Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in my capacity as Chairman of the Helsinki Commission to voice concern over Armenia's refusal to register select religious groups and the continuing harassment of certain religious communities, actions which violate Armenia's commitments to religious freedom as a participating State in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Honoring the commitments enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act and subsequent OSCE documents would ensure Armenia upholds the freedom of the individual to profess and practice religion or belief, alone or in community with others.

With respect to registration, Armenian law requires all religious communities and organizations, other than the Armenian Apostolic Church, to register with the government. Obtaining registration is critical if a religious community wants to carry out basic functions, like renting property, publishing newspapers or magazines, broadcasting programs on television or radio, or officially sponsoring the visas of co-religionists or visitors.

To acquire registration, a petitioning religious organization must obtain an ``expert opinion'' from the government, in which four questions from Article 14 of the Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organizations Act must be affirmatively answered: (1) Is the religion based on a historically canonized holy book? (2) Does its faith belong to a system of modern worldwide religious church communities? (3) Is it of a purely spiritual orientation, not created for the pursuit of material goals? (4) Does it have at least 200 believing members, not including minors? A negative finding by the government on any of the four questions will terminate the registration application.

This type of approval system is extremely problematic, as it places the government in the role of determining what is or is not a religion, allowing it to make highly subjective decisions. For example, the government refuses to recognize the Jehovah's Witnesses as an official religion, despite having more than 6,000 Armenian members. Other small groups, including approximately 50 Baptist communities, are unable to pass the numerical threshold, so are not aualified to apply for registration. As a result these groups are indiscriminately denied basic rights enjoyed by those which have the government's stamp of approval.

Last September, Prime Minister Andranik Markarian reportedly stated that the Armenian Government must curb the activities of minority religious communities, even if these actions violate Council of Europe obligations. Mr. Speaker, considering this type of bias, I urge the Government of Armenia to revamp the registration process to prevent arbitrary or politicized decisions. Abolishing the registration requirement and ensuring any system facilitates, rather than hampers, the free exercise of religious freedom for individuals and communities, by methodically granting legal status to groups which seek registration would help bring Armenian policy into conformity with OSCE commitments.

Even more alarming is the Armenian Government's continued imprisonment of conscientious objectors, particularly from the Jehovah's Witnesses faith. According to the State Department's 2002 Annual Report on International Religious Freedom for Armenia, military and civilian security officials subject Jehovah's Witnesses who refuse to serve in the military to harsh treatment, because their refusal is seen as a threat to Armenia's survival. One particular example is the case of Araik Bedjanyan, sentenced on July 2nd to 1\1/2\ years in a labor camp for refusing military service. Mr. Bedjanyan was sentenced under Article 75 of the criminal code, for ``evasion of active military service.'' There are currently 24 Jehovah's Witnesses serving sentences for being conscientious objectors on religious grounds. Suren Hakopyan and Artur Torosyan, whom police arrested in Yerevan on July 3, are currently awaiting trial along with six others for their refusal to serve in the military. Seven more Jehovah's Witnesses are reportedly under house arrest for the same ``crime.'' Despite Article 75 being replaced by Article 327 in the new criminal code, the amendment only reduces the potential sentence from three years to two.

One of the conditions for Armenia's admission to the Council of Europe in January 2001 involved the adoption of a law on alternative military service conforming to European standards within three years. However, while drafts continue to circulate, no laws have been passed that provide for alternative civilian service outside the framework of the army. In the meantime, conscientious objectors continue to receive harsh sentences. Should the Armenian Parliament pass such a law, the service length should not be punitive in nature, but rather be comparable to military service requirements.

As Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I urge the Armenian Government to abide by its OSCE commitments regarding religious freedom. Armenia should overhaul its registration scheme, dropping the registration requirement, and liberalize its system for bestowing legal personality to religious communities and organizations. Furthermore, all Jehovah's Witnesses currently imprisoned for ``evasion of military service'' should be unconditionally freed, and a law in line with Council of Europe standards for alternative military service should be passed as soon as possible.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

It is the medical care amendment. I have two, Mr. Chairman, and this would be the first one.

Since they are very similar, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent they be considered en bloc with the time allotted. We could dispose of both of them at the same time.

Never mind, do them one at a time.

The amendment would seek to add $1.8 billion to the medical care budget.

I offered two amendments last night, Mr. Chairman, or asked that two be made in order at the Committee on Rules, and I submitted 50 copies of each to the Committee on Rules, so there should be at least one copy.

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

Mr. Chairman, despite significant and sustained efforts by Secretary Principi and the VA to boost effectiveness and efficiencies in the VA health care delivery; despite enhanced DOD-VA sharing of resources, individual facilities, administration, and pharmaceuticals; despite improved collections from individual veterans' insurance companies, and as a matter of fact my committee passed legislation that will boost that even further, and collections are up 70 percent since fiscal year 2001; despite an ongoing crackdown of waste, fraud, and abuse by the VA, and I point out that PL 107-103, one of my bills, goes after fugitive felons and we expect to glean about $209 million per year by recapturing those dollars; despite all of this and increases in the VA health care funding over the past few years, there remains what President Bush's 15-member task force calls a serious mismatch between need and resources.

After 2 years of vigorous investigation and analysis, President Bush's task force, and I would invite every Member to read the Bush task force report, it was co-chaired by Dr. Gail Wilensky and John Paul Hammersmith, the former ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and before then by Congressman Solomon, who has regrettably passed away, but was an outstanding man and lawmaker, and he was co- chair before passing away. This task force found, and I quote, ``that funding provided through the authorization in the appropriations process for VA health care

delivery has not kept pace with demand.''

There are reasons for it, of course. Since 1996, we have seen some 600 new outpatient clinics created. So there are feeder points. Our men and women, either in their wheelchairs or by their feet, are walking into VA health care facilities and getting the kind of care they need; we have seen a 70 percent increase in unique users, new patients since 1996.

The Bush task force pointed out, and I think it needs to be underscored, that there is a significant core underfunding. And you have to read this report because it talks about doing everything humanly possible, realizing every synergy, every efficiency; but when all is said and done, there is still this significant shortfall that needs to be breached by appropriated dollars.

And, of course, one of the outcomes of not having sufficient money is that many of our veterans wait unconscionably long periods in order to get the care they need. The task force found a snapshot in January: 236,000 veterans waiting 6 months or longer to get a first visit or a follow-up visit to their doctor.

An individual can get awfully sick and awfully diseased waiting that long to get health care. And I would respectfully submit that our veterans get sicker and more diseased by that inattention. We can close that gap by providing the proper amount of money.

Let me just say to my colleagues, as well, that last night I went to the Committee on Rules, joined by my good friend, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), the chairman of our Subcommittee on Health; the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez), the two ranking members of the full committee and the Subcommittee on Health, and asked that this amendment be made in order to add back $1.8 billion.

What are we talking about? That is the number that was in the House- and Senate-passed congressional budget resolution, $27 billion for medical care, so that we meet the needs of our veterans for fiscal year 2004. Sadly, we were turned down.

What is the predictable outcome? I would respectfully submit it will be an awful outcome if we do not provide these resources. The VA has given us an indication, a blueprint, if you will, of 1.2 million veterans being disenrolled. 1.2 million, every State of the Union, men and women currently enrolled will no longer be enrolled. Five thousand nursing home beds for the spinal cord injury patients and others who have very highly skilled needs will be idled, will be done away with if we do not add back this $1.8 billion.

This is a very significant need, I would say to my colleagues, especially at a time when we are at war in Iraq. The war is over, but we have deployments and people are still getting injured and even killed. We need, in a bipartisan way, to step up to the plate and provide this necessary money.

And I would say to my colleagues with regret and with respect for the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member, that I will be voting ``no'' on final passage of this bill, and, hopefully, we will go back to committee, get this funding problem solved there and do this right.

I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.

Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

Earlier on the amendment I called up regarding the $1.8 billion add-back, there were two amendments. I asked that they be considered en bloc. It was objected to by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) so they stayed separate, but we were allocated only 5 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent for those additional 5 minutes to hear from a few Members who were precluded from speaking.

