C. Cox

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns).

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, when President Reagan took office on that cold day in 1981, the world needed a hero, and on that day President Reagan sent a message to every American and to every human being enslaved by the Soviet empire. Confronting not the armies of Saddam Hussein or Slobodan Milosevic, but the largest military machine in the history of the world, President Reagan simply said, ``No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.'' Then he led a worldwide movement for individual liberty and the human rights of all people. Today the Soviet Union sits on the ash heap of history, and the Reagan legacy can be measured in lives liberated and dreams fulfilled. Before Ronald Reagan became President in 1981, there were 56 electoral democracies on Earth. Today there are 117. Today more than a billion more people are living in freedom than on the day that he took office. President Reagan also liberated America, the land that he called the last best hope of mankind. Many Washington pundits at the time believed that the United States was suffering from an inevitable decline. President Reagan had a different view. He believed that America's greatest days were ahead, if only we could free our people from the shackles of big government. He knew that people, not governments, create prosperity, and that markets are the dynamic expression of individual freedom reinforced by property rights and the rule of law. He believed that the government management of an economy, whether in the form of wage controls, price controls, or regulation of production, produced growth and misery in direct proportion to the loss of freedom. Upon assuming the Presidency, he immediately ended price controls on oil, and within 4 months the price of oil fell over 60 cents per gallon. When a government union broke the law and mounted an illegal strike against the taxpayers, President Reagan upheld the rule of law, and even the Soviet Union noticed. Secretary of State George Schultz said this may have been the best foreign policy decision Ronald Reagan ever made. Ronald Reagan and a Democratic Congress cut marginal income tax rates from 70 percent to 28 percent and ushered in the longest peacetime economic expansion in American history. Inflation fell from over 12 percent to 1 percent, and interest rates dropped dramatically. People were free to work and keep most of what they earned and to save for their family's future instead of relying on the state. In 1981, Ronald Reagan was the first President to take the oath of office on the west front of the Capitol. He said he wanted to be looking west to symbolize the pioneer vision and spirit that he knew still lived in America. Later today his body will be carried up those same western steps of the Capitol. In just a few hours, President Reagan will lie in State a few feet from where we are now gathered. As we imagine him looking up at the monumental artwork in the dome, at the Apotheosis of George Washington, perhaps we will hear him again speaking to us in the words he once used in this very place: Now we are standing inside the symbol of our democracy. Now we hear again the echoes of our past. A general falls to his knees in the hard snow of Valley Forge; a lonely President paces the darkened halls and ponders his struggle to save the Union; the men of the Alamo call out encouragement to each other; a settler pushes West and sings a song, and the song echoes out forever and fills the unknowing air. As we gather in the rotunda and gaze upon the flag-draped vault that holds the mortal remains of our 40th President, I know that if we listen, we will hear those echoes of the past. We will hear that pioneer song because it is the American sound. Like Ronald Reagan, it is hopeful, big-hearted, idealistic, daring, decent and fair. Mr. President, we loved you in life because you helped us love America, and you so nobly represented the country we love. As we lay you to rest, we will always respect and honor your leadership, your humility, your strength, your humor and your character. You told us that those who say we are in a time when there are no heroes just do not know where to look. Mr. President, all of America now knows where to look. You and our beloved First Lady, Nancy Reagan, will be our heroes for as long as there is an America and as long as love of freedom is carried in human hearts. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for the time. I thank the gentleman from California and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), who is the cosponsor of this resolution commemorating the 15th anniversary of Tiananmen Square. That day in June of 1989 is, of course, remembered for the tragedy, but it should also be remembered as one of the high points in the progress towards democracy in human rights in the People's Republic of China. Because prior to the troops crushing the demonstrators and their message, the message had already spread all over China, and looked at in a grander scale of time, there is no question what ultimately can and must happen here. The troops may have won the battle that day against the Chinese people, but they will not win the war so long as we remember, and we will never forget. So we are today commemorating this anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. At the same time, we are supporting the people of China in their struggle for human rights. These democracy demonstrations that began in Beijing in April of 1989 spread quickly to other major cities and provinces throughout China. They were an inspiration to the world. As Communist regimes were falling in Russia and East Germany and Poland, Romania, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Ukraine, across Eurasia, the people of China were also seizing the moment to move to the next step in the development of their astounding civilization. The statue of the Goddess of Democracy showed the world that China's glorious civilization and their extraordinary and wonderful culture for which we all owe a great debt of gratitude would advance still further in the 21st century so that the Chinese people would have a form of government worthy of that culture and that civilization. Finally, after centuries of feudalism, colonialism and foreign interference, the people of China would have genuine human rights, the freedom of association, the freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the freedom to choose their own leaders. When the Chinese Army injured or killed hundreds of unarmed civilians, some people insisted that this showed the true face of China, but, of course, it did not. The true face of China was shown in the statue of the Goddess of Democracy. The true face of China was shown in those demonstrations throughout the provinces and all the major cities in the country. We want China to become a trustworthy member of the international community; and in some respects, certainly compared to cultural revolution and the reign of terror under Mao, things in China are much improved. Yet contrary to the drumbeat sounded by some advocates of engagement, this resolution warns that China's willingness to engage in the world economy has not yet translated into evolution toward democracy nor even an improvement in the Chinese people's religious, human or worker rights. I will never forget the audience I had with Jiang Zemin in the Great Hall of the People when I asked him, because they were then advertising the village elections that they were having as a step on the road to democracy, when might we have elections in China for a mayor or a city council. He said to me, not for at least 20 years. I still do not know to this day whether that is exactly what he said, because he might just as well have said not in my lifetime. It would have been literally a correct translation. Here we are many years later, and there have been no steps towards that kind of authentic democracy. In fact, in Hong Kong, where that kind of