Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3936) to amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the principal office of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims to be at any location in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, rather than only in the District of Columbia, and expressing the sense of Congress that a dedicated Veterans Courthouse and Justice Center should be provided for that Court and those it serves and should be located, if feasible, at a site owned by the United States that is part of or proximate to the Pentagon Reservation, and for other purposes.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3936, a bill to authorize the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, now located in commercial office space in the District of Columbia, to seek a new location in the greater national capital region. This bill would also express the sense of Congress that a dedicated Veterans Courthouse and Justice Center should be provided for the court and the veterans it serves. It should be located, or would be located, if feasible, next to Interstate Highway 395 on one of three small parking lots that are part of the Pentagon Reservation in Arlington, Virginia.

The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims was created by statute in 1988 as an independent article I judicial tribunal that for the first time gave our Nation's veterans the right to judicial review of benefits decisions on their disability, pension, education and other claims. It should, like all other article I courts, have a permanent courthouse.

In addition to the court, occupants of the new courthouse would be representatives of veterans that regularly practice before the court, for example, the Veterans Consortium Pro Bono Program, the National Veterans Legal Services Program, and the appellate attorneys of veterans service organizations. The court and the offices of its constituents pay over $3.7 million per year for their rent. The General Services Administration anticipates that the court's rental costs will increase substantially in the not-too-distant future. Therefore, the committee believes that it would be desirable to relocate the court on a government-owned site if possible.

H.R. 3936 would also require the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Administrator of General Services to submit a joint report to the House and Senate Committees on Armed Services and Veterans' Affairs on the feasibility of locating a new Veterans Courthouse and Justice Center at an appropriate site owned by the U.S. that is part of or near the Pentagon Reservation.

Madam Speaker, we have veterans or their survivors from all of the wars in which our country fought in the 20th century, and we are now engaged in a global war on terrorism. I cannot imagine a better use for one of the present parking lots near the Pentagon than a stand-alone dedicated Veterans Courthouse and Justice Center to embody the gratitude and the respect this Nation has for these men and women who have served and are serving their country so well.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record a letter from the Committee on Armed Services and an additional letter concerning H.R. 3936.

Madam 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.R. 3936.

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

I want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud), of the Subcommittee on Benefits for their strong support and work in crafting this legislation; and to my good friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), the ranking member on the full committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4175) to increase, effective as of December 1, 2004, the rates of disability compensation for veterans with service- connected disabilities and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation for survivors of certain service-connected disabled veterans, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

Madam Speaker, H.R. 4175, as amended, would provide a cost-of-living adjustment in the same amount as given to Social Security recipients, to disabled veterans and surviving spouses. The committee ordered this bill reported when it met on May 19, 2004. Five other measures were also ordered reported at that meeting of our committee.

All veterans and qualified survivors of veterans who receive disability compensation would receive a full COLA on December 1 of this year. The COLA is actually calculated on September 30; but if calculated today, it would be 2.2 percent.

More than 2.5 million veterans, Madam Speaker, were receiving service-connected disability compensation as of April of 2004. The basic purpose of the disability compensation program is to provide a measure of relief from the impaired earning capacity of veterans disabled as a result of their military service. These benefits are paid monthly, and range from $106 for a 10 percent disability to $2,239 per month for a 100 percent disability. Additional monetary benefits are available for our most severely disabled veterans, as well as for their dependents.

Spouses of veterans who died on active duty or as the result of a service-connected disability likewise are entitled to monetary compensation, as the Nation assumes, in part, the legal and moral obligation of the veteran to support the spouse and the children. Depending on their spouse's rank or grade in service, a spouse receives between $967 and $2,063 monthly. Currently, there are more than 300,000 surviving spouses and more than 29,900 children receiving dependency and indemnity compensation, also known as DIC.

The bill would also expand the list of diseases presumed to be related to a former prisoner of war for which benefits may be paid by adding osteoporosis, an often crippling bone condition. Former prisoners of war are eligible for disability compensation if they are disabled from one of the 16 conditions presumed to be the result of their POW experience.

I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), the committee's vice chairman, for working with us to include this portion of his bill, which was H.R. 348.

Finally, the bill would codify the current rates of compensation for service-connected disabilities and the rates of DIC for surviving spouses and children of veterans who die of service-connected causes, which went into effect last December, pursuant to Public Law 108-147.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill. It is a bipartisan bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown), the distinguished chairman of our Subcommittee on Benefits.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez), a distinguished member of the committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We do not have any further requests for time.

I, too, want to thank the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud) and again the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown). This is again a good, bipartisan piece of legislation. It is very significant and will significantly help our veterans and especially those who are service-connected disabled.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 308) recognizing the members of AMVETS for their service to the Nation and supporting the goal of AMVETS National Charter Day.

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

I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 308, legislation recognizing the members of AMVETS for their service to the Nation and supporting the goal of AMVETS on National Charter Day.

I want to recognize the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop), the sponsor of this legislation, and thank him for his work on this resolution.

From its origins in the middle of World War II, AMVETS has a long and distinguished history of service to our Nation. They held their first national convention in Chicago in October of 1945, and just 2 years later, on July 23, 1947, President Harry Truman signed the AMVETS Charter. Originally organized for World War II veterans, AMVETS had their charter amended in 1966 to include veterans who served honorably during the Korean conflict and the Vietnam War, and again in 1984 to include those who served honorably during peacetime as well.

From its humble origins, AMVETS has grown to a national organization, Madam Speaker, with over 250,000 members, in addition to another 60,000 members of its ladies auxiliary.

As chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I can attest to the important role that AMVETS plays in Washington advocating for stronger Federal policies supporting veterans, their surviving spouses and dependents. Their legislative staff is among the finest, and they have played a key role in many important public policy debates. Members know that they can count on AMVETS for advice, counsel and support as we continue developing national policies to benefit our veterans.

Madam Speaker, I want to recognize and commend AMVETS National Commander John Sisler of Groveland, Illinois, who presented AMVETS legislative goals at our joint Senate-House Committee on Veterans' Affairs hearing earlier this year. He should be proud of the fact and of the success of AMVETS that they have achieved and continue to achieve, not just in Washington but also in communities across America. In addition to providing benefits and services to their fellow veterans, they also play an important role in the civic life of their communities.