Mr. Chairman, further on my parliamentary inquiry, it is my understanding, especially after a consultation with the Chair, that the time was improperly accorded us. It was not a matter of seeking unanimous consent of any kind. We asked that they not be en bloc, so if they were not en bloc, I do call up the other amendment.

And only 5 minutes was allocated?

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike section 114 of the bill to remove a provision that would bar the VA from using funds to implement provisions of Public Law 107-287, the Department of Veterans Affairs Emergency Preparedness Act. This vital veterans legislation would create new research centers to help protect future veterans and current ones from the effects of weapons of mass destruction.

For the benefit of my colleagues who are not familiar with this law, the VA Emergency Preparedness Act was designed to give the VA health care system better tools and information to prepare for the possibility of injuries and illnesses to servicemembers caused by weapons of mass destruction.

Dr. Susan Mather, the Chief Public Health and Environmental Hazards Officer, is ready to move forward to let these kinds of programs go forward so the research will be done, so if the unthinkable happens to our men and women in uniform with regards to biological, radiological or chemical, that we will have a more adequate response than we do right now.

Let me point out that the VA excels in establishing Centers of Excellence. It does it on a myriad of fronts, including for combat and war-related injuries that are suffered on the battlefield. Two recent centers were established for that purpose.

The VA is ready to go, and Dr. Mather made the point to the Under Secretary of Health that the VA health care system is ``more likely than any large, small, private or public health care system to be required to identify and respond to threats of chemical and biological or other threats to public health or safety.'' Thus, the Medical Emergency Preparedness program will facilitate the best medical care and services to veterans.

The VA is ready to go. This provision in the bill that precludes that, I think, is unfortunate.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

This amendment that has been made in order is not the amendment to add back $1.8 billion, and I say that with great sadness on behalf of our veterans.

What this amendment would do is lift a prohibition in the underlying bill that would prevent the VA from establishing already authorized medical preparedness centers, Centers of Excellence, to work the issue on weapons of mass destruction.

As I said earlier, the VA is ready to go. We already have their time line. It is in print. They are ready to go. They want to do this. I would say to my colleagues that if we are saying we do not have the $5 million approximate in start-up costs, let us grow this budget. That is what we have been saying in this entire debate. I hope my colleagues will vote for this. I would again remind my colleagues that the VA already operates dozens of specialized research centers, the center for limb loss, the center for spinal cord injury, the center for brain rehab, the center for wheelchair and related technology; in May of 2001, two new centers to study war-related illnesses. We are not breaking new ground here; we are moving in a direction that heretofore has not been addressed and that is weapons of mass destruction. I would hope my colleagues would vote for this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Smith of New Jersey

Amendment No. 12: Strike section 114.

Offered By: Mr. Smith of New Jersey

Amendment No. 17: In title I, strike the heading ``Veterans

Health Administration'' and all of the paragraphs under that

heading and insert the following:

Veterans Health Administration

medical care

For necessary expenses for the maintenance and operation of

hospitals, nursing homes, and domiciliary facilities; for

furnishing, as authorized by law, inpatient and outpatient

care and treatment to beneficiaries of the Department of

Veterans Affairs, including care and treatment in facilities

not under the jurisdiction of the department; administrative

expenses in support of

planning, design, project management, real property

acquisition and disposition, construction and renovation of

any facility under the jurisdiction or for the use of the

department; oversight, engineering and architectural

activities not charged to project cost; repairing, altering,

improving or providing facilities in the several hospitals

and homes under the jurisdiction of the department, not

otherwise provided for, either by contract or by the hire of

temporary employees and purchase of materials; uniforms or

allowances therefor, as authorized by sections 5901-5902 of

title 5, United States Code; aid to State homes as authorized

by section 1741 of title 38, United States Code;

administrative and legal expenses of the department for

collecting and recovering amounts owed the department as

authorized under chapter 17 of title 38, United States Code,

and the Federal Medical Care Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 2651 et

seq.), $27,068,220, plus reimbursements: Provided, That of

the funds made available under this heading, not to exceed

$900,000,000 shall be available until September 30, 2005.

medical care collections fund

(including transfer of funds)

Amounts deposited during the current fiscal year in the

Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Care Collections Fund

under section 1729A of title 38, United States Code, may be

transferred to ``Medical care'', to remain available until

expended.

medical and prosthetic research

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary expenses in carrying out programs of medical

and prosthetic research and development as authorized by

chapter 73 of title 38, United States Code, to remain

available until September 30, 2005, $408,000,000, plus

reimbursements.

medical administration and miscellaneous operating expenses

For necessary expenses in the administration of the

medical, hospital, nursing home, domiciliary, construction,

supply, and research activities, as authorized by law;

administrative expenses in support of capital policy

activities, $79,000,000, of which $3,000,000 shall be

available until September 30, 2005, plus reimbursements:

Provided, That technical and consulting services offered by

the Facilities Management Field Support Service, including

project management and real property administration

(including leases, site acquisition and disposal activities

directly supporting projects), shall be provided to

Department of Veterans Affairs components only on a

reimbursable basis, and such amounts will remain available

until September 30, 2004.

In section 116(a), strike ``under `Medical services for

priority 7-8 veterans' and'' and insert ``under `Medical

care' and''.

In section 117, strike ``Medical Services'' both places it

appears and insert ``Medical care''.

In section 118, strike ``transferred to'' and all that

follows through ``for the'' and insert ``transferred to

`Medical care' for the''.

Strike section 119.

Offered by: Mr. Smith of New Jersey

Amendment No. 18: In the paragraph in title I under the

heading ``medical services for priority 1-6 veterans'',

insert after the first dollar amount the following:

``(increased by $1,800,000,000)''.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the Hefley Amendment to reduce IMET funding for Indonesia. Mr. Hefley has recounted the tragic story of brutal ambush last August, that resulted in the brutal murders of Edwin Burgon and Ricky Lynn Spier, two American school teachers in Indonesia. Eight other Americans were injured in this attack, including a six-year-old child.

The Indonesian Police, human rights NGOs, and independent journalists have all concluded that it is very likely Indonesian military personnel were involved in this brutal ambush. With this case still unresolved after almost a year, now is not the time to reward Indonesia with IMET funding. The perpetrators of these brutal crimes still have not been brought to justice.

We know that possible involvement in killing of Americans is not the only instance of involvement by the TNI, Indonesia's military, in the killing of innocent civilians. This is a corrupt and troubled military with a very poor human rights record that we should not legitimize through IMET funding.

On May 19, the Indonesian government launched its largest military offensive since the 1975 invasion of East Timor with a declaration of martial law in Aceh. The ongoing brutal TNI military operation in Aceh, has been marked by reports of extrajudicial executions, torture, rape, and mass displacement of civilians. Thousands of civilians have been forced by the military into camps, where they face threats, inadequate rations and poor health care. Civilians reportedly ``disappear'' in the camps on a nightly basis.

International humanitarian and human rights organizations, as well as foreign journalists, have been denied access to Aceh. U.S. journalist William Nessen has been detained and faces a possible five-year sentence for ``visa violations.'' When Nessen originally tried to surrender to military forces, they reportedly shot at him. Human rights monitors and defenders have also been targeted by TNI-sponsored militia thugs.

The people of Papua have also suffered greatly at the hands of the Indonesian military. Sweeps by the TNI and their feared militias have forced thousands of villagers in Papua to flee to the forests. The TNI has reportedly prevented Christian pastors from bringing food and medicine to these villagers.

The attacks in Papua and Ache are very much reminiscent of the brutal violence carried out against the people of East Timor in 1999. The TNI has thus far successfully evaded accountability for crimes against humanity committed in East Timor. The Indonesian Ad Hoc Human Rights Court for East Timor has been characterized by poorly drawn indictments, inadequate witness protection, an intimidating courtroom atmosphere and distortions of events that took place in 1999. The alleged masterminds of the 1999 scorched earth campaign have not been prosecuted by Indonesia. As of now, the court has acquitted 12 and convicted five, delivering light sentences. Four of the five sentences are actually less than the legal minimum under Indonesian law and those convicted remain free pending appeal.

