Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

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

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 462, a resolution reaffirming the unwavering support of the Congress for the Taiwan Relations Act. This year marks the 25th anniversary of the enactment of the Taiwan Relations Act, one of Congress' most important and enduring pieces of legislation. Over the past quarter century, the Act has served as the foundation of the United States' relationship with the people of Taiwan and has ensured the island's security. On this anniversary, it is fitting and appropriate for the Congress to review the cross-strait issue and reassess the needs of our friends in Taiwan. In contrast to many other pieces of 25-year-old legislation, the Taiwan Relations Act has exceeded expectations. The Act has allowed the United States to maintain its close ties with the people of Taiwan while actively engaging Asia's rising power, the People's Republic of China, on a myriad of fronts, including human rights. In doing so, the measure has been important to the maintenance of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait and throughout the entire Western Pacific region. The Taiwan Relations Act has also played an indirect role in promoting democracy in Taiwan by providing the conditions of external security that have allowed the people of Taiwan to focus on internal reform and democratization. In the years since Congress passed the Taiwan Relations Act in 1979, Taiwan has developed into a lively and successful democracy, a tribute to the courage and determination of the island's remarkable people. The 1996 presidential election in Taiwan was the first time in China's 5 millennia of recorded history that a fully democratically elected government assumed office. The election of 2000, which resulted in a peaceful transfer of power from one political party to another, evidenced a deepening democratic system. Two months ago, Taiwan completed its third direct presidential election. The U.S. has watched this island nation develop into a mature, robust, vibrant democracy that respects human rights and civil liberties. Knowledge of our shared values has strengthened the commitment of Americans to stand by the people of Taiwan. In contrast to Taiwan, Mr. Speaker, the mainland has failed to implement meaningful political reform, and the PRC's respect for fundamental human rights has deteriorated. Furthermore, the People's Republic of China has adopted a more aggressive military posture towards Taiwan. Over the past 5 years, the PRC has dramatically increased its stockpile of weapons. Today, China has approximately 500 missiles aimed at Taiwan, a matter of grave concern to the freedom- loving people of Taiwan and to all of us here in the United States. Given China's refusal to renounce the use of force against Taiwan, the arms buildup is a threat to peace and security in the Taiwan Strait and to the stability of the entire region. Changes in cross-strait relations, Mr. Speaker, including democratization of Taiwan and an arms buildup by the People's Republic of China, requires that the United States continue to strengthen its support for the people and the democracy of Taiwan. H. Con. Res. 462 reinforces America's commitment to help Taiwan defend itself from outside coercion and intimidation. Continuing the tradition established by the Taiwan Relations Act, H. Con. Res. 462 urges the President and the Congress to reevaluate the defense needs of Taiwan and encourages the government of Taiwan to devote sufficient financial resources to defense of its island. The resolution also, Mr. Speaker, encourages greater interaction between Taiwan and the U.S. with the goal of strengthening democracy on the island. Visits between the officials of the U.S. and Taiwan are not inconsistent with the One-China Policy. As such, officials of Taiwan should not be discouraged from visiting the United States. Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that increasingly warmer cross-strait relations will ultimately transcend the need for the Taiwan Relations Act, and resolutions such as this one would not be needed. In time, the democracy which Taiwan has cultivated can take further root and flourish throughout all of China. However, until that day comes, resolutions such as this one are necessary to clearly promote peace and security in the region and to ensure continuing democracy in Taiwan. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond briefly, and I think it needs to be responded to. The Taiwan Relations Act made it very clear in section 3 that there is no ambiguity about the policy. It is very clear to make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability. Nobody in their right mind or in their wildest dreams would ever conceive of Taiwan attacking the mainland. It is all about a credible deterrence so that that dialogue between Beijing and Taipei can go forward, and that is why I think that this law has been so important in helping to maintain that protective cocoon, if you will, so that this dialogue again could go forward without an invasion from the People's Republic of China. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. First, I want to thank my friend for clarifying that the pending amendment is simply a restatement of current law. I appreciate the fact that he has made that very clear. I want to make a point so that we are also clear about the FDA's decision concerning Plan B. Dr. Stephen Galson, the acting director for FDA's Center For Drug Evaluation and Research, stated in a letter that based on science and safety concerns, Plan B will not be sold over-the- counter and this is his quote: ``Based on the review of the data, we have concluded that you (Barr Research Inc) have not provided adequate data to support a conclusion that Plan B can be used safely for young adolescent women.'' He also goes on to point out that ``only 29 of the 585 subjects enrolled in the study were 14 to 16 years of age, and none were under the age of 14.'' So based on science and safety concerns, the recommendation was made that Plan B should not be approved for over- the-counter sales. So this restatement of current law does not add nor detract from things as they are.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding and join him in this very strong concern about one of the biggest scandals known in history and thank him for his good work as chairman of the subcommittee in trying to get to the truth as to what happened. Mr. Speaker, tonight, we are discussing the recent disclosures about problems with the U.N.'s Oil-for-Food program. As my colleagues know, in 1995 the U.S. worked with the U.N. to create a program to allow Saddam Hussein to sell his country's oil in what was purported to be a controlled manner in return for shipments of humanitarian goods for the Iraqi people. Tragically, we now know that this noble effort was grotesquely undermined by scandal. The GAO estimates that some $10 billion in oil revenue was stolen from the people of Iraq. The laudable purpose of the Oil-for-Food program was to alleviate massive human suffering by innocent Iraqi civilians whom Saddam Hussein was deliberately starving in order to generate international support and sympathy for lifting U.N. Security Council sanctions against Iraq. The system to be implemented by the U.N. and by member states was supposed to carefully monitor all sales of oil and make sure that these petrol dollars were placed in a trust fund at the French Bank, the PNB- Paribas. The system was supposed to be transparent. It was supposed to be above board. It was supposed to be open, but it was anything but. As the coverup and the lack of