in some cases, and expanded the zone of toleration.

Congress, the President, and all of us who espouse fundamental human rights ought to be outraged at Vietnam's turn for the worse. We should stand with the oppressed, and not the oppressors. President Obama should redesignate Vietnam a Country of Particular Concern for its egregious violations of human rights. CPC, independently prescribed by statute, the International Religious Freedom Act, has in the past and can again be a very, very useful tool in promoting religious liberty.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, worldwide, Communist dictatorships either crush or seek to control religious organizations. I have seen this in my 30 years as a Member of Congress.

I remember in the early 1980s how the Romanian apologists, as MSM was coming up for renewal every year, would rush over and meet with Members of Congress. They would have very slick talking points about the number of churches and about the number of believers in Romania. All the while, people were suffering in the prisons, or the gulags, people who happened to be pastors or believers; and it was all part of a disinformation campaign.

I would say to my colleagues that Vietnam uses the exact same tactic. They will give you numbers. They will give you some fact sheets; but if you are a believer who is not under the control of that dictatorship and if you happen to be part of the Unified Buddhist Church, like the Venerable Thich Quang Do, and not the church or the unified or the Buddhist temples that are under the control of the government, watch out. They will be knocking on your door. You will either be under pagoda arrest or find yourself in prison. The same goes for the monsignors and the others who are evangelicals who are finding themselves being severely repressed in Vietnam.

Members really have to back this resolution.

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

Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of the resolution honoring the 2500th anniversary of the Battle of Marathon in ancient Greece. This resolution celebrates the victory in the battle--against all odds--by Greek citizens opposing the overwhelming Persian force in the year 450

I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) for providing us with this opportunity to recognize the contributions of the National Council for International Visitors, particularly on its 50th anniversary, and the importance of the citizen diplomacy of the United States.

Madam Speaker, the person-to-person contacts that occur when international visitors have the opportunity to live and work alongside ordinary Americans are often more than opinion-changing; they can be life-changing. To experience up-close the diversity, generosity, and industry of our people can shatter stereotypes and prejudices far more effectively than press statements and media campaigns. For these reasons, citizen diplomacy is an important tool for increasing the global understanding of American values.

One significant component of our public diplomacy activities has been the International Visitor Leadership Program, a State Department program that brings thousands of current and emerging professional leaders to the U.S. every year for carefully designed short-term visits. Having met with many of those who have come in from abroad, they are very, very useful visits, and they get to see a broad array of America and Americans when they do visit. Numerous International Visitor alumni have gone on to become heads of state, key officials, and industry leaders in their home countries.

For the past 50 years, the National Council for International Visitors has been a critical partner in the success of that program. As a nonprofit professional association, the NCIV helps to coordinate the exchange-related activities of community-based groups throughout the country, drawing on the energy of nearly 80,000 American volunteers every year.

During its first 50 years, NCIV has organized professional programs, cultural activities and home visits for more than 190,000 foreign visitors. To that we say thank you.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

I thank my good friend and colleague from Florida for his eloquent statement. I thank the Speaker and the majority leader for bringing this resolution to the floor, and of course to Howard Berman the chairman and IIeana Ros-Lehtinen for their strong support for it as well.

Madam Speaker, for far too long the Chinese Government has evaded virtually all serious scrutiny of its horrific human rights record-- usually by employing bullying tactics, including threats to nations, multilateral organizations like the U.N., and to individuals. Today the Chinese Government brutalizes women and children through forced abortion and coerced sterilization as part of its barbaric one-child- per-couple policy, which makes brothers and sisters illegal. Today China crushes all political opposition. It tortures and incarcerates Falun Gong practitioners, Uyghurs, Tibetan Buddhists and Christians. Today China violently crushes independent labor unions and has transformed the Internet into a tool for surveillance and censorship.

I note parenthetically, Madam Speaker, that immediately prior to the Olympics, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and I visited Beijing, one of many human rights trips to China. While we were there, we sought to meet with some of the house church leaders who wanted to meet with us and pray with us. All but one were arrested and detained, and after we left that particular pastor was arrested and detained and interrogated as well.

