Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, as today is primary election day in Indiana, I was delayed in my return to Washington, DC, and therefore unable to be on the House floor for rollcall votes 139, 140, and 141. Had I been here I would have voted ``yea'' for rollcall vote 139, ``yea'' for rollcall vote 140, and ``yea'' for rollcall vote 141.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 135 on adoption of a motion to suspend the rules and pass S. 1904, the Wilkie D. Ferguson United States Courthouse Designation Act, I am not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, it is my great honor to stand before you today to recognize the achievements of a fine Westfield High School student, Carol Rupprecht, of Carmel, Indiana. Ms. Rupprecht-- sponsored by VFW Post 10207 in Westfield, IN--has been named a winner in the 2004 National Voice of Democracy Program and recipient of the Department of Connecticut and Auxiliary Scholarship.

Each year the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States and its Ladies Auxiliary conduct a Voice of Democracy audio and essay competition designed to give high school students the opportunity to voice their opinion on their responsibility to our country. This year, more than 80,000 secondary school students participated in this contest competing for 59 national scholarships. The contest theme for this year was ``My Commitment to America's Future.''

I am respectfully requesting that Ms. Rupprecht's winning essay, entitled ``My Commitment to America's Future,'' be submitted to the Congressional Record for my colleagues' review.

We're always talking about the future. Our guidance counselors try to prepare us for it; stockbrokers try to predict it; scientists discuss their hopes and ideas for it.

But it inevitably ends up that we cannot know and pencil in every detail of what will happen in days to come. But we can influence the future through what we do in the present and what we commit to do in the future. A commitment is not just a promise in a valiant speech or a fleeting charitable intention. A commitment is a set of actions that follow up on one's intentions.

When September 11th recharged our devotion to America, we began to exhibit this renewed commitment by reciting the Pledge of Allegiance more frequently at school. We have recited it from memory since we were in elementary school, but this renewal of tradition got me thinking. What exactly am I promising? Am I only pledging to be loyal to this country, or does it entail more than that? To me, it does.

In order to outline all that my pledge of allegiance involves, I have created the acronym PLEDGE: Protect, Lead, Education, Dedicate, Give, and Elect. This will ensure that I never forget what I owe America.

The first letter of PLEDGE is ``P.'' I will protect the ideals of America--the values that make our country stand out from the rest. The determination to protect these ideals was epitomized in the hearts of the veterans such as those who will forever be remembered at the Korean Memorial in Washington D.C. As I passed the silent statues of these men forever frozen in their quest for freedom, I knew that they had made the ultimate commitment to the preservation of America and its values. They were assigned a duty and didn't back down. The valor and selflessness that these soldiers demonstrated are qualities I should strive to imitate.

The second letter of PLEDGE is ``L.'' I will lead my fellow Americans, especially the youth of America, and I will encourage them to follow the examples of our forefathers, our war veterans, and of past and present patriots. I, too, will endeavor to set an example worth following.

The next letter in PLEDGE is ``E.'' I will educate myself on our nation's history and the sacrifices of veterans who enabled us to have a history. I will then be able to share what I learn with others.

The fourth letter, ``D,'' stands for ``dedicate.'' I will dedicate my time, energy, and talents to making the most of the opportunities America has given to me. I will study hard; I will work hard. I won't let my dreams become wilted flowers that could have thrived. Instead, I'll sow discipline, determination, and faith and cultivate my field of dreams.

The letter ``G'' in PLEDGE stands for ``give.'' I will give my services to the community and my prayers for the people of America, especially its leaders. As author Carolyn Simpson said in her book The Value of Patriotism, ``Patriotism boils down essentially to one thing: giving something back to your community.'' I, too, believe that one of the best ways to show a love for one's country is to show love for its people.

The final letter in PLEDGE, ``E,'' stands for ``elect.'' When I reach the voting age, I will ensure that my voice is heard by electing government officials. My vote will have an effect on America's future, in the same way that my actions today will affect America's future.

We, the youth of America, are its future. The veterans who went before us fought and sacrificed to secure our freedom, and we are now reaping the benefits of what they sowed. Let's do the same not only for our own generation but also for those that follow. Let's make a PLEDGE to Protect, Lead, Educate, Dedicate, Give, and Elect.

God has richly blessed America, and America has given much to each of us. So what will I give back? What is my commitment to America's future? I will wake up each morning with a renewed determination to serve my God and my country. I will appreciate those who were and are committed to America, and I will endeavor to be counted among them.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform my colleagues on Indonesia's recent strides towards democratization. Indonesia should be hailed as the poster child for emerging democracies throughout the world. A major secular state with a Muslim majority, Indonesia is the world's third largest democracy and is gaining International recognition for its strides towards complete democratization. Indonesia's democratization matters precisely because the country is making progressive political and constitutional reforms while also demonstrating that Islam and democracy are not mutually exclusive and can successfully work in tandem for one nation.

When so many positive stories in the Muslim world are obscured by violent uprisings in areas of historic conflict, it is high time to take notice of the truly impressive strides Indonesia is making. On Monday, April 5th, nearly 148 million voters in Indonesia took to the polls in a critical test for their young democracy. Indonesians selected national, provincial, and regional Parliamentary Representatives. Unlike other international elections, campaigning there has not been marred by violence--and by most media reports--the balloting was conducted in an efficient, clean, transparent, and purely democratic manner. And on July 5th, in one of the largest electoral undertakings in the world and for the first time in Indonesia's history, the President and Vice President will be directly elected.

Indonesia's economy was battered in the financial crisis of 1997, and governing this sprawling archipelago has not been easy in the wake of the economic meltdown and dramatic political change that we have witnessed in the seven short years of post-Soeharto Reformasi. In fact, much remains to be done there, particularly in the critical areas of judicial reform, corruption, human rights, and social welfare.

