Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am introducing legislation today to change the process for enforcing U.S. trade laws. This bill will shift the

authority to bring cases of unfair trade practices before the World Trade Organization (WTO) from the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to the Department of Commerce.

I believe this change is critical in the face of the new world trade dynamic of the 21st century. In 2003, the U.S. registered a record $484.9 billion trade deficit, of more than 17 percent above the previous record shortfall of $418 billion in 2002. Some analysts predict that the trade deficit could soon top $600 billion. Since 1991, our trade deficit has grown nearly 620 percent--620 percent! Some say such a trade imbalance is not a bad thing. Others aren't so sure. I, for one, am deeply concerned that there has not been a sufficient amount of attention focused on the long-term impacts of the trade imbalance to our country.

Just as important, I believe this change is necessary because of the entry of the People's Republic of China into the WTO in December 2001 and the growing allegations from U.S. businesses that China, now our fourth largest trading partner, is not living up to its trade agreements. That concern multiplies when you consider that the U.S. trade deficit with China in 2003 was $124 billion--almost a quarter of the entire U.S. trade deficit last year.

Last year I started to hear from a number of small and medium-sized businesses about the unfair trading practices of Chinese companies. There were charges that U.S. trade agencies were unfairly favoring Chinese corporations at the expense of American companies in trade dumping cases. The Commerce-Justice-State appropriations subcommittee, which I chair and which oversees the funding for most U.S. trade- related agencies, held a hearing to look into this matter. My subcommittee heard from representatives of hard-hit furniture, pharmaceutical and agriculture industries. Their testimony was alarming.

America's manufacturers contend that China is deliberately undervaluing its currency--the yuan--by as much as 40 percent, giving China a trade advantage when competing with U.S. companies and contributing to the loss of U.S. factory jobs. During a visit to China last September, U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow called on China to adopt a more flexible exchange rate system. The Chinese government has not made any such changes.

When it comes to trade with China, the list is long with promises made and promises broken. China has broken its promise:

To remove agricultural and industrial quotas and tariff rate quotas;

To stop requiring American companies to pay exorbitant rates to partner with Chinese companies so our companies can have access to the Chinese markets; and

To stop using its tax policies on U.S. imports into China, therefore discriminating against the import of our goods. For example, our semiconductor companies and our fertilizer producers state that China's practice of rebating more than 80 percent of its value-added tax (VAT) to domestic firms puts foreign suppliers, our companies, at a huge disadvantage in the Chinese market.

China also has a complete disregard for U.S. intellectual property rights. The Chinese market also continues to be dominated by piracy of copyrighted material. Some U.S. sources charge that American businesses have lost billions in revenue due to China's copyright piracy and other intellectual property rights violations. We have heard that they have even copied an entire car!

Estimates are that 93 percent of the business software applications in China are pirated and 88 percent of the motion pictures and the music seen or heard in the country are stolen. Pirated copies of new software being released in America often ends up for sale on the streets of Beijing before we can buy the real thing in northern Virginia.

But the United States has not brought an intellectual property rights case against China since Beijing's entry into the WTO. Not one case.

How can U.S. manufacturers, especially the small and medium-sized businesses, compete with Chinese-based factories operating with the most advanced technologies, the most modern equipment, and virtually free Chinese labor?

We have had many debates on the importance of intellectual property rights on this floor and later on in the week, we may have another. Innovation is the cornerstone of the American economic engine. We cannot continue to trust the Chinese when they promise to enforce their intellectual property laws.

I ask one question: when has the People's Republic of China closed down a market with the most egregious cases of counterfeit goods?

Not one of the markets selling counterfeit pharmaceuticals, health and safety goods, and automobile parts has been shut down. Not a single one. Yet, the USTR believes the People's Republic of China is keeping its promise to enforce intellectual property rights.

I know the Office of the USTR has hard-working people whose goal is to give U.S. businesses the opportunity to flourish in the global economy. But I believe it is being stretched too thin under its current operation of having the same people who negotiate trade agreements be the same people who determine whether or not countries are living up to their obligations.

Enforcement is being shortchanged and U.S. companies are not being well served. I believe our nation's business community and our trade policy would be better served by having the Department of Commerce as the trade law enforcer.

The Department of Commerce has the budget and the resources to address the issues of small and medium-sized companies. The Commerce Department works daily with American companies to promote competitiveness and increase productivity. The Commerce Department is on the ground floor with these companies. They understand how Chinese imports and trade barriers are hurting American companies.

By comparison, the Office of the USTR has 202 federal employees to do all this work. The USTR is in the Executive Office of the President and regardless of the administration, this office's budget requests are tightly controlled. Within the past two years alone, the budget request was woefully inadequate to just maintain ongoing operations of the office.

The FY 2004 request also was insufficient to continue the operations of the USTR and at the urging of the trade community, the Appropriations committees provided additional funding for the USTR. This effort was supported by the Senate Finance and House Ways and Means committees.

Astonishingly, the FY 2005 USTR budget request released in early February includes less money than was provided this year. Less money. Yet the office says it will begin seven more free trade agreements. And they hope to accomplish this extra work with less money than the year before? It is preposterous that such a level of work would require less money. And what happens to the mounting allegations of unfair trade practices under trade agreements already signed while the USTR negotiates new deals--with fewer resources than the year before when no unfair trade cases were brought before the WTO?

I have not yet touched on what I believe is the overriding issue involving trade with China--China's egregious human rights record. For the record, I did not support granting China permanent normal trade relations (PNTR), a term recently changed from what I believe was a more appropriate ``most-favored-nation trade status'' designation. I know there were good and reasonable people on both sides of this issue, but for me, trade agreements must come with a price and that price is respect for the universal declaration of human rights.

As we have seen with its trade obligations, China also has a long list of broken promises when it comes to improving the rights of its people. Last year, I requested that the U.S. support a resolution condemning the human rights abuses in China in the context of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. The State Department explained to me that the department was encouraged by promises made by the Chinese. Therefore, the U.S. refused to put forth condemning resolutions.

Last week, the State Department released the 2003 Human Rights Report on China. This report showed that not only did China fail to live up to its promises, but its human rights record actually grew worse. The people of China do not enjoy the freedoms that we have as American citizens. Imagine a country where factory workers have no workplace safety, labor or environmental protections and are required to work 80 hour-weeks for no more than $110 per month to produce goods for export.

Many CEO's of U.S. companies supported PNTR with China hoping for new markets for their products and services. We are now seeing some of these same business leaders questioning whether or not it was the right decision for their businesses and their communities in the long term. Many of these companies today who trade with China do so with the hope that the Chinese don't copy their products before they can make a profit.

That's not the way free and fair trade should work. If the U.S. has made trade agreements with China and with other countries, we need to make sure those agreements are enforced. The Office of the USTR has had many opportunities to bring unfair trading cases against China. Meanwhile, U.S. factories continue to close, American workers continue to lose jobs to foreign companies, and the U.S. trade deficit continues to soar.

Free trade must be our strategy and not just a goal. If trading partners don't play by the rules, then U.S. firms are at a disadvantage and American workers and families are hurt. The U.S. must enforce trade laws, and we need to give the Commerce Department the opportunity to take on that responsibility.

If the gentleman from Wisconsin will yield, I concur with the reading of the intent of this funding mechanism. I would add that an important tool the Committee on Appropriations uses in its oversight of the Patent and Trademark Office as a Federal agency is control over its discretionary appropriation. We will ensure that this new funding mechanism maintains that control and does not give the Patent and Trademark Office a blank check particularly at a time when all discretionary spending is tight.

The USPTO must modernize. The Committee on the Judiciary and USPTO's user groups have developed a comprehensive 5-year blueprint to streamline the operations of the office. Given the significant increase in funding that this bill would provide, I have asked the General Accounting Office and the National Academy of Public Administration to conduct comprehensive reviews to ensure the moneys are spent to reduce pendency and increase the quality of our patent and trademark system.

Particularly in the high-tech sector, a company's competitiveness is directly related to the amount of time it takes to receive a patent for their new product. They are disadvantaged when the life cycle of their products expires before they are able to get a patent. I would also like to thank the chairman for including language to ensure that searches are not outsourced offshore. I think it is important for Members to know under no circumstances should this be outsourced to another country and under no circumstances should these searches be conducted by non-U.S. citizens.

