Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. It is my hope and expectation that the Secretary performs at least part of the demonstration project with contractors in New Jersey. The legislative text of section 822 leaves this choice up to the discretion of the Department of Defense, but can we count on the chairman's support to help us persuade DoD to include New Jersey in the demonstration project based on the fact that an investigation by our own U.S. attorney, Christopher Christie, resulted in the discovery of security violations and the arrests of illegal aliens who had access to several of our New Jersey bases?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from California, chairman of the Committee on Armed Services. I want to thank the gentleman for his support and leadership on a significant matter affecting the security of our Nation's military installations. Last year scores of undocumented workers were arrested at several DoD installations across the country, including New Jersey. In the post-9/11 world, we simply cannot afford to allow our contractors to hire undocumented and unskilled workers to work on military bases. As the gentleman knows, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), and I have worked together with him to address this problem. Section 822 of H.R. 4200 authorizes a demonstration project intended to provide incentives to contractors who have a meaningful and comprehensive skilled worker staffing plan to ensure all workers are properly documented. The provision, however, does not state the size or the location of the demonstration project.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman. I urge my colleagues to support this provision and to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4200.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time. Mr. Chairman, recently, Dr. Alveda King, niece of the late Dr. Martin Luther King, said about abortion, ``How can the dream survive if we murder the children?'' Dr. King, who has had an abortion herself but is now pro-life and bravely speaks out, went on to say, ``We can no longer sit idly by and allow this horrible spirit of murder to cut down, yes cut out and away our unborn. This is the day to choose life,'' she went on to say. ``We must live and allow our babies to live. If the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King is to live,'' Dr. King went on to say, ``our babies must live.'' Mr. Chairman, the Davis amendment turns Dr. Alveda King's dream, our babies must live, into a nightmare. The Davis amendment will force pro- life Americans to facilitate abortion and subsidize the slaughter of innocent children. Women deserve better than abortion, Mr. Chairman. The Davis amendment turns overseas military hospitals into abortion mills. This amendment comes on the heels of a new Zogby poll, I would just point out to my colleagues, that clearly shows a significant majority of Americans now reject abortion in most circumstances including women, 56 percent; African Americans, 62 percent; Hispanics, 79 percent; and young adults, 61 percent. Americans, Mr. Chairman, in ever growing numbers are finally, at long last coming to understand that abortion is violence against children and that abortion exploits and harms women. Americans, at long last, are shocked to learn that abortion methods dismember, mutilate, decapitate, and chemically poison the child. The debate on the violence of the partial-birth abortion has exposed the truth that abortion is child abuse in the extreme. Mr. Chairman, faced with the numbing reality of an abortionist jamming scissors into the brain of a partially born child so the brains could be sucked out, Americans have begun to connect the dots. They are now seeing that all abortion methods, not just partial-birth abortion, are cruel and all-too-common punishment against helpless and innocent babies. Mr. Chairman, reject this amendment, the Davis amendment, so that babies and their mothers will live.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin), and I thank him for his support on human rights in general and human rights in Vietnam in particular.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 378) calling on the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam to immediately and unconditionally release Father Thaddeus Nguyen Van Ly, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the chairman of the Select Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Government of Vietnam likes to say that Vietnam is a country, not a war. It is a catchy little self-evident phrase that some Members of Congress picked up during the bilateral trade agreement debate, as if to suggest that the debate was somehow about the Vietnam War, which it was not, instead of Vietnam's shameful present-day human rights record, which it was. Of course Vietnam is a country, to which I respond: behave like an honorable country. Live up to their word as a signatory to numerous human rights covenants, including the international covenant on political and civil rights. Stop bringing dishonor and shame to their government by abusing their own people. Mr. Speaker, according to the U.S. State Department report, the ``Report on Human Rights Practices for 2003'': ``The Government's human rights record remained poor, and it continued to commit serious abuses.'' Rather than repress and jail, harass, intimidate, and torture, the government should recognize and reflect the innate goodness of the Vietnamese people, a kind, gentle, compassionate people who deserve better, much better. Take the case of Father Ly. In February 2001, Father Thaddeus Nguyen Van Ly submitted written testimony to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom for a hearing at which he was invited to testify. He was not able to testify in person, but submitted written testimony which I will include in its entirety in the Record. Because this brave Catholic priest told the truth, spoke the truth to power, the Government of Vietnam persecuted and cruelly mistreated him; and he is now serving a 10-year prison sentence, and he has been in prison for 3 of those years. Amnesty International calls Father Ly a prisoner of conscience, and even the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has condemned his detention. I think it is worth focusing just for a moment on his testimony, which was incisive and compelling; and I quote it in part: ``Since their victory of April 30, 1975,'' Father Ly wrote, ``the Vietnamese Communists have extended its oppressive policy toward the different religions of South Vietnam. Laws and decrees have been promulgated to confine, restrict, or ban religious activities. The government has falsely accused clergy members and lay people as a pretext to detain and imprison those who protest its oppressive policy, or those who teach catechism, lead a church choir, or join a seminary. They have been banished to concentration camps for years. This policy has been ongoing,'' he writes, ``for nearly 50 years. ``The government has used many ruses,'' he continues to write, ``to divide and politicize the Cao Dai, Catholic and Protestant Churches; to split the Buddhist Church in two, the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam and the Buddhist Church of Vietnam; and to set up the puppet Hoa Hao Buddhist Committee of Representatives, which consists of mainly Communist cadres, to claim leadership over 5 million Hoa Hao Buddhists. The government has requisitioned for its arbitrary use numerous facilities and properties belonging to different Churches.'' Father Ly continues to write: ``With regard to the Catholic Church, the Communists have severely restricted her fundamental rights,'' and he points out and lays out some 10 different instances, including the fact that the government still keeps many priests, clergy members, and lay people in prison or under house arrest. Father Ly continues to say: ``Faced with this extremely cruel policy of the Vietnamese Communist Government to strangle religions, the Churches in Vietnam have unceasingly demanded religious freedom. Their nonviolent and persistent campaign will continue until the Vietnamese people have full religious freedom, which anyone else in the civilized world has.'' This campaign has, as he points out, the following objectives. This is number one. This is Father Ly's testimony: ``Number one: the government must fully respect the right of all citizens to