With close to half of the world's shipping fleet passing through Indonesian waters, the geopolitical importance of the country cannot be overstated. In addition, the threat of terrorism in Southeast Asia is real and Indonesia has been the unfortunate victim of several major attacks in recent years. In order to quell terrorist threats, Indonesia's government is discovering new ways of working with regional law enforcement and intelligence communities in hopes of rooting out homegrown radicalism. But Indonesia should not fight this battle alone: solid U.S. support is needed in the struggle to keep Indonesia safe against the devastation and destruction of terrorism.

With more than 300 major American firms doing business in Indonesia-- and as massive decentralization takes place--near term U.S. investment in the country will exceed $25 Billion. As a result, the United States should continue providing support to help Indonesia stabilize and consolidate these economic, political, and social gains. By combining strategic development initiatives and more effective public diplomacy, we can successfully engage Indonesia in this election year and beyond.

As a new generation of democratic participation arises out of Indonesia's turbulent past, the United States and Indonesia's neighbors can only benefit as Indonesia embraces the model of a modern democratic state. With Indonesia's current level of economic and social development, the International Community now has the unique opportunity to assist with the country's continual progress towards complete democratization. We should do all we can to help Indonesia become a positive Muslim and democratic influence in that vital region of the world community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan in recognition of the 25th anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act. I am proud that Taiwan and the United States have enjoyed such a strong and durable relationship over the last quarter century in part due to our shared democratic values.

The Taiwan Relations Act has been instrumental in maintaining peace, security and stability in the Taiwan Straits and the Western Pacific since its enactment in 1979. Today Taiwan is truly an economic success story and I am confident that the Bush Administration and our allies in the region will remain committed to playing an appropriate supporting role in reducing tensions across the straits. I am also hopeful that expanded confidence-building exchanges between Beijing and Taipei will lessen the likelihood of any potential conflict in the region.

Under the framework of the Taiwan Relations Act, the Republic of China has become a shining example of economic prosperity. Taiwan has become the eighth largest U.S. trading partner with total Taiwanese exports of US$ 32.2 Billion and imports of US$ 18.4 Billion. Taiwan is currently the world's twentieth largest economy with a GDP of US$ 219 Billion. I believe the United States should continue to expand trade opportunities with Taiwan like the recently signed letters of intent for Taiwan to increase purchases of Indiana's agricultural products.

I stand today in strong support of Taiwan's membership in international organizations such as the World Health Organization and the United Nations. Taiwan is deserving because of its commitment to our shared values of freedom, democracy, human rights, peace and prosperity.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, on the historically significant occasion of the 25th Anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act, I rise to pay tribute to America's relationship with Taiwan, and I call upon this body to recommit ourselves to the prospect of peace, freedom and democracy in Taiwan for the next twenty-five years and beyond.

Madam Speaker, first of all, I was watching the gentleman on television and I agreed with so much of what he said, in fact, everything that the gentleman said. But one of the things that concerns me is, while I was watching the gentleman on television, I was also watching CNN and Fox and watching the news reports on what happened in Fallujah in Iraq today. And some of the people who have been commenting on what happened have said, we really out to reevaluate, we ought to pull our troops out, and they are talking in a way that will give aid and comfort to the enemies of the free world, not just the United States, but the free world, and that concerns me a great deal.

President Bush is doing the right thing, as the gentleman has stated, in fighting this war against terror and terrorism and terrorists. This is a world war. And the American people and my colleagues and the media need to realize, this is a world war not unlike what we faced in World War I, World War II and so forth. The difference is it is a guerilla- type war

being fought by fanatics who use people as bombs, who blow up innocent civilians and kill people, and they are not going to go away.

Madam Speaker, they saw what happened in Somalia when Black Hawk Down happened, and the previous administration did exactly what they wanted them to do, and that was to pull out.

Now, that was an encouragement, I believe, to the terrorists around the world at that point. Now we are in a world war against them. The President has made a commitment to free the world from terrorism and to protect the American citizens against another attack like 9/11.

If we want to encourage the terrorists, and I say this to my colleagues and to the news media and everybody else, if we want to encourage the terrorists, what we need to do is pull out and give them the green light to continue to use this kind of terrorist tactic to dissuade the free world from fighting against this terrorist activity and we are going to let them have the run of the field. That is something that we cannot do, we must not do. This is a war that the free world and the United States cannot lose.

Toward that end, regarding Fallujah and what happened in the last couple of days and the terrorist attacks in Iraq, what we need to do, and I would say this if the President were here tonight, what we need to do is let our troops go in there and go house to house and take those weapons away to pacify that area. And anyone who has a gun, arrest them. And anyone who uses weapons in the commission of a terrorist attack or a crime, arrest them, get them out of there, and let the people know over there that we are going to do what is necessary to free them from the terrorist influence. And if we do not do that, then we are going to continue to encourage them.

So I would say to the President if he were listening tonight, and he may very well be or his advisors, let us let our troops go in there and pacify that area. Let us send a very strong signal to the terrorists and their affiliates over there that we are not going to stand still and let American citizens be killed or let American military personnel be killed.

It is extremely important that this signal be sent and sent now, because if we start listening to the liberals and the media who say, pull in our horns, let us start regressing and getting out of there, then what is going to happen is there is going to be a green light to the terrorists and we are going to have a hell of a problem.

And the gentleman has been to Iraq, and so have I.

Yes.

Madam Speaker, when I watched the media a while ago, they showed the people demonstrating in Fallujah and the cars burning and the people waving the victory sign and everything. I was there. The gentleman was there. That is the minority of the people. And the media continues to focus on that, instead of the things that are being accomplished; and that really, really bothers me.

