Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, in April of this year, my office expressed a deep and sincere concern to the State Department over agreeing to the designation of Bisera Turkovic as the new Bosnian Ambassador to the United States. At that time, State was postured to recommend an agreement on this appointment.

After several discussions, the State Department asked me not to go public with my concerns because there was a pending deal with the Bosnian government to send Bosnian troops to Iraq in July. In good faith, Mr. Speaker, my office agreed not to publicly raise our very grave and sincere concerns.

But, Mr. Speaker, our office was surprised and profoundly disappointed when we learned this past Wednesday, after literally months, that the State Department had granted agreement on this outrageous appointment without contacting us or informing us in any way.

Mr. Speaker, President Bush has repeatedly and strongly stated that in this fight against terrorism, that you are ``either with us or you are against us.'' Yet, I am beginning to wonder if our own State Department is with us.

Bisera Turkovic is one of the founders of the radical Islamist Muslim SDA Party in Bosnia, a party that has had, since its foundation, strong links with al Qaeda, numerous other terrorist organizations, and even the intelligence mechanisms of Iran.

In 1939, Bisera Turkovic's father, Alija Izetbegovic, started a group called the Young Muslims. After World War II, they were prosecuted as Nazi war criminals and spent time in prison together. Over the years, Dr. Turkovic was promoted by Izetbegovic and then founded the SDA Party in 1990.

Alija Izetbegovic was a close confidante of Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini. And when he became President Izetbegovic, he recirculated his 1970 Islamic Declaration and openly espoused his view that ``there can be no peace or coexistence between Islamic faith and non-Islamic faith.''

Mr. Speaker, soon after the beginning of the Bosnian civil war in 1992, Dr. Turkovic was accredited as Bosnian ambassador to Zagreb. It was this post, coordinating with others, that was constantly used by the SDA and their leadership to provide Bosnian passports, visas, humanitarian worker status, and logistical support to radical Islamist mujahideen coming into Bosnia to fight their own jihad there. Individuals such as Anwar Sha'ban, the spiritual leader of al Qaeda in Bosnia and the cousin of Osama bin Laden, Abu al-Madani, who was killed fighting soldiers in Sarajevo, and even Osama bin Laden himself entered Bosnia through Zagreb.

In violation of a U.S. embargo, the SDA also organized a massive flow of weapons from Iran through Croatia during Bisera Turkovic's time as ambassador.

When my office raised these concerns, Mr. Speaker, we were told that the actions during the war were Bosnian government policy at that time and that it was a long time ago. But, Mr. Speaker, can it possibly be the position of our State Department that despite the fact that we know that Iranian weapons were smuggled into Bosnia in contradiction to a U.N. embargo, and that foreign mujahideen were given documentation to enter Bosnia to fight a jihad, often fronting as humanitarian workers, that that is not enough evidence to deny diplomatic status to someone who was centrally involved and who remains a senior level official for the party that instituted these very policies?

My office has also raised issues of concern with regard to Bisera Turkovic's ethical fitness, Mr. Speaker; and the State Department has said that ``we can't deny appointees on the basis of being corrupt.''

Mr. Speaker, these actions on the part of our State Department are a disservice to our President, they are a disgrace to the United States of America, and they are a betrayal to the cause of human freedom. It is past time that the State Department start acting like it represents the interests of America and the citizens of this Nation. The people of this Nation deserve better than to be served by a State Department that aids our enemies and then lies to cover its actions.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order at this time.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to address a very deep and growing concern about American policy in the Balkans. The policy of the United States should be predicated upon its own interests and its own sovereignty and security. Defying reason, somehow we keep hearing that the current administration plans to continue the former administration's policy in Southeast Europe.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand this, given the fact that we have learned so much about the nature of the foreign fighters that have come into Bosnia-Herzegovina to fight the Serbs, and now we have encountered them ourselves in Iraq.

To observe the current unemployment and socialist economic structure in Kosovo is to recognize that the previous administration's so-called policy there has been an absolute and utter failure. I certainly agree that we should be looking for a workable solution for all in that region; but in order to do so, we cannot disregard the fact that there have been over 300 mosques constructed in Kosovo since 1999, mostly funded by Saudi Arabia, while at the very same time, 150 Serbian churches, Orthodox churches, about 10 percent of all the churches in Kosovo, have been destroyed. And I am wondering if this is the legacy that we want to leave for the United States involvement, Mr. Speaker.