democracy under the one-country, two-systems model is eminently possible and achievable and where the people of Hong Kong wish devoutly to achieve that result, Beijing has just insisted, in violation of their guarantee in 1997 of the high degree of autonomy to the people of Hong Kong, that there will not be universal suffrage and free elections for the chief executive or for a legislative council in 2007 and 2008. With this resolution, Congress shows we remember and we will not forget. We insist that our country's China policy promote freedom, human rights and the rule of law, religious and political freedom, free expression, free trade and free markets. Our long-standing friendship with China can only reach its full potential when the Chinese people enjoy these freedoms. These freedoms increasingly flourish along China's borders. Peace and security for the Chinese people and all their neighbors are essential preconditions for true political, social and economic progress. Mr. Speaker, the PRC cannot seek a spirit of cooperation between our governments, as they claim to want during a recent visit by Vice President Cheney, and at the same time so horribly mistreat their own people. Americans, as friends of the people of China, are happy to hear words about the PRC's government's commitment to human rights. We are happy to see their proposal of new amendments to their constitution further guaranteeing these human rights, but unless these words are reflected in deeds, they are meaningless. The reflections published in the Wall Street Journal today by Wang Dan, one of the leaders of the 1989 Chinese democracy movement, were poignant. He said, ``It is clear to me as never before that the Tiananmen massacre was an unavoidable step in the long path to a free China and that true political reform can never come from within the Communist Party.'' He lamented that ``Communist leaders, be they conservatives or reformists, are all wedded to retaining the current political system, complete with its problems such as corruption and lack of accountability. And far from easing its iron grip on all forms of political dissent, the new leadership now seems intent on extending it to Hong Kong.'' It is striking, with all of the progress that we have seen in other areas, that the current Communist Party leaders in China have repudiated nothing that happened 15 years ago. As Wang Dan points out, that is because they understand ``that reevaluating the official description of the 1989 movement as counterrevolutionary would shake the foundations of the Communists' grip on power.'' Is it not a terrible irony that the current leaders of the People's Republic of China have their power because of the system that was enforced through these brutal means in 1989. One of the demonstrators, one of the organizers of what happened in Tiananmen Square, a student at the time, is now Dr. Yang Jianli. He and his wife and his two children have lived here in America for many years because he suffered under the punishment, as so many Chinese freedom fighters, democracy activists do of exile. It is a horrible form of punishment. You can never go back to your own country again. So he was banished and lived here in America. He decided that he wanted to go back to China; and when he set foot in the country, he was arrested. He has been in jail, held incommunicado, held without access to legal counsel or any of the legal rights guaranteed him even under PRC law, for the last 2 years. His children have not seen their father. His wife, Christina Fu, is well known to many of us here because she has helped us enact resolutions that this Congress has passed in a show of support for the basic human rights that any human being, and certainly this American resident, is entitled to. His crime, of course, was supporting freedom and democracy. It has been nearly a year since the House of Representatives enacted House Resolution 199 by a unanimous vote of 412 to nothing. This legislation condemned and deplored the detention of Dr. Yang Jianli and the lack of due process afforded him. It called on the Government of the People's Republic of China to release him immediately and unconditionally. The Bush administration has made the release of Dr. Yang one of its most important priorities, and the Vice President raised this at his recent summit. Yet the PRC has continued to violate its own law and to act without regard to international condemnation. In 2003, the United Nations, through its Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, which I should point out is a group that includes Algeria, France, Paraguay, Hungary, and even Iran, a very diverse group, concluded that in this case continuing to hold Dr. Yang is a violation of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The U.N. working group clearly and specifically declared that Yang Jianli's detention was illegal. It is not just that he is being detained; it is that he is being abused. He is being virtually deprived of his human rights even as a prisoner. Not only was he arbitrarily placed for lengthy periods in solitary confinement; he was handcuffed for so long that his wrists bled. He was denied access even to books, newspapers, not to mention a lawyer. Releasing Dr. Yang would be a small, but important, gesture that the Communist Government had learned something since Tiananmen Square. No such gesture, Mr. Speaker, has come. As we remember Tiananmen Square, we must remember that there are many, many cases like Dr. Yang's. In fact, there are many, many cases of those who were murdered, tortured, and who are still in prison today. We must remind the dictators of the world yet again that individual freedom of expression is no mere internal affair of a government. It is a human right shared by all peoples and recognized by all civilized nations. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the passage by this House of this important resolution marking this sad anniversary, but this joyful anniversary that eventually will see freedom in China. Article 19 of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights explicitly guarantees the freedom to ``receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers.'' According to Amnesty International, a growing number of Chinese people are being detained or sentenced for peacefully expressing their views or downloading information on the Internet. The detained include students, political dissidents, Falun Gong practitioners, workers, writers, lawyers, teachers, civil servants, former police officers, engineers, and businessmen. Signing online petitions, calling for reform and an end to corruption, planning to set up a pro-democracy party, publishing ``rumours about SARS,'' communicating with groups abroad, opposing the persecution of the Falun Gong and calling for a review of the 1989 crackdown on the democracy protests are all examples of activities considered by the PRC's dictatorial regime to be ``subversive'' or a danger to ``state security.'' Such charges almost always result in prison sentences. China is also renowned for aggressive censorship of the Internet. Web sites of human rights organizations, and numerous international news sites are regularly blocked by government-controlled routers. There is a role for the United States to play in this fight for free expression. We can promote the exchange of ideas and disseminate accurate information. Our efforts to do so behind the Iron Curtain were instrumental in empowering citizens living under Soviet Communist rule. It is now time to focus our efforts on a different Communist regime and a new technology. The ability of people around the world to freely access news and information via the Internet may be the greatest threat to tyranny and the most powerful weapon possessed by free people that we have seen in our lifetimes. Indeed, Internet access is rapidly expanding in China. According to official statistics, the number of Internet users had risen to 79.5 million by December 2003 from 59.1 million users in December 2002--an