transparency crippled efforts that continue to this day, efforts to establish all of the facts and to hold the corrupt to account. New York Times columnist William Safire noted in June of 2004 that there are some 5,000 Oil-for-Food file folders stored at BNP-Paribas storage facilities in New York and in my home State of New Jersey with documentation on the letters of credit, the notice of arrival documents, descriptions of the contracts; and yet the U.S. investigators are not being allowed access to these vital documents. In theory, Mr. Speaker, the trust funds were supposed to be out of the Hussein regime's control and were to be used to purchase civilian consumer goods and basic infrastructure. The justified fear manifested in the 1990s by the United States and the United Kingdom was that Hussein's agents would try to misuse oil funds to purchase banned weaponry and luxury items for the regime. History has proven these fears to be well founded. Unfortunately, the United Nations apparently presided over a system that was rife with loopholes and opportunities for Hussein and his thugs to corrupt and bribe their way towards enrichment at the expense of the very people he was to feed, clothe, and provide health care for. For example, the Clinton administration estimated in the year 2000 nearly $2 billion of the Oil-for-Food assistance was diverted to build nine lavish palaces for Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party supporters, all of this while children went hungry and without medicines. The Congressional Research Service, Mr. Speaker, in April 2004 did an analysis of the various estimates to try to get a handle on the scale of the Iraqi sanctions cheating and the U.N. failure to stop them. CRS notes said, ``There are no authoritative figures for the value of illicit trade with Iraq. However, the most widely cited estimates come from a study released in May 2002 by the GAO. According to the GAO study, Iraq earned $6.6 billion in illicit revenue from oil smuggling and surcharges during 1997 to the year 2001. Of that total, GAO estimates that $4.3 billion was from illicit oil sales and $2.3 billion from surcharges on oil and commissions from its contracts to buy civilian goods (kickbacks). The study estimated that during 2001, Iraq earned $1.5 billion from illicit oil sales from Jordan, Syria, Turkey, and the Persian Gulf; and about $700 million from surcharges and contract kickbacks.'' Mr. Speaker, as we all know, Congress and the Bush administration are actively investigating allegations of large-scale U.N. corruption in complicity with Iraqi sanctions violations. But we have not been allowed the access to information that would make these efforts successful. One problem, Mr. Speaker, with the U.N. program, and I would underscore this, is that it seems that the firm which signed the contracts with the U.N. to inspect the humanitarian aid shipments, Cotecna, appears to not have had enough inspectors at their posts to make sure that the transactions were handled properly. According to internal U.N. audits, Cotenca overcharged the U.N. while understaffing the inspection positions. In other words, part-time work for full-time pay. This particular allegation was included in a report written by auditors from the Office of Internal Oversight at the U.N. This report, we are now told, is one of 55 that the U.N. auditors did on the Oil-for-Food program. Amazingly and shamefully, all 55 audits were kept from the U.N. membership, including the United States mission. This is just plain wrong; and to the best of my knowledge, no one in the Congress has seen the other 54 reports. At the very least, these reports should be released immediately by the United Nations to the U.S. and other interested governments, and this stonewalling must end. I would point out to my colleagues that the distinguished chairman of the House Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), wrote to Secretary General Annan: ``The U.S. Congress, which provides 22 percent of the U.N.'s budget and which has publicly requested copies of the 55 internal audits, should not be required to depend on media leaks for source documents.'' The report on Cotecna, I would point out, was leaked and was placed on the Internet. If it were not for the bravery of one unnamed official, we would not even have this one report. Mr. Speaker, let me just conclude by noting that while the United Nations looked the other way, or worse was complicit and corrupt, Saddam Hussein was underselling his oil in return for kickbacks and providing commercial favors to the companies from countries which did his bidding in his ongoing propaganda war against the United States. The scheme was rotten to the core. In my mind, it also raises some very serious questions about two of our Security Council countries which most adamantly opposed the U.S. multinational coalition military commitment, and they were France and Russia. They were among those getting the greatest sweetheart deals during the Oil-for-Food situation. For example, the Russia diplomatic representatives, we are told, were instructed to do everything they could to push for contracts with Russian companies. There are hundreds of Russian companies dealing in Iraq. Some were even front companies for Iraqi officials steering the proceeds into offshore bank accounts. Some companies took open bribes. One Russian company, Lakia, paid bribes to Iraqi officials to get their contracts through; but when the contract fell apart, Lakia asked for its bribe money to be paid back and even complained to the U.N. about the situation. What did Benon Sevan, director of the U.N. office overseeing the Oil- for-Food program do about this? He notified Saddam's officials before he even told the U.N. about it. Investigators are now hearing that the U.N. officials were open to bribes by suppliers if those vendors wanted their contracts to move up in priority for consideration there. They are hearing that U.N. officials would disclose the details behind the holes that U.S. officials were placing on contracts in return for the right amount of money. They are hearing that inspectors at Iraq's posts were also open for bribes and overfilling oil tankers beyond the contracted amount and then selling the extra oil and lining their pockets with the profits. Under pressure, Mr. Speaker, as we all know, in April 2004 the U.N. appointed a commission headed by Paul Volcker, the former Chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve, to independently investigate this massive scandal. Mr. Volcker is currently assembling his staff and beginning his inquiry. That sounds good, because Mr. Volcker enjoys a great deal of respect. But even with the best of intentions, if he is not given all the tools to unearth the truth, the probe will fall short. I will point out to my colleagues that Mr. Volcker and his commission do not have subpoena power, a deficiency in his powers that will undoubtedly cripple his access to information. How is he going to compel U.N. officials to provide the hard evidence of corruption? Let us face it, Mr. Speaker, corrupt officials are not going to voluntarily hand over boxes of files filled with incriminating evidence. Instead, those boxes are likely to be shredded or redacted. Without subpoena power, the U.N.'s internal investigation will be stymied and will likely raise more questions than it answers, and the hard truths about this mother of all scandals are likely to be lost and remain elusive. Secretary General Kofi Annan says he will fire any U.N. employee who does not cooperate. Sounds good. Let us see. We will see. How do we define cooperate? How do we know what remains secret when we do not have that ability to compel evidence? Mr. Annan's own son may be involved in this scandal since he was Cotecna's consultant, and that raises serious questions as well. These are tough questions, Mr. Speaker; and I understand that the answers will not come overnight, and under the current glideslope, perhaps they will never come. Congress needs to demand real answers, as we are doing; and there needs to be real and meaningful reforms made at the United Nations. Mr. Speaker, I am glad we organized this very important night to focus on this terrible scandal. I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), for yielding to me.