Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 233) recognizing the 60th Anniversary of Victory in Europe (V-E) Day During World War II, as amended.

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

H. Res. 233, Madam Speaker, as the Clerk just pointed out, is a resolution that recognizes the 60th anniversary of victory in Europe during World War II.

This resolution, Madam Speaker, reiterates a simple but powerful message that our Nation honors and deeply appreciates the men and women who served in the European Theatre during World War II and that we especially remember and pay tribute to those Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice for our country.

Madam Speaker, 60 years ago, at General Eisenhower's headquarters in Reims, France, a representative of the German high command unconditionally surrendered all land, air, and sea forces to the allies ending the war in Europe.

General Eisenhower, in his order of the day to the troops on May 8, 1945, V-E Day, declared, and I quote him in part: ``The crusade on which we embarked in early summer of 1944 has reached its glorious conclusion. It is my special privilege, in the name of all nations represented in this theatre of war, to commend each of you for the valiant performance of duty. Though these words are feeble,'' General Eisenhower went on to say, ``they come from the bottom of a heart overflowing with pride in our loyal service and admiration for you as warriors. Your accomplishments at sea, in the air and on the ground, and in the field of supply, have astonished the world. Even before the final week of the conflict, you had put 5 million of the enemy permanently out of the war. You have taken in stride military tasks so difficult as to be classified by many doubters as impossible.

``You have confused and defeated and destroyed your savagely fighting foe. On the road to victory you have endured every discomfort and privation and have surmounted every obstacle, ingenuity and desperation could throw in your path. Full victory in Europe has been attained,'' he concluded.

President Truman in his radio address to the Nation that same day declared: ``Much remains to be done. The victory won in the West must now be won in the East. The whole world must be cleansed of the evil from which half the world has been freed.

General Truman went on to say: ``For the triumph of spirit and of arms, which we have won, and for the promise of the peoples everywhere to join us in the love of freedom, it is fitting that we as a Nation give thanks to Almighty God, who has strengthened us and given us the victory.''

He then went on to say that May 13, 1945, would be a day of prayer. And he called upon the people of the United States, whatever their faith, to unite, offering joyful thanks to God for the victory that we have won and to pray, to quote him again: ``That He will support us to the end of our present struggle and guide us into the way of peace.''

How fitting, Madam Speaker, that we continue to commemorate a national day of prayer this Thursday, May 5, as we bring before God our thanks for the many blessings He has bestowed upon this great Nation and petition for help in the ongoing challenges we face.

H. Res. 233, Madam Speaker, recognizes the enormous sacrifice of the young men and women who fought in the European theatre. During World War II, more than 4 million members of the United States Armed Forces fought in Europe. This is the largest military force ever committed by the United States in any theatre of operation.

And almost 200,000 American troops were killed in the European theater. In addition, H. Res. 233 recognizes the sacrifice of the millions of members of the armed forces of allied nations in defeating Nazi Germany, liberating Europe, and putting to an end an unspeakable crime and crimes perpetrated by the Nazi regime.

H. Res. 233 was approved by the European Emerging Threats Subcommittee, and I hope that every Member of the House will support its passage this afternoon.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, before yielding back, I just want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) again for his eloquent statement. He truly, he and his wife, Annette, are the personification of liberation. They are survivors of the Holocaust; and he just has been a great champion for human rights.

And so many Members of this body have served in World War II as well, including the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the distinguished chairman of the full Committee on International Relations, who served in the Pacific theatre and was very active in the liberation, obviously, against Imperial Japan.

But, again, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for his leadership and his very eloquent statement.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 233.

Mr. Speaker, today, Americans with asthma, emphysema, and other respiratory diseases are being exposed, without their knowledge or consent, to serious and unnecessary health risks associated with inhaled compounded drugs used in their nebulizers.

Mr. Speaker, to my left are FDA-approved generic and brand medications proven to be safe, effective, and manufactured in a sterile manner. I would ask Members to notice that critical information, such as lot number, expiration date, manufacturer, drug name, and dose are embossed on the plastic vial.

These, Mr. Speaker, on this next board, are not FDA-approved medications. They were compounded or mixed in a pharmacy under conditions that may or may not be sterile. They are not clinically proven to be safe or effective. Notice there is no lot number, no expiration date, no manufacturer or sterility notice. Absence of this critical information in labeling and advertisements to patients and prescribers is, at best, misleading.

In addition, notice here the glue-affixed paper labels. The FDA, Mr. Speaker, does not approve of these types of paper labels because they are known to leach carcinogenic ink and glue chemicals into the medication in the vials the patient inhales into their lungs.

Mr. Speaker, physicians write their prescriptions for FDA-approved brand names and generic medications. Patients think that what the doctor prescribes is what they are going to receive. But through a sleight of hand, some compounding pharmacists are having the prescriptions switched to these types of unapproved and unproven drugs.

What happens is that the patient gets a phone call or sees a TV ad or something on the Web saying that this seemingly benign and reputable company will deliver their nebulizer drugs right to their door if they just sign a form. By signing, they essentially agree to a substitution of the medication from what the doctor prescribed to whatever substance the compounding pharmacist is whipping up in his back room or factory.

Oftentimes, the original prescribing physician does not even know the substitution or switch has occurred. Patients and physicians do not know until something goes tragically wrong, and wrong in this case can be a worsening symptom, or even death.

You might ask how this is happening, Mr. Speaker. Well, a new industry has emerged in recent years: Mass pharmacy manufacturing under the guise of traditional pharmacy compounding. Relying on lax State standards and arguing that Federal standards do not apply, these companies manufacture and distribute millions of doses of compounded nebulizer medications each year. Mass pharmacy manufacturing is not to be confused with traditional pharmacy compounding, a public health service when a patient has a medical condition for which no proven commercially available medication exists.

Normally, the patient, prescriber and compounding pharmacist discuss the risks and benefits together and monitor the patient carefully throughout the illness. In many cases, however, this is not happening. Medical experts agree that the risk of using these unproven drugs, mass manufactured outside the parameters of FDA regulation, are unacceptable, especially when FDA-approved medications are available.

