Floor Statements

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

I rise today in support of H. Res. 1124, acknowledging the month of May as an appropriate month to celebrate National Brain Tumor Awareness Month. I'd like to commend the North American Brain Tumor Coalition for its work and efforts in establishing Brain Tumor Action Week in the beginning of May each year.

In the United States, Mr. Speaker, more than 190,000 people are diagnosed with brain tumors each year. Of those 190,000 Americans diagnosed, 40,000 cases are primary tumors, and the remaining 150,000 cases are secondary tumors, where cancer has spread from another part of the body.

My mother suffered and passed away 11 years ago from a secondary brain tumor that began as lung cancer. The pain and the anguish she suffered, the convulsions, despite a major surgical procedure and anticonvulsant drugs like dilantin, were absolutely heartbreaking.

Anything and everything we can do to mitigate brain tumors must be done. Thus, I'd like to applaud the efforts and advocacy for brain tumor awareness by the Childhood Brain Tumor Foundation, the American Brain Tumor Association, the Brain Tumor Society and the National Brain Tumor Foundation, the Brain Tumor Action Network and the many other groups valuable contributions to combating these brain tumors.

I would especially like to thank the author of the resolution, Ms. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, for her leadership in raising brain tumor awareness and commending the efforts of those groups who have helped educate Americans about the symptoms and the warning signs.

I encourage all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 1022, as amended and presented to the House today. Mr. Speaker, reducing maternal and child mortality and providing quality health care and nutrition to ensure the well-being of both mother and baby here and abroad, has been a top legislative priority for me throughout my 28 years as a Member of Congress.

All loss of life is tragic, especially when it is preventable. When a mother dies, the loss, the heartache is compounded by the deleterious impact on her children, on families and on the community.

As H. Res. 1022 points out, each year, more than a million children are left motherless and, as a consequence, are vulnerable. In many places, young girls are pulled from school and required to fill their lost mother's role in the home, cutting short their abilities to pursue an education.

And the evidence suggests that newborns whose mothers die of any cause are 3 times to 10 times more likely to die within the first 2 years than those whose mothers survive.

What is most unfortunate and thereby, should be unacceptable, is the fact that most maternal deaths are avoidable. With proper prenatal care and maternal health care, sanitary conditions for delivery, and available lifesaving emergency interventions, essential obstetrical services, these lives need not be lost. Even in our own country maternal mortality, although rarer than in the developing world, occurs. No loss of life is acceptable.

Mr. Speaker, hemorrhaging and blood loss are the top cause of maternal mortality and are of grave concern. During an African subcommittee hearing that I chaired during the previous Congress which concerned itself with safe blood, we heard from Dr. Neelam Dhingra, of the World Health Organization. Dr. Dhingra informed us that the most common cause of maternal death in sub-Saharan Africa is severe bleeding, which can take the life of even a healthy woman within 2 hours, if not properly and immediately treated. She gave us the astounding statistic that in Africa, severe bleeding during delivery, or after childbirth, contributes to up to 44 percent of maternal deaths, many of which could be prevented simply through access to safe blood.

Sufficient quantity and quality of immediately available and usable blood must become the norm and not the exception.

And I want to applaud the efforts of Chaka Fattah who has pushed very hard over the years to try to grow the amount, the quality and the quantity of blood in Africa. And USAID is addressing this in a number of programs, including the PEPFAR program.

Women should not die from blood loss, simply due to lack of access to basic interventions like safe blood. Support of this resolution today puts us on record as focusing on these kinds of interventions.

Mr. Speaker, one severe disfiguring disability that occurs in childbirth is obstetric fistula. Fistula can be treated and repaired through a relatively minor surgical procedure that costs, on average, $150 per surgery.

I saw that firsthand, Mr. Speaker, on a trip several years back to Addis Ababa, where there is this famous hospital which has now grown and has satellites, and obviously has inspired other similar hospitals that treat the women who make it to them, and they're the lucky ones. I saw many of the women who were waiting in lines, who were incontinent, who were very sorrowful about their conditions but very hope-filled, knowing it was a matter of when and not if they would get this great surgery.

Still, large numbers of women, an estimated 2 million, endure the tremendous pain and numbing isolation that comes from being the walking wounded, incontinent and ostracized, and not able to get to hospitals like that which is in Addis. With just a small investment of health care dollars, the lives of these women could be dramatically changed.

In 2005, I would just point out, I sponsored an amendment that passed on this floor to allocate $12.5 million dollars to establish 12 centers to provide treatment and surgery that would have allowed thousands of women to be physically cured and emotionally healed from fistula, preventing disease, death, and allowing them to return to normal life.

The amendment authorized funding for preventive measures as well, such as providing skilled birth attendants who can identify an obstructed delivery early and prevent an obstetric fistula from occurring in the fist place. Unfortunately, the underlying legislation made it over to the Senate, but died.

However, I did ask the Bush administration, namely Dr. Kent Hill, USAID Assistant Administrator for Global Health, to initiate administratively a robust fistula program, which I'm happy to say he did wholeheartedly with a great deal of skill and compassion. I am happy to report that from 2004 to 2007, USAID has allocated more than $20 million for fistula prevention and treatment. In 2008 that amount will jump to $30 million, a great start but still not enough.

Nevertheless, more than 3,500 women have had life-changing fistula repair through this program, not to mention the cases prevented through proper obstetric care.

Helping mothers and helping their babies, Mr. Speaker, goes hand in hand. There is no dichotomy. When women receive proper prenatal care they are less likely to die in childbirth, and when unborn babies are healthy in the womb they emerge as healthier, stronger newborns.

I am pleased that the resolution before us today does not endorse in any way whatsoever the cruel ideology that pits women against their babies by suggesting abortion as a means of combating maternal mortality. Women and their babies deserve better than abortion, and their health and well-being is intrinsically linked.

Unfortunately, some abortion activists in recent years have attempted to exploit the tragedy of maternal mortality as a vehicle for their promotion of abortion.

On one trip to Uganda, Mr. Speaker, I met with the head of the Minister of Gender, and we talked about this problem of maternal mortality. And she said, what African women want is essential obstetrical services, not the demise of their unborn babies.

And so I am pleased that the resolution before us does not embrace abortion and, instead, properly links maternal health care and child survival to survival of all children, including the fragile and the vulnerable unborn baby.

Birth is not the beginning of life, Mr. Speaker. It is merely an event in the baby's life that began at the precise moment of fertilization. Life is a continuum with many, many stages. Human rights should be respected from womb to tomb. We need to recognize this biological fact in policy, funding and programming, and treat both mother and baby, unborn baby as well, as two patients in need of respect, love and tangible assistance. We need to affirm them both.

Mr. Speaker, in 1985, I sponsored the Child Survival Fund Amendment that doubled funding to $50 million, and it was adopted into law. The legislation financed global vaccinations, oral rehydration therapy. I think many Members will be a little bit shocked to learn that a leading cause of child death is from diarrheal dehydration and the problems that result from that, while oral rehydration therapy can prevent it simply by getting fluids into that young child. It also focuses on growth monitoring and breast feeding. So I'm happy to say that the resolution also speaks to that issue very, very soundly.

UNICEF recognizes that unborn children and newborn children require care and nurturing, stating, and I quote, ``significant improvement in early neonatal period will depend on essential interventions for the mother and babies before, during and immediately after birth.

According to the latest estimates for 2000 to 2006, at present in the developing world, one-quarter of pregnant women do not receive even a single visit from a skilled health professional, doctor, nurse, or midwife, and only 59 percent of births take place with the assistance of a skilled attendant, and just over half take place in a health facility. That has to be addressed.