We know that human rights concerns are brushed aside by this regime. In a recent article, Indonesia's Defense Minister Matori was quoted as saying, ``Of course, it's all right to think about human rights but the more important thing is to think about the territorial integrity of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia.''

It is also important to note that we know that less than a third of the TNI's budget is provided by the government in Jakarta. Additional income comes from legal and illegal ventures, including the extortion of U.S.-based corporations operating in Indonesia. TNI business activities also include illegal and environmentally devastating logging, drug production and trafficking, and prostitution.

The questions my colleagues must ask themselves are: do we really want to finance a military with such a horrendous human rights record? Do we really want to finance a military that may have been involved in the killing of Americans when such a serious case is still unresolved?

I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Hefley amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 212) recognizing and supporting the goals and ideals of the Year of the Korean War Veteran, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 212, a concurrent resolution introduced by our colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson).

This resolution recognizes and supports the goals and ideals of the Year of the Korean War Veteran. This year marks the final year of the United States' 50th anniversary of the Korean War Commemoration and the 50th year of the armistice. While actual hostilities occurred from June 27, 1950, through July 7, 1953, Congress extended the war period from January 31, 1955, for veterans benefits eligibility because of the uneasy period following the end of hostilities.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share some facts about the Korean War. Between the period of June 27, 1950, and January 31, 1955, the Korean War period, 6.8 million American men and women served in the Armed Forces of the United States. Between June 28 of

1950 and July 27, 1953, 54,200 Americans died in service. Of these, 36,576 were deaths due directly to the war. Mr. Speaker, 131 Korean War veterans received the Congressional Medal of Honor, the highest military declaration our Nation bestows. Today, there are approximately 3.7 million Korean War veterans still living.

This period in our Nation's history, Mr. Speaker, has often been referred to as the Forgotten War. But that is being remedied, and Congress is doing its part. On July 25 of 1995, the Korean War Memorial was dedicated on the Mall.

The sponsor of this resolution, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), served 29 years in the U.S. Air Force and flew combat missions in both the Korean and the Vietnam wars. He was a prisoner of war in Hanoi, North Vietnam, for almost 7 years. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) is a very modest man. I do not want to embarrass him when he reads about this, but he is truly an American hero. I can think of no more appropriate person to introduce the resolution on the observance of the Year of the Korean War Veteran. I salute the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson). I believe that every Member of this body on both sides of the aisle salutes him. We also thank the other cosponsors, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), all veterans of Korea, for their military service to our country.

Mr. Speaker, H. Con. Res. 212 would serve to remind all Americans of the first war America fought to stop the spread of Communist tyranny and would encourage activities honoring Korean War veterans for their courageous sacrifice on behalf of all of us. America will not forget the veterans of the Korean War. I am pleased we are considering this resolution at this appropriate time. I want to again thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader, for scheduling this resolution the week of the 50th year of the armistice.

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

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

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. 212, as amended.

Madam Speaker, Cuban political prisoners never have a nice day, so I rise today to remind my colleagues as we meet here in session, more than 400 of Cuba's best, brightest and bravest are suffering unspeakable cruelty at the

hands of Fidel Castro and his thugs. The dictator's latest sweep, begun in March, has jailed more than 75 independent journalists and human rights activists.

Afraid and fearful, Castro has now moved to silence all dissent. Castro is a weak and insecure man, utterly afraid to be criticized or held to account. Yet some in Congress still do not get it. They imagine Castro is a man we can do business with. Instead, Castro and his psychotic torturers ought to be at The Hague facing prosecution for crimes against humanity.

Madam Speaker, Castro is a mass murderer, a cruel torturer, and anything but a benign revolutionary.

I thank my good friend for yielding time.

Mr. Speaker, later on today when this bill comes up for consideration, I, along with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), will be offering an amendment to strike language that is in the underlying bill, the Crowley amendment, which was adopted very narrowly in committee. The Crowley amendment would fundamentally change the Kemp-Kasten amendment that has been in effect for 18 years. The Kemp-Kasten language is anticoercion language that says very simply that our country will not contribute money to any organization that supports or participates in the management of a coercive population control

program. Under the Kemp-Kasten language last year, Secretary of State Colin Powell, after his due diligence, made a finding that took the money from the UNFPA, the U.N. population fund, and sought to reprogram each and every dollar of that to an organization or to programs that provided family planning or maternal health care programming. Secretary of State Colin Powell said:

``The PRC has in place a regime of severe penalties on women who have unapproved births.'' Let me just remind my colleagues, in China you have got to get permission by the government in order to have a child. They have unapproved births and approved births. If you are unapproved, if you are out of plan, as they say, if you have an illegal child, a heavy fine is imposed upon the mother until she gets an abortion. If she has that child, somehow escapes the family-planning cadres, she then is severely criticized as well as fined. Sometimes up to 6 years' worth of her salary and her husband's is taken by the government as part of that fine. Secretary Powell goes on to say that the regime plainly operates to coerce pregnant women to have abortions in order to avoid the penalties; and, therefore, this amounts to a program of coercive abortion. He points out, and I quote, ``UNFPA's support of, and involvement in, China's population planning activities allows the Chinese government to implement more effectively its program of coercive abortion.''

Let us not rig this program, this test, Mr. Speaker. The Crowley amendment would fundamentally change this anticoercion language that we have had on the books for some 18 years. I ask my colleagues, those who support abortion and those who do not, there should at least be a consensus that coercion is absolutely unconscionable and unacceptable and we will not in any way directly or indirectly facilitate its use.

Madam Chairman, first of all, I commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for crafting an outstanding piece of legislation. As we all know, he guided and shepherded through this body landmark legislation on AIDS which would not have been written into law without his effective leadership. I also thank the gentleman for including so many provisions which I proposed either as amendments or as base text.

In particular, including an amendment on refugees I offered along with the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) that increases refugee protection monies by $310 million over 2 years, and my bill called the Belarus Democracy Act. This legislation which is embodied now into the text of the bill, would provide for effective help to civil society, human rights promotion, and democracy promotion in Belarus; the victims of torture which gets a modest but necessary increase in the U.N. Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture; and there are many others.

This is a consensus bill in many ways, but there are some points of divergence. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) has put into the bill by a very narrow vote, an amendment that seriously and fundamentally weakens America's core anti-coercion law which says no funding goes to any organization that supports or participates in the management of a coercive population control program.

We in this Congress do not make the determination as to whether or not a group gets population control money. We set the standard. It is then left to the executive branch which relies on all relevant information to make a finding. Last year, Secretary Powell made that finding and said that the PRC has in place a regime of severe penalties on women who have unapproved births and that this regime plainly operates to coerce pregnant women to have abortions in order to avoid the harsh penalties.

``UNFPA's support of and involvement in China's population planning activities allows the Chinese government to implement more effectively its program of coercive abortion,'' Secretary Powell said.

I say to my colleagues, this debate is all about coercion. I would hope that my friends who support abortion would realize that coercion, whether it be forced sterilization or forced abortion, is an unconscionable act; and when it is done with impunity by the Chinese government with their partner, the U.N. Population Fund, we need to disassociate ourselves from that kind of activity. We need to stand with the oppressed, not with the oppressor, and the friends of the oppressor. We need to stand with the victims.

I urge my colleagues to support an amendment that I will be offering, cosponsored by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), that would strike this language from the bill. I would hope that we would stand with the women of China who are being oppressed by their government and with their partners in these crimes against humanity, the U.N. Population Fund. I urge Members to vote for our amendment.