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Akin amendment which affirms, reaffirms existing U.S. policy of two of the most heinous practices known to humankind: sex trafficking and prostitution. It should be very clear that the Akin amendment reiterates that funding in this bill cannot be used to circumvent provisions already existing in law, Public Law 108-225. As with the existing law, the Akin amendment states that no taxpayer funds designated for HIV/AIDS prevention may be used to promote or to advocate the legalization of prostitution or sex trafficking, and that no funds may be given to any group or organization that does not have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution or sex trafficking. As the author of both the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 and the Trafficking Victims Reauthorization Act of 2003, I believe that the U.S. should do everything in its power to combat and to eliminate human trafficking in prostitution. Those who advocate the legalization of prostitution, I believe, are doing a grave disservice to women and demeaning their dignity. Individuals and groups seeking to receive U.S. assistance to fight AIDS who believe that the legalization of prostitution or they turn a blind eye to prostitution are part of the problem. They are not part of the solution. Mr. Chairman, the horrors of sex trafficking, which is indeed modern- day slavery, and the ugliness of prostitution cannot be understated. The recently released ``Trafficking in Persons Report,'' which was done pursuant to our Act, has pointed out that some 600,000 to 800,000 people are trafficked every year across borders. I urge a ``yes'' vote for the Akin amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 257, which would express the sense of Congress that the President posthumously award the Medal of Freedom to Harry W. Colmery. Mr. Colmery, a lawyer who successfully argued cases before the Supreme Court after World War I, was the visionary who drafted in long-hand during the Christmas and New Year's holidays of 1943-1944 what would become the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, commonly known as the ``G.I. Bill of Rights.'' Michael Bennett, author of When Dreams Came True--The G.I. Bill and the Making of Modern America, credits Mr. Colmery with the wisdom and foresight that ``made the United States the first overwhelming middle- class nation in the world. It was the law that worked, the law whose unexpected consequences were even greater than its intended purposes.'' The World War II G.I. Bill of Rights--and the engaging response on the part of the 7.8 million veterans who used it--produced 450,000 engineers; 238,000 teachers; 91,000 scientists; 67,000 doctors; 22,000 dentists; and another one million college-educated men in other professional disciplines like business, management, manufacturing, banking, and social services. Among the 7.8 million GI Bill recipients were about five million World War II veterans who received other forms of valuable technical schooling or on-job training that become so important to our post-war civilian economy. Mr. Speaker, even before WWII ended, Harry Colmery forecast that we as a nation would need a kind of economic ``cubby hole'' for training its veterans after the war, as the American economy would transform from making machine guns to making Maytags. Congress agreed, and on June 22, 1944, it sent the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 to the White House. President Roosevelt signed the bill saying ``. . . it gives emphatic notice to the men and women in our Armed Forces that the American people do not intend to let them down.'' But frankly, it was more than not letting down the veterans themselves. Michael Bennett speculates on Mr. Colmery's foresight, ``For this was a bill . . . conceived in democracy and dedicated to the proposition that those called upon to die for their country, if need be, are the best qualified to make it work, if given the opportunity.'' Having served in the Army Air Service during World War I, Harry Colmery understood that economically empowering veterans through education and training was vastly superior to providing them with cash bonus payments, as was done for World War I service. And history has shown how correct Mr. Colmery was. Building upon the success of the original GI Bill, Congress subsequently approved a second bill following the Korean War; a third bill following the Vietnam War; a fourth bill for the post-Vietnam War era; and in 1985, under the dedicated leadership of former Veterans' Committee Chairman Sonny Montgomery, Congress approved the modern version of the GI Bill which is fittingly called the Montgomery GI Bill. And in recent years, Congress has continued to keep faith with the goals originally set out by Harry Colmery by passing legislation that modernizes the GI Bill to meet the needs of America's military veterans in the 21st century. As a result of bipartisan legislation I was proud to sponsor along with my good friend Congressman Lane Evans, the total lifetime college benefit for qualified veterans has risen from $24,192 in January 2001, to $35,460 today. In total, more than 21 million veterans have received higher education and job training through the original WWII GI Bill and its successors. Michael Bennett noted that, ``the $14.5 billion cost of the WWII GI Bill was paid by additional taxes on the increased income of the GI Bill recipient by 1960. Without the property--and the social peace-- engendered by the GI Bill, America couldn't have afforded the Marshall Plan's $12.5 billion.'' Mr. Bennett further observed that by 1960, ``veterans were only in their early 40s, at the height of their earning powers, and the bill's catalytic effects would be felt for years to come throughout the entire economy as homes, schools, roads and service industries multiplied. Between 1960 and 1980, America's Gross Domestic Product quintupled from $515.9 billion to $2.7 trillion. Since then, the GDP has risen to $8.5 trillion in 1998, a tripling in 17 years rather than a quintupling in 20.'' Economic philosopher Peter Drucker said in the Harvard Business Review that ``the GI Bill of Rights and the enthusiastic response to it on the part of America's veterans signaled the shift to a knowledge society. In this society, knowledge is the primary resource for individuals and for the economy overall.'' Mr. Drucker later wrote that ``future historians may consider it the most important event in the 20th Century. We are clearly in the middle of this transformation; indeed, if history is any guide, it will not be completed until 2010 or 2020. But already it has changed the political, economic and moral landscape of the world.'' Mr. Speaker, Mr. Harry W. Colmery essentially articulated for America what author Bennett later referred to as the ``American Creed in Action.'' Mr. Colmery knew from his personal experiences during and after World War I that Americans who fight in wars often are ordinary people who do extraordinary things. Mr. Colmery and The American Legion mounted the campaign for the GI Bill and against those who