I commend and thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for his work on this measure, and I urge its adoption.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and others who have been strong supporters with regard to speaking out on behalf of those being persecuted in China.

I heard the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) talk about the Tiananmen Square demonstrators. We saw them making socks. I still have the socks in my office. That was 15 years ago.

Madam Speaker, I ask Members, what were they doing 15 years ago? For the last 15 years, what were you doing? For the last 15 years, these men and women have been in prison, and very few people really speak out.

I rise in strong support of this resolution. Every Member of Congress should be outraged that the men and women in China are routinely being persecuted by the government. Every Member of Congress and everyone in the administration ought to imagine a country and think about a country where factory workers have no workplace safety, labor and environmental protections, and are required to work 80 hours a week for no more than $110 per month for goods exported. Imagine a country which boldly supplies missile and chemical weapons technology to countries that harbor terrorists.

Imagine a country that oversees a network of espionage operations against American companies. The Chinese have a spying program against American industry second to none. The KGB could not hold a candle to what the Chinese Government is doing. Imagine a country which is plundering a neighbor and wiping out its religion-based culture. Imagine a country which tortures and imprisons Catholic bishops. There are 11 Catholic bishops according to the Cardinal Kung Foundation in prison today. Eleven. You almost never hear anybody speak out on behalf of them. You have a large number, 250, 300 Protestant house church leaders. I had a Protestant pastor come by to see me 2 weeks ago, a pastor that we had helped and worked with; he had been in prison 10 years. He said his last job in a slave labor camp was making Christmas tree lights. A Protestant pastor in a Chinese prison making Christmas tree lights to celebrate the birth of Jesus. What is wrong? Yet you never really hear anybody speak out with regard to that.

Buddhist monks and nuns, persecuted severely. Keep in mind the leader of the Chinese Government now is the guy who brought down all of the persecution of those who were Buddhists with regard to the Drapchi prison and what took place in Tibet. As the gentleman from New Jersey said, the Muslims are being pounded left and right. If you need a new organ or kidney, you can go to China and for $50,000, they will go into the prison, take your blood type, take his blood type, find a match, kill him, take him away, transplant the kidney for $50,000.

Slave labor camps. There are more slave labor camps in China today than there were when Solzhenitsyn wrote that Nobel Prize-winning book, ``Gulag Archipelago.'' There are more in China today than there were then. We all know what country this imaginary country is. It is China.

The other day I was coming in and I heard Simon and Garfunkel on the radio sing the words of ``The Boxer.'' It really struck me: ``Man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.'' This administration and this Congress hears only what it wants to hear and disregards the rest.

I had an opportunity several weeks ago to go to Berlin. We went to a train stop called Grunewald Station. It is where they took people who were Jewish and put them on trains and sent them away. I was there kind of late. As it was getting dark, I looked out, I looked at big, large homes that were all around this station. I said to myself, these people must have known what was taking place in 1941 and 1942 and 1943. They had little signs of how many were put on the trains in 1942 and 1943. Thousands and thousands. It got down to 1944 and 1945, in one train 17 or 18. But the people that lived in the neighborhood had to know what was taking place.

We have a 71-page report that the State Department has put out. So it is kind of like saying, We did not know. But we know. We cannot now say, We do not know what's taking place in China. The one-child per family, the human organ transplants, the slave labor camps. We cannot say we do not know because you get the 71-page report and you read it, 71 pages about China.

Later on when the Chinese Government falls, and it will fall, they will go the way of the Ceausescu government; and God bless Ronald Reagan when he spoke out and called the Soviet Union the Evil Empire and put the cruise missiles into Europe when nobody else wanted them. But they will fall and when they go back and open up the records, nobody will be able to say, we did not know, because now we know. We read the human rights report that came out of the State Department 3 days ago.

Madam Speaker, I am going to put the rest in the Record and just say this administration ought to follow this resolution. If it does not follow the resolution and yet it followed that 71-page report, I do not see how it can live with itself. Let me just say, as Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, it is cheap grace for the Congress just to pass a resolution urging them to do a resolution. We ought to be doing a lot more and speaking out on behalf of those who are being persecuted.

Many people will tell you when the Reagan administration and the Carter administration used to go to the Soviet Union, they always met with the dissidents. They went into their apartments. They had them into the embassy. Somewhere there are bracelets with their names on them. They stood in solidarity with the people in the Soviet Union that were being persecuted. I find that when delegations, both congressional and executive branch, go to China, they meet with the leaders. They have their shark fin soup, and they meet in the big halls; but they do not meet with the people.

We have a lot to learn, we in Congress and in the administration, to emulate President Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan always spoke out on behalf of the persecuted. Sharansky will tell you that his life got better when Ronald Reagan and the Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, raised the Sharansky case. He sometimes just got more food. He got more visitations. We need the administration, one, to introduce a resolution. Secondly, this Congress ought to do more or else the words from Simon and Garfunkel, ``The Boxer,'' ``Man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest,'' will in essence be the theme song for us in the United States where we say Congress hears only what it wants to hear and disregards the rest.

Madam Speaker, there are 71 pages. We cannot ever again say we did not know, because now we know. I urge the strong passage of this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 530 urging the United States to introduce a resolution highlighting China's human rights record at the 60th session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights this month. Every Member of Congress should be outraged that men and women in China are routinely persecuted by the Chinese Government.

Imagine a country where factory workers have no workplace safety, labor, or environmental protections and are required to work 80 hour- weeks for no more than $110 per month to produce goods for export.

Imagine a country which boldly supplies missile and chemical weapons technology to countries that support or harbor terrorists.

Imagine a country that oversees a network of espionage operations against American companies.

Imagine a country which is plundering a neighbor and wiping out its religion-based culture.

Imagine a country which tortures and imprisons Catholic bishops, Protestant church leaders, Muslim worshipers, Falun Gong followers, and Buddhist monks and nuns just because of their faith and systematically destroys churches and confiscates bibles.

Imagine a country which has a thriving business of harvesting and selling for transplant kidneys, corneas, and other human organs from executed prisoners who are thrown in prison with no trial or sentencing procedures.

Imagine a country which maintains an extensive system of gulags-- slave labor camps--as large as existed in the former Soviet Union that are used for brainwashing and ``reeducation through labor.''

That country is not imaginary. It is the People's Republic of China.

I was appalled last year when the United States administration chose not to introduce a resolution condemning China at the U.N. Commission on Human Rights meeting in Geneva. We were told over and over again that China's human rights record was improving and that change was coming.

The recently released State Department country reports on human rights unequivocally states that over the last year China didn't improve its human rights record. In fact, there was backsliding.

I would like to share with you some facts from that 71-page report.

The Chinese government has failed to demonstrate its

willingness to abide by the internationally accepted norms of

freedom of belief, expression, and association.

Citizens lacked both the freedom peacefully to express

opposition to the political system or the right to change the

system.

Violence against women (including imposition of a birth

limitation policy coercive in nature that resulted in

instances of forced abortion and forced sterilization)

continued.

Last year alone the government executed more prisoners than

any other country.

All over China Catholic Bishops and Priests are in jail,

some for decades at a time, simply for practicing their

faith.

Over 250,000 persons are serving sentences in ``reeducation

through labor'' camps.

As many as 2,000 people remained in prison for their

activities during the June 1989 Tiananmen demonstrations.

The government used the international war on terror as a

justification for cracking down harshly on suspected Uighur

separatists.

The government continues to deport thousands of North

Koreans, who face persecution upon their return.

And the list goes on.

China cannot fool the international community any longer. The Chinese Government continues to commit well-documented human rights abuses against the Chinese people.

America must be a country that stands up for basic decency and human rights. America must speak out on behalf of those who cannot speak for themselves--men and women who are being persecuted on account of their religious or political beliefs.

Our foreign policy must be a policy that helps promote human rights and freedom. Not a policy that sides with dictators who oppress their own citizens.

The facts are before us. The United States can no longer say that things are improving in China.

Each day we fail to speak out is another day that a Catholic Priest is arrested.

Another day a Falun Gong practitioner is tortured. Another day that innocent voices are silenced.

Will the United States step up as the leader of the free world and sponsor a resolution on China, or will the world sit by and watch China suppress its citizens for another year?