And yet the care for the mother and unborn child cannot be restricted to medical conditions and consultations, I should say, as important as they are. For example, in its child survival series, the Lancet identified fetal malnutrition and lower maternal body mass index as likely factors in neo-natal mortality rates and fetal-growth retardation. Just as undernutrition is the underlying cause of a substantial percentage of all child deaths, the mother's nutritional status has a direct bearing on the unborn child's development and the ability to survive, and of course, on her life as well.

While visiting refugee camps in Sudan in the Darfur region, Mr. Speaker, I asked a group of women what is it that they required most, and I asked this at each and every camp, from the Muchar-Kama camp, all of the camps that I visited, they were unanimous. They wanted access to nutritious food so that these nursing mothers could continue to meet the needs of their infants. It was all about the two working together.

If we are to address child and maternal deaths and go even further to ensure the healthy development of the baby through adolescence and the long-term health of the mother, the baby and the mother must be provided adequate nutrition and health care from the earliest stages of life prior to birth.

In sum, the lack of prenatal care, the lack of adequate nutrition during pregnancy, the lack of sterile birthing environments, the lack of clean blood, and the lack of access to essential obstetrical services all contribute to the deaths of women and children. We must do more to save the lives of both, and the Child Survival and Maternal Mortality Initiatives must recognize, embrace, protect, and assist both women and their children, both born and unborn, from all threats including disease, hunger, trauma, and violence.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 369, recognizing May as National Osteoporosis Awareness and Prevention Month.

Osteoporosis is often thought of as an older person's disease, but building strong bones during childhood and adolescence can be the best defense. A healthy lifestyle can lower the chances of having osteoporosis by maintaining a balanced diet rich in calcium and vitamin D. It is important that Americans monitor their bone health to ensure that they are not one of the 1.5 million victims of fractures that occur annually.

Given its influence on the risk of fragility, fracture, osteoporosis may significantly affect the quality of life for those who do not know about early prevention, assessment, diagnoses, and treatment.

I would especially like to thank the author of the resolution, Ms. Shelley Berkley of Nevada, for raising public awareness of osteoporosis. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote in favor of the resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

I thank my good friend for yielding and I rise in very strong support of H. Res. 1181 regarding the heartbreaking situation in Burma. I thank my friend from New York for sponsoring it following the devastating cyclone that hit that country earlier this month.

The United Nations, Mr. Speaker, has suggested that the death toll from the cyclone is likely to number more than 100,000. Many people already living in poverty saw their homes swept away, and some two million survivors are now struggling to stay alive, threatened by disease and starvation. The water is contaminated, medicine is hard to come by, and much of the land in the affected regions is still under water. Bodies of victims are floating in the waters with those of drowned animals. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the victims of this terrible tragedy and to their families.

This body has addressed the plight of the Burmese people many times in the past as they have struggled for the most basic freedoms under the repressive military junta that rules them. It is tragic that a people that has already suffered so much now faces this devastation.

The resolution we are considering expresses support for the Burmese people and confidence that they will overcome the hardships they now face. It calls on Americans to give generously to humanitarian agencies that are addressing the crisis. I am pleased that the U.S. government has pledged more than $16 million in relief for Burmese cyclone victims. And if our relief is allowed to get there, I'm sure that number will skyrocket.

But the military regime has thwarted the efforts of relief agencies and personnel to enter the country and distribute aid. There have been reports that the government has also appropriated supplies, withholding them from the victims.

Our aim here, Mr. Speaker, is not to score points on the Burmese question. My feelings and those of my colleagues are well known. At this point, we all just want to see humanitarian aid get to the people as soon as possible to save lives and mitigate suffering.

Right now paranoia reigns among about Burma's military strongmen, and innocent people, as a result, are dying. But I plead with Burma's leaders to facilitate relief efforts, allow the international community to help. I ask them to heed H. Res. 1181's call to put the welfare of the Burmese people first.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 1166. The international community has affirmed the territorial integrity of the Republic of Georgia many times, and Georgia has sought in good faith a peaceful resolution of the conflicts with its regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The Georgian Government has made generous proposals regarding internationally guaranteed autonomy, political representation, and the constitutional status of the regions.

I am deeply concerned that the Government of Russia has not responded with equal good faith. It has consistently undermined Georgian sovereignty over these regions, for example, by giving people in these regions Russian citizenship, passports, voting rights, and even economic subsidies. The Russian Government has provided leaders, volunteers, and arms to separatist movements in these regions, and threatened to establish ``official ties'' with the Abkhazian and South Ossetian regions. According to reliable reports, the Russian Government has shot down unmanned drones over Georgian territory. It is outrageous for one state to undertake such hostile actions against a neighbor.

Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that the Secretary of State did the right thing when she recently committed the United States to Georgia's territorial integrity and sovereignty, and that the House will reaffirm American support for Georgia and condemn the Russian Government's unjust and destabilizing actions. Over and over again, we have seen how there are always people who are quick to make excuses for the Russian Government's unjust actions toward the small nations on its border--or toward the Russian people themselves. In the communist era, and since 1991, there have always been people who argued that, if we will just look the other way, allowing the Russian Government to do as it likes in some ``sphere of influence,'' the Russian Government will respond by becoming become kinder, gentler, and more peaceful.

The historical record belies this argument. Alexander Solzhenitsyn, President Reagan, Pope John Paul II, Father Gleb Yakunin, the refuseniks in Russia in the 1970s and 1980s, the brave and beleaguered Russian human rights movement today--these people spoke the truth to and about the Russian Government. They have done more to promote peace and justice in the former Soviet Union than all those who argued for silence and compromise. Mr. Speaker, I am glad that this House is today choosing their road. What the Russian Government is doing to undermine Georgia is wrong, it is outrageous, and it must stop.

Madam Speaker, my wife Marie and I were among the thousands who joined President George W. Bush and Laura on the White House lawn today in welcoming Pope Benedict XVI to the United States.

It was among the most inspiring events of my 28 years in Congress.

Both men--extraordinary leaders for extraordinarily difficult times-- spoke eloquently of the challenges, opportunities and duties of global citizenship. Both called us to work harder and more effectively for others, especially the disenfranchised, weak and vulnerable.

President Bush--speaking for us--said to the Pope:

``Here in America you'll find a nation of compassion.

Americans believe that the measure of a free society is how

we treat the weakest and most vulnerable among us. . . . Here

in America you'll find a nation that welcomes the role of

faith in the public square. . . . Here in America, you'll

find a nation that is fully modern, yet guided by ancient and

eternal truths. . . . Most of all, Holy Father, you will find

in America people whose hearts are open to your message of

hope. And America and the world need this message.''

Pope Benedict said ``I come as a friend. a preacher of the Gospel, and one with great respect for this vast pluralistic society . . .''

He said he hoped his presence would he ``a source of renewal and hope.'' He reminded us that ``Freedom is not only a gift, but also a summons to personal responsibility.'' And the Pope urged us to greater action:

``the need for global solidarity is as urgent as ever, if

all people are to live in a way worthy of their dignity--as

brothers and sisters dwelling in the same house and around

that table which God's bounty has set for all his children.

America has traditionally shown herself generous in meeting

immediate human needs, fostering development and offering

relief to the victims of natural catastrophes. I am confident

that this concern for the greater human family will continue

to find expression in support for the patient efforts of

international diplomacy to resolve conflicts and promote

progress. In this way, coming generations will be able to

live in a world where truth, freedom and justice can

flourish--a world where the God-given dignity and the rights

of every man, women and child are cherished, protected and

effectively advanced.

Madam Speaker, what follows are both the President and Pope's remarks in their entirety.

President Bush Welcomes His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI to White House

President Bush: Holy Father, Laura and I are privileged to

have you here at the White House. We welcome you with the

ancient words commended by Saint Augustine: ``Pax Tecum.''