The other thing is, we have lost about 500 troops over there, and that is terrible. We do not want to see one young American maimed or die. But what happened in World War II is that 50 million people were killed worldwide because we let a war get out of hand. We have an opportunity right now to win this war on terrorism and to stop the terrorists and to send a very, very strong signal to them. It is a war that is going to go on for a long time. But if we do not send the right signals to them right now, they will be encouraged, in my opinion, and we will see more death take place that would not be necessary if we did the right things now.

Yes. Let us back them up in New York or someplace else.

The gentleman makes a very good point. That is the kind of thing that the media should focus on. Here is a terrorist state, a known terrorist state that has said, okay, we are going to reject terrorism. And the reason was because they saw what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan. We sent a very strong signal.

We have had 500 troops die there in Iraq. I do not want one of those troops to have died in vain. They sent a very strong signal around the world. If the media continues on the path, and I am not talking about all the media now, but if the more liberal media continues on the path that it is on saying why should we not bring our troops home, why are we letting these sorts of things happen, they send a signal, as my colleague said before, to the terrorists that this sort of thing is working. That should not be the signal we send.

It was not the signal we sent in World War I or World War II. We should not send it now. Because this is a world war that the United States and the free world cannot afford to lose. And we cannot afford to send signals that encourage the terrorist network.

Let me just say that back in the mid-90s we knew from intelligence reports that there were terrorist training camps in and around Khartoum in the Sudan. We knew that. We knew Usama bin Laden was in Khartoum, and we knew of the terrorist attacks like the ones that my colleague cited a few minutes ago; and we really did not go after him, although we should have at that time.

Now, I am not saying there is not enough blame to go around. Any time you get into a military conflict, especially one this extensive, there are going to be mistakes made. But the one mistake that has not been made is by our President. He has done the right thing in taking the mantle of leadership and moving forward. He is going after the terrorists wherever they hide in Afghanistan, in Iraq, wherever they are. And I commend him for that.

And this country, and the media in particular, if they are paying any attention tonight, the media in particular ought to think about the ramifications of trying to get us to pull in our horns when we are fighting a war against terrorism. They should be supporting the effort to rid the world of terrorists and the terrorist network instead of pointing out all the deficiencies.

We are in a war against terrorism, one we cannot afford to lose. We have a man at the helm right now who is doing the right things. And, by golly, he ought to be supported not just by my colleague and me, but by the entire country and, in particular, those in the media because they have such a tremendous influence on public policy.

Madam Speaker, yes, I was there about 3 weeks ago.

Madam Speaker, if the gentleman would yield. When I was over there, I am sure my colleague found the same thing, they had found 400,000 people in unmarked graves. They estimated between 1 and 1.3 million people that are unaccounted for. They were putting people in wood chippers, they were raping women. It was horrible what was going on, the torture and everything.

Madam Speaker, if we did not do anything but free that country, that would be a great thing. But what we have done is we have sent a very strong signal to the terrorist network al Qaeda, the Taliban, the Baath Party in Iraq, and the terrorists around the world; and what bothers me now is because the media is focusing only on the negatives and not the positives, not on what we have accomplished but what we have not yet accomplished and, I believe, maybe inadvertently, they are giving aid and comfort to the enemy, the terrorist network, and that is something they should not do.

They may not agree with everything President Bush has done, but they have to admit that we have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein. We are on the heels of Usama bin Laden. We have knocked out an awful lot of the terrorist network, and there have been no more attacks on the United States of America. That does not mean we will not have them. But there have been no more attacks. That is because of President Bush, homeland security, and Tom Ridge, and because they are doing the right things. I just wish the media would focus on them.

I normally do not come down here and vent my spleen like this. I try to be a little bit more moderate, if one wants to say that; but right now I am very, very angry because all we are seeing on the screen right now is should we be there, should we not be pulling out, should we be pulling in our horns.

The one thing we must not do, and I am speaking to the media in particular right now, is we must not send the message that we are going to withdraw or cave in this war against terrorism. It is essential that we are victorious. No matter how long it takes, we have to be victorious. Just like in World War I and in World War II, we have to win this war, otherwise we are going to suffer terrorist threats and terrorist attacks for many, many, many years to come.

Madam Speaker, I would like to say something about what my colleague said a moment ago. He was talking about, in essence, we cannot look back and talk about the shortcomings. We have to look forward and say what are we doing now to deal with the problem; what are we going to do with it in the future.

Bobby Jones, one of the greatest golfers of all time, I will use this as an analogy, he said, You play the ball where it lies. When he was hurt, when he was dying and was physically impaired, people said, do you not feel bad about that? He said, That is life. You play the ball where it lies.

What we have to do now is realize where we are in this world and what it is all about. And there is a war against the terrorists that is in progress, and it is a war we cannot lose. So we have to start here and go forward. And the President has already started that ball moving in the right direction by taking on the terrorists, taking on Saddam Hussein, trying to make sure there are no weapons of mass destruction that are going to be used against the Middle East or the United States or the rest of the world. I think we are on the right track.

The thing we have to do now is make sure we keep the American people with us in this war against terrorism, and that is why the media is so important. They can play a very valuable role in making sure that the facts are out there, not opinion; but the facts are out there on what we have accomplished and where we are going.

As my colleague said, it does not have to be pro-Bush or against Bush, it just has to be fair reporting. If they report the progress that is being made and how the war is progressing and what we are winning instead of just the negatives, I am sure that everything will come out all right.

One of the things that was reported on briefly but should have been reported on in more detail was after 9/11 and the World Trade Center was taken down by the planes, and the Pentagon was attacked, and they were going to attack the Capitol had it not been for those heroic people in Pennsylvania that died, but the fact of the matter is planes coming from Paris, France, and from Europe were stopped from coming over here because they found out through intelligence gathering that they had potential terrorists on those planes that were going to make them into bombs to blow up more buildings in the United States.