Madam Chairman, I am pleased that Title XV of the State Department authorization bill incorporates key provisions of the Belarus Democracy Act of 2003, which I sponsored earlier this year. The State Department's annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices report on Belarus states that the Belarusian regime's ``human rights record remained very poor and worsened in several areas.'' Thanks to Alexander Lukashenka--aptly cited by The Washington Post as ``Europe's last dictator''--Belarus has the worst human rights record in Europe today. The Helskinki Commission, which I Chair, as well as the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe including its Parliamentary Assembly, the United Nations, the Council of Europe, the European Union and other international entities have all chronicled the appalling state of human rights and democracy in a country located in the heart of Europe. Belarus already borders NATO. In just a few years, Belarus will border the European Union.

The Lukashenka regime has blatantly and repeatedly violated basic freedoms of speech, expression, assembly, association and religion. The independent media, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and democratic opposition have all faced harassment. Indeed, in the last few months, his war against civil society has intensified--resulting in the closure of non-governmental organizations, independent media outlets and Western-funded media support groups, such as Internews Network group, an international organization that helps develop independent media in countries in transition.

Just last week, the Lukashenka regime denied continuation of the accreditation of the International Research and Exchanges Board (IREX), an American organization that has implemented a variety of assistance programs in Belarus for years, including programs that helped the struggling independent media. Last week, they ordered the closure of the Minsk bureau of Russian NTV television. Just a few weeks ago, Lukashenka closed down the National Humanities Lyceum, a highly respected school promoting the study of the Belarusian language and culture. There are growing, legitimate fears that Lukashenka is aiming to remove Belarus from its vestiges of democracy dissent.

In October, Lukashenka signed into law the most restrictive religion law in Europe. Independent journalists have been sentenced to ``corrective labor'' for their writings. There are credible allegations of the Lukashenka regime's involvement in the disappearances of leading opposition figures and a journalist. Here in Washington and at various OSCE Parliamentary Assembly meetings, I've had occasion to meet with the wives of the disappeared, Victor Gonchar, Anatoly Krasovsky, Yuri Zakharenka, and Dmitry Zavadsky. These meetings have been heart- wrenching. The cases of their husbands--who disappeared in 1999 and 2000 and are presumed to have been murdered--are a stark illustration of the climate of fear that pervades in Belarus.

On the security front, reports of arms deals between the Belarusian regime and rogue states, including Iraq and North Korea, continue to circulate. Lukashenka and his regime were open in their support of Saddam Hussein.

One of the primary purposes of this initiative is to demonstrate U.S. support for those persevering to promote democracy and respect for human rights in Belarus despite the onerous pressures they face from the anti-democratic regime. Necessary assistance is authorized for democracy-building activities such as support for non-governmental organizations, independent media--including radio and television broadcasting to Belarus--and international exchanges.

The bill also encourages free and fair parliamentary elections, conducted in a manner consistent with international standards--in sharp contrast to the 2000 parliamentary and 2001 presidential elections in Belarus which flagrantly flaunted democratic standards. As a result of these elections, Belarus has the distinction of lacking legitimate presidential and parliamentary leadership, which contributes to that country's self-imposed isolation. Parliamentary elections are scheduled to be held in 2004, and we should encourage those who seek to create the laws and environment conducive to a free and fair election.

In addition, the Executive Branch is encouraged to impose sanctions against the

Lukashenka regime and deny high-ranking officials of the regime entry into the United States. U.S. Government financing would be prohibited, except for humanitarian goods and agricultural or medical products. The U.S. Executive Directors of the international financial institutions would be encouraged to vote against financial assistance to the Government of Belarus except for loans and assistance that serve humanitarian needs.

Madam Chairman, we are seeking to help put an end to the pattern of clear and uncorrected human rights violations by the Lukashenka regime and are hoping this will serve as a catalyst to facilitate Belarus' integration into democratic Europe. The Belarusian people deserve to live in a society where democratic principles and human rights are respected and the rule of law is preeminent. The Belarusian people--who have endured so much both under past and current dictatorships--deserve our support as they work to overcome the legacy of the past and develop a genuinely independent, democratic country.

In addition, Madam Chairman, in keeping with this authorization for the Department of State, I want to express my appreciation for the work of the Department in bringing needed attention to the concerns about ongoing anti-Semitism, an age-old plague that still haunts many countries in the OSCE, including our own. I have sought to identify effective responses to this troubling phenomenon, including the introduction of the resolution, H. Con. Res. 49 which passed last month.

Last month, I joined Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Congressman Hastings in Vienna for an OSCE conference specifically focused on anti-Semitism. Having the OSCE itself take up this important cause is significant. In fact, the idea was first raised in the May 2002 hearing of the Helsinki Commission and also suggested in the resolution condemning anti- Semitism I presented at the Berlin Parliamentary Assembly meeting last summer. I offered a similar resolution week before last at the Rotterdam OSCE PA meeting. Both resolutions passed the Assembly unanimously. While the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly has actively denounced anti-Semitic acts, I give great credit to the State Department for making the Vienna Conference a reality. Notably, one initiative emerging from the Vienna Conference was a pledge by our German friends to hold a follow-up meeting in Berlin next year to focus on anti-Semitism. I hope this meeting will rally the troops from Europe, the U.S., and Canada to say in one voice ``never again.''

Finally, Madam Chairman, I was pleased to learn of Senator Voinovich's amendment to the Senate's State Department reauthorization bill requiring the Annual Report on International Religious Freedom to include specific coverage of anti-Semitism. The amendment calls for the report to cover ``acts of anti-Semitic violence that occurred in that country'' and ``the response of the government of that country to such acts of violence.'' Importantly, the amendment would mandate the report to chronicle ``actions by the government of that country to enact and enforce laws relating to the protection of the right to religious freedom with respect to people of the Jewish faith.'' I think this is a worthwhile idea and hope it will be enacted into law.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment cosponsored by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) to strike the Crowley language in the State Department bill under consideration.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chairman, just 10 months ago a sweeping, comprehensive reiteration of China's Draconian population control program went into effect in all of China. Sadly, the new law is as harsh, brutal, and violent as ever. Lest anyone be deceived that Beijing is somehow easing up on coercive population control, it is all there in the new law, the infamous one-child-per-couple policy, the crippling fines on those women who attempt to resist, and severe punishment to those women who have a child without explicit government permission.

Since 1979, the U.N. population fund has been the chief apologist for China's coercive one-child-per-couple policy. By its words and by its actions, the UNFPA has chosen to partner with those who oppress women. The UNFPA has funded, provided crucial technical support and, most importantly, provided cover for massive crimes of forced abortion and involuntary sterilization. Tens of millions of children have been slaughtered, their mothers robbed of their children by the state. The UNFPA has aggressively defended this barbaric policy that makes brothers and sisters illegal and makes women the pawns of population control cadres.

One terrifying consequence of China's policy is the disproportionate number of girl murders. According to the State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices in China, currently there may be as many as 100 million more men than women, clearly a direct result of the one-child-per-couple policy.

Time and again, Madam Chairman, the officials at the UNFPA have defended the indefensible. The former executive director of the UNFPA, Nafis Sadik, said, ``China has every reason to feel proud of and pleased with its remarkable achievements made in its family planning policy. The country could offer its experience and social expertise to help other countries.'' God forbid. Let them export the one-child-per- couple policy which relies on coercion to achieve its ends? I hope not! On CBS ``Nightwatch,'' the executive director of the UNFPA said, ``The UNFPA firmly believes, as does the government of the People's Republic of China, that their program is a total voluntary program.'' Madam Chairman, that is unmitigated nonsense and that is a lie.

UNFPA Beijing representative Sven Burmester said and I quote, and please listen to this. This is the U.N.'s man in Beijing:

``China has had the most successful family planning policy in the history of mankind.'' That does not sound like a criticism of coercion or involuntary or forced abortion. That sounds like a partner defending a fellow partner gushing with praise. Of course it ``works,'' and of course the Chinese program is ``successful.'' Coercion works every day of the week.

Forced abortion, I would remind my colleagues, was construed to be a crime against humanity at the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal. It is no less of a crime today as it is practiced by China with its partners in that crime, the UNFPA.