true religious freedom and the right of churches to select, train and appoint their own priests, clergy members and dignitaries. The government must stop its practice of listing the religious affiliation of citizens on their identity cards and personal documents so that no citizen be discriminated against and be able to freely practice his or her faith. ``Number two,'' Father Ly writes: ``The government must return all facilities and properties it has confiscated or requisitioned from the churches, even when the documentary evidence of ownership was lost in the war if local people can confirm the rightful ownership of these facilities. ``Number three: the government must abandon the ruses and schemes it has used to oppress and destroy religions. Its interference in church affairs must cease. Committees created by the government but dressed up as religious institutions in order to serve the government's anti- religion policy must be disbanded. ``Number four: the government must unconditionally release all clergy members, priests, officials and dignitaries of the churches and lay people who are currently in prison or under administrative detention because of their faith. ``Number five: the government must fully respect every and each article of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, of which the Vietnamese Communist Government became a signatory on September 24, 1982.'' Finally, Father Ly writes, ``However, for as long as the Vietnamese Communists keep their dogmatic and totalitarian rule and disregard the fundamental freedoms of the people as I have presented above,'' he goes on to say, ``by trading with Vietnam the U.S. and other countries only strengthen the Communists' grips on power.'' Again, I would like his full statement read by Members, because it is a very strong and compelling bit of testimony. These are the words of Father Ly. He is now in prison 3 years of a 10-year prison term. The resolution we are considering today, Mr. Speaker, has over 100 cosponsors and I believe, we believe, will send a strong message to the leaders of Hanoi to free Father Ly and that the ongoing systematic abuses of human rights must cease and that they will not be tolerated. H. Con. Res. 378 also condemns, and this amendment we are offering with the language today, the brutal crackdown against the Montagnard. Largely ignored by the American press, Vietnam crushed thousands of Montagnard in the Central Highlands on April 10 and 11. In classic dictatorship style and brutality, many Montagnard, who were protesting the confiscation of tribal lands and ongoing restrictions on religious activities, were beaten and there are reports that some were killed. This comes on the heels of another brutal crackdown against the Montagnard in December of 2001 that has resulted in the closing of over 400 churches. I would just point out to my colleagues that there are also attempts to coerce people to renounce their faith, renunciation of faith. According to Ambassador John Hanford, our Ambassador At Large For Religious Freedom, there are approximately 100,000 Montagnards who were pressured to renounce their faith. I am happy to say that most resisted, but 100,000 within the last few months and years have been pressured to say ``no'' to their faith in Christ. H. Con. Res. 378 also urges the government of Vietnam to allow unfettered access to the Central Highlands, where all of this is going on, by foreign diplomats, the international press and nongovernmental organizations, and condemns the extent of the violence used against, as I said, the Montagnard protestors. Mr. Speaker, finally, human rights have gotten worse, not better, since the Bilateral Trade Agreement with Vietnam of 2001. We must not remain silent while the government of Vietnam continues to persecute religious and political dissidents and ethnic minorities. As a matter of fact, I believe strongly that Vietnam should be branded a Country of Particular Concern, a CPC country, pursuant to the provisions of the International Religious Freedom Act. We care deeply, Democrats and Republicans, Mr. Speaker. We care deeply about the people of Vietnam and respect and honor their legitimate aspirations to be free. Why does not Hanoi? Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the written testimony of Reverend Thaddeus Nguyen Van Ly before the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. Testimony of Rev. Thaddeus Nguyen Van Ly Ladies and gentlemen, it is a great honor to be perhaps the first Vietnamese Roman Catholic priest living under a communist regime to testify before your Commission at a location that represents the ideals of democracy. I would like to send my greetings of the New Millennium to you and to the people of the United States. In the opening statement of the Declaration of Independence of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam on September 2, 1945, Ho Chi Minh tried to win your nation's support by solemnly quoting the second paragraph of Declaration of Independence of the United States: ``All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'' In less than 250 years since her independence, your country has become the shining example of freedom and independence-- anyone who wants to know what freedom and independence are only needs to visit your country and her people. As an eyewitness living in Communist Vietnam for more than 25 years, I would like to boldly and frankly present my ideas on three issues as your invitation letter has suggested. i. the realities of the religions in vietnam in the new millennium In order to achieve independence, liberty and happiness for the Vietnamese people, Ho Chi Minh chose Communism. This is a fundamental contradiction because Communism calls for a dictatorial regime that does not tolerate the concept of true liberty. Freedom of religion will be absent for as long as the Vietnamese government hangs on to its Communist ideology. Since their victory of April 30, 1975, the Vietnamese Communists have extended its oppressive policy toward the different religions to South Vietnam. Laws and decrees have been promulgated to confine, restrict, or ban religious activities. The government has falsely accused clergy members and lay people as a pretext to detain and imprison those who protest its oppressive policy, or those who teach catechism, lead a church choir, or join a seminary. They are banished to concentration camps for years. This policy has been on-going for nearly 50 years (from 1954 to 2001). The government has used many ruses to divide and politicize the Cao Dai, Catholic and Protestant Churches; to split the Buddhist Church in two--the United Buddhist Church of Vietnam (UBCV) and the Buddhist Church of Vietnam (BCV); and to set up the puppet Hoa Hao Buddhist Committee of Representatives, which consists of mainly Communist cadres, to claim leadership over five million Hoa Hoa Buddhists. The government has requisitioned for its arbitrary use numerous facilities and properties belonging to the different Churches. With regard to the Catholic Church, the communists have severely restricted her fundamental rights. The many petitions issued by the Catholic Bishops Conference of Vietnam (CBCV) since 1980 have unmasked the Government's policy. This I have analyzed in my Ten-Point Proclamation released on November 24, 1994 and the follow-up proclamation dated November 24, 2000, which I have sent to your Commission. Following is the summary of the points made in those two statements. 1. The Vietnamese Communists have brutally interfered with CBCV's authority to organize its annual Pastoral Assembly: the Bishops must apply for permission to organize and the Assembly's agenda must be pre-examined by the Government. After the Assembly, the minutes must be submitted to the Government. All reports from the Assembly must be vetted by the Government before they can be released to the Catholic community and the public. 