Madam Speaker, the naming of Liu Xiaobo as the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize laureate and the Chinese Government's outrageous response to that naming, including the way they have mistreated his wife but now it's even worse, and friends can't even travel to Oslo to be a part of the ceremony, that reaction, of course is the underlying problem. The actual abuses that are committed, oblige us to sustained scrutiny and meaningful action. News reports suggest that over one-and-a-half dozen countries have been so intimidated by Beijing that they won't even send a delegation to Oslo. I think that's outrageous.

So today I urge my colleagues to adopt H. Res. 1717, expressing Congress'

profound respect for and solidarity with Liu Xiaobo and all those who peacefully advocate for human rights and democracy in the PRC.

Madam Speaker, the resolution honors Liu Xiaobo, who in the 1980s had a brilliant academic career in front of him in China. When the Tiananmen Square demonstrations began in 1989, he was actually a visiting professor in New York City. He effectively gave all of that up when he flew back to China to join the students demonstrating for democracy on the square, and even there he insisted that the students themselves adhere to a democratic process. Liu has been working and sacrificing for democratic reform ever since--through hundreds of remarkable essays that he has written and the courage with which he has borne imprisonment, no less than four times.

My resolution highlights Charter 08, the democracy proclamation that Liu played a leading role in organizing, drafting, and of which he was one of the first signers. It is an astonishing document, a worthy heir of the great models that it is based upon, the U.S. Bill of Rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Charter 77, the Czech human rights declaration that in the late 1970s contributed so much to the rebirth of conscience and respect for the rule of just law in eastern European captive nations, and ultimately to their peaceful democratization.

But the Chinese Government saw in this magnificent document only a crime, as my friend and colleague pointed out earlier, ``inciting subversion of state power''--whatever that is. The government arrested Mr. Liu in December of 2008 and in December 2009 sentenced him to 11 years in prison.

Madam Speaker, in February of this year, I led a group of some six Members in petitioning the peace prize committee to name Mr. Liu and two other Chinese dissidents for the Nobel Peace Prize. Our nomination described him as ``a visionary leader,'' remarkable for his patriotism and civic courage and the generous tone of his work. This man is absolutely nonviolent.

Though we didn't know it at the time, many other people had the exact same idea. Mr. Liu was nominated by two Nobel Peace Prize laureates-- the 14th Dalai Lama and Bishop Desmond Tutu--as well as by former Czech President Vaclav Havel and many members of the Czech and Slovak parliaments, the Norwegian parliamentarian, and a number of human rights defenders from around the world and leaders in the fields of philosophy, literature, philanthropy and finance.

Madam Speaker, H. Res. 1717 underscores and points up the words of the Norwegian Nobel Committee that said, and I quote: ``The campaign to establish human rights in China is being waged by many Chinese. Through the severe punishment meted out to him, Liu has become the foremost symbol of this wide-ranging struggle for human rights in China.'' The resolution explicitly states that in honoring Liu Xiaobo, it honors all those who have promoted democratic reform in China, including all those who participated in the 1989 Tiananmen Square demonstration. After Liu's wife told him of the award, he wept and dedicated the prize to ``the Tiananmen martyrs.''

Madam Speaker, the resolution makes it very clear that Mr. Liu Xiaobo is a political prisoner, emphasizes that ``violations of human rights,'' including his persecution, ``are matters of legitimate concern to other governments,'' because we are hearing the tired old refrain from the government in Beijing that this is purely an internal matter.

Similarly, the resolution calls on the Chinese Government to cease censoring media and Internet reporting of the award and cease defaming Mr. Liu as a ``political tool of the West'' and as a ``traitorous operative.'' These are ridiculous charges, but they go to the heart of the issue that Mr. Liu himself analyzed in his 2005 essay called ``The CPC's Dictatorial Patriotism,'' the dictatorial government's fallacious equation of itself with the Chinese nation, so that whoever opposes the dictatorship is treated as an enemy of the state.