Peace be with you.

You've chosen to visit America on your birthday. Well,

birthdays are traditionally spent with close friends, so our

entire nation is moved and honored that you've decided to

share this special day with us. We wish you much health and

happiness--today and for many years to come.

This is your first trip to the United States since you

ascended to the Chair of Saint Peter. You will visit two of

our greatest cities and meet countless Americans, including

many who have traveled from across the country to see you and

to share in the joy of this visit. Here in America you'll

find a nation of prayer. Each day millions of our citizens

approach our Maker on bended knee, seeking His grace and

giving thanks for the many blessings He bestows upon us.

Millions of Americans have been praying for your visit, and

millions look forward to praying with you this week.

Here in America you'll find a nation of compassion.

Americans believe that the measure of a free society is how

we treat the weakest and most vulnerable among us. So each

day citizens across America answer the universal call to feed

the hungry and comfort the sick and care for the infirm. Each

day across the world the United States is working to

eradicate disease, alleviate poverty, promote peace and bring

the light of hope to places still mired in the darkness of

tyranny and despair.

Here in America you'll find a nation that welcomes the role

of faith in the public square. When our Founders declared our

nation's independence, they rested their case on an appeal to

the ``laws of nature, and of nature's God.'' We believe in

religious liberty. We also believe that a love for freedom

and a common moral law are written into every human heart,

and that these constitute the firm foundation on which any

successful free society must be built.

Here in America. you'll find a nation that is fully modern,

yet guided by ancient and eternal truths, The United States

is the most innovative, creative and dynamic country on

earth--it is also among the most religious. In our nation,

faith and reason coexist in harmony. This is one of our

country's greatest strengths, and one of the reasons that our

land remains a beacon of hope and opportunity for millions

across the world.

Most of all. Holy Father, you will find in America people

whose hearts are open to your message of hope. And America

and the world need this message. In a world where some invoke

the name of God to justify acts of terror and murder and

hate, we need your message that ``God is love.'' And

embracing this love is the surest way to save men from

``falling prey to the teaching of fanaticism and terrorism.''

In a world where some treat life as something to be debased

and discarded, we need your message that all human life is

sacred, and that ``each of us is willed, each of us is

loved'' and your message that ``each of us is willed, each of

us is loved, and each of us is necessary.''

In a world where some no longer believe that we can

distinguish between simple right and wrong, we need your

message to reject this ``dictatorship of relativism,'' and

embrace a culture of justice and truth.

In a world where some see freedom as simply the right to do

as they wish, we need your message that true liberty requires

us to live our freedom not just for ourselves, but ``in a

spirit of mutual support.''

Holy Father, thank you for making this journey to America.

Our nation welcomes you. We appreciate the example you set

for the world, and we ask that you always keep us in your

prayers.

Pope Benedict XVI: Mr. President, thank you for your

gracious words of welcome on behalf of the people of the

United States of America. I deeply appreciate your invitation

to visit this great country. My visit coincides with an

important moment in the life of the Catholic community in

America: the celebration of the 200th anniversary of

elevation of the country's first Diocese--Baltimore--to a

metropolitan Archdiocese and the establishment of the Sees of

New York, Boston, Philadelphia and Louisville.

Yet I am happy to be here as a guest of all Americans. I

come as a friend, a preacher of the Gospel, and one with

great respect for this vast pluralistic society. America's

Catholics have made, and continue to make, an excellent

contribution to the life of their country. As I begin my

visit, I trust that my presence will be a source of renewal

and hope for the Church in the United States, and strengthen

the resolve of Catholics to contribute ever more responsibly

to the life of this nation, of which they are proud to be

citizens.

From the dawn of the Republic, America's quest for freedom

has been guided by the conviction that the principles

governing political and social life are intimately linked to

a moral order based on the dominion of God the Creator. The

framers of this nation's founding documents drew upon this

conviction when they proclaimed the self-evident truth that

all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights

grounded in the laws of nature and of nature's God.

The course of American history demonstrates the

difficulties, the struggles, and the great intellectual and

moral resolve which were demanded to shape a society which

faithfully embodied these noble principles. In that process,

which forged the soul of the nation, religious beliefs were a

constant inspiration and driving force, as for example in the

struggle against slavery and in the civil rights movement. In

our time, too, particularly in moments of crisis, Americans

continue to find their strength in a commitment to this

patrimony of shared ideas and aspirations.

In the next few days, I look forward to meeting not only

with America's Catholic community, but with other Christian

communities and representatives of the many religious

traditions present in this country.

Historically, not only Catholics, but all believers have

found here the freedom to worship God in accordance with the

dictates of their conscience, while at the same time being

accepted as part of a commonwealth in which each individual

group can make its voice heard.

As the nation faces the increasingly complex political and

ethical issues of our time, I am confident that the American

people will find in their religious beliefs a precious source

of insight and an inspiration to pursue reasoned, responsible

and respectful dialogue in the effort to build a more human

and free society.

Freedom is not only a gift, but also a summons to personal

responsibility. Americans know this from experience--almost

every town in this country has its monuments honoring those

who sacrificed their lives in defense of freedom, both at

home and abroad. The preservation of freedom calls for the

cultivation of virtue, self-discipline, sacrifice for the

common good, and a sense of responsibility towards the less

fortunate. It also demands the courage to engage in civic

life and to bring one's deepest beliefs and values to

reasoned public debate.

In a word, freedom is ever new. It is a challenge held out

to each generation, and it must constantly be won over for

the cause of good. Few have understood this as clearly as the

late Pope John Paul II. In reflecting on the spiritual

victory of freedom over totalitarianism in his native Poland

and in Eastern Europe, he reminded us that history shows time

and again that ``in a world without truth, freedom loses its

foundation,'' and a democracy without values can lose its

very soul. Those prophetic words in some sense echo the

conviction of President Washington, expressed in his Farewell

Address, that religion and morality represent ``indispensable

supports'' of political prosperity.

The Church, for her part, wishes to contribute to building

a world ever more worthy of the human person, created in the

image and likeness of God. She is convinced that faith sheds

new light on all things, and that the Gospel reveals the

noble vocation and sublime destiny of every man and woman.

Faith also gives us the strength to respond to our high

calling and to hope that inspires us to work for an ever more

just and fraternal society. Democracy can only flourish, as

your founding fathers realized, when political leaders and

those whom they represent are guided by truth and bring the

wisdom born of firm moral principle to decisions affecting

the life and future of the nation.

For well over a century, the United States of America has

played an important role in the international community. On

Friday, God willing, I will have the honor of addressing the

United Nations organization, where I hope to encourage the

efforts underway to make that institution an ever more

effective voice for the legitimate aspirations of all the

world's peoples.

On this, the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration

of Human Rights, the need for global solidarity is as urgent

as ever, if all people are to live in a way worthy of their

dignity--as brothers and sisters dwelling in the same house

and around that table which God's bounty has set for all his

children. America has traditionally shown herself generous in

meeting immediate human needs, fostering development and

offering relief to the victims of natural catastrophes. I am

confident that this concern for the greater human family will

continue to find expression in support for the patient

efforts of international diplomacy to resolve conflicts and

promote progress. In this way, coming generations will be

able to live in a world where truth, freedom and justice can

flourish--a world where the God-given dignity and the rights

of every man, women and child are cherished, protected and

effectively advanced.

Mr. President, dear friends, as I begin my visit to the

United States, I express once more my gratitude for your

invitation, my joy to be in your midst, and my fervent

prayers that Almighty God will confirm this nation and its

people in the ways of justice, prosperity and peace. God

bless America.