2. The Vietnamese communists have brutally interfered with CBCV's authority to appoint bishops and ordain of priests. The Holy See had to negotiate with the Vietnamese Government for years on each bishop appointment. The Government often rejects candidates selected by the Church and only accepts those they are pleased with. The Government counts on The Vatican having to yield eventually so as to prevent excessive harm to dioceses facing extended absence of a bishop. The dioceses of Hung Hoa, Hai Phong, and Bui Chu . . . have not had a bishop for more than eight years and The Vatican is not allowed to appoint any. Anyone intending to join a seminary of any candidate for priesthood elected by the Church must have the approval of and their background examined by the Public Security Police. These candidates must prove their docility and show no sign of resisting the regime. The police give special preference to those agreeing to serve as informants for the Government within the seminary. An applicant's chance would increase if he can afford to bribe the authorities. Applicants having family members who worked for defunct Republic of Vietnam or holding nonconformist views stand no chance of being approved for admission into a seminary or priesthood regardless of their qualifications and moral virtues and regardless of the Church's support. I know many young men who have repeatedly passed the Church-administered entrance exam with top scores but have not been approved for admission into any seminary. Any bishop intending to ordain a seminarian into priesthood or to assign a priest to a mission must ask for permission and negotiate with the Government in a protracted process, which in some cases has taken nearly 20 years without results. The approval criteria imposed by the Government has nothing to do with the moral quality that the Church requires of candidates for priesthood. As a result, the number of newly ordained priests has drastically decreased and is currently insufficient to meet the Church's pastoral needs. Aging priests die or retire without successors. Many priests in rural regions have to minister more than ten parishes, all distant from each other. There is hardly normal religious life in these parishes. It is very difficult for priests to change their residence for new assignments. 3. Groups of faithful in new economic zones or in remote areas are anxious to have mass for Christmas and Easter each year but their most basic spiritual need is rarely met. The atheist Government wants these people not to think of religion, which it considers harmful and dangerous. 4. A Mass that brings together the faithful from different places and priests desiring to say mass in places other than their usual assigned location must have prior government permission. 5. The Government still keeps many priests, clergy members, and lay people in prison or under house arrest. (Committee for Religious Freedom in Vietnam has made this list available to your Commission.) 6. The Government brutally violates the Church's freedom of the press. No local or national publication of the Church is allowed. As a result, The Church cannot fulfill its evangelical duties. Before 1975, there were more than a dozen Catholic newspapers and magazines in South Vietnam. Today there are only two weekly magazines, Cong Giao & Dan Toc (The Catholics & The People) and Nguoi Cong Giao Viet Nam (The Vietnamese Catholics), which are created and financed by the Government. CBCV's only publication is the newsletter Ban Tin Hiep Thong (The Communion News), of which the first six issues were ``illegal.'' The Government gave the Church temporary permission to publish issues 7-9 from February to September 2000. In October 2000, the government rescinded its permission and discontinued this only publication of The Church. There is no freedom of speech in my country. Churches of course have none. This kind of statement that I am presenting to you cannot be circulated in Vietnam because no photocopying store or printing shop would dare to reproduce it. Nobody dares to keep it, fearing for his own life and the safety of his family. Those who dare must be prepared for martyrdom. In fact, on February 7 the public security police searched two of my assistants and found a floppy disk containing a draft of this statement. These two brave young men were detained overnight at the police station for extensive questioning. 7. The Government forces all students from all grades and in college to study and love Socialism while in fact nobody likes to teach or study it. Only the three million communist party members and the five million members of the Communist League of Youth should study this ideology if they still believe in it. Forcing the entire Vietnamese nation to study a bankrupt ideology that has caused them so much suffering is outright unconscionable. 8. The Communist Government has, since 1954 in North Vietnam and since 1975 in South Vietnam, seized or requisitioned thousands upon thousands of Church facilities used for education, charity, and medical service. Consequently the Church has no means to train seminarians, providing education and human services to the poor, the sick, the handicapped and the orphans, and it is extremely difficult for Church members to deliver service in a government facility. For example, the Pius X Papal Institute in Da Lat, run by the Jesuits, had been an outstanding college for priesthood formation until its confiscation in 1976 by the Government, which turned it into a training school for Communist cadres. The Hoan Thien Minor Seminary at 11 Dong Da, Hue, offering high school-level training to seminarians, was taken by force by the Government in December 1979; all three priests teaching at the seminary and more than 80 seminarians were evicted. These are but a few examples. Faced with this extremely cruel policy of the Vietnamese Communist Government to strangle religions, the Churches in Vietnam have unceasingly demanded religious freedom. Their non-violent and persistent campaign will continue until the Vietnamese people have full religious freedom, which anyone else in the civilized world has. This campaign has the following objectives. 1. The Government must fully respect the right of all citizens to true religious freedom and the right of Churches to select, train, and appoint their own priests, clergy members and dignitaries. The Government must stop its practice of listing the religious affiliation of citizens on their identity cards and personal documents so that no citizen will be discriminated against and be able to freely practice his or her faith. 2. The Government must return all facilities and properties it has confiscated or requisitioned from the Churches, even when documentary evidence of ownership was lost in the war if local people can confirm the rightful owner of these facilities and properties. 3. The Government must abandon the ruses and schemes it has used to oppress and destroy religions. Its interference in Church affairs must cease. Committees created by the government but dressed up as religious institutions in order to serve the Government's antireligion policy must be disbanded. 4. The Government must unconditionally release all clergy members, priests, officials and dignitaries of the Churches and lay people who are currently in prison or under administrative detention because of their faith. 5. The Government must fully respect every and each article of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, of which the Vietnamese Communist Government became a signatory on September 24, 1982. ii. effects of the bilateral trade agreement on human rights and religious freedom in vietnam I am only a priest, not a specialist in economics and politics. I speak as a Vietnamese citizen with a deep love for my country and my people. Vietnam needs the Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) for her economic development. In principle I dearly want my country to have the trust of other countries, among them the United States, so that my country may achieve prosperity and my people may have a better life and fully realize their potentials. However, for as long as the Vietnamese Communists keep their dogmatic and totalitarian rule and disregard the fundamental freedoms of the people as I have presented above, by trading with Vietnam the United States and other countries would only strengthen the Communists' grips on power; the BTA may end up benefiting only the governing minority while prolonging the suffering of the entire people; the vast majority of the common people like us may at best receive small crumbs trickling down from the top but in return must endure our fate of the exploited and disenfranchised for so much longer. In regard to the ratification of the BTA, I urgently warn the US Congress not to trust the Vietnamese Communists' promise of good faith. The United States and many other countries have had bitter experiences dealing with their