increase of 34.5 percent. But, just as Communist governments during the Cold War sought to keep uncensored news from their people by jamming Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, the government of China today retains strict control over the information Chinese citizens can access on the Internet. During the past few years, Beijing has passed sweeping regulations that prohibit unauthorized news and commentary on Internet sites, and officials arrest and imprison those who violate these laws. Authorities in China routinely block websites they believe a danger to their hold on power, including those of dissident groups and foreign news organizations, like the Washington Post, the New York Times, the BBC, and the Voice of America. Dictatorial regimes like China have been aggressively blocking access to the Internet with technologies such as firewalls, filters, and so- called black boxes. In addition, these oppressive governments monitor Internet, email, and message boards for key words. They also develop lists of users who visit particular sites, and when they believe that a web user or publisher is a threat to their power, they don't hesitate to act on this information. According to Human Rights Watch, Chinese web publisher Huang Qi, after enduring a 3-year detention, was finally sentenced last summer to 5 years in prison for the crime of subversion. What was he publishing? The online equivalent of our milk carton notices about missing persons. He had dared to create a website at which people could share information about missing friends and family members and he actually helped rescue several young girls who had been abducted and sold into marriage. Because his site also featured criticism of several state-run agencies, he now spends his days in prison. The U.S. private sector is developing a number of technologies to combat Internet blocking. Unfortunately, the U.S. government has contributed few resources to assist these efforts and to put the new technologies to use. That is why I joined Congressman Tom Lantos, Senator Jon Kyl, and Senator Ron Wyden in authoring H.R. 48, the Global Internet Freedom Act, which would create a new Office of Global Internet Freedom within the International Broadcasting Bureau. The Office would develop and implement a global strategy to combat state-sponsored and state- directed Internet jamming and persecution of those who use the Internet. The Foreign Relations Authorization Act, which passed the House on July 16, 2003 but has been stymied by the other body, authorizes $8 million per year for the Office of Global Internet Freedom. With the Global Internet Freedom Act, within the larger State Department bill, Congress can authorize $8 million annually to the proposed Office of Global Internet Freedom so that the U.S. can devote more resources to ensuring worldwide access to information and give those who strive for true freedom the tools they need to outwit the thought police. The Chinese people certainly still need these tools, because the thought police in Beijing have obviously not learned from the SARS tragedy. While some might have hoped that this deadly lesson would lead to greater openness on the part of the regime--and perhaps some restraint in its ongoing campaign to block the free exchange of information via the Internet and other media--recent events suggest that the tyrants of Beijing are moving in the other direction. Despite the early release of several high-profile Tibetan dissidents, suppression of political dissent and restrictions on religious freedom continue throughout Tibet and neighboring areas of the PRC. According to the Tibet Information Network, those early releases were quickly off-set by further arrests of Tibetan dissidents in other Chinese provinces. For instance, a popular singer was detained in March 204 because of the political content of his songs, and in February, a young monk was arrested at his monastery for possessing a photograph of the Dalai Lama. Meanwhile, in northwest China, the international war against terrorism is used to justify harsh repression in Xinjiang, home to China's mainly Muslim Uighur community. Several mosques have been closed, use of the Uighur language has been restricted and certain Uighur books and journals have been banned. The crackdown against suspected ``separatists, terrorists and religious extremists'' intensified following the start of a renewed security crack-down in October 2003. Arrests continue and hundreds of dissidents remain in prison. Members of unofficial spiritual or religious groups, including some Qi Gong groups and unregistered Christian groups, continue to be arbitrarily detained, tortured and ill-treated. Detained Falun Gong practitioners, including large numbers of women, are at risk of torture, including sexual abuse, particularly if they refuse to renounce their beliefs. It is fitting that, as we debate this resolution, the Victims of Communism Memorial is nearing construction on Capitol Hill. The Memorial, which will commemorate this struggle by paying tribute to more than 100 million victims of Communist atrocities around the world, will prominently feature a replica of the Goddess of Democracy statue created by pro-freedom activists in Tiananmen Square, in addition to an eternal flame to the victims of Communism and bronze panels with quotes from heroes of the Cold War. Wang Dan said, ``The 1989 student movement played an invaluable role in pointing out the path to democracy in China. Without it, we would still be clinging to the myth that a small group of enlightened Communist officials could rescue China from totalitarian rule. Instead we have learned from our mistakes that year, and realized that China's democratization must be a bottom-up process, driven by forces outside the Communist system.'' Today, on a bipartisan basis, Congress stands united in support of freedom for the people of China. Fifteen years ago, Tiananmen Square marked not only a tragedy, but a decisive turning point in the fight for freedom. People's Liberation Army troops won the battle against the Chinese people that day, but they will surely lose the war to imprison the human spirit--because we will never forget. The day will soon come when all of the Chinese people will have the right to speak and debate freely. The hope symbolized by the Goddess of Democracy will ultimately triumph.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, thanks to the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Burns, for sponsoring this outstanding and much-needed reform of our tax system. This bill will direct the IRS to create a simpler, shorter, less time-consuming tax return for America's senior citizens. As you might expect, Mr. Burns' success with this bill means that seniors will save time and money during tax season, but the good news for all of us is that in fact, all taxpayers will benefit, because simple forms cost the IRS less money to process. So we are cutting government spending with the passage of this act. According to the IRS, the government spends 50 percent more processing the standard 1040 than it does processing the short 1040EZ form. I appreciate Mr. Burns' leadership on this issue. I also want to thank a constituent of mine, Roland Boucher, for helping to put this issue on the map and for sharing with me a number of ideas which I shared with Congressman Burns, who led this lightning-strike campaign to craft a bill, bring it to the House floor, and provide relief for seniors in time for the 2005 tax year. Roland Boucher, who is my delegate to the National Silver Haired Congress and Chairman of United Californians for Tax Reform, has been a tireless advocate for this legislation and similar tax reforms in State and local government. And he has sent a message from Orange County, California. Says Roland, ``Please tell Congressman Burns that he is about to make a lot of seniors very happy. We are tired of being denied a simple option for filing our taxes simply because of age. We're tired of being treated as second-class taxpayers just because we've attained a level of wisdom and experience to which others can only aspire.'' Representative Burns' bill is a valuable reform for America's more than 35 million seniors, all of whom are denied the use of the existing 1040EZ form by IRS regulation. Simplicity and a less time-consuming process at tax time could yield enormous benefits, precisely because the IRS has made the current system so difficult. The Tax Foundation estimates that taxpayers spend almost 6 billion hours per year complying with our Federal income tax system at an annual cost of $194 billion. This difficulty in meeting the demands that the law and the IRS have placed upon Americans is on the rise. The Tax Foundation estimates that by 2007 the cost could soar as high as $350 billion. You might think that almost all of this time and money is spent by huge corporations with their complicated capital structures and multitudinous business operations. Wrong. 