Madam Speaker, the bloody crackdown on innocent, peaceful protesters by Burma's brutal regime last fall shocked the world. Over 30 people were killed, hundreds were injured, and as many as 1,000 people arrested during and after the protests. It was startling even by the standards by which we have come to judge this military regime.

Last week the Congressional Human Rights Caucus welcomed three courageous witnesses to this travesty, U Kovida, U Gawsita, and U Pannyasiri, Burmese Buddhist monks who were beaten and abused by this regime, but have become advocates for their people. I would like to submit their testimonies for the record.

After the initial outrage over the government's actions last fall, I'm afraid that many people moved on, and the plight of the Burmese people has passed again from public consciousness. This is why it was so important for us to hear these distinguished witnesses, peaceful and courageous men who stood up for their people in the face of this violent suppression. By giving them an opportunity to describe what they went through--and what their countrymen and women continue to go through--we can help refocus attention on Burma.

In February, the regime announced that it would hold a national referendum on a new constitution in May 2008. They said that if the constitution were approved, they would hold a ``multi-party election'' in 2010. I, for one, however, have no faith in pronouncements from these thugs that they are ready to end military rule; the closed process of drafting the constitution and the extensive ongoing military role in the proposed system are obvious problems. And, of course, the exclusion of opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi--still locked up under house arrest--is completely unacceptable.

Meanwhile, we search for ways to compel this regime to respect human rights. We in Congress have addressed the issue many times since the 1988 massacres. I have chaired multiple hearings on human rights abuses in Burma and we have addressed the situation through legislation aimed at the regime. Just this fall, I was honored to co-sponsor legislation authored by that great friend of Burma, Chairman Tom Lantos. The Block Burmese JADE act would level new restrictions on the military government.

But the emboldened dictators continue their course of abuse--extra- judicial killings, torture, rape, forced labor, and of course, tight control over speech, the press and assembly.

They are supported by patrons in Beijing, who are happily preparing for the Olympics as they bankroll these thugs to the tune of $2 to $3 billion in military aid since the early 1990s, $200 million of economic aid annually, and billions of dollars in investment and trade.

Congress has discussed the role of the Chinese in Darfur, and recently Madam Speaker, I co-sponsored your timely resolution calling upon the Chinese to end their violent crackdown in Tibet. However, we cannot forget the Chinese role in supporting repression in Burma.

When the world watches the Olympic games from China, I hope at least some of the viewers think of the Burmese political prisoners--perhaps 1,800 of them--suffering in the prisons that the Chinese support. They are enduring what one former prisoner has called the closest thing to hell on earth that he could imagine.

Testimony of U Kovida Before the Congressional Human Rights Caucus,

April 10, 2008

Honorable Congressmen, staff members, Ladies and Gentlemen.

I would like, first of all, to offer my sincere THANKS to

all of you who have given me a chance to share what I have

experienced and those who are here to listen and pay

attention to what I have to say. Secondly, I would like to

thank the President of the United States and the American

people for giving me this opportunity to explain the

predicament and dire situation the people are facing in Burma

on behalf of our leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the

oppressed Burmese.

I am, as you all know, one of the participants during the

so-called ``Saffron-Revolution'' in September 2007. Burma is

infamous for its violation of Basic Human Rights, disrespect

to the freedom of religion, one of the least developed and

poorest countries in the world with the lowest living

standard where the civil war has been going on for the past

50 years.

These are the reasons why we, people of Burma, have wanted

a change in the government system. We have wanted to have a

higher live standard, and live in a better and developed

country. The people in Burma have struggled and fought for

change since 1962. We have struggled and fought to achieve

such change throughout the history and the demonstrations and

protests in 1962, 1974, 1988, 1996, 2003, and 2007 are

significant. But all of our voices, pleas and struggles were

answered by the brutality of the military government which

used weapons, brutal suppressions, torture, and

imprisonments.

The international community witnessed the brutal

suppression of monks who demonstrated peacefully in September

2007. But there have been many incidents of oppressions,

violation and torture that have been going on inside Burma

without anyone knowing for many decades.

What I would like to point out here in the harmless and

helpless Burmese have very high hope and are depending on the

assistance and intervention from the United Nations and the

international community in the past 20 years. Sadly and

unfortunately, there hasn't been any positive effect on the

people of Burma. There were so many decisions by the United

Nations. There were many U.N. representatives who have

visited Burma, but the future looks bleak. We were greatly

discouraged by the fact that the Security Council merely

suggested the military which was killing its own people and

monks, to engage in talks. What I am saying to you now is

exactly what the people of Burma would like to speak out.

Ladies and gentlemen, the people of Burma are not only

suffering from extreme poverty, hardship, substandard in

health care, education and social services but also facing

oppression by the military government on a daily basis. When

monks in Burma understood, realized, and felt the hardship

the people had to go through, we decided to protest

peacefully on behalf of the people. And everyone knows how we

were dealt with. We appreciate that you are trying to oppose

the constitution drafted by the military and its

hand picked representatives. We strongly support your effort

at the UN to reject any referendum and constitutions without

the participation of all people concerned.

Right now the military government is planning to have a

constitutional referendum in May. In many areas in Burma,

people are illegally forced as well as offered financial

incentives to vote. In other areas, people are threatened.

Some of the activists were brutally beaten up by unknown

assailants very recently. The closer the May referendum is,

the more scared and concerned the people are about their

safety and security. Securities have been tightened inside

Rangoon. Police and security forces are deployed on the main

streets of Rangoon.

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to emphasize the fact

that we need help and assistance in order to change the

government system in Burma. We cannot accept the

constitutional referendum and planned general election in

2010 organized by the military government which totally

ignored the results of people's voices in 1990 general

election, and whose sole aim is to prolong and ensure the

military influence in Burma politics for many more years to

come. We strongly urge you to reject any effort by the

military government to legitimize itself.

In conclusion, I would like to thank once again the

international community, governments and administrations,

respected congressmen as well as the people who love

democracy and who are supporting our course. I thank the

Refugee International to facilitate my appearance here at the

Congress.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the coauthor of this resolution who recently returned from Dharamsala, where he met with the Dalai Lama.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, an esteemed member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (Mr. Poe).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter).

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

First of all, I want to thank Speaker Pelosi for introducing this very important resolution of which I am very proud to be one of the cosponsors, and especially for the trip, along with other Members of the House, that you led to India to be at the side of His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, in this hour of terrible suffering for the Tibetan people.

Madam Speaker, tonight we are here to speak frankly about what the Chinese Government is doing in Tibet. Last week, Lodi Gyari, His Holiness' Special Envoy, told me and others on the Congressional Human Rights Caucus that Tibet has ``become, particularly in the last few weeks, in every sense an occupied nation, brutally occupied by armed forces.''

Madam Speaker, despite the fact that there is an extensive news blackout, the grim consequences have gotten out.

Chinese soldiers and police have shot large numbers of people. The death toll is now well over 150. We don't have any idea how many have been wounded, how many are right now lying, wounded or dying, in attics and cellars, because they know that if they go to the hospital, they will simply disappear into the Chinese Laogai.

The Chinese Government has been subjecting Tibetans to mass arrests. They have searched whole sections of cities, house by house. Chinese officials admit to nearly 2,000 arrests. The China Commission estimates that there are at least 1,000 more. Frankly, I wonder if there might be thousands more, since there are large areas of Tibet from which nothing has been heard in weeks, where phone lines and cell towers and e-mail have been simply turned off.

Many thousands of monks are now being held under house arrest or in lockdown. Chinese riot police have surrounded some Buddhist monasteries and are letting no one get in and no one get out. Many have been tortured. I would remind my colleagues that we are seeing now, in a massive way, what has been ongoing and pervasive for decades.