broken promises in the past. The Vietnamese Communists have signed many international accords and agreements on human rights but have never intended to respect them. Their intention is to deceive the international community. For example, Vietnam became signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1982 but does not abide by Articles 18 and 19 of this covenant which call for the respect for the freedoms of thought, speech, and religion. If international human rights institutions allow themselves to fall victim to such deception, they will contribute to the following dire consequences: (1) the Vietnamese Government will exploit their signing the document to falsely claim that there are human rights in Vietnam; (2) these international institutions will lose their credibility as they prove to be so easily deceived; and (3) these institutions unknowingly prolong the Communist oppression of the Vietnamese people--this in fact constitutes a major crime against my people. Therefore, if the United States and other countries truly sympathize with my ill-fated people and truly care about human rights, especially the right to religious freedom, of the Vietnamese people, you must not help the Communist Government prolong its totalitarian rule. Instead, the United States and other countries should suspend all agreements harmful to the Vietnamese people and do everything in your capacity to put pressure on the Vietnamese Government to allow freedom and democracy to dawn on our country. iii. what can be done to help improve freedom of religion in Vietnam in the near term, and in the long term? The Vietnamese Communists have idolized Ho Chi Minh, turning him into a ``god'' and creating a new religion revolving around him. The Communist Government wants to suppress all other religions and replace them with this new religion in order to unify the Vietnamese people behind it. In fact, Ho Chi Minh had made significant contributions to our national struggle for independence but at the same time had committed serious crimes against the Vietnamese people. One basic endeavor that the international community needs to undertake is to unravel the harmful myths woven by the Communists around this historical figure. In the short term, the United States and other countries should help the Churches in Vietnam achieve greater independence from the government, should show by example how freedom of religion is respected in the free world, and should expose the oppression that the Vietnamese Government has imposed on the Churches. At first, the Vietnamese Communists may feel that such independence would clash with its totalitarian power but with time it may realize that the power to control and interfere with Church affairs, such as the appointment of priests, should have never been theirs to start with. The Vietnamese people will not enjoy religious freedom for as long as the Communist regime remains in place. Therefore if the United States and other countries truly desire to see the return of religious freedom to the Vietnamese people, they will need to create favorable conditions for the early demise of the Communist regime. Ladies and gentlemen, This is a precious opportunity to speak on behalf of my people, of the different Churches, and of the Catholic Church in particular. I would like to extend my gratitude to you, to the U.S. Congress, and the American people, including some two million Vietnamese-Americans, for having given me such an opportunity. May God bless you, your families, your colleagues, the American people, and your beautiful country. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

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 and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 378, the concurrent resolution just considered.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 91) recognizing the 60th anniversary of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, if I could finally thank the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud) for his sponsorship of this resolution. It is very timely and extremely appropriate. I thank him for his work on the subcommittee and, of course, thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), our ranking member, for all of his cooperation. We do things in partnership, and it is greatly appreciated, and I think the veterans benefit from that kind of bipartisanship. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons) made the point, and I think it was very well taken, about the great role the American Legion played in drafting this legislation. At the time, there was talk of maybe giving a $500 bonus to the returning GIs. Then out of the blue, pretty much, Harry Colmery, who was the American Legion National Commander in 1936, a World War I veteran, crafted, as the subcommittee chairman pointed out, on Mayflower stationery this fine concept and practically wrote the GI bill at the Mayflower Hotel. It was quickly grasped by Members of Congress and the President as an extraordinarily good idea, and it really did create the modern-day middle class. One of the things I do when I wear my international affairs hat, as chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, is to strongly encourage the Eastern European countries, the Russians and others, that if you want a stable middle class, this landmark legislation crafted by the American Legion, and certainly pushed through to completion by the Congress at the end of the world war, is the way to go. It is historic and truly landmark legislation that has profound positive implications and consequences. I think recognizing it the way we are today is very proper and fitting, and again I want to thank the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud) for that. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. 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 Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), the distinguished chairman of our Subcommittee on Health.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown), the distinguished chairman of our Subcommittee on Benefits.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, House Joint Resolution 91 would recognize the 60th anniversary of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, popularly known as the GI Bill of Rights, arguably America's most successful domestic program ever. In the decade following World War II, more than 2 million eligible men and women went to college using the GI Bill educational benefits. The result was an American workforce enriched by 450,000 engineers, 238,000 teachers, 91,000 scientists, 67,000 doctors, 22,000 dentists, and another 1 million college-educated men and women. It is estimated that another 5 million men and women received other schooling or job training on the GI Bill, helping to create the modern middle class. The original GI Bill exceeded all expectations and had enormous benefits beyond the immediate benefits given to our deserving war veterans. College enrollment grew dramatically in 1947. GI Bill enrollees accounted for almost half of the total college population, resulting in a need for more and larger colleges and universities. In New Jersey, Rutgers University saw its admissions grow from a pre-war high of 7,000 to almost 16,000 during the postwar decades. Mr. Speaker, economic philosopher Peter Drucker looking at the GI Bill's historical impact noted ``The GI Bill of Rights, and the enthusiastic response 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 the economy overall.'' In fact, Mr. Speaker, a Veterans Administration study in 1965 showed that due to the increased earning power of GI Bill college graduates, Federal Government income tax revenues rose by more than $1 billion annually; and in less than 20 years, the $14 billion cost of the original program had been recovered. Further, the home loan portion of the original GI Bill of Rights was so successful that it is credited with creating the suburbs in America. Before the GI Bill, the great majority of Americans were renters. Now, most Americans live in their own homes. Most importantly, the GI Bill transformed the working men and women of America, giving millions new opportunities they could only dream of before it was enacted. Mr. Speaker, building upon this success of the original GI Bill, Congress approved a second education bill known as the Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1952 during the Korean