These drugs, Mr. Speaker, are not FDA-approved. They are not established generic equivalents of FDA-approved brand name medications. They are not proven to be safe or effective and do not meet FDA standards for sterility. The origin and quality of raw ingredients are not disclosed.

The absence of disclosure and drug labeling in advertisements is indeed misleading, and I am concerned. So are patient and clinician organizations, led by the Allergy and Asthma Network/Mothers of Asthmatics. It is time for Congress to get to the bottom of this issue and find out why these products are allowed to be sold with misleading labeling and without FDA approval. And, further, why in many cases Medicare and Medicaid are reimbursing for these unproven and unapproved mass manufactured products.

Mr. Speaker, in 1998, Congress first passed the Torture Victims Relief Act. Today, I am introducing the Torture Victims Relief Reauthorization Act. America's commitment to and compassion for the survivors of torture remains undiminished. That commitment should be manifested in concrete action, including support for torture treatment programs that can help these victims rebuild the lives that others have sought to destroy.

Nationwide, there are an estimated 400,000 survivors of torture, most of whom came to this country seeking refuge from persecution. Worldwide, it is impossible to count the numbers. Often, torture victims have been targeted by repressive regimes because of their independent political, religious or organized labor activities. Torture sends a message of fear throughout the network of a leader's family and community. As one African religious leader has said, ``If they'll do this to me, what will they do to my flock?''

The Torture Victims Relief Act authorizes money for the Department of Health and Human Services to assist torture survivors in the United States; assists victims of torture through treatment centers in countries abroad; and authorizes a contribution to the United Nations Voluntary Fund for the Victims of Torture.

U.S. leadership in this area is truly consequential. I recently met with Brita Sydhoff, the new Executive Director of the International Rehabilitation Center for the Victims of Torture, based in Denmark. Her organization has challenged European governments to match the generosity of our country. Because of U.S. leadership, Spain and Italy have dramatically increased their contribution to the UN Fund for the Victims of Torture. I was also deeply heartened to learn that the Danish center, along with the Chicago-based Kovlar Center, is helping to establish treatment centers in Iraq, so that the many victims of Saddam Hussein's torturous regime can receive help.

The work that torture treatment centers undertake is profoundly challenging. In 2003, Canadian journalist Zahra Kazemi was brutally tortured and killed by Iranian authorities. A few weeks ago, an Iranian doctor who examined her body released new details about the brutality Ms. Kazemi suffered before she died. These revelations have been especially painful for Ezat Mossallanejad, a counselor for the Canadian Center for the Victims of Torture:

two decades ago, he was also tortured in Iran, as punishment for his human rights work. In Canada, as a counselor, he has helped treat many other refugees who were tortured at the same prison where Zahra Kazemi was killed. Last year, his center treated 76 Iranian torture survivors; 26 were children.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot turn our backs on people like this. With medical, psychological and social services, torture survivors have the potential to become contributing members of their communities. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me this time, and I wand to commend him and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) for their outstanding work that they have done, and many others, on this very important legislation to protect life--especially the lives of underage teenagers.

Mr. Chairman, abortion mills in my home State of New Jersey go so far as to buy ads, especially in the yellow pages, to promote abortion for minors residing in Pennsylvania, where parental consent is required for abortion, to come to my State, where no parental involvement of any kind is needed. The marketing of teenage abortions in this way, Mr. Chairman, or in any way, for that matter, is morally indefensible. The abortion industry's engraved invitation to vulnerable young girls to procure a secret abortion means it becomes more likely and that more abortions will indeed occur. That means, Mr. Chairman, more dead babies; that means more wounded moms.

Earlier in this debate, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) suggested that the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act somehow constituted an ``abandonment'' of minor girls. Well, I thought I had heard just about everything one could hear in my 25 years in Congress during abortion debates, but to call a bill designed

to protect vulnerable teenagers from abuse by abortion mills and those who would facilitate that abuse ``abandonment'', is deeply and profoundly troubling. I respectfully submit that enabling secret abortions by underage teenagers without parental knowledge or consent is, in and of itself, abandonment. To abandon is to forsake, to desert, to give up on. Why abandon a 14-year-old or a 15-year-old or a 16-year- old to an abortion mill where she could be severely hurt and where the baby will be killed? Moreover, Mr. Chairman, abortion itself, by definition, is an act of abandonment of a baby.

Let us not kid ourselves. Abortion mills do not nurture, they do not heal, they do not cure disease; unless you construe pregnancy to be a disease, and some abortionists do, including Dr. Willard Cates, who used to be the head of the CDC Abortion Surveillance Unit and gave a 1976 speech before Planned Parenthood, titled ``Pregnancy: The Second Most Prevalent Sexually Transmitted Disease After Gonorrhea.'' But if you do not see pregnancy as a disease and the child a tumor or wart, then we are talking about abandonment.

Abortion clinics are in the business, and a Member just a few moments ago talked about abortion mills as small business. It is not just small business; this is big business, and abortionists make millions of dollars plying their lethal trade. But they are in the business, I say to my colleagues, of dismembering the fragile bodies of unborn children with sharp knives and hideous suction machines that are 25 to 30 times more powerful than a vacuum cleaner used at home. This is not healing, this is killing, and it is abandonment.

I say to my colleagues, no wonder 3 out of 4 Americans strongly support parental notification laws. This bill ensures that those State laws are not violated and young girls and young women are protected from abuse and abandonment.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 81) expressing the sense of Congress regarding the two-year anniversary of the human rights crackdown in Cuba.

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

Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago, with the world's attention riveted on Iraq, Fidel Castro ordered his feared state security apparatus to round up at least 75 of Cuba's best and bravest and brightest, prominent and even lesser-known dissidents. Among these are 28 independent journalists and 40 Varela project workers. With sickening speed, these men and women were paraded before kangaroo courts and given prison sentences ranging from 6 to 28 years; 61 remain in prison.

When the Committee on International Relations met on April 16, 2003 to decry this vile abrogation of justice, I stated at that time that ``Even some of the most outspoken leftists who once saw in Fidel Castro something to admire now admit that Castro's unbridled cruelty, his thirst for blood, and extreme paranoia are indefensible.'' I regret to report that Castro has not given me and, frankly, he has given no one else as well, any reason to reassess that statement or those sentiments.