Finally, I will conclude with Liu Xiaobo's closing statement in his 2009 trial, only a small part of it. It is very rich and I hope all will read it. I will put it in the Record. This shows his gentleness of soul. He said:

``But I still want to say to this regime, which is depriving me of my freedom, that I stand by the convictions I expressed in my June 2 Hunger Strike Declaration 20 years ago--I have no enemies and no hatred. None of the police who monitored, arrested and interrogated me, none of the prosecutors who indicted me, and none of the judges who judged me are my enemies. Hatred can rot away at a person's intelligence and conscience.

Enemy mentality will poison the spirit of a nation, incite cruel mortal struggles, destroy a society's tolerance and humanity, and hinder a nation's progress toward freedom and democracy. That is why I hope to be able to transcend my personal experiences as I look upon our nation's development and social change, to counter the regime's hostility with utmost goodwill, and to dispel hatred with love.''

To his wife, he said:

``My dear, with your love I can calmly face my impending trial, having no regrets about the choices I've made and am optimistically awaiting tomorrow. I look toward to the day when my country is a land with freedom of expression, where the speech of every citizen will be treated equally well.''

This man is a moral giant, absolutely worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize, and he is the future of China.

I Have No Enemies: My Final Statement

(By Liu Xiaobo)

Closing Statement in Court. Translation by HRIC, based on a translation

by J. Latourelle, December 23, 2009

In the course of my life, for more than half a century,

June 1989 was the major turning point. Up to that point, I

was a member of the first class to enter university when

college entrance examinations were reinstated following the

Cultural Revolution (Class of '77). From BA to MA and on to

PhD, my academic career was all smooth sailing. Upon

receiving my degrees, I stayed on to teach at Beijing Normal

University. As a teacher, I was well received by the

students. At the same time, I was a public intellectual,

writing articles and books that created quite a stir during

the 1980s, frequently receiving invitations to give talks

around the country, and going abroad as a visiting scholar

upon invitation from Europe and America. What I demanded of

myself was this: whether as a person or as a writer, I would

lead a life of honesty, responsibility, and dignity. After

that, because I had returned from the U.S. to take part in

the 1989 Movement, I was thrown into prison for ``the crime

of counter-revolutionary propaganda and incitement.'' I also

lost my beloved lectern and could no longer publish essays or

give talks in China. Merely for publishing different

political views and taking part in a peaceful democracy

movement, a teacher lost his lectern, a writer lost his right

to publish, and a public intellectual lost the opportunity to

give talks publicly. This is a tragedy, both for me

personally and for a China that has already seen thirty years

of Reform and Opening Up.

When I think about it, my most dramatic experiences after

June Fourth have been, surprisingly, associated with courts:

My two opportunities to address the public have both been

provided by trial sessions at the Beijing Municipal

Intermediate People's Court, once in January 1991, and again

today. Although the crimes I have been charged with on the

two occasions are different in name, their real substance is

basically the same--both are speech crimes.

Twenty years have passed, but the ghosts of June Fourth

have not yet been laid to rest. Upon release from Qincheng

Prison in 1991, I, who had been led onto the path of

political dissent by the psychological chains of June Fourth,

lost the right to speak publicly in my own country and could

only speak through the foreign media. Because of this, I was

subjected to year-round monitoring, kept under residential

surveillance (May 1995 to January 1996) and sent to

Reeducation-Through-Labor (October 1996 to October 1999). And

now I have been once again shoved into the dock by the enemy

mentality of the regime. But I still want to say to this

regime, which is depriving me of my freedom, that I stand by

the convictions I expressed in my ``June Second Hunger Strike

Declaration'' twenty years ago--I have no enemies and no

hatred. None of the police who monitored, arrested, and

interrogated me, none of the prosecutors who indicted me, and

none of the judges who judged me are my enemies. Although

there is no way I can accept your monitoring, arrests,

indictments, and verdicts, I respect your professions and

your integrity, including those of the two prosecutors, Zhang

Rongge and Pan Xueqing, who are now bringing charges against

me on behalf of the prosecution. During interrogation on

December 3, I could sense your respect and your good faith.