War, and then a third bill, the Veterans Readjustment Benefits Act of 1966 during the Vietnam War, and a fourth bill, the Veterans Educational Assistance Program for the post-Vietnam War era. Finally, in 1985, Congress approved today's Montgomery GI Bill, or the MGIB, which was designed not only to help veterans transition into the workforce through education and training, but also to support the all-volunteer Armed Forces. All totaled, over 20 million men and women have used the VA educational benefits in the various programs since the first GI Bill in 1944. Furthermore, the use of educational benefits as a recruitment tool has been one of the most spectacularly successful of all tools given to our Nation's military recruiters. Mr. Speaker, when I was first elected chairman of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs in January of 2001, the GI Bill needed to be updated. As a result of inflation and rising higher education costs, the monthly educational benefit was estimated to cover less than two- thirds of what would be required for a veteran student to attend a 4- year public college as a commuter student. GI Bill utilization rates were down under 50 percent, as far too many veterans concluded they simply could not afford to attend college or job training programs using GI Bill benefits. With good, solid, bipartisan support in the House and Senate, along with a coalition of education and veterans leaders, I introduced the comprehensive legislation, H.R. 1291, the Veterans Education and Benefits Expansion Act of 2001, now Public Law 107-103, which dramatically increased Montgomery GI Bill benefits. Signed by President Bush in December of 2001, this legislation boosted the total lifetime Montgomery GI educational benefit from $24,192 in December of 2001 to $35,460 today, an increase of $11,268, which goes directly towards education and job training for qualified veterans. This number is about a 46 percent increase when it was phased in over 3 years. Already, the number of GI Bill users has risen dramatically by over 24,000 in the first full year of the higher benefit levels, from 289,894 in 2001 to 323,165 in 2002, an 11.5 percent increase after 3 years of declined usage. So in other words, it was going in the opposite direction in terms of utilization. That now has ratcheted upwards. In addition to benefit increases over the past 4 years, Congress has also made dozens of other improvements to the GI Bill program through 32 separate provisions of law, including accelerated GI Bill payments for short-term, intensive, high-technology courses; two major increases in chapter 35 benefits for veterans' surviving spouses and their dependents; protection against loss of GI benefits resulting from mobilizations and deployments; use of the GI Bill for entrepreneurship courses offered through the Small Business Development Centers; and use of benefits for licensing and credentialing. And, later this week, I am happy to say, Mr. Speaker, the Subcommittee on Benefits of the Committee on Veterans Affairs, chaired very admirably by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown), is poised to mark up H.R. 1716, the Veterans Earn and Learn Act, which I introduced along with my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), to modernize the VA's on-the-job training and apprenticeship programs. Mr. Speaker, the late author Michael J. Bennett in his book, ``The GI Bill and the Making of Modern America'' wrote: ``The GI Bill was the legislation that made the United States the first overwhelmingly middle-class Nation in the world. It was the law that worked, the law whose unexpected consequences were even more than its intended purposes.'' I am pleased to join with the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud), the prime sponsor of this resolution, and many others in writing this resolution, and I strongly encourage all of my colleagues to support it. Let us have all of America celebrate a remarkable legacy that continues to give, a legacy given to us by the visionaries who crafted it, and the World War II veterans who converted its opportunities into the American dream. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the Washington Post recently published a very interesting and revealing story by Peter Baker that describes how the authoritarian government of Uzbekistan has allowed a personal family dispute with an American citizen from New Jersey to spill over into the realms of international diplomacy. The problem has gotten so bad that the government of Uzbekistan is now abusing one of the most important international institutions used to fight crime and apprehend terrorists--the Interpol Red Notice system. Mr. Mansur Maqsudi is an American citizen who lives in New Jersey. Shortly after Mr. Maqsudi asked his wife Gulnora Karimova--who happens to be the daughter of Uzbekistan President Islam Karimov--for a divorce in July of 2002, she left their home in New Jersey to Uzbekistan and illegally brought along their two young children (both of whom are American citizens). In defiance of a U.S. custody order and a U.S. arrest warrant against Ms. Karimova, Mr. Maqsudi has been denied the right to visit his children for more than 2\1/2\ years. The vendetta waged by the Government of Uzbekistan against this American citizen has grown into far more than a mere child-custody dispute. Three of Mansur's family relatives in Uzbekistan were--and still are--imprisoned on nebulous charges. Despite their eligibility for a general amnesty, they remain in captivity. Twenty-four other relatives were deported from Uzbekistan at gunpoint in the middle of the night in the dead of winter into a war zone in Afghanistan. Then his family's businesses in Tashkent were expropriated and seized without just compensation (or any compensation in some cases). Flimsy criminal charges were then filed against him, his brother, and his father (all of whom are American citizens). Most outside observers of Uzbek politics, including the U.S. State Department in testimony before Congress, have concluded that these charges were political and not supported with valid evidence. The Uzbek government then placed all three U.S. citizens on the Interpol Red Notice list. Fortunately, the U.S. Government has studied these cases and decided not to act on any of them because the evidence was so weak. However, when any of those listed travels abroad, they are subjected to the risk of arrest and even possible extradition to Uzbekistan. Instead of focusing law enforcement efforts on apprehending real criminals and terrorists, the bogus Red Notices issued by Uzbekistan are now diverting scarce police attention towards the furtherance of a personal family feud. This is an outrage, Mr. Speaker. I urge the Executive Branch of our Government to make it clear to Uzbek President Karimov that his country's status as an ally in the War against Terror does not give him carte blanche to totally disregard the 2002 bilateral agreement between the United States and Uzbekistan and abuse the rights of American citizens. The Interpol Red Notice system is a critical element in the War on Terrorism. And yet here, the Government of Uzbekistan is pulling at the loose threads which make up the fabric of an entire international system that has worked well for years. The end result of Uzbekistan's actions will cause more governments around the world to question the legitimacy of other countries' Red Notice submissions. Countries will now have to decide which arrest warrants to obey, and which warrants to ignore. To the extent that member countries fill the system with garbage warrants that are purely political and violate Article 3 of the Interpol Constitution, it undermines the respect and reciprocity that are at the very heart of Interpol's effectiveness. Interpol is far too important in the fight against drug traffickers, terrorists, and criminals to allow it to be undermined by autocratic regimes who want to harass their political and personal enemies around the world. I believe the issues at stake in this family dispute go way beyond child custody and divorce. The very heart of a major international institution that is vital to the War on Terrorism is being openly challenged. Nations that flagrantly violate Article 3 of the Interpol Constitution--like Uzbekistan is doing in this particular case--need to pay some kind of diplomatic penalty for doing so. If countries can undermine Interpol at will and without penalty, reproach, or criticism, what is to prevent the system from being flooded with political Red Notices issued by repressive regimes against their enemies? How do we avoid nations refusing to honor each others' requests? [From the Washington Post, Apr. 13, 2004] Battle Royal--The Daughter of Uzbekistan's President Took Her Children and Ran, Opening a Custody War That Has Entangled Two New Allies (By Peter Baker) Moscow.