How will history judge us? We must not be afraid to act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with sadness in my heart as we mourn the loss of Macedonian President Boris Trajkovski. He was a moderate leader who helped unite his ethnically divided country. He was killed on Thursday when his plane crashed in bad weather conditions in mountainous southern Bosnia.

President Trajkovski was a great friend of the United States. He led the efforts to establish relations with the United States and attended the National Prayer Breakfast here in Washington a number of times where he became friends with many Members of Congress and many individuals in the administration. He was a man of great faith. His great faith drove him to be a man who led reconciliation throughout his region of the world.

President Trajkovski was inaugurated as the second President of the Republic of Macedonia on December 15, 1999. Prior to that, Mr. Speaker, he served as deputy minister of foreign affairs of the Republic of Macedonia and as chief of the cabinet of the mayor of the Kisela Voda municipality in Skopje from 1997 to 1998.

Since taking office in 1999, President Trajkovski was active on the international level, giving numerous speeches at international forums, such as the World Economic Summit in Davos, the Council of Europe, the United Nations and the South East European Cooperation Process, and addressed the parliaments of several countries. He was dedicated to greater cooperation between states on behalf of the Republic of Macedonia.

President Trajkovski participated in numerous international conferences on conflict resolution, religious tolerance, religious freedom, and served as president of youth work in the United Methodist Church in the former Yugoslavia for over 12 years.

President Trajkovski was widely respected in Macedonia for his neutral stance in the former Yugoslav Republic, where tensions persist between Macedonians and the country's ethnic Albanian minorities after a 2001 war. He had called for greater inclusion of ethnic Albanians in state bodies and institutions.

He has many friends, Mr. Speaker, throughout Europe and the entire world. Macedonia is a good friend and partner to the United States and plays an important role in its support of U.S. and NATO operations in Kosovo.

This loss will certainly be felt throughout the international community. Our thoughts and prayers are with the Trajkovski family and the Macedonian people. The United States has lost a great friend.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H. Res. 157 and strongly condemn the Chinese government for the continued detainment and torture of Tibetan political prisoners. I remain extremely concerned that men and women in China are routinely persecuted by the Chinese government. China has for too long been at liberty to detain, torture, intimidate and oppress its people.

The Tibetan people are denied basic human rights guaranteed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including the right to self- determination, freedom of speech, assembly, movement, expression and religious belief. Hundreds of Tibetans are currently in prison for peaceful expressions of political or religious belief. The majority of Tibetan political prisoners are Buddist monks and nuns.

Each year the situation in Tibet worsens. The unchecked migration of Chinese into Tibetan areas is resulting in social, economic and cultural destruction of Tibetans. His Holiness the Dalai Lama considers this demographic strategy the greatest threat to the survival of the Tibetan culture and identity. More than 6,000 monasteries and nunneries and their contents--irreplaceable jewels of Tibetan culture--have been destroyed since the Chinese occupation and thousands of monks and nuns have been kicked out of their monasteries for refusing to renounce the Dalai Lama.

The Chinese government routinely refuses to allow independent international human rights monitors, including U.N. human rights representatives, to conduct unhindered investigations into the human rights situation in Tibet. Religious freedom in Tibet is nonexistent.

Tibetans are routinely imprisoned for participation in-non-violent political activities, such as hanging flags or promoting independence. Prisoners serve lengthy sentences and are routinely mistreated and tortured while in prison. I visited Tibet in 1997 and was able to witness first hand the conditions there and the continued repression of the Tibetan people. I met with monks, nuns and Tibetans on the street who revealed to me how bad the conditions are in Tibet. I visited the prisons and heard first hand accounts of the brutality taking place deep in the shadows.

The following is a firsthand account of the arrest of Phuntsog Nyidron, a 20-year-old nun arrested in 1989 for peaceful demonstration in Lhasa. ``During arrests nuns are kicked, beaten and given electric shocks on their hands, shoulders, breasts, tongue and face. During the interrogation, they are suspended by their hands, which are shackled behind their backs, for prolonged periods and beaten with iron rods.''

As I close, 10 Catholic bishops are in China today under house arrest. The Protestant Church is being abused and beaten in China. The Falun Gong are being persecuted on a daily basis. The Chinese have plundered Tibet. America must do more to force China to adhere to fundamental human rights and religious freedom.

The clock is ticking for Tibet. If nothing is done, a country, its people, religion and culture will one day be lost.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the resolution introduced today to honor the life and legacy of Paul Simon. I learned with great sadness of his death in December.

Senator Simon epitomized all that is best about Congress. He served in the House of Representatives and the Senate, and was a distinguished member in both chambers. His presence was a constant example of the importance of hard work, discipline, and compassion. Senator Simon believed that government could serve the people, and serve them in a positive way. He served his State and his Nation beginning in 1954, when he entered the Illinois State legislature. His service would continue until his death as a professor in Illinois, where he shared a lifetime of wisdom with the leaders of the future.

Senator Simon's season of service would take him to the House of Representatives, the United States Senate, and the campaign trail as a candidate for the presidency. His work included fighting against television violence, working for those without jobs, and trying to balance the budget. I was pleased to join with him in raising the issue of gambling's ill effects on families, individuals, and communities. He was concerned about the welfare not only of Illinois, but of the entire Nation.

Senator Simon's talents were not limited to Congress. In his lifetime, he wrote over 20 books and was awarded over 50 honorary degrees. He was cerebral as well as practical. Senator Simon lived a life of the mind as well as a life dedicated to enlightening and lifting up his fellow citizens. After he left the Senate, Paul Simon returned home, and taught at Southern Illinois University, to impart his wisdom to the next generation, to enlighten young minds, and to continue serving his state.

His life was one of constant service in the public interest. Senator Simon lived many lives in one--editor-publisher, legislator, public crusader, professor. That he did so much is impressive. That he did it all so well and so selflessly is inspirational. Congress and the Nation is a lesser place for his passing, but both were greatly enriched by his life and his example. Senator Simon will be missed, but through the lives he touched, the life he lived, and the lives he inspired, he will not be forgotten.

Our sympathies go to his family and our thanks to them as well for sharing this remarkable man with us.

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in honoring the late Senator Paul Simon. Certainly, many of us recall his involvement, his active support for U.S. bilateral assistance to Africa and his work in the fight against apartheid in South Africa. Today, however, I want to pay special tribute to the Senator's long time advocacy for historically Black colleges and universities, HBCUs. As the chair for the Postsecondary Education Subcommittees in both the House and the Senate, he lent his unwavering support for these institutions during reauthorizations of the Higher Education Act of 1965 as well as adding a pivotal endorsement of the creation of an endowment fund for HBCUs. While Paul Simon is a colleague who will always be remembered as a supporter of the disadvantaged, he will also be remembered for his belief that the disadvantaged could be successful with the right kind of assistance from government programs. Senator Simon will be sorely missed but we are all better from having known and worked with him.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the members of my subcommittee staff who have put in very long hours to produce the C-J-S portion of the omnibus appropriations bill. All members of the staff have worked long, hard hours through what was a difficult conference.

I would like to particularly thank Mike Ringler, clerk of the subcommittee, who has led the subcommittee through the House and Senate conference. I would also like to thank Christine Kojac, John Martens, and Leslie Albright, for their tireless efforts.

I also would like to thank the detailees, Anne Marie Goldsmith and Alan Lang, who have added their own expertise to help make the C-J-S portion of this bill great.

In my personal office, I would like to thank Dan Scandling, Janet Shaffron, J.T. Griffin, Samantha Stockman, and Neil Seifring for their efforts and work with the subcommittee.

Finally, I would commend David Pomerantz and Rob Nabors of the minority staff for their input and help in this truly bipartisan bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to provide some additional information to follow up on my Record statement of November 25 regarding the provision in the FY 2004 omnibus spending bill which would require the destruction of background records checks 24 hours after a gun purchase.

I submit for the Record letters from two law enforcement officers groups who share my deep concerns about the impact on public safety of changing the current 90-day period for retaining data related to firearms purchase and approval. The Federal Bureau of Investigation Agents Association, wrote: ``The more the retention period is reduced, the more difficult it would become to use the paperwork to investigate or prosecute crimes related to the use of sales of the firearms in question. Any such efforts can only complicate the already difficult task of law enforcement and jeopardize public safety.''

Federal Bureau of Investigation, Agents Association,

November 25, 2003.

Re Issues Related to Retention of Firearms Paperwork.