I urge support for H. Con. Res. 308.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I too want to thank the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud) and the staff, Pat Ryan, chief of staff and general counsel, and Mary Ellen McCarthy who has done a very good job, and Kingston Smith on my right here. This is truly an effort to try to write legislation that really will make a difference. These four bills, and some of the others that are pending which will soon be before the body, really do advance the ball on behalf of our veterans.

I thank them for their cooperation and their partnership on this. That is what it is all about, ``to try to care for him who has borne this Nation's battle, and for his widow and for his orphan,'' to quote President Lincoln.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from California for requesting this time to discuss rule of law in Russia. Not only is this an issue of great importance to the citizens of Russia but U.S.-Russia relations are affected by the regard given to this critical component of democratic and civil society.

I have the privilege of serving as chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, commonly known as the ``Helsinki Commission,'' an independent agency of the United States Government charged with monitoring and encouraging compliance with the Helsinki Final Act of 1975 and subsequent documents of the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe. The fate of rule of law in Russia, an OSCE member, will determine to a great degree the future of the Russian state and its role in the world community.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia moved from an authoritarian police state under communist rule to a sovereign nation with democratically elected leadership and many of the civil liberties that we in this country take for granted. We were encouraged by those positive and historic steps. On paper at least, there have been significant reforms designed to bring the Russian political and legal system into conformity with the accepted norms and practices of the United Nations, the OSCE, the Council of Europe, etc.

In recent years, though, the Putin government has undermined these reforms. In its Nations in Transit 2004 report, Freedom House sums it up: ``Russia is backsliding in key areas of democratic governance and rule of law.''

Two months ago, on May 20th, the Hensinki Commission held hearings on the issue of human rights in President Putin's Russia. One of our distinguished witnesses, Mr. Gary Kasparov, chairman of the Free Choice 2008 Committee in Russia and world-famous chess champion, spoke with passion about restrictions on freedom of speech in the electronic media, a process that we see continuing today.

In the area of rule of law per se, we are also seeing some disturbing moves against individuals who have apparently offended the powers-that- be in the Kremlin or the intelligence apparat.

The first case is that of industrialist Mikhail Khodorkovsky, former head of the Yukos Oil Company. Mr. Khodorkovsky's arrest on charges of fraud and tax evasion has received a lot of publicity. I don't claim to know whether Khodorkovsky is guilty or innocent, but this appears to be very much a case of selective justice. His real crime seems to have been, as David Satter wrote in the Wall Street Journal last week, that he ``had demonstrated independence, and, by financing opposition political parties, had contributed to political pluralism.''

Will Khodorkovsky get a fair trial? Let me jut quote from a report by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development: ``The courts are often subservient to the executive, while the security services, the prosecutors and the police remain highly politicized . . . the so- called `Yukos case' reflects these problems.'' As if to confirm the OECD assessment, officials at the Matrosskaya Tishina prison confiscated documents from one of his lawyers after she met with her client.

Another case is that of Dr. Igor Sutyagin, a Russian scientist who was sentenced to 15 years of labor camp for espionage, i.e., passing military secrets to British intelligence agents. Sutyagin never denied that he had worked with foreign scholars or that he shared previously published material with them. Indeed, Federal Security Service (FSB) agents never found evidence of any classified documents in his possession, and he had neither security clearance nor access to classified material. However, the FSB and the court came to the conclusion that Sutyagin's research was so accurate that he must have used classified documents to draw his conclusions. Think of it: one may be imprisoned for espionage for being too competent an analyst in military-security issues.

Deputy Assistant Secretary Steven Pifer of the State Department has testified before the Commission that ``most observers agree that [Sutyagin] had no access to classified information and consider the severe sentence an effort to discourage information-sharing by Russians with professional colleagues from other countries.''

The final case I would mention in this brief presentation is that of Mikhail Trepashkin, an attorney and former FSB officer who was arrested on October 24, 2003, a week before he was scheduled to represent relatives of a victim who perished in an apartment explosion at a trial in Moscow. At the trial, Trepashkin was expected to present the findings of his investigation which implicated the FSB in the 1999 apartment bombing in Moscow and the aborted attempted bombing of Ryazan.

A week before the trial opened, the police just happened to pull Trepashkin over on the highway, and just happened to find a revolver in his car. Trepashkin claims the gun was planted, a venerable KGB tactic. Three weeks later, he was put on trial and sentenced to four years labor camp for allegedly divulging state secrets to a foreign journalist.

I don't know all the details of this case, but it has the whiff of the proverbial mackeral by moonlight. It is very possible that Trepashkin was arrested in order to prevent him from releasing potentially damaging information regarding the activities of the FSB.

These are just few examples of the challenges to rule of law and human rights that Russia is now experiencing under President Putin. Let us hope that he will soon realize that the way to a genuinely stable and prosperous society is paved with rule off law and civil society, not the high price of crude oil.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join with my colleague, Congressman Bart Stupak of Michigan, to introduce legislation that will help improve the safety and health of thousands of Americans who may be using the acne medication Accutane.

Accutane has been documented as causing severe birth defects and miscarriages in pregnant women using the drug, and its side effects can result in the onset of depression, psychosis, and even suicide. Four years ago, my colleague and friend Mr. Stupak had to endure the tragic suicide of his teenage son, who was using Accutane at the time.

Despite the fact that the significant and serious side effects associated with Accutane are well known, the Food and Drug Administration has yet to mandate a program to better monitor the use of this drug and to document its effects in patients, despite the fact that such a registry has been recommended by FDA advisory panels on two separate occasions.

The Accutane Safety and Risk Management Act is common sense legislation that will build upon a safety plan first proposed by the makers of this drug themselves. It will still permit doctors to prescribe Accutane, but will also institute several additional patient safety and protection measures and ensure patients and their families know the full risks before beginning treatment.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation we propose will permit physicians to prescribe Accutane only

for ``severe, recalcitrant nodular acne'' that has been unresponsive to other forms of treatment. Severe acne is the condition for which Accutane was originally approved to treat. For patients with severe acne, Accutane may be the only medication that can successfully treat their affliction. But in far too many cases, Accutane is prescribed in an overly cavalier manner, and patients are being placed at risk to the drug's side effects for no medically valid reason. Many teenagers suffer from acne, and doctors and patients need to be cautious and not treat this drug lightly.