--The day she left for good, she packed up her things and decamped from their New Jersey home with her two children, two nannies, two bodyguards and a driver. On a table she left a note for her husband. She mentioned an old movie playing on cable--``The War of the Roses,'' the 1989 dark comedy featuring Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner as hate-driven spouses whose divorce turns into an orgy of revenge. She jotted down the time the show would air and pointedly suggested he watch. Whether that was prophecy or threat, a war soon broke out. It turns out that divorcing Gulnora Karimova, known as ``the Uzbek princess,'' is no simple matter. Her father is Islam Karimov, president of Uzbekistan and autocrat nonpareil, who rules over a repressive Central Asian country where prisoners have been boiled alive. He also happens to be a key ally in America's war on terrorism. Karimova took the kids in 2001 and has been ducking an arrest warrant issued by a New Jersey judge ever since, hiding out in Moscow, where she knows officials won't cross her father. As for her husband, Mansur Maqsudi, an Afghan American businessman, he has learned the price of crossing his powerful father-in-law. Since Maqsudi and his wife split up, the Uzbek government has effectively taken away his Coca- Cola bottling plant, imprisoned three of his relatives and deported 24 more of them at gunpoint to war-torn Afghanistan. ``She said if I do divorce her she was going to destroy my family, destroy my business and make sure I could never see my kids,'' Maqsudi, 37, says by telephone from New Jersey. ``And if you look at it, that's exactly what happened.'' Karimova, 31, offers the mirror-opposite interpretation. She only stayed with Maqsudi so long, she says, because she feared he would use a breakup against her family politically. ``He said that it would be a huge scandal and all this would come to your father and his name would be abused,'' she says. ``I never want to disappoint my father.'' This tabloid drama threatens to complicate U.S. relations with its important new friend in a volatile region. The State Department, Justice Department, Internal Revenue Service, Interpol and various courts, embassies and congressional committees have all been drawn into the fray. Teams of American lobbyists have been recruited to fight the ground war. As New Jersey Superior Court Judge Deanne M. Wilson said at a court hearing last year, ``This is not just a garden- variety custody case.'' The allegations fly back and forth--kidnapping, tax evasion, forgery, smuggling, embezzlement, blackmail, money laundering and fraud. She accuses him of illegally selling Saddam Hussein's oil. He accuses her of shipping Uzbek girls to prostitution rings in Dubai. She describes him as a moralistic Muslim who once warned her she would burn in Hell for wearing a bikini. He depicts her as a spoiled rich girl who partied until the middle of the night, stumbling home drunk. ``It was a simple question of divorce,'' she says, in a considerable understatement, ``but it was politicized from the very beginning.'' No Fairy-Tale Romance She slips into the restaurant, statuesque and fashion-model thin, wearing boots a bit too stylish for the Russian snow and a skirt a bit too short for the Russian winter. Her bodyguard, tall and imposing, checks out the room in an instant, then discreetly disappears. She rarely does interviews. Only after months of negotiations brokered by her father's foreign minister does she finally agree to talk, in hopes of rebutting the most sensational allegations flying around Washington that can only hurt her father's ties with the world's only superpower. In person, Gulnora Karimova does not come across as the hardhearted, domineering figure her husband's partisans depict. ``That's not me,'' she insists over tea. Speaking softly, she presents herself as a Harvard-educated diplomat and businesswoman, albeit one with a black belt in karate. She tells the story of her marriage and its collapse from the standpoint of a hurt woman. The two met at her birthday party in Tashkent, the Uzbek capital, in July 1991. Karimova was turning 19. ``The world had just opened up for me,'' she recalls. ``I'd just graduated from school and started the university, and everything was sort of pink skies.'' Mansur Maqsudi was 24, an Afghan native who immigrated to the United States as a child and became a naturalized citizen. ``He was from a different world, he spoke a different language,'' she says. It wasn't much of a romance. They met in person only one other time before they got married, the night he asked for her hand. Maqsudi insisted their parents negotiate the marriage, she recalls, and declined at first to share a drink to celebrate. They married in Tashkent a month later, in November 1991, followed by a reception she now describes as ``quite boring.'' A week later, they went to New Jersey, where they married again. As she was starting a new life, so was her homeland. Uzbekistan was emerging from the wreckage of the Soviet Union as an independent state, and her father, the republic's Communist boss, made a seamless transition to president of the new nation within weeks of Karimova's wedding. An arid, cotton-producing country where Tamerlane once ruled a mighty empire, Uzbekistan with its 25 million people is the most populous and politically muscular of the five Central Asian states. Tashkent still feels Soviet, a well- ordered, uninspiring capital filled with drab, boxy apartment buildings and barely a taste of the dynamic new economy of far-away Moscow. Under President Karimov, it has also become a terrifying place for some people, particularly observant Muslims who eschew government-controlled mosques. While Gulnora Karimova was at Harvard in 1999, a radical group called the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan set off bombs in Tashkent that killed 16 people. Her father's secular government cracked down on political Islam, targeting even ordinary Muslims whose only crime appeared to be wearing a beard as a sign of faith. About 7,000 people remain in prison for political or religious beliefs, and often they are beaten, choked, raped and punished with electric shocks, according to the State Department's human rights report. A U.N. special rapporteur has concluded that ``torture or similar ill treatment is systematic.'' Human Rights Watch has found ``human rights abuses on a massive scale.'' At the notorious Jaslyk prison camp, built for religious prisoners in a desert where temperatures rise to 120 degrees, two men were submerged in boiling water and killed in 2002. The 62-year-old mother of one was arrested after protesting her son's death and sentenced to six years of hard labor for ``attempted encroachment on the constitutional order.'' After an international outcry, Uzbekistan released her in February just hours before a visit by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Rather than snuff out Islamic extremism, however, Karimov's tactics may have only radicalized more young Muslims. A series of suicide bombings and other attacks two weeks ago left 47 people dead, a wave of violence tied by the government to al Qaeda-trained Uzbeks. Karimova offers no apologies for her father. ``He came from the strong old system with his own views, with his own standpoint and with his own rules of the game. So you can argue about new vision, new ability, but he is a professional and I prefer to think about him as a professional,'' she says. ``Some people might like it, some people might not. But in the situation where we are geopolitically and geographically . . . you have to be strong to be able to rule.'' Meet the In-Laws The newlyweds split their time between New Jersey and the presidential residence in Tashkent. A year after the wedding they had a son, Islam, named for his grandfather. A few years later, a daughter, Iman, came along. Maqsudi's place in the presidential family certainly didn't hurt his expanding business empire. Soon