Further, we can now clearly see that many of the most dangerous terrorists that the United States has encountered in the fight against terrorism have had some connection to the Balkans and particularly Bosnia. For example, two of the September 11 hijackers fought in the wars in Bosnia. Sohel al Saahli fought in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Chechnya; and he later became a leader in Iraq and was killed in a U.S. air strike in March of 2003. Abdel Aziz al Muqrin, al Qaeda's leader in Saudi Arabia, personally decapitated Paul Johnson; and he had fought in Bosnia, Algeria, Ethiopia, and Afghanistan.

Mr. Speaker, there is an alarming pattern here.

Abu Anas al Shami fought with other Jordanian extremists to fight jihad in Bosnia. He was the right hand of Abu Masab al Zarqawi fighting against U.S. forces in Iraq until he was killed in September, 2004.

And, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, our Balkans policies helped these terrorists.

And now there is data found on Mr. Zarqawi's laptop computer indicating that terrorists have the means and the plans to use WMDs here in Europe and perhaps even here someday, in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, given these disturbing details, the fact that we are now moving troops out of Bosnia and out of the Balkans is a profound concern to me. Further, as a guarantor of the Dayton Peace Accords, we have a duty to reaffirm them and to ensure a sense of comity and fair play. We should not seek to change them through a coercive top-down pressure, as has been recently attempted in the talks in Bosnia under the auspices of the High Representative, Paddy Ashdown, and this with the approval of our U.S. Ambassador Douglas McElhaney.

I am also very concerned that, according to news reports, our ambassador incited public opinion against the Republic of Srpska's chief of police by insinuating that he should be removed from office for statements he made concerning the nexus between Bosnia and the Madrid bombings.

Mr. Speaker, the police chief's statements concerning the relationship between certain individuals and materials in Bosnia and the horrific Madrid bombings that took place last year deserve our attention and our investigation rather than our rebuke. I truly believe, Mr. Speaker, it is time we take a second, very serious look at the realities and the growing terrorist danger in Bosnia.

Mr. Speaker, this is a critical time in the life of America. Our colleagues in the United States Senate are imminently approaching a crossroads that will forever impact the future of this Republic. They will choose the road that will restore the constitutional balance of power that our Founding Fathers so carefully constructed, or they will travel down that path that rewards a shameless behavior that has deliberately injured this delicate balance by transferring the executive power of judicial appointment to the legislative minority.

The Constitution's advice and consent has been twisted into mockery by the Senate minority. Men and women of outstanding character have come forth as judicial nominees to be undeservedly maligned, smeared, ridiculed and then left in nominations limbo indefinitely by this unprecedented, unconstitutional and outrageous judicial filibuster.

Mr. Speaker, this is a show of disregard and contempt for the world's flagship of freedom and toward her people and toward the time-honored principles of the United States Senate. We will recapture the civility that once presided over judicial appointments or we will forever surrender what Abraham Lincoln called ``the angels of our better nature'' to this bitterly partisan tactic that threatens the constitutional prerogative of the President of the United States to appoint good, decent and honorable men and women to the Federal judiciary.

Advice and consent is clearly written in the United States Constitution. This judicial filibuster to prevent a fair up-or-down vote is neither advice nor consent and, Mr. Speaker, it is not in the United States Constitution. Never before 2003, in 214 years of U.S. Senate deliberations, has any judicial nomination supported by the majority of the Senate been denied a fair up-or-down vote. Yet the minority would have the public believe that the majority is the one trying to change the rules here, calling it the nuclear option. It is the Senate minority, Mr. Speaker, that has launched this unprecedented, quote, nuclear option by devastating the constitutionally required just consideration of judicial nominees duly appointed by the President of the United States.

What the majority seeks is the constitutional option that is totally in keeping with 214 years of the rules, traditions and dignity of the United States Senate. Senate Democrats have strongly and arrogantly and openly

threatened to shut down the operations of the government if Republicans insist on the constitutional option. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that it is far better to let the Democrats shut down this government temporarily than it is to allow them to shut down this Republic permanently.

In this critical struggle for the future of this Republic, one of two things will occur. Either the time-honored and tested provision of advice and consent, written in the Constitution, will prevail or unprecedented judicial filibuster and obstructionism will take its place and become the tragic legacy of these days.