predicted that it could turn the nation's college and universities in to ``educational hobo jungles.'' In the end, Mr. Colmery and Representative Edith Nourse Rodgers (MA), who worked with him and co- authored the GI Bill legislation in the House of Representatives, won out. As the New York Times reported in November 1947, ``. . . here is the most astonishing fact in the history of American higher education. . . . The G.I.'s are hogging the honor rolls and the Dean's lists; as they are walking away with the top marks in all of their courses. . . . Far from being an educational problem, the veteran has become an asset to higher education.'' Mr. Speaker, as a trained lawyer and not an economist or an educator, Harry Colmery designed the legislation to allow 14 million World War II veterans to transform arsenals of mass destruction into industries of mass consumption. These veterans did not just pass through higher education, they transformed it. But it was more than that. They created the modern middle class, thanks to the vision of Harry Colmery. I encourage my colleagues to emphatically support the Presidential Medal of Freedom for this extraordinary American.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and recognize the staff of the American Battle Monuments Commission and the World War II Project for all their efforts in ensuring a very successful dedication of the World War II National Memorial: General P.X. Kelley, Chairman, American Battle Monuments Commission; Major General John Herrling, Secretary, American Battle Monuments Commission; Mr. Kenneth Pond, Executive Director, American Battle Monuments Commission; Mr. Mike Conley, Associate Executive Director, National World War II Memorial Project; Mr. Bob Patrick, Director, National World War II Memorial Dedication; Mr. Dick Couture, Director, Marketing and Member Services, National World War II Memorial; Ms. Betsy Glick, Director, Communications, National World War II Memorial Project; and Mr. Barry Owenby, Project Executive, National World War II Memorial Project. These individuals, along with their staffs, worked untold months to ensure that the weekend of May 29, 2004, will live on in the hearts of the veterans and families of the ``Greatest Generation.'' More than 150,000 people attended the May 29, 2004, dedication ceremony of the first national memorial built to honor all of the Americans who served their country during World War II. Millions more were able to watch the dedication through live television feeds to the national broadcasting networks, the History Channel, and C-Span. Additional events throughout the weekend drew large crowds who gathered for reunions and celebrations. A four-day National World War II Reunion held in conjunction with the Smithsonian Institution Center for Folklife and Cultural Heritage drew over 300,000 people, and three two-hour ceremonial and musical performances held at the MCI Center were sold out. A Service of Celebration at the Washington National Cathedral was well attended by military and civilian clergy and World War II dignitaries. Mr. Speaker, the enthusiasm, performance, and commitment of all the staff at the American Battle Monuments Commission, the National WWII Memorial Project, and the National WWII Memorial Dedication do not go unnoticed, and I thank them for their exceptional work on behalf of our Nation's veterans.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce H.R. 4658, the Servicemembers Legal Protection Act of 2004, legislation to further strengthen the legal and financial rights of military servicemembers, particularly those called up to active duty in Iraq, Afghanistan and other duty stations around the world. This legislation would amend a prior law I sponsored, that President Bush signed last year, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, Public Law 108-189. Mr. Speaker, this morning I chaired a hearing of the Veterans' Affairs Committee to examine how well the federal statutes protecting our servicemembers rights were being enforced. Testifying before the Committee were several servicemembers and family members with personal experiences in which their rights were not properly protected under existing laws. One witness, Ms. Tammy Kimmel whose husband served in the Army at Fort Hood in Texas, told the Committee that when her husband was ordered to a new duty location, her landlord refused to release her from their joint housing lease as required by law. The landlord claimed that the law required the servicemember to be released, but not the spouse. The legislation I am introducing today would help prevent such misinterpretations as well as strengthen and expand several existing legal and financial protections. Mr. Speaker, with more than 150,000 Guard and reserve members activated in the continuing war on terrorism, we must ensure that the laws protecting their rights are fully and faithfully executed and enforced. Congress approved the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act last year precisely because of perceived ambiguities and weaknesses in longstanding federal statutes covering military personnel called to active duty or redeployed to new duty locations. Regrettably, despite sixty years of federal case law, culminating with the passage last year of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, there are still some individuals, businesses, and organizations who cynically refuse to provide all the reliefs required by statute. We will neither tolerate outright violations nor attempts to distort the clear purposes of the laws Congress has enacted. The evidence from today's hearing is overwhelming and the intention of the law is clear. Those men and women who put their lives on hold and on the line must not suffer economic or legal harm that results from their military service. This Committee and this Congress will continue to do all that can be done to protect the legal and financial rights of all of our servicemembers, whether they are active duty, reserve or Guard. As introduced, H.R. 4658, the Servicemembers Legal Protection Act, would: Strengthen the lease termination protections for dependants of servicemembers relocating per military orders; Expand the definition of court and administrative judgments and rulings covered by the law: Require that waivers of their rights by servicemembers must be duly executed in separate, clearly written documents: Extend to plaintiffs the same relief granted to defendants in civil court proceedings: Extend the housing and automobile lease termination relief to servicemembers relocated from states or territories outside the contiguous United States (e.g., Hawaii, Alaska): Strengthen the leases termination provisions for servicemembers affected by individual deployments: Prevent double taxation of servicemembers due to differences in state and local excise, use, or other similar taxes. Mr. Speaker, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act that passed last year both restated and expanded the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act first approved in 1940. This federal statute is designed to help ensure that U.S. military personnel are not disadvantaged when they have been called to active duty and are therefore unable to be present at legal proceedings. Among the most important protections added by the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act last year were automatic 90-day stays for civil and administrative proceedings, protections for servicemembers and their families from housing evictions, the right of servicemembers and their spouses to terminate housing and automobile leases, and protection from repossessions of automobiles. Enactment of the legislation I am introducing today, H.R. 4658, the Servicemembers Legal Protection Act, would provide an additional level of support for all of the brave men and women defending our nation and our freedom around the world. I urge my colleagues to look at this important legislation and lend their support to protecting the legal and financial rights of all of our servicemen and women.