Hon. Frank Wolf,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and

Judiciary Appropriations Committee, H-309 Capitol

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Wolf: On behalf of the FBI Agents Association

(FBIAA), I am writing to express the FBIAA's concerns

regarding the possibility of an appropriations rider that

might reduce the current 90-day retention period for data

related to firearms sales and approval. The FBIAA is a non-

governmental professional association with a membership of

nearly 9,000 current and more than 2,000 retired FBI agents

nationwide; neither the FBIAA nor I speak for the official

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I too wish to submit a statement for the Record regarding the Office of Federal Detention Trustee.

On discussion of the role of the Office of Federal Detention Trustee at the Department of Justice, the statement of managers clearly indicates that the Office does not have the authority to solicit contracts to build a new detention facility. I would also point out that the committee revised the bill language to strike any reference to construction. I am fully aware that many States, including Maryland, Louisiana, Ohio, and others have excess prison bed space capacity. It was never the intention of the Congress to allow the Detention Trustee to build additional facilities, but to take advantage of existing State and local excess prison bed space. The committee will work with Mr. Hoyer of Maryland and other concerned Members in the coming year to address these concerns.

Mr. Speaker, I wish the record to reflect my deep disappointment with the Justice Department and Attorney General John Ashcroft for supporting language in the FY 2004 omnibus appropriations bill reducing the amount of time background record checks for gun sales are maintained. As the son of a police officer, I believe this change could be detrimental to public safety and ultimately result in people dying.

When the FY 2004 Commerce-Justice-State (CJS) appropriations bill was debated in full committee this summer, several amendments dealing with firearms and firearms purchases were offered ``en bloc'' and adopted. One of the amendments in the package called for the immediate destruction of gun sale background check records. I did not support this package of amendments since neither the Justice Department nor Attorney General Ashcroft, the nation's chief law enforcement officer, would--or could--tell me if these provisions would impact the ability of law enforcement to stop criminals, or worse, terrorists. As chairman of the CJS subcommittee, I repeatedly asked for a formal position from the Justice Department about how the proposed amendments would affect law enforcement efforts but never got an answer.

As House and Senate negotiators met to discuss the final version of the FY 2004 CJS bill--now folded into the omnibus spending bill--the provision calling for the ``immediate'' destruction of the background records was dropped. Now, at the eleventh hour of wrapping up the FY 2004 appropriations process, the Justice Department is actively supporting a ``compromise'' that would reduce the time background records are held from the current law standard of up to 90 days to 24 hours. This extreme change comes despite the fact that there is still no explanation or detail about what impact such a change would have on protecting mothers and fathers, daughters and sons, from criminals and terrorists.

It is irresponsible to tack such a provision into a year-end spending bill without knowing and understanding the full impacts. According to the FBI, in 2002 more than 3,500 guns were sold and then later had to be retrieved because information came in after the sale was allowed to proceed which would have prohibited the sale. I repeat: 3,500 guns on the street which shouldn't have been there. It is chilling to think what would happen if a 24-hour system were in place.

Moreover, any proposal for such a drastic change should be fully aired before the Congress and interested parties. It should be noted that the International Association of Chiefs of Police continues to stand by its September 2001 letter to the FBI stating that the 90-day records retention period should not be shortened.

Under current law, licensed dealers generally are not to transfer firearms to an individual until the search determines that the transfer will not violate applicable federal or state law. Persons prohibited by federal law from receiving a firearm include convicted felons, fugitives, unlawful drug users, and aliens illegally or unlawfully in the United States. If the background check is not completed within three business days, the dealer is not prohibited from transferring the firearm. Current law regarding retention of gun purchase checks says that information on sales that have been allowed to proceed can be kept for up to 90 days in the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) audit log, after which the records must be destroyed.

The audit log contains information related to each background check requested by a licensed firearms dealer, including the NICS response (e.g., proceed or denied) and the history of all activity related to the transaction. According to the NICS regulations, information on allowed firearms sales is used only for purposes related to ensuring the proper operation of the system or conducting audits of the use of the system.

I submit for the Record a Washington Post article from November 18 with the headline, ``FBI Curbed in Tracking Gun Buyers,'' which reports on a ``new FBI background-check system that notifies counterterrorism agents when

suspects on its terrorist watch list attempt to buy guns, but regulations prohibit those officials from obtaining details if the transaction occurs.'' The article states that 13 alleged terrorists have been allowed to buy guns.

A follow-up Post article from November 22 reports that the Justice Department has ordered the FBI to increase scrutiny of suspected terrorists who attempt to buy guns, but gives the FBI only three days to run additional checks on prospective gun buyers listed on the Violent Gang and Terrorist Organizations File.''

We are fighting a war on terrorism--and as chairman of the CJS subcommittee I have offered unwavering support to the Justice Department and the nation's federal law enforcement 4 activities--yet terrorist manuals recovered by law enforcement contain guidance on how easy it is to buy guns in the United States. Even the Justice Department's website contains the al Qaeda training manual which includes the following: ``The confrontation that we are calling for with the apostate regimes does not know Socratic debates . . ., Platonic ideals . . ., nor Aristotelian diplomacy. But it knows the dialogue of bullets, the ideals of assassination, bombing, and destruction, and the diplomacy of the cannon and machine-guns.''

It continues with ``Second Issue: The importance of establishing a tactical plan for the assassination operation that consists of the operational factors themselves (members, weapons, hiding places . . .) and factors of the operation (time, place). In this example, we shall explain in detail the part related to the security plan. The part related to operational tactics will be explained in the lesson on special operational tactics.''

That's how the terrorists train and that scenario is one about which I have long been concerned. In September 1998 I saw the need to address the growing threat of terrorism in the world and authored legislation which created the National Commission on Terrorism chaired by Ambassador Paul Bremer, That was less than a month after two U.S. embassies in East Africa were bombed by terrorists linked to Osama bin Laden. I had raised with our colleagues then the concern that Sudan was harboring bin Laden. Quite frankly I have been frustrated in my attempts to get Congress and administrations past and present to be proactive in combating the terrorist threat.

Now comes this firearms regulation change which I believe could play into terrorists' hands. Obtaining weapons is a critical part of their plan. It is abundantly clear that we need to change some of our laws, but not in ways that make it easier for terrorists to buy weapons in the United States.

We all remember the terror of 9/11. Our nation and the world changed forever on that day when 3,000 died, including 30 from my congressional district. We all remember the terror that gripped the Washington area a year later when snipers killed 14 and wounded six others, including a young child. Shouldn't we be doing everything we can to assist law enforcement officers in rooting out terrorists, rather than tying their hands?

Mr. Speaker, over the past year I have been writing to Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson and Food and Drug Commissioner Mark McClellan urging their action to curb the continuing abuse of the powerful prescription painkiller, OxyContin. In many of those letters I have enclosed newspaper articles about another life destroyed by this drug.

Their inaction is perplexing. The death toll continues to rise and thousands of lives continue to be ruined because of the abuse of this drug. When will they do something to stop this tragedy?

I want to submit the letters I have been sending to Secretary Thompson and Commissioner McClellan over the past six months.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Appropriations,

Washington, DC, March 28, 2003.

Hon. Tommy Thompson,

Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services,

Independence Ave, SW., Washington, DC.

Dear Secretary Thompson: In December 2001, the Commerce-

Justice-State and the Judiciary appropriations subcommittee

held a hearing on the illegal diversion of the prescription

drug OxyContin, a pain-killing Schedule II narcotic

manufactured by Purdue Pharma L.P. One of the witnesses, the

father of recovering OxyContin addict, told a gripping story

of the devastating impact the drug has had on his family and

his son, who was in his early 20s. He proudly told the

committee how his son had just finished rehab and had kicked

his addiction. Sadly, a few months after appearing before the

subcommittee, the son died as a result of abusing the drug.

When used properly, OxyContin is considered a wonder drug,

especially for the terminally ill cancer patients. I know

what it is like to see people suffer from cancer. Both my

mother and father died of cancer. I can remember my mother

constantly asking the nurses for more morphine but being told

she couldn't have any more. My mother was in a great deal of

pain. OxyContin, if it had been available when she was dying,

probably would have made her a lot more comfortable at the

end.