Mr. Speaker, I should not have to remind my Republican colleagues that the people who have entrusted us with this majority have spoken with resounding voice on the issue of judicial nominations. They hear it and I hear it everywhere I go. The people of America have a profound sense of fair play and they are tired of some of their United States Senators cowering behind a distorted version of the true and impeccable auspices of the United States Senate. The people want their Senators to have the courage to take a stand on judicial nominations. The people want a fair up-or-down vote on judges, Mr. Speaker, and they will remember those who have the courage to do so and, sir, they will remember those who did not.

The people understand how important this really is. They understand that it is truly about the Constitution itself, and they innately embrace the core message of those magnificent words by Daniel Webster when he said, ``Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution, and to the Republic for which it stands, for miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000 years may never happen again. So hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fall, there will be anarchy throughout the world.''

Mr. Speaker, the stakes could not be higher and this Republic truly hangs in the balance. We have a once in a lifetime opportunity to pass this miracle of the American constitutional Republic on to future generations that are yet to be. We owe it to the American people, we owe it to ourselves, we owe it to those future generations and we owe it to that vision of human freedom that our forefathers risked their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to entrust to us.

Mr. Speaker, we must not fail.

Mr. Speaker, due to a scheduling conflict, I was unable to be on the floor of the House of Representatives during the last series of votes on May 4, 2005. If I had been, I would have cast a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 1185, Final Passage of the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act of 2005, and a ``yes'' vote on H. Res. 233, Recognizing the 60th Anniversary of Victory in Europe (V-E) Day.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, our colleagues in the Senate in the coming days will approach a crossroads that will forever impact the future of this Republic. They will choose the road that will restore the constitutional balance of power that our Founders so carefully constructed, or they will travel the path that rewards a shameless behavior that has deliberately injured this delicate balance by transferring the executive power of judicial appointment to the legislative minority.

The Constitution's advice and consent has been twisted into mockery. Men and women of outstanding character have come forth as judicial nominees to be undeservedly maligned, smeared, and ridiculed, and then left in nominations limbo by this unprecedented, unconstitutional, and outrageous judicial filibuster.

Mr. Speaker, this is a show of disregard and contempt towards the world's flagship of freedom and toward her people and toward the time- honored principles of the United States Senate.

We will recapture the civility that once presided over judicial appointments, or we will forever surrender what Abraham Lincoln called ``the angels of our better nature'' to a bitterly partisan tactic that threatens the constitutional prerogative of the President to appoint good, decent, and honorable men and women to the Federal judiciary.

Advice and consent is clearly written in the United States Constitution. This judicial filibuster to prevent fair up or down votes is neither advice nor consent, and it is not in the United States Constitution. Never before 2003, in 214 years of U.S. Senate deliberations, has any judicial nomination with clear majority support been denied a fair up or down vote. And yet the minority would have the public believe that the majority is the one trying to change the rules here. They call it the ``nuclear option.'' It is the Senate minority that has launched the unprecedented ``nuclear option'' by devastating the constitutionally required just consideration of judicial nominees by the President of the United States.

What the majority seeks is the ``constitutional option'' that is in total keeping with 214 years of the rules, traditions, and dignity of the United States Senate. Senate Democrats have arrogantly and openly threatened to shut down the operations of this government if Republicans insist on the constitutional option.

Mr. Speaker, far better it is to let the Democrats shut down this government temporarily than it is to allow them to shut down this Republic permanently, because in this critical struggle for the future of this Republic, one of two things will happen: Either the time- honored tested provision of advice and consent written in the Constitution will prevail or unprecedented judicial filibuster and obstructionism will take its place and become the tragic legacy of these days.

The people who have placed us here with their votes have entrusted us to act in principle and for the common good. They are exhausted by the mercenary partisanship of these attempts to destroy the reputations of decent men and women. This destructive behavior has so insidiously invaded every aspect of our political process that it will destroy this Republic if we foolishly continue to reward it.

Mr. Speaker, I should not have to remind my Republican colleagues that the people who have entrusted us with this majority have spoken with resounding voice on the issue of judicial appointments. They hear it and I hear it everywhere I go.

The people of America have a profound sense of justice and fair play; and they want a fair up-or-down vote on judges. Somehow, the people understand how important this really is, and they understand it is really about the Constitution itself. They seem to innately embrace the message of Daniel Webster when he said those magnificent words: ``Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands, for miracles do not cluster. And what has happened once in 6,000 years may never happen again. So hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fall, there will be anarchy throughout the world.''

Mr. Speaker, the stakes could not be higher, and this Republic hangs in the balance. We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to pass along the miracle of the American constitutional republic to any future generations that are yet to be.