The legislation will also register all doctors, physicians, and pharmacists who prescribe and dispense the drug, and institute an education campaign to ensure these providers are well-informed about the potential risks associated with Accutane. All patients will also be educated and be required to receive similar information before starting treatment with Accutane and throughout the treatment regimen.

Prescriptions will only be written for 30 days and will not be permitted via the telephone, Internet, or mail. Female patients will also have to undergo a monthly pregnancy test before receiving a renewal on their prescription, and all patients will be required to take a monthly blood test.

The makers of the drug and all practitioners who dispense Accutane will also be required to file prompt reports with the Department of Health and Human Services anytime they learn of a negative reaction, including a death.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me just add that I commend my good friend Bart Stupak for having the courage and fortitude to turn a heartbreaking family tragedy into an effort to spare others from suffering a similar loss. I look forward to working with him to advance this important, common-sense health reform.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1587) to promote freedom and democracy in Vietnam, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House H.R. 1587, the Vietnam Human Rights Act, a bill designed to promote democracy and human rights in Vietnam and to give hope to those voices of freedom who today are systematically oppressed and silenced.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation we are considering today is almost identical to that which has cleared the House twice, one as a stand- alone bill which I sponsored a couple of years ago and a second time as an amendment to the State Department bill, the reauthorization bill.

The Vietnam Human Rights Act initially cleared the House by an overwhelming majority, 410 to 1, in September of 2001, coinciding with legislation to ratify the bilateral trade agreement with Vietnam. Despite the near unanimous vote, the Vietnam Human Rights Act was subsequently blocked and never voted on in the Senate.

The message then, Mr. Speaker, as it is today, is that human rights are central, are at the core of our relationship with governments and the people they purport to represent. The United States of America will not turn a blind eye to the oppression of a people, any people in any region of the world.

As the Vietnam Human Rights Act languished in the Senate a couple of years ago, many thought, and I would say naively but with good faith, that the bilateral trade agreement with Vietnam would lead to improved human rights conditions in Vietnam. Unfortunately, this has not been the case, and for many Vietnamese the situation is dramatically worse than it was just 3 years ago.

The government of Vietnam, Mr. Speaker, has scoffed at the Vietnam Human Rights Act and dismissed charges of human rights abuses, pleading the tired mantra of interference in the internal affairs of their government and that our struggle is some way related to the war in Vietnam. They say, Vietnam is a country, not a war. That is their protest, and I would say that is precisely the issue.

Today's debate is about the shameful human rights record of a country, more accurately, of a government, and it is not about the war. And, of course, Vietnam is a country with millions of wonderful people who yearn to breathe free and to enjoy the blessings of liberty. We say, behave like an honorable government, stop bringing dishonor and shame to your government by abusing your own people and start abiding by internationally recognized U.N. covenants that you have signed.

We know, Mr. Speaker, from the State Department Human Rights Reports and leading international human rights organizations that the government of Vietnam inflicts terrible suffering on countless people.

It is a regime that arrests and imprisons writers, scientists, academics, religious leaders and even veteran communists in their own homes and lately in Internet cafes for speaking out for freedom and against corruption.

It is a government that crushes thousands of Montagnard protestors, as they did in the Central Highlands during the Easter weekend, killing and beating many peaceful protestors.

They have, the government, forcibly closed over 400 Christian churches in the Central Highlands, and the government continues to force tens of thousands of Christians to renounce their faith. I am happy to say that many of these folks have resisted those pressures. One pastor put it at 90 percent

have refused to renounce their Christian faith, but the government is trying to compel them to renounce their faith.

This is a government that has detained the leadership of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam and continues to attempt to control the leadership of the Catholic church.

This is a government that has imprisoned a Catholic priest by the name of Father Ly and meted out a 10-year prison sentence. Why? Because he submitted testimony to the International Religious Commission on Human Rights. For that, for writing a couple of pages of facts and his opinion, he got 10 years of prison.

My speech today, Mr. Speaker, on this floor would easily fetch me a 15-year prison sentence replete with torture if I were a Vietnamese national making these comments in Vietnam.

And in yet another Orwellian move, Vietnam on Monday, this past Monday, July 12, promulgated an Ordinance on Beliefs and Religions which goes into effect on November 15. This new anti-religious law will further worsen religious persecution in Vietnam.

Amazingly, it bans the so-called abuse of the right to religious freedom to undermine peace, independence, and national unity, whatever that is. This new law is the most capricious and arbitrary policy imaginable, designed to ensnare and incarcerate believers for undermining, again, peace, independence and national unity, whatever that means.

Moreover, Mr. Speaker, if a religious person ``disseminates information against the laws of the State,'' in other words, disagrees with anything that the Communist government enacts, such dissemination is a punishable crime.

When is enough, enough, Mr. Speaker? Vietnam needs to come out of the dark ages of repression, brutality and abuse and embrace freedom, the rule of law, and respect for fundamental human rights.

I respectfully submit that the legislation we are considering today offers a clear framework for improving human rights in Vietnam. It is a bipartisan piece of legislation, and I hope the membership will support it.

H.R. 1587 requires the President to certify each year on the progress or the lack of it of the regime towards respecting human rights based on an extensive report required by the law. Specifically, to avoid possible sanction against Vietnam, the President would have to certify substantial progress by Vietnam towards releasing all political prisoners and religious prisoners, respect for religious freedom in general, and return of confiscated property.

The bill requires substantial progress by the government towards allowing Vietnam nationals free and open access to U.S. refugee programs and calls for respect for the ethnic minority groups in the Central Highlands.

The bill seeks to ensure that the government is not complicit in human trafficking. Today Vietnam is on the State Department's Tier II Watch List due to the government's failure to provide evidence of efforts to combat severe forms of trafficking, particularly its inadequate control of two state-controlled labor companies that sent workers to American Samoa from 1999 to 2001.

Unless the regime shows improvement in human rights, they will be unable to receive an increase over 2004 levels in nonhumanitarian U.S. foreign assistance. This is a modest but not insignificant penalty to a government that is brutalizing its own people.