What were the so-called crimes that these brave men and women committed? They were advocating democracy, writing as independent journalists, and being men and women of faith.

Their real offense was to dare to question the authority of a single man: Fidel Castro. The Cuban Revolution is really about Castro's vanity and pursuit of personal power. From the beginning, Castro has shot and jailed anyone, even close friends, who have dared to get in the way of his personal ambitions.

Dictatorships, reflecting the whims of a despot, always subject their people to deprivations and absurdities. The Castro regime recently let a handful of its political prisoners out on parole, citing health reasons. The regime's callousness toward ailing political prisoners is well documented.

Now, independent Cuban journalists are reporting that Cuba's prisons have been virtually emptied of medical personnel. Why? Mr. Castro decided to send them to Venezuela and other places to advance his personal expansionist agenda.

Mr. Speaker, writing in the Spanish newspaper, El Pais, Nobel Prize winner Jose Saramago, a Portuguese Communist and close friend of Castro, commented after 3 alleged Havana ferry hijackers were killed by a firing squad in Cuba in May of 2003, ``Cuba has won no heroic victory by executing these three men, but it has lost my confidence, damaged my hopes, and robbed me of illusions.''

Illusions, as Castro-lover Jose Saramago has only now begun to acknowledge, often persist despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Nowhere has this been more evident than in the case of Castro's Cuba.

Despite decades of credible reports of widespread egregious violations of human rights, including the pervasive use of torture and vicious beatings of political prisoners by the Cuban Government, some have clung to indefensibly foolish illusions of Castro's revolution.

Despite the fact that the Cuban Government systematically denies its people freedom of speech, press freedom, assembly and association, and severely restricts workers' rights, including the right to form independent trade unions, some have nevertheless clung to illusion.

Despite the fact that Cuba and Castro maintain an unimaginably vast network of surveillance by the thugs in his secret police and the committees for the defense of the revolution, or CDRs, neighbors spying on neighbors, some continue to embrace bogus perceptions, illusions about Castro and about Cuba.

In his book ``Against All Hope,'' the book that I have actually read twice now, a memoir of life in Castro's gulags, Armando Valladares, a courageous and amazing man who spent 22 years in Cuban prisons wrote: ``The government of Cuba and its defenders of the Cuban revolution denied that the incidents that I recount in the book ever happened.'' He says, ``Castro sympathizers who were more subtle said the incidents that he described were exaggerations. And there were others, well meaning who simply could not bring themselves to believe that such horrors, crimes and torture existed in the political prisons of Cuba.

``My response,'' Armando Valladares goes on to say, ``to those who still try to justify Castro's tyranny with the excuse that he built schools and hospitals, is this: Stalin and Hitler and Pinochet all built schools and hospitals, and like Castro, they all tortured and assassinated opponents. They built concentration and extermination camps and eradicated all liberties, committing the worst crimes against humanity.''

Armando Valladares goes on to say: ``Unbelievably while many NGOs like Amnesty International and America's Watch have denounced the human rights situation in Cuba, there has been a continuing love affair on the part of the media and many intellectuals with Fidel Castro.''

Mr. Speaker, that love affair, that illusion seemed to crash and burn with the onset of the current crackdown on dissidents. The EU for its part took action in June of 2003 by limiting high-level EU governmental visits and inviting Cuban dissidents to National Day celebrations. But, sadly, their memories are short. In January of this year, at the initiative of the Spanish Government, the EU temporarily suspended these measures for a 6-month period.

Mr. Speaker, at the 61st session of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, which was held this past month, the United States, I am very proud to say the United States offered a resolution on the human rights situation in Cuba. The resolution recalled the resolutions of the previous 15 years; and I would just say, parenthetically, I was there 15 years ago when Armando Valladares led the U.S. delegation, having been sent out of the government or out of Cuba by Castro, and got that body, which is dysfunctional in many ways, to finally focus on these ongoing and persistent violations of human rights in Cuba, and that was the first time.

I am glad to say that we just, at U.S. insistence, were able to get another statement by the U.N. Commission on Human Rights focused on the ongoing abuses by Cuba. The resolution passed by a vote of 21 to 17 with 15 abstentions, but only after a full court press by the U.S. delegation led by Rudy Boschwitz, which included personal pleas from President Bush to the presidents of Ukraine and Mexico.

I am sad to point out that China, Congo, Cuba, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Nigeria, Qatar, Russia, South Africa, Sudan and Zimbabwe all voted against the resolution, in effect putting their stamp of approval on Castro's actions.

Let me just say finally, Mr. Speaker, that this resolution we have today is a reiteration. It is a bipartisan resolution offered by my friend and colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez). And I hope that every member will vote in favor of it.

Two years ago, with the world's attention riveted on Iraq, Fidel Castro ordered his feared State Security apparatus to round up at least 75 of Cuba's bravest and brightest, prominent and lesser-known dissidents. Among these are 28 independent journalists and 40 Varela project workers. With sickening speed, these men and women were paraded before kangaroo courts and given prison sentences ranging from 6 to 28 years. Sixty-one remain in jail.

When the Committee on International Relations met April 16, 2003 to decry this vile abrogation of justice, I stated at that time: ``Even some of the most outspoken leftists, who once saw in Fidel Castro something to admire, now admit that Castro's unbridled cruelty, thirst for blood and extreme paranoia are indefensible.''

I regret to report that Castro has given me no cause to reassess that statement.

What were the so-called crimes of these brave men and women? Advocating democracy . . . writing as independent journalists . . . being men and women of faith.

Their real offense was to dare to question the authority of a single man, Mr. Castro. The Cuban Revolution is really about Castro's vanity and pursuit of personal power. From the beginning, Castro has shot and jailed anyone--even his close friends--who has dared get in the way of his personal ambition.

Dictatorships, reflecting the whims of a despot, always subject their people to deprivations and absurdities. The Castro regime recently let a handful of its political prisoners out on ``parole,'' citing health reasons. The regime's callousness towards ailing political prisoners is well documented.