45 percent of the costs are borne by individuals. Does this burden fall most heavily on the rich, with their various assets and more complicated financial lives? No. The Tax Foundation discovered that compliance costs are highly regressive. Taxpayers with adjusted gross income of less than $20,000 pay a staggering 4.5 percent of income merely in compliance costs. This is an outrageous and unacceptable bureaucratic tax on all Americans, but today we focus only on the unfair treatment of seniors. For a moment let us all imagine what it must be like to be a retired low-income senior, working hard to make ends meet on a fixed income, and then to have to devote almost 5 percent of that limited income just to figure out how much money you owe the IRS. Talk about adding insult to injury. It's time to cut the hassle tax, the anxiety tax, the confusion tax of having to complete an endless, complicated tax return. Mr. Burns and I want simplicity and an end to the enormous compliance tax for all Americans. Today, I am proud to stand with the gentleman from Georgia as he leads the first phase of the campaign--relief for America's millions of senior taxpayers. This reform is long overdue. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for making it happen.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I thank the author of this proposal before us. It was 2 years ago that the Speaker asked me, along with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) as my co-chair, to chair the Continuity of Congress Working Group that was a predecessor for the outstanding work that the Committee on the Judiciary has done legislatively in subsequent years. Our working group, which existed for over a year, took a first look at these problems after the horrible events of September 11 shocked us into realizing that it could happen, that the entire Congress or virtually the entire Congress could be destroyed at once. This is a problem for the House much more than it is for the Senate because, of course, senators can be appointed. They can be replaced immediately. The House cannot because we have, as you have heard throughout this debate, since the inception of our country always been an elected body. So the working group recommended a resolution that was adopted unanimously by this House, urging the States to advance special elections in the event of an emergency, to speed up that process. When the States did not, except for California, respond to that resolution, we passed the very thing here recently requiring that that take place. We have also, as a result of the work of the Speaker's working group, the bipartisan working group on continuity of Congress, seen a lot of our recommendations brought into effect. I want to commend the author of this proposal, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), because he was one of the moving forces in making sure that all of this happened. We have completed the following: There is now a reformed House resolution on expedited special elections. There is now a change that we routinely employ to the concurrent adjournment resolution so that, in the event of a catastrophe, we could reconvene in some other place other than the Capitol. There is now an emergency recess rule so that if the Speaker or whoever is presiding learns that there is an imminent attack we can adjourn under our rules, and the Congress could reconvene elsewhere under the proceeding reform. There is a very important change in the way we account for vacancies in the House that otherwise, if there were a lot of Members killed, would prevent us from mustering a quorum. This change allows the Speaker to announce the adjustment of the whole number of the House upon notification of the death, resignation, or expulsion of a Member. And the Speaker's announcement, importantly, is not subject to appeal. We also have changed the rules for Speaker succession. Much in the same way that the author of this proposal has suggested that we repopulate the House, we have made sure that there will be a Speaker. There is now going to be a list of Members who will succeed the Speaker in the event of a vacancy in the office, and that Member will act in this role until the House reconvenes in order to elect a new Speaker. The challenges that are under debate today remain. We do not have a national consensus. We cannot get two-thirds in the House and Senate. We know that, but we are moving the process forward. I will vote against this only because it is not perfect, but I commend the gentleman for offering it.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, this is Cover the Uninsured Week, organized by patients, physicians and hospitals to promote access to care to all Americans. They are calling on Congress to act. We are here to answer that call. We are here today because patients are losing. They are losing their access to care. Many have already lost it. The General Accounting Office has confirmed it. In at least 10 percent of these United States, sky-high medical liability costs are preventing patients from getting emergency surgery. They are preventing expectant mothers from having access to doctors to deliver their babies. It has been 10 years since I first wrote this legislation that is now the Greenwood-Cox bill before us today. In that time, the number of medical lawsuits has risen 25 percent. The median damage award for medical lawsuits against hospitals, physicians and nurses right now is rising 43 percent per year. In some States, liability insurance premiums are rising 100 percent or more for so-called high-risk specialties, high risk because of the lawsuits, not because of the medical procedures involved, such as general surgery, 130 percent; internal medicine 130 percent; and obstetrics, OB-GYN, 165 percent. The money for these lawsuits comes directly from our health care system. Doctors and hospitals now spend more on liability insurance than they do on medical equipment. The bill before the House today will ensure that patients have access to the medical care that they need. It is based on our law in California where I come from that was enacted by a Democratic legislature and signed by a Democratic Governor, and it works. In our State since these reforms have taken place, California's health liability insurance premiums in constant dollars have fallen by 40 percent. This while we are having crises in other States. Injured patients in California receive more compensation and receive it more quickly than in the United States as a whole. They receive a greater share of the recoveries in these lawsuits. California does not suffer from the flight of doctors or the closure of emergency rooms because we have the reforms in this bill. This bill balances the interests of billionaire lawyers and middle-class patients. It is time that patients have access to the care that they need.