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, ten days from today, on Wednesday, June 30, 2004, a historic day will occur in the cradle of civilization: the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) will formally transfer power and sovereignty to an Iraqi Interim Government (IIG). We are ten days to sovereignty. This step will be the most dramatic to date in a series of planned moves towards more democratic and representative government in Iraq. Since the elimination of the brutal Hussein regime, which terrorized and abused the Iraqi people for decades, significant changes have taken place, helping to put the country on a path to democracy, respect for human rights and economic prosperity. About 33,000 secondary school teachers and 3,000 supervisors have been trained as part of an effort to upgrade the quality of education and level of learning in Iraq. Nearly 2,000 schools have been rehabilitated and an additional 1,200 schools are expected to be completed by the end of the year. New textbooks are also being developed and utilized. No more government mandates for indoctrinating, inciting hatred or demonizing Americans, the West, or Jewish people through the use of school books. Last month, the first of several planned sewer treatment plants came online, ushering in a new era of sanitation and public health in an area rife with disease. On the technology side, the total number of telephone subscribers in Iraq is now over 1.2 million, which includes 429,000 cell phone subscribers--representing a 45% improvement above pre-war levels. And, Iraqis want to be the business leaders in their new country. Already, 2,500 micro-credit clients have applied and received small business loans to help them build a free economy with robust industry. It is important to note that inflation is dropping, and the New Iraqi Dinar has been stable for the three months since its introduction. This progress has not come without great cost and sacrifice. Thousands of American families have lost irreplaceable time with their loved ones as they serve the cause of freedom in Iraq. Some American heroes have not and will not return home. We mourn their loss. For those who served, a grateful Nation must ensure those returning get world class healthcare and the compensation to which they are entitled. After June 30th, other milestones will be marked. Democratically held elections will be conducted in January 2005 to create a National Assembly. This representative body will craft a permanent constitution to strengthen and replace the transitional administrative law (TAL). The Iraqi people will then vote up or down in a national referendum for or against their own constitution. By the end of 2005, if all goes according to plan, the first democratically elected Iraqi government in history will take office. President Bush put it very succinctly during his speech before the Army War College, when he said: ``The rise of a free and self-governing Iraq will deny terrorists a base of operation, discredit their narrow ideology, and give momentum to reformers across the region. This will be a decisive blow to terrorism at the heart of its power, and a victory for the security of America and the civilized world.'' The people in Iraq--like people everywhere--want to live free. And among the many reasons why democracy has a chance to succeed in Iraq-- although success is not assured--is because the United States is not in Iraq as an imperial power. We do not seek to permanently occupy Iraq. Far from it. Our mission is clear: to liberate Iraq from tyranny. Thus, it is absolutely at the heart of America's interests to see Iraq's new sovereign government succeed in establishing law and order in a just and democratic manner. Iraqis are a justifiably proud people with an ancient and rich history and culture. Like many other people, they are patriotic and do not like to see their country occupied by any foreign power, no matter how ostensibly helpful they try to be. The Germans and Japanese were undoubtedly relieved when the Allies formally returned sovereignty to their people. Although U.S. troops remained in each country in large numbers for decades, the former Axis nations truly thrived only after it became clear to the great majority of people that they faced a choice: they could either roll up their sleeves and get to work rebuilding their war-torn nation, or they could look backwards and remain in a miserable state. Today, Iraqis essentially face the same choice. If they keep focused on the task at hand--rebuilding their shattered country's infrastructure and creating jobs--they too can crate an economic boom similar to that experienced by Japan and Germany. We must not forget that rebuilding Germany, Japan, Italy after World War II was not easy. Democratic traditions take time to set roots. Italy's political system was not stable throughout almost the entirety of the Cold War. Japan essentially had one-party rule until recently. All three nations faced many upheavals and set backs along the way. But like the three defeated Axis powers, Iraq will also have the benefit of extensive international economic and financial assistance in rebuilding. Unlike an imperial power, when a nation is militarily liberated by the United States, we are willing to put our resources, technologies and willpower to work for democracy. Our enemies are well aware that the return of real and meaningful sovereignty to Iraqis will undercut one of their chief recruiting justifications--the occupation. That is why we have seen a decrease in terrorist attacks against U.S. and Coalition troops, and more of a focus against foreign contractor personnel and Iraqis involved in their new government. The terrorists are increasingly targeting new regime officials, police recruiting stations, and personnel involved in development programs. The terrorists and insurgents understand--perhaps better than the U.S. news media--that if the new Interim Iraqi Government headed by Prime Minister Ayad Allawi and President Sheikh Ghazi Al-Yawar succeeds, the terrorists will be defeated. If Iraqis establish enough basic security to allow for the systematic rebuilding of Iraq's destroyed infrastructure, and commerce and prosperity return to Iraq, the moral swamps from which disaffected young Iraqi men are recruited by insurgents, will dry up. And as democratic traditions and tolerance begin to take root, and the social and economic status of women are uplifted, the appeal of radical misinterpretations of Islam will also diminish. It is not an accident that Wahabbism and other forms of militant Islam flourish in conditions of chaos, in failed states, in places of misery and suffering, and in communities where women are seen as less than second class citizens. Our task in Iraq is to make sure these conditions never return, and are instead replaced by prosperity, freedom, and tolerance. When, over time, democracy takes hold in Iraq, other Muslims throughout the region will be able to use the experience of Iraq to refute the arguments of repressive regimes in the Muslim world who justify their corrupt and brutal regimes by saying that there is no other way. But there is another way. A better way. We need to stick by the side of those brave Iraqis who want to create a free, open and democratic society in Iraq and are willing to risk their lives in order to do it.