Now, independent Cuban journalists are reporting that Cuba's prisons have been virtually emptied of medical personnel. Why? Mr. Castro decided to send them to Venezuela and other places to advance his personal expansionist agenda.

Writing in the Spanish newspaper, El Pais, Noble prize winner Jose Saramago, a Portuguese communist and close friend of Castro commented after three alleged Havana ferry hijackers were killed by firing squad in Cuba in May 2003, ``Cuba has won no heroic victory by executing these three men, but it has lost my confidence, damaged my hopes and robbed me of illusions.''

Illusions, as Castro lover Jose Saramago has only now begun to acknowledge, often persist despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Nowhere has this been more evident than in the case of Castro's Cuba.

Despite decades of credible reports of widespread egregious violations of human rights, including the pervasive use of torture and vicious beatings of political prisoners by the Cuban government, some have clung to indefensibly foolish illusions of Castro's revolution.

Despite the fact that the Cuban government systematically denies its people the freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and association, and severely restricts workers' rights, including the right to form independent trade unions, some have, nevertheless, clung to illusion.

Despite the fact that Castro maintains an unimaginably vast network of surveillance by the thugs in his secret police and Committees for the Defense of the Revolution (CDRs)--neighbors spying on neighbors-- some continue to embrace bogus perceptions--illusions about Cuba.

In his book, ``Against All Hope, a Memoir of Life in Castro's Gulags'' Armando Valladares, a courageous and amazing man who spent 22 years in Cuban prisons wrote:

The government of Cuba and defenders of the Cuban

Revolution denied that incidents that I recount (in the book)

ever happened. Castro sympathizers, who were more subtle,

said the incidents I described were exaggerations. And there

were others, well meaning, who simply could not bring

themselves to believe that such horrors, crimes and torture

existed in the political prisons of Cuba.

My response to those who still try to justify Castro's

tyranny with the excuse that he has built schools and

hospitals is this: Stalin, Hitler and Pinochet also built

schools and hospitals, and like Castro, they also tortured

and assassinated opponents. They built concentration and

extermination camps and eradicated all liberties, committing

the worst crimes against humanity.

Unbelievably, while many non-governmental organizations

like Amnesty International and America's Watch have denounced

the human rights situation in Cuba, there has been a

continuing love affair on the part of the media and many

intellectuals with Fidel Castro.

That love affair--that illusion--seemed to crash and burn with the onset of the current crackdown on dissidents. The EU took action in June 2003 by limiting high-level EU governmental visits and inviting Cuban dissidents to national day celebrations. But their memories are short. In January of this year, at the initiative of the Spanish government, the EU temporarily suspended these measures for a six-month period.

At the 61st session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva this past month, the United States offered a resolution on the human rights situation in Cuba. The resolution recalled the resolutions of the previous 15 years which the Commission had passed on Cuba, and asked that the mandate of the Personal Representative of the High Commissioner be continued. The resolution passed by a vote of 21- 17, with 15 abstentions, but only after a fullcourt lobbying press by the U.S. delegation which included personal pleas from President Bush to the Presidents of Ukraine and Mexico. China, Congo, Cuba, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Nigeria, Qatar, Russia, South Africa, Sudan and Zimbabwe all voted against the resolution, in effect putting their stamp of approval on Castro's actions.

Let me mention a few of the ones who were summarily sentenced and remain in prison. Omar Rodriguez Saludes, an independent journalist known to ride his bicycle to news conferences: 27 years. Hector Palacios, one of the key figures promoting the Varela Project: 25 years. Oscar Espinosa Chepe, who wrote critical articles about the Cuban economy for the Internet: 25 years. The President of the Independent United Confederation of Cuban Workers (CUTC), Pedro Pablo Alvarez, 25 years. Journalist Raul Rivero and Ricardo Gonzalez Afonso, an editor at ``De Cuba'' magazine, each got 20 years. The list goes on and on.

For its part, the Bush Administration has made its deep and abiding concern for the political prisoners and the protection of elemental human rights in Cuba abundantly clear. At the time of the crackdown, former Secretary of State Colin Powell declared:

In recent days the Cuban government has undertaken the most

significant act of political repression in decades. We call

on Castro to end this despicable repression and free these

prisoners of conscience. The United States and the

international community will be unrelenting in our insistence

that Cubans who seek peaceful change be permitted to do so.

In like manner, the Congress has consistently demanded the immediate release of all the prisoners and support of the right of the Cuban people to exercise fundamental political and civil liberties. H. Res. 179, a resolution offered by Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen in April 2003, passed by a vote of 414-0, 11 present. In April of 2001, I sponsored a resolution, H. Res. 91, calling on the U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva to condemn Cuba's human rights abuse and appoint a Special Rapporteur for Cuba. While it passed, there were a disturbing number of negative votes. That vote was 347-44 with 22 voting present.

We have another opportunity today to move forward a resolution offered by my Colleague, Mr. Menendez, to show that these prisoners are not forgotten. Fidel Castro, his brother Raul, and numerous leaders of Cuba's dictatorship, are directly responsible for crimes against humanity past--and present. Some day these oppressors will be held to account and the people of Cuba will live in freedom.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros- Lehtinen).

Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests for time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 81.

Mr. Speaker, today we mark the 90th anniversary of the beginning of the Armenian Genocide. Every year we participate in this solemn commemoration but this year it has a special significance.

For the families of the victims and the survivors, the horrors of that bygone era remain so painful that it is hard to believe how much time has passed. The passage of years has not dimmed the memory or eased the grief. Not a relative or friend has been forgotten, nor have fond memories of native cities faded away.

Moreover, no accounting for mass murder has been made. Though many governments and legislative bodies around the world have recognized the Armenian Genocide, the Turkish Government consistently refuses to acknowledge what happened. For Armenians everywhere, Turkey's policy of aggressive denial sharpens the feeling of loss, embittering the lives of those who miraculously survived.

Today, those of us without Armenian blood share the sorrow of Armenians everywhere. I had the privilege in September 2000 of chairing hearings on the Armenian Genocide in the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights of the International Relations Committee. The reading I have done over the years, which has included detailed descriptions of the atrocities, shock me. But, I am resolved to speak about this issue, loudly and often.