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, we are here on the floor to demand of the communist government of Vietnam that Father Ly immediately be released, unconditionally. Father Ly's only offense is that he is a Catholic priest who sought to minister to the spiritual needs of his countrymen and countrywomen in Vietnam. For this offense, he has been in prison for the last 3 years, and the communist government of Vietnam expects that he will serve the full decade of his sentence. This is, of course, an affront to human rights. It is also an affront to the United States, because it was the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom that solicited Father Ly's testimony. They asked that Father Ly testify in person. He was willing to do so; but, of course, the communist government of Vietnam forbade him from doing so. So Father Ly then submitted written testimony, and it is on the basis of that written testimony that he was convicted. That is why he is now in jail. Never has there been a clearer path from freedom to imprisonment than in this case. We can read the entirety of his offense. What he said, in response to questions from the United States, is that there is not religious freedom in Vietnam. He said that the government of Vietnam had stripped all churches of their independence and freedom. For speaking this truth, Father Ly is now expected to spend a decade in a communist prison. It was 1 month after he wrote this testimony and sent it to the United States that he was arrested. Indeed, he was arrested while he was saying mass. He was on the alter before a congregation. Six hundred policemen of the Vietnamese communist government surrounded the church, stormed it, and dragged him off. Of course, the Vietnamese Government provided him no legal representation, no consultation whatsoever; and not surprisingly, on October 19 of that same year, Father Thaddeus Nguyen Van Ly was sentenced to this seemingly indefinite time in prison, 15 years originally. He has already spent 3 years. Now he is going to get a 10-year sentence. Father Ly is no stranger to repression at the hands of the Vietnamese dictatorship. Since 1977, the government has repeatedly harassed him, repeatedly arrested him, and repeatedly jailed him for his advocacy of religious freedom. So the Congress today calls for the immediate and unconditional release of Father Ly. But we also recognize that he is not alone. He represents the struggle of all of those citizens of Vietnam who are fighting for freedom and for democracy. Another piece of legislation to address that struggle is the Vietnam Human Rights Act, H.R. 1587, which I hope the House will soon consider. This legislation will prohibit nonhumanitarian assistance to the government of Vietnam, it will support the efforts of human rights and democracy advocates there, and it will help us work to overcome the government's jamming of Radio Free Asia and their Vietnamese broadcast. It will help resettle refugees and require an annual State Department report on the progress towards freedom and democracy in Vietnam, or the lack of it. This resolution that is before us today, of which I am an initial cosponsor, is, therefore, a call to action. It is a call, of course, upon the Vietnamese Government to act; but it is also our call to action. The Vietnamese Government and other dictatorships around the globe must come to realize that oppression does not go unnoticed, that the Congress and the President will continue to fight for those like Father Ly who seek meaningful change in their country. Mr. Speaker, I am very, very proud to join the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman Smith) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) in supporting this resolution, and I am very proud of the stands for human rights that this Congress will soon take.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this is not merely a matter of a small number of individuals who have violated the code of military justice. This is a disgrace. This country led an international effort to end the regime of a cruel dictator who abused his people. Now men and women wearing the American uniform have abused Iraqis. The injury they have caused does not end with the Iraqi prisoners. They have undermined the war effort. They have risked its success as surely as if they sold military secrets to the terrorists. They have humiliated our Nation more gravely than mere terrorists ever could. They have dishonored every brave American soldier who has lost or risked his life in the war effort and to help the people of Iraq. They have wasted the effort of those brave Americans who have rehabilitated more than 1,700 schools in Iraq. They have squandered the work of a global coalition that has delivered more than 25,000 tons of pharmaceuticals and supplies to health care facilities in Iraq and vaccinated over 70 percent of children in Iraq against polio, tuberculosis, measles, and diphtheria. If ever justice could be swift, let it be now. If ever the punishment could fit the crime, let it be now. If ever our Nation needed the prayers and support of men and women of goodwill, it is now. The success and survival of liberty depend upon it.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, at the same time, our congressional family is renewed. I am pleased to announce that we have new family members to bring to your attention. The gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) is thrilled to announce and, of course, his wife, Rhonda, is pleased to announce, the arrival last night of a baby girl, Annika Brigit Rohrabacher; and a baby boy, Christian August Rohrabacher; and a baby girl, Tristen Francis Rohrabacher. All three of the babies are doing well. They have a healthy birth weight and they are expected to go home soon. I am told that after they had their Apgar tests they were instantly communicating with each other, these three, signaling each other trying to figure a way out of the nursery to head to the beach because they understand the Rohrabacher family motto is fighting for freedom and having fun, and they are already into it. The Rohrabacher family is very much proud of this, as we should be. Congratulations to this newest congressional family of five. Motion to Recommit Offered By Mr. Stenholm

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Department of Justice authorization bill, and I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Michigan (Ranking Member Conyers) for their leadership and their bipartisan cooperation on this vital function of our national government. Madam Speaker, I also rise for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy with my good friend, the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. The Department of Justice bill contains a provision which limits the Federal Bureau of Investigation's participation in the Terrorism Threat Integration Center as follows: the provision states that funding will be provided ``as may be necessary to assign employees to the Terrorism Threat Integration Center: provided, that such amounts may only be expended for analyzing intelligence information.'' I understand the intent of this language is to ensure that TTIC does not become a domestic surveillance or collection agency. However, I want to be clear that there was no intention to create barriers to information sharing between the FBI and TTIC and between and among other partners in TTIC, such as the Department of Homeland Security. Since September 11, Congress and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) have worked tirelessly to tear down these information-sharing barriers. I want to be sure that this provision will in no way interfere with TTIC's right to receive information from the FBI or its responsibility to provide information to the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. TTIC's partnership with DHS is critical to the Department's mission to prevent terrorist attacks. In addition, it may be appropriate for the FBI to assign employees to TTIC to assist in the administration and management of TTIC, and I understand that it is not the chairman's intent through this language to limit such FBI's participation and assistance. Is my understanding of this provision accurate?