he was running the lucrative Coca-Cola bottling factory in Uzbekistan as well as other enterprises. But from the beginning, there were problems with the in- laws. Two or three times a week, she says, they would go to his mother's house, where Karimova found traditional Afghan family life stultifying. ``It was really difficult because I was from a small family and used to more open relations, and in their family it's more like, if this one talks, you are not supposed to talk, that one is a relative of this relative, you are not supposed to speak with the aunt.'' At New Year's, the most festive holiday in former Soviet republics, the Maqsudis barely celebrated. ``They sat on the floor and ate on the floor,'' she says. When midnight came and no one got excited, ``I sat and cried next to the TV.'' If she found his family too quiet, he found hers too noisy. ``When you argued with him,'' Maqsudi says, referring to President Karimov, ``the loudest would win the argument. It wasn't about facts, it wasn't about arguments. It was about who could shout the loudest.'' As he describes it, the Karimovs were flush with power and money. In the office next to the president's bedroom, Maqsudi says, was a five-foot safe. He walked in once, Maqsudi says, and ``I saw the first lady sitting on the floor counting a lot of cash.'' During a trip to London, he says, Karimova decided to buy $230,000 worth of jewels. ``I told Gulnora this is very expensive,'' he says. ``She said she could buy them herself . . . She unzipped her bag and pulled out a few hundred thousands dollars, cash. I was shocked. I asked her, `Where did you get this?' She said, `Oh, it's from my mother.' '' For all the money, Karimova grew restless. ``I was crying nonstop,'' she says. ``Imagine, you sit all day alone, and with my very active life, when I used to go not just to the university but for languages, sport--I was dying.'' That's not how Maqsudi remembers it. ``She would come home at 3 in the morning, sometimes drunk. Sometimes she wouldn't remember where she was.'' Finally, she enrolled in Harvard for graduate studies on Central Asia. She says she had to persuade him to let her go back to school. He says he hoped ``it would have a positive impact'' and end her partying ways, but it didn't. They fought over other things. ``I was not supposed to swim in the pool with my son because I was in a separate swimming suit,'' she says, meaning a bikini. ``And he was, like, `If you ever enter this swimming pool, you are not my son. And she will be burnt [in Hell] and you be burnt.'. . . He would make my son swim in a T-shirt.'' Maqsudi angrily denies this. ``Was she drunk that morning when you saw her?'' he asks. ``Was she sober? Honestly, these comments are so ridiculous, they don't deserve a reply.'' He says he objected to his wife's skimpy swimwear only when the hired help was around. ``Gulnora was swimming with a G- string, not even a bathing suit, and these two bodyguards were lying there sunbathing.'' But he rejects the implication that he is a religious fundamentalist. To prove it, Maqsudi e-mails pictures of his son scampering around outside without a shirt and another showing his wife in a virtually see-through shirt, noting her visible nipples. ``I go to tailgate parties on Sundays to New York Jets football games,'' Maqsudi adds. ``That should cover that.'' In the summer of 2001, they were in Tashkent and preparing to head back to New Jersey, but the end was near. ``The last months we were completely leading our own lives,'' she says. ``It was clear that we were strangers by that time.'' ``That,'' he says, ``was when all hell broke loose.'' the breakup Maqsudi knew it was serious when his wife's bodyguards had him pinned against the wall. It was July and Karimova was furious. She had taken the children to Six Flags Great Adventure amusement park in New Jersey in a chauffeured car from the Uzbek U.N. delegation, only to discover at the ticket booth that her husband had canceled her credit cards. ``When I came back home, he was there having tea as always in a big room with a happy face looking at us,'' she recalls. ``I said that we could not carry on. That was the end.'' Maqsudi acknowledges suspending the credit cards. ``Every time Gulnora and I would have an argument, her retaliation--I guess she learned it from watching TV--she would put $20,000 to $30,000 in shopping charges on the credit cards.'' As the fight escalated, he says, her bodyguards blocked him from leaving. ``They had me cornered in a room and Gulnora was threatening, saying whatever she could at the time. She was throwing things around the room.'' He managed to bolt, spent the night at his mother's house and came home for a few hours the next morning to play with the children while Karimova slept. ``That was the last time I saw the kids,'' he says. A few hours later, she telephoned from the airport as she and the children were leaving the country. He says it was child abduction and a New Jersey court agrees. She denies it. ``He knew perfectly that I was leaving with the kids,'' she says. He considered her note about ``The War of the Roses'' a threat. She says she only meant they should avoid the craziness that consumed the movie characters. ``I wrote it with tears,'' she says. ``It was a very personal letter.'' Within days, Maqsudi's Afghan emigre family in Tashkent felt repercussions. A cousin and an uncle were arrested and thrown into prison. Maqsudi's businesses were raided, workers at his Coke plant harassed, the firms eventually confiscated. By October 2001, another uncle was behind bars. His parents were strip-searched at the airport. Then one night in December, security forces raided three family houses and rounded up 24 relatives at gunpoint, including Maqsudi's 85-year-old grandmother, an Uzbek citizen. The relatives, nearly all women and children, were driven 13 hours to the Afghan border and dumped on the other side. ``They said, `None of you will live in this country. This is our country,' '' Maqsudi says. Karimova denies any involvement and says that officials may have simply taken advantage of the moment because Maqsudi's family had long flouted passport requirements. ``Most of his relatives--and there were a lot of them--did not have proper papers,'' she says. If it were her choice, she added, ``I could have deported them later. I would have been much more sophisticated.'' Both of the estranged spouses went to court. An Uzbek judge granted Karimova a divorce, while a New Jersey jurist granted one to Maqsudi. Maqsudi faces arrest if he sets foot in Uzbekistan and Karimova if she sets foot in the United States. Since both warrants are filed with Interpol, neither can safely travel to Europe. ``A civilized divorce,'' Danny DeVito's character says in ``The War of the Roses,'' ``is a contradiction in terms.'' the larger relationship In recent months, both sides in the Uzbek divorce war have enlisted lobbyists and lawmakers in Washington to hurl charges and deflect countercharges. Karimova's camp accuses Maqsudi's firms of import-export shenanigans and various illegal practices. The most sensational allegation is that Maqsudi family companies snipped oil from Iraq while Saddam Hussein was in charge. One key witness for Karimova, however, was former Maqsudi employee Farhod Inogambaev, who has since fled Uzbekistan and recanted his statements. ``Everything was lies,'' he says now in an interview from New Jersey. After her separation from her husband, Karimova sent for him, Inogambaev says, and told him, ``Forget about Mansur. Now let's do business together.'' Afraid for his family, he says, he went to work for her. She sent over men to have him swear out affidavits against her estranged husband. ``I blindly signed, I blindly typed whatever they said. I just wanted them to leave me.'' Not only does Inogambaev now disavow the charges, he also alleges that Karimova siphoned tens of millions of dollars out of Uzbekistan through various channels, including her own Citibank account. And he claims that she took over a tourism firm that arranges visas for Uzbek travelers and used it to control the flow of Uzbek prostitutes to Dubai. Karimova dismisses the allegations, calling them ``more than crazy and more than stupid,'' and contends that Inogambaev only ``says that for money.'' Maqsudi's Washington lobbyists, led by Richard A. Zimmer, a Republican former congressman from New Jersey, have gained some traction. Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.) raised the Interpol arrest warrant against Maqsudi during an October hearing, calling it ``an abuse of power by the Uzbek president.'' In February, Rep. Christopher Smith (R-N.J.) asked Secretary of State Colin Powell to look into the prostitution allegations, saying, ``We ought to be following it up very rigorously.'' On the other side, Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) has taken up Karimova's cause, requesting that Attorney General John Ashcroft investigate allegations made against Maqsudi in Uzbekistan. Asked about the case in private, uncomfortable U.S. officials decline to say much. For the record, they call it ``an international child abduction case'' and say they have told Tashkent ``that these issues are unnecessary irritants in the U.S.-Uzbek relationship,'' according to a written State Department response to congressional inquiries last year. Uzbek officials appear no more eager to talk about it. ``It's a very complicated issue, and I think we should be very sensitive in touching this very delicate issue,'' Foreign Minister Sadyk Safayev said in an interview in Tashkent last fall. The two countries' relationship has burdens enough. The United States wants to keep the military base it opened in Uzbekistan after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Yet under increasing pressure from human rights groups, the Bush administration warned recently that it may cut off financial aid if Karimov's record does not improve. It's possible the question may ultimately fall to his daughter. Analysts in Tashkent suspect that the 66-year-old president is ill and speculate that Karimova is positioning herself to succeed him. Others assume she is setting herself up in business with assets abroad in case the family has to flee. Maqsudi believes that his ex-wife has the ambition to try to take over the country. ``She's tasted power and what power can bring in Uzbekistan,'' he says. ``At times I would say to her, when we would have arguments, `You're drunk with your father's power.' They don't want to relinquish or give up the power they have.''

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 409.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) chairman of the Committee on Resources, which also has jurisdiction, for allowing this resolution to be considered on the floor in such a timely fashion. I include the following letter from the Committee on Resources as part of the Record. House of Representatives, Committee on Resources, Washington, DC, May 5, 2004. Hon. Christopher H. Smith, Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I understand that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs wishes to schedule for rapid Floor consideration H. Con. Res. 409, recognizing with humble gratitude the more than 16,000,000 veterans who served in the United States Armed Forces during World War II and the Americans who supported the war effort on the home front and celebrating the completion of the National World War II Memorial on the National Mall in the District of Columbia. This bill was referred primarily to your committee and additionally to the Committee on Resources. I have reviewed the legislation and have no objection to its consideration. In fact, I have asked the author to add me as a cosponsor before the bill is voted on by the House of Representatives. Therefore, I have no objection to the Committee on Resources being discharged from further consideration of the bill. Of course, this action should not be construed as waiving the Committee on Resources' jurisdiction over the bill or as precedent for other bills. In addition, if a conference on H. Con. Res. 409 should become necessary, I ask that you support my request to have the Committee on Resources be represented on the conference. Finally, because no bill report will be prepared on the legislation, I ask that you include this letter and any reply in the Congressional Record during consideration of H. Con. Res. 409. I congratulate you and Mr. Moran for producing a timely and thoughtful bill and I look forward to working with you again on other matters of mutual interest. Sincerely, Richard W. Pombo, Chairman. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. 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 first thank the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran) for sponsoring this important resolution and for his touching remarks and great work on behalf of the Nation's veterans. It is appreciated by this chairman and many others. I also want to say I rise in strong support of this resolution which celebrates the completion of the National World War II Memorial on the National Mall here in Washington. More than 16 million Americans served in the armed forces, including my own father who saw horrific action in New Guinea, and he ended up in the Philippines at the end of the war. Very, very rarely would he even talk about it unless my brothers and I really prodded him for details. He finally wrote a lot of it out, which makes for some very disturbing but important reading for any son or daughter who had a father who fought in World War II. This great memorial will crown that achievement because certainly all of our fathers and mothers who participated in the war effort, whether here at home or abroad or in any way who were a part of that great effort, know that without them we would have been, unfortunately, perhaps saluting the Nazi salute or been part of Imperial Japan; and we know the terrible things that they did during World War II. This is a fitting tribute I think to the peacemakers, the men and women who answered the call and did so so gallantly. More than 400,000 of our GIs lost their lives in World War II. As I said, virtually every American rose to the challenge, and that is why they are the Greatest Generation, as said Tom Brokaw. This is the first national memorial built to honor all of the dedicated Americans who served during World War II. It stands as a monument to the spirit, sacrifice, and commitment of the American people to the defense of the Nation and really the defense of the world, because without intervention of the United States and the great leadership of Presidents Roosevelt and then Truman, the world would have been lost to tyranny. Someone said freedom is not free, and nothing could have been more appropriately said by that generation in standing up against tyranny. This resolution recognizes the leadership of Bob Stump, who as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the Committee on Armed Services, authored legislation to expedite the funding and construction of the memorial. Bob's family must certainly be proud of his role in expediting this memorial and his own valiant service during World War II. It also recognizes the good work of the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) in helping to bring this memorial about. In 1993, we all know Congress passed legislation that authorized the American Battle Monuments Commission, an independent Federal agency, to design and to construct a memorial. After years of planning, public deliberation and fundraising, construction began in September of 2001. Funded primarily with extensive private contributions, the memorial is located within tennis-shoe distance, according to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran), at the east end of the Reflecting Pool between the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument. This prominent location is commensurate with the historical importance and lasting significance of World War II to America and to the world. On May 29, nearly 59 years after the end of World War II, President Bush will dedicate this fitting memorial, and this ceremony may well be the last large gathering of World War II veterans, and it will be very well attended, I am sure. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran) for sponsoring this timely resolution. 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 Kansas (Mr. Moran), the prime sponsor of the resolution.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 409), recognizing with humble gratitude the more than 16,000,000 veterans who served in the United States Armed Forces during World War II and the Americans who supported the war effort on the home front and celebrating the completion of the National World War II Memorial on the National Mall in the District of Columbia.