The Armenian Genocide has significance for all of us. It created a monstrous precedent which launched a century of genocides. In numerous countries and cultures, an ethnic group that controlled the state has used its instruments of coercion to slaughter members of a minority group, religion or class. It is enough to recall Adolf Hitler's smug remark, ``Who remembers the Armenians?'' to grasp the universality of what happened to the Armenians.

Much has changed in the world since the mass, planned murder in 1915--two world wars, the fall of the Ottoman, Habsburg and Romanov Empires, the rise of the American superpower and most recently, the fall of the Soviet Union. One would have thought that we would have grown wiser over the years. Alas, we have not learned the appropriate lessons from the 20th century's first genocide. Just a few years after Rwanda, at this very moment, another genocide is taking place in Darfur. Yet, instead of mounting a united response, the international community has waffled or slithered away from responsibility, as hundreds of thousands are slaughtered.

The record of man's inhumanity to man is awful enough to produce a feeling of resignation. But we must fight that tendency. We must continue to remind the world of what occurred in 1915 and keep calling on Turkey to won up. We must not restrain ourselves from speaking of the Armenian Genocide. Along with many of my colleagues, I urge President Bush to speak the truth to Ankara, which needs to come to terms with its own past.

As this somber time, I want to note one optimistic point: OSCE negotiators are guardedly hopeful about the prospects of resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. True, we have experienced such moments before and should not get our hopes up. Still, I am encouraged to hear that there is at least some reason for hope. We all pray for a peaceful solution to this conflict, which has caused over 30,000 deaths and many more casualties. Next year,

when we once again commemorate the Genocide of the Armenians, I hope their descendants will be living in peace with their neighbors, building a democratic, prosperous country that will be a light unto the world.

Mr. Speaker, Marie Smith, my dear wife of 27 years and mother of our four wonderful children, turns 50 on Monday, April 25.

And although I've known, deeply loved and cherished Marie for more than three decades, I find that mere words are inadequate to convey just how remarkable, unique and special she is.

She's amazing.

Marie Smith is a strong woman of abiding faith in Christ, rock solid character, generosity and goodness. She radiates the love and compassion of Christ to family, friends and strangers alike with a gentle piety and grace. She has class and self-confidence yet is humble and extremely kind. She always looks out for the underdog--especially a child left behind.

Marie has a great sense of humor and always makes people feel at ease and welcome. I just love the way she laughs and smiles. She is my best friend--and I love her so.

Marie and I met in 1974 at a prayer meeting at college. For me, it was love at first sight. For her, well, it took a while. We worked on pro-life issues--she eventually became president of the organization-- and early on recognized the life changing core value found in Matthew's Gospel, the 25th chapter, when Jesus said ``Whatsoever you do to the least of My brethren, you do unto Me.'' We grew to understand that God Himself identified with--was one with--anyone, anywhere who was weak, vulnerable, unwanted or disenfranchised. That meant unborn babies killed by abortion, their moms, the hungry, trafficked women, the homeless, disabled and sick persons and others who are being exploited or are at risk. That meant all of the ``least'' were all of infinite value and worth to God. It revolutionized our private and public lives.

An honor student in both high school and college and a voracious reader, Marie is very smart and has that rare quality that enables her to grasp, understand and solve complex problems. She often ``sleeps on a problem'' and awakes in the morning with the answer. She is very creative and effectively thinks both inside and outside the box. Her advice and counsel over the years have been priceless.

In the early years, Marie worked as a first grade teacher at St. Hedwig's School in Trenton and thrived on it before devoting herself fulltime to the upbringing of our kids. Today, she works for Feminists for Life and pours herself into efforts to protect women and children from violence and cruelty.

Our two girls and two boys richly benefited from Marie's warmth, kindness and dedication. She was always there for them. Always. Melissa, Chris, Mike and Elyse always knew--and know--beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were number one in her life--our lives--and that there were no favorites in our household.

Marie is the quintessential multi-tasker--teacher, nurse, chef and homework checker as well as soccer, baseball, lacrosse and basketball Mom.

Our kids have always known, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they are much loved, much wanted, much cared for and much prayed for. It is both a comfort and encouragement to know that Marie intercedes for and gives thanks to the Lord unceasingly for our family and our friends.

Our kids greatly value and appreciate their mother, and I now defer to them to elaborate:

This April 25th, I am so happy to celebrate my mom's 50th

birthday. The world is certainly a better place because of

her! Mom has been the steady rock in my and my siblings'

lives--always there with an answer, suggestion, open ear,

love and support. She sincerely mourns our disappointments

and enthusiastically celebrates our accomplishments. Mom has

helped me find my way through the many choices and challenges

that are inevitable in the formative years, and as a married

adult now, I still often seek her advice, and will continue

to do so.

Mom's ``can-do'' outlook makes anything possible, whether

it's a stubborn word problem, science fair project, search

for the perfect prom dress, or wedding centerpieces. She

always poses thoughtful suggestions and selflessly offers

help until the task is done or the decision is made. Her

patience and flexibility are unceasing, or at least always

seem to be!

Mom brings special touches into everyday life--notes in

lunches, candy found in a suitcase while traveling, favorite

treats for no reason, and thoughtful unexpected gestures that

remind me just how much she really knows me. Holidays and

special occasions are always made extra special, the

essential part being that the family is together. I have

learned from my mom the value of family, and the importance

of unconditional love and total faith in Christ.

In our house my mom had a sign that read, ``Home is where

the heart is.'' And while I love the house I grew up in, I

know that ``home'' will always be where Mom is--for

she is the heart of our family.--Melissa Smith Clement.

The way Mom tucked me in at night always brought pleasant

dreams.

On waking, my groggy head would hear her laughter and

wonder, ``How is anyone so joyful in the morning?''

Throughout the day I would watch her with affection. Her

love went into even the simplest of things. I was always

moved by the tenderness with which she read a book, folded a

shirt, or made a sandwich.

Now when I hear her laugh, it conveys her innocence; the

years must make her younger. Do you see the confidence in her

stride? The years must make her wiser. Judging by the length

of her smile, her heart must be growing bigger.