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, Ronald Reagan was great world leader with a fierce devotion to freedom, democracy, and the sacredness of human life--including the unborn. He advocated peace through strength and played a major role in dismantling Soviet Communism which he rightly called the evil empire and stopped its extension into Latin America and elsewhere. I remember some of his critics laughing when he challenged Gorbachev in Berlin to ``tear down this wall.'' They're not laughing any more. Ronald Reagan championed the 1981 tax cut--the largest tax cut in history--totaling $750 billion by 1986. All wage earners--low, moderate and upper income levels--got a 25 percent across-the-board cut in personal income taxes. Long term capital gains were also cut and the results were stunning--19 million new jobs created as Americans began to believe and hope again. Ronald Reagan was strongly pro-life and fervently believed that women deserved better than abortion and that unborn children are precious and deserve respect. Having been elected to Congress in 1980 along with President Reagan, I saw firsthand and often how genuine he was. He was a man of abiding principle who inspired our Nation to greatness, always believing America's best years lay ahead. He endured personal hardship--including an assassination attempt-- with incredible poise, dignity, and even humor. Who can forget President Reagan telling Nancy after he was shot, I forgot to duck. President Reagan will be missed, but his legend will endure.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for yielding me this time. I want to thank, first of all, the sponsor of the resolution, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), for a very eloquent statement, and my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for his very eloquent statement and for a long-standing commitment to human rights in China, as well as everywhere else in the world where those rights are abridged. I just want to make a couple of points very briefly. I would hope that every Member, and I am sure they will by the time this is voted upon with a recorded vote, probably tomorrow, to read, those who have not read the full text. And I commend the maker of this resolution, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), for being so comprehensive not just in the whereases but in the operative clauses. He mentioned, I think a moment ago, about the Tiananmen mothers. They sent videos to Geneva to the U.N. Human Rights Commission. And because they presented a video to those who were there supposedly gathering information about human rights abuses anywhere and everywhere in the world where there is abuse, for that these Tiananmen mothers were not only arrested, and were subsequently, we understand, let go, but they now are being watched. These are the mothers who have lost loved ones, sons or daughters, in Tiananmen Square and the days that followed. And the burden they carry having lost their loved ones is only exacerbated by the cruelty of the mothers now being harassed by the dictatorship in Beijing. The resolution also calls for the release of Dr. Yang Jianli, another veteran of the Tiananmen Square protest of 1989, who has been illegally detained in China for over 2 years, so that he may be reunited with his wife and two children in the United States. It is time to let Dr. Yang go, and I hope that the Chinese get that message very, very quickly from what I hope will be a very bipartisan support for this resolution. It also calls upon nations participating in the 2008 Olympics to use the opportunities created by the games to urge China to fully comply with the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. I would remind my colleagues that when the Chinese wanted the Olympics 2000, they let out some very prominent dissidents, including Wei Jingsheng. I happened to be in Beijing on a human rights trip when he was let out. I met with him. When they did not get the Olympics, they went back and rearrested him and put him back into the Laogai and into the gulag in China. A very cynical approach. This time they got the Olympics, and they did nothing whatsoever to deserve them. So, hopefully, the venue of the 2008 Olympics will be used by those who care about human dignity and human rights to raise these issues very substantively. There is also the issue of asking for the establishment of a June 4 investigation committee. There has been an absolutely absurd whitewash of what happened the day of June 4 and the days that subsequently followed as a result of the Tiananmen Square massacre and all of the killings that occurred afterwards. The Chinese Government has made part of their three noes, or nonmentionables, the idea you cannot even mention Tiananmen Square; and if you do, you will suffer their brutality. This is a very, very important resolution. Again, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for his graciousness in yielding this additional time to me. We have no further speakers, and I yield back to the gentleman.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 655) condemning the crackdown on democracy protestors in Tiananmen Square, Beijing, in the People's Republic of China on the 15th anniversary of that tragic massacre.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments and for her leadership on this, and the prime sponsor of this resolution, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox). The Cox-Pelosi resolution before us is extremely important and very timely. Mr. Speaker, in December of 1996 here in Washington, at the invitation of President Bill Clinton, General Chi Haotian, the Defense Minister of the People's Republic of China, the general who was the operational commander of the soldiers who slaughtered pro-democracy demonstrators in and around Tiananmen Square in June of 1989, said, ``Not a single person lost his life in Tiananmen Square.'' According to General Chi, the Chinese Army did nothing more violent than, and I quote him, ``pushing of people.'' General Chi not only met with Mr. Clinton in the White House but was accorded full military honors, including a 19-gun salute and visits to military bases. Rather than getting the red carpet, Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully submit that General Chi should have been held to account for his crimes against humanity. Mr. Speaker, to counter the big lie that he proffered right here in Washington, D.C., I quickly put together and chaired a hearing of eyewitnesses to Tiananmen Square, to the massacre, including several Chinese, a former editor of the People's Daily, and Time Magazine's Beijing bureau chief. We also invited General Chi or anyone else to testify before our committee from the government of China. They were no shows, although we left a chair for them. One of our witnesses, a man by the name of Xuecan Wu, the former editor of the People's Daily, was singled out by Li Peng for punishment and got 4 years in prison for trying to tell the truth to his readers in Beijing. Mr. Wu called General Chi's lie about no one being killed ``shameless'' and told my subcommittee that he personally saw at least, and I quote him here, ``at least 30 carts carrying dead and wounded people.'' Eyewitness Jian-Ki Yang, Vice President of the Alliance for a Democratic China, testified, and I quote, ``I saw trucks of soldiers who got out and started firing automatic weapons at the people. Each time they fired the weapons, three or four people were hit, and each time the crowd went down to the ground. We were there for about an hour and a half. I saw 13 people killed. We saw four tanks coming from the square, and they were going very fast at a very high speed. The two tanks in front were chasing