H.R. 1587 also authorizes funds for NGOs to promote democracy in Vietnam and to help to overcome the jamming of Radio Free Asia.

Mr. Speaker, I hope all Members will support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

(Ms. LOFGREN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the distinguished ranking member on the Committee on International Relations, my good friend and colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent,

along with my friends on the other side of the aisle, because we have so many speakers, that we extend the debate 10 minutes equally divided on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes to respond to my good friend from Connecticut that friends do not let friends commit human rights abuses.

Whatever present relationship we might have with Vietnam, when they are torturing and killing and maiming and forcing people to renounce their faith, these are egregious human rights abuses, and they should not be put under the rug and somehow brushed aside. We need to speak out against those abuses, and we need to do it forcefully.

Let me also say to my colleagues that the American Legion supports this bill wholeheartedly, and I will provide their letter for submission into the Record.

Mr. Speaker, the AID's funding announced by Ambassador Tobias and the President just a few days ago is totally exempt, as is all medicine, foodstuffs, and humanitarian aid. None of that can be used as a penalty in terms of its provision to the people of Vietnam. We are talking about nonhumanitarian aid. We are talking about capping it at the 2004 levels.

As I said in my opening, it is a very modest effort to say that we do not want this to go on anymore, to stop this abuse; and we have proven through the trafficking legislation and other legislation recently that modest smart penalties or sanctions do work. They do get the attention of offending governments.

Our solidarity is with the oppressed in Vietnam. It is not with the oppressor. We want to see progress. I want to stand on this floor, as does the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and others, and sing the praises of the government, but we need to see progress. We are seeing significant deterioration with regard to human rights abuses.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Let me thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz- Balart) and all of the speakers, my good friend from California (Mr. Lantos) and all of those whom I think made very, very important points about why this bill ought to become law.

Let me just take a moment to speak on behalf of one of Vietnam's most courageous and renowned democracy activists, Dr. Que. Dr. Que has served two lengthy prison sentences and was arrested again for promoting democracy and human rights last year. He has been held incommunicado ever since, unable to see even his family. The Vietnamese government plans to put Dr. Que on trial next Monday. We do not know exactly what the charges are, and it appears that Dr. Que will be tried in secret without access to a lawyer. Unfortunately, this is par for the course for the government of Vietnam because they treat so many dissidents this way. The government of Vietnam should release Dr. Que, a peaceful man whose only crime is to speak out for freedom. Any adverse action against Dr. Que will only make our point as they have made our point regrettably over and over again.

Let me just say one brief point about the POW/MIA issue because I take a back seat to no one in my concerns for a full and thorough accounting about our POWs. As a matter of fact, my first human rights trip to Asia was to Vietnam in the early 1980s on behalf of POWs and MIAs trying to follow up on what we thought were live sightings and also to get a full and thorough accounting. But I would point out that Jerry Jennings, who was mentioned by my good friend from Connecticut, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for POW/MIA Affairs, has pointed out most recently that this is a mutual humanitarian effort between Vietnam and the United States; and, as he pointed out, the United States for its part has turned over hundreds of documents from U.S. national archives containing information about Vietnamese soldiers who died during the war.

It is to our mutual advantage to cooperate on that issue. I believe it is to the advantage of the people of Vietnam that this effort go forward with regards to the AIDS funding which is explicitly exempted by this legislation, as is other humanitarian aid as recounted in the bill.

This is all about human rights. This is about helping dissidents who are languishing in prisons. This is about religious believers who get that knock in the middle of the night and they are told, sorry, you are going to the gulag, where they are beaten, where they are repressed and where their families sometimes never hear from them again. These are modest, modest penalties; but we want to send a clear and unambiguous message to the government of Vietnam that human rights matter, they are important to us, they ought to be important to them.

I urge support. There are 35 cosponsors of this legislation equally divided between both sides of the aisle. It is truly a bipartisan piece of legislation. I urge support.

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following letter for the Record.

The American Legion,

Washington, DC, July 14, 2004.

Hon. Christopher H. Smith,

Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Smith: The American Legion applauds

your continuing leadership in fighting for the rights of the

abused

minorities in Vietnam. The United States must maintain

constant pressure on the Vietnamese government to honor the

rights of its citizens and our former allies. The Legion

stands in strong support of the Vietnam Human Rights Act of

2004.

The American Legion has grave concerns about the plight of

ethnic groups such as the Montagnards, as well as religious

minorities, including Buddhists and Catholics who are under

constant attack and persecution by Vietnamese authorities for

practicing their religion. The American Legion strongly

believes that successful passage of the Vietnam Human Rights

Act of 2004 will greatly benefit the future of minority

ethnic and religious populations in Vietnam. If the U.S. does

not have the tools that would be available through the

Vietnam Human Rights Act, we will lose the only remaining

leverage we have in persuading the Vietnamese to change their

egregious behavior.

As a nation at war, I think it is important that America's

allies know they serve beside a committed, loyal partner--one

that will not desert or betray them in their time of need.

Simply ignoring the current violations of human rights is not

an acceptable option for The American Legion's membership of

wartime veterans, many who served in Vietnam side-by-side

with these current victims of tyranny.

Sincerely,

John F. Sommer, Jr.,

Executive Director.

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

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida.) The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1587, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 114) concerning the importance of the distribution of food in schools to hungry or malnourished children around the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I

may consume and rise in strong support of S. Con. Res. 114, which is an expression of support for the McGovern-Dole International Food For Education Program. The companion House version of this resolution was introduced by the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts. By taking up the companion Senate version of the resolution, we will be able to complete congressional action on it.

300 million children around the world suffer from chronic hunger and malnourishment, and this program was founded on the premise that one of the most effective ways to combat child hunger could at the same time serve to increase literacy and to promote international stability. The program consists of a simple measure of supplying schools in areas suffering from food shortages with meals for their students. It has been shown that this measure, in addition to providing much-needed nourishment for hungry children, also results in a significant rise in attendance rates. This translates into higher literacy rates, job opportunities, and a healthier local economy as these children enter the workforce. These improvements, in turn, address several of the root causes of terrorism which is strongly linked to poverty and poor education.