We owe it to the American people, we owe it to ourselves, we owe it to those future generations, and we owe it to that vision of human freedom our Founding Fathers risked their fortunes, their lives, and their sacred honor to entrust to us.

We must not fail.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for the time.

Mr. Speaker, my comments prepared for now had essentially to do with the point that has been made already here many times. Carving out exceptions to the criminal prohibitions of H.R. 748 for adult siblings, for cousins and uncles would not protect young girls who are made victims of incest by those very adult siblings, cousins or uncles; and it would be a terrible idea to add that to a bill whose primary purpose is to protect the rights of parents and their children.

But I had a chance just to kind of step back here for a moment, Mr. Speaker, and ask myself why the intensity of this debate. I would have to step back and say that respectfully I would submit that maybe it is about the foundational issue here of abortion because if we were not talking about the surgery of abortion, there would be no debate here. No one would say it is not all right to take a young girl across the State line for an appendectomy. That would be an outrageous discussion.

It really is about this whole notion of abortion, and I do not understand the intensity completely, but I believe it has something to do with the conscience in all of us collectively that we are beginning to realize that somehow, as Americans, we are bigger than abortion on demand; that 40 million dead children is enough; and that somehow we need to start asking the real question. The real questions is, does abortion take the life of a child? If it does not, it is a nonissue. If it does, then we are in the midst of the greatest human holocaust in the history of humanity.

I think somehow we collectively in our hearts understand that, and therefore, it creates all this acrimony on the finer points; but the real abuse of power is that this body has the power to protect these little babies, and instead, we are debating the finer points in a committee report, and I am ashamed of that.

I pray that somehow we can get to the point where we can come together and not have to look back. The Fugitive Slave Act was a perfect example. We looked back and said how did we let that happen. That was an acrimonious debate, too. There was a little thing called the Civil War over it.

We do not need to proceed down that line. Somehow may compassion and the simple truth prevail here.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my upcoming Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).

Mr. Speaker, we are here to honor the life and legacy of Pope John Paul II, and I am joined by several of our colleagues here tonight.

Mr. Speaker, we often get materials and letters from our constituencies, and sometimes even from other States. Although I represent Arizona, a close friend of mine from California, Kevin Rishell, wrote us a poem today related to Pope John Paul II, and it seemed appropriate to read. So I am going to start with that:

``Pope John Paul II.

A man of simple convictions,

A man of great love and peace;

A father to the nations,

A friend now at last released.

Into the arms of his beloved Savior;

Into history,

With God's tender favor.

`Well done' faithful servant,

Echoes 'cross Heaven's portals;

As John Paul is welcomed,

By friends and other immortals.

His life was a service to God,

And to his neighbors;

To the weak and to the poor,

And dearly loved unbelievers.

For he believed that all life,

Had a godly purpose;

That all life was special,

And that God was never spurious.

For he understood clearly,

The vain rantings of men;

How popular their wisdom,

Seemed to change with the wind.

But he held true to his course,

In the most turbulent times;

With God's Word as his pilot,

And the Holy Spirit as his guide.

In faith, he stood against evil,

When it could have cost him his life;

And for decades and more,

He fought for what was right.

For God was his center,

And Jesus was his friend;

And the Comforter never left him,

From birth to honored end.

For he was on a holy quest,

Of nearly mythic proportions;

A man with a great commission,

Teaching truth and sacred traditions.

He knew where he came from,

And he knew where he would go;

Secure in Christ, adored by the masses,

This humble shepherd-soul.

But now his journey's over,

A final appointment he will keep;

A righteous servant to his Master,

In whose arms he will now rest and sleep.

While leaving a beautiful legacy,

Of honor and valiant grace;

That will live on beyond this tribute,

A priestly mantle so hard to replace.

We will miss you Holy Father,

We will miss your humor and your passion;

We will miss your concern for personal details,

And your courage to speak and to take action.

But now you have fought your good fight,

And you have finished your race;

We thank you for your example,

And pray God bless you for your faith.

Via con Dios, my precious brother,

Go with God my blessed friend;

Shalom to you my loving confessor,

Be at peace and as you always said, `Amen.' ''

Mr. Speaker, it is with great admiration and gratitude that I now personally rise to commend to the ages the life of Karol Wojtyla, Pope John Paul II.

Pope John Paul II lived an intentional life. Too often today, we spend our lives in a reactive state, with daily events and crises drowning out the reflection and study which are required to live an intentional life.