I chaired a hearing in 1995, Madam Speaker. We heard from six survivors of the Laogai. One of those was Palden Gyatso, a Tibetan monk who spent 24 years in prison. When we invited him to come and speak, he brought with him some instruments of torture that are routinely employed and used in a horrific manner against men and women in the Chinese concentration camps. He told us that many people die of starvation. But when he brought those instruments, he couldn't even get past our Capitol Police. They stopped him. We had to come down and get him through.

Then, when he held up those batons that are used in the mouth and elsewhere in order to provide electric shocks, he actually broke down. He held it up and he said, ``This is what went into my mouth as a Buddhist monk and into the mouths of many other people to shock and to deface,'' and he has trouble swallowing to this day.

He talked about these self-tightening handcuffs, and held up his wrists and showed us the marks on his body, not just on his wrists, but elsewhere. He talked about piercing with bayonets. And this is routine. I would encourage Members to realize what goes on each and every day, but now in a more pronounced way, in a more massive way, against the people of Tibet, through the use of torture.

The Chinese Government, Madam Speaker, what they are doing right now is exactly what happened in some of the parts of the world ruled from the Communists. Who can forget the Soviet invasion of Hungary, which was still felt on the streets of Budapest in the 1980s, even though that happened

back in 1956. Tibet is now a cruel place, not the people, but the Chinese imposition of their crackdown.

Madam Speaker, it should be noted and emphasized that the Tibetan people have not provoked the government into this newest wave of repression. It is the Chinese Government that has provoked the Tibetan people to protest, a protest that, perhaps because of the Buddhist emphasis on peace, has been overwhelmingly peaceful.

As we all know, Tibet has been subjected to Chinese Communist tyranny since 1951. Since 1959, the Chinese Government is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Tibetans--and that is a low estimate. The current number of Tibetans living in China is now about 5.4 million people.

I think Members should realize too that there has also been--and the Dalai Lama speaks about this when he speaks about his Five Points of Engagement--this population transfer, where the entire culture is being replaced by a Han Chinese culture. They are getting very good jobs. The incentive has been given them by the Chinese Government, in order to marginalize and decrease the Tibetan people, to make them more of a minority in their own land. What we are talking about here is nothing less than a planned destruction of a culture that has now gone to new lows with this recent crackdown.

In fact, the Chinese Government's attitude toward Tibet can be seen in these two insults by Zhang Qingli, the Secretary of the Chinese Party of the Tibet Autonomous Region, who offered to the people these words. He said, ``The Communist Party is like the parent to the Tibetan people, and it is always considerate about what the children need.'' We are talking about a very abusive parent here. He also said, ``The Central Party Committee is the real Buddha for Tibetans.'' What a sacrilege! What a sacrilege! What a violation of fundamental human rights.

I will say only a couple words about the Olympics, Madam Speaker. The IOC made a great mistake in allowing China to host the Olympics. Who can forget when they were vying for the 2000 Olympics and they let Wei Jingsheng out. Speaker Pelosi knows him very well. I met him in Beijing when he was let out, very briefly. As soon as they didn't get the Olympics, they rearrested him and beat him and tortured him. They finally let him out because he was close to death. But then the IOC awarded the Olympic venue to Beijing several years later.

They shouldn't be held in a nation that cracks down on all kinds of political dissent and has a system of coercion where brothers and sisters are illegal as part of its one-child-per-couple policy, its forced abortion policy, and also a country that is responsible for killing so many Africans. The most recent is happening in Darfur. This really is, as my colleague Ms. Lee said earlier, the ``genocide Olympics.''

That repression and those killing fields are ongoing today in Darfur. As we all know, some 4 million people died in Southern Sudan even before that, and it was the Chinese who enabled those killing fields as well.

Finally, let me just say briefly to my colleagues that there are American companies who may be supporting this tyranny. I am afraid some of them are doing that, playing smaller or larger roles in the crushing of Tibet, working with the Chinese Internet Surveillance Bureau to block Web sites and blocking and tracking down Tibetans who send Internet reports of arrests and massacres.

The New York Times has reported that the Chinese Government is indeed, and not unexpectedly, blocking Web sites to prevent uncensored news from reaching the Chinese people, including the Web sites of CNN, BBC, YouTube, Google and Yahoo.

The Times has also reported that the Chinese Internet Surveillance Bureau has warned Tibetans about sharing factual news about the protests. They have said, and I quote them, this is the Chinese Bureau, ``We inform Internet users that it is forbidden to post news about Tibet events . . . The Internet Surveillance Bureau will carry out filtering and censorship . . . Anyone infringing this ban will have their IP addresses sent to the police, who will then take the necessary steps.'' That means, Madam Speaker, arrests; that means, Madam Speaker, torture of those who simply try to share the truth as to what is going on in Tibet.

Who can forget Shi Tao, the journalist who got 10 years simply for sending information to an NGO in New York about what the Chinese Bureau of Propaganda had told them they could not do with regard to the Tiananmen Square massacre? Now it is going on in Tibet, and the ugly cycle continues.

As I think Members know, the Global Online Freedom Act legislation, which is pending and hopefully will come to the floor, would finally give us a full and thorough accounting as to this complicity, whether it be witting or unwitting, on the part of these Internet companies, so that we are not part of this tyrannical regime that is now so brutally suppressing, murdering and torturing Tibetan people and putting so many monks into prison, rather than letting them be in their monasteries, where they want to practice their faith.

Madam Speaker, this is an excellent resolution you have brought to the floor. I congratulate you. This is bipartisanship, I believe, at its best. We are all in support of the Dalai Lama. You have led on this for so many years, and are doing so now as Speaker, and I hope we get very strong support for this, on behalf of the Tibetan people and on behalf of the Dalai Lama.

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

Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008, an admittedly long, but appropriate title for a bill that is long on substance, meaningful intervention, tangible compassion, and relief.

Aptly named for two of the giants of this institution who helped shepherd President George W. Bush's PEPFAR initiative through the Congress in 2003, H.R. 5501 will literally mean the difference between life and death to millions, especially in sub-Saharan Africa.

The bill before us today is consensus legislation, a delicate balance that if kept intact, and only if kept intact, will be signed into law. So I want to thank Chairman Berman and Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen and other Members and staff for helping to forge today's PEPFAR consensus. I want to especially thank Sheri Rickert, Mary Noonan, Autumn Fredericks, Yleem Poblete, Peter Yeo, Pearl Alice Marsh, Dr. Bob King, Kristin Wells, and David Abramowitz for their extraordinary work in drafting this legislation.

Madam Chairman, as Members know, close to 70 percent of the estimated 33 million people with HIV live in sub-Saharan Africa. Of the 2.5 million children afflicted with this dreaded disease, 90 percent live in Africa as well.

When combined with opportunistic infections like tuberculosis--the number one killer of individuals with HIV--and malaria alone kills one million each year, again mostly in Africa--the HIV/AIDS pandemic compares among humanity's worst. Former Chairman Hyde frequently compared the sickness to the bubonic plague--the black death--an epidemic that claimed the lives of over 25 million people in Europe during the mid-1300s.

I know some Members are likely to wince at the cost of the bill--$50 billion over 5 years for PEPFAR, the Global Fund, Tuberculosis, and Malaria--but that sum of money will be used to prevent 12 million new HIV infections worldwide, and support treatment for 3 million people, including an estimated 450,000 children. That sum of money will provide care to 12 million individuals with HIV/AIDS, including 5 million orphans and vulnerable children, and will help train and deploy at least 140,000 new health care professionals and workers for HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment and care.