I celebrate my mom on this day in April, celebrate my mom

every day.--Chris Smith.

The most reliable and compassionate. The most outgoing and

joyous. My mother is more than I could ask for. She has

always given everything she possibly could without a second

thought. She has always gone above and beyond to show her

love for my siblings and me. I love her so much and wish her

a happy birthday!--Mike Smith.

This week, we will be celebrating the 50th birthday of my

mom. For 50 years she has brought love and joy to each person

she has met, most especially her family. Her gentle kindness

and patient understanding communicates her deep love for her

family. She does not just take care of our family physically,

but spiritually and emotionally. I cannot count how many

times she was the shoulder to cry on when one of us kids had

a bad day, or how many words of praise she showered us with

when we did well in school or in sports. She is always there

with words to guide us in our lives and in our faith.

As I have grown older, I have come to realize what an

intelligent, wise and loving woman Mom is. Each day she gives

of herself for our family and sets an example for us a

Christ-centered life. She inspires us to turn to God and

trust in His care. Mom is not afraid to stand up for her

beliefs, and she has dedicated her life to living the Gospel

of Christ. It is impossible to adequately describe the love

and care which Mom selflessly gives each day. I feel

sincerely blessed to call such a wonderful woman ``mom'' and

I pray that she will have many more birthdays in the years to

come. I love you Mom!--Elyse Smith.

Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of my colleagues House Resolution 199, regarding the 1995 massacre at Srebrenica in eastern Bosnian-Herzegovina. In July, ten years will have passed since thousands of Bosniaks perished in what was the worst atrocity committed during the three-and-a-half years of conflict in Bosnia. This was an absolute fiasco by the international community, eroding its credibility and principles. Those of us who worked together at the time in urging a more decisive international response can remember the horror associated with that conflict.

Many may ask: why do this? Why focus on what happened ten years ago in a region that we are encouraging to look forward to a future that includes further European integration? I believe it is impossible to look forward without acknowledging the past and what really happened at Srebrenica. We have many lessons to learn from the past.

First, the very fact that many of those responsible for the Srebrenica massacre--especially Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic and others--not only have evaded justice in The Hague but may be receiving protection and are held almost as folk heroes by some indicates that the past has not been fully understood. Hundreds of people currently holding positions of responsibility are only now being investigated for possible connections to the massacre. Clearly the myths and propaganda originally used to justify a slaughter still hold sway in the minds of too many people.

Second, the international community must learn not to repeat the mistakes it made with horrible consequences in 1995. Some. lessons have been learned. For the first time since World War II, for example, an international tribunal was created to prosecute those responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. That body has borne some results, though its task is not complete.

Intervention in Bosnia-Herzegovina was not some reckless act, as some suggest, but a needed response made increasingly difficult by unnecessary delay. Mutual congratulations will undoubtedly come later this year when commemorating the ten year anniversary of the Dayton Agreement. We would do well, however, to recall that it was the simple shame of allowing thousands to be massacred within one of the international community's officially designated ``safe areas'' that finally motivated serious consideration of action against the brazen thugs responsible for these crimes. Unfortunately, it took additional atrocities before effective action was taken.

It is also helpful to listen to some of the words spoken in the aftermath of the Srebrenica massacre. For example, 27 non-governmental organizations--including religious and humanitarian organizations not usually inclined to support the use of force, as well as Muslim and Jewish organizations not known for taking common stands--issued a powerful statement:

Bosnia is not a faraway land of no concern to our

``national interest.'' At stake is the global commitment to

fundamental human values--the right not to be killed because

of one's religious or ethnic heritage, and the right of

civilians not to be targeted by combatants.

At about the same time, the U.N.'s rapporteur for human rights in the former Yugoslavia, former Polish Prime Minister Tadeusz Mazowiezki, explained why he could no longer ``continue to participate in the pretense of the protection of human rights'' and chose to resign in response to the events at Srebrenica. Known as a thoughtful, principled man, he said:

One cannot speak about the protection of human rights with

credibility when one is confronted with the lack of

consistency and courage displayed by the international

community and its leaders. . . . Crimes have been committed

with swiftness and brutality and by contrast the response of

the international community has been slow and ineffectual.

If, when listening to these words from ten years ago, we think of subsequent events including Darfur today, we realize how little we have indeed learned.

In Bosnia-Herzegovina we also produced examples of the best in humanity, people in the international community--aid workers, soldiers, diplomats, journalists, monitors and advocates--who risked and sometimes gave their lives to prevent further loss of life. I particularly mention in this connection the American negotiators Robert Frasure, Joseph Kruzel, and Nelson Drew who died while traveling Bosnia's dangerous, war-torn roads. They deserve our gratitude for the efforts to restore peace in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, we cannot forget the memory of the victims of Srebrenica and those who survived, but were traumatized by the debacle at Srebrenica. Many continue to wonder about the ultimate fate of the missing, even as new mass graves have been unearthed in northeastern Bosnia-Herzegovina. For these people, ten years is not long ago, and recognizing the pain and anguish they experienced may help bring closure for them. Some of these victims, I should add, have come to our country as refugees and are now Americans. They will no doubt be remembering the tragic events at Srebrenica ten years ago.

I will not detail here the almost unspeakable horrors that were part of the massacre at Srebrenica in July 1995. Some of the events are mentioned in House Resolution 199. Mr. Speaker, I hope that my colleagues will give this measure their serious consideration and active support.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, we meet tonight under extraordinary circumstances, and I for one am very grateful to the Speaker and majority leader Delay for bringing us back because a much-loved disabled woman in Florida has been ordered to die by starvation and dehydration. We meet tonight because Terri Schiavo's family, including her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, refuse to allow their precious daughter, who is not in a coma nor is she terminally ill nor is she in a persistent vegetative state, to be killed by starving her to death.

Disabled people deserve no less than everyone else deserves, to have their fundamental human rights protected and properly asserted. We meet here tonight because there are serious questions whether Terri Schiavo's estranged husband, Michael, who has abandoned Terri for another woman and has had two kids with the other woman, could be trusted as a legal guardian for a woman for whom he has sought death for many years.