Mr. COX. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. COX. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of H.R. 3966, and I want to commend the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers) for his leadership and hard work on this issue. The rule that will bring this bill to the floor is, therefore, very important. This bill is named the ROTC and Military Recruiter Equal Access to Campus Act of 2004, but it might just as well as be called the Harvard Act, because it squarely addresses the scandal of Harvard University and other schools' banishing ROTC and military recruiters from campus while turning around and cashing Uncle Sam's checks for billions of dollars each year from the Department of Defense and other Federal agencies that are fighting the global war on terror. The attacks on America, on the World Trade Center, and on the Pentagon should serve as a wake-up call to schools such as Harvard which banished ROTC from campus 35 years ago. As our Nation wages an aggressive campaign to stop global terrorism, President Kennedy's call to young people to ask what you can do for your country is more important than ever. America's Armed Forces are hunting down al Qaeda and other supporters of terrorism in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and on every continent around the globe. Never in recent history have Americans asked more of members of the Armed Forces, and never have we had a greater need for well-educated leaders in our military. Today, successful recruitment of exceptional officers depends heavily on the Reserve Officers' Training Corps. This past year, for instance, 70 percent of the Army's newly commissioned officers came from ROTC. Through ROTC, students receive generous scholarship assistance in return for agreeing to serve their country following graduation. As chairman of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, I have been gratified and humbled to see how many of the best and brightest in America have been willing to enlist in the fight against terrorism both through ROTC and by choosing the armed services as a career upon their graduation. Yet I am very troubled that a number of America's most prestigious colleges and universities, including Harvard, Yale, Stanford and Columbia, continue to officially ban ROTC from campus. Many of these same schools deny students the opportunity to interview on-campus with military recruiters. These policies have been successful in discouraging young adults from choosing a career in the military. The legislation before us today makes several important reforms to protect taxpayers, to protect students' freedom of choice and to protect our armed services from discrimination. The premise of the bill is a simple one: colleges that discriminate against the United States armed services should not receive United States taxpayer funds related to national defense and homeland security. Specifically, H.R. 3966 makes three major reforms. First, it will stop the current abusive practice under which schools ban ROTC and military recruiting, but then turn around and cash enormous checks from the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, and other Federal agencies fighting the war on terror. For example, the Homeland Security Act created several new science and technology research programs for which colleges and universities are eligible. This law will say that these funds should not go to schools that discriminate against ROTC or military recruiters. Second, this legislation will require schools that accept national security and homeland security funds to certify that they do not discriminate against ROTC and that they do permit on-campus ROTC programs if requested by the Department of Defense. Current law, which already requires schools accepting defense funds to accommodate on- campus ROTC programs if requested by the Department of Defense, is not enforced against elite schools such as Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Columbia and others that have banned ROTC on campus. This bill will change that. Third, this legislation will ensure that schools accepting national security and homeland security funding provide access to military recruiters that is ``equal in quality and scope'' to the access provided to other campus recruiters. At Harvard, even military recruiters who are themselves Harvard graduates are not permitted to meet students on campus like other employers. A Harvard grad that has stained himself in the view of the faculty by participating in the U.S. military cannot visit campus and cannot stuff mailboxes, even though virtually every other group and every other employer is permitted to do so. On the Harvard campus in Memorial Church, the names of Harvard alums who died in service to this country are inscribed on the wall and there is this inscription by former Harvard President Lawrence Lowell: ``While a bright future beckoned, they freely gave their lives and fondest hopes for us and our allies, that we might learn from them courage in peace to spend our lives making a better world for others.'' Today, as our Nation calls for able new leaders in the war on terror, will Harvard and our Nation's other elite universities step forward and live up to that legacy? It has been a long time since 1969 and Vietnam, John Kerry notwithstanding, when Harvard's faculty, of which I am a former member, banished ROTC. It has been 2\1/2\ short years since our Nation was attacked by terrorists who still make war on our Nation. It is time for universities that accept national security and homeland security funding to support and encourage, not undermine, this Nation's call to service. That is the message of H.R. 3966. I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this important legislation and the rule that will bring it to the floor.

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COX. It is true that there are a handful of brave students at Harvard that are ROTC scholars, and it is true that Harvard is happy to cash their scholarship checks; but Harvard refuses to permit the ROTC program on campus and, therefore, the students have to go down the road to MIT, which will accept them as the gentleman knows. As a result, the discrimination against Harvard students is very real. Furthermore, as the Wall Street Journal has outlined, not on their editorial page but in news articles, there is on campus a very hostile attitude toward students in uniform. That needs to be changed.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the author of this legislation, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), for his strong leadership needed at this time; and I also want to thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), for his leadership on this issue. It is very important that we move this legislation forward because it squarely addresses the scandal of American colleges and universities banishing ROTC and military recruiters from campus, while turning around and cashing the taxpayers' checks from the Department of Defense and other national security and homeland security agencies of our government to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. My alma mater, Harvard University, which bans ROTC from campus, gets more money in Federal taxpayer grants than it does from tuition for undergraduates and graduates combined, and yet Harvard University sends its hard core, a very small number of hearty brave students, down the road to MIT where they have to do their MIT-based ROTC training because they cannot be on campus. They do not meet Harvard standards because they want to affiliate themselves with the United States military. The attacks on America, on the World Trade Center and on the Pentagon should have been a wake-up call to schools such as Harvard, which banished ROTC from campus 35 years ago. There is now a feeble pretext for this military ban on America's elite campuses. It is alleged that it is a protest against the Clinton administration's ``don't ask/don't tell policy'' for gays in the military. I find that exceptionally hard to believe, because no mention was made of this problem in 1969 when the ban was put in place. I was on Harvard's campus during the Vietnam War. I remember when South Vietnam fell to the Communists, and I saw the biggest demonstration that I had seen yet on Harvard's campus, with students out in the streets chanting, ``Ho, ho, Ho Chi Minh, the Vietcong are going to win.'' That is where this ban came from. It has been a long time since the Vietnam War, John Kerry notwithstanding; and it is high time that we recognize what happened to us on September 11, that we recognize that it was U.S. troops who were defending the Harvard students at Logan Airport in the hours after the 9/11 attacks. And, of course, Boston's Logan Airport was one of the staging airports for the 9/11 attacks on this country. As our Nation wages an aggressive campaign to defeat global terrorism, President Kennedy's call to young people to ``ask what you can do for your country'' is more important than ever. America's armed forces are hunting down al Qaeda and other supporters of terrorism in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and on every continent around the globe. Never in recent history have we asked more from our Armed Forces, and never have we needed more educated leaders in our armed services. The best contribution Harvard could make, the best contribution Yale could make, the best contribution that Stamford and Columbia could make to sound, wise policies in our Nation's military is to permit their graduates to enter into leadership posts there. But even a Harvard alum, who is a military recruiter, cannot go on campus to do it. Now I have heard this is not really about the military, that this is a punitive measure aimed at the colleges themselves. But the military did not start this fight; and, in fact, look at what the universities' policies have accomplished over the last several decades. In 1964, there were 268,000 ROTC students on America's campuses. Today, it is down to 50,000, a decline of more than 80 percent. The military is being hurt by these policies, and America is being hurt by these policies. Today, successful recruitment of exceptional officers depends more heavily than ever on the Reserve Officers Training Corps. This past year, 70 percent of the Army's newly commissioned officers came from ROTC. As chairman of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, I have been deeply gratified and humbled as I have seen how many of America's best and brightest have been willing to volunteer in service to their country in the fight against terrorism, both through ROTC and through choosing a career in the military upon graduation. But many of these same schools that are banning ROTC on campus are also banning even military recruiters from coming to campus. The premise of this bill is a simple one: Colleges that discriminate against the United States Armed Services should not receive U.S. taxpayer funds related to national defense and homeland security. The bill will stop the current abusive practice under which schools ban ROTC and military recruiting but then turn around and cash enormous checks from the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security. It will require they certify that they do not discriminate and that they will permit ROTC recruiters and ROTC training programs on campus. Today, as our Nation calls for able new leaders in the war on terror, it is time for our universities and our colleges in America to honor that call and help lead our Nation. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers) for bringing this important legislation to the floor.