Hatred can rot away at a person's intelligence and

conscience. Enemy mentality will poison the spirit of a

nation, incite cruel mortal struggles, destroy a society's

tolerance and humanity, and hinder a nation's

progress toward freedom and democracy. That is why I hope to

be able to transcend my personal experiences as I look upon

our nation's development and social change, to counter the

regime's hostility with utmost good will, and to dispel

hatred with love.

Everyone knows that it was Reform and Opening Up that

brought about our country's development and social change. In

my view, Reform and Opening Up began with the abandonment of

the ``using class struggle as guiding principle'' government

policy of the Mao era and, in its place, a commitment to

economic development and social harmony. The process of

abandoning the ``philosophy of struggle'' was also a process

of gradual weakening of the enemy mentality and elimination

of the psychology of hatred, and a process of squeezing out

the ``wolf's milk'' that had seeped into human nature.\1\ It

was this process that provided a relaxed climate, at home and

abroad, for Reform and Opening Up, gentle and humane grounds

for restoring mutual affection among people and peaceful

coexistence among those with different interests and values,

thereby providing encouragement in keeping with humanity for

the bursting forth of creativity and the restoration of

compassion among our countrymen. One could say that

relinquishing the ``anti-imperialist and anti-revisionist''

stance in foreign relations and ``class struggle'' at home

has been the basic premise that has enabled Reform and

Opening Up to continue to this very day. The market trend in

the economy, the diversification of culture, and the gradual

shift in social order toward the rule of law have all

benefitted from the weakening of the ``enemy mentality.''

Even in the political arena, where progress is slowest, the

weakening of the enemy mentality has led to an ever-growing

tolerance for social pluralism on the part of the regime and

substantial decrease in the force of persecution of political

dissidents, and the official designation of the 1989 Movement

has also been changed from ``turmoil and riot'' to

``political disturbance.'' The weakening of the enemy

mentality has paved the way for the regime to gradually

accept the universality of human rights. In [1997 and] 1998

the Chinese government made a commitment to sign two major

United Nations international human rights covenants,\2\

signaling China's acceptance of universal human rights

standards. In 2004, the National People's Congress (NPC)

amended the Constitution, writing into the Constitution for

the first time that ``the state respects and guarantees human

rights,'' signaling that human rights have already become one

of the fundamental principles of China's rule of law. At the

same time, the current regime puts forth the ideas of

``putting people first'' and ``creating a harmonious

society,'' signaling progress in the CPC's concept of rule.

I have also been able to feel this progress on the macro

level through my own personal experience since my arrest.

Although I continue to maintain that I am innocent and that

the charges against me are unconstitutional, during the one

plus year since I have lost my freedom, I have been locked up

at two different locations and gone through four pretrial

police interrogators, three prosecutors, and two judges,

but in handling my case, they have not been disrespectful,

overstepped time limitations, or tried to force a

confession. Their manner has been moderate and reasonable;

moreover, they have often shown goodwill. On June 23, I

was moved from a location where I was kept under

residential surveillance to the Beijing Municipal Public

Security Bureau's No. 1 Detention Center, known as

``Beikan.'' During my six months at Beikan, I saw

improvements in prison management.

In 1996, I spent time at the old Beikan (located at

Banbuqiao). Compared to the old Beikan of more than a decade

ago, the present Beikan is a huge improvement, both in terms

of the ``hardware''--the facilities--and the ``software''--

the management. In particular, the humane management

pioneered by the new Beikan, based on respect for the rights

and integrity of detainees, has brought flexible management

to bear on every aspect of the behavior of the correctional

staff, and has found expression in the ``comforting

broadcasts,'' Repentance magazine, and music before meals, on

waking and at bedtime. This style of management allows

detainees to experience a sense of dignity and warmth, and

stirs their consciousness in maintaining prison order and

opposing the bullies among inmates. Not only has it provided

a humane living environment for detainees, it has also

greatly improved the environment for their litigation to take

place and their state of mind. I've had close contact with

correctional officer Liu Zheng, who has been in charge of me

in my cell, and his respect and care for detainees could be

seen in every detail of his work, permeating his every word

and deed, and giving one a warm feeling. It was perhaps my

good fortune to have gotten to know this sincere, honest,

conscientious, and kind correctional officer during my time

at Beikan.