On the prevention side, the legislation requires that the Global AIDS Coordinator provide balanced funding for sexual transmission prevention including abstinence, delay of sexual debut, monogamy, fidelity, and partner reduction. If less than 50 percent of the sexual transmission prevention moneys are spent on the Abstinence and the Be Faithful parts of the ABC model, the coordinator must provide a written justification. I note that currently, the coordinator exercises waiver authority in this regard without notifying Congress so this language ensures greater transparency and accountability.

Five years, Madam Chairman, after PEPFAR first began, the efficacy and importance of promoting abstinence and be faithful initiatives have been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt, and the evidence is compelling.

According to joint comments by the U.S. Department of State, USAID, and

HHS on PEPFAR, ``Congressional directives have helped focus U.S. Government prevention strategies to be evidence based. Because of the data, ABC is now recognized as the most effective strategy to prevent HIV in generalized epidemics.

The original legislation's emphasis on AB activities has been an important factor in the fundamental and needed shift in U.S. government prevention strategies from a primarily ``C'' approach prior to PEPFAR to a balanced ABC strategy. The Emergency Plan developed a more holistic and equitable strategy, one that reflects the growing body of data that validates ABC behavioral change.

The U.S. government report goes on to say that recent data from Zimbabwe and Kenya mirrors the earlier successes of Uganda's ABC approach to preventing HIV. These three countries, with what is known as ``generalized epidemics,'' have demonstrated reductions in HIV prevalence. And in each country, the data point to significant AB, abstinence, be faithful; behavioral change; and modest, but important, changes to C.

So, I want to thank Mr. Pitts for writing the original AB earmark into the original law because it has instructed and has had a tremendously positive impact.

I would note to my colleagues that this past September the Foreign Affairs Committee heard from a world renowned expert, Dr. Norman Hearst, who said that 5 years ago he had been commissioned by U.N. AIDS to conduct a technical review of how well condoms had worked for AIDS prevention in the developing world. And he said, and I quote in part, ``my associates and I collected mountains of data, and here is what we found: When we looked for evidence of public health impact for condoms in generalized epidemics, to our surprise we couldn't find anything. No generalized HIV epidemic has ever been rolled back by a prevention strategy primarily based on condoms. Instead, a few successes in turning around generalized epidemics, such as Uganda, were achieved not through condoms, but by getting people to change their sexual behavior.''

He goes on to say that these are not just our conclusions. A recent consensus statement in the Lancet was endorsed by 150 AIDS experts, including Nobel Laureates, the President of Uganda, and officials of the most prominent international AIDS organizations. And it said, ``the priority for adults should be, B, limiting one's partners. The priority for young people should be A, not starting sexual activity too soon.'' And this contrasted with other funders that often officially endorse ABC, but in practice continue to put their money in the same old strategies that have been unsuccessful in Africa for the past 15 years.

A Washington Post article by Craig Timberg noted that ``men and women in Botswana continued to contract HIV faster than almost anyone else on Earth. Researchers increasingly attribute the resilience of HIV in Botswana, and in southern Africa generally, to the high incidence of multiple sexual relationships.''

``Researchers increasingly agree,'' and please, I ask my colleagues to take note of this, ``that curbing behavior is key to slowing the spread of AIDS in Africa.'' In a July report, southern African AIDS experts said that reducing multiple and concurrent partnerships was their first priority for stopping the spread.

Thank you.

Madam Chairman, the legislation before us also leaves intact the anti-prostitution/sex tracking pledge, a policy designed to ensure that pimps and brothel owners don't become, via an NGO that supports such exploitation, U.S. government partners.

Last February, the U.S. Government Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the prostitution pledge and said, in pertinent part, ``In this case, the government's objective is to eradicate HIV/AIDS. One of the means of accomplishing this objective is for the U.S. to speak out against legalizing prostitution in other countries.''

The Court of Appeals goes on to say, ``it would make little sense for the government to provide billions of dollars to encourage the reduction of HIV/AIDS behavioral risks, including prostitution and sex trafficking, and yet to engage as partners in this effort organizations that are neutral towards or even actively promote the same practices sought to be eradicated.''

Finally, we've come a long way, Madam Chairman, since 2003, when significant opposition materialized against an amendment that I had offered to ensure that faith-based providers, and others, are not excluded from participation. Worldwide, but especially in Africa, faith-based organizations are absolutely critical in the fight against AIDS. So, we welcome and are deeply grateful for their support and their work.

The conscience clause in H.R. 5501 restates, improves, and expands conscience protection in a way that ensures that organizations like the Catholic Relief Services, with its 250 plus projects in 52 countries, which has had a remarkable record on HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment and care, are not discriminated against or in any way precluded from receiving public funds.

Madam Chairman, this bill is carefully crafted, and again, I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for the enormous amount of work that has been poured into its creation.

I thank my good friend for yielding.

Madam Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Berman.

I would note there are two versions of the committee report for H.R. 5501 designated as part 1 and part 2. I wish to clarify that the definitive version that applies for purposes of the legislative history of this bill is part 2.

Is that the understanding of the chairman?

I thank the Chair for that clarification.

I do rise in opposition to this motion to recommit with great respect to my friend from Wisconsin.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my good friend and colleague from Florida for her yielding and for her very eloquent remarks, and for all of the fine statements that have been made on behalf of Chairman Tom Lantos.

Madam Speaker, as I think we all know, Chairman Lantos was one of the most gifted, articulate, smart, persuasive, and compassionate, and, I would add, courageous Members of Congress ever to serve. Over the years, I, like so many other colleagues here in this Chamber, got to know and deeply respect and honor this great man. We traded places as chairman and ranking member of the International Human Rights Subcommittee and worked seamlessly on North Korea, Sudan, human trafficking, child labor, Jewish Refusniks, and China, just to name a few of the very difficult issues that were confronted.

In the 1980s, Mr. Lantos played a significant role in dismantling atheistic communism in Eastern Europe, including his native Hungary, as well as in the Soviet Union.

A Holocaust survivor, Tom Lantos had a special, well-focused empathy for those who suffered torture, degrading, or inhumane treatment. He was especially vocal and determined when it came to liberating political prisoners, and was a champion on behalf of the Dalai Lama and Burma's Aung San Suu Kyi.

Tom Lantos was bold and he was incisive with both friend and foe alike, more often I am happy to say with the latter. In confronting dictatorship, he refused to allow the banalities and excessive niceties of modern-day diplomacy to obscure his clear and compelling message concerning freedom, democracy, and human rights.

On the issue of anti-Semitism, he had no equal. In the days immediately prior to the infamous September 11 attacks on America, Tom Lantos brilliantly defended both the United States and Israel at the U.N. racism conference held in Durban, South Africa, a

world conference that deteriorated into an anti-Semitic hatefest. His insights and recommendations are of particular importance and relevance as the United Nations gears up for what is likely to be Durban II.

He wrote at the time, ``For me, having experienced the horrors of the Holocaust firsthand, this was the most sickening and unabashed display of hate for Jews I have seen since the Nazi period.''

He went on, however, in a positive vein to say, ``The U.S. must urge friendly Middle Eastern countries to recognize the link between hate- mongering and violence. Arab states, meanwhile, need to look deeply within themselves, analyze their missteps, cease the inflammatory lies, and embrace the path of openness and political reform, realizing their citizens' positive energy.''

He went on to say, ``We cannot defeat terrorism if our coalition partners continue to peddle the hate that breeds it.

``The Cold War ended with the collapse of international communism, but in the resulting vacuum, radical forces bent on spreading fundamentalist ideologies have arisen, propelled by the very globalization developments they often sustain. The U.N. World Conference on Racism provided the world with a glimpse into the abyss of international hate, discrimination, and indeed, racism. The terrorist attacks on September 11 demonstrated the evil such hate can spawn. If we are to prevail in our war against terrorism, we must take to heart the lessons of Durban.''