When used illegally, however, OxyContin destroys families

and communities. It also can lead to death. This powerful

painkiller has increasingly become a drug of choice for

people who choose to abuse it by chewing it or grinding it

up. By disabling the time release mechanism in OxyContin,

abusers get a heroin-like high.

Initially, cases of abuse and illegal diversion occurred

primarily in poor, rural communities in Virginia, Kentucky,

West Virginia and Ohio. Abuse is no longer limited

to Appalachia. The drug has found its way to urban areas

and there are now reports of widespread abuse as far away

as Arizona. Florida, I am told, has been hit extremely

hard.

Several pharmacies in my congressional District have been

robbed at gun point in recent months for OxyContin. No money

was taken; the robbers only demanded the drug. Earlier this

month, a prominent defense lawyer in northern Virginia who

twice served as a local prosecutor in Prince William County

pleased guilty to Federal drug charges linked to a large-

scale investigation into the illegal distribution of

OxyContin and other painkillers.

Communities where the illegal drug has taken hold are being

completely destroyed. I am told there is one county in

southwest Virginia where no one isn't either using the drug,

knows someone using the drug or been the victim of a crime by

someone needing the drug.

When a professional baseball player recently died after

taking the dietary supplement ephedra, your agency

immediately issued fact sheets regarding potential serious

risks of dietary supplements containing ephedra. You were

even quoted as cautioning all Americans about using dietary

supplements that contain ephedra.

According to fact sheets produced by the FDA, two deaths,

four heart attacks nine strokes and five psychiatric cases

involving ephedra have been reported. More than 240 people

have died from the abuse of OxyContin and countless numbers

of families and communities have been torn apart by this

drug.

Your agency has done a good job educating the public about

the dangers of ephedra and other dietary supplements. I urge

you to initiate a similar public information campaign about

the dangers of abusing OxyContin.

I have previously written to your department asking for a

review of the marketing of OxyContin and its classification

for treatment of moderate to severe pain. The Food and Drug

Administration did change the warning label on OxyContin but

more needs to be done. The drug should not be marketed to

treat moderate pain. I urge you to no longer allow OxyContin

to be prescribed for moderate pain.

Too many people have died, too many families have suffered

and too many communities have been devastated by the improper

use of this drug.

Sincerely,

Frank R. Wolf,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Commerce-

Justice-State and the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the President for highlighting the longstanding friendship between the United States and the United Kingdom in his recent speech delivered at Whitehall Palace in London. It is encouraging that this administration is taking a strong stand against tyranny, but I am further encouraged that we are not forced to travel this road alone. The history of the United States and the United Kingdom has been forged on the belief that freedom is the natural right of all men. It is the role of governments to preserve this right, not hinder it.

The conflict in Iraq is our joint commitment to promoting democracy in the 21st century. Our countries will not idly stand by while dictators, hunger, disease, war and corruption ravage human beings across the globe. However, the United States and United Kingdom cannot combat these evils alone. I therefore support the three pillars set forth by the President in combating tyranny. International organizations that are equal to the challenges of our world, free nations willing to meet evil by force, and a commitment to the international spread of democracy.

I support the President's vision to see peace and stabilization in the Middle East. I am hopeful that the world will one day see a secure Israel and an independent Palestinian state. The people of Israel and Palestine deserve our best efforts in helping them to achieve a future that restores peace and dignity to a land rich with history and culture. I share the President's passion spreading democracy and commit my efforts to help him achieve this end.

Below is the President's speech:

[Remarks by the President at Whitehall Palace, Royal Banqueting House-

Whitehall Palace, London, England]

President Bush Discusses Iraq Policy at Whitehall Palace in London

The President: Thank you very much. Secretary Straw and

Secretary Hoon; Admiral Cobbald and Dr. Chipman;

distinguished guests: I want to thank you for your very kind

welcome that you've given to me and to Laura. I also thank

the groups hosting this event--The Royal United Services

Institute, and the International Institute for Strategic

Studies. We're honored to be in the United Kingdom, and we

bring the good wishes of the American people.

It was pointed out to me that the last noted American to

visit London stayed in a glass box dangling over the Thames.

(Laughter.) A few might have been happy to provide similar

arrangements for me. (Laughter.) I thank Her Majesty the

Queen for interceding. (Laughter.) We're honored to be

staying at her house.

Americans traveling to England always observe more

similarities to our country than differences. I've been here

only a short time, but I've noticed that the tradition of

free speech--exercised with enthusiasm--(laughter)--is alive

and well here in London. We have that at home, too. They now

have that right in Baghdad, as well. (Applause.)

The people of Great Britain also might see some familiar

traits in Americans. We're sometimes faulted for a naive

faith that liberty can change the world. If that's an error

it began with reading too much John Locke and Adam Smith.

Americans have, on occasion, been called moralists who often

speak in terms of right and wrong. That zeal has been

inspired by examples on this island, by the tireless

compassion of Lord Shaftesbury, the righteous courage of

Wilberforce, and the firm determination of the Royal Navy

over the decades to fight and end the trade in slaves.

It's rightly said that Americans are a religious people.

That's, in part, because the ``Good News'' was translated by

Tyndale, preached by Wesley, lived out in the example of

William Booth. At times, Americans are even said to have a

puritan streak--where might that have come from? (Laughter.)

Well, we can start with the Puritans.

To this fine heritage, Americans have added a few traits of

our own: the good influence of our immigrants, the spirit of

the frontier. Yet, there remains a bit of England in every

American. So much of our national character comes from you,

and we're glad for it.

The fellowship of generations is the cause of common

beliefs. We believe in open societies ordered by moral

conviction. We believe in private markets, humanized by

compassionate government. We believe in economies that reward

effort, communities that protect the weak, and the duty of

nations to respect the dignity and the rights of all. And

whether one learns these ideals in County Durham or in West

Texas, they instill mutual respect and they inspire common

purpose.

More than an alliance of security and commerce, the British

and American peoples have an alliance of values.

And, today, this old and tested alliance is very strong.

(Applause.)

The deepest beliefs of our nations set the direction of our

foreign policy. We value our own civil rights, so we stand

for the human rights of others. We affirm the God-given

dignity of every person, so we are moved to action by poverty

and oppression and famine and disease. The United States and

Great Britain share a mission in the world beyond the balance

of power or the simple pursuit of interest. We seek the

advance of freedom and the peace that freedom brings.

Together our nations are standing and sacrificing for this

high goal in a distant land at this very hour. And America

honors the idealism and the bravery of the sons and daughters

of Britain.

The last President to stay at Buckingham Palace was an

idealist, without question. At a dinner hosted by King George

V, in 1918, Woodrow Wilson made a pledge; with typical

American understatement, he vowed that right and justice

would become the predominant and controlling force in the

world.

President Wilson had come to Europe with his 14 Points for

Peace. Many complimented him on his vision; yet some were

dubious. Take, for example, the Prime Minister of France. He

complained that God, himself, had only 10 commandments.

(Laughter.) Sounds familiar. (Laughter.)

At Wilson's high point of idealism, however, Europe was one

short generation from

Munich and Auschwitz and the Blitz. Looking back, we see the

reasons why. The League of Nations, lacking both credibility

and will, collapsed at the first challenge of the dictators.

Free nations failed to recognize, much less confront, the

aggressive evil in plain sight. And so dictators went about

their business, feeding resentments and anti-Semitism,

bringing death to innocent people in this city and across the

world, and filling the last century with violence and

genocide.

Through world war and cold war, we learned that idealism,

if it is to do any good in this world, requires common

purpose and national strength, moral courage and patience in

difficult tasks. And now our generation has need of these

qualities.

On September the 11th, 2001, terrorists left their mark of

murder on my country, and took the lives of 67 British

citizens. With the passing of months and years, it is the

natural human desire to resume a quiet life and to put that

day behind us, as if waking from a dark dream. The hope that

danger has passed is comforting, is understanding, and it is

false. The attacks that followed--on Bali, Jakarta,

Casablanca, Bombay, Mombassa, Najaf, Jerusalem, Riyadh,

Baghdad, and Istanbul--were not dreams. They're part of the

global campaign by terrorist networks to intimidate and

demoralize all who oppose them.

These terrorists target the innocent, and they kill by the

thousands. And they would, if they gain the weapons they

seek, kill by the millions and not be finished. The greatest

threat of our age is nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons

in the hands of terrorists, and the dictators who aid them.