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the author of the bill for yielding me this time. Just to respond to the preceding speaker, the gentleman from Hawaii, this is not about telling people what to think or what to say. It is about giving students freedom of choice. This is all about whether or not students have access on campus. At Harvard, the undergraduate council voted overwhelmingly to invite ROTC back on to campus, but the school has taken no action. So it is the students who are being shortchanged. As to whether this is completely unrelated to Vietnam, I will state that that is just wrong as a matter of fact. This ban at Harvard University, where I am a former member of the faculty, I am reasonably familiar with this, and a graduate of two schools at Harvard, in 1969 at Harvard, the faculty voted to ban the military from campus in protest to the Vietnam War and that ban has been in place ever since. My contention is that 9/11 should serve as a wakeup call, welcome to the 21st century. Let us revisit this, and get it back to where it belongs.

Mr. COX. I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.

Mr. COX. I appreciate the gentleman's point, and reclaiming what little time I have, I will just say simply that we have students who are going to graduate. This has been going on for some years. 9/11 was a few years ago. At Yale where the school is happy to cash the ROTC scholarship checks, the Yale students have to travel 75 miles to the University of Connecticut and then 75 miles back, 150-mile round trip, they have to do this three times a week. It is an extraordinary burden to place just so that the university can make a point that joining the military is not what we want our students to do.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, friends, colleagues, and a grateful nation will honor Philip E. Barringer in a memorial service this Friday. Mr. Barringer served half a century negotiating the arrangements that protect the interests of the United States and our Service personnel around the world. His negotiating career began with one of the twentieth century's historic diplomatic tasks: negotiating for governance of post-war Germany between the United States, the Soviet Union, France, and the United Kingdom. From the time of the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty in 1949 until his retirement in 1999, he served in a civilian capacity in the Pentagon negotiating agreements on stationing, access rights, and the legal status of United States military forces based in friendly foreign countries. For the majority of that long and distinguished period of public service, he was Director of Foreign Military Rights Affairs, an office under the Assistant Secretary for International Security Affairs. The United States has been fortunate that a man of Mr. Barringer's consummate skill had educational opportunities that uniquely prepared him for a life of negotiating on behalf of his nation. Born in Haverford, Pennsylvania, in 1916, he graduated from the Episcopal Academy with highest honors in 1933. He studied for a year in Heidelberg College, Germany in 1934, gaining insight into the crucial events taking place in Germany during Hitler's rise. He returned to the United States and attended Princeton University, graduating in 1938 with honors in European history. Subsequent law studies at the University of Pennsylvania were interrupted by the mobilization of the Pennsylvania National Guard in 1941. During and following World War II, he served with the 28th Division Artillery; in Headquarters Army Ground Forces; and as Secretary of the Legal Division of the Allied Control Council for Germany. In 1945 he helped develop the quadripartite arrangements for occupied Germany. He served 50 years in the Pentagon. Among his early assignments were an effort to stimulate Latin America to contribute to the Korean War, participating in negotiation of the NATO Status of Forces Agreement, and negotiating a leasing agreement for U.S. forces in Iceland. After attending the National War College in 1950-51, Mr. Barringer was assigned to the West Germany, Berlin and Eastern Europe Programs at the Pentagon. In that capacity, he was a member of the U.S. Delegation to the 1954 Berlin Conference on Germany and Austria, and the ensuing Geneva Convention on Korea and Indo-China. His primary responsibility was to coordinate the West German defense contribution to NATO; this was enlarged in 1956 to assisting western European nations in meeting their military contributions to NATO. Between 1964 and 1966, he served as politico-military attache at the American Embassy in London. Here he worked with the British Foreign and Defense ministries to lay the political foundation for the military use arrangements for Diego Garcia. As Congress reflects on America's victory in Iraq, especially during this anniversary week, it is important to recognize how many efforts, over so long a period of time, have contributed to America's strength. Mr. Barringer's contribution to this matter alone was critical to permitting Diego Garcia to serve its very valuable role in supporting our forces in operations against Saddam Hussein in 1990-91 and again in 2003. On returning to Washington in 1967, he served 1 year as Deputy Director of Near East and South Asian Affairs, during the Arab-Israeli war. He then became Director of Foreign Military Rights Affairs, and served as Defense representative in the continuing negotiation of basing, access and status of forces agreements, covering 25 countries and areas worldwide. By the end of his career, these had included: US Forces in NATO, 1951; Diego Garcia, 1964-76; Japan, 1967; Spain, 1970- 88; Bahamas, 1973; Iceland, 1973-74; Panama, 1974-77 and 1997; Turkey, 1975; Philippines, 1976-90; Micronesia, 1978-89; Israel, 1979-89; Oman, 1980-86; Somalia, 1980; Morocco, 1982; Northern Marianas, 1982; Portugal, 1983-84 and 1991; Honduras, 1985-86; Thailand, 1986; Korea, 1989; Australia, 1991; Germany, 1991-92, United Arab Emirates, 1992; Guam 1993-95; Partners for Peace, 1994-95; Russia, 1998; and for German forces in the US, 1970 and 1995-96. The Pentagon awarded Mr. Barringer the Secretary of Defense Meritorious Civilian Service Medal, 1975 and 1981; Distinguished Service Medal, 1989; Meritorious Executive, Senior Executive Service, 1990, and the Paul H. Nitze award, 1998. That list of accomplishments does not begin to speak of the full impact Mr. Barringer had on his colleagues in the Federal service, his family, or his friends. His influence will be felt by many, in very personal ways. As a Member of Congress, I am grateful to recall a point Mr. Barringer repeatedly made in meetings before negotiations: ``The Congress of the United States demands that the legal rights of American service members sent abroad be protected.'' For many years, under Mr. Barringer's careful watch, that principle guided the negotiation of Status of Forces Agreements governing U.S. forces serving in places as distant as Korea and Bahrain. I appreciate the opportunity to take a moment this week to remember the fine service of this talented and dedicated civil servant and recall the value of his efforts to protect the rights of our military service members serving our nation abroad.