Vintage Tom Lantos, and as always, a man who was almost like a prophet, speaking boldly, incisively, and with great clarity. Finally, I want to say, Madam Speaker, that my wife, Marie, and I will deeply miss our dear friend Tom Lantos, and our prayers are with and for Annette and his family at this most difficult period of time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 283, addressing the current crisis in Kenya. I, like much of the world, was shocked by the violence that followed the December 27 elections in Kenya, a country that has proven to be a great friend and ally of the United States over the years.

My heart and my condolences, as well as that of every Member of this Chamber, go out to the victims of this violence and their families, some 1,000 people who have been killed since that fateful election day.

There have been shocking events that few of us expected to see in Kenya, protesters shot by police, gangs with machetes butchering innocents, a crowd of people, including women and children, burned alive in a church. Two opposition parliamentarians, as Mr. Payne just pointed out, have been gunned down since the violence began. Now some 300,000 people have fled their homes, have fled their neighbors, and remain displaced. They are virtual refugees within their own country. Aid workers tell us that about 80,000 of these internally displaced people are children under the age of 5.

The priority for everyone has to be to stop the violence and to end the killing. In addition, we must examine the context in which the violence erupted in the first place.

The broad strokes of what happened during and after the December 27 elections are now well known. Millions of Kenyans voted that day in the country's fourth multiparty elections and it is a testament to the Kenyan people that some 14.2 million people, 82 percent of all eligible voters, were registered to vote. I won't recite the polling numbers or give an autopsy of the election, but suffice it to say that at some point the system went terribly wrong.

The European Union said the elections were ``marred by a lack of transparency which raised concerns about the accuracy and final results of this election.'' Election observers from the East African community also raised serious concerns about the elections, and eventually the United States, too, asserted that ``serious flaws in the vote tallying damaged the credibility of the process.''

I want to commend my friend and colleague, Chairman Payne, for his leadership on this issue. I joined him to cosponsor this resolution, which calls for an end to the violence and an end to restrictions on the media. It condemns threats to human rights activists and others who are working for a peaceful solution to this crisis. It calls on President Kibaki and the challenger, Mr. Odinga, to work together for a mediated solution to this crisis.

The U.S. must do all that it can to encourage them to move in this direction. The resolution emphasizes our hope that this dialogue will lead to an establishment of an interim or coalition government that can enact constitutional reform and establish a mechanism to investigate this crisis.

Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support and backing for H. Con. Res. 283.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Again, I want to thank Chairman Payne for his great leadership on this issue. We work very well together on that committee.

Mr. Speaker, this was very important, and it is very important that we get a very strong vote by the House on behalf of the Payne resolution. We need to send a clear message to Kenya that we are watching, that we care deeply about what is unfolding there, and that we stand in solidarity there with those who have lost loved ones, with the IDPs and others.

We want a robust democracy in Kenya because they want a robust democracy in Kenya. The people deserve it. We thought they had it to some extent.

I think the chairman's mention of Ethiopia was a very important one. We thought Ethiopia was moving in the right direction. An election was held. It was seriously marred with irregularities, and then a series of killings followed thereafter. That's still a very unsettled part of the world as well. Again, I want to thank the chairman for his important resolution.

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

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman on his authorship of this fine resolution. I rise today to express my support for the resolution honoring the upcoming inauguration of Mr. Lee Myung-Bak as 17th President of the Republic of Korea.

South Korea's rise from the ashes of war and subsequent evolution as a vibrant and prosperous democracy is truly one of the miracles of the second half of the 20th century.

I believe that our Korean war veterans, who sacrificed so much and fought so valiantly, and all of the American people, can take great pride in the assistance that we provided for that remarkable evolution.

Today, the bright lights in the night sky on the southern half of the Korean peninsula stand in marked contrast to the shadow of darkness that enfolds North Korea. North Korea is a tragic failed state and is one of the great losers of the Cold War; yet its starving yearn to breathe free and share in the prosperity of South Korea.

The peaceful, democratic reunification of North Koreans with their southern brothers is a noble endeavor to which we should give our full and unflinching support.

Mr. Lee's inauguration comes at a time when we have reached a crossroads on the Korean peninsula.

North Korea must decide whether to completely and unconditionally renounce its nuclear weapons program and finally join the family of nations. Its alternative is to slip slowly into the abyss as a dynamic South Korea leaves it farther and farther behind.

The fact that President Lee has given a firm indication that he wishes to work together with the United States and our allies as a team to resolve the North Korean nuclear crisis is welcome news indeed. Mr. Lee has also said that it is his priority to strengthen an alliance which was forged in the crucible of the Korean War.

From the dark days of the Pusan perimeter to the brilliant Inchon landing, American, Allied, and South Korean troops all fought together in the drive to victory with the liberation of Seoul. This is in part the shared history of our two countries which has linked us in a common destiny.

I would especially like to commend President Lee for raising the long-forgotten issue of the old soldiers of South Korea, left behind as POWs in the North and held against their will for over 50 years since the signing of the armistice. I would also like to note with extreme sadness that more than 8,000 U.S. servicemen remain missing in action from that conflict.

Finally, the alliance and friendship between the Republic of Korea and the United States have been promoted and deepened by the many contributions of our own vibrant Korean American community. While ever mindful of the old country from which they came, Korean Americans have stepped forward in innumerable ways, in science, medicine, religion, business, education, music, athletics, and culture, to make invaluable contributions to the United States.

In saluting President-elect Lee and the strength of our alliance, we also honor those Korean Americans who have ensured that the links between our two countries are truly the ties that bind.

So, President-elect Lee, we wish you and your country Godspeed as you approach your inauguration on February 25.

Mr. Speaker, today, 35 years after the infamous Supreme Court decisions legalizing abortion on demand throughout pregnancy, we mourn the estimated 50 million innocent girls and boys whose lives were cut off by abortion, a staggering loss of children's lives, equal to six times the total number of all people, young and old, living in my home State of New Jersey.

Someday, Mr. Speaker, future generations of Americans will look back on us and wonder how and why such a rich and seemingly enlightened society, so blessed and endowed with the capacity to protect and enhance vulnerable human life, could have instead so aggressively promoted death to children and the exploitation of women by abortion. They will note with keen sadness that some of our most prominent politicians and media icons often spoke of human and civil rights, while precluding virtually all protection to the most persecuted minority in the world today: unborn children.

On Sunday, Senator Barak Obama criticized Americans for both our moral deficit and what he called our ``empathy deficit'' and called upon us to be our brothers' and sisters' keepers.

Can Senator Obama not see, appreciate or understand that the abortion culture that he and others so assiduously promote lacks all empathy for unborn children, be they black, white, Latino or Asian, and is at best profoundly misguided when it comes to their mothers? Why does dismembering a child with sharp knives, pulverizing a child with powerful suction devices more powerful than 20 to 30 times the average cleaning machine, vacuum machine, or chemically poisoning a baby with any number of toxic chemicals fail to elicit so much as a scintilla of empathy, moral outrage, mercy or compassion by America's liberal elite?

Abortion destroys the very life of our ``brothers and sisters,'' and the proabortion movement is the quintessential example of an ``empathy deficit.''

Mr. Speaker, we need to be blunt. Abortion is violence against children. It is extreme child abuse. To strip away the euphemism, it is cruelty to children. Sadly, abortion is not only legal until birth, but the daily perpetrators of this terrible injustice are massively subsidized by liberal politicians who enrich the abortion industry with taxpayer funds.