The evil is in plain sight. The danger only increases with

denial. Great responsibilities fall once again to the great

democracies. We will face these threats with open eyes, and

we will defeat them. (Applause.)

The peace and security of free nations now rests on three

pillars: First, international organizations must be equal to

the challenges facing our world, from lifting up failing

states to opposing proliferation.

Like 11 Presidents before me, I believe in the

international institutions and alliances that America helped

to form and helps to lead. The United States and Great

Britain have labored hard to help make the United Nations

what it is supposed to be--an effective instrument of our

collective security. In recent months, we've sought and

gained three additional resolutions on Iraq--Resolutions

1441, 1483 and 1511--precisely because the global danger of

terror demands a global response. The United Nations has no

more compelling advocate than your Prime Minister, who at

every turn has championed its ideals and appealed to its

authority. He understands, as well, that the credibility of

the U.N. depends on a willingness to keep its word and to act

when action is required.

America and Great Britain have done, and will do, all in

their power to prevent the United Nations from solemnly

choosing its own irrelevance and inviting the fate of the

League of Nations. It's not enough to meet the dangers of the

world with resolutions; we must meet those dangers with

resolve.

In this century, as in the last, nations can accomplish

more together than apart. For 54 years, America has stood

with our partners in NATO, the most effective multilateral

institution in history. We're committed to this great

democratic alliance, and we believe it must have the will and

the capacity to act beyond Europe where threats emerge.

My nation welcomes the growing unity of Europe, and the

world needs America and the European Union to work in common

purpose for the advance of security and justice. America is

cooperating with four other nations to meet the dangers posed

by North Korea. America believes the IAEA must be true to its

purpose and hold Iran to its obligations.

Our first choice, and our constant practice, is to work

with other responsible governments. We understand, as well,

that the success of multilateralism is not measured by

adherence to forms alone, the tidiness of the process, but by

the results we achieve to keep our nations secure.

The second pillar of peace and security in our world is the

willingness of free nations, when the last resort arrives, to

retain* (sic) aggression and evil by force. There are

principled objections to the use of force in every

generation, and I credit the good motives behind these views.

Those in authority, however, are not judged only by good

motivations. The people have given us the duty to defend

them. And that duty sometimes requires the violent restraint

of violent men. In some cases, the measured use of force is

all that protects us from a chaotic world ruled by force.

Most in the peaceful West have no living memory of that

kind of world. Yet in some countries, the memories are

recent: The victims of ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, those

who survived the rapists and the death squads, have few

qualms when NATO applied force to help end those crimes. The

women of Afghanistan, imprisoned in their homes and beaten in

the streets and executed in public spectacles, did not

reproach us for routing the Taliban. The inhabitants of

Iraq's Baathist hell, with its lavish palaces and its torture

chambers, with its massive statues and its mass graves, do

not miss their fugitive dictator. They rejoiced at his fall.

In all these cases, military action was proceeded by

diplomatic initiatives and negotiations and ultimatums, and

final chances until the final moment. In Iraq, year after

year, the dictator was given the chance to account for his

weapons programs, and end the nightmare for his people. Now

the resolutions he defied have been enforced.

And who will say that Iraq was better off when Saddam

Hussein was strutting and killing, or that the world was

safer when he held power? Who doubts that Afghanistan is a

more just society and less dangerous without Mullah Omar

playing host to terrorists from around the world. And Europe,

too, is plainly better off with Milosevic answering for his

crimes, instead of committing more.

It's been said that those who live near a police station

find it hard to believe in the triumph of violence, in the

same way free peoples might be tempted to take for granted

the orderly societies we have come to know. Europe's peaceful

unity is one of the great achievements of the last half-

century. And because European countries now resolve

differences through negotiation and consensus, there's

sometimes an assumption that the entire world functions in

the same way. But let us never forget how Europe's unity was

achieved--by allied armies of liberation and NATO armies of

defense. And let us never forget, beyond Europe's borders, in

a world where oppression and violence are very real,

liberation is still a moral goal, and freedom and security

still need defenders. (Applause.)

The third pillar of security is our commitment to the

global expansion of democracy, and the hope and progress it

brings, as the alternative to instability and to hatred and

terror. We cannot rely exclusively on military power to

assure our long-term security. Lasting peace is gained as

justice and democracy advance.

In democratic and successful societies, men and women do

not swear allegiance to malcontents and murderers; they turn

their hearts and labor to building better lives. And

democratic governments do not shelter terrorist camps or

attack their peaceful neighbors; they honor the aspirations

and dignity of their own people. In our conflict with terror

and tyranny, we have an unmatched advantage, a power that

cannot be resisted, and that is the appeal of freedom to all

mankind.

As global powers, both our nations serve the cause of

freedom in many ways, in many places. By promoting

development, and fighting famine and AIDS and other diseases,

we're fulfilling our moral duties, as well as encouraging

stability and building a firmer basis for democratic

institutions. By working for justice in Burma, in the Sudan

and in Zimbabwe, we give hope to suffering people and improve

the chances for stability and progress. By extending the

reach of trade we foster prosperity and the habits of

liberty. And by advancing freedom in the greater Middle

East, we help end a cycle of dictatorship and radicalism

that brings millions of people to misery and brings danger

to our own people.

The stakes in that region could not be higher. If the

Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish,

it will remain a place of stagnation and anger and violence

for export. And as we saw in the ruins of two towers, no

distance on the map will protect our lives and way of life.

If the greater Middle East joins the democratic revolution

that has reached much of the world, the lives of millions in

that region will be bettered, and a trend of conflict and

fear will be ended at its source.

The movement of history will not come about quickly.

Because of our own democratic development--the fact that it

was gradual and, at times, turbulent--we must be patient with

others. And the Middle East countries have some distance to

travel.

Arab scholars speak of a freedom deficit that has separated

whole nations from the progress of our time. The essentials

of social and material progress--limited government, equal

justice under law, religious and economic liberty, political

participation, free press, and respect for the rights of

women--have been scarce across the region. Yet that has begun

to change. In an arc of reform from Morocco to Jordan to

Qatar, we are seeing elections and new protections for women

and the stirring of political pluralism. Many governments are

realizing that theocracy and dictatorship do not lead to

national greatness; they end in national ruin. They are

finding, as others will find, that national progress and

dignity are achieved when governments are just and people are

free.

The democratic progress we've seen in the Middle East was

not imposed from abroad, and neither will the greater

progress we hope to see. Freedom, by definition, must be

chosen, and defended by those who choose it. Our part, as

free nations, is to ally ourselves with reform, wherever it

occurs.

Perhaps-the most helpful change we can make is to change in

our own thinking. In the West, there's been a certain

skepticism about the capacity or even the desire of Middle

Eastern peoples for self-government. We're told that Islam is

somehow inconsistent with a democratic culture. Yet more than

half of the world's Muslims are today contributing citizens

in democratic societies. It is suggested that the poor, in

their daily struggles, care little for self-government. Yet

the poor, especially, need the power of democracy to defend

themselves against corrupt elites.

Peoples of the Middle East share a high civilization, a

religion of personal responsibility, and a need for freedom

as deep as our own. It is not realism to suppose that one-

fifth of humanity is unsuited to liberty; it is pessimism and

condescension, and we should have none of it. (Applause.)

We must shake off decades of failed policy in the Middle

East. Your nation and mine, in

the past, have been willing to make a bargain, to tolerate

oppression for the sake of stability. Longstanding ties often

led us to overlook the faults of local elites. Yet this

bargain did not bring stability or make us safe. It merely

bought time, while problems festered and ideologies of

violence took hold.

As recent history has shown, we cannot turn a blind eye to

oppression just because the oppression is not in our own

backyard. No longer should we think tyranny is benign because

it is temporarily convenient. Tyranny is never benign to its

victims, and our great democracies should oppose tyranny

wherever it is found. (Applause.)

Now we're pursuing a different course, a forward strategy

of freedom in the Middle East. We will consistently challenge

the enemies of reform and confront the allies of terror. We

will expect a higher standard from our friends in the region,

and we will meet our responsibilities in Afghanistan and in

Iraq by finishing the work of democracy we have begun.

There were good-faith disagreements in your country and

mine over the course and timing of military action in Iraq.