Since its inception, the McGovern-Dole program has donated surplus agricultural commodities to the U.N. World Food Program, feeding nearly 7 million children from 38 countries. I urge the Congress to pass this concurrent resolution as an expression of support for this admirable endeavor. This resolution does not involve any allocation of funds, but does serve to recognize the accomplishments of the program, accomplishments again which have aided some 7 million children with much-needed meals and have aided the world by promoting education and stability. We express our support. I hope that the membership will support it.

Mr. Speaker, 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 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.R. 1587, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 462) reaffirming unwavering commitment to the Taiwan Relations Act, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my time be equally divided with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 462, a resolution reaffirming the unwavering support of the Congress for the Taiwan Relations Act. This year marks the 25th anniversary of the enactment of the Taiwan Relations Act, one of Congress' most important and enduring pieces of legislation. Over the past quarter century, the Act has served as the foundation of the United States' relationship with the people of Taiwan and has ensured the island's security. On this anniversary, it is fitting and appropriate for the Congress to review the cross-strait issue and reassess the needs of our friends in Taiwan.

In contrast to many other pieces of 25-year-old legislation, the Taiwan Relations Act has exceeded expectations. The Act has allowed the United States to maintain its close ties with the people of Taiwan while actively engaging Asia's rising power, the People's Republic of China, on a myriad of fronts, including human rights. In doing so, the measure has been important to the maintenance of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait and throughout the entire Western Pacific region.

The Taiwan Relations Act has also played an indirect role in promoting democracy in Taiwan by providing the conditions of external security that have allowed the people of Taiwan to focus on internal reform and democratization.

In the years since Congress passed the Taiwan Relations Act in 1979, Taiwan has developed into a lively and successful democracy, a tribute to the courage and determination of the island's remarkable people. The 1996 presidential election in Taiwan was the

first time in China's 5 millennia of recorded history that a fully democratically elected government assumed office. The election of 2000, which resulted in a peaceful transfer of power from one political party to another, evidenced a deepening democratic system. Two months ago, Taiwan completed its third direct presidential election.

The U.S. has watched this island nation develop into a mature, robust, vibrant democracy that respects human rights and civil liberties. Knowledge of our shared values has strengthened the commitment of Americans to stand by the people of Taiwan.

In contrast to Taiwan, Mr. Speaker, the mainland has failed to implement meaningful political reform, and the PRC's respect for fundamental human rights has deteriorated. Furthermore, the People's Republic of China has adopted a more aggressive military posture towards Taiwan. Over the past 5 years, the PRC has dramatically increased its stockpile of weapons. Today, China has approximately 500 missiles aimed at Taiwan, a matter of grave concern to the freedom- loving people of Taiwan and to all of us here in the United States. Given China's refusal to renounce the use of force against Taiwan, the arms buildup is a threat to peace and security in the Taiwan Strait and to the stability of the entire region.

Changes in cross-strait relations, Mr. Speaker, including democratization of Taiwan and an arms buildup by the People's Republic of China, requires that the United States continue to strengthen its support for the people and the democracy of Taiwan. H. Con. Res. 462 reinforces America's commitment to help Taiwan defend itself from outside coercion and intimidation. Continuing the tradition established by the Taiwan Relations Act, H. Con. Res. 462 urges the President and the Congress to reevaluate the defense needs of Taiwan and encourages the government of Taiwan to devote sufficient financial resources to defense of its island.

The resolution also, Mr. Speaker, encourages greater interaction between Taiwan and the U.S. with the goal of strengthening democracy on the island. Visits between the officials of the U.S. and Taiwan are not inconsistent with the One-China Policy. As such, officials of Taiwan should not be discouraged from visiting the United States.

Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that increasingly warmer cross-strait relations will ultimately transcend the need for the Taiwan Relations Act, and resolutions such as this one would not be needed. In time, the democracy which Taiwan has cultivated can take further root and flourish throughout all of China. However, until that day comes, resolutions such as this one are necessary to clearly promote peace and security in the region and to ensure continuing democracy in Taiwan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond briefly, and I think it needs to be responded to.

The Taiwan Relations Act made it very clear in section 3 that there is no ambiguity about the policy. It is very

clear to make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability.

Nobody in their right mind or in their wildest dreams would ever conceive of Taiwan attacking the mainland. It is all about a credible deterrence so that that dialogue between Beijing and Taipei can go forward, and that is why I think that this law has been so important in helping to maintain that protective cocoon, if you will, so that this dialogue again could go forward without an invasion from the People's Republic of China.

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.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

First, I want to thank my friend for clarifying that the pending amendment is simply a restatement of current law. I appreciate the fact that he has made that very clear.

I want to make a point so that we are also clear about the FDA's decision concerning Plan B. Dr. Stephen Galson, the acting director for FDA's Center For Drug Evaluation and Research, stated in a letter that based on science and safety concerns, Plan B will not be sold over-the- counter and this is his quote: ``Based on the review of the data, we have concluded that you (Barr Research Inc) have not provided adequate data to support a conclusion that Plan B can be used safely for young adolescent women.''

He also goes on to point out that ``only 29 of the 585 subjects enrolled in the study were 14 to 16 years of age, and none were under the age of 14.'' So based on science and safety concerns, the recommendation was made that Plan B should not be approved for over- the-counter sales.

So this restatement of current law does not add nor detract from things as they are.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding and join him in this very strong concern about one of the biggest scandals known in history and thank him for his good work as chairman of the subcommittee in trying to get to the truth as to what happened.

Mr. Speaker, tonight, we are discussing the recent disclosures about problems with the U.N.'s Oil-for-Food program. As my colleagues know, in 1995 the U.S. worked with the U.N. to create a program to allow Saddam Hussein to sell his country's oil in what was purported to be a controlled manner in return for shipments of humanitarian goods for the Iraqi people. Tragically, we now know that this noble effort was grotesquely undermined by scandal. The GAO estimates that some $10 billion in oil revenue was stolen from the people of Iraq.