So our intelligence-gathering capability has increased dramatically since President Bush took office and since Tom Ridge took over homeland security.

Things are getting better, and we are stopping terrorist attacks, but those are the things that ought to be reported upon, the things that we have stopped from happening in the United States to protect the American people, instead of dwelling just on negatives. If we just do that, I would be much, much happier.

I just want to say to my colleague, because I am going to leave the stage back to him, I want to thank you very, very much for taking this time. We ought to have a whole host of our colleagues down here talking about this tonight, but you are the guy that did it, and I want to thank you for carrying the mantle of leadership tonight. You are to be congratulated.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to my colleagues, if they have children or grandchildren, pay attention to what I am going to say because this is very important.

Recently, there was an article put out by AP that was in the Indianapolis Star which was on the front page that I read, and it said that women and children should eat less fish, and the reason they should eat less fish is because there is a high mercury content in the fish and it can cause neurological problems in the children and in the parents if they eat too much fish.

What the article did not say is that many of the vaccinations that adults get and many of the vaccinations that the children get have mercury in them. So we are not supposed to eat the fish, but it is all right for the pharmaceutical industry to put a preservative called thimerosal into a vaccination and then inject their children with it and then the children get the mercury directly from a needle and it goes into the brain and causes neurological problems.

This is not baloney. My grandson got nine shots in 1 day, seven of which contained thimerosal, mercury; and within about 2 or 3 or 4 days, he became autistic. These are pictures of children from across the country who were normal children who received a number of shots containing mercury, and they became autistic. Many of their parents have testified before my committee as to how their children were before they got the shots and how they were after they got the shots.

We have been raising Cain with the Food and Drug Administration to get mercury out of children's vaccines and we got it out of almost all of them. But it is still in three: the HIB vaccine, the Hepatitis B, and the flu vaccine. I want to get it out of all of them because no child should be subjected to having mercury injected into their body. If it is bad for them to eat fish with mercury in it, then it is sure a heck of a lot worse for them to get a shot from a needle, a vaccination that puts mercury into their bodies.

Children used to get one or two shots. When I was a kid, we did not get many shots. We were kept out of school if we had mumps or measles or any of those things, but now they give them shots for all that. A child, before he starts in the first grade, gets as many as 30 shots. Can the Members imagine 30 shots with mercury in them, the cumulative effect of that on the brains of these children?

For those who are concerned about it as adults, and I see some gray hairs in the room, the flu vaccine, the tetanus vaccine, almost all the vaccines that we get, and our troops get in the field, get as many as 11 in 1 day in the Persian Gulf, most of those contain thimerosal, which is 50 percent mercury.

We need to collectively, as a body, tell the Food and Drug Administration and our health agencies to get mercury out of all vaccines. It is not necessary. If we go to single-shot vials, we do not need to have mercury in there as a preservative to make sure that they are not contaminated. All we have to do is use common sense.

The problem is it is going to cost just a few cents more per shot to make sure that it does not contain mercury. If we really care about the thousands of children who are becoming autistic and the people who are getting Alzheimer's, we need to get mercury out of the vaccines. There is an epidemic of Alzheimer's now. We used to have one out of 10,000 children who were autistic. Now it is one out of about 200.

Anybody who has a parent or grandchild ought to listen to what I am saying, because if their child gets numerous shots with mercury in them, they run the risk of being autistic. I have had hearings for 4 years now, and I am telling the Members that scientists from around the world agree with what I am telling them. Many countries in the world have taken mercury out of the vaccines. We need to do it here.

Mr. Speaker, the United States grants Temporary Protective

Status (TPS) to about 400,000 citizens of El Salvador annually, and helps facilitate their sending about $2 billion home to their families each year. We do this, in part, because the United States enjoys a positive working relationship with the democratic government there.

Unfortunately, the communist candidate for the Presidency, and his political party, the FMLN, has explicitly stated their support for the communist narco-guerrilas who have been attacking the democratic government of Colombia since 1962. They have also said that upon their election to office they will immediately open full diplomatic relations with communist Cuba, a country recognized by the United States as a state sponsor of terrorism.

Based upon these disturbing statements, should the communist/FMLN candidate assume the Presidency of El Salvador, it may well be necessary for the United States to reconsider our relationship with El Salvador, the continuation of TPS for Salvadoran citizens, and our current support for their sending remittances back home.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the following statement, which I believe provides a concise overview of this matter placed into the Congressional Record following my statement. I strongly urge my colleagues to read it and keep it firmly in mind as we await the results of the March 21st elections in El Salvador.

Statement on U.S. National Security Policy Regarding the FMLN

tps and national security

In making immigration decisions, such as the granting or

extension of Temporary Protective Status (TPS) or the

conversion of TPS to Permanent Resident Status or other

considerations that enable foreign nationals to remain in the

United States, the U.S. government must put first the

national security of the United States.

tps and the pro-terrorist regimes

For that reason, the granting of TPS to nationals of a

country should be immediately reviewed and, in most cases,

terminated, if a pro-terrorist party wins power or enters the

government of that country.

the fmln as a pro-terrorist party

The FMLN, a political party in El Salvador, can be

considered a pro-terrorist party because of its support for

designated terrorist organizations, such as the FARC, and for

the public participation by some of its leaders in a pro-Al

Qaeda rally where the U.S. flag was burned, this taking place

immediately after September 11, 2001. The U.S. Embassy in El

Salvador was forced to condemn the written public statements

related to the September 11th attacks that were issued by the

FMLN and hostile toward the U.S.