Whatever has come before, we now have only two options: to

keep our word, or to break our word. The failure of democracy

in Iraq would throw its people back into misery and turn that

country over to terrorists who wish to destroy us. Yet

democracy will succeed in Iraq, because our will is firm, our

word is good, and the Iraqi people will not surrender their

freedom. (Applause.)

Since the liberation of Iraq, we have seen changes that

could hardly have been imagined a year ago. A new

Iraqi police force protects the people, instead of

bullying them. More than 150 Iraqi newspapers are now in

circulation, printing what they choose, not what they're

ordered. Schools are open with textbooks free of

propaganda. Hospitals are functioning and are well-

supplied. Iraq has a new currency, the first battalion of

a new army, representative local governments, and a

Governing Council with an aggressive timetable for

national sovereignty. This is substantial progress. And

much of it has proceeded faster than similar efforts in

Germany and Japan after World War II.

Yet the violence we are seeing in Iraq today is serious.

And it comes from Baathist holdouts and Jihadists from other

countries, and terrorists drawn to the prospect of innocent

bloodshed. It is the nature of terrorism and the cruelty of a

few to try to bring grief in the loss to many. The armed

forces of both our countries have taken losses, felt deeply

by our citizens. Some families now live with a burden of

great sorrow. We cannot take the pain away. But these

families can know they are not alone. We pray for their

strength; we pray for their comfort; and we will never forget

the courage of the ones they loved.

The terrorists have a purpose, a strategy to their cruelty.

They view the rise of democracy in Iraq as a powerful threat

to their ambitions. In this, they are correct. They believe

their acts of terror against our coalition, against

international aid workers and against innocent Iraqis, will

make us recoil and retreat. In this, they are mistaken.

(Applause.)

We did not charge hundreds of miles into the heart of Iraq

and pay a bitter cost of casualties, and liberate 25 million

people, only to retreat before a band of thugs and assassins.

(Applause.) We will help the Iraqi people establish a

peaceful and democratic country in the heart of the Middle

East. And by doing so, we will defend our people from danger.

The forward strategy of freedom must also apply to the

Arab-Israeli conflict. It's a difficult period in a part of

the world that has known many. Yet, our commitment remains

firm. We seek justice and dignity. We seek a viable,

independent state for the Palestinian people, who have been

betrayed by others for too long. (Applause.) We seek security

and recognition for the state of Israel, which has lived in

the shadow of random death for too long. (Applause.) These

are worthy goals in themselves, and by reaching them we will

also remove an occasion and excuse for hatred and violence in

the broader Middle East.

Achieving peace in the Holy Land is not just a matter of

the shape of a border. As we work on the details of peace, we

must look to the heart of the matter, which is the need for a

viable Palestinian democracy. Peace will not be achieved by

Palestinian rulers who intimidate opposition, who tolerate

and profit from corruption and maintain their ties to

terrorist groups. These are the methods of the old elites,

who time and again had put their own self-interest above the

interest of the people they claim to serve. The long-

suffering Palestinian people deserve better. They deserve

true leaders, capable of creating and governing a Palestinian

state.

Even after the setbacks and frustrations of recent months,

goodwill and hard effort can bring about a Palestinian state

and a secure Israel. Those who would lead a new Palestine

should adopt peaceful means to achieve the rights of their

people and create the reformed institutions of a stable

democracy.

Israel should freeze settlement construction, dismantle

unauthorized outposts, end the daily humiliation of the

Palestinian people, and not prejudice final negotiations with

the placements of walls and fences.

Arab states should end incitement in their own media, cut

off public and private funding for terrorism, and establish

normal relations with Israel.

Leaders in Europe should withdraw all favor and support

from any Palestinian ruler who fails his people and betrays

their cause. And Europe's leaders--and all leaders--should

strongly oppose anti-Semitism, which poisons public debates

over the future of the Middle East. (Applause.)

Ladies and gentlemen, we have great objectives before us

that make our Atlantic alliance as vital as it has ever been.

We will encourage the strength and effectiveness of

international institutions. We will use force when necessary

in the defense of freedom. And we will raise up an ideal of

democracy in every part of the world. On these three pillars

we will build the peace and security of all free nations in a

time of danger.

So much good has come from our alliance of conviction and

might. So much now depends on the strength of this alliance

as we go forward. America has always found strong partners

in London, leaders of good judgment and blunt counsel and

backbone when times are tough. And I have found all those

qualities in your current Prime Minister, who has my

respect and my deepest thanks. (Applause.)

The ties between our nations, however, are deeper than the

relationship between leaders. These ties endure because they

are formed by the experience and responsibilities and

adversity we have shared. And in the memory of our peoples,

there will always be one experience, one central event when

the seal was fixed on the friendship between Britain and the

United States: The arrival in Great Britain of more than 1.5

million American soldiers and airmen in the 1940s was a

turning point in the Second World War. For many Britons, it

was a first close look at Americans, other than in the

movies. Some of you here today may still remember the

``friendly invasion.'' Our lads, they took some getting used

to. There was even a saying about what many of them were up

to--in addition to be ``overpaid and over here.'' (Laughter.)

At a reunion in North London some years ago, an American

pilot who had settled in England after his military service,

said, ``Well, I'm still over here, and probably overpaid. So

two out of three isn't bad.'' (Laughter.)

In that time of war, the English people did get used to the

Americans. They welcomed soldiers and fliers into their

villages and homes, and took to calling them, ``our boys.''

About 70,000 of those boys did their part to affirm our

special relationship. They returned home with English brides.

Americans gained a certain image of Britain, as well. We

saw an island threatened on every side, a leader who did not

waver, and a country of the firmest character. And that has

not changed. The British people are the sort of partners you

want when serious work needs doing. The men and women of this

Kingdom are kind and steadfast and generous and brave. And

America is fortunate to call this country our closest friend

in the world.

May God bless you all. (Applause.)

Mr. Speaker, I was honored recently to be asked to participate in a memorial service for my constituent, Lance Cpl. David Owens, Jr., USMC, who was killed in action in Baghdad on April 12 of this year. The presentation of a memorial plaque was held in Winchester, Virginia, on October 24 during halftime ceremonies on the football field at James Wood High School, Corporal Owens' alma mater.

I would like to share with my colleagues the remarks given that evening in memory of this brave young man who served his nation proudly and who died defending our freedoms.

Remarks by Frederick County Superintendent of Schools, Dr. William C.

Dean

Good evening, The war in Iraq claimed the life of a James

Wood High School graduate of the class of 2000. On Saturday,

April 12, 2003, 20-year-old Marine Lance Corporal David Owens

was killed in action in Baghdad.

It is with great pleasure that I introduce you to the

parents of Corporal Owens, Mr. and Mrs. David Owens.

In creating this memorial, it is our hope this service

tonight will remind Mr. and Mrs. Owens of one of the many

places where David made an impact at James Wood High School.

And, I also extend an invitation to them to return here

often.

James Wood High School is a place David enjoyed, and we

enjoyed and valued David's presence here. He is missed by his

classmates, his teachers and those who knew him.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am honored to present David and

Debbie Owens.

Thank you for allowing us to honor your son this evening.

Remarks by James Wood High School Principal, Joseph Salyer

David E. Owens, Jr. a graduate of JWHS, entered as a

freshman in 1997. During the span of this high school career

many would describe David as an individual with strong

character, high integrity and a sincere love for his school.

David was not merely a student who focused his attention on

attending classes. He also took an active part in the life

and traditions of JWHS.

He was a dedicated athlete who participated in the school's

football and wrestling programs. During his senior year, he

excelled by placing 4th in the Commonwealth District

wrestling tournament. This earned him a spot representing the

school in the regional wrestling competition. He also was the

recipient of the 2000 Winchester Wrestling Officials

Association Sportsmanship Award.

In addition, David was committed to serving in his local

Future Farmers of America (FFA) chapter. He participated in a

wide range of forestry-related events, sponsored by the FFA,

because of his love for natural resources.

It is because of David's sincere devotion, that we the

staff, faculty and student body of the James Wood community

will forever be indebted to his legacy as a James Wood

student and to the life he gave for his country.

Remarks by Congressman Frank R. Wolf, 10th District, Virginia

It is important to remember those who have made the

ultimate sacrifice for their country.

Marine Lance Cpl. David Owens Jr., age 20, served his

country with pride and honor. His loss has touched many in

this community. It is fitting that this plaque have a

permanent place at James Wood High School as a remembrance of

David's sacrifice for his country.