The laudable purpose of the Oil-for-Food program was to alleviate massive human suffering by innocent Iraqi civilians whom Saddam Hussein was deliberately starving in order to generate international support and sympathy for lifting U.N. Security Council sanctions against Iraq. The system to be implemented by the U.N. and by member states was supposed to carefully monitor all sales of oil and make sure that these petrol dollars were placed in a trust fund at the French Bank, the PNB- Paribas.

The system was supposed to be transparent. It was supposed to be above board. It was supposed to be open, but it was anything but. As the coverup and the lack of transparency crippled efforts that continue to this day, efforts to establish all of the facts and to hold the corrupt to account.

New York Times columnist William Safire noted in June of 2004 that there are some 5,000 Oil-for-Food file folders stored at BNP-Paribas storage facilities in New York and in my home State of New Jersey with documentation on the letters of credit, the notice of arrival documents, descriptions of the contracts; and yet the U.S. investigators are not being allowed access to these vital documents.

In theory, Mr. Speaker, the trust funds were supposed to be out of the Hussein regime's control and were to be used to purchase civilian consumer goods and basic infrastructure. The justified fear manifested in the 1990s by the United States and the United Kingdom was that Hussein's agents would try to misuse oil funds to purchase banned weaponry and luxury items for the regime. History has proven these fears to be well founded. Unfortunately, the United Nations apparently presided over a system that was rife with loopholes and opportunities for Hussein and his thugs to corrupt and bribe their way towards enrichment at the expense of the very people he was to feed, clothe, and provide health care for.

For example, the Clinton administration estimated in the year 2000 nearly $2 billion of the Oil-for-Food assistance was diverted to build nine lavish palaces for Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party supporters, all of this while children went hungry and without medicines. The Congressional Research Service, Mr. Speaker, in April 2004 did an analysis of the various estimates to try to get a handle on the scale of the Iraqi sanctions cheating and the U.N. failure to stop them.

CRS notes said, ``There are no authoritative figures for the value of illicit trade with Iraq. However, the most widely cited estimates come from a study released in May 2002 by the GAO. According to the GAO study, Iraq earned $6.6 billion in illicit revenue from oil smuggling and surcharges during 1997 to the year 2001. Of that total, GAO estimates that $4.3 billion was from illicit oil sales and $2.3 billion from surcharges on oil and commissions from its contracts to buy civilian goods (kickbacks). The study estimated that during 2001, Iraq earned $1.5 billion from illicit oil sales from Jordan, Syria, Turkey, and the Persian Gulf; and about $700 million from surcharges and contract kickbacks.''

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, Congress and the Bush administration are actively investigating allegations of large-scale U.N. corruption in complicity with Iraqi sanctions violations. But we have not been allowed the access to information that would make these efforts successful. One problem, Mr. Speaker, with the U.N. program, and I would underscore this, is that it seems that the firm which signed the contracts with the U.N. to inspect the humanitarian aid shipments, Cotecna, appears to not have had enough inspectors at their posts to make sure that the transactions were handled properly.

According to internal U.N. audits, Cotenca overcharged the U.N. while understaffing the inspection positions. In other words, part-time work for full-time pay. This particular allegation was included in a report written by auditors from the Office of Internal Oversight at the U.N. This report, we are now told, is one of 55 that the U.N. auditors did on the Oil-for-Food program. Amazingly and shamefully, all 55 audits were kept from the U.N. membership, including the United States mission. This is just plain wrong; and to the best of my knowledge, no one in the Congress has seen the other 54 reports.

At the very least, these reports should be released immediately by the United Nations to the U.S. and other interested governments, and this stonewalling must end. I would point out to my colleagues that the distinguished chairman of the House Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), wrote to Secretary General Annan: ``The U.S. Congress, which provides 22 percent of the U.N.'s budget and which has publicly requested copies of the 55 internal audits, should not be required to depend on media leaks for source documents.''

The report on Cotecna, I would point out, was leaked and was placed on the Internet. If it were not for the bravery of one unnamed official, we would not even have this one report.

Mr. Speaker, let me just conclude by noting that while the United Nations looked the other way, or worse was complicit and corrupt, Saddam Hussein was underselling his oil in return for kickbacks and providing commercial favors to the companies from countries which did his bidding in his ongoing propaganda war against the United States. The scheme was rotten to the core. In my mind, it also raises some very serious questions about two of our Security Council countries which most adamantly opposed the U.S. multinational coalition military commitment, and they were France and Russia. They were among those getting the greatest sweetheart deals during the Oil-for-Food situation.

For example, the Russia diplomatic representatives, we are told, were instructed to do everything they could to push for contracts with Russian companies. There are hundreds of Russian companies dealing in Iraq. Some were even front companies for Iraqi officials steering the proceeds into offshore bank accounts. Some companies took open bribes. One Russian company, Lakia, paid bribes to Iraqi officials to get their contracts through; but when the contract fell apart, Lakia asked for

its bribe money to be paid back and even complained to the U.N. about the situation.

What did Benon Sevan, director of the U.N. office overseeing the Oil- for-Food program do about this? He notified Saddam's officials before he even told the U.N. about it.

Investigators are now hearing that the U.N. officials were open to bribes by suppliers if those vendors wanted their contracts to move up in priority for consideration there. They are hearing that U.N. officials would disclose the details behind the holes that U.S. officials were placing on contracts in return for the right amount of money. They are hearing that inspectors at Iraq's posts were also open for bribes and overfilling oil tankers beyond the contracted amount and then selling the extra oil and lining their pockets with the profits.

Under pressure, Mr. Speaker, as we all know, in April 2004 the U.N. appointed a commission headed by Paul Volcker, the former Chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve, to independently investigate this massive scandal.

Mr. Volcker is currently assembling his staff and beginning his inquiry. That sounds good, because Mr. Volcker enjoys a great deal of respect. But even with the best of intentions, if he is not given all the tools to unearth the truth, the probe will fall short. I will point out to my colleagues that Mr. Volcker and his commission do not have subpoena power, a deficiency in his powers that will undoubtedly cripple his access to information. How is he going to compel U.N. officials to provide the hard evidence of corruption?

Let us face it, Mr. Speaker, corrupt officials are not going to voluntarily hand over boxes of files filled with incriminating evidence. Instead, those boxes are likely to be shredded or redacted. Without subpoena power, the U.N.'s internal investigation will be stymied and will likely raise more questions than it answers, and the hard truths about this mother of all scandals are likely to be lost and remain elusive.