The FMLN was created as an armed subversive communist

organization that sought the violent overthrow of the

Government of El Salvador in order to replace it with a pro-

Castro Marxist-Leninist regime. After years of armed

aggression and terrorism, the FMLN signed a peace agreement

in 1992 that brought the violence to an end and led to the

participation of the FMLN in the political process. The

leader of the FMLN has reiterated recently his commitment to

communism. The FMLN continues to participate actively in

international gatherings with violent and radical anti-U.S.

groups and terrorist organizations. Recent purges in the FMLN

have left the party under the complete control of its most

hard-line communist leaders. The FMLN is also known to

organize in the United States among the Salvadoran immigrant

community.

excellent current relations Between U.S.-El Salvador

It must be emphasized that the United States has superb

relations with the current government of El Salvador, led by

the party ARENA. This friendship is based on confidence,

shared values, mutually beneficial international policies and

strong personal relationships. Excellent bi-lateral relations

permit a high-level of cooperation on important national

security matters. El Salvador provides military and

intelligence cooperation and is part of the coalition that

has sent armed forces to post-war Iraq. The Salvadoran

government is also an active promoter of the free trade

agreement with the United States.

tps based on excellent strategic relationship

In the context of excellent relations and close

cooperation, the U.S. government was able to grant and extend

TPS for the benefit of nearly 300,000 Salvadorans now living

and working in the United States. For similar reasons, the

U.S. government has not had special concerns about the source

and use of the $2 billion per year in remittances sent by

Salvadorans in the United States to their home country,

allowing the free movement of that large sum. The government

of El Salvador has shown itself to be a reliable and

trustworthy counterpart regarding U.S. national security.

fmln in government radically changes the equation

If the FMLN enters the government of El Salvador following

the presidential elections scheduled for March 2004, it will

mean a radical termination of the conditions that permitted

the granting of TPS in the first place. The U.S. government

would have no reliable counterpart to satisfy legitimate

national security concerns, especially those regarding the

threat posed by pro-terrorist groups and the providing of

funding for those groups.

fmln in government would require termination of tps

Therefore, if the FMLN enters the government in El Salvador

it will be necessary for the U.S. authorities to consider all

available information regarding the ties of the FMLN to

violent anti-U.S. groups and designated terrorist groups and,

on that basis, proceed toward the immediate termination of

TPS for El Salvador.

fmln in government would require review of remittances

In many instances, pro-terrorist groups conduct fundraising

in the United States, and special controls and restrictions

on the flow of funds have been applied where necessary. Given

the pro-terrorist nature of the FMLN and its ties to

designated terrorist groups, if the FMLN enters the

government in El Salvador, it will be urgent to apply special

controls to the flow of remittances from the United States to

El Salvador, a sum that is currently $2 billion per year.

Mr. Speaker, on January 31, 2004 Democratic Presidential Candidate Senator John Kerry referred to ``Sikhs in India'' as an example of terrorists. As you know, I have been a supporter of freedom for all people in South Asia, including the Sikhs.

Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, President of the Council of Khalistan is well known among my

colleagues as an invaluable source of information on the situation in India and Kashmir. He and his organization are committed to freeing Khalistan, the Sikh homeland, by peaceful, democratic, and non-violent means. However, the Indian government portrays their actions as terrorism. I was saddened to see that Senator Kerry apparently agreed with this mischaracterization.

The Sikhs I have met are responsible citizens. They make important contributions to many facets of American life. Dalip Singh Saund, a Sikh, even proudly served in the Congress. Many Sikhs, including Dr. Aulakh, were quite offended by the statement made by Senator Kerry, and they have asked for an apology. I hope that the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts will do the right thing and retract his statement.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the Council of Khalistan's letter to Senator Kerry placed into the Congressional Record following my statement.

Council of Khalistan,

Washington, DC, February 11, 2004.

Senator John F. Kerry,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Kerry: I am writing to you today on behalf of

half a million Sikh Americans and over 25 million Sikhs

worldwide to say that your remarks equating Sikhs with

terrorists were offensive to the Sikh community. While giving

a speech in Oklahoma, you referred to ``the Sikhs in India''

as an example of terrorism.

Sikhism is an independent, monotheistic, revealed religion,

not a part of any other religion. Sikhs are distinctive by

our religion, language, and culture from any other people on

Earth.

Sikhs ruled Punjab from 1710 to 1716 and again from 1765 to

1849. Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims, and Christians all participated

in the government. Sikhs are a separate nation and people.

At the time of India's independence, three nations were to

receive sovereign power: the Muslims, who got Pakistan, the

Hindus, who got India, and the Sikhs. Sikhs took their share

with India on the solemn promise that Sikhs would enjoy ``the

glow of freedom'' in Punjab and no law affecting Sikh rights

would be passed without our consent. Instead, almost as soon

as the ink was dry on India's independence, Nehru sent out a

directive describing Sikhs as ``a criminal class'' and

ordering police to take extraordinary measures against us.

Since June 1984, India has murdered over 250,000 Sikhs,

according to figures compiled by the Punjab State Magistracy

and human rights groups and published in the book The

Politics of Genocide by Inderjit Singh Jaijee. A report from

the Movement Against State Repression (MASR) shows that India

admitted to holding 52,268 Sikhs as political prisoners. Some

have been in illegal custody since 1984! Tens of thousands of

other minorities are also being held as political prisoners,

according to Amnesty International. Indian forces carried out

the March 2000 massacre in the village of Chithisinghpora,

according to two independent investigations. Indian forces

were caught red-handed trying to set fire to a Sikh Gurdwara

and Sikh homes in a village in Kashmir. Sikh and Muslim

villagers joined hands to stop them.