Madam Chairman, having failed the important review required by the Kemp-Kasten anticoercion law, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) today is now attempting to gut, to weaken, to rig the 18-year-old Kemp- Kasten law by requiring that it only be operative if an organization ``knowingly and intentionally'' advances or expands coerced abortion or forced sterilization. If we adopt the Crowley language, enforcement of the current anticoercive law would be dead. Clearly, the whole idea behind this is that the money will flow to the UNFPA unfettered because with this standard, the weakened standard, there is little doubt that the money will flow.

U.S. investigators, if we adopted this language that is in the underlying bill, would now be required to investigate UNFPA personnel and ascertain their knowledge and their intent: What did they know and when did they know it? Given UNFPA's deplorable track record of denying that coercion even exists in China, it would be nearly impossible to prove intent. Even the hard-liners in China, in the government, deny coercion or any knowledge of coercion or intent to compel abortions.

I have made three human rights trips to China. I met with the head of China's population control program, Peng Peiyun. Madame Peng Peiyun told me over and over in that lengthy conversation that there was no coercion in China and then she backed that up by citing UNFPA's participation in the program and UNFPA's public statements where UNFPA leaders have defended and said there is no coercion in China. For the past 24 years, again despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, UNFPA has declared China's program to be, quote, purely voluntary, free of coercion and a model to be emulated by other countries. Let us not forget that proving intent, this weakening standard offered by the gentleman from New York, is usually the stuff of criminal prosecutions, not grant-making.

I would point out to my colleagues, also, if we applied the misguided Crowley standard to any other human rights standard, human trafficking or religious persecution, we would seriously undercut, even destroy, our efforts to mitigate these abuses around the world.

Crowley sets a dangerous precedent in human rights law.

Let me just point out to my colleagues I am the prime sponsor of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000. Pursuant to that law, Secretary Powell recently placed 15 countries on what we call the tier 3 sanctions list. Those sanctions will soon be imposed. Nowhere in the statute do we require

the Secretary of State to divine the intent of the officials or whether or not they knowingly engaged in these human rights abuses. To give the oppressors that out, that escape clause, would be a gross betrayal of the victims.

In like manner, I respectfully submit we betray the victims of forced abortion and forced sterilization, millions of Chinese women, millions of Chinese children, when we give the oppressors or the friends of the oppressors this engraved invitation to continue denying and obfuscating the truth and, of course, enabling this kind of carnage to go on.

I ask Members to support the Smith-Oberstar-Hyde amendment.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 40 seconds.

I just want to point out to my colleagues that the State Department and Secretary of State Colin Powell relied on many sources to make their determination, and Secretary Powell made this comment in his letter of finding: ``Regrettably, the PRC has in place a regime of severe penalties on women who have unapproved births. This regime plainly operates to coerce pregnant women to have abortions in order to avoid the penalties and therefore amounts to a program of coercive abortion.'' He pointed out ``UNFPA's support of, and involvement in, China's population planning activities allows the Chinese government to implement more effectively its program of coercive abortion.''

Every dollar, Madam Chairman, that does not go to the UNFPA the Secretary of State has said in writing he wants to reprogram to family planning and to maternal healthcare initiatives elsewhere around the world.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to remind my colleagues that we provide almost half a billion dollars in family planning monies that go to Haiti, that go to Nicaragua, that go to El Salvador. We provide government-to-government and through nongovernmental organization support. And the money that does not go to the UNFPA will be reprogrammed dollar-for-dollar for these kinds of services.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis).

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), my good friend and colleague.

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

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King.)

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Madam Chairman, presumably the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and virtually everybody in this Chamber opposes the tyrannical forced abortion policy of China, but not the UNFPA. Let me say that again, not the United Nations Population Fund.

Their representative has called this the most successful family planning policy in the history of mankind. They call it voluntary when it is not. They aid and abet this cruel policy in many, many tangible ways.

The State Department has it right. In the 32 counties as well as in the rest of China, when a woman gets pregnant and the baby is out of ``plan'', in other words, an illegal pregnancy--an illegal child--she faces Draconian fines of up to 6 years of salary. That is what compels the abortion. Desperate, with nowhere to turn, she aborts the child to avoid those fines. I urge support for Smith-Oberstar-Hyde amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we have one final speaker to close debate on my side.

Mr. Chairman, I yield our remaining time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, to close debate for our side.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of an amendment to support human rights in Vietnam. This important amendment will impose a significant penalty on the dictators in Hanoi for their ongoing and egregious persecution of their own people.

During the 107th Congress, I introduced H.R. 2833, legislation designed to address the human rights situation in Vietnam. It passed the House by an overwhelming 410-1 margin, but stalled in the Senate. This year, I introduced nearly identical legislation, H.R. 1587, with 30 original cosponsors.

Many felt that the ratification of the Bilateral Trade Agreement with Vietnam in 2001 would lead to an improvement in human rights. Unfortunately, the human rights situation in Vietnam has deteriorated dramatically since this agreement, especially for Montagnard Christians in the Central Highlands of Vietnam. Legislation to address the serious human rights situation is needed now more than ever.

In late 2002 the Government of Vietnam launched a fresh wave of arrests and crackdowns against peaceful critics of the Vietnamese government, its policy of repression, and its corrupt practices. Unfortunately, Dr. Nguyen Dan Que, one of the country's greatest human rights leaders who has already endured two lengthy prison sentences, was arrested on March 17. This is a government that consistently pursues a policy of harassment, discrimination, and intimidation, and, increasingly in the last three years, imprisonment and other forms of detention, against those who peacefully express dissent from government's extreme policies against religion and freedom. This is a government that punishes not just individuals who oppose them, but also often their family members.

At its Seventh Plenum in January 2003, the Communist Party's Central Committee issued a resolution calling for the establishment of cells of Communist Party members within each of Vietnam's six approved religions in order to foil ``hostile forces.'' All religious groups in Vietnam face great restrictions and suffer some form of persecution.

To address these and other abuses, my amendment, based on the text of H.R. 1587: requires the President to issue a certification each year on the progress of the regime towards respecting human rights; prohibits an increase in nonhumanitarian U.S. assistance unless the regime shows improvement; seeks to fund the efforts of NGOs who promote democracy in Vietnam and help to overcome the jamming of Radio Free Asia; helps ensure continued access of refugees to our refugee resettlement programs; and requires the State Department to give detailed reports about the status of human rights in Vietnam that include victims lists.

Unfortunately, the list of human rights abuses carried out by the regime goes on and on. Buddhists, Protestants, Catholics and members of indigenous Vietnamese religions are subject to persecutions that include detention and imprisonment of both religious leaders and believers, church closings, and confiscation of religious and personal property. One of the most courageous religious leaders imprisoned is Father Nguyen Van Ly, a Catholic priest.

Tens of thousands of children suffer exploitation as workers and many Vietnamese suffer

under the government's official export labor program, in which the government forces its own people to endure involuntary servitude and debt bondage.

As Chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, I am particularly concerned about the continued persecution of the Montagnards, who were some of our greatest allies during the war. Many of our pilots are alive today and have families because they were rescued by Montagnards after bailing out of downed aircraft. We receive numerous and credible reports that allege that Montagnards are being imprisoned, tortured and systematically relocated to infertile lands by the Communist Party leaders in retaliation for their past loyalty to America. This past December, Vietnamese soldiers reportedly threatened to shoot Montagnard Christians if they celebrated Christmas, and several were arrested and tortured.

I would like to submit the findings of H.R. 1587, which lay out a more complete case of Human Rights in Vietnam, to the Congressional Record. They were kept out of this amendment because of their length, but they speak loudly with respect to the regime and the world about the egregious human rights abuses occurring in Vietnam.

Vietnam's continued policy of harassment, discrimination, intimidation, and persecution of religious and human rights leaders is shameful. The Vietnam Human Rights amendment in the State Department Authorization Bill sends as strong a message that this persecution and tyranny will not be tolerated.

Findings From H.R. 1587, ``The Vietnam Human Rights Act''

Congress finds the following:

(1) Viet Nam is a one-party state, ruled and controlled by

the Vietnamese Communist Party.

