Condemning the punishment of execution by stoning as a gross violation of human rights, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, last week Colorado experienced a very heavy snowstorm--in fact, it was a blizzard in many areas. This was good news for our state, which has been suffering from a serious drought. However, it seriously interfered with travel. As a result, I was unable to be present for votes on several measures. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows:

On rollcall No. 65, H. Con. Res. 26--Condemning the punishment of execution by stoning as a gross violation of human rights--I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall No. 66, H.R. 868--Nicaragua Property Dispute Settlement Act of 2003--I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall No. 67, H. Res. 109--Urging passage of a resolution addressing human rights in North Korea at the 59th session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, and calling on the Government of North Korea to respect and protect the human rights of its citizens--I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall No. 68, H.R. 314--Mortgage Servicing Clarification Act (Royce Financial Services)--I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall No. 69, H.R. 417--Cibola Wildlife Refuge Boundary Correction--I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall No. 70, H.R. 699--To direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a comprehensive study of the Rathdrum Prairie/Spokane Valley Aquifer, located in Idaho and Washington--I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall No. 71, the Sherman amendment to H.R. 975 (bankruptcy bill), I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall No. 72, the Nadler amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 975 (bankruptcy bill), I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall No. 73, the Jackson-Lee motion to recommit H.R. 975 (bankruptcy bill), I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall No. 74, passage of H.R. 975 (bankruptcy bill), I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall No. 75, on approving the Journal, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall No. 76, H.R. 1307--To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a special rule for members of the uniformed services in determining the exclusion of gain from the sale of a principal residence and to restore the tax exempt status of death gratuity payments to members of the uniformed services, and for other purposes-- I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall No. 77, H. Res. 132--Expressing the sense of the House that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Newdow v. United States Congress is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the first amendment and should be overturned, and for other purposes--I would have voted ``present.''

I would have voted that way because I am not a lawyer and have not studied the relevant decisions of the Supreme court--and so I do not think it would be appropriate for me to say that the cited decision of the Court of Appeals is inconsistent with those decisions.

Last year, I voted in favor of a related (but not identical) resolution. However, as I said at that time, I did so not because I necessarily agreed that the Circuit Court's decision is ``inconsistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's First Amendment jurisprudence'' as that resolution said, but because I agreed that ``the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals should agree to rehear'' the matter, as that resolution also stated.

I am proud to recite the Pledge of Allegiance because I personally consider it as being neither a prayer nor a religious practice and so think its recitation is not a religious exercise but instead a verbal expression of support for our country. However, obviously not everyone shares my view. And, as I said last year, I am not prepared to conclude that the author of the Ninth Circuit decision--a long-serving judge originally appointed by President Nixon--was clearly wrong as a matter of law, even though as I understand it another appeals court, in a similar case, has ruled differently. So, I definitely think the issue needs to be resolved by the Supreme Court.

On rollcall No. 78, the Hill (Blue Dog) substitute to the budget resolution, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall No. 79, the Toomey (Republican Study Committee) substitute to the budget resolution, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall No. 80, the Cummings (Black Caucus/Progressive Caucus substitute to the budget resolution, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall No. 81, the Spratt (Democratic) substitute to the budget resolution, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall No. 82, on passage on H. Con. Res. 95 (the budget resolution), I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall No. 83, passage of H. Con. Res. 104--expressing the support and appreciation of the Nation for the President and the members of the Armed forces who are participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom--I would have voted ``yes.''

I would have done so because although I have disagreed with the way the President has handled the diplomatic events leading up to war, it is now time for us all to support our brave men and women in uniform who are charged with carrying out this mission and to pray for their success and safe return home. We all hope for a swift resolution with minimal casualties--among our troops and Iraqis as well. And we must do more to protect ourselves at home. I am confident that the United States and our allies will win the war. That will not be the end, but the beginning of the more difficult task of securing the peace. Congress must commit to providing aid to rebuild Iraq and the Administration must work to repair relationships with our allies. We will need them and the rest of the international community in our corner to rebuild Iraq, bring stability to the Middle East, and win the war on terrorism.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to support House Concurrent Resolution 26, a resolution that I introduced to condemn the punishment of execution by stoning as a gross violation of human rights.

I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the Committee on International Relations for their support and thank my colleagues who have cosponsored this measure.

This issue was first brought to my attention over 1 year ago when I learned of a woman named Safiya Hussaini, who had been sense sentenced to death by stoning in Nigeria solely based on the evidence she was divorced and pregnant. Safiya was convicted of adultery, sentenced to be buried in a pit and pelted with stones until dead.

The authorities ignored her claims that she had been raped. The father of the baby was acquitted of all charges, as the law requires the testimony from four male witnesses to prove him guilty of the same crime, a virtually impossible task.