Let us not forget she has been in a hospice for 5 years. My mother was in a hospice. She had terminal brain cancer and was dying. One goes into a hospice when they are in the process of dying. Terri was not dying.

Mention was made earlier by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler) that everyone agrees that Terri is in a persistent vegetative state. That's not true. Let me remind my colleagues that no less than 14 independent medical professionals, including six neurologists, have said she is not in a persistent vegetative state.

Let me also point out to my colleagues Dr. William Hammesfahr, an M.D., board certified neurologist from Clearwater, Florida has testified, and he has signed an affidavit as recently as March 6 of this year, and he has said Ms. Schiavo is not in a persistent vegetative state. He goes on to point out that she could benefit, and I will include this full statement in the Record, from medical interventions that are available right now as we meet, she could be getting therapies, medical and otherwise, that would make her situation all that much better. All of that has been denied to her. She has sat in a hospice to languish denied these basic medical provisions and procedures that could enhance her life.

I would hope that we would vote for this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

It is precisely what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has been saying all night. We want the venue to be a Federal district court in Florida to look at this critical matter from beginning to end to determine what has been missed. There is a benefit of the doubt here that goes to Terri. She ought to get it. We do not think she has gotten it. Let the court decide.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 98) expressing the grave concern of Congress regarding the recent passage of the anti- secession law by the National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice strong support for a resolution authored by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) which expresses the grave concern of the Congress over the adoption by the National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China on March 14 of an anti-secession law. Beijing's ill-advised action constitutes not only a unilateral change in the current status quo in the Taiwan Strait, but also provides a legal framework for military action against Taiwan when ``possibilities for a peaceful reunification have been completely exhausted.''

Adoption of this law followed upon by a threat, made in China's Defense Policy White Paper, released on December 17, 2004, to ``crush'' any attempt to split Taiwan from China, noting its ``sacred responsibility'' of the People's Liberation Army to stop any attempt at splitting the country.

We are all aware as to how seriously the PLA takes its ``sacred responsibility'' to further the goals dictated by the Communist regime in Beijing. When the PLA was presented with a clear choice between serving the people or obeying the orders of the leaders of the Communist party on June 4, 1989, a day of infamy, the tanks rolled into Tiananmen Square and Chinese blood was spilled by fellow Chinese.

Thus, we should not assume that the attempt in the anti-secession law to provide a legal justification for the use of force against the people of Taiwan is an idle threat. History shows that this is not the case.

Mr. Speaker, President Bush, in welcoming the Chinese Premier to Washington on December 9, 2003, made Chinese policy crystal clear with regard to this issue. President Bush stated, ``We oppose any unilateral decision by either China or Taiwan to change the status quo.'' At the time the President spoke firmly concerning attempts by Taiwan's President to unilaterally change the status quo.

Well, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Beijing's unilateral attempt to change the status quo must be vigorously opposed by both the administration and the Congress. The Congress, in particular, is obliged, under commitments made in the Taiwan Relations Act, not to remain silent when confronted by this challenge from Beijing. The Taiwan Relations Act clearly and unequivocally states: ``It is the policy of the United States to consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States.''

Beijing's new anti-secession law clearly qualifies as such an effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means and thus represents a grave concern to the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, Beijing's reckless action comes at a time when there were signs of renewed thawing in the cross-strait relations which gave some cause for optimism over the ultimate peaceful resolution of this issue.

The commencement of the Lunar New Year's holiday of cross-strait charter flights, the continued movement of Taiwanese to the mainland, increasing cross-strait commercial investment, and the arrival of mainland representatives in Taipei to attend the funeral of a leading negotiator for Taiwan on cross-strait issues were all extremely positive signs.

It is unfortunate, however, that Beijing has chosen once again to be its own worst enemy by dissipating all the goodwill generated through such gestures by stubbornly pursuing this provocative and ill-timed measure.

Contrary to the observation of Chairman Mao, cross-strait issues will never be solved by resorting to the barrel of a gun.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a distinguished member of the Committee on International Relations, chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, and cochair of the House Taiwan Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to thank the committee members and the staff, especially Dennis Halpin, Sarah Tillemann and Peter Yeo, for their work on this resolution and Dan Freeman, who is our counsel and parliamentarian, for his work, and his expertise on this and so many other resolutions. We are so grateful for them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 18) expressing the grave concern of Congress regarding the continuing gross violations of human rights and civil liberties of the Syrian and Lebanese people by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank the leadership for bringing up this resolution.

H. Con. Res. 18, Mr. Speaker, addresses the continued gross violations of human rights committed by the Syrian regime. The terrorist regime in Damascus is one that not only supports and facilitates terrorist attacks against innocent civilians throughout the world but also engages in a widespread campaign of terror and human rights suppression among its own people.

According to the most recent State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the government of Syria continues to commit numerous serious abuses and remains with a poor record on human rights overall. Any activity by human rights activists and organizations is stifled and activists are sentenced to lengthy prison terms, tortured or even forced into exile, only to be harassed and intimidated in exile as well.

Domestic human rights groups cannot exist legally. According to a recent world report by Human Rights Watch, the dictatorship of Syria strictly limits freedom of expression, association and assembly and treats ethnic minority Kurds as second-class citizens. The government has a long record of arbitrary arrests, systematic torture, prolonged detention of suspects and grossly unfair trials. Women face discrimination and have little means for full redress when they become victims of rape or domestic violence.

However, Syria's deplorable human rights record is not limited to its immediate borders. The repressive apparatus also extends into neighboring Lebanon, which has been a captive nation for 25 years. Hundreds of free-thinking Lebanese civilians are believed to have been killed or disappeared because of Syrian occupation forces throughout these years. U.S. policy must support the Syrian people. It must support its dissidents, human rights activists, and the pro-democracy advocates so that they, too, can free themselves from the shackles of tyrannical rule.