(2)(A) The Government of Viet Nam denies the people of Viet

Nam the right to change their government and prohibits

independent political, social, and labor organizations.

(B) The Government of Viet Nam prohibits and hinders the

formation of civil society in Viet Nam.

(3)(A) The Government of Viet Nam consistently pursues a

policy of harassment, discrimination, and intimidation, and

sometimes of imprisonment and other forms of detention,

against those who peacefully express dissent from government

or party policy. This policy includes collectively punishing

family members of individuals targeted for persecution. A

government decree allows detention without trial for 6 months

to 2 years.

(B) Following the United States ratification of the

Bilateral Trade Agreement with Viet Nam in 2001, the human

rights situation in Viet Nam has remained extremely poor. For

certain groups, such as the Montagnards, and other ethnic

minorities in Central and North Vietnam, conditions have

deteriorated dramatically. In late 2002, the Government of

Viet Nam launched a fresh wave of arrests and crackdowns

against peaceful critics of the Vietnamese Government, its

policy of repression, and its corrupt practices.

(C) Recent victims of such mistreatment, which violates the

rights to freedom of expression and association recognized in

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, include Dr. Nguyen

Dan Que, a leading human rights activist who was arrested on

March 17, 2003, and has already served two lengthy prison

sentences, Dr. Nguyen Thanh Giang, Most Venerable Thich Huyen

Quang, Most Venerable Thich Quang Do, linguist Tran Khue,

businessman Nguyen Khac Toan, journalist Nguyen Vu Binh,

publicist Le Chi Quang, writer Hoang Tien, military historian

Pham Que Duong, Hoang Minh Chinh, Tran Dung Tien, Hoang Trong

Dung, Nguyen Vu Viet, Nguyen Truc Cuong, Nguyen Thi Hoa, Vu

Cao Quan, Nguyen The Dam, Nguyen Thi Thanh Xuan, Father Chan

Tin, author Duong Thu Huong, poet Bui Minh Quoc, Dr. Nguyen

Xuan Tu (Ha Si Phu), Dr. Pham Hong Son, Mai Thai Linh, Most

Venerable Thich Huyen Quang, Most Venerable Thich Quang Do,

Father Nguyen Van Ly, Pastor Nguyen Lap Ma, Father Phan Van

Loi, numerous leaders of the Hoa Hao Buddhist Church and of

independent Protestant churches, and an undetermined number

of members of the Montagnard ethnic minority groups who

participated in peaceful demonstrations in the Central

Highlands of Viet Nam during February 2001.

(4) The Government of Viet Nam systematically deprives its

citizens of the fundamental right or organized religious

activities outside the state's control. Although some freedom

of worship is permitted, believers are forbidden to

participate in religious activities except under

circumstances rigidly defined and controlled by the

Government:

(A)(i) In April, 1999 the Government issued a Decree

Concerning Religious Activities, which declared in pertinent

part that ``[a]ll activities using religious belief in order

to oppose the State of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, to

prevent the believers from carrying out civic

responsibilities, to sabotage the union of all the people,

and against the health culture of our nation, as well as

superstitious activities, will be punished in conformity with

the law''.

(ii) All public religious activities must be approved by

the Government in advance. The United States Commission on

International Religious Freedom in October 2002 recommended

that Viet Nam be classified as a country of particular

concern. At its Seventh Plenum in January 2003, the Communist

Party's Central Committee issued a resolution calling for the

establishment of cells of Communist Party members within each

of Vietnam's 6 approved religions in order to foil ``hostile

forces''.

(B)(i) The Unified Buddhist Church of Viet Nam (UBCV), the

largest religious denomination in the country, has been

declared illegal by the Government, and over the last 27

years its clergy have often been imprisoned and subjected to

other forms of persecution. The Patriarch of the Unified

Buddhist Church, 85-year-old Most Venerable Thich Huyen

Quang, has been detained for 25 years in a ruined temple in

an isolated area of central Viet Nam.

(ii) Most Venerable Thich Quang Do, the Executive President

of the Unified Buddhist Church, has also been in various

forms of detention since 1977, and was recently rearrested

and placed under house arrest after he had proposed to bring

Most Venerable Thich Huyen Quang to Saigon for medical

treatment.

(iii) Many other leading Buddhist figures, including Thich

Hai Tang, Thich Khong Tanh, Thich Thai Hoa, Thich Tue Si,

Thich Quang Hue, Thich Tam An, Thich Nguyen Ly, Thich Thanh

Huyen, Thich Thong Dat, Thich Chi Mau, Thich Chi Thang, Thich

Chon Niem, Thich Thanh Quang are under tight surveillance.

Several members of the UBCV have fled to Cambodia

(C)(i) The Hao Hoa Buddhist Church was also declared to be

illegal until 1999, when the Government established an

organization which purports to govern the Hao Hoa. According

to the United States Commission on International Religious

Freedom, ``[t]his organization is made up almost entirely of

Communist Party members and apparently is not recognized as

legitimate by the vast majority of Hao Hoas . . .

[n]evertheless, [this government-sponsored organization] has

sought to control all Hao Hoa religious activity,

particularly at the Hao Hoa village, which is the center of

Hao Hoa religious life''.

(ii)(I) Hao Hoa believers who do not recognize the

legitimacy of the government organization are denied the

right to visit the Hao Hoa village, to conduct traditional

religious celebrations, or to display Hao Hoa symbols. Many

have been arrested and subjected to administrative detention,

and several Hao Hoa have been sentenced to prison terms for

protesting these denials of religious freedom.

(II) The Government interferes with Hao Hoa efforts to

conduct charitable works, and prohibits public celebration to

commemorate the founder's disappearance as well as the

distribution of the founder's teachings. The Government

controls greatly the leadership selection process of the

Cao Dais, another indigenous Vietnamese religion.

(III) At least the following Hao Hoa believers are known to

be in prison or house detention: Ha Hai, Tran Van Be Cao,

Tran Nguyen Huon, Phan Thi Tiem, Le Quang Liem, Nguyen Van

Dien, Le Minh Triet, and Vo Van Thanh Liem.

(D)(i) Independent Protestants, most of whom are members of

ethnic minority groups, are subjected to particularly harsh

treatment by the Government of Viet Nam. According to the

United States Commission on International Religious Freedom,

such treatment includes ``police raids on homes and house

churches, detention, imprisonment, confiscation of religious

and personal property, physical and psychological abuse, and

fines for engaging in unapproved religious activities (such

as collective worship, public religious expression and

distribution of religious literature, and performing

baptisms, marriages, or funeral services) . . . [i]n

addition, it is reported that ethnic Hmong Protestants have

been forced by local officials to agree to abandon their

faith''.

(ii)(I) According to human rights activists in Viet Nam, 2

secret central plans--Plan 184A and 184B--issued in 1999 by

the Communist Party to combat Protestant believers were fully

implemented throughout the country, and led to a crackdown on

the Protestant movement, especially in the Central and

Northern Highland areas.

(II) An estimated 14,000 Christians fled from the North to

the Central Highlands in the past 5 years. According to the

Southern Evangelical Church of Viet Nam, the Government of

Viet Nam forcibly closed 354 of the 412 churches in Dak Lak

province, 56 pastors from the Central Highlands have

disappeared, and at least 43 evangelical Montagnards have

been sentenced to prison. Freedom House has reported on the

beating death of Hmong Christian Mua Bua Senh by police

authorities.

(E)(i) Other religious organizations, such as the Catholic

Church, are formally recognized by the Government but are

subjected to pervasive regulation which violates the right to

freedom of religion. For instance, the Catholic Church is

forbidden to appoint its own bishops without Government

consent, which is frequently denied, to accept seminarians

without specific official permission, and to profess Catholic

doctrines which are inconsistent with Government policy.

Government restrictions on the seminary process have caused a

severe shortage of priests.

(ii) A Catholic priest, Father Nguyen Van Ly, was arrested

in March 2001 and remains in detention after submitting

written testimony to the United States Commission on

International Religious Freedom. On October 19, 2001, he was

sentenced to a total of 20 years of imprisonment and house

arrest; the

trial in Hue took place closed to the public and without a

defense lawyer.