I know this has been a difficult time for his parents. As

the father of five children, my heart goes out to them. They,

too, have made the ultimate sacrifice.

I ask that everyone here tonight remember all the service

men and women who have lost their lives defending our

freedom. We owe them and their families a huge debt of

gratitude.

I also ask that everyone pray for the men and women in

uniform who are in harm's way in Iraq, in Afghanistan and

other parts of the world where we have a military presence.

They need and deserve our support.

I want to read the words of the hymn ``Eternal Father,''

also known as the ``Navy Hymn,'' which is often sung at the

funeral of service men and women, particularly sailors and

Marines.

It was the favorite hymn of President Franklin Delano

Roosevelt, a former secretary of the Navy, and was sung at

his funeral in Hyde Park, New York, in 1945.

It also was played by the Navy band in 1963 as President

John F. Kennedy's body was carried up the steps of the U.S.

Capitol to lie in state.

Eternal Father, strong to save

Whose arm hath bound the restless wave, Who bidd'st the

mighty ocean deep

Its own appointed limits keep;

Oh, hear us when we cry to Thee.

For those in peril on the sea!

Eternal Father, grant, we pray,

To all Marines, both night and day,

The courage, honor, strength and skill

Their land to serve, they law fulfill;

Be thou the sheild forevermore

From every peril to the Corps.

May we all remember Lance Cpl. David Owens, Jr. and keep

his family in our thoughts and prayers.

Remarks by Frederick County Board of Supervisors Chairman, Richard

Shickle

Tonight we are here to honor Marine Lance Cpl. David Owens,

Jr. He made the ultimate sacrifice. He gave all that he had

for his Country. He gave his life for each and every one of

us. But he is not the only one that gave something to this

great country and to each and every one of us. David Edward

Owens, Sr. and Deborah Owens, mother and father, gave us

their son Marine Lance Cpl. David Owens, Jr.

As a father of four I cannot imagine the pride and the pain

that these two people must feel each and every day. The

questions ``Why him?'' and ``Why us?'' must haunt them every

minute of every day.

Mr. and Mrs. Owens, all that we can say is ``Thank you''

from the bottom of our hearts. Please allow the citizens of

Frederick County to become part of your family.

Remarks by Frederick County School Board Chairman, Stuart Wolk

Tonight I stand before you humbled. Humbled by a life short

lived but more accomplished in those few years than I can

imagine accomplishing in my lifetime.

A few short years ago, David Owens engaged in battle on the

ground we are now standing on. He fought valiantly for his

team then and upon leaving James Wood, continued to fight

valiantly. Only this time, the stakes were bigger and his new

team for which he was fighting was our country. He made the

ultimate sacrifice for his team and we mourn his loss

tonight, as we have since receiving the tragic news. There is

no greater love for country, for humanity than to give one's

life for the freedom we all cherish. Let us never take those

freedoms for granted and let us always remember the supreme

sacrifice made by our hero: Lance Cpl. David Owens, Jr.

I cannot begin to fathom the loss that Mr. and Mrs. Owens

have experienced but I wish to thank them for their son and

the manner in which he always conducted himself. As a member

of the Frederick County School Board, as a citizen of

Frederick County and of this great country, I feel fortunate

to stand here in his memory and in his honor.

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, the President gave an amazing speech yesterday in England, and everyone should read it. Consistent with that speech, I would now ask the administration to appoint a special envoy to the Middle East to focus like a laser beam on bringing peace to the Middle East.

Envoys for peace have succeeded in the past. Senator Mitchell succeeded in Ireland. Senator Danforth has helped push the peace in Sudan. Three people

that come to mind immediately for the Middle East are the President's father, George H.W. Bush or Secretary James A. Baker III or former Secretary George Shultz. Each would bring a unique ability to sharply focus, using the administration's road map for peace, on bringing peace to the Middle East.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for his leadership and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize, as I said the other day, every time these issues come up, it is the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos). I mean, everyone else ought to be participating in this too; but I want them to know, and Chairman Hyde too, how much I appreciate it.

But think about it, every time a bill comes up dealing with persecution and oppression, it is always those three gentlemen. Why can we not get 432 other people to come on over and join these three patriots?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and thank the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. This fall we celebrate the 5th year of the commission and thank them for their tireless efforts to bring awareness to religious freedom violations across the globe. Those around the world suffering persecution for the religious beliefs have truly benefited from the commitment of the commission.

The commission produces an annual report. Each report helps to bring visibility to oppressive governments that violate the basic freedoms of their citizens. The protection of human rights and the plight of those suffering for their faith must not, should not ever fall on deaf ears. Someone must fight for them.

Nameless victims in China, including Tibet, which is not part of China, although the Chinese may think it is, China, Tibet, Vietnam, Sudan, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Vietnam, and many other places where faith is under attack are waiting for a message of hope, waiting to hear that we in the United States care.

When the United States speaks out, the Congress, the government, we can make a difference. We cannot stand idly by and watch innocent people suffer. We must not let terrible atrocities go unchallenged. We have a moral obligation to speak out.

The United States Commission on International Freedom is shining a bright light in some of the darkest corners of the world. I commend them, encourage their continued work on behalf of the oppressed and persecuted people around the globe.

Mr. Speaker, Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

``Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.''

I rise today to recognize and thank the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. This fall we celebrate the fifth year of the commission and thank them for their tireless effort to bring awareness to religious freedom violations across the globe.

The commission was created by Congress in 1998 to shine a light on and generate a heightened awareness of the ongoing atrocities associated with persecution of individuals around the world for their religious beliefs.

As a results of their investigations, hearings, and reports, the commission has provided Congress and the administration with timely and accurate information on religious freedom abuses and sound policy recommendations to the president, the secretary of state, and Congress.

Those around the world suffering persecution for their religious beliefs have truly benefitted from the commitment of the commission. The commission produces an annual report. Each report helps to bring visibility to oppressive governments that violate the basic freedoms of their citizens.

As an example, look at what is occurring in some of these countries:

China--According to the Cardinal Kung Foundation, there are at least 22 Roman Catholic bishops in Chinese prisons, labor camps or under house arrest. Numerous Protestant House Church leaders and worshipers in China have been imprisoned or detained. Large numbers of Muslims in China are in prison because of their faith. Young Muslim Uighur boys and girls are not even allowed to enter a mosque until they are 18 years old. Hundreds more bishops, priests, and lay people are already in prison. Torture and death are common.

Tibet--Buddhist monks and nuns are in prison and hundreds of monasteries and nunneries have been destroyed. Yet loyalty to the Dalai Lama remains strong. Despite this brutal crackdown by the government of China, the Tibetan people remain strong and cling to their heritage and unique identity.

Sudan--Millions have died in the 20-year civil war and the majority have been Christians who starved to death.

Egypt--The Coptic Christians continue to experience harassment and persecution.

Pakistan--The government has failed to protect the rights of religious minorities. Christians are persecuted and blasphemy laws are strong.

Iran--Bahais are persecuted and imprisoned because of their faith.

India--Violence is ongoing against Christians, churches are burned or destroyed, nuns raped.

Indonesia--Christian churches and Muslim mosques are attacked and burned.

Saudi Arabia--State Department annual report on human rights documents that freedom of religion does not exist and that non-Muslim groups are not allowed to worship in public, and risk being detained, imprisoned, tortured, or deported. Conversion form Islam to another religion is punishable by death.

Vietnam--Buddhist, Protestants, Catholics and minority groups suffer intense persecution at the hands of brutal communist rulers.

It goes on and on.

The protection of human rights and the plight of those suffering for their faith must not fall on deaf ears. Someone must fight for them. Nameless victims in China, Vietnam, Sudan, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Vietnam and the many other places where faith is under attack are waiting for a message of hope, waiting to hear that we care.

When the United States speaks out, the United States makes a difference. We cannot stand idly by and watch innocent people suffer. We must not let terrible atrocities go unchallenged. We have a moral obligation to speak out.

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom is shining a bright light in some of the darkest corners of the world. They have made a difference over the last 5 years and continue to have an impact on the lives of the suffering people of the world. I commend them and encourage their continued work on behalf of the oppressed and persecuted people around the globe.

As the President recently stated in his speech for the National Endowment for Democracy ``The bedrock of successful societies is the right to religious liberty.''