This resolution also addresses, Mr. Speaker, two overarching vital U.S. national security requirements regarding the Syrian regime; that is, that Syria must immediately and unconditionally cease its support for terrorism and its development of unconventional weapons and advanced missile capabilities.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this important resolution to express U.S. support for those in Syria and Lebanon who continue to toil for freedom and democracy, and ensure the regime in Damascus that we will continue to increase the pressure until these goals are met.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 18, the concurrent resolution just considered.

Mr. Chairman, for the last two decades, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), has shockingly defended the coercive Chinese population control program. By refusing to give American tax dollars to the UNFPA, the United States stands solidly with the victims and against the oppressors. We must continue to do so as long as UNFPA insists on supporting the Chinese program.

Today, Representative Maloney offered an amendment to H.R. 1268, the ``Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief'', and she described the amendment as something that would give $3 million to UNFPA. Even though she explained it as a UNFPA Amendment, I want to clarify that the language of the amendment could in no way be construed to support or give funding to UNFPA. In fact, the amendment does not even mention UNFPA. The Maloney amendment says,

In chapter 1 of title II of the bill, in the item relating

to the ``Economic Support Fund'', after the first dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $3,000,000)''.

In chapter 1 of title IV of the bill, in the item relating

to the ``Tsunami Recovery and Reconstruction fund'', after

the first dollar amount, insert ``(increased by

$3,000,000)''.

Since the Maloney amendment simply transferred $3 million from one account to another, thereby providing aid funding without funding UNFPA, I did not oppose the amendment.

Victims of the Chinese one-child-per-couple policy have told me horrific stories. At one religious freedom meeting in China I asked what the participants knew about forced abortion policies. All three women in the group broke down in tears as they shared with me how they all had been forced to have abortions--one woman talked about how she thought God was going to protect her baby, but she was not able to escape the abortion. Other women who have gained asylum in the United States because of China's coercive population control program have told me terrible stories of crippling fines, imprisonment of family members, and destruction of homes and property--

all to force abortion and sterilization upon millions of women. According to last year's State Department Human Rights Report, one consequence of ``the country's birth limitation policies'' is that 56 percent of the world's female suicides occur in China, which is five times the world average and approximately 500 suicides by women per day.

Mrs. Gao Xiao Duan, a former administrator of a Chinese Planned Birth Control Office, testified before Congress about China's policies. She explained, ``Once I found a woman who was nine months pregnant, but did not have a birth-allowed certificate. According to the policy, she was forced to undergo an abortion surgery. In the operation room I saw how the aborted child's lips were sucking, how its limbs were stretching. A physician injected poison into its skull, and the child died, and it was thrown into the trash can. . . . I was a monster in the daytime, injuring others by the Chinese communist authorities' barbaric planned- birth policy, but in the evening, I was like all other women and mothers, enjoying my life with my children. . . . to all those injured women, to all those children who were killed, I want to repent and say sincerely that I'm sorry!''

While Mrs. Gao acknowledged her part in these human rights atrocities and courageously told her story, UNFPA continues to side with the Chinese government.

Since 1979, UNFPA has been the chief apologist and cheerleader for China's coercive one child per couple policy. Despite numerous credible forced abortion reports from impeccable sources, including human rights organizations like Amnesty International, journalists, former Chinese population control officials and, above all, from the woman victims themselves, high officials at UNFPA always dismiss and explain it all away. UNFPA has funded, provided crucial technical support and, most importantly, provided cover for massive crimes of forced abortion and involuntary sterilization.

Time and again, high officials of UNFPA have defended the indefensible and called voluntary that which is anything but. The former Executive Director of UNFPA Nafis Sadik said, ``China has every reason to feel proud of and pleased with its remarkable achievements made in its family planning policy. The country could offer its experiences and special expert to help other countries.'' On CBS Nightwatch she said, ``The UNFPA firmly believes, and so does the government of the People's Republic of China, that their program is a totally voluntary program.'' And Sven Burmester, UNFPA's man in Beijing, gushed over China's achievements, ``In strictly quantitative terms, it was the most successful family-planning policy ever developed.''

Make no mistake that China covets UNFPA financial and verbal support of their program as a ``Good-Housekeeping seal of approval'' to whitewash their human rights violations. I traveled to China and met with the head of their population control program, Peng Peiyun. In our lengthy conversation, Madame Peng Peiyun told me over and over again that there was no coercion in China, and then she cited UNFPA's participation in the program and UNFPA's public statements where UNFPA leaders have defended it. The United States should not help UNFPA cover up China's crimes against women and children.

In 2001, the Department of State determined that UNFPA's activities in China violated our human rights law, thereby making them ineligible for U.S. funding. On July 21, 2001, Secretary of State Powell wrote, ``Regrettably, the PRC has in place a regime of severe penalties on women who have unapproved births. This regime plainly operates to coerce pregnant women to have abortions in order to avoid the penalties and therefore amounts to a `program of coercive abortion.' . . . UNFPA's support of, and involvement in, China's population-planning activities allows the Chinese government to implement more effectively its program of coercive abortion. Therefore, it is not permissible to continue funding UNFPA at this time.'' The funds that would have gone to UNFPA were instead given to aid organizations.

In 2002, China explicitly stated its Draconian population control program in law, but UNFPA still continues to support the Chinese program. The Bush Administration has consistently found UNFPA ineligible to receive funding, most recently releasing a July 15, 2004 letter where Secretary Powell said, ``China continues to employ coercion in its birth planning program, including through severe penalties for `out of plan births'. . . . UNFPA continues its support and involvement in China's coercive birth limitation program in counties where China's restrictive law and penalties are enforced by government officials.''

UNFPA remains guilty of shamelessly supporting and whitewashing terrible crimes against humanity, and the United States must have no part in subsidizing them. In refusing to fund UNFPA, President Bush and this Congress have taken the side of the oppressed and have refused to cooperate with the oppressor. UNFPA has aggressively defended a barbaric policy that makes brothers and sisters illegal, and makes women the pawns of the population control cadres. If UNFPA lobbied the Chinese government to stop forced abortion as aggressively as they lobby the United States to overturn human rights policy, there would be less suffering in China today.

An organization like the UNFPA that continues to support China's one- child per couple coerced abortion policy should not be rewarded with any new funding, and the Maloney Amendment provides them no new funding.