(iii) In October 2002, the Vietnamese Bishops Conference

took an unprecedented step when they protested to the

National Assembly about the persecutions endured by Catholic

ethnic minorities.

(F) The Government has also confiscated numerous churches,

temples, and other properties belonging to religious

organizations. The vast majority of these properties--even

those belonging to religious organizations formally

recognized by the Government--have never been returned.

(5)(A) Since 1975 the Government of Viet Nam has persecuted

veterans of the Army of the Republic of Viet Nam and other

Vietnamese who had opposed the Viet Cong insurgency and the

North Vietnamese invasion of South Viet Nam. Such persecution

typically included substantial terms in ``re-education

camps'', where detainees were often subjected to torture and

other forms of physical abuse, and in which many died.

(B) Re-education camp survivors and their families were

often forced into internal exile in ``New Economic Zones''.

Many of these former allies of the United States, as well as

members of their families, continue until the present day to

suffer various forms of harassment and discrimination,

including denial of basic social benefits and exclusion from

higher education and employment.

(6)(A) The Government of Viet Nam has been particularly

harsh in its treatment of members of the Montagnard ethnic

minority groups of the central Highlands of Viet Nam, who

were the first line in the defense of South Viet Nam against

invasion from the North and who fought courageously beside

members of the Special Forces of the United States, suffering

disproportionately heavy casualties, and saving the lives of

many of their American and Vietnamese comrades-in-arms.

(B) Since 1975 the Montagnard peoples have been singled out

for severe repression, in part because of their past

association with the United States and in part because their

strong commitment to their traditional way of life and to

their Christian religion is regarded as inconsistent with the

absolute loyalty and control demanded by the Communist

system. The Government employs a policy of assimilation and

oppression against the Montagnards, forcibly displacing them

from their ancestral lands to make way for North Vietnamese

settlers, coffee plantations, and logging operations.

(C) Between February and March 2001, several thousand

members of the mountain tribes Djarai, Bahnar, and Rhade from

the provinces of Pleiku, Gialai, and Daklak took part in a

series of peaceful demonstrations to demand the release of 2

Montagnard Christians, religious freedom and restoration of

their confiscated lands. The Government responded by closing

off the Central Highlands and sending in military forces,

tanks and helicopter gunships. Hundreds of demonstrators were

injured. Altogether, more than 200 people, among them 60

evangelical priests and tribal chieftains, were arrested.

Some regions of the Central Highlands remain closed to

journalists and foreign diplomats.

(D) Credible reports by refugees who have escaped to

Cambodia indicate that the Government has executed some

participants in the demonstrations and has subjected others

to imprisonment, torture, and other forms of physical abuse.

(E) The Government of Viet Nam has also taken steps to

prevent further Montagnards from escaping, and there are

credible reports that Vietnamese security forces in Cambodia

are offering bounties for the surrender of Montagnard asylum

seekers.

(F) According to Human Rights Watch, in December 2002 `[The

Government] arrested or detained dozens of highlanders and

banned Christmas church services in order to prevent minority

Christians from gathering. Six highlanders were detained

during the third week in December in Krong Ana and Cu Jut

districts, Dak Lak, during Christmas prayer services, while

another eight were taken into custody as they are attempting

to cross the border to Cambodia. Villagers throughout the

Central Highlands were warned they would face fines and even

imprisonment if they organized Christmas services. In many

areas authorities banned gatherings of four or more people'.

(7) The Government of Viet Nam has also persecuted members

of other ethnic minority groups, including the Khmer Kron

from the Mekong Delta, many of whom fought alongside United

States military personnel during the Viet Nam war and whose

Hinayana Buddhist religion is not among those recognized by

the Government.

(8) The Government of Viet Nam also engages in or condones

serious violations of the rights of workers. In August 1997,

the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) reported that

child labor exploitation is on the rise in Viet Nam with tens

of thousands of children under 15 years of age being subject

to such exploitation. The government's official labor export

program also has subject workers, many of whom are women, to

involuntary servitude, debt bondage, and other forms of

abuse, and the reaction of government officials to worker

complaints of such abuse has been to threaten the workers

with punishment if they do not desist in their complaints.

The government of Viet Nam has made some minor efforts to

improve this situation, but enforcement of child labor laws

remains weak, and the child exploitation still persists.

(9)(A) United States refugee resettlement programs for

Vietnamese nationals, including the Orderly Departure Program

(ODR), the Resettlement Opportunities for Returning

Vietnamese (ROVR) program, and resettlement of boat people

from refugee camps throughout Southeast Asia, were authorized

by law in order to rescue Vietnamese nationals who have

suffered persecution on account of their wartime associations

with the United States, as well as those who currently have a

well-founded fear of persecution on account of race,

religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a

particular social group.

(B) In general, these programs have served their purposes

well. However, many refugees who were eligible for these

programs were unfairly denied or excluded, in some cases by

vindictive or corrupt Communist officials who controlled

access to the programs, and in others by United States

personnel who imposed unduly restrictive interpretations of

program criteria. These unfairly excluded refugees include

some of those with the most compelling cases, including many

Montagnard combat veterans and their families.

(C) The Department of State has agreed to extend the

September 30, 1994, registration deadline for former United

States employees, ``re-reduction'', survivors, and surviving

spouses spouses of those who did not survive ``re-education''

camps to sign for United States refugee programs.

(D) The Department of State has agreed to resume the

Vietnamese In-Country Priority One Program in Viet Nam to

provide protection to victims of persecution on account of

race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership

in a particular social group who otherwise have no access to

the Orderly Departure Program.

(E) The Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Service in

the Department of Homeland Security has agreed to resume the

processing of former United States employees under the U11

program, which had been unilaterally suspended by the United

States Government.

(F) The Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Service has

agreed to review the applications of Americans, children of

America servicemen left behind in Viet Nam after the war

ended in April 1975, for resettlement to the United States

under the Amerasian Homecoming Act of 1988..

(10) The Government of Viet Name systematically jams

broadcasts by Radio Free Asia, and indepdent broadcast

service funded by the United States in orderly to provide

news and entertainment to the people of countries in Asia

whose government deny the right to freedom of expression and

of the press.

(11) In 1995 the Governments of the United States and Viet

Nam announced the ``normalization'' of diplomatic relations.

In 1998 then-President Clinton waived the application of

section 402 of the Trade Act of 1974 (commonly) known as the

``Jackson-Vanik Amendments'', which restircts economic

assistance to countries with non-market economies whose

government also restrict freedom of emigration. In 1999 the

Governments of the United States and Viet Nam announced ``an

agreement in principle,'' on a bilateral trade agreement.

This agreement was signed in 2000 and came into effect on

December 10, 2001.

(12) The Congress and the American People are united in

their determination that the extension or expansion of trade

relations with a country whose Government engaged in serious

and systematic violations of fundamental human rights must be

considered as a statement of approval or complacency about

such practices. The promotion of freedom and democracy around

the world--and particularly for people who have suffered in

large part because of their past association with the United

States and because they share our values--is and must

continue to be a central objective of United States foreign

policy.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Ackerman-LaTourette Amendment which would end the sale of ``downed animal meat'' for human consumption. Simply put, this Amendment would take

livestock that is too diseased, too weak, or too injured to even stand on its own feet out of our food chain.

American families do not want to put downed animal meat products on their dinner tables, and they do not want to worry about whether the meat products purchased from a restaurant contains meat from downed animals. As a matter of fact, new animal welfare standards followed by burger-giants McDonald's, Burger King, and Wendy's have ended the purchase of meat from downed animals in their food products. I applaud these moves and America's consumers applaud them as well.

Common sense, as well as scientific data, says that the meat taken from a downed animal is unfit for human consumption--its risk of bacterial contamination and other diseases is much much higher than the meat taken from a healthy animal. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) records show that downed animals are often afflicted with gangrene, malignant lymphoma, pneumonia, and other serious illnesses. According to the Food and Drug Administration downed animals are responsible for half of the drug residue found in meat because these animals are often very sick animals, and therefore, are often receiving a variety of drug treatments. Why would anyone want to take a chance and eat this meat?