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for his leadership and his crafting this bill which underscores the principle that those who have been given multi-billion dollar assets in the form of public airwaves for free, courtesy of the taxpayers, owe in return at least some consideration of the taxpaying audience and the public interest they purport to serve. I like free enterprise and the opportunity for every business to turn a profit. I support unlimited artistic creativity. None of these provide a reason for multi-billion dollar spectrum subsidies for profit-making entertainment, particularly when it is indecent, obscene and profane. While others in telecommunications pay for their slice of the airwaves, the broadcasting industry has been given multi-billion dollar slices of the public airwaves for free. In the 1990s, every other industry that uses the airwaves, such as wireless phone companies, paid for their pieces of the airwaves through public auctions that generated billions in revenue for taxpayers. The broadcasting industry has paid nothing to the taxpayers for their continued free use of this valuable public asset. On top of that, every TV station owner was recently given more free bandwidth to convert to digital TV, and that additional loan spectrum has an estimated value of $100 billion. That is a payment from every man, woman, and child in America of $350. As we complete action on this bill, our attention turns naturally to the underlying question of whether taxpayers should continue the multi- billion dollar subsidies of this obviously for-profit industry. It is my hunch that if we were to auction the broadcast spectrum without the free ride that such programming now gets, the market and consumers would not demand 184 channels of Howard Stern. Making for-profit TV pay for its spectrum and compete with other high-tech demands would be a far better way of dealing with the problem of indecent programming than government regulation of speech. I think this bill is welcome news.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, the House Policy Committee met today with a distinguished delegation of Hong Kong legislators and advocates of democracy. I would like to briefly report on this meeting. Last year, the Policy Committee met twice with representatives from Hong Kong: First, on January 28, 2003, we met with Hong Kong representatives, including journalists, who briefed us on the PRC's efforts to restrict media and intellectual freedoms. Second, on June 5, 2003, we met with a delegation of legislators and human rights advocates. Today's was our third meeting on Hong Kong in the 108th Congress. The Policy Committee has held approximately 30 meetings in the 108th Congress. The policy-setting organization for the House Majority has devoted fully 10 percent of our meeting time to the cause of freedom for seven million people on the other side of the earth for several reasons: First, we are the policy-setting organization for the Republican majority. Our party was founded 150 years ago--more accurately, 149 years, 11 months, and two weeks ago--on the simple idea of individual freedom. Republican presidents helped secure freedom for millions of Americans in the Civil War and for millions more around the world in the Cold War. Today, President Bush has naturally made freedom around the world the primary means of securing victory in the war on terrorism. The basis of our party is freedom, and Hong Kong, today, is on freedom's frontier. Second, the seven million people of Hong Kong represent the best hope for more than a billion others in Asia. It is vitally important to the world that China becomes more like Hong Kong, and not the other way around. Accomplishing that goal would be in the interests of the people of Hong Kong and all of China, and it would be in the interests of the United States and the rest of the world, as a free, democratic, and prosperous China would be a more stable and friendly neighbor and member of the international community. One month after our previous meeting, the Hong Kong legislature was scheduled to vote on a PRC-backed law to severely limit free speech and civil liberties in Hong Kong, in the name of punishing ``subversion.'' We and the House International Relations Committee proposed, and the House approved, a resolution in support of freedom in Hong Kong, and against the proposed anti-subversion law. Unprecedented demonstrations by over one-half million people in Hong Kong followed a few days later. The PRC withdrew the so-called anti-subversion legislation it was backing. While the withdrawal of the so-called anti-subversion bill was good news, the more recent PRC freeze on the consultative process to provide for the popular election of Hong Kong's chief executive in 2007, and of its legislature in 2008, is of grave concern. It is vital to commence this process immediately. China will host the Olympics in 2008. Will the world discover that China has broken its promise? Only if the free world holds China to its commitment, and elections are held in 2007 and 2008, will this global shame be avoided. Likewise, all the people of Hong Kong--including those who speak out for democracy--must be allowed the freedom to return to travel within China. The refusal of Beijing to grant permission for Chinese patriots in Hong Kong, including many who were born on the mainland, to travel to Beijing is an affront to freedom and to the Olympic spirit. Mr. Speaker, much work remains to be done for freedom and democracy in Hong Kong and in China. The United States Congress must continue this work.