students.'' Imagine that, Mr. Speaker, tanks chasing students. He went on to say, ``They ran over the students. Everyone was screaming. We counted 11 bodies.'' Mr. Speaker, Time Magazine's David Aikman, another eyewitness said, and I quote, ``Children were killed holding hands with their mothers. A 9-year-old boy was shot seven or eight times in the back, and his parents placed the corpse on a truck and drove through the streets of northwest Beijing on Sunday morning. `This is what the government has done,' the distraught mother kept telling crowds of passersby through a makeshift speaker system.'' Mr. Aikman went on to say in his testimony that ``officials at the Chinese Red Cross reported 2,600 people dead, but then they too were ordered to keep silent and to deny that they had ever given out such figures.'' Today, Mr. Speaker, 15 years after Tiananmen Square, after a brutal massacre, the Chinese government perpetuates General Chi's Orwellian fabrication that no one died. It is now clear that thousands died and approximately 7,000 were wounded. Fifteen years after Tiananmen Square, some 2,000 people remain incarcerated for peacefully advocating human rights. To be jailed by the Chinese, as we all know, means torture, humiliation, and severe deprivations. Mr. Speaker, in the early 1990s, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and I visited Beijing Prison Number 1, a bleak gulag where 40 Tiananmen Square prisoners were being unjustly detained. We saw firsthand the price paid by brave and tenacious individuals for peacefully petitioning their government for freedom. And it was not pretty. They looked like the walking skeletons of Auschwitz. Mr. Speaker, we do not know how many of those are still languishing in prison. Some, perhaps all of them, are still there; but of the 20,000 originally arrested and detained, like I said, approximately 2,000 continue in the gulags and in the Laogai of China. Mr. Speaker, let me say that, despite the hopes and expectation of some that robust trade with China would usher in at least a modicum of respect for human rights and fundamental liberties, the simple fact of the matter is that the dictatorship in China oppresses, tortures and mistreats millions of its own citizens. Moreover, China is the land of the one-child-per-couple policy, a barbaric policy that makes brothers and sisters illegal. Forced abortion, force sterilization and ruinous fines are routinely deployed to ensure compliance with this Draconian and utterly cruel family planning policy. Mr. Speaker, according to the U.S. Department of State, the government's human rights record remains poor. They start off with that in this year's report. And the government continues, the State Department goes on to say, to commit numerous and serious abuses. The Country Reports of Human Rights Practices also went on to say that there was backsliding. It was already bad and now it is even getting worse, and the word backsliding was used. And abuses including killing, torture, mistreatment of prisoners and forced confessions are among those that have gotten worse. Finally, let me say in April the Chinese government openly gloated over the defeat once again of a U.S.-sponsored resolution at the U.N. Human Rights Commission. I would say parenthetically, given the makeup of the Commission, the outcome came as no surprise. Rogue nations proliferate and are all over that Commission. They make a beeline for that Commission to mitigate human rights adherence and enforcement and bringing rogue nations to confront these abuses. In one stunningly absurd statement, Chinese Ambassador Sha Zukang said the U.S. proposal and the resolution was done out of, and this is his words, ``disappointment and jealousy.'' I would just like to say to the Chinese government and to Ambassador Sha Zukang, we proposed it because we care and we are in solidarity with the oppressed and we want to hold the oppressor to account. Disappointment and jealousy? I do not think so. This is all about trying to help those who are under the cruel boot of the Chinese dictatorship. Mr. Speaker, I participated in the meetings in Geneva, and I confronted the Chinese leadership in an open forum. I have to say they were amazingly inept, and they were unprofessional. All they could do during the course of the debate was to deny, to deny, and to deny and to question our motives. And then, when things were not going well for them, they abruptly ended the meeting. Mr. Speaker, someday the good and honorable people of China will live in freedom; and I believe the martyrs of Tiananmen who have suffered unspeakable horrors at the hands of a government and were jailed and were wounded and murdered will be even more revered and honored for their sacrifice than they are today. This resolution honors those courageous champions of freedom and democracy. I urge its passage. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the chairman of the Select Committee on Homeland Security. He is the prime sponsor of this resolution, and we appreciate his leadership on this issue and on human rights in China.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4060) to amend the Peace Corps Act to establish an Ombudsman and an Office of Safety and Security of the Peace Corps, and for other purposes.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill under consideration.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for managing the bill for the Democrats and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for his work in crafting this legislation. I especially want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for authoring this very important piece of legislation to make sure to the greatest extent possible that U.S. professionals--of all ages--who are deployed abroad as part of the Peace Corps, one of the finest U.S. initiatives ever created, get the best possible protection and security. We need to provide them protection, that is second to none, so that they can be safe and secure. Obviously, when people are deployed to dangerous areas, there are risks that are associated with that commitment. Still, it is up to this Congress, the State Department, and the administration, to ensure that no stone is left unturned in trying to make sure that Peace Corps volunteers are safe and secure in that environment No bill comes to this floor without a tremendous amount of work by very competent staff, and Peter Smith has helped to draft this legislation. I want to thank him especially for his fine work and his skill and expertise in drafting this bill, as well as Paul Oostburg for his work on it as well. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support H.R. 4060.