It is precisely because of such convictions and personal

experience that I firmly believe that China's political

progress will not stop, and I, filled with optimism, look

forward to the advent of a future free China. For there is no

force that can put an end to the human quest for freedom, and

China will in the end become a nation ruled by law, where

human rights reign supreme. I also hope that this sort of

progress can be reflected in this trial as I await the

impartial ruling of the collegial bench--a ruling that will

withstand the test of history.

If I may be permitted to say so, the most fortunate

experience of these past twenty years has been the selfless

love I have received from my wife, Liu Xia. She could not be

present as an observer in court today, but I still want to

say to you, my dear, that I firmly believe your love for me

will remain the same as it has always been. Throughout all

these years that I have lived without freedom, our love was

full of bitterness imposed by outside circumstances, but as I

savor its aftertaste, it remains boundless. I am serving my

sentence in a tangible prison, while you wait in the

intangible prison of the heart. Your love is the sunlight

that leaps over high walls and penetrates the iron bars of my

prison window, stroking every inch of my skin, warming every

cell of my body, allowing me to always keep peace, openness,

and brightness in my heart, and filling every minute of my

time in prison with meaning. My love for you, on the other

hand, is so full of remorse and regret that it at times makes

me stagger under its weight. I am an insensate stone in the

wilderness, whipped by fierce wind and torrential rain, so

cold that no one dares touch me. But my love is solid and

sharp, capable of piercing through any obstacle. Even if I

were crushed into powder, I would still use my ashes to

embrace you.

My dear, with your love I can calmly face my impending

trial, having no regrets about the choices I've made and

optimistically awaiting tomorrow. I look forward to [the day]

when my country is a land with freedom of expression, where

the speech of every citizen will be treated equally well;

where different values, ideas, beliefs, and political views .

. . can both compete with each other and peacefully coexist;

where both majority and minority views will be equally

guaranteed, and where the political views that differ from

those currently in power, in particular, will be fully

respected and protected; where all political views will

spread out under the sun for people to choose from, where

every citizen can state political views without fear, and

where no one can under any circumstances suffer political

persecution for voicing divergent political views. I hope

that I will be the last victim of China's endless literary

inquisitions and that from now on no one will be incriminated

because of speech.

Freedom of expression is the foundation of human rights,

the source of humanity, and the mother of truth. To strangle

freedom of speech is to trample on human rights, stifle

humanity, and suppress truth.

In order to exercise the right to freedom of speech

conferred by the Constitution, one should fulfill the social

responsibility of a Chinese citizen. There is nothing

criminal in anything I have done. [But] if charges are

brought against me because of this, I have no complaints.

Thank you, everyone.

Translator's Notes

1. Writers in China today often refer to indoctrination

with the ideology of class struggle as ``drinking wolf's

milk,'' and the ideology of the Cultural Revolution era as

the ``wolf's milk culture,'' which had turned humans into

wolf-like predatory beasts.

2. China signed the International Covenant on Economic,

Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) in 1997, and ratified it

in 2001. It signed the International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights (ICCPR) in 1998, but has not yet ratified

the covenant.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), who is cochair of the Tom Lantos Congressional Human Rights Commission and a great advocate of human rights all over the world, including and especially in China.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight. He too has been outspoken on behalf of the dissidents in China.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

First of all, I want to thank our distinguished Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, for her very eloquent defense of the human rights defenders in China, especially for Liu Xiaobo. I also wish to thank her for these many decades, in which we have worked side by side, along with Frank Wolf and others, and I thank her for that and for scheduling this resolution to come to the floor today.

I yield 2 minutes to my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Madam Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?

I yield the gentleman from Pennsylvania an additional 30 seconds.

I thank my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, just let me close with a statement of Liu Xiaobo himself. Remember, this was stated at his trial in 2009. He said, in pertinent part: I hope that I will be the last victim of China's endless literary inquisitions and that from now on no one will be incriminated because of speech.

He went on to say: Freedom of expression is the foundation of human rights, the source of humanity, and the mother of truth. To strangle freedom of speech is to trample on human rights, stifle humanity, and suppress truth.