The book Soft Target, written by two Canadian journalists,

Zuhair Kashmeri of the Toronto Globe and Mail and Brian

McAndrew of the Toronto Star, shows conclusively that the

Indian government blew up its own airliner in 1985, killing

329 innocent people, to blame it on the Sikhs and have an

excuse for more repression.

Other minorities such as Christians and Muslims, among

others, have also felt the lash of Indian repression. Over

300,000 Christians in Nagaland have been killed by the

terrorist Indian regime. Nuns have been raped, priests have

been murdered, churches have been burned, schools and prayer

halls have been destroyed, all with impunity. A mob of

militant Hindus affiliated with the parent organization of

the ruling BJP murdered missionary Graham Staines and his two

sons by burning them to death while they slept in their jeep,

all the while chanting ``Victory to Hannuman,'' a Hindu god.

India threw missionary Joseph Cooper from Pennsylvania out of

the country after he was beaten so severely that he had to

spend a week in the hospital. A Christian religious

festival on the theme ``Jesus is the answer'' was broken

up by police gunfire.

Almost two year ago, Muslims were massacred in Gujarat

while police were ordered to stand by and do nothing,

according to Indian newspaper reports. One newspaper quoted a

policeman as saying that the Indian government planned the

massacre in advance. This is an eerie parallel to the 1984

massacre of Sikhs in Delhi, in which police were locked in

their barracks while the state-run radio and television

called for more Sikh blood.

An Indian Cabinet minister was quoted as saying that

everyone who lives in India must either be a Hindu or be

subservient to Hindus. This kind of religious fanaticism as

state policy is dangerous and anti-democratic. We would not

want it in America; why should we support it in India?

On October 7, 1987, Sikhs declared their independence from

India, naming their new country Khalistan. We are committed

to liberating Khalistan by peaceful, democratic, nonviolent

means. History shows that multinational states such as

Austria-Hungary, the Soviet Union, and India are doomed to

fall apart. We intend to see that this happens peacefully, in

the manner of Czechoslovakia, not violently like Yugoslavia.

Yet simply supporting a sovereign, independent Khalistan is

what India calls terrorism.

The 20,000 Sikhs who were murdered in the June 1984 attack

on the Golden Temple and 37 other Sikh Gurdwaras throughout

Punjab were not terrorists. They were seeking refuge from the

Indian government's tyranny. Yet the Indian government

insists on describing them as ``terrorists,'' as if repeating

it often enough will make it true.

Senator Kerry, we respectfully request that you apologize

to the Sikh Nation and the Sikh community in the United

States for your remark. I urge you to support measures to

bring freedom to all the people of the subcontinent. Sikhs

share the commitment to freedom you showed when you fought in

Vietnam and in your service in public office. There was even

a Sikh member of Congress in the late 1950s, Dalip Singh

Saund of California. We look forward to working with you in

the future to bring the blessings of liberty to everyone in

the subcontinent.

If you would like any further information or would like to

meet about these issues, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh,

President.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I have been in my office listening to the rhetoric. It has been very interesting. People have been talking about how this resolution divides us. I do not think it is the resolution. I think it is the rhetoric. We are all in support of our troops, but those who have been over there, as we were just a couple of weeks ago, know that our troops know they are doing the right thing. They know that the Iraqi people are happy that Saddam Hussein is gone. We talked to people when I was over there that said they did not have 400,000 people in mass graves, people that were tortured in the prison; but they believe it was more like between 1 million and 1.3 million. Over 1 million people were thrown into mass graves. That alone is reason enough to get that guy out of there.

But let us talk about weapons of mass destruction. In the 1980s, the Israelis attacked a nuclear reactor in Iraq because they knew he was going to build a nuclear weapon, and a nuclear weapon is a weapon of mass destruction. He used, as we all know, chemical weapons to kill thousands and thousands of Kurds, women and children, and he used those same things in the Iran-Iraq war that went on for 7 years. So this guy used weapons of mass destruction. He violated every single U.N. resolution that came out of the United Nations. So why should we believe that he would not have weapons of mass destruction, that he would disarm himself when he violated every agreement that he made? And he used weapons of mass destruction.

The President had every right to do what he did. Saddam Hussein was a threat not only to the region but to the whole world. As far as working with al Qaeda, you will never convince me that he was not working with the international terrorist network, including al Qaeda. That guy wanted to destroy our way of life and everything we believe in.

Some of my colleagues today have been down here on the floor haranguing about how they feel about this. I want to quote some of my Democratic colleagues and what they have said in the past. On December 17, 1998, regarding Iraqi women and children and how they should be protected, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) said:

``I also say that we in this body, along with the Commander in Chief, must have a definitive policy to protect the suffering women and children and to make sure that democracy comes to the region.'' That is a little different than the tone we are hearing today. My distinguished colleague for whom I have high regard, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), said:

``Had the President not ordered the attack, many would have bitterly criticized him for not having followed through with the tough words he uttered just 1 month ago.'' And also my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) came to the floor to decry criticism of President Clinton's motives for ordering air strikes on Iraq. He said:

``To my colleagues who have questioned the President's motives in the midst of this crisis, shame on them. Shame on them for breaking the longstanding tradition that leaves party politics at our Nation's shores.'' What are we hearing today? Party politics. This is a resolution congratulating our troops and talking about doing the right thing in Iraq, and we ought to be working together instead of criticizing each other for this. Then the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler) echoed those sentiments at the same time when he said, ``For one day we should have been patriots, not partisans. Politics should have stopped at the water's edge.'' How about today? That is what the Democrat colleagues of mine were saying just a few years ago.