Secretary General Kofi Annan says he will fire any U.N. employee who does not cooperate. Sounds good. Let us see. We will see. How do we define cooperate? How do we know what remains secret when we do not have that ability to compel evidence? Mr. Annan's own son may be involved in this scandal since he was Cotecna's consultant, and that raises serious questions as well.

These are tough questions, Mr. Speaker; and I understand that the answers will not come overnight, and under the current glideslope, perhaps they will never come.

Congress needs to demand real answers, as we are doing; and there needs to be real and meaningful reforms made at the United Nations.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad we organized this very important night to focus on this terrible scandal. I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), for yielding to me.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Akin amendment which affirms, reaffirms existing U.S. policy of two of the most heinous practices known to humankind: sex trafficking and prostitution.

It should be very clear that the Akin amendment reiterates that funding in this bill cannot be used to circumvent provisions already existing in law, Public Law 108-225. As with the existing law, the Akin amendment states that no taxpayer funds designated for HIV/AIDS prevention may be used to promote or to advocate the legalization of prostitution or sex trafficking, and that no funds may be given to any group or organization that does not have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution or sex trafficking.

As the author of both the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 and the Trafficking Victims Reauthorization Act of 2003, I believe that the U.S. should do everything in its power to combat and to eliminate human trafficking in prostitution.

Those who advocate the legalization of prostitution, I believe, are doing a grave disservice to women and demeaning their dignity.

Individuals and groups seeking to receive U.S. assistance to fight AIDS who believe that the legalization of prostitution or they turn a blind eye to prostitution are part of the problem. They are not part of the solution.

Mr. Chairman, the horrors of sex trafficking, which is indeed modern- day slavery, and the ugliness of prostitution cannot be understated. The recently released ``Trafficking in Persons Report,'' which was done pursuant to our Act, has pointed out that some 600,000 to 800,000 people are trafficked every year across borders. I urge a ``yes'' vote for the Akin amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 257, which would express the sense of Congress that the President posthumously award the Medal of Freedom to Harry W. Colmery. Mr. Colmery, a lawyer who successfully argued cases before the Supreme Court after World War I, was the visionary who drafted in long-hand during the Christmas and New Year's holidays of 1943-1944 what would become the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, commonly known as the ``G.I. Bill of Rights.''

Michael Bennett, author of When Dreams Came True--The G.I. Bill and the Making of Modern America, credits Mr. Colmery with the wisdom and foresight that ``made the United States the first overwhelming middle- class nation in the world. It was the law that worked, the law whose unexpected consequences were even greater than its intended purposes.''

The World War II G.I. Bill of Rights--and the engaging response on the part of the 7.8 million veterans who used it--produced 450,000 engineers; 238,000 teachers; 91,000 scientists; 67,000 doctors; 22,000 dentists; and another one million college-educated men in other professional disciplines like business, management, manufacturing, banking, and social services. Among the 7.8 million GI Bill recipients were about five million World War II veterans who received other forms of valuable technical schooling or on-job training that become so important to our post-war civilian economy.

Mr. Speaker, even before WWII ended, Harry Colmery forecast that we as a nation would need a kind of economic ``cubby hole'' for training its veterans after the war, as the American economy would transform from making machine guns to making Maytags. Congress agreed, and on June 22, 1944, it sent the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 to the White House. President Roosevelt signed the bill saying ``. . . it gives emphatic notice to the men and women in our Armed Forces that the American people do not intend to let them down.''

But frankly, it was more than not letting down the veterans themselves. Michael Bennett speculates on Mr. Colmery's foresight, ``For this was a bill . . . conceived in democracy and dedicated to the proposition that those called upon to die for their country, if need be, are the best qualified to make it work, if given the opportunity.''

Having served in the Army Air Service during World War I, Harry Colmery understood that economically empowering veterans through education and training was vastly superior to providing them with cash bonus payments, as was done for World War I service.

And history has shown how correct Mr. Colmery was.

Building upon the success of the original GI Bill, Congress subsequently approved a second bill following the Korean War; a third bill following the Vietnam War; a fourth bill for the post-Vietnam War era; and in 1985, under the dedicated leadership of former Veterans' Committee Chairman Sonny Montgomery, Congress approved the modern version of the GI Bill which is fittingly called the Montgomery GI Bill.

And in recent years, Congress has continued to keep faith with the goals originally set out by Harry Colmery by passing legislation that modernizes the GI Bill to meet the needs of America's military veterans in the 21st century. As a result of bipartisan legislation I was proud to sponsor along with my good friend Congressman Lane Evans, the total lifetime college benefit for qualified veterans has risen from $24,192 in January 2001, to $35,460 today. In total, more than 21 million veterans have received higher education and job training through the original WWII GI Bill and its successors.

Michael Bennett noted that, ``the $14.5 billion cost of the WWII GI Bill was paid by additional taxes on the increased income of the GI Bill recipient by 1960. Without the property--and the social peace-- engendered by the GI Bill, America couldn't have afforded the Marshall Plan's $12.5 billion.''

Mr. Bennett further observed that by 1960, ``veterans were only in their early 40s, at the height of their earning powers, and the bill's catalytic effects would be felt for years to come throughout the entire economy as homes, schools, roads and service industries multiplied. Between 1960 and 1980, America's Gross Domestic Product quintupled from $515.9 billion to $2.7 trillion. Since then, the GDP has risen to $8.5 trillion in 1998, a tripling in 17 years rather than a quintupling in 20.''

Economic philosopher Peter Drucker said in the Harvard Business Review that ``the GI Bill of Rights and the enthusiastic response to it on the part of America's veterans signaled the shift to a knowledge society. In this society, knowledge is the primary resource for individuals and for the economy overall.''

Mr. Drucker later wrote that ``future historians may consider it the most important event in the 20th Century. We are clearly in the middle of this transformation; indeed, if history is any guide, it will not be completed until 2010 or 2020. But already it has changed the political, economic and moral landscape of the world.''