He went on to say: There is nothing criminal in anything I have done. If charges are brought against me because of this, I have no complaints.

Liu Xiaobo had bogus charges leveled against him, and today he endures 11 years in prison. Today, the Congress stands with the oppressed, all of the oppressed in China, but including and especially Liu Xiaobo.

We stand with him and we stand against the oppressor. We are united Democrats, Republicans, liberals, moderates, and conservatives in saying that human rights matter, and we thank the Nobel Peace Prize Committee for naming this outstanding moral leader one of the greatest moral leaders of our time as the 2011 laureate.

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

Mr. Speaker, on December 2, as my good friend and colleague pointed out, the worst fire in Israel's history erupted in the forests in the northern region of the country. The fire spread quickly, killing over 40 Israelis, displacing over more than 17,000 and destroying more than 250 homes. The fire also burned over 4 million trees and over 12,000 acres of forest, resulting in damages totaling almost $55 million.

After Israel had exhausted its resources to fight the fire, it appealed to the United States and other nations to help, and help we did. U.S. C-130 aircraft from the Department of Defense flying from the U.S. European command at Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany delivered 20 tons of fire retardant and 38,000 gallons of fire retardant concentrate.

Furthermore, The U.S. Agency for International Development has provided extensive firefighting supplies, including 27 metric tons of fire retardant and 42 metric tons of firefighting foam.

USAID also dispatched its 10-member disaster assistance response team to Israel, where it's provided technical assistance and discussed lessons learned. And countless individual Americans provided charitable donations to help Israel fight and recover from the fire.

Mr. Speaker, the American people and their government have once again stood with our great friend and ally, Israel, in their time of need, as they have done with us on countless occasions. This is one more example of the rock-solid friendship and alliance between the U.S. and the State of Israel.

Thanks to the hard work and perseverance of the people and the Government of Israel, and thanks to the contributions of the U.S., our State and local governments, and over two dozen other countries, Israel was able to fully contain the fires on December 5. Unfortunately, it will be likely many years for Israel to rehabilitate its damaged forests, which have long been a symbol of Israel and the rebirth of the Jewish State in the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people.

Again, I want to thank my good friend and colleague, Mr. Klein, for this very important resolution for authoring it, and for Mr. King and others for cosponsoring it. It's an excellent resolution. I urge its passage.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 267, congratulating the Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania on the 20th anniversary of their declarations on the restoration of independence from the Soviet Union.

It is hard to believe that two decades have passed since the world witnessed the tremendous events that took place in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. We saw countries in that region emerge from decades of communist brutality to bravely shake off the shackles of Soviet oppression. Those events forever changed the world.

Along with the memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the victory of the trade union Solidarity in the historic election in Poland, of course we recall the inspirational act by 2 million people living in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania who linked hands to form a human chain almost 400 miles long in a peaceful protest against Soviet rule.

After decades of oppressive Soviet occupation, the Baltic peoples remained committed to one day regaining independence and living in freedom. That dream, of course, became a reality in 1991 when the three Baltic nations gained full independence from the Soviet Union. But you know, in those final days leading up to independence, I will never forget being in Vilnius with Steny Hoyer and other members of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. We were there to stand in solidarity with President Landsbergis who was under an ever- present threat that the Black Berets, the Soviet storm troopers, were poised to take over the Parliament building and to take over the executive branch. They killed people at a TV tower. There was actually a gun turret there. There was a tank.

We went up and visited and to pay our respects to the people who had been slain just days before. I will never forget as the gun turret moved in the direction of our delegation, and especially Don Ritter, who was a member of that delegation, who had the audacity to get too close to the tank. That is how much of a hair trigger the Soviet troops had in Vilnius in February 1991.

Again, I want to thank Mr. Hoyer. He and I and others on that delegation--he was the head of that delegation. We were there like Freedom Riders, being there, physically present, to try to chill any attack on President Landsbergis' government.