And, of course, the distinguished minority leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), said on National Public Radio's ``Talk of the Nation'' program, ``There is no question that everyone wants regime change in Iraq. The question is change to what?'' And then on the ``O'Reilly Factor'' she said in 2002, ``I think Americans and those in Congress are unified in wanting and joining the President in wanting a regime change in Iraq.''

Then let me quote the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman), who said in 2002, ``We cannot simply hope that Saddam Hussein will be deterred. He has shown himself to be an inveterate and dangerous gambler.'' The gentleman from New York was not wrong. This is a good resolution. We ought to all join together to pass it.

Mr. Speaker, I have just returned from leading a Congressional delegation trip to Iraq and due to an unavoidable delay, I was unable to be on the House Floor for rollcall votes 32 and 33. Had I been here I would have voted ``yea'' for rollcall vote 32, and ``yea'' for rollcall vote 33.

Mr. Speaker, today we passed legislation to protect the unborn from acts of violence. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, H.R. 1997, sends a clear and strong statement that anyone who injures or kills unborn children is committing a crime. I wish my fellow colleagues would join me in making as equally strong a statement when it comes to injuring our children by injecting them or their mothers or their fathers with vaccines containing the mercury-based preservative Thimerosal.

Over the last several years, I have conducted 19 hearings on vaccine safety and the detrimental health effects of other mercury-containing medical products. On May 21, 2003, my subcommittee's 80-page report entitled, ``Mercury in Medicine--Taking Unnecessary Risks'' was published in its entirety in the Congressional Record. This study was the result of a 3-year investigation initiated during my tenure as the chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform, and it outlines the undeniable connection between mercury in all its forms and possible permanent health risks, including brain and kidney damage.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, developing fetuses and young children are the most vulnerable and susceptible to the potential harms of mercury damage. Because of this, a joint statement was issued in July 1999 by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the U.S. Public Health Service, ``recommending removal of Thimerosa from vaccines as soon as possible (CDC, 1999).'' It is now 2004, and there are still at least 3 vaccines on the pediatric schedule that still contain Thimerosal (flu, Hib/HepB, and DtaP).

In 2001, the Institute of Medicine conducted an Immunization Safety Review meeting on safety concerns regarding Thimerosal. In their report, it was concluded in their ``Recommendations Regarding the Public Health Response'' section that ``. . . a causal relationship between Thimerosal-containing vaccines and neurodevelopmental disorders . . . is biologically plausible.''

I believe that it is good public policy and simple common sense for this House to

strongly assert that all United States Health Agencies should take concrete steps to eliminate the usage of mercury in any capacity, particularly from all vaccines and dental amalgams. I believe that it is good public policy and simple common sense for this House to strongly assert that any vaccinations provided under or purchased for the Vaccines for Children Program be completely devoid of Thimerosal.

Numerous scientists have testified that there is a simple way to do this, and that is to only use single-shot vials--those little glass containers. Manufacturers would not have to put Thimerosal or any other preservative in their vaccines if they switched to the single-shot vials. Moving to single-shot vials could have an enormously positive impact in helping to minimize, perhaps even eliminate, some cases of Alzheimer's, autism, and other neurological disorders linked to mercury.

This is something that the pharmaceutical companies must address. Our Food and Drug Administration and health agencies are asleep at the switch. They are letting children and adults be damaged day after day after day by allowing mercury to continue to be put into vaccines for adults and children.

We have a growing number of people who are being diagnosed with Alzheimer's, a dramatically growing number. We have 1 in 10,000 children 10 years ago that were autistic, now it is 1 in 150. And scientists before my Committee on Government Reform Subcommittee on Human Rights and Wellness say it is in large part because of the mercury in the vaccines. We have to get the FDA on the stick. They have to demand that pharmaceutical products containing mercury have the mercury taken out of them very, very quickly. If not, we are going to continue to have an epidemic on our hands that America does not need and should not tolerate.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of talk over the past few months and debate here in the Congress about the high cost of prescription drugs. I just got a letter from one of my constituents in Indiana, Joseph Neff. Joseph is 67. He and his wife buy a lot of prescription pharmaceuticals from Canada. In this letter he sent me, it shows a 3-month supply of the products he has been buying from Canada, and it shows he is going to save $3,007 a year by buying pharmaceuticals from Canada, the very same thing he would buy here in the United States, the same identical prescription

drugs; and yet they cost less in Canada than if he bought them here in the United States. He is saving 50 percent on the prescription drugs he is buying from Canada. If he bought them through AARP on a discount card, it would be 10 percent. So he still saves more by going directly to Canada.

The pharmaceutical industry has been fighting day and night to stop reimportation of pharmaceuticals. They have gone to the FDA and HHS, and they have told them it is not safe to have reimportation; and our health agencies have been going along with it. And yet we held four hearings, and we asked them to give one example where people have been harmed by pharmaceuticals brought in from Canada. They could not name one example. So the pharmaceutical industry has unusual support at our health agencies. They have undue influence at our health agencies; and as a result, American people are paying exorbitant prices for prescription drugs compared to what they are paying in Canada, Germany, and other parts of the world.

Just recently there was a poll that was released by the Associated Press and stated that a third of American families struggle to afford their prescriptions, and 73 percent of those families have to cut their dosages by as much as half so they can take care of their health needs. Two-thirds of those polled felt that the Federal Government should open up this market and make it easier for people to buy prescription drugs from Canada and other countries at lower cost.

So why does our government not listen to the people we represent? There is no safety issue. That is a bogus argument. Yet the health agencies continue to walk in lock-step with the pharmaceutical companies saying it is a health risk, and it is simply about money. The big profits they make in the United States are huge compared to what they are making in other countries. We continue to let them do that when the price they charge should be fair and equitable throughout the world. All of their profits should not be loaded on the backs of the American people who are struggling to make ends meet.