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Harry W. Colmery essentially articulated for America what author Bennett later referred to as the ``American Creed in Action.'' Mr. Colmery knew from his personal experiences during and after World War I that Americans who fight in wars often are ordinary people who do extraordinary things. Mr. Colmery and The American Legion mounted the campaign for the GI Bill and against those who predicted that it could turn the nation's college and universities in to ``educational hobo jungles.'' In the end, Mr. Colmery and Representative Edith Nourse Rodgers (MA), who worked with him and co- authored the GI Bill legislation in the House of Representatives, won out.

As the New York Times reported in November 1947, ``. . . here is the most astonishing fact in the history of American higher education. . . . The G.I.'s are hogging the honor rolls and the Dean's lists; as they are walking away with the top marks in all of their courses. . . . Far from being an educational problem, the veteran has become an asset to higher education.''

Mr. Speaker, as a trained lawyer and not an economist or an educator, Harry Colmery designed the legislation to allow 14 million World War II veterans to transform arsenals of mass destruction into industries of mass consumption.

These veterans did not just pass through higher education, they transformed it. But it was more than that. They created the modern middle class, thanks to the vision of Harry Colmery.

I encourage my colleagues to emphatically support the Presidential Medal of Freedom for this extraordinary American.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and recognize the staff of the American Battle Monuments Commission and the World War II Project for all their efforts in ensuring a very successful dedication of the World War II National Memorial: General P.X. Kelley, Chairman, American Battle Monuments Commission; Major General John Herrling, Secretary, American Battle Monuments Commission; Mr. Kenneth Pond, Executive Director, American Battle Monuments Commission; Mr. Mike Conley, Associate Executive Director, National World War II Memorial Project; Mr. Bob Patrick, Director, National World War II Memorial Dedication; Mr. Dick Couture, Director, Marketing and Member Services, National World War II Memorial; Ms. Betsy Glick, Director, Communications, National World War II Memorial Project; and Mr. Barry Owenby, Project Executive, National World War II Memorial Project.

These individuals, along with their staffs, worked untold months to ensure that the weekend of May 29, 2004, will live on in the hearts of the veterans and families of the ``Greatest Generation.''

More than 150,000 people attended the May 29, 2004, dedication ceremony of the first national memorial built to honor all of the Americans who served their country during World War II. Millions more were able to watch the

dedication through live television feeds to the national broadcasting networks, the History Channel, and C-Span.

Additional events throughout the weekend drew large crowds who gathered for reunions and celebrations. A four-day National World War II Reunion held in conjunction with the Smithsonian Institution Center for Folklife and Cultural Heritage drew over 300,000 people, and three two-hour ceremonial and musical performances held at the MCI Center were sold out. A Service of Celebration at the Washington National Cathedral was well attended by military and civilian clergy and World War II dignitaries.

Mr. Speaker, the enthusiasm, performance, and commitment of all the staff at the American Battle Monuments Commission, the National WWII Memorial Project, and the National WWII Memorial Dedication do not go unnoticed, and I thank them for their exceptional work on behalf of our Nation's veterans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce H.R. 4658, the Servicemembers Legal Protection Act of 2004, legislation to further strengthen the legal and financial rights of military servicemembers, particularly those called up to active duty in Iraq, Afghanistan and other duty stations around the world. This legislation would amend a prior law I sponsored, that President Bush signed last year, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, Public Law 108-189.

Mr. Speaker, this morning I chaired a hearing of the Veterans' Affairs Committee to examine how well the federal statutes protecting our servicemembers rights were being enforced. Testifying before the Committee were several servicemembers and family members with personal experiences in which their rights were not properly protected under existing laws.

One witness, Ms. Tammy Kimmel whose husband served in the Army at Fort Hood in Texas, told the Committee that when her husband was ordered to a new duty location, her landlord refused to release her from their joint housing lease as required by law. The landlord claimed that the law required the servicemember to be released, but not the spouse.

The legislation I am introducing today would help prevent such misinterpretations as well as strengthen and expand several existing legal and financial protections.

Mr. Speaker, with more than 150,000 Guard and reserve members activated in the continuing war on terrorism, we must ensure that the laws protecting their rights are fully and faithfully executed and enforced. Congress approved the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act last year precisely because of perceived ambiguities and weaknesses in longstanding federal statutes covering military personnel called to active duty or redeployed to new duty locations.

Regrettably, despite sixty years of federal case law, culminating with the passage last year of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, there are still some individuals, businesses, and organizations who cynically refuse to provide all the reliefs required by statute.

We will neither tolerate outright violations nor attempts to distort the clear purposes of the laws Congress has enacted. The evidence from today's hearing is overwhelming and the intention of the law is clear. Those men and women who put their lives on hold and on the line must not suffer economic or legal harm that results from their military service. This Committee and this Congress will continue to do all that can be done to protect the legal and financial rights of all of our servicemembers, whether they are active duty, reserve or Guard.

As introduced, H.R. 4658, the Servicemembers Legal Protection Act, would:

Strengthen the lease termination protections for dependants of servicemembers relocating per military orders;

Expand the definition of court and administrative judgments and rulings covered by the law:

Require that waivers of their rights by servicemembers must be duly executed in separate, clearly written documents:

Extend to plaintiffs the same relief granted to defendants in civil court proceedings:

Extend the housing and automobile lease termination relief to servicemembers relocated from states or territories outside the contiguous United States (e.g., Hawaii, Alaska):

Strengthen the leases termination provisions for servicemembers affected by individual deployments:

Prevent double taxation of servicemembers due to differences in state and local excise, use, or other similar taxes.

Mr. Speaker, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act that passed last year both restated and expanded the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act first approved in 1940. This federal statute is designed to help ensure that U.S. military personnel are not disadvantaged when they have been called to active duty and are therefore unable to be present at legal proceedings.

Among the most important protections added by the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act last year were automatic 90-day stays for civil and administrative proceedings, protections for servicemembers and their families from housing evictions, the right of servicemembers and their spouses to terminate housing and automobile leases, and protection from repossessions of automobiles.

Enactment of the legislation I am introducing today, H.R. 4658, the Servicemembers Legal Protection Act, would provide an additional level of support for all of the brave men and women defending our nation and our freedom around the world. I urge my colleagues to look at this important legislation and lend their support to protecting the legal and financial rights of all of our servicemen and women.