The Pope did not fall into this trap of the immediate. He instead considered his life's great questions and, after seeking guidance in Holy Scripture and through prayer, he steadfastly stayed wisdom's course.

Mr. Speaker, by now the narrative of the Pope's life has become well- known. Growing up in Poland, he had firsthand experience with two of the 20th century's most horrible totalitarian creations, that being Nazism and Soviet Communism. Living under these systems as a young man, he saw in detail not only the physical corrosion wrought by these systems of government, but the spiritual and social decay they engendered as well.

He looked beyond the jackboots and the tanks and saw that the real power of these regimes stemmed not from physical force, but from an intellectual climate that was stripping the humanness from humanity. Karol Wojtyla dedicated himself to fighting this evil,

not with force of might, but through prayer, availing his heart, soul and mind unto God, and in serving his fellow human beings.

He exemplified what the Holy Scripture exhorts from man: ``To do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with God.'' He sought for justice to be done and the truth to be told by placing a handwritten acknowledgment of Christian sins against the Jewish people in a crevice of the Western Wall in Jerusalem, and in his admonishment of the kneeling Father Ernesto Cardenal, the Sandinista Culture Minister in Nicaragua.

He demonstrated mercy, and after recovering from his wounds from the assassination attempt on his life by Mehmet ali Agca, he visited this deranged Turk in prison. He visited him, and then he forgave him.

And he walked humbly, Mr. Speaker, allowing all of us to watch as he deteriorated physically right before our eyes, believing that those who follow Christ, as Christ himself taught, must sometimes endure suffering.

Karol Wojtyla became Pope John Paul II in 1978, and held the Chair of Saint Peter for more than 26 years. At the beginning of his Papacy, the totalitarianism that had colored his youth was on the march throughout the world. Previously free people were being enslaved by Soviet Communism with alarming regularity. However, the Soviet Union had reached its zenith, and soon would crumble, due in large part to the efforts of a triumvirate of courageous and noble leaders: Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and this new Pope, John Paul II.

He chose to attack the intellectual moorings of totalitarianism; thus he could eliminate the power structure that it rested upon.

He opposed abortion, believing innocent human life was sacred and that the casual elimination of the weak is the first step on the path that leads to the enslavement of all. One of the great teaching documents of his pontificate, ``Evangelium Vitae,'' stated: ``Life, especially human life, belongs only to God; for this reason, whoever attacks human life in some way attacks God himself.''

He opposed liberal theology, firmly believing that a Church which did not stand up for its core doctrines would be unlikely to stand up to evil in the world. And he encouraged us all to do the same, stating that ``freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought.'' And kindly but boldly he encouraged us not to be afraid, stating: ``Have no fear of moving into the unknown. Simply step out fearlessly knowing that God is with you, therefore no harm can befall you; all is very, very well. Do this in complete faith and confidence.''

He demonstrated this full and complete trust in God, and from his first appearance on the balcony of St. Peter's Basilica proclaimed that ``Christ, Christ is the answer.''

He was a friend of the United States, not out of blind loyalty, but out of a recognition that ``radical changes in world politics leave America with a heightened responsibility to be for the world an example of genuinely free, democratic, just and humane society.''

And he admonished and cautioned us that it is not enough to speak about freedom, but that freedom must have a purpose, stating: ``When freedom does not have a purpose, when it does not wish to know anything about the rule of law engraved in the hearts of men and women, when it does not listen to the voice of conscience, it turns against humanity and society.''

Perhaps one of the most fitting tributes to this great man can be found in the news coverage of his death. While the Free World celebrates his legacy and openly mourns his passing, states such as China, which still hold much of their population in the dehumanizing chains of Marxism, do the best to stifle these reports. It seems fitting that the only countries to bar a Papal visit were China, North Korea, Vietnam, and post-Communist Russia.

Those leaders know that John Paul II lived a life in accordance with a view that rejected dehumanizing chains, because man was created to be free, and even though he has passed from this life and into the next, his world view remains, and his courage in the face of death is a powerful symbol of that world view.

The oppressors realize that if their subjects witness this courageous man and embrace his vision of humanity that their days will be numbered. We should all pray that they do.

In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, we should all take great comfort and gain great courage with the Pope's words of hope to all of us. He said, ``Do not abandon yourselves to despair. We are the Easter people and hallelujah is our song.'' I am certain that he is right now joined by a multitude of others singing ``Hallelujah'' to the One he dedicated his life to.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).

(Mr. AKIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).