In July of this year, we had a vote on this floor. The vote overwhelmingly passed saying that we wanted the reimportation of pharmaceuticals to be allowed so Americans can get the breaks that they are getting in other countries. Even though that passed, when the Medicare prescription drug bill came out of conference committee, they left that out.

The other thing that bothers me is the American people realize that our government should be negotiating to make sure that Medicare prescription drug prices are as low as possible, and yet there is a prohibition in law passed by the Congress of the United States that does not allow our government under the Medicare prescription drug bill to negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies to get the best price for the American taxpayers. So we pay the highest prices for pharmaceuticals that the pharmaceutical companies want to charge, while in other countries there are negotiations taking place between their governments and the pharmaceutical industry. This just is not right. This is something my colleagues on both sides of the aisle feel very, very strongly about.

Mr. Speaker, we have to take our health agencies and anybody else to task who is trying to load all of the profits of pharmaceuticals on the backs of the American people. The American people need fairness; they need to know that they are going to be treated fairly. They should not have to cut their pharmaceutical products in half in order to stretch them out to take care of their health needs. They do not want to pay up to 300 percent more than they are paying in Canada for the pharmaceuticals products, and they should not be called criminals because they go across the Canadian border and buy the very same product up there for less than they can get it here in the United States.

In addition, governors of 25 States and a multitude of cities across the country are now trying to negotiate with Canadian pharmaceutical distributors to buy their pharmaceutical products through Canada because they will save so much money, and it will help their budgets at the State and local level. This is a problem that is not going to go away. The pharmaceutical industry and our health agencies need to address this problem; and, Mr. Speaker, we are not going to be quiet on this floor until this problem is solved.

Mr. Speaker, for about the past 4 years we have been talking about children with autism. We have gone from 1 in 10,000 children who are autistic to 1 in 150 to 200. It is an absolute epidemic. And we have had hearing after hearing where we brought in scientists from around the world who told us that one of the major reasons for children to become autistic and have ADHD and other mental problems and psychological problems is because of an additive that was put into vaccines called thimerosal. It is a mercury-based additive, a preservative, that is supposed to preserve the vaccine if you put it in multiple shot vials.

Recently, a study was done by researchers from Johns Hopkins University, Northeastern University in Boston, the University of Nebraska and Tufts University, and it was published in the Vancouver Sun. It was not in any American newspaper, but in the Vancouver, British Columbia, Sun. It had a headline, ``Vaccine additive linked to brain damage in children. Mercury-based preservative tied to autism, ADHD, U.S. researchers say.''

After that came out, there was a flurry of activity over at Health and Human Services, and the Institute of Medicine's Immunization Review Board met yesterday and said, well, there is no conclusive evidence that this is causing that kind of a problem.

No conclusive evidence? One in 10,000 children used to be autistic; now it is 1 in 150 to 200. It is going to cost us billions and trillions of dollars to take care of them over the years to come because they are not going to be able to cope with society. This study is going to be published in a scientific journal in April called Molecular Psychiatry.

This meeting that took place yesterday with the Institute of Medicine's Immunization Review Board, they had the people that were on the side of the pharmaceutical companies saying, oh, there is no proof that the mercury in vaccines is causing these neurological problems.

The fact of the matter is, almost all of the people who were taking that position were people who had a vested interest in the pharmaceutical industry's position. They were getting money for research grants. Their universities where they study were getting grants from the pharmaceutical industry. Many of these people work for pharmaceutical companies, and they are taking the position that mercury in vaccines does not cause brain damage.

But it does not just affect kids. An article that came out just a couple of

days ago said that one in four women aged 55 and older are going to suffer from dementia or Alzheimer's, and one in six men aged 55 and older are going to suffer from dementia or Alzheimer's. So the mercury in our vaccines is not just damaging our kids and hurting our society for future generations, but it is hurting seniors as well.

Something has to be done about it. We have to get mercury, which everybody knows is a toxic substance, out of anything that goes into the human body, especially vaccines.

Now because of our hearings and raising cain over the past 4 years, we have been able to get it out of all children's vaccines except two, but they are still putting it in two children's vaccines. We need to get it out of all of them.

Adults, for my friends in Congress, if you are interested, when you get your flu vaccine, it has mercury in it; and almost every vaccination you get when you go overseas to visit Iraq and every place else has mercury in it. Our troops in the Persian Gulf were getting as many as 11 shots in one day that had mercury in it; and those people, if these researchers are correct, are going to suffer at some point in their life neurological damage.

So I would like to say to my colleagues who may be paying attention tonight, these are pictures of children who have been damaged who are autistic. Their parents have to deal with them on a daily basis. Many of them grow up to be 14 or 15 years old, and they go into fits because of their mental disorder and because of autism. The parents are scared to death of them, but they do not want to put their kids in a mental institution, they want to keep them at home, and they do not have the funds to deal with it.

It is just an American tragedy, a tragedy that does not need to occur if we would just get mercury out of all vaccines, especially children's vaccines. We need to do it now, and the people at HHS and FDA and the pharmaceutical industry need to come to the truth and tell the American people that there is a problem.

I would like to end with a quote from a prominent scientist. His name was Charles Sanders Pierce. He was a renowned American scientist. He said, ``There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is the sincere desire to find the truth, whatever it may be.''

So I say to my friends at HHS and the pharmaceutical industry, get with the program. Let the American people know the truth and get mercury out of vaccines.

Mr. Speaker, due to a scheduling conflict, I was unable to be in Washington, DC, during rollcall votes 2 through 5. Had I been here I would have voted ``yea''; for rollcall vote 2, ``yea'' for rollcall vote 3, ``yea'' for rollcall vote 4, and ``yea'' for rollcall vote 5.