The international outcry helped save Safiya's life. Her sentence was overturned on a technicality. However, on the day that Safiya was set free, it emerged that another young Nigerian mother had been sentenced to death by stoning, Amina Lawal. She has also been convicted of adultery; her crime, giving birth to a child more than 9 months after divorcing her former husband. Unless Amina's sentence is overturned, she will be stoned to death in a public square as soon as her baby is weaned, about this time next year.

At her trial, Amina had no legal representation. She did not receive an adequate explanation of the charges against her. Frightened and unaware of the consequences of her response, Amina confessed. However, not much of a confession was needed, as her newborn daughter was proof enough to find her guilty of adultery. The man Amina identified as the father of her child denied the charges, and he was set free.

On the day that Amina's case was last heard on appeal, dozens of people crammed into the small village courtroom to observe the proceedings. Amina sat alone on a bench as her daughter slumbered against her back. When the judge announced that Amina would be stoned to death, observers shouted their approval, while Amina clutched her baby and wept.

A court will hear Amina's next appeal on March 25, but it may be a matter of hours or months until they issue a decision. Until then Amina must wait. She is hopeful that her life will be spared, but worries about what might happen to her daughter. If the court determines stoning her to death is justified, it will happen.

Tragically, Amina is only one of a number of individuals who are at risk of being executed by stoning. Laws authorizing this punishment remain on the books in a number of other countries. Until these laws are repealed, many more people could face this inhumane punishment. Women remain particularly at risk for receiving this sentence due to double standards that exist in these laws.

This resolution is important because it will send a message to the most remote corners of the globe that the sentence of stoning, particularly when used as a tool of gender persecution to control women and girls, is far beneath any minimum standard of human rights recognized by this House, by the people of the United States and by the world community.

At the same time this resolution is not intended to be disrespectful to any nation, religion or culture. But I do believe so strongly that the most basic rights of every woman, man and child on this planet must be respected, protected and defended. It is this belief of fundamental human rights that compels me to speak out and encourage my colleagues to join me in the effort to extinguish this brutal punishment from the face of the Earth.

I do not know the women who have been sentenced to death by stoning. I will likely never visit their villages in Africa or the Middle East, but I will stand with them as my sisters, as my fellow citizens of the world. I will work to defend their rights, the most basic human rights we all deserve to enjoy.

Safiya and Amina are just two women in a distant land, far away from us here and far away from my constituents in Minnesota. Nevertheless, these women are targets for abuse and violence, and wherever women are targets for abuse and violence or death simply because they are women, I have an obligation to speak up, speak out and to fight for their rights, because they are my rights and your rights, too.

My home in the State of Minnesota has a strong tradition of defending basic human rights, from former Congressman Don Fraser to the late Senator Paul Wellstone and his wife Sheila. Minnesota also is proud to be the home for the Center for the Victims of Torture, the American Refugee Committee and the Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights. I am proud to stand here today to continue this tradition.

It is high time that the United States join the many nations who have condemned the inhumane punishment of stoning. I am pleased that House leadership has brought this resolution to the floor for its consideration, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this measure, to send a clear and a powerful message to every nation that stoning is an extraordinarily cruel form of punishment, and it must end today.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 26) condemning the punishment of execution by stoning as a gross violation of human rights, and for other purposes.

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. 26.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution condemning the punishment of execution by stoning as a gross violation of human rights. I am a proud cosponsor of this resolution, and I commend the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum) for her work on this issue. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, I am pleased that the House is taking this action.

Mr. Speaker, there can be no doubt that stoning is a gross violation of human rights. When someone is put to death by stoning, they are guaranteed a slow, painful, cruel death. Stones are carefully chosen so they are large enough to cause maximum pain, but not so large as to kill the condemned immediately.

Stoning brings out the worst in human nature. It may surprise many that this barbaric practice has entered the 21st century, but it has. Sharia law governs family law in a wide range of countries. It is only applied to criminal offenses in a handful of states.

In Nigeria, 12 of the country's 36 states put Sharia criminal law into effect in recent years, displacing Nigeria's secular laws.

The case of Amina Lawal, a young woman sentenced to death by stoning for adultery, has brought international attention to Sharia-mandated stoning. Her case is pending. We all hope she is spared this brutal treatment.

This resolution rightfully condemns the practice of stoning and calls upon the President and Secretary of State to work with their counterparts toward the repeal of stoning laws and adherence to international standards of human rights.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

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

Let me just echo the words of the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member of the Committee on International Relations. It is indeed ironic that Sudan, a country that uses stoning, should serve on the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations. It is even more ironic that Libya should be the current chairman of that committee.