I now yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) for 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I want to just thank all of my colleagues that joined in this tribute to this noble leader of over a billion Catholics, and I just suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this is one Baptist who is very grateful that Karol Wojtyla walked our way.

We are grateful for his courage to stand against the Soviet communism. We are grateful for his courage to stand against the Nazis. We are grateful for his courage to stand for that imago dei, that image of God, in every human being, for his commitment to human dignity.

We are grateful most of all, Mr. Speaker, that he reminded us that we are the Easter people, that ours is a solemn hallelujah, and that we need never be afraid again.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all my colleagues, I wish this great, noble leader an eternal godspeed and a conviction that he has heard those words that are the greatest words any human being can hear, and that being, Well done, thou good and faithful servant.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for his humanity and courage to deal with this issue.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is important for those of us in this Chamber to first remind ourselves again of why we are really all here. Thomas Jefferson said, ``The care of human life and its happiness and not its destruction is the chief and only object of good government.''

Mr. Speaker, protecting the lives of our innocent citizens and their constitutional rights is why we are all here. The phrase in the 14th amendment capsulizes our entire Constitution. It says: ``No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.'' It is unconscionable that judges holding responsibility to protect Terri Schiavo's constitutional rights have chosen to abandon those responsibilities so that now Congress has no honorable alternative but to respond as we are.

Hubert Humphrey once said that a society is measured by how it treats those in the dawn of life, those in the shadows of life, and those in the twilight of life. It is true that Terri Schiavo lives among us in the shadows of life. But she is not brain dead or comatose. She is awake and she is able to hear, she is able to see, she is often alert. She can feel pain, she interacts with her environment, she laughs, she

cries. She expresses joy when her parents visit her and sorrow when they leave.

Mr. Speaker, she reminds me so much of another woman, whose name I will not mention, who was in much the same circumstance as Terri and a young nurse insisted every morning on singing to this patient. Of course, her colleagues upbraided her and said, well, she can't hear you; those are just reflex actions. But she continued day after day, year after year, to sing to her every morning. Finally she left the hospital, and yet a few years later, the patient regained her state of mind and came back, as it were, to a healthy, clear mind. And all of the nurses gathered around her and met with her and they said, Do you remember? Do you remember when we took care of you, when we turned you to keep you from getting bed sores? When we washed you? When we tried to feed you?

And she said, No, I don't remember anything except someone singing.

Mr. Speaker, Terri Schiavo represents the mortality and helplessness of us all as human beings. And whether we realize it or not, we are at this moment lying down beside her listening for that song of hope. If we as a Nation subject her to the torture and agony of starving and thirsting to death while her brother, her mother and her father are forced to watch, we will scar our own souls. And we will be allowing those judges who have lost their way to drag us all one more ominous step into a darkness where the light of human compassion has gone out and the predatory survival of the fittest prevails over humanity.

If the song of hope is to be silenced, Mr. Speaker, let it not be tonight.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 67 pertaining to H. Res. 101, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, the Peoples Republic of China is planning to enact an anti-secession law this March. This law will give China jurisdiction over Taiwan and provide Chinese leaders the right to use force against Taiwan if China suspects secessionist activities in Taiwan. Predictably, Taiwan has reacted to this proposal with considerable alarm. If Chinese leaders persist, and are successful in enacting this law, Taiwan might very well be forced to enact an anti- annexation law in response.

This battle of laws is most unfortunate in view of the fact that cross-strait relations have been improving recently. On January 15 of this year, China and Taiwan agreed to have direct charter flights during the Chinese New Year. Both sides have agreed to continue to work toward restoring direct trade, transport and postal ties; ``three links'' of vital importance. The economies of China and Taiwan have grown increasingly interdependent: Taiwanese businesses have invested as much as $100 billion in China and as many as one million Taiwanese people now live and work on the mainland.

Mr. Speaker, the latest controversy relating to China's proposed anti-secession law has once again highlighted the political division between China and Taiwan. It is apparent to me that China is seeking to force its own style of government on the 23 million people of Taiwan. China has totally ignored Taiwan's contributions to the economic well being of their country. China has continued to ignore the repeated gestures of good will offered by President Chen Shui-bian of Taiwan.

By unilaterally attempting to change the status quo in the Taiwan Strait, China is also challenging America's resolve to stand behind the Taiwan Relations Act, which unequivocally states that it is the policy of the United States ``to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people of Taiwan.'' The Taiwan Relations Act also affirms that one of the objectives of the United States is ``the preservation and enhancement of the human rights of all the people on Taiwan.''