In 2008, the largest abortion provider in the Nation, Planned Parenthood, continued to receive huge amounts of taxpayer funds. Some time ago on the floor, Mr. Speaker, I asked Americans, I asked my colleagues, and suggested it was time to take a second look at Planned Parenthood, ``Child Abuse, Incorporated.'' Every year they abort over 265,000 children in their clinics, a huge and staggering, stunning number of child deaths. And yet they get massive amounts of Federal funds and local funds.

Mr. Speaker, there are at least two victims in every abortion. It is time to recognize and accept the inconvenient truth that abortion exploits women.

Dr. Alveda King, niece of the late Dr. Martin Luther King, has had two abortions. Today she has joined the growing coalition of women who deeply regret their abortions and are part of a group called Silent No More. Out of deep personal pain and compassion for others, they challenge us to respect, protect and tangibly love both 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. And to society at large, these brave women compel us to rethink and reassess the chief sophistry of the abortion culture. Reflecting on their famous uncle's speech, the ``I Have a Dream'' speech, Dr. Alveda King asks us, ``How can the `Dream' survive if we murder the children?''

Finally, 35 years after Roe, the pro-life ranks today have swelled with abortion survivors, women who tell their stories with great bravery and candor. I remember hearing a woman right outside of the Supreme Court who, while she was actually getting the abortion, said to the doctor, she was only partially sedated, said, ``It is trying to move.'' She said she wanted to get up off of that table and run out the door, and the nurses practically screamed at her and said, ``It is too late. The abortion is already underway.'' So many others who have actually seen the child after being aborted, very often they whisk the baby away so that there is no contact made, who then tell the story of the nightmares. Again, the Silent No More campaign helps these women reconnect and find reconciliation and hope for their shattered lives.

Today, at the March for Life, the ranks of the pro-life movement was filled with young people. I have gone to that march each year for 35 years. I have never seen more young people speaking out passionately, all ethnicities represented, young boys and young girls, teenagers and young adults, who say we are going to be, and are, the pro-life generation. And they have certainly reason to react that way. Every third member of their generation has died from abortion.

Mr. Speaker, finally, I hope this Congress takes a long and hard second look at the glib euphemisms that are used to promote abortion, the marketing strategies, the polls that have driven this terrible issue forward, and strip it all away. Look at the deed itself: chemical poisoning, dismemberment, partial-birth abortion awakened at least some Members to the cruelty of abortion. Connect the dots. Every method is an act of violence. And again, there are two victims in every abortion, mother and child.

I truly believe that united in prayer, united in fasting, and with a lot of hard work, just like the abolitionists of old, who said that you cannot discount the humanity of people because of the color of their skin, well, the dependency or the immaturity of a child also should not become a disqualifier. America's dark night of child slaughter will some day, and some day soon, Mr. Speaker, come to an end.

I yield back to Mr. Franks and thank him for his extraordinary leadership on this human rights issue.

Mr. Speaker, like so many of my colleagues, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 4286, to award a Congressional Gold Medal to that heroine of the Burmese people and the world, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.

It is fitting for Ms. Suu Kyi to receive this, the highest and most distinguished civilian award we have to offer. She is a courageous leader, a former Nobel Peace Prize recipient who has spent 12 of the past 18 years behind bars. For what? For daring to advocate for a peaceful, democratic system for Burma, instead of violent, military rule.

The military refuses to recognize the will of the Burmese people-- made exceedingly clear in past elections, and most recently in the demonstrations we all saw this Fall. The people plead for human rights and an end to the junta's power. Instead, these thugs have cracked down even harder with their customary persecution and bloodshed.

The Congressional Medal of Honor was originally awarded to military leaders for achievement in battle. Ms. Suu Kyi and the Burmese people are currently waging their own battle--a peaceful one--based on democratic ideals that all Americans share with them. Let's honor Ms. Suu Kyi for this peaceful struggle, and send a message to her brutal captors and to the world, that we stand with her and her people.

I thank my good friend for yielding. I am pleased to join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in supporting S. 2271, the Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007, which will make yet another contribution and another effort at ending this horrific genocide in Darfur that according to the United Nations as resulted in the deaths of over 200,000 people, while others put the death toll as high as 450,000 with about 2.5 million people displaced. Like many of my colleagues, I have visited Darfur. I have been to Mukjar and Kalma camp.

And I have actually had a face-to-face with General Bashir, the President, the dictator in Khartoum, pushing for peace, pushing for an end to this slaughter. And I have seen firsthand, like many of my colleagues, the unspeakable agony and the devastation, whole families exterminated, entire villages killed, women raped. It is beyond words how much sufferings has been endured--you can see it on the survivors' faces. I would also point out to my colleagues that the United States has not been lax. or underengaged. Can we do more, you bet. Nevertheless USAID, the U.S. Department of State and President Bush himself, our special envoy Andrew Natsios have been very robust in their efforts to try to mitigate the suffering and hopefully to this crisis as well.

The Bush administration took the lead at the U.N.; I would remind my colleagues, in arguing for deployment of a peacekeep force which yielded fruit on July 31 with the authorization of a United Nations- African Union hybrid peacekeeping force that hopefully will begin to get some significant deployment beginning on January 1 to replace the AU force of about 7,000. About 20,000 military, 6,000 police, will form the core of that force; and the sooner they get in there to protect, the better.

Let me also point out to my colleagues that on May 29, 2007, the President ordered the U.S. Treasury to block the assets of three Sudanese individuals involved in the violence and to sanction 31 companies owned and controlled by the Government of Sudan. This legislation builds on this bipartisan effort to say, enough is enough. As Ms. Lee said a moment ago, we looked askance when the Rwandan genocode accrued--killing by the Hutus of the Tutsis and it was Bill Clinton who did apologize, and the Secretary of the United Nations Kofi Annan also had to apologize because we sat idly by and did nothing even though General Dallaire gave us a clear and compelling heads-up, he was, you will recall, the U.N. peacekeeping leader at the time in Rwanda, and we did nothing.

And we also did nothing for years in the Balkans, another genocide that killed innocent people in Bosnia and Croatia. Hopefully, we have learned from that. As a matter of fact, one of the AU peacekeepers that I had met with, who served in Sarajevo and was also serving in Darfur, saw the parallels of nonaction and was very much concerned that it was deja vu all over again. Hopefully, this legislation pushes the ball further down the court so we can protect innocent lives.

As my colleagues know, the bill today prohibits the U.S. Government from entering into or renewing any contract for the procurement of goods and services with any company conducting business operations in Sudan, directs the Security and Exchange Commission to require that all companies trading securities that directly or through a parent or a subsidiary company conducting business in Sudan must disclose the nature of their business operations in Sudan and does some very other important things.

Let me point out to my colleagues, too, that just last week, the Human Rights Council, which was supposed to replace the egregiously flawed Human Rights Commission, has now disbanded a very important working group of experts that had chronicled compelling evidence and testimony about the genocide. The U.N. failed to renew the group's mandate and just did away with it under pressure. The Council continued their special rapporteurs mandate, but they got rid of this very important working group.

I thank Mr. Bachus for yielding further, Mr. Speaker. I just want to read one witness's comment regarding the Human Rights Council, He testified and said: ``We, the victims of Darfur, were hoping so much that this new Human Rights Council would give us a voice and make a difference in our lives. Yet the genocide continues. Time is running out. We need action. Our humanitarian situation is critical. Our security situation worsens every day. The janjaweed are killing and raping us. The innocent civilians of Darfur are in desperate need of protection. We need action, and we need it now.''

Finally, I call on each Member to support this bill--this has to be a strong bipartisan vote. You know, we are often criticized for the excessive partisanship of this Congress which is largely true. This is one area where we can close ranks and do what is right on behalf of a very, very much-suffering people. I thank my friend for yielding that extra time.