Mr. Speaker, in 1999, along with Colin Powell, I had the opportunity and the privilege of coleading an election-monitoring team to Nigeria for its first democratic elections there in over a decade. After years of military rule, we observed a fair and free election; to wit, firsthand those exercising the simple virtues of democracy was truly inspiring. Along with other election monitors, I came away with great hope for Nigeria's future.

Unfortunately, in the last 3 years, Sharia criminal law has swept through the northern half of Nigeria. The chief prosecutor of a Katsina state in northern Nigeria has even called Sharia law a ``dividend of democracy.''

Mr. Speaker, since that election, 10,000 Nigerians have died in religiously inspired rioting across that country. Nigeria seems to be on the verge of being torn apart along Muslim-Christian lines. Besides being barbaric and being a gross abuse of human rights, stoning is fueling this religious divide, undermining Nigeria's democratic prospects. Stoning is not a ``dividend'' of any type of democracy that I know many Nigerians are struggling to establish.

Nigeria is but one country of concern for us. It was only after September 11 that the American public began to learn about the brutal living conditions for women under the Taliban, including being subject to public stonings. Afghanistan remains a fragile state. Many parts of Afghanistan are struggling with the questions of how to govern. This resolution is our message that stoning should have no role in today's Afghanistan, or anywhere else in today's age.

It is important for this body to bring attention to this abysmal practice. This resolution deserves strong support of all Members here.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution.

First I would like to congratulate my good friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), the principal author of this important resolution, for bringing it to our attention. She is a valued member of our committee, and I want to thank her personally for this important initiative.

Mr. Speaker, it is a sad commentary on the 21st century that we have seen the resurgence under Islamic Sharia religious law of the practice of execution by stoning, where an individual is buried up to his or her neck in sand, and witnesses are invited to throw stones until that person is dead, while shouting, ``God is great.'' It is the ultimate oxymoron on the face of this planet that as a human being is buried up to her neck in sand and is pelted with stones, the phrase can be heard ``God is great.''

The stones in this vile practice are carefully chosen so that they are large enough to cause horrendous pain, but not so large as to kill the condemned individual immediately. Victims of stoning are guaranteed a slow, torture-filled death. Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, their children are forced to watch.

This past year, the world was horrified as mothers were tried, convicted and subjected to this horrible death sentence. The fact that these women have been given the recourse to court appeals does not make the punishment any more acceptable. Execution by stoning violates all international standards of human rights and decency.

We must let the world know, Mr. Speaker, that civilized nations and the United States in particular reject with disgust and horror this form of punishment. I urge all of my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 26.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), the author of this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional requests for time, but before yielding back my time, I want to join my colleague from Minnesota in paying tribute to the people of Minnesota for their extraordinary commitment to human rights and to their commitment to protecting victims of torture.

I also want to make an observation concerning the absurdity of the current composition of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, where

countries serve where the practice of stoning women to death is legal and practiced. This is just one more example of the absurdity of many of these international organizations, pretending to be something totally different from what they are.

Stoning women to death and serving on the International Commission for Human Rights are incompatible activities, and it is high time we focus on bringing some reality to international organizations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, as the condemned, as I think the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) pointed out so well and it bears repeating, prepare for their execution by stoning, they begin to pray, asking for the inner strength to endure with faith and fortitude what awaits them. They are wrapped head to foot in white shrouds and buried up to their waist, and then the stoning begins. The victims are guaranteed a very difficult and horrific death. In many cases kids have to watch this agonizing death.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this heinous practice is not limited to Iran, but is employed in so many other countries as well. Under the extremist interpretation of Sharia law, pregnancy alone is considered sufficient evidence to condemn a woman for adultery. Women in these countries who have been raped and want the state to prosecute their case must have no less than four Muslim men testify that they witnessed the assault. Absent these witnesses, these male witnesses, the rape victim has no case. If she cannot prove the rape allegation, she runs the high risk of being charged with adultery, as we all know an offense that is punishable by stoning.

Although this heinous practice is disproportionately used against the female population of these countries, it is also used against men and also used to suppress political dissent and the activities of religious minorities.

H. Con. Res. 26 is a resolution which reflects the full extent of the problem. As such, it calls on the United States and the international community to condemn the practice of execution by stoning as a gross violation of human rights and urges U.S. officials to work with their global counterparts toward the repeal of all stoning laws.

Mr. Speaker, stoning sentences have been commuted in the last year due to the United States' and international pressure. Lives have been saved because we spoke out against this abhorrent practice, a method which, according to Amnesty International, is specifically designed to increase the victim's suffering.

Today we have the ability, I would respectfully submit, to save more lives by rendering our strong support for this resolution. This measure can help deter the application of extreme Sharia law and execution by stoning in emerging nations, such as Afghanistan.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for H. Con. Res. 26.