Mr. Speaker, it is my view that China's proposed anti-secession law is provocative and dangerous and poses a grave threat to peace and stability in the region. We must make it known that China's latest attempts to enact any form of an anti-secession law will do irreparable harm to the goodwill that is building between the peoples of Taiwan and China. Further, it will almost inevitably lead to escalating tension in the Taiwan Strait. Taiwanese people should not have to allow the authoritarian government in China to mandate the annexation of free Taiwan, and freedom-loving people in the world should not sit idly by as that happens.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 18) recognizing the historic commitment of the United States to the recovery of and full accounting for Americans who are prisoners of war or in a missing status.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.J. Res. 18, the legislation under consideration.

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

When the Philippines fell in April of 1942, more than 75,000 American and Filipino servicemen and countless civilians became prisoners of war. This number was decimated during the brutal Bataan Death March, which saw the death of over 16,000 POWs. Many soldiers survived the march, only to find themselves facing murderous treatment in prisoner- of-war camps scattered throughout the island.

When General MacArthur began his campaign to retake the Philippines in 1945, he made it a priority to liberate soldiers and civilians who were interned in these camps. This commitment was particularly important, since it was widely believed that captives would be killed by their retreating captors if measures were not undertaken to liberate them in advance of the main campaign.

General MacArthur's commitment to the civilian internees and prisoners of war on the island manifested itself in a particularly heroic way in the Allied raid on the prison camp at Los Banos. It was here that Filipino guerrilla forces and the men of the 511th parachute infantry regiment of the 11th Airborne division worked in concert to organize a multipronged assault with elements attacking from land, air and sea to liberate the prisoners of the camp.

The Allied forces took great risks to free their fellow soldiers and civilians who had fallen behind enemy lines. These truly heroic acts serve not only as examples of the humanitarian compassion of American servicemen and -women but also as an example of our Nation's longstanding commitment to leave no fellow soldier, living or dead, in enemy hands.

Mr. Speaker, as we have military personnel spread throughout the world today, many of whom are daily risking capture and torture at the hands of brutal terrorists, it is more important now than ever to recognize and honor the heroism and willing sacrifice of those soldiers who risked their own safety not to take a strategic objective, but simply to bring a comrade home.

Our soldiers, marines, airmen and sailors must be able to take a small measure of comfort that whatever happens to them in battle, that this Nation will always have the will and the resolve to find and repatriate all of those who were lost while on duty.

Mr. Speaker, evil has aggressively manifested itself in many forms throughout human history, and for the last 200 years, whether fighting totalitarian evil of monarchial, fascist or fanatical roots, American servicemen have made a habit of putting themselves squarely in evil's way. They have done so, secure in the knowledge that if they fall into the hands of the enemy, they will not be forgotten. Indeed, every effort possible will be undertaken to bring them home.

Mr. Speaker, this is the 60th anniversary of the liberation of over 2,000 prisoners from the camp at Los Banos, and

at a time when our military is deployed in harm's way around the globe, let us recognize those individuals who sacrificed to bring their brothers and sisters home, and let us honor the heroic actions of the past by officially reaffirming our Nation's commitment to leave no fighting man or woman in enemy hands at any time, now or in the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), a true American hero.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to simply say that I think all of us hold the commitment in our hearts and the understanding in our hearts that no greater love hath any man than this, than a man who lays down his life for his friends.

There are so many men and women who have laid down their lives for American causes and for the cause of human freedom. This is our day to recognize that, and I pray that we never forget them.

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

Mr. Speaker, only a few months ago, for the first time in history, ballot boxes were coming in from remote places like Khyber Pass in Afghanistan on the backs of mules. What a great time it is to live in this world.

And last Sunday we saw free elections in a nation whose people have been crushed and oppressed since the days their country was called Babylon. We saw young men carrying old men to the polls. We saw one gentleman whose leg had been blown off by a terrorist bomb who said, I will crawl to vote if that is what it takes. And one of Saddam Hussein's former generals said, When I voted today, it felt so good inside, like I was free.

Mr. Speaker, the United States of America has been a leader in freedom, and we have now had the privilege of becoming the unipolar superpower of the entire world. No nation on Earth can actually challenge us in military, economic, or technological terms; and truly every nation sees America now as the flagship of humanity. This Nation now possesses a greater opportunity to promote freedom in the world than we have had since the Republic began.