Not only would this legislation remove tainted meat from the American marketplace, it would help improve the treatment of animals at auctions and slaughterhouses. Most downed animals are old dairy cows, crippled veal calves, and sometimes injured beef cattle. These downed animals, too weak to stand up on their own, are often shocked with electricity, moved with bulldozers, kicked and dragged, all in the effort to move them along the assembly lines to be slaughtered.

Mr. Chairman, our Nation has made great strides in food processing and food production over many years. We've come a long way since the publication of Upton Sinclair's famous century-old work, ``The Jungle.'' But there's still a lot of needless cruelty that goes on in these places. Upton Sinclair wrote back then that the animals were strung up one by one in a ``cold-blooded, impersonal way, without a pretense of apology.'' This still occurs today.

For instance, cows with broken legs are often left for hours or even days without food and water, let alone veterinary care. There is no excuse for this cruel and inhumane treatment in a civilized society. For the sake of our society, our animals, and those who eat meat products, the practice of slaughtering and consuming downed animals must be brought to an end.

Americans rightly do not want to eat meat from downed animals nor do they want to see downed animals cruelly treated the way they are at our slaughterhouses and animal auctions. Five months after the publication of ``The Jungle,'' President Theodore Roosevelt and Congress took action by passing the first ``Pure Food and Drug Act'' and the first ``Meat Inspection Act.''

Mr. Chairman, Congress needs to act again. Americans want animals to be treated properly, and they want their food to be safe. I urge Members to support and vote for the Ackerman-LaTourette amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), for his kind remarks. I want to especially thank him for his leadership on this issue and all human rights, especially in Asia. He has been outspoken and a very, very effective lawmaker. I want to thank him for his leadership.

I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for his sponsorship of this very important piece of legislation which we have before the body today.

I do rise in strong support of H.R. 2330, the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act. As I think my colleagues are well aware, on May 30 a group of government-affiliated thugs carried out a premeditated ambush of the motorcade of Burma democracy leader and Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, who has been jailed since then. An undetermined number of her supporters were murdered in that vicious attack.

Burma's military dictatorship, which euphemistically calls itself the State Peace and Development Council, has maintained its grip on power for the past 15 years with the use of brutal force. Although Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy won the majority of National Assembly seats in a free and fair election in 1990, the junta nullified the results and imprisoned hundreds of NLD leaders. The military regime has committed numerous other human rights abuses, such as large-scale forced labor and the use of rape as a weapon in its fight against insurgencies by ethnic minorities.

With this latest outrage, Mr. Speaker, the Burmese regime has exhausted the patience of the United States and hopefully the rest of the international community. I applaud the gentleman from California again for these efforts, for his ongoing efforts, but especially for his efforts in drafting and introducing H.R. 2330, the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act, which the Committee on International Relations reported favorably on June 17. The bill includes a number of measures, such as a ban on trade that supports the military regime, and will send an unequivocal message to the generals in Rangoon: The people of Burma must be allowed to pursue the path of peaceful democratic development that they bravely chose 13 years ago.

Although trade sanctions are sometimes the source of controversy on this floor, they are more than justified in this situation both because of the Burmese regime's egregious behavior and because export trade is a key source of foreign exchange for the junta and its apparatus of repression. The bill includes waiver authority for the President and outlines generous conditions under which sanctions could be lifted. In addition, the text before us requires annual reapproval of the trade ban and imposes a 3-year sunset on the sanctions.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support this very important human rights legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003, which is intended to improve the United States efforts in combating the scourge of human trafficking. I am very pleased to have Congressmen Lantos, ranking member of the International Relations Committee, Congressman Pitts and Congresswoman Slaughter, join me as original cosponsors.

According to a recently released U.S. Government estimate, 800,000 to 900,000 women, children, and men fall victim to international trafficking each year and end up prisoners of slavery like practices in the commercial sex industry, domestic servitude, sweatshops, and agricultural farms, among other destinations.

In October 2000, we adopted the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), P.L. 106-386. As a result of that law, the U.S. Government allocated $68.2 million last year to combat trafficking in human beings. In the past two years, federal prosecutors initiated prosecutions of 79 traffickers--three times as many as in the two previous years. Nearly 400 survivors of trafficking in the United States have received assistance, facilitated by the Department of Health and Human Services, to begin recovering from their trauma and to rebuild their shattered lives. Thanks to the efforts of the State Department, USAID, and the spotlight put on the issue through the annual Trafficking in Persons Report, governments worldwide have also begun taking significant actions against human trafficking.

Despite these substantive inroads, people continue to be bought and sold in modern day slavery. Victims continue to face obstacles in the process of securing needed assistance. We are not yet addressing trafficking in persons as an organized crime activity. We have not yet aggressively targeted sex tourism as a factor contributing to the demand for trafficked persons in prostitution, and more specialized research is needed.

The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) would address these and other areas of concern, would authorize funding to continue our government's efforts against trafficking, and would build upon the experience of implementing the TVPA to refine U.S. laws and practices to better fulfill the intent of that law. Specifically, the TVPRA would enhance the prevention of human trafficking by:

Requiring that U.S. Government contracts relating to international affairs contain clauses authorizing termination by the United States if the contractor engages in human trafficking or procures commercial sexual services while the contract is in force;

Promoting innovative trafficking prevention initiatives, such as border interdiction programs; and

Requiring airlines to inform passengers about U.S. laws against sex tourism.

The TVPRA would enhance protections for trafficking victims by:

Allowing Federal, State, or local law enforcement authorities to certify, for the purpose of receiving benefits, that a victim of trafficking has cooperated in the investigation or prosecution of trafficking crimes;

Allowing trafficking victims to sue their traffickers in U.S. courts;

Eliminating the requirement that a victim of trafficking between the ages of 15 and 18 must cooperate with the investigation and prosecution of his or her trafficker in order to be eligible for a T-visa;

Allowing benefits and services available to victims of trafficking to be available for their family members legally entitled to join them in United States; and

Providing for the confidentiality of T-visa applications.

The TVPRA would enhance prosecution of trafficking-related crimes by:

Permitting federal anti-trafficking statutes to be used to prosecute acts of trafficking involving foreign commerce or occurring in the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States;

Making human trafficking crimes predicate offenses for RICO charges; and

Encouraging the use of International Law Enforcement Academies to train foreign law enforcement authorities, prosecutors and members of the judiciary regarding human trafficking.

The TVPRA would improve the U.S. Government's response to trafficking by:

Encouraging critical research initiatives;

Mandating a report on Federal agencies' implementation of the TVPA;

Designating that the Director of the State Department Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking shall have the rank of Ambassador-at- Large; and

Prohibiting the use of funds to promote, support, or advocate the legalization or practice of prostitution.

The TVPRA would reauthorize appropriations for each of FY 2004 and 2005:

$4 million to the Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking;

$15 million to the Department of Health and Human Services;

To the Secretary of State, $15 million for assistance for victims in other countries; $15 million for programs to improve law enforcement and prosecution; and $15 million for trafficking prevention initiatives;

$300,000 to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe for trafficking prevention and legal reform programs;

$15 million to the Department of Justice for assistance to victims in the United States and $250,000 for anti-trafficking training activities at the International Law Enforcement Academies (ILEAs);

$15 million to the President for foreign victim assistance (prevention activities); $15 million for assistance to foreign countries to meet the minimum standards to combat trafficking; $300,000 for research; and $250,000 for anti-trafficking training activities at the ILEAs; and

$10 million to the Department of Labor.

Mr. Speaker, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 enjoyed broad, bipartisan support in both Houses of Congress. We are making progress in our battle against modern day slavery, but clearly there is still much work to be done by government authorities, by civil society, by our faith communities, and by all men and women of good will. As lawmakers, we have the opportunity to make our contribution to this endeavor. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this commonsense reauthorization bill to support and enhance the good work which has been undertaken.