But it was the people themselves in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, the Baltic States, who took it upon themselves to stand up to the tyranny, and they prevailed, as did the others in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. So we rise to congratulate them and to pay our profound respect for their courage in bringing about democracy to those great nations. They are captive nations no more.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank my good friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I want to rise in strong support of H. Res. 1735, condemning North Korea's unprovoked shelling of the South Korean island of Yeonpyeong on November 23. I want to thank my good friend and colleague Chairman Berman and Ranking Member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen for introducing the resolution. And I, too, like Mr. Poe and others, am very proud to be a cosponsor.

Mr. Speaker, with this resolution, we extend our deep condolences and sympathy to the families of those killed and injured in the attack. It's especially fitting that we as Americans do this since, along with the tremendous sacrifices for freedom made by the people of South Korea, we have lost tens of thousands of Americans in that same cause.

Mr. Speaker, since the shelling of Yeonpyeong Island was an act of aggression committed against an ally, the resolution also rightly affirms our alliance with South Korea, supports further cooperation on security matters, and calls on China to use its influence to restrain North Korea.

Mr. Speaker, it's important to remember that North Korea's aggression toward South Korea has almost been nonstop since 1950. It has taken the form of either full-scale war or, since 1953, sporadic shelling and shooting and skirmishing near the DMZ, or tunnelling under the DMZ, or seizing the Pueblo, an American vessel, in 1968, or kidnapping South Koreans abroad, or torpedoing the Cheonan, a South Korean vessel, in March of this year.

Similarly, since 1950, the North Korean Government has treated its own citizenry with profound disrespect and outright hostility. It makes normal human relations impossible for them by creating a system in which parents and children, friends and relatives are forced to spy and report on each other--an atmosphere of total distrust, total fear, and total social atomization.

It terrorizes them into worshipping the Kims, father and son, as if they were gods. Their personality cult is the only religion permitted in North Korea. Economic life is such madness that, about 10 years ago, as many as 2 million North Koreans starved to death. And within this large gulag that is North Korea, the Kim family has created smaller, more severe gulags, Kwan-li-so prison camps, and sent an estimated 200,000 people to live or, better stated, survive in them. Here we move from the nightmare of everyday life into a veritable hell on Earth, where forced labor, near starvation, rape, and the cruelest forms of torture prevail, and forced abortion and chemical experimentation on inmates is commonplace.

Mr. Speaker, our government must continue to stand in solidarity with all those threatened and terrorized by the monstrous Government of North Korea, and with the residents of Yeonpyeong Island, and with all the people of both South and North Korea. I urge strong support for the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, every American has a duty to respect, honor and support our veterans.

Congress has the responsibility to ensure that the profound respect owed to our veterans is translated into meaningful and tangible action.

For generations, Members on both sides of the aisle have sought world class medical care for wounded and ill veterans, compensation for the service connected disabled, funding for higher education and housing, and programs to rescue and re- enfranchise the homeless.

And as Lincoln said so eloquently, the Federal Government should care for ``his widow and orphan.''

I am the prime sponsor of numerous veterans laws, including the Homeless Veterans Assistance Act, the Veterans Education and Benefits Expansion Act, Veterans Survivor Benefits Improvement Act and numerous health care laws including the Veterans Health Program Improvement Act which, among scores of provisions, made permanent the authority of the Secretary to provide sexual trauma counseling to veterans--especially women.

Women who serve in our nation's Armed Forces deserve special gratitude and recognition in law. As veterans, they face unique challenges that both the Executive and Legislative Branch has and is attempting to address.

In September, the Advisory Committee on Women Veterans made ten recommendations to improve the quality of care provided to women veterans--to help ensure that the services and benefits we provide keep pace with the fastest growing segment of the veterans' population. They stated that we must bulk up the VA's gender-specific workforce and train and equip qualified staff to handle the unique challenges women face when transitioning to civilian life. They confirmed what many of us know and have been working on for years--that homelessness among veterans, and women in particular, is a plague we must work harder to eliminate. Improvements in outreach and childcare services would allow more women to take advantage of the health care, and mental health care in particular, that are available for them.

Today, the House considers a bill to establish a Bill of Rights for women veterans as well as those men and women who have lost limbs to further ensure prompt, comprehensive and effective treatment within the