But it is because we have had such great victories and opportunities that more than ever before we must be deeply humble and remind ourselves that we are only briefly the temporary stewards of this God- given greatest Nation in the history of humankind. And we only have a short time to fulfill our privileged and sacred mission of making America such a beacon of liberty that the light of freedom will some day fall across the faces of every person on this planet.

Last Sunday tells me, Mr. Speaker, that this is the generation who lives in the window of time where we can firmly set the world on that course. This is freedom's day, and we must seize it while we can. And while I do not often quote Shakespeare, he said, ``There is a tide in the affairs of men, which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; omitted'' or delayed, ``all the voyage of their lives is bound in shallows and in miseries. On such a full sea, we now find ourselves afloat, and we must take the current when it serves or lose our ventures.''

Mr. Speaker, as we take this current to freedom, let us remember that the best leverage to maintain freedom's march in the world is to make sure that its foundations are secure beneath freedom's home; and then, Mr. Speaker, let us take this tide of freedom as it serves so that one day all generations will bask in this glorious sunlight of liberty just as it has now begun to dawn on the people of Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, there have been many external threats to this Republic across the years. Recently, we have been highly focused on the war on terrorism and diminishing global nuclear threats. We have always been able to face such external threats successfully because our country has had a strong internal foundation.

But, today, it is critically important to sound a past-due warning about the internal threat to this republic. We are going to awaken to the fact that our own courts, in spite of their sacred duty and charge to defend the United States Constitution, have now become the greatest threat to its survival. The rule of law itself and the underpinnings that hold this Nation together are now at stake.

This undermining of our Constitution did not develop overnight. One hundred and eighty-four years ago, Thomas Jefferson wrote: ``The object of my great fear is the federal judiciary. That body, like gravity, ever acting, with noiseless foot, and unalarming advance, gaining ground step by step, and holding what it gains, is engulfing insidiously the special governments into the jaws of that which feeds them.''

Only 3\1/2\ decades after Thomas Jefferson wrote these ominous words, United States Supreme Court ruled in it their Dred Scott decision that ``all blacks, slaves as well as free, were not and could never become citizens of the United States.'' The Supreme Court said that blacks ``had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.''

Mr. Speaker, we can all see the sickness and evil in that twisted reasoning today. It is a sickness and an evil that precipitated the worst loss of American life in any war in the history of this Nation, 600,000 dead soldiers: husbands, fathers, sons, and brothers.

In the face of these historical realities, it is astonishing today that we do not seem to collectively recognize the dangers represented by an unrestrained judiciary, especially since many of the great conflicts in our society's recent history have been precipitated by arrogant court decisions imposed by an unjust court and imposing an unjust mandate on the entire Nation.

Not so long ago, our courts mandated racial segregation in our public schools. That was the so-called ``separate but equal doctrine.'' And people died on the streets reversing that obscene ruling.

American courts have now declared that protecting viable unborn children from the hideous act of partial birth abortion is ``unconstitutional.'' The courts are now beginning to attack the very foundation and makeup of our country and any civil society, that being marriage and the family itself.

They have said it is ``unconstitutional'' to protect a 9-year-old girl from Internet pornography or for her to pray a certain prayer in school or for her to voluntarily say her Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States using the words ``under God.''

Mr. Speaker, are these the causes that our American heroes lying out in Arlington National Cemetery died for? And I am just wondering when those who still have breath say will enough is enough.

As we seek to protect America from the external threats that we face like terrorism, we would do well to remember that it is not the water on the outside of the ship that sinks it. It is the water on the inside. And, Mr. Speaker, I submit that there is water on the inside of this ship.

When courts forcefully interject false and unconstitutional notions that go against justice, natural law and common sense, without allowing the issue to go through the legislative process of debate and consensus, it abrogates the miracle of America and abridges the freedom of the people to govern themselves.

Daniel Webster's admonition to all of us is so very appropriate. He said, ``Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands, for miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000 years may never happen again. So hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fall, there will be anarchy throughout the world.''

Mr. Speaker, the commitment to true justice in the heart of this Congress and in the heart of the one who occupies the Oval Office are now the only two remaining barriers which prevent judicial oligarchy and the subsequent fall of the American Constitution.

May those of us in this Congress find the courage to assume our constitutional power to prevent the judicial destruction of the United States Constitution.

And, Mr. Speaker, may God give the people of this Nation the insight and soundness of mind to maintain the presidency of the United States in the hands of George W. Bush, who will protect America and the world from such an irrelevant revocable tragedy. God bless America.