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Health, Safety, and Security of Peace Corps Volunteers Act of 2004. The members of the Committee on International Relations received testimony in March at an important oversight hearing on the Peace Corps. We heard about some of the past problems and current problems the Peace Corps faces as it expands the number of volunteers around the world while at the same time taking into account the changed circumstances for American citizens living abroad during the post- September 11 period. I am a very strong, long-time supporter of the Peace Corps. My colleagues and I who are strong supporters of the Peace Corps admire the sacrifice and important work that these volunteers do. We want to ensure through this legislation that the Peace Corps has the necessary procedures in place to protect our Nation's sons and daughters, or parents and grandparents, who dedicate 2 years of their lives to improving the circumstances of the peoples of the developing world. Mr. Speaker, at the March hearing we inquired into the adequacy of safety and security practices that govern volunteer assignments in more dangerous places around the world. We found that in Bolivia in 2001 the Peace Corps did not have in place the necessary management procedures to monitor or to account for a missing volunteer named Walter Poirier. We learned that the Poirier family of Lowell, Massachusetts, had to notify the Peace Corps that their son was missing. We understand from the General Accounting Office that the Peace Corps has taken important steps to remedy some of these problems, but still there is room for improvement. H.R. 4060 is intended to prepare the Peace Corps for expansion in a more dangerous world. The bill makes a number of important changes to the Peace Corps Act. The legislation creates the position of ombudsman to receive and inquire into complaints, questions or concerns raised by current or former volunteers or employees regarding services or support provided by the Peace Corps. The legislation statutorily creates an Office of Safety and Security within the Peace Corps to be headed by an Associate Director for Safety and Security who shall be responsible for all safety and security activities of the Peace Corps. This bill requires a report on the medical screening procedures and guidelines used by the Peace Corps to determine whether an applicant is medically and psychologically qualified to serve in the Peace Corps as a volunteer. The legislation also requires a report by the Comptroller General on the ``5-year rule'' which was cited by the GAO in previous reports as one of the reasons for an unacceptably high degree of staff turnover and loss of institutional memory, especially on safety and security matters. The legislation also creates a more independent Inspector General of the Peace Corps, exempting that individual and the staff of the I.G. from the 5-year rule, and creating more accountable oversight by this committee through increased access to information from the I.G. on all matters relating to the management of the Peace Corps. Mr. Speaker, this legislation responds to the concerns addressed by our witnesses last week and also responds to the concerns raised by current and former volunteers who have contacted the committee to discuss their experience with the Peace Corps. I ask support for this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge all of my colleagues to support S.J. Res. 28, a resolution recognizing the sixtieth anniversary of the Allied landing at Normandy. Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues, this past weekend both my wife Marie and I joined with President Bush, former Senator Bob Dole and tens of thousands of veterans, many of them from the Second World War, as the new National World War II Memorial was dedicated. As Marie and I stood on the Mall, we were reminded of the valor and sacrifice of millions of American men and women who wore our Nation's uniform during this war, including my father, a combat Army veteran who saw horrific combat that began in New Guinea and ended in the Philippines, and my wife's father, who served with honor and distinction on the USS Canberra in the South Pacific. Several of our relatives saw combat during the Second World War, including Marie's uncle, Joseph Hahn, of the 29th Division, 116th Regiment, 121st Engineering Battalion, who hit the beaches on that historic day when the tides of war were turned in our favor. Corporal Hahn hit the beach on Omaha Beach on June 6, and he was part of that very courageous group of men who bravely fought their way through one of the most treacherous battlefields in history and made it to St. Lo on July 18th. Six weeks to advance about 30 miles underscores how bad that battle really was and how vociferous were the forces that were arrayed against them. But they prevailed! It occurred to me at the monument dedication Saturday, Mr. Speaker, that World War II could have had a different outcome and could have turned out differently. Nowhere is this more evident than the D-Day landings on June 6 of 1944. Many Americans look back upon D-Day and think that it was the inevitable beginning of Europe's liberation from the clutches of Nazi Germany. Yet, on June 6, 1944, failure was still possible. In fact, when we pause and consider the magnitude and the scale of such an enormously complicated military operation waged by multiple nations, it sometimes seems amazing that the operation ever succeeded. Historian Stephen Ambrose put the significance of this operation into perspective. He said, ``You can't exaggerate it. You can't overstate it. D-Day was the pivot point of the 20th century. It was the day on which the decision was made as to who was going to rule this world in the second half of the 20th century. Is it going to be Nazism, is it going to be Communism, or are the democracies going to prevail?'' He goes on to say, ``If we would have failed on Omaha Beach and on the other beaches on the 6th of June in 1944, the struggle for Europe would have been a struggle between Hitler and Stalin, and we would have been out of it.'' Mr. Speaker, it is worth noting that even General Dwight D. Eisenhower himself was not completely confident of victory. Prior to the launch of the great amphibious assault, he scribbled a note, a brief note about what he would say to the press in the event that the invasion failed, and he kept it in his wallet. While General Eisenhower had reasonable faith in his war plan, he was also fully cognizant of just how badly things could go awry in the fog of war, even if everything else had gone perfectly and went out on schedule. As we all know now, Mr. Speaker, as dawn broke on June 6, 1944, a great invasion force stood off the coast of Normandy awaiting the commencement of Operation Overlord. In all, there were nine battleships, 23 cruisers, 104 destroyers, and 71 large landing craft of various descriptions, as well as troop transports, mine sweepers, and merchantmen. Combined, these forces constituted nearly 5,000 ships of every type, the largest armada ever assembled. Allied air forces flew 11,000 sorties to provide air cover, bomb fortifications, and, most importantly, to pin down German tanks poised to drive any Allied beachhead back into the sea. As Operation Overlord continued, several of the Allied beach landings went relatively smoothly and according to plan. But at the beach code- named Omaha, many things seemed to go wrong all at once for the primarily American force. According to some estimates, barely one-third of the first wave of attackers ever reached dry land. Only sheer bravery and the monumental effort of human will posed against impossible odds carried the day at Omaha Beach. About 2,500 men were killed or wounded at Omaha Beach alone. By the end of D-Day, the total of dead and injured topped 9,000. The American share was about 6,500. Among the American airborne divisions, about 2,500 became casualties. Canadian forces experienced about 1,100 casualties, and another 3,000 British soldiers were killed or wounded. Approximately one-third of the casualties were killed in action. Despite the losses and the unspeakable hardship endured by so many, the invasion succeeded. More than 100,000 men and 10,000 vehicles came ashore that day, the first of millions who would join them and finally put an end to Nazi Germany. Mr. Speaker, our Nation must never take for granted the sacrifices that were made to liberate Europe and to preserve freedom. We must never forget the veterans who scaled the cliffs and stormed the beaches of Normandy against overwhelming odds. I urge